Old Man G Funk said:
I think that sums up the argument pretty well.Pre-Katrina video released
- Thread starter Old Man G Funk
- Start date
I think that sums up the argument pretty well.
No the problems aren't that difficult to think about. It's actually relatively easy to break down the chain of responsibilities (they were and are very clearly defined), and there were failures at all levels. However, the responsibility for coordinating the response effort is unquestionably with FEMA. That is not arguable. So any failures in the coordination are the fault of FEMA.N8 said:
What is arguable is the cause of those failures at FEMA. The failures that occured DID not occur in the Hurricane Andrew response, nor in the 9/11 response (though neither of those were perfect, they weren't complete cluster****s). The major difference in the operation of the department between those and Katrina was its incorporation into the Dept of Homeland Security, and not surprisingly a majority of the major failures can be traced to the new layers of bureacracy created by that move. Again, this is not arguable. Now you can argue all day about who is at fault for the creation and design of Homeland Security, but at the end of the day, unless these problems are addressed Homeland Security was and will continue to be a very very bad thing for our domestic emergency response. I feel like there's some irony there, but that would be opinion and I want to stick to the facts.
ooooops!!!
Clarification: Katrina-Video story
ASSOCIATED PRESS
WASHINGTON (AP) _ In a March 1 story, The Associated Press reported that federal disaster officials warned President Bush and his homeland security chief before Hurricane Katrina struck that the storm could breach levees in New Orleans, citing confidential video footage of an Aug. 28 briefing among U.S. officials.
The Army Corps of Engineers considers a breach a hole developing in a levee rather than an overrun. The story should have made clear that Bush was warned about floodwaters overrunning the levees, rather than the levees breaking.
The day before the storm hit, Bush was told there were grave concerns that the levees could be overrun. It wasn't until the next morning, as the storm was hitting, that Michael Brown, then head of the Federal Emergency Management Agency, said Bush had inquired about reports of breaches. Bush did not participate in that briefing.
Clarification: Katrina-Video story
ASSOCIATED PRESS
WASHINGTON (AP) _ In a March 1 story, The Associated Press reported that federal disaster officials warned President Bush and his homeland security chief before Hurricane Katrina struck that the storm could breach levees in New Orleans, citing confidential video footage of an Aug. 28 briefing among U.S. officials.
The Army Corps of Engineers considers a breach a hole developing in a levee rather than an overrun. The story should have made clear that Bush was warned about floodwaters overrunning the levees, rather than the levees breaking.
The day before the storm hit, Bush was told there were grave concerns that the levees could be overrun. It wasn't until the next morning, as the storm was hitting, that Michael Brown, then head of the Federal Emergency Management Agency, said Bush had inquired about reports of breaches. Bush did not participate in that briefing.
Whether the levees were breached or overrun, people have known for a long time that a Cat. 4 or Cat. 5 hurricane hitting NO would have catastrophic effects, including wide-ranging flooding. Some even suggested that only the third floor of buildings would remain above water.N8 said:
So, how is this an oops?
...and the Liberal says "Yay, I am perfectly willing to work harder and pay higher taxes so those less fortunate than I can receive the benefits that they so desperately need!" Or at least I am; you conservatives can horde your money for all I care.The Amish said:
maybe it wasn't such a good idea to give yr weed hookup direct withdrawal powers.The Amish said:
kinghami3 said:
Well, they say that when they are poor college students anyway... doesn't last too long afterwards though.
i dunno. not me.The Amish said:
Care to back that up with some numbers? How much of every tax dollar goes to actual welfare?The Amish said:
So, how much it too much to pay for taxes?The Amish said:
So, would you want to abolish all taxes?The Amish said:
Back on topic, I'm still waiting on N8 to tell me how that was an "oops" moment (that he jumped on as if it somehow refuted something...)
Here's a good take on that...
http://www.ucomics.com/tedrall/2006/03/04/
(Note: For those of you with short attention spans, it's a short cartoon.)
Here's a good take on that...
http://www.ucomics.com/tedrall/2006/03/04/
(Note: For those of you with short attention spans, it's a short cartoon.)
NOt all, some go towards basic services that everyone uses such as roads, bridges, and parks. BUt things that get double taxed such as used cars where your paying tax on something that was already taxed when it was originaly purchased, or the death tax where its basicaly like tipin a corpse upside down and shakin out all the change. Those taxes are just obsurd. I dont neccesarily want to get rid of all the taxes collected that go to welfare cause theres alot of people with genuine need, but I think the practice of handing these people cash which often winds up getting spent on crack and 40's needs to be changed so there's no way of spending the money on anything but basic living neccesities such as food clothes and shelter.
