FEMA threatening health of 50,000 families

[SMM]

I missed this story (www.crooksandliars.com/2007/11/08/fema-protecting-its-employees-not-evacuees/) before, but I find it appalling.

From Crooks & Liars (http://www.crooksandliars.com/)



There are still 50,000 families forced to live in FEMA trailers ever since Hurricane Katrina. Trailers in which the levels of formaldehyde present in the air are so high, CBS has obtained emails that indicate the agency is prohibiting its employees from even briefly stepping inside them, and despite agency claims “that it is still working on the formaldehyde problem,” it isn’t.

In July the head of the agency told Congress he was working quickly to deal with the toxic formaldehyde issue.

“FEMA and the CDC are scheduled to begin Phase One of a study in the Gulf Coast within the next few weeks,” said FEMA Administrator R. David Paulison.
Now FEMA says the study has been halted - not a single trailer tested.

The stated reason: the agency says it needs to identify “action levels for responding to the results.”

In other words, when FEMA finds high levels of the toxic fumes, the agency still doesn’t know what to do about it.

Sadly, this is exactly what we can expect as long as the party that doesn’t believe in government is heading our government. Ever since Ronald Reagan’s inaugural speech when he declared “Government isn’t the solution; it is the problem,” Republicans could hardly have done more to make sure it is the case.



Is there anything this administration has not hosed up?

[iSaint]

There are still 50,000 families forced to live in FEMA trailers ever since Hurricane Katrina.

No one is forcing anyone to live in FEMA trailers.

[SMM]

No one is forcing anyone to live in FEMA trailers.

You are right. They could sleep outside, or on the street. As a taxpayer, I am pissed that the money I spent to make these poor folks life manageable, and give them a chance to rebuild, is being pissed away by incompetence!

Whatda y'all have to say to that?

[Ugg]

The side story here is that the plywood or chipboard used in the trailers came from SE Asia somewhere.

My guess is that FEMA is protecting the subcontractor who imported the wood.

I smell a massive class action lawsuit here...

[solvs]

No one is forcing anyone to live in FEMA trailers.

Really? That's your only comment for this? Everything wrong with this, and that's the only part you have a problem with?

[Marble]

This is horrifying. I can't bring myself to trust our government in any way.

[Swarmlord]

You are right. They could sleep outside, or on the street. As a taxpayer, I am pissed that the money I spent to make these poor folks life manageable, and give them a chance to rebuild, is being pissed away by incompetence!

Whatda y'all have to say to that?

You're right. The money would have been better spent researching history to find out what in the hell people did before there was a FEMA after a natural disaster. They sure as hell didn't huddle in a makeshift shelter for two years waiting for something to happen to them.

[Swarmlord]

This is horrifying. I can't bring myself to trust our government in any way.

You're right. If I were you I wouldn't use any government services just to be safe.

[Naimfan]

My guess is that FEMA is protecting the subcontractor who imported the wood.

I smell a massive class action lawsuit here...

Good luck with that one!

[Black&Tan]

Yet if you're poor and/or homeless...according to FEMA, sucks to be you. What choice can you honestly make?

Disgraceful.

:mad:

[hulugu]

You're right. The money would have been better spent researching history to find out what in the hell people did before there was a FEMA after a natural disaster. They sure as hell didn't huddle in a makeshift shelter for two years waiting for something to happen to them.

I'm conflicted about this. On one hand, FEMA continues to be completely unable to do its job and this is because of mismanagement that goes all the way to the pin-head peak of the administration. However, why are people still living in FEMA-provided shelters? This was supposed to be a temporary solution.

[Swarmlord]

I'm conflicted about this. On one hand, FEMA continues to be completely unable to do its job and this is because of mismanagement that goes all the way to the pin-head peak of the administration. However, why are people still living in FEMA-provided shelters? This was supposed to be a temporary solution.

I'd be willing to bet cash money that a percentage of them would give birth to and raise three generations of offspring there while they wait for someone to solve their problem.

[pdham]

[QUOTE=Swarmlord;4469087]I'd be willing to bet cash money that a percentage of them would give birth to and raise three generations of offspring there while they wait for someone to solve their problem.[/QU

Prior to Katrina the neighborhoods that housed these people were the low lying areas where the concentration of affordable housing was. Those areas have since been bulldozed and most likely will not be rebuilt. Ergo, severe lack of affordable housing in New Orelans.

