David Ross wrote:
In the meantime, the Los Angeles Times today reported that the Army
Corps of Engineers repeatedly asked for more funds to renovate and
strengthen the levies around New Orleans. But President Bush and
Congress repeatedly cut the funding to half or less than what the
Army requested.

That, combined with the unusually slow response from the Federal government,
raises a question as to whether the administration has some reason for not
wanting New Orleans to exist. Either that, or the administration is headed
by an complete idiot.

Meanwhile, while the government isn't responding appropriately (and was
quite culpable in the problems being as bad as they are), he wants the
private sector to pick-up as much of the tab as they can. I wonder how well
that'll work? Will the folks who benefited the most from the tax cuts be
contributing proportionally the same as the working-class folks are
contributing? There are poor folks emptying their savings accounts to help.
Which of the folks who benefited the most from the tax cuts that made this
disaster so much worse will be doing the same?

--
Warren H.

==========
Disclaimer: My views reflect those of myself, and not my
employer, my friends, nor (as she often tells me) my wife.
Any resemblance to the views of anybody living or dead is
coincidental. No animals were hurt in the writing of this
response -- unless you count my dog who desperately wants
to go outside now.
Have an outdoor project? Get a Black & Decker power tool::
http://www.holzemville.com/mall/blackanddecker/

David Ross wrote:

chaz wrote:


What are YOU doing for the victims of Katrina?



I'm doing nothing. During 9-10 January, record-breaking rains hit
southern California, resulting in a Presidential disaster
declaration. The hill in my backyard decided to become part of my
lawn.

The cost to repair will be about 1.5 times what I originally paid
for my house, if I could only get a grading contractor to return my
phone calls. This is a loss for which there is no insurance and
never was. It's not a flood or earthquake; it's a landslide. And
when it is finally repaired, there is no guantantee that it won't
slide again.

No one had a fund-raising to provide me with any disaster relief.
While I have secured a federal disaster loan to pay for the repair,
I will have to repay the loan -- from my Social Security and
pension since I'm retired.

The rains may return in two months and make the slide worse,
endangering two homes on the street above me. But no grading
contractor will talk to me.

In the meantime, the Los Angeles Times today reported that the Army
Corps of Engineers repeatedly asked for more funds to renovate and
strengthen the levies around New Orleans. But President Bush and
Congress repeatedly cut the funding to half or less than what the
Army requested.


I sit and watch the rains and landslides in CA almost every year. Most of those houses that slide are so precariously built on the side of the hills and they seem to just be asking for trouble. What I can't understand is why people live in places like this? It doesn't look like it takes much for them to slide. What's with that? I've been in CA and I know that all the houses in that area aren't perched on the side of the hills. What gives?

Pat

"tomkanpa" wrote in message
oups.com...
I'm donating all my disposable income to the local Sunoco station!

Sounds right to me. :-) My wife topped off our gas tank with seven gallons
of gas before it went higher. Cost: $21.00+

wrote in message
oups.com...
With all the help the United Nations is kicking in any meager amount I
could give is too small to make a difference, guess I'm tapped out
after donating to the tsunami relief fund. Not being cynical just tired
of being the redheaded stepchild.

Donations to Katrina leave me with a nothing feeling. I regularly donate to
many good causes, but this is a disaster that the government should cover
totally. Why should ordinary people with very ordinary incomes donate to
Katrina victims when the government can afford to spend a billion dollars a
day in Iraq.

If you have been keeping up with the news, you should be aware that Senate
Majority leader Bill Frist of Tennessee (Yes, he's the same doctor who
declared the Florida woman not brain dead without actually examining her.)
introduced a bill today that abolishes all inheritance taxes (a.k.a.death
taxes in Republican speak). What people do not realize is that it affect
less than 5% of the population and really affect .5% of the mega wealthy. It
sounds as if Frist is sneaking this bill in while no one is paying
attention. Ordinary people should never jump on this double speak wagon that
only makes the rich richer.