So, you object to taxes on used cars (which is a sales tax) and the inheritance tax. Um, neither of those come out of your paycheck.The Amish said:
If you are objecting to how the taxes are used, that's a different story. It generally wouldn't affect how much money is taken out of your paycheck, however. If the government doesn't spend it on welfare, it will find some other way to spend it, as evidenced by our amazingly large deficit.
As an aside, do you know how much of the tax revenue is actually spent on welfare?
This year alone were projected to spend about $530 billion dollars between state and federal welfare programs. I dont even think theres a billion people in the entire country so that means were all buying about $500 of crack a piece this year and we wont even catch a buzz
Actually the US population is just under 300 million. So if you take into account that people on welfare aren't contributing to the tax base, we're each probably buying about $2000 worth of crack this year. But I for one WILL be catching a buzz, just not with that crack.The Amish said:
http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/L-runawaywelfare.htmThe Amish said:
By the way, $530 billion is more than we spend on defense, which is the largest item in the budget. Your numbers are way off (as shown in the link above.)The Amish said:
Those numbers are from 1992. Give me 15 years of data to play with, and I could prove anything.Old Man G Funk said:
It might be 15 years old, but do you really think that we have changed that much in that amount of time, especially since the Republican controlled Congress passed a "welfare reform" measure in the mid 90s?Echo said:
If you truly think that we spend $530 billion dollars on handouts to poor people, you are truly off base. If that is the correct number, it is only because a lot of other programs were lumped into it, like student loans. Most of the money does NOT go to the poorest part of the population. The link I cited showed that the poorest part of the population (16.4%) got only 17.8% of the money. Your complaints are mislaid.
I have no f*cking idea how much gets spent on welfare, and frankly I don't care, because when it comes down to it, we are all going to get taxraped by the government, no matter who we "elect" (even though we don't really "elect" our leaders), no matter how much we bitch about it, and no matter what they tell us they are spending it on, because our entire system of government in the US is severely flawed.Old Man G Funk said:
My point is that if you give me 15 years of numbers (approximately 4 presidency terms) and let me choose which year's numbers prove my point the best, I'll have no trouble picking a year that does a nice job of proving me right. And if you truly believe that link you posted represents an unbiased subjective viewpoint, you my friend are the one who is deluded.
In Y2000, combined state and federal spending:
* Medical assistance to low income persons cost $222 billion or 51 percent of total welfare spending.
* Cash, food and housing aid together cost $167 billion or 38 percent of the total.
* Social Services, training, targeted education, and community development aid cost around $47 billion or 11 percent of the total.
The second item is the one people usually mean specifically when they say 'welfare.'
* Medical assistance to low income persons cost $222 billion or 51 percent of total welfare spending.
* Cash, food and housing aid together cost $167 billion or 38 percent of the total.
* Social Services, training, targeted education, and community development aid cost around $47 billion or 11 percent of the total.
The second item is the one people usually mean specifically when they say 'welfare.'
Because that one year was an anomoly? I don't think so. Anyway, I found this link that you might find interesting as well...Echo said:
http://web.hku.hk/~hrnwlck/sweldata/welspend.htm
Looks to me like in the 8 years from 1992 to 2000, Medicaid went from $76 billion to $222 billion, and AFDC went from $12 billion to $167 billion.
Any guesses as to what has happened to those numbers in the 6 years since 2000? OMGF? Perhaps Amish's numbers aren't quite so "way off base"?
Any guesses as to what has happened to those numbers in the 6 years since 2000? OMGF? Perhaps Amish's numbers aren't quite so "way off base"?
Looks to me like OMGF's link conveniently picked the year right before everything went through the roof. Just like I said.ohio said:Well here's every year from 1929-2000. Which one proves you right?
It looks as though one is talking about federal and one is talking about state + federal.Echo said:
Edit: Oh, and there's 8 years between 1992 and 2000.
A) Um, I don't know how you get that, considering where 1992 falls on the curve (hint, the x-axis, or the bottom line, is where you find the year.)Echo said:
B) I think Ohio's question holds. Which year proves your point?
Outstanding job of avoiding the questionOld Man G Funk said:
Or maybe you just have trouble with comprehension? You don't have to answer that one.Echo said:Outstanding job of avoiding the question
You are the one really guilty of question avoidance as I see you avoided Ohio's question.
OK smartass. Use your superior intellect to open MS Paint and draw a line straight up from about where 1992 would appear (hint, it's shortly after 1990). Then pull your head out of your ass and notice the approximately 30% increase in the blue area of the chart (hint, it's the one that designates cash, food, housing) from 1992-2000. I don't suppose your dazzling mind power noticed that this chart displays in "corrected" currency either? (I don't have time to explain to you what that means) Do you think the graph flattens from 2000-2006?Old Man G Funk said:
I answered ohio's question, but let me do it again for the mentally challenged (OMGF): your link chose the year 1992 for its sample statistics (and didn't use corrected currency either) which was right before a major jump in the numbers.