Are there people taking advantage of the trailers? Of course!

But a lot, if not most, of the people in the trailers have two choices. Continue working their low paying jobs (most likely two of them) and live in the trailers. Or, move to a new city that has affordable housing and try to find a job or jobs that will provide them a place to sleep. However, in the new city they run the risk of not finding a job immediately and then have no place to live.

What choice would you make? The comfort of knowing you have shelter, or the uncertainty of where you and your family will sleep?

Wake up Swarmlord. The reality is not everyone in this country is blessed with the same opportunity as you and me. If you feel deep down that you owe absolutely no responsibility to your fellow human than come out and say it, but stop demonizing poor people.

[leekohler]

[QUOTE=Swarmlord;4469087]I'd be willing to bet cash money that a percentage of them would give birth to and raise three generations of offspring there while they wait for someone to solve their problem.[/QU

Prior to Katrina the neighborhoods that housed these people were the low lying areas where the concentration of affordable housing was. Those areas have since been bulldozed and most likely will not be rebuilt. Ergo, severe lack of affordable housing in New Orelans.

Are there people taking advantage of the trailers? Of course!

But a lot, if not most, of the people in the trailers have two choices. Continue working their low paying jobs (most likely two of them) and live in the trailers. Or, move to a new city that has affordable housing and try to find a job or jobs that will provide them a place to sleep. However, in the new city they run the risk of not finding a job immediately and then have no place to live.

What choice would you make? The comfort of knowing you have shelter, or the uncertainty of where you and your family will sleep?

Wake up Swarmlord. The reality is not everyone in this country is blessed with the same opportunity as you and me. If you feel deep down that you owe absolutely no responsibility to your fellow human than come out and say it, but stop demonizing poor people.

He does feel he is an island and owes no one anything. He's a Libertarian, after all. Don't you know that they make their money all by themselves? No one else has anything to do with that, you know. Didn't you also know that the poor are lazy, immoral and stupid? I mean really, why else would they be poor? :rolleyes:

[Swarmlord]

<snip>
What choice would you make? The comfort of knowing you have shelter, or the uncertainty of where you and your family will sleep?
<snip>
I'd move to another city in New York minute. I know I would because I've done it many times - even when I was broke and had to live out in the woods for a couple weeks until I hooked up with a place to live.

I didn't start a family until I could afford one, so I guess in that sense I don't understand what the thought processes of these people are.

[Swarmlord]

[QUOTE=pdham;4469606]

He does feel he is an island and owes no one anything. He's a Libertarian, after all. Don't you know that they make their money all by themselves? No one else has anything to do with that, you know. Didn't you also know that the poor are lazy, immoral and stupid? I mean really, why else would they be poor? :rolleyes:

Poor choices and the lack of someone motivating them with a boot up their rear. Poor choices used to have a stygma associated with them, but now they are considered lifestyle choices.

[pdham]

<snip>
What choice would you make? The comfort of knowing you have shelter, or the uncertainty of where you and your family will sleep?
<snip>
I'd move to another city in New York minute. I know I would because I've done it many times - even when I was broke and had to live out in the woods for a couple weeks until I hooked up with a place to live.

I didn't start a family until I could afford one, so I guess in that sense I don't understand what the thought processes of these people are.

As has been said to you many times before:

You are not a minority (mostly black in the case of NO) male (or female) with only a high school education that has to work two jobs to make ends meet. Your ability to move is hardly the same thing.

And just for fun since you always bring up the kids thing: say a single person works a minimum wage job 40 hours a week ($5.85/hour). That means after taxes they would bring home roughly $750 a month. I work with individuals in Madison, WI who have difficulty making rent payments. So I can say that affordable housing in an urban area (one bedroom) is abouut $400 a month if you are lucky (not considering public housing because the waiting lists in every city are usually 6 months to years long). That leaves $35. Lets say they take a bus. Again in my city that is $50 for a month pass. Down to $300. If they eat nothing but tuna and romen (sp?) noodles maybe they can get by at $100 a month. That leaves $200. Utilities - probably at least $50; in the winter $75+. That leaves $125 and we haven't got to health care (because McDonalds and Wal-Mart aren't offering any), personal hygene needs, clothing, etc.