If the government can afford these kind of expenditures along with the tax
cuts for the rich, it sure as hell can afford taking care of its own
citizens in this time of desperate need. It's also time the Republicans had
their feet put in the fire.

Yes, I'm a cynic also.

JPS

On Fri, 02 Sep 2005 21:19:17 GMT, "John" wrote:

It's just sad.


And your ability for critical thinking is shamefully sophomoric..




Acts of creation are ordinarily reserved for gods and poets. To plant a pine, one need only own a shovel.
-- Aldo Leopold

Based on what??

Are you attacking me now??

If so, this is exactly what I mean...people attacking other people seems to
be the way ( New Orleans). You prove my point exactly!

How's that for "critical thinking"?

What are YOU doing for the victims besides attacking others in newsgroups??
Hmmmm....??




"Tom Jaszewski" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 02 Sep 2005 21:19:17 GMT, "John" wrote:

It's just sad.


And your ability for critical thinking is shamefully sophomoric..




Acts of creation are ordinarily reserved for gods and poets. To plant a
pine, one need only own a shovel.
-- Aldo Leopold

PatK wrote:

David Ross wrote:

chaz wrote:


What are YOU doing for the victims of Katrina?



I'm doing nothing. During 9-10 January, record-breaking rains hit
southern California, resulting in a Presidential disaster
declaration. The hill in my backyard decided to become part of my
lawn.

The cost to repair will be about 1.5 times what I originally paid
for my house, if I could only get a grading contractor to return my
phone calls. This is a loss for which there is no insurance and
never was. It's not a flood or earthquake; it's a landslide. And
when it is finally repaired, there is no guantantee that it won't
slide again.

No one had a fund-raising to provide me with any disaster relief.
While I have secured a federal disaster loan to pay for the repair,
I will have to repay the loan -- from my Social Security and
pension since I'm retired.

The rains may return in two months and make the slide worse,
endangering two homes on the street above me. But no grading
contractor will talk to me.

In the meantime, the Los Angeles Times today reported that the Army
Corps of Engineers repeatedly asked for more funds to renovate and
strengthen the levies around New Orleans. But President Bush and
Congress repeatedly cut the funding to half or less than what the
Army requested.


I sit and watch the rains and landslides in CA almost every
year. Most of those houses that slide are so precariously built
on the side of the hills and they seem to just be asking for
trouble. What I can't understand is why people live in places
like this? It doesn't look like it takes much for them to
slide. What's with that? I've been in CA and I know that all
the houses in that area aren't perched on the side of the hills.
What gives?

I'm not "perched on the side of the hills". The land had a
moderate slope. But to build houses and streets, the slope was
graded to create level lots. Between the lots on my street and the
lots on the street up-slope, the result was a steeper slope than
previously existed. The same is true between the lots across the
street from me and the lots on the street down-slope. No house on
my block or the blocks above or below me is "precariously built on
the side of the hills".

I own the slope in my back yard. I'm at the bottom and thus do not
get the great view across the community enjoyed by my neighbors
behind me or by the neighbors across the street from me.

--

David E. Ross
URL:http://www.rossde.com/

I use Mozilla as my Web browser because I want a browser that
complies with Web standards. See URL:http://www.mozilla.org/.

On Sun, 04 Sep 2005 16:11:28 GMT, "John" wrote:

Based on what??

Based on your feeding frenzy on the negative press, guess what....not
all or even a majority of victims are involved in, to quote you...

1) Looting
2) Raping each other
3) Slitting each others throats
4) Shoooting at police and emergency assistance personnel
5) Robbing jewelry and other valuables from the dead

Are you attacking me now??

No simply pointing out that your excuse for not helping is pretty lame
and lacks much thought.

If so, this is exactly what I mean...people attacking other people seems to
be the way ( New Orleans). You prove my point exactly

Point proven? I simply pointed out your lack of logic,, hardly akin to
raped and murder.

How's that for "critical thinking"?

Pretty lame, but expected...


