The Bobcat Nation

Am I wrong here or is this going to be the first time that the government has paid to rebuild an area hurt by a natural disaster. Other than things like roads it's may understanding that the rebuilding was done with things liket tax relief, not just free government money.

Ponycat wrote:Am I wrong here or is this going to be the first time that the government has paid to rebuild an area hurt by a natural disaster. Other than things like roads it's may understanding that the rebuilding was done with things liket tax relief, not just free government money.

It's a nuevo "New Deal" approach, it appears. I, too, am worried about the sheer volume of Federal funds being promised to the area. I have little faith that it will be spent wisely, am I suspect quite a few people will make themselves very, very wealthy off of this whole thing.

At some point, we really do need to realize that we can't simultaneously believe in cutting taxes and dramatically increasing spending year after year. There has to be a little pain/sacrifice on one side or the other. It feels like an "everybody wins" when we're running up the proverbial national credit card, but it's going to suck when we have to pay it off.

Something tells me it won't be the looters (not the ones we saw on TV a couple weeks ago, at least) who get rich quick on this N(Scr)ew Deal. It'll be the looters by a different name (again -- Halliburton), only unlike Iraq they'll have figured out a way to make it not so obvious. Don't get your hopes up America. N.O. may come back, but in what form? Wal-mart's version of a city? I know, I know, beggars can't be choosers.

Halliburton is liberal speak for Bush is crooked. That could be argued both ways pretty effectively but I'm not convinced Halliburton is the evil corporation every one says and I think that Halliburton is going to be the least of our worries because people keep a close eye on them. The corruption and political favoritism in New Orleans is rampant and is only going to get worse with the government guaranteeing money like they are. This is going to be the bigger problem because all your going to hear is "use local companies and workers" wink wink, my buddy who isn't qualified but could sure use some guaranteed money.

Just my opinion.

Yes, it's the yellow brick road of government spending. A very, very good article about this subject in yesterday's WSJ. The gist of the article was that the Republicans have become *GASP* the new Democrats in terms of spending on Katrina relief.

DON'T SHOOT THE MESSENGER, just relaying the news!

why do we want to rebuild a city that is below sea level. Just buy everybody out and let them buy or build a new home or business above sea level and out of a flood zone. this should be Fems new policy. If a claim is paid, you have to sell your property to the government. The government will then return the land to wetlands.

Let the lake and river reclaim the bathtub.

Is this so unreasonable or I am a racist.

[quote="Ponycat"]Halliburton is liberal speak for Bush is crooked. That could be argued both ways pretty effectively but I'm not convinced Halliburton is the evil corporation every one says and I think that Halliburton is going to be the least of our worries because people keep a close eye on them. The corruption and political favoritism in New Orleans is rampant and is only going to get worse with the government guaranteeing money like they are. This is going to be the bigger problem because all your going to hear is "use local companies and workers" wink wink, my buddy who isn't qualified but could sure use some guaranteed money.

Just my opinion.[/quote]

Actually it's common sense speak for Cheney is crooked, but that isn't informing anyone of anything. But, yeah, I'm not convinced Halliburton is an evil corporation anymore than I'm convinced that the Yankees are an evil empire. If you set up a system that allows for one company/team to have an advantage over its competitors, then so be it. I just like to take pot shots at Halliburton you know me.

[quote="BobCatFan"]why do we want to rebuild a city that is below sea level. Just buy everybody out and let them buy or build a new home or business above sea level and out of a flood zone. this should be Fems new policy. If a claim is paid, you have to sell your property to the government. The government will then return the land to wetlands.

Let the lake and river reclaim the bathtub.

Is this so unreasonable or I am a racist.[/quote]

Sean Hannity was saying the same thing yesterday. His answer is to give each person $100,000 and tell them to move out or whatever they want to do. Still it's a lot of money and the shame is that the federal government and current administration did not heed the word of the NOAA, Corps of Engineers, and the NO area public and build better dikes. Even it that had cost $2 billion, look at what it would've saved. ($35 billion using Hannity's proposal)

Yes, it would be a great wetlands reclamation project. But there has to be a human side to this issue as well. I think the Bush Admin. and Congress should take a little more time deciding what it wants to do, but time isn't something they have on their side.

iaafan wrote:

BobCatFan wrote:why do we want to rebuild a city that is below sea level. Just buy everybody out and let them buy or build a new home or business above sea level and out of a flood zone. this should be Fems new policy. If a claim is paid, you have to sell your property to the government. The government will then return the land to wetlands.

Let the lake and river reclaim the bathtub.

Is this so unreasonable or I am a racist.

Sean Hannity was saying the same thing yesterday. His answer is to give each person $100,000 and tell them to move out or whatever they want to do. Still it's a lot of money and the shame is that the federal government and current administration did not heed the word of the NOAA, Corps of Engineers, and the NO area public and build better dikes. Even it that had cost $2 billion, look at what it would've saved. ($35 billion using Hannity's proposal)

Yes, it would be a great wetlands reclamation project. But there has to be a human side to this issue as well. I think the Bush Admin. and Congress should take a little more time deciding what it wants to do, but time isn't something they have on their side.

i agree with hannity but for different reasons. if you give everybody 100 grand to do with whatever then they will spend it all, but if you give them a choice to either buy another house or to goto college and make their lives better it will be better spent

Hannity's proposal leaves out building infrastructure for these people who will still needs roads, water works, and other public services. Unless of course he plans on taxing the $100,000. That'd leave about $60,000 per person. Also the ports and refineries, and private businesses were damaged or ruined.

I love the idea when I visualize the president of Conoco getting his $100,000. "What's that? Ya say you lost $18.3 billion. Well here ya go. $100,000 outta getcha going again." "Heh-heh, heh-heh, heh."

Please don't think I'm defending Hannity but I don't think he was actually proposing giving everyone $100,000 he was trying to make a point the $250 Billion might be a little obsurd and even though I cringed I had to agree with him on that.

$250 billion I guess we'll be hearing about the $500 hammers again real soon.

I listened to a congressman from Louisiana today talking with Judge Napolotano in for O'Reilly and thought he had a far better and more thoughtful plan than any I'd heard. Things like tax insentives, and a temporary halt to capital gains taxes for people rebuilding