[iSaint]

I just think there needs to be further assessment as to why people are still living in FEMA trailers. Do extensive interviews to find out where people can be placed permanently. I know there are people who absolutely have nowhere to go, but there are also people milking the system for whatever they can get.

[Marble]

Except the milk has poison in it. Whether or not you're poisoning a freeloader or someone at wit's end, it's still shameful.

[Iscariot]

There are two issues at play here. The first is the question of why FEMA seems to be so continuously ill-prepared to handle the situation. It certainly is a failure on multiple levels of goverment, and I would love to see some heads roll and some real accountability. I think FEMA's irresponsibility here is criminal.

That said (to address Swarmlord's points), there's also the issue of personal responsibility. As far as I can ascertain, residents of the trailers have not had to pay any rent or utilities, with a payment plan beginning in March of 2008. That means they have had two years of rent-free living to amass the funds necessary to either move somewhere with affordable housing and sustain themselves while they looked for a new job, or otherwise use the time and funds to search out other arrangements. I consider myself to be relatively liberal when it comes to social issues, but I can't see 50,000 families being so disabled or destitute that a greater number of them wouldn't be able to make better of their living situations.

Certainly there are elderly, handicapped, victims who lost their assets or key members of family, and otherwise disadvantaged individuals who have no alternative, but there's got to be a sizeable number of people who are simply waiting for a government hand-out. Having come from a poor town myself, I can attest to the validity of the claim that some people really do choose to be lazy, poor, and bleeding the government for handouts, and that it's actually a prevailing attitude in some places. Those who saw a free ride and are taking it as far as they can are not making the situation any better for the real victims.

[Swarmlord]

I just think there needs to be further assessment as to why people are still living in FEMA trailers. Do extensive interviews to find out where people can be placed permanently. I know there are people who absolutely have nowhere to go, but there are also people milking the system for whatever they can get.

As with most government programs, FEMA had no exit strategy. :p

[Sun Baked]

These homes may have passed inspection and air quality requirements in the areas where they were built, but they tend to offgas more in warm/humid climates ...

Of course it isn't just manufactured homes that have this problem, a lot of the newer well sealed homes with energy rating may also lend themselves to air quality problems. And the only way around them is to bring in outside air -- and there are air systems to do that without flushing energy down the drain.

[Ugg]

These homes may have passed inspection and air quality requirements in the areas where they were built, but they tend to offgas more in warm/humid climates ...

So, the contractor only had plans to use them in cool/dry climates?

Once again, the trailers were built used plywood/chipboard that had massive amounts of formaldehyde in it. Had they been sold to private individuals, there would have been a massive recall and huge settlements.

bushco has so far refused to do anything whatsoever to rectify the situation. Any intelligent person would have taken the contractor to the cleaners.

[Rodimus Prime]

So, the contractor only had plans to use them in cool/dry climates?

Once again, the trailers were built used plywood/chipboard that had massive amounts of formaldehyde in it. Had they been sold to private individuals, there would have been a massive recall and huge settlements.

bushco has so far refused to do anything whatsoever to rectify the situation. Any intelligent person would have taken the contractor to the cleaners.

you would be surprised. Contractors are general pretty good at covering their rears. A lot of the time once they pass inspection and it is sold it going to be harder to get them on anything.
This is not because the bussiness is dirty they do this but because of how sue happy the world has become and they have always been an easy target. This forces them to get very good at covering themselves. The contractor gets blamed if the architect or the engineer screws up on the plans and their is a problem. Not the contractor fault that the plans where bad but they get blamed.

Also it means FEMA gave the ok on the material used. Normally it is required to get the owner ok on any material used. So FEMA gave them the ok when they went for approval (again part of the covering one rear). So it going to be FEMA having to deal with the law suits because they are the ones who ok everything. I going to guess that there was very little profit being made on those homes so it going to be cheap. I going to guess the margin was less than 5% which in the industry is not very much. 10%-20% is more the norm. Government work is very cut throat and goes to the lowest bidder by law. Add into that the Government wanted it done cheaply you get what you pay for.

