I can not agree with you in 100% regarding some thoughts, but you got good point of view

I can not agree with you in 100% regarding some thoughts, but you got good point of view

I can not agree with you in 100% regarding some thoughts, but you got good point of view

I can not agree with you in 100% regarding some thoughts, but you got good point of view

came across our site doing some research coming from this other domain but as I can see it has nothing to do with “incest”, guess its a mistake

I can not agree with you in 100% regarding some thoughts, but you got good point of view

I have become my own version of an optimist. If I can’t make it through one door, I’ll go through another door – or I’ll make a door. Something terrific will come no matter how dark the present.

I can not agree with you in 100% regarding some thoughts, but you got good point of view

well really i can?t understand…

Great blog and I really enojoyed reading it. I appreciate your effort and the quality of the information you provide.

i’m going to be the frirst person to be 20007 word my blacks

Signed,

Disgusted in Texas

Seth II says: The Governor and Mayor involved have not, to my knowledge, acknowledged anything.

Look around a little. They did indeed acknowledge mistakes.

http://www.usatoday.com/printedition/news/20050915/a_katrina15.art0.htm

Governor, mayor acknowledge mistakes
Louisiana businesses reopening

USA Today, Page 3A
09/15/2005
From staff and wire reports

NEW ORLEANS — Louisiana Gov. Kathleen Blanco admitted “failures at every level of government” in the response to Hurricane Katrina on Wednesday. New Orleans Mayor Ray Nagin also conceded missteps.

…In an evening address to a special meeting of the state Legislature in Baton Rouge, Blanco said she shouldered blame for her state’s situation.

“The buck stops here, and as your governor, I take full responsibility,” said Blanco, a first-term Democrat.

“We all know that there were failures at every level of government: state, federal and local. At the state level, we must take a careful look at what went wrong and make sure it never happens again,” she said.

Nagin also struck a more conciliatory note.

“We could have all done things better,” Nagin said.

Seth II says: That’s my main beef about this: failures at all levels, but the state and local levels are the ones who passed the buck.

Two things:

1) State and local levels did not just pass the buck. They did make an effort to carry out the approved emergency response plan. Blanco did file an urgent formal request with the federal government for assistance before the hurricane struck. Sure, Nagin could have ordered the mandatory evacuation sooner, and he could have gone above and beyond the plan by trying to use more buses and other tranportation to get people out. Blanco seemed to hold things up at times instead of facilitating a faster response.

2) The key to remember here is that state and local levels simply did not have the resources (manpower, vehicles, special vehicles, expertise, other logistics capabilities, federal powers/priority/overarching authority). So you can say the local and state levels made mistakes, but the simple fact remains that they could not have done enough regardless. That’s what counts. You can’t squeeze blood from a stone.

And back to the topic: What is the priority? A fair election where as many of the electorate as possible have good opportunity to cast their vote? Reaching out to a population that was poor before, has nothing now, and is scattered over multiple states? Avoiding the appearance of the impropriety of excluding many black votes such that it takes away a win for Nagin? Giving American citizens at as much of a opportunity to participate in democracy as we’ve given to Iraqis? I don’t think you answered any of these arguments, and these are right on topic.

ProgRex: Thanks for the commendation. I honestly didn’t come here to troll. “You libs,” is troll-breath, and I try to stay cleaner than that. I received a lot of that kind of attitude, but I can’t call the regulars here, “trolls”. It’s just the atomsphere, I came to learn.

Both: It seems we all agree that failures occurred on all levels. Bush and Chertoff agree that failures occurred on all levels. The Governor and Mayor involved have not, to my knowledge, acknowledged anything. I do believe in “the buck stops here,” but part of it stops at each level. So many people are holding Bush accountable for the state and local failures in addition to the feds. That kind of thinking interferes with real solutions.

Failures can occur at every level, that’s why we don’t invest all of our faith in the federal response first. One of you said it: the feds are the last line of defense. Even if they had arrived in full on schedule, everybody who drowned in NO was already, sadly, gone. The suffering of the survivors was compounded by the late response, but the death toll would not likely be much lower.

That’s my main beef about this: failures at all levels, but the state and local levels are the ones who passed the buck. The feds are now investing a lot in the rebuilding. My employer, Shaw, has one of the contracts and many of my friends have spent a lot of time out there helping. It’s not perfect, but it never is. The “pass the buck” mentality allows people to blame Bush for every shortcoming, and that’s not going to help anybody solve any of this.

I’m actually closing out my visit to this site. This topic is slipping off the radar anyway, but I’m glad we could exchange some reasoning on it before I left.

From your source:

Over at least the past several budget cycles, the Corps has received substantially less money than it requested for the Lake Pontchartrain project, even though Congress restored much of the money the President cut from the amount the Corps requested.

In fiscal year 2004, the Corps requested $11 million for the project. The President’s budget allocated $3 million, and Congress furnished $5.5 million. Similarly, in fiscal 2005 the Corps requested $22.5 million, which the President cut to $3.9 million in his budget. Congress increased that to $5.5 million. “This was insufficient to fund new construction contracts,” according to a U.S. Army Corps of Engineers’ project fact sheet. The Corps reported that “seven new contracts are being delayed due to lack funds” [sic].

1. So, in FY 2004 the Corps asked for $11 million, Bush allocated 3, and Congress restored it to 5.5? That counts as “restored much of the money the President cut from the amount the Corps requested” ??? My math says Bush slashed it to about 1/4 of the request, and Congress upped it to 1/2. That does NOT qualify as “much” in my book.

2. Then in FY 2005 the Corps asked for $22.5 million (had to pay back the borrowing that covered the shortfall from 2004), Bush allocated a measley 3.9, and Congress restored it to 5.5 (again 5.5)? My math says Bush slashed the request to 1/6 of the amount, and Congress upped it to 1/4. That does NOT qualify as “much” in my book.

I thought it sounded fishy — “restored much of the money” — and indeed it was.