What are YOU doing for the victims besides attacking others in newsgroups??
Hmmmm....??

Attacking others? which others? Besides poor overly sensitive John
who uses lame excuses for not helping?



Acts of creation are ordinarily reserved for gods and poets. To plant a pine, one need only own a shovel.
-- Aldo Leopold

My family will give money to OUR LOCAL RED CROSS as we know what a
great job they are doing here as we have fairly large groups, (comes
and goes to some extent so numbers fluctuate) but they are, along with
our churches, housing, feeding and what ever, Katrina's Evacuees.

They are on the job 24/365 here in our town ready to help the fire
department, the police, works with CERTS, houses and provides for
people who have been burned out...and many other things. They are among
the first responders.
Respectfully, lee

David Ross wrote:

PatK wrote:


David Ross wrote:



chaz wrote:




What are YOU doing for the victims of Katrina?




I'm doing nothing. During 9-10 January, record-breaking rains hit
southern California, resulting in a Presidential disaster
declaration. The hill in my backyard decided to become part of my
lawn.

The cost to repair will be about 1.5 times what I originally paid
for my house, if I could only get a grading contractor to return my
phone calls. This is a loss for which there is no insurance and
never was. It's not a flood or earthquake; it's a landslide. And
when it is finally repaired, there is no guantantee that it won't
slide again.

No one had a fund-raising to provide me with any disaster relief.
While I have secured a federal disaster loan to pay for the repair,
I will have to repay the loan -- from my Social Security and
pension since I'm retired.

The rains may return in two months and make the slide worse,
endangering two homes on the street above me. But no grading
contractor will talk to me.

In the meantime, the Los Angeles Times today reported that the Army
Corps of Engineers repeatedly asked for more funds to renovate and
strengthen the levies around New Orleans. But President Bush and
Congress repeatedly cut the funding to half or less than what the
Army requested.




I sit and watch the rains and landslides in CA almost every
year. Most of those houses that slide are so precariously built
on the side of the hills and they seem to just be asking for
trouble. What I can't understand is why people live in places
like this? It doesn't look like it takes much for them to
slide. What's with that? I've been in CA and I know that all
the houses in that area aren't perched on the side of the hills.
What gives?



I'm not "perched on the side of the hills". The land had a
moderate slope. But to build houses and streets, the slope was
graded to create level lots. Between the lots on my street and the
lots on the street up-slope, the result was a steeper slope than
previously existed. The same is true between the lots across the
street from me and the lots on the street down-slope. No house on
my block or the blocks above or below me is "precariously built on
the side of the hills".

I own the slope in my back yard. I'm at the bottom and thus do not
get the great view across the community enjoyed by my neighbors
behind me or by the neighbors across the street from me.



I wasn't saying that you personally were doing this, but it just brought
to mind all of the tv coverage of the landslides out there. I was just
amazed at the amount of people who do. That's all.

Pat

"Warren" wrote in message
...
David Ross wrote:
In the meantime, the Los Angeles Times today reported that the Army
Corps of Engineers repeatedly asked for more funds to renovate and
strengthen the levies around New Orleans. But President Bush and
Congress repeatedly cut the funding to half or less than what the
Army requested.

That, combined with the unusually slow response from the Federal
government,

What was unusual or slow about it? Which disaster of similar magnitude ever
had a faster response?

raises a question as to whether the administration has some reason for not
wanting New Orleans to exist.

What reasons are those? Are there other cities on the "cease to exist" list?

Either that, or the administration is headed by an complete idiot.

Expecting some nefarious plot to destroy NO might require a "complete idiot"
......do you feel a special kinship with the President?

Meanwhile, while the government isn't responding appropriately

What specifically should they have done to be appropriate?

(and was quite culpable in the problems being as bad as they are),

Which problems are these? You do know that levee failure was in the new
recently built part of the flood control project?

he wants the private sector to pick-up as much of the tab as they can. I
wonder how well that'll work?