[Swarmlord]

<snip>Any intelligent person would have taken the contractor to the cleaners.

I think you've gotten to the root of the problem with those 50K people inadvertently.

:p

[hulugu]

These homes may have passed inspection and air quality requirements in the areas where they were built, but they tend to offgas more in warm/humid climates ...

Of course it isn't just manufactured homes that have this problem, a lot of the newer well sealed homes with energy rating may also lend themselves to air quality problems. And the only way around them is to bring in outside air -- and there are air systems to do that without flushing energy down the drain.

Besides opening the windows? ;)

[Ugg]

These homes may have passed inspection and air quality requirements in the areas where they were built, but they tend to offgas more in warm/humid climates ...


Well, according to this article (http://risingfromruin.msnbc.com/2006/08/fema_flipflop_o.html) at MSNBC, there's no regulation whatsoever.

Sounds like all those retired folks who spend their lives traveling around in RVs are simply shortening their lives.

If HUD thinks that motor homes are only used occasionally, then they're obviously pretty clueless. The upshot of all this will hopefully be better regulation of the industry.

From casual reading, a number of lawsuits have already been filed and one has requested class action status.

swarmy along with others have made some pretty nasty comments about the people living in those trailers. Y'all know how hard it is to find a contractor willing to take on a small house building project in NO? Unless you're a contractor yourself, forget it.



The Department of Housing and Urban Development limits the use of formaldehyde-emitting products in manufactured homes — setting a standard of 0.2 parts per million for plywood and 0.3 parts per million for particleboard materials. But the agency does not regulate travel trailers or motor homes, probably because it was never anticipated that people would spend long periods of time living in them, said the Sierra Club’s Gillette.

[Sun Baked]

Well, according to this article (http://risingfromruin.msnbc.com/2006/08/fema_flipflop_o.html) at MSNBC, there's no regulation whatsoever.

Sounds like all those retired folks who spend their lives traveling around in RVs are simply shortening their lives.

Which sort of sucks, I know the manufactured home industry went through this same sort of issue very publicly decades ago.

But it is almost expected when the govt. wants these things as quick as they did, when there was a building materials shortage, and the companies are almost expected to cut as many corners in quality as they did to reap max profits.

And using travel trailers is an end run around many city zoning regs for using regulated manufactured homes in the smallest sizes.

[solvs]

I think you've gotten to the root of the problem with those 50K people inadvertently.

I thought you said you were Christian. You sure don't sound like it. I don't remember Jesus ever saying helping the poor, the elderly, and the disabled was a bad thing. Pretty much the opposite. Have you no sympathy for those in such a situation that you can't even admit the gov you love so much promised to help people and are still making things worse?

[Swarmlord]

I thought you said you were Christian. <snip>

So, pointing out that 50K people that continue to live in a trailer for two years rather than do something to change their own situation might not be too bright is not Christian? What church do you attend? :confused:

[mactastic]

The side story here is that the plywood or chipboard used in the trailers came from SE Asia somewhere.

My guess is that FEMA is protecting the subcontractor who imported the wood.

I smell a massive class action lawsuit here...
Most manufactured wood products contain formaldehyde. I've been trying to track down some formaldehyde-free MDF to use in a high school, and it's tough to get.

I'd be willing to bet cash money that a percentage of them would give birth to and raise three generations of offspring there while they wait for someone to solve their problem.
Would you care to offer a percentage estimate? Of course SOME percentage of them will. Zero percent is, after all, "some percent"; so with your current statement I hardle see how you can be wrong.

Are you saying a fraction of a percent will raise three generations, or 33% will?

[QUOTE=leekohler;4469660]

Poor choices and the lack of someone motivating them with a boot up their rear. Poor choices used to have a stygma associated with them, but now they are considered lifestyle choices.
Nope, now those poor choices are often rewarded with a Presidential Medal of Freedom.

As with most government programs, FEMA had no exit strategy. :p
'Twould be funny if it were no so true with our foreign entanglements...

These homes may have passed inspection and air quality requirements in the areas where they were built, but they tend to offgas more in warm/humid climates ...

