Originally Posted By ecdc <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/07/20/AR2007072002252.html" target="_blank">http://www.washingtonpost.com/ wp-dyn/content/article/2007/07/20/AR2007072002252.html</a> Another tick mark on the Bush screw-up list. The trailers are certainly not his fault, or even FEMA's as they just purchased them from the manufacturer. But does anyone think that if Bill Clinton, or Hillary Clinton, or Mitt Romney, or Rudy Guliani were President of the United States, that these people would still be living in these trailers and that New Orleans would still be the cesspool that it is today? Say what you will about each of those four people (and I'm sure we all have our own opinions), they're all capable leaders who would've never let it get this bad. Mr. Bush, welcome to the top five worst presidents ever list.
Originally Posted By DVC_dad <<<But does anyone think that if Bill Clinton, or Hillary Clinton, or Mitt Romney, or Rudy Guliani were President of the United States, that these people would still be living in these trailers and that New Orleans would still be the cesspool that it is today? >>> There is no safe answer to your question. I don't think there is a right answer to your question.
Originally Posted By vbdad55 I asked our close frinds who were born and raised in N.. and still have about 1/2 their famil in te area-- there answer was a resoundingYES, it wold be the same, that people who have not been there have no idea of the leel of destruction and ht it takes to recover. They said they are tired of everyone arm chairing thin instead of understanding how much goes into the recovery. They travel down once a month to work on their Mom's houses ( they bring pictures back of the progress) -their so lost a restaurant in the huricane, ad they see what effort has been put in, but also how incredibly enormous the task is.... they said some area will have to becompletely ozed as they wil never recover.. So I guess I will go with heir assessment on this one -- there is plenty to blame Bush for - the time to recover from something of this magnitude - especially with the lousy gov't officials they have there already is not something even the super Clinton's could wave a magic wand over
Originally Posted By Dabob2 I don't know that there would be a magic wand, but it doesn't seem to me like, occasional lip service aside, Bush has made the recovery anything like a priority. On one level that's understandable; he's got a mess in Iraq that preoccupies his time, and the time of the most important people in his administration. But I think it's fair to ask: if we weren't bogged down in Iraq, wouldn't reviving a major American city BE more of a priority? I think so. If nothing else, disaster recovery is something the National Guard has traditionally done; by and large, those people are IN Iraq, and those who are here are spread so thin they can't really be spared from their home states.
Originally Posted By vbdad55 I would say the national guard impactis a fair one - howevere local government has to step forward and run the recovery - with assistance from the Feds -- what have they asked for that has not been provided?
Originally Posted By jonvn In 1906, San Francisco was laid waste. About 75% of the city, including the entire financial district, was in ruins. 500 city blocks destroyed and 25,000 buildings reduced to ash and rubble. Within 2 years, 23,000 buildings were already rebuilt. The city was back on its feet. Nine years after the earthquake and fire, the city hosted a world's fair, that had 20,000,000 visitors (compare that to today, where the city still only gets about 14,000,000 per year). We did this in 1906. In 2006, we are inept and useless.
Originally Posted By vbdad55 okay- Katrina devasted a huge area with 200,000 homes badly damaged or destroyed, 50,000 in New Orleans alone. As of November 2006 50,000 not so badly damaged had been cleaned up and reinhabited. This is agulf zone issue, not just New orleans. While San Francisco and Chicago rebuilt after disasters, none covered the amount of territory this does, nor affected as many people. Also while we have better equipment now, I daresay it is a lot more complicated from an infrastructure standpoint to rebuild also
Originally Posted By Dabob2 <I would say the national guard impactis a fair one - howevere local government has to step forward and run the recovery - with assistance from the Feds -- what have they asked for that has not been provided?> I'd have to look more deeply into that to answer fairly. I do know that LA is not a wealthy state, and that many states have a constitutional requirement that their budget be balanced every year (don't know if LA is one of them). So it's possible the amount the LA state gov't can provide is limited. Normally in a case like this, the feds do provide the bulk of the disaster relief, and often insist on running it as well.
Originally Posted By ecdc vbdad, no one expects a miracle or a magic wand. But Bush got us into the disaster in Iraq, and New Orleans has been forgotten about by him, his administration, and our "liberal" media. If people don't like the comparison to Clinton, take a look at Mitt Romney. The guy has no shame, sure. He'd say his own mother was part of Al Qaeda to get elected. But he's a real leader with a proven track record of success and taking immediate action. There is absolutely, positively no way the rebuilding would be going this slow if he were in office. He can, unlike Bush, walk and chew gum at the same time; he could be busy handling Iraq and New Orleans. This is something that should be beyond politics. I won't vote for Romney because I don't like his pandering or his conservatism (assuming it's genuine - who really knows). But I can recognize on an issue like this, based on past performance he'd probably do extremely well. With New Orleans, it's about competence and leadership, none of which has existed at the local or federal level.
