Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by zimv20, Dec 8, 2005.
LA Times op/ed
also, from today's krugman column:
Is this supposed to be sarcastic? Either way, I actually agree. Why spend $14 billion just to have it whiped out again. Let some investors pick up the land and try to rebuild it if they really want to, not my tax dollars.
That's an unresponsible answer. We're the UNITED States not 1800s North and South. $14B is a small price for our country to pay to have a tourist city rebuilt considering how much is being spent in a foreign country right now. Your tax dollar are being spent on much less useful things.
There are cities near bodies of water in California that are 30ft below sea level as well.
have you never been to new orleans? it's like st. louis, except with culture.
There were also a bunch of ghettos and crime-ridden areas that needed a fresh start. People should use this as an opportunity to improve the area, not just another reason to b*tch at the governemnt.
from here, a selection of the most dangerous cities in the US:
i think you should take this as an opportunity to improve your area, and not just bitch at the government.
What the hell do you have against STL? I dont even live in St Louis, I live across the river in a small town in Illinois, so I could care less. I just have STL in my info because I doubt anyone here has heard of Edwardsville, IL. That said, if the Mississippi were to flood again, I wouldn't expect the President to show up at my door and hand me a check for my problems.
all i'm doing is pointing out your hypocrisy. i could also point out your lack of humanity, but you're doing a fine job of that yourself.
How am I being a hypocrite? New Orleans is completely destroyed. I am saying that this is a chance to finally improve the lesser areas of that city by some bold investors. You're the one who brought St Louis into it, which I still dont really get why....
Do you want to get back on topic or should we continue with the St Louis fun facts posts? Maybe we should we start talking about the new Busch Stadium, Arch, what else?
that's certainly a nice spin on it. no, you're saying you don't want your tax dollars to go to rebuilding new orleans, using crime and poverty as an excuse.
your "bold investor" scheme is näive. the city needs a huge influx of federal dollars not only to rebuild, but to build confidence that the city will once again thrive. without such confidence, no one's going to invest. especially if the work necessary to protect the city isn't going to be done. do you really think private investors are going to create wetlands? repair highways? test the ground and water for toxins? what do you think we have a government for?
also, if private investors are so keen on rebuilding depressed neighborhoods, where were they before katrina? who are these investors and why do new york, chicago, LA, st. louis, atlanta, etc etc etc still have impoverished areas?
Wow. You'd waive the right to claim on your flood insurance? How awfully... noble of you.
More tax cuts will allow more private investment into impoverished areas.
Also, tax cuts will allow private investors to rebuild infrastructure.
I hear Zatarain's is sponsoring a new 3 mile stretch of Cat 5-proof levee.
Why spend $300 billion in Iraq just to turn it over to Iran? Let some investors pick op the costs of an invasion and occupation of Oiltown if they really want to, not my tax dollars. Right?
How about sweetheart bail-outs of poorly-managed airline companies? Can I insist my tax dollars not go to funding them? Or how about my tax dollars going to abstinance-only education, which has been shown to be a poor method of preventing pregnancy and the spread of disease? What about these new tax cuts? Can I complain that I don't want my tax dollars going to the wealthiest 1%?
Or would that be wrong?
Is this a private fight or can anybody join?
I think the question on the floor in reality is: How does New Orleans get rebuilt, with government or private investment? Obviously this isn't an either-or proposition. Clearly (to me) the private sector investment will not come without a huge commitment of public funds to rebuild the city's infrastructure and to protect it from future destruction. Like this something new? All cities depend on the investment of public dollars in infrastructure to build roads, bridges, sewer systems, flood control, etc. The only real difference in New Orleans is the nature of the threat to the city's continued existence, the price tag, and the city's dire circumstances. The latter factor seems to call for rapid and decisive decision-making -- of a kind which doesn't seem to be coming from our political leadership.
Woo hoo! We can't have a #1 baseball team, our football team is quickly going to hell, and our hockey team would lose to a bunch of 10 years who have never played hockey on ice in their life. But at least we're getting close to #1 on something!
Your entire post was well-stated. As the rhetoric and grandiose promises continue to outstrip the formation and implementation of actual plans, the task that lies ahead will continue to be painfully formidable and more of a pipedream than a reality. It is sad but so very true.
I want my tax dollars going to rebuild New Orleans. Even if I'm never going to go there. I'd hope people would want my area rebuilt if a natural disaster happened here. That's one of the reasons we have a government in the first place. I wonder how many people who are worried about the money they think we shouldn't be spending in NOLA (you know, in our own country) have no problem spending all that money rebuilding Iraq.
Of course, it wasn't a natural disaster that made Iraq need to be rebuilt.
Well said. We have no business rebuilding parts of the world we destroyed when a city here was destroyed by natural forces.
Thats the sprite, keep up the crime and you will be number 1 soon enough.
I had to add a light note in this thread, its starting to dampen.
I desagree. We have every obligation to rebuild a piece of the world we destroyed. It's just that 1) our President has no viable plan to accomplish this feat, and 2) between our President's intense focus on tax cuts for the rich and starting a war, there was no budget room left to rebuild New Orleans. (But he probably would've cheated them anyway)
It's really sad to think of New Orleans being given up on and dying. The lack of leadership and resources is going to kill it.
Iraq is the administration's template for New Orleans. Whatever happens, call it a success. So long as the goal posts can be moved, it doesn't matter how well the game is played. If something works, no matter how marginally, take credit. If something fails, blame it on somebody else.
well at least in iraq and afghanistan they don't send back international help in the form of food or accept the help and then destroy 100ks of NATO standard food rations because it's "not suitable/safe" for the population
i haven't heard of any news from new orleans since months...