Of course it isn't just manufactured homes that have this problem, a lot of the newer well sealed homes with energy rating may also lend themselves to air quality problems. And the only way around them is to bring in outside air -- and there are air systems to do that without flushing energy down the drain.
There's actually another way -- don't put products that offgas heavily into the house in the first place. But that's hard. Much easier to just bring in more outside air. And you do flush energy down the drain every time you do that. Just not that much. TANSTAAFL.

[solvs]

So, pointing out that 50K people that continue to live in a trailer for two years rather than do something to change their own situation might not be too bright is not Christian? What church do you attend? :confused:
I don't anymore thanks to the hypocrisy of those who talk a lot about God, then do exactly the opposite. Jesus didn't say anything about only helping some people. Pretty sure it was an unconditional thing. But all I hear people like you talking about is how the poor are lazy and the sick and elderly should be left to their own devices because you don't want to pay for it. What you're espousing is survival of the fittest, which is counter to your Messiah's teachings. Not to mention kinda selfish. We are not islands. We should help each other. And the gov should be us, not some separate entity that we should expect to fail us.

They should have been there to help these people, as they made promises they should, as we should expect the gov to, but instead they made things worse, and that just isn't right.

[Swarmlord]

I don't anymore thanks to the hypocrisy of those who talk a lot about God, then do exactly the opposite. Jesus didn't say anything about only helping some people. Pretty sure it was an unconditional thing. But all I hear people like you talking about is how the poor are lazy and the sick and elderly should be left to their own devices because you don't want to pay for it. What you're espousing is survival of the fittest, which is counter to your Messiah's teachings. Not to mention kinda selfish. We are not islands. We should help each other. And the gov should be us, not some separate entity that we should expect to fail us.

They should have been there to help these people, as they made promises they should, as we should expect the gov to, but instead they made things worse, and that just isn't right.

Maybe you can provide some links to the passages in the Bible where Jesus exhorted Pontius Pilate and King Herrod to provide services to the poor. You might want to include the passages where he encouraged the Israelites to protest the government or overthrow it for a socialist collective or even a democracy.

If anything - since you're attributing this type of philanthrapy to Christianity - you should be completely against it due to separation of Church and State.

[solvs]

Wow, that so completely missed the point I don't know where to begin. I'll just point out that you speak so much about money, and how you don't want to pay for the sick or the poor. I didn't say the gov should be Christian or anything else like it, just that it's supposed to be made up of the people, for the people, and to do what it's citizens can't alone. The gov should have been there to help these people, and instead it's making things worse. Since you can't defend that, you merely say they shouldn't have been helped in the first place. Though you seem to think it's fine to pay for the gov to screw up a war and make things worse, being there for it's poorer and elderly citizens after a national disaster after it's dams break is clearly too much. But then, I guess paying builders to pay contractors to pay subcontractors for million dollar homes is ok too? Even worse though, the gov did offer to help these people, but is poisoning them as it does so. And it knows it. But it does nothing about it. Your only excuse is that they shouldn't be there in the first place.

My point is that you claim to be a Christian, but like others who claim as much, I have yet to see you espouse anything that sounds standard to the Christian belief system, like caring for the poor, sick, or elderly.

[Swarmlord]

<snip>
My point is that you claim to be a Christian, but like others who claim as much, I have yet to see you espouse anything that sounds standard to the Christian belief system, like caring for the poor, sick, or elderly.

And MY point is that we live under a system of federalism where all the things you are ranting about are the responsibility of the local, then the county, then the state governments. If you don't like federalism, then fine, but don't tell me what the Federal government should or shouldn't do as some sort of secular church of charity with the president as Pope.

[Iscariot]

FEMA's getting ripped off. I would've Asbestos'd the problem away for half the price of formaldehyde.

Nobody knows how to do evil on the cheap nowadays.

Speaking of, forget bombing Iran. Discontinue the penny, and then drop sacks of the now worthless coins on strategic targets. As an added bonus, this can double as a relief effort.

[Naimfan]

FEMA's getting ripped off. I would've Asbestos'd the problem away for half the price of formaldehyde.

Nobody knows how to do evil on the cheap nowadays.