Originally Posted By jonvn San Francisco was the biggest natural disaster to hit the US until Katrina. And while there are higher numbers now, this is 2007, not 1906. We could have had that city rebuilt twice over now if we were willing to do it. What has gone on in New Orleans is a disgraceful shame on this country.
Originally Posted By vbdad55 I agree it is a shame -- but there is no one place to place the blame....
Originally Posted By TomSawyer There is a lot of money for reconstruction, but it's not coming very fast because of the red tape that the federal government put in place to prevent fraud. There is something like $110 billion available for rebuilding but getting the money to the states and the individuals is taking a long time. Bush has been to New Orleans 14 or 15 times since Katrina, but he doesn't really mention it in his national speeches. There is still a widespread perception along the Gulf Coast that things are still being mishandled, and while that may not be true the administration isn't spending a lot of time showing that they are doing things the right way. There is a massive rebuilding effort going on there, but it's going to take a long time. I put some of the blame on the media's lack of continuing coverage of the story, other than some human interest articles, articles about the lawlessness of certain parts of New Orleans, and tear-jerker shows where homes are getting remodeled or rebuilt on ABC or HGTV. I think the Administration's initial response to the Hurricane was criminally negligent, but I think this sense that they aren't doing anything now has more to do with how politically tone deaf the White House is than it does with any incompetence.
Originally Posted By jonvn Oh, I would say the one place to place the blame would be the federal government. In 1906, they sent in millions for reconstruction. The entire nation worked together to rebuild the city. It isn't the fault of the media. It's the fault of the people who are supposed to handle and coordinate things, particularly on an inter-state basis. That would be the feds. They are utterly useless to the population, and fail constantly in just about every task that is set for them.
Originally Posted By vbdad55 ^^^^^^^ uh OK -- no sense in discussing then - Bush is the anti-Christ -- got it !
Originally Posted By jonvn He's not the anti-christ. Just a ruinous leader. And it's not just him. We're so busy wringing our hands over everything everywhere we can't do anything anymore. It now takes about 2-3 years to do an environmental impact report before you can build anything. I was watching a show on a cable channel about how we built the atomic bomb in WWII. They just threw up these multi-billion dollar buildings and cities across the nation to simply get the job done. Cities of 75,000 were thrown up pretty much overnight. Now, we'd all be so twisted up in our morass of useless laws that we'd never be able to do that. If we fought WWII today, we'd lose, and it's why we're losing this thing in Iraq, too. The federal government is simply incapable of carrying out any of its responsibilities to the people of this nation.
Originally Posted By vbdad55 <The federal government is simply incapable of carrying out any of its responsibilities to the people of this nation. < a statement I do not disagree with ( and throw in the state of Illinois who is 2 months past a budget and the state is all controlled by Dems' house - senate- governor - larget city mayor- so it is not a party vs party issue) - however to make one person the lightning rod and have others suggest how much better it would be with someone else is I feel very naive. The incompetence is deeper than George W. yes there are plenty of things to point at him for - with he and Cheney really owning the Iraq situation IMHO. -- but the total incompetence of the Louisiana leadership is also very evident and they put the mayor back in office -- sonmetimes you get what you ask for. -- there is a reason Mississippi is much further along - and it starts at the top -- -- that is what I objected to -- trust me I would not vote for George W in another election - so that is not my reason for the discussion, but really blaming him for everything on the face of the earth also not realistic -- he has lots of incompetent company
Originally Posted By jonvn I think Bush is a symptom and a symbol of a much larger problem. Yes, he's incompetent. But the entire government is incompetent, in a very literal sense.
Originally Posted By jonvn No. They aren't. People want to make money, and not much else. Aside from that, if you go into government, with the GOTCHA mentality that is so pervasive since watergate, you'd have to be crazy to do it even if you did want to perform service for less pay. I would never want to put myself in line for public scrutiny like that. It's simply not worth it.
Originally Posted By TomSawyer "Oh, I would say the one place to place the blame would be the federal government. In 1906, they sent in millions for reconstruction." Actually, Congress allocated $2.5 million and that was completely dedicated to the relief costs incurred by the military. No direct aid was given to SF by the federal government, and none of the federal money was used to rebuild the city itself. (<a href="http://repositories.cdlib.org/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1066&context=ies" target="_blank">http://repositories.cdlib.org/ cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1066&context=ies</a>)