Would it be better if he refused any and all private fiscal participation?

Will the folks who benefited the most from the tax cuts be contributing
proportionally the same as the working-class folks are contributing?

What does charitable giving disaster or otherwise have to do with across the
board tax cuts?

There are poor folks emptying their savings accounts to help.

How many and who?

Which of the folks who benefited the most from the tax cuts that made this
disaster so much worse will be doing the same?
Warren H.

How did this or any tax cut make this disaster worse?.....Do Hurricanes get
power or energy from tax cuts? Since the tax cuts dropped millions of people
from the tax rolls entirely do these poor people have a special obligation
at disaster relief? Just curious Rod

Rod & Betty Jo wrote:
How did this or any tax cut make this disaster worse?.....Do Hurricanes
get power or energy from tax cuts?

I'll try to make this as simple as possible so you don't get confused this
time:

The hurricane was a natural disaster. The levee break was not. The levee
break was a result of deferring necessary maintenance because Federal funds
to maintain the levee were reduced to the point that the levee could not be
properly maintained. The Federal funds were cut because the Federal
government didn't have the money to pay the bills. They didn't have the
money not just because they are spending it elsewhere, but because they cut
taxes despite needing more money. The folks who benefited most from the
ill-timed tax cuts were the very rich. (Judging from your grasp of the
situation, I'm going to guess that you either inherited your money, or
you're so far from the top that you have no perception of just how much they
benefited compared to how you didn't.)

In 2001 FEMA identified the top three possible major disasters. They were a
terrorist attack on New York, an earthquake in San Francisco, and a levee
break after a hurricane in New Orleans. Despite that, funding for levee
maintenance was still cut below minimum levels.

So over four years ago, the President had information warning him that there
was an impending problem. Instead of taking the prudent course, and
increasing funding for the levees to fortify them, funding was cut to a
level that wouldn't even properly maintain what was already in place.

So the cause of the flood was not a hurricane last week. It was a series of
decisions over the last four years to cut funding for the levees that caused
the inevitable flood. When the flood happened may not have been predictable
until 4 or 5 days before it happened, but it's inevitability was not just
predictable -- it was planned. Was it planned out of malice or ignorance?
Your call. Evil or stupid. Given the evidence that was available for *at
least* four years, the fiscal actions taken by the administration were
either evil or stupid. They had the reports and data. They can't claim
ignorance. The best they can do is claim they were too stupid to read or
understand the information they had.

So what was the motivation to not fund the levees? Saving money. It was one
of the many spending cuts that resulted from a tax cut. A tax cut that gave
me a whopping $600, but included provisions that gave so much more (not just
in raw dollars, but proportionally) to those making seven-digit incomes.

So when you look at what the private sector is contributing in post-disaster
relief, are those people contributing as much as the common guy? There are
poor people out there emptying their savings accounts, increasing their
debt, and forgoing groceries so they can contribute. Are any of the 20% of
the richest folks in the nation making that kind of sacrifice? Are their any
that are donating all of their disposable income to post-disaster relief?
Are their any who are even giving the difference between what they would
have paid in taxes pre-cuts and what they're paying now? Or are they just
writing checks that look big to people who have no money, but are pocket
change to them?

The break of the levees was inevitable. The President knew that. He still
put a tax cut for the rich as a higher priority than addressing the levee
problem. So was he evil or stupid in doing so?

--
Warren H.

==========
Disclaimer: My views reflect those of myself, and not my
employer, my friends, nor (as she often tells me) my wife.
Any resemblance to the views of anybody living or dead is
coincidental. No animals were hurt in the writing of this
response -- unless you count my dog who desperately wants
to go outside now.
Have an outdoor project? Get a Black & Decker power tool::
http://www.holzemville.com/mall/blackanddecker/

On 9/7/05 1:01 PM, in article , "Warren"
wrote:

Rod & Betty Jo wrote:
How did this or any tax cut make this disaster worse?.....Do Hurricanes
get power or energy from tax cuts?