Speaking of, forget bombing Iran. Discontinue the penny, and then drop sacks of the now worthless coins on strategic targets. As an added bonus, this can double as a relief effort.

LOL!

Actually, just drop Sears catalogs......oh, wait, that was for the USSR!

[hulugu]

Nobody knows how to do evil on the cheap nowadays.

Yep, even evil has been outsourced. :eek:

[solvs]

If you don't like federalism, then fine, but don't tell me what the Federal government should or shouldn't do as some sort of secular church of charity with the president as Pope.
Again, not my point at all. The problem is that local and state aren't doing these things. Nor are private, nor the citizens themselves. The fed gov isn't the end all be all, but there is a lot they can do that no one else can or will. Or are. I just find it hypocritical that you have no problem with what we do spend money on, but throw a hissy over things like helping sick kids and the poor, even if they're a drop in the bucket. You'd think you'd want to help them on a larger scale than individuals or smaller groups even could if they would.

I honestly don't understand why you don't.

[Swarmlord]

Again, not my point at all. The problem is that local and state aren't doing these things. Nor are private, nor the citizens themselves. The fed gov isn't the end all be all, but there is a lot they can do that no one else can or will. Or are. I just find it hypocritical that you have no problem with what we do spend money on, but throw a hissy over things like helping sick kids and the poor, even if they're a drop in the bucket. You'd think you'd want to help them on a larger scale than individuals or smaller groups even could if they would.

I honestly don't understand why you don't.

So, instead of dealing with the level of government that is responsible, but fell on its face you think it should be pushed higher and higher until someone fixes it. Using this logic and considering that FEMA, a federal agency, also dropped the ball, I guess this needs to be elevated to the U.N.

You can only do so much to help people that are unwilling to help themselves.

[solvs]

So, instead of dealing with the level of government that is responsible, but fell on its face you think it should be pushed higher and higher until someone fixes it.
Again, not what I'm saying at all. Actually, it's the opposite. That we should be fixing it on all levels. But that we shouldn't count on the lower levels and the citizens themselves to take care of it all. That's where the feds come in. Or are supposed to. But they made things worse. And they're still making things worse. And all you can say is that gov doesn't work, not seeming to realize that it's those telling you that who are the ones causing it not to work and blaming everyone else.

Using this logic and considering that FEMA, a federal agency, also dropped the ball, I guess this needs to be elevated to the U.N.
I would be happy if the buck actually stopped where it was supposed to, at the guy in charge. But apparently it's everyone else's fault, even in those cases when it isn't. Even when they were the ones making it worse. Personal responsibility and all.

You can only do so much to help people that are unwilling to help themselves.
Yes, that sounds exactly like something Jesus would say if FEMA was knowingly poisoning poor, elderly, and sick people it promised to help after dropping the ball so badly the last time it promised to help them. Ah, but there it is isn't it. We shouldn't count on gov. Because they won't be there when we need them. Despite being one of the reasons we pay for them in the first place.

But we should stay in Iraq because they can't help themselves. And because we should trust our gov to fix things. Oh, but only in other countries. Got it.

[Swarmlord]

<snip>We shouldn't count on gov. Because they won't be there when we need them. Despite being one of the reasons we pay for them in the first place.

<snip>

You're finally getting it. Believe this and you'll never be disappointed.;)

[solvs]

You're finally getting it. Believe this and you'll never be disappointed.;)

That is a very sad assessment of things. My point was that we should be able to. That's what they're there for. If we can't trust them and count on them for these things, then what's the point of even having a gov? It's no wonder the system is broken with people like you in charge trying so hard to break it to prove to everyone it doesn't work. Funny, all they're doing is proving they don't know how to run it and making people not like you or want to vote for you.

And again, if this is the way you really feel, why do you keep defending the administration of other things, especially the war(s) they're losing?

[hulugu]

We shouldn't count on gov. Because they won't be there when we need them. Despite being one of the reasons we pay for them in the first place.

But we should stay in Iraq because they can't help themselves. And because we should trust our gov to fix things. Oh, but only in other countries. Got it.

Yes.

The government shouldn't be thought of as some foreign entity, but rather as us. We're the government, we're the employers and the employees If you start playing 6 degrees to Uncle Sam and you'd be amazed at how connected it all is, for instance Swarmlord, I believe, works for a university hospital, thus there's some government funding running around there somewhere.

Furthermore, lots of conservative types like to pretend that corporations and even the military are immune to the same kinds of bureaucratic bumbling, when they're subject to the exact same force of entropy. They're human constructs and human-beings are fabulous at creating bureaucracy and red-tape.
If you can't trust your government to run the DMV, how can you expect it to run a war?

[solvs]

If you can't trust your government to run the DMV, how can you expect it to run a war?
I get your point, but actually some DMVs, as well as other gov run organizations, actually can run rather well. As can some businesses. The problem is when we leave either to their own devices if they aren't running well or are doing not so good things. While sometimes messing with a program that's working well will do the same type of thing. I believe businesses need rules just as people do, and that gov needs oversight in the same way. Leaving either solely to their own devices, well, we've seen what happens when we do that and it isn't pretty. Enron and FEMA come to mind.

There are wars that can be run well too.

[obeygiant]

If you can't trust your government to run the DMV, how can you expect it to run a war?

Or healthcare.

[hulugu]

I get your point, but actually some DMVs, as well as other gov run organizations, actually can run rather well. As can some businesses. The problem is when we leave either to their own devices if they aren't running well or are doing not so good things. While sometimes messing with a program that's working well will do the same type of thing. I believe businesses need rules just as people do, and that gov needs oversight in the same way. Leaving either solely to their own devices, well, we've seen what happens when we do that and it isn't pretty. Enron and FEMA come to mind.

There are wars that can be run well too.

Exactly. There's a specific group of people who like to pretend that anything that government touches is automatically a disaster while corporations are inherently good at running things. Neither one of these constructs is valid.

There's lots of local, state, and federal institutions that work very well, and I can think of dozen of corporations that are profitable because they're run by good people doing hard work.

Something for all those who still support Shrub to chew on, both FEMA and Enron were run by friends of Bush.

[solvs]

Or healthcare.
I never said I wanted them to run it completely. Don't think anyone did. But I certainly don't like the way the current system is being run, and you'd be hard pressed to find many who would. Some gov oversight at least would be nice, as well as some help for those who's insurance is lacking or they can't get any or afford it if it's too costly and their employer won't pay for it. Like those with preexisting conditions and/or the self employed, or the middle class people who's children are helped by programs like SCHIP when illness or injury occurs.

Exactly. There's a specific group of people who like to pretend that anything that government touches is automatically a disaster while corporations are inherently good at running things. Neither one of these constructs is valid.
Gotcha, but yeah, I agree.

[mactastic]

Exactly. There's a specific group of people who like to pretend that anything that government touches is automatically a disaster while corporations are inherently good at running things. Neither one of these constructs is valid.
And both are run by fallible humans. Yet somehow, in the conservative mind, humans are only fallible when they are in positions of government. When they are in positions of business, somehow they will be better humans.

It makes no sense, but it's the basis of their faith that government must be murdered in the bathtub.

[hulugu]

And both are run by fallible humans. Yet somehow, in the conservative mind, humans are only fallible when they are in positions of government. When they are in positions of business, somehow they will be better humans.

It makes no sense, but it's the basis of their faith that government must be murdered in the bathtub.

I blame Ayn Rand.

[Swarmlord]

I blame Ayn Rand.

Ahhh. Makes we want to pull out my copy of Atlas Shrugged for a comforting read over the weekend.

[hulugu]

Ahhh. Makes we want to pull out my copy of Atlas Shrugged for a comforting read over the weekend.

Bah, anyone should know that the Fountainhead is far superior. ;)

[solvs]

It makes no sense
It doesn't have to. They have theirs. Screw everyone else.

[Swarmlord]

It doesn't have to. They have theirs. Screw everyone else.

You have yours too apparently. The fact that you have a computer and Internet connection to post from is more than I had to start with.

[hulugu]

You have yours too apparently. The fact that you have a computer and Internet connection to post from is more than I had to start with.

I don't understand your point here at all.


Besides, don't you predate the Internet? Not DARPA Net, necessarily, but certainly the World Wide Web.