I'll try to make this as simple as possible so you don't get confused this
time:

The hurricane was a natural disaster. The levee break was not. The levee
break was a result of deferring necessary maintenance because Federal funds
to maintain the levee were reduced to the point that the levee could not be
properly maintained. The Federal funds were cut because the Federal
government didn't have the money to pay the bills. They didn't have the
money not just because they are spending it elsewhere, but because they cut
taxes despite needing more money. The folks who benefited most from the
ill-timed tax cuts were the very rich. (Judging from your grasp of the
situation, I'm going to guess that you either inherited your money, or
you're so far from the top that you have no perception of just how much they
benefited compared to how you didn't.)

In 2001 FEMA identified the top three possible major disasters. They were a
terrorist attack on New York, an earthquake in San Francisco, and a levee
break after a hurricane in New Orleans. Despite that, funding for levee
maintenance was still cut below minimum levels.

So over four years ago, the President had information warning him that there
was an impending problem. Instead of taking the prudent course, and
increasing funding for the levees to fortify them, funding was cut to a
level that wouldn't even properly maintain what was already in place.

So the cause of the flood was not a hurricane last week. It was a series of
decisions over the last four years to cut funding for the levees that caused
the inevitable flood. When the flood happened may not have been predictable
until 4 or 5 days before it happened, but it's inevitability was not just
predictable -- it was planned. Was it planned out of malice or ignorance?
Your call. Evil or stupid. Given the evidence that was available for *at
least* four years, the fiscal actions taken by the administration were
either evil or stupid. They had the reports and data. They can't claim
ignorance. The best they can do is claim they were too stupid to read or
understand the information they had.

So what was the motivation to not fund the levees? Saving money. It was one
of the many spending cuts that resulted from a tax cut. A tax cut that gave
me a whopping $600, but included provisions that gave so much more (not just
in raw dollars, but proportionally) to those making seven-digit incomes.

So when you look at what the private sector is contributing in post-disaster
relief, are those people contributing as much as the common guy? There are
poor people out there emptying their savings accounts, increasing their
debt, and forgoing groceries so they can contribute. Are any of the 20% of
the richest folks in the nation making that kind of sacrifice? Are their any
that are donating all of their disposable income to post-disaster relief?
Are their any who are even giving the difference between what they would
have paid in taxes pre-cuts and what they're paying now? Or are they just
writing checks that look big to people who have no money, but are pocket
change to them?

The break of the levees was inevitable. The President knew that. He still
put a tax cut for the rich as a higher priority than addressing the levee
problem. So was he evil or stupid in doing so?


Hey Warren, these levees were a known problem as far back as the 70's; the
Army Corp of Engineers were warning of a potential disaster and have been
ignored by Democratic presidents as well as the Republicans ones. Where
does that fit in your scheme of things? Cause those funds have been lacking
for more than 8 years.

Rod & Betty Jo wrote [in part]:

"Warren" wrote in message
... [also in part]

That, combined with the unusually slow response from the Federal
government,

What was unusual or slow about it? Which disaster of similar magnitude ever
had a faster response?

Almost 100 years ago -- in an era of slower communication and much
slower transportation -- the federal response to the San Francisco
earthquake was much quicker. See the partial timeline at my
URL:http://www.rossde.com/ (timeline data from the Virtual Museum
of the City of San Francisco).

--
David E. Ross
Climate: California Mediterranean
Sunset Zone: 21 -- interior Santa Monica Mountains with some ocean
influence (USDA 10a, very close to Sunset Zone 19)
Gardening pages at URL:http://www.rossde.com/garden/

"Warren" expounded:

So the cause of the flood was not a hurricane last week. It was a series of
decisions over the last four years to cut funding for the levees that caused
the inevitable flood

Yea, but who made the decisions?

http://www.gopusa.com/news/2005/sept...katrina1.shtml
--
Ann, gardening in Zone 6a
South of Boston, Massachusetts
e-mail address is not checked
******************************