[Swarmlord]

I don't understand your point here at all.


<snip>

This goes way back. Solvs and others have insinuated that those of us that are successful are so because we were either handed everything, were given opportunities not available to others or didn't have to work for it. Now that we're successful, we want to prevent others from having what we have. Nothing could be further from the truth.

I resent the insinuation, hence my comment.

[hulugu]

This goes way back. Solvs and others have insinuated that those of us that are successful are so because we were either handed everything, were given opportunities not available to others or didn't have to work for it. Now that we're successful, we want to prevent others from having what we have. Nothing could be further from the truth.

I resent the insinuation, hence my comment.

I see your point, but I have to mention that you still had advantages that others didn't necessarily have. You might have been poor, but you had enough food (you didn't starve to the point of health and mental defects at least), you went to school rather than work, and you grew up in a rich country that wasn't marked by war.
This is markedly different from the kid who grew up with barely enough to eat, whose village was beset by warlords, and who had to subsistence farm rather than go to school. You're an American and by luck of birth you received certain advantages.
If we include the social-economic status differences even in the United States, odds are you had more advantages than you think.

Now, of course, there's the issue of once you rise to the top, do you hold the mountain while stepping on the fingers of people trying to climb up with you, or do you reach down and help them? The first is immoral regardless of how you got there. You don't get a free karmic pass for being a success story.

[solvs]

You have yours too apparently.
I do. Now. I didn't used to. Pardon me for having the sympathy for those who still don't. I'm not saying we have to give them all hand outs, but a little empathy for those less fortunate might be called for in times like these. Especially when it's the gov that has let them down. You say they shouldn't be able to count on the gov for anything, I wonder why we have a gov if this is true. If we had a more efficient system, they'd be able to be there when people do need them.

In a civilized society, I don't believe survival of the fittest is the philosophy we should live by.

The fact that you have a computer and Internet connection to post from is more than I had to start with.
If you think I started like this, you don't know me at all. I believe in helping my fellow man. That money doesn't mean that much. You seem to believe you're an island, and that everyone else should be too. I just can't agree with that.

Solvs and others have insinuated that those of us that are successful are so because we were either handed everything, were given opportunities not available to others or didn't have to work for it. Now that we're successful, we want to prevent others from having what we have. Nothing could be further from the truth.
I never said any of that. But you do seem to have this aversion to anyone less fortunate than yourself. The poor, the sick, the injured, the elderly, the children of the poor, you don't want to help any of them and you're only reasoning is that you didn't have to go through what they did, and you don't want to pay for it. I believe we can all rise together, and that we should help the least of us if they need it. Not everyone is as strong or lucky (and I use that term loosely) as we are, and you have to realize that. Leaving them behind in what's supposed to be an advanced society is just not an option.

We've already seen how poorly those who try to implement your philosophy have run things. I know you think everything is fine, because you think you're fine, but you're missing the bigger picture. Things aren't fine. Mines that aren't inspected, dams and bridges that aren't reinforced, poison in our food, in our pets food, on our children's toys, media monopolies, private contractors making things worse in other countries, Veterans' care being outsourced while they suffer, healthcare in general being a for profit at the cost of providing coverage. The list goes on and on. Yet you support business because you trust them over gov, even from gov oversight (which is all we're really calling for), because those same people who keep telling you gov doesn't work are proving it by making it not work. Telling you privatizing everything does, despite proving that it doesn't. And then God forbid we actually care for our own citizens when disaster strikes. Because rather than making a gov that works, that would be there in case you need them, you'd rather just not pay for it. Because you have yours.

BTW, you know that the number of welfare recipients went down under Clinton (http://clinton5.nara.gov/WH/Accomplishments/eightyears-03.html) (not my favorite guy, but in retrospect IMO, not as bad as the current one) right (and insert "going down" joke here)?

[Sun Baked]

I can see a private company solving this problem for potential litigation due to the living conditions by terminating the program, picking up all the trailers and destroying them.

Or they would likely act immediately with each family that complains (or threatens to sue) by condemning their trailer and dumping the family on the street, of course they would give the family enough money for a couple months rent and moving expenses.

Like Ford, you may be suing us ... so we cannot continue to serve you.