Louisiana Gov Blanco said they can't even come up with their share of the cost. Should our government spend so much money on New Orleans?
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070823/ap_on_re_us/katrina_levee_improvements;_ylt=At9BgMOBH6HLpfi0westeM5vzwcF
2007-08-23 08:22:21 · 24 answers · asked by Jasmine 5 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
People underestimate just how important the city of New Orleans is to this country. Below is an excerpt from www.levees.org:
The Port of New Orleans is the largest in the US and the fourth largest in the world. Sixty two percent (repeat, 62%) of the consumer-spending public in the United States receive their goods through the gateway at the Port. New Orleans was founded 288 years ago on high ground along the Mississippi River and 125 miles inland from the Gulf of Mexico. The River's depth decreases dramatically north of the city, and so New Orleans is as far upriver as possible to accommodate large ocean going vessels.
The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, who is responsible for the building and maintaining of the levee system, now admits that engineering mistakes made by the federal government — and not a great storm — caused the overwhelming majority of the damage in the New Orleans area.
This being the case, of course the govt should foot the bill at least partially for the rebuilding of this important city port.
2007-08-23 08:39:21 · answer #1 · answered by Rae 2 · 4⤊ 1⤋
The levees were--and are--the responsibility of the federal government-specifically the Army Corps of Engineers.
The neocons in Congress spent years refusing to honor that OBLIGATION--despite warnings from the ACE and independant scientists and engineers. but had no problem spending BILLIONS on projects like Sen. Stevan's "bridge to nowhere" in alaska.
Now--after their neglect caused over a thousand needless deaths and the destruction of New Orleans--and after Bush has violated his promisse to see to it the people of New Orleans would get help rebuilding--the neocons want to make a pretense that the "federal government isn't responsible."
Guess what--they are. And all the neoconservative "spin" won't wash the guilt for those deaths away.
Consider it blood money, if you want. But don't try to pretend that the federal government has noobligation to rebuild those levees. The do.
2007-08-23 08:30:45 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 5⤊ 1⤋
It's a dicey issue. I really don't have a problem with the Federal Government spending money on repairing and improving the levee system outside New Orleans, but I have a BIG problem with all these entitlement-minded idiots saying the Federal Government should foot the bill for rebuilding the entire city. Have you heard people in coastal Mississippi or Alabama (who also had their businesses and homes devastated by Hurricane Katrina) whining to Club Fed to have them fix everything? Nope -- they've been doing it themselves by working hard, coming together as community, and helping each other. THAT is the true spirit of America, and that spirit has been largely lost on a huge segment of our population who have decided that our government somehow "owes" them.
2007-08-23 08:28:16 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 4⤊ 3⤋
A nation that cared about its citizens would.
A sociopath nation would rather spend the money to continue the genocide of the Iraqi people.
Save lives or murder? What do you think the US will do?
By the way, even thirdworld countries like Venezuela offered to help the victims of Katrina. The US' gov could not even do that.
I thought New Orleans was part of the US cultural heritage.... isn't it selfish to dump them when they need help? What kind of a society does this? WOuld a christian society do this? would communists do this?
I just don't think so. It is time to think about what type of society you want to be a part of.
2007-08-23 08:29:54 · answer #4 · answered by Washington Irving 3 · 5⤊ 2⤋
Yes. Rebuilding New Orleans with radically improved levees is a worthwhile endeavor; the war in Iraq (as long as we're on the subject of astronomical sums of money) is not. And the latter is far more costly in every sense of the word, incidentally.
2007-08-23 08:27:23 · answer #5 · answered by David 7 · 3⤊ 3⤋
of course. The reason the levees broke in the first place is because they weren't up to par.
I'd rather see my money go there than to the Iraq war. It's about time Bush learned we should take care of our own people.
2007-08-23 08:35:47 · answer #6 · answered by Lily Iris 7 · 3⤊ 1⤋
Certainly not!!! It might interfere with the 12 billion dollars a MONTH we are spending to save Iraq from the Iraqis.
2007-08-23 09:02:06 · answer #7 · answered by Daniel E 4 · 2⤊ 1⤋
No, because if another Category 4 or 5 hurricane hits that area the EXACT SAME THING will happen. They just need to close New Orleans to people seeking permanent residence. Isn't that city below sea level anyway?
2007-08-23 08:26:18 · answer #8 · answered by Still Beautifully Conservative 5 · 3⤊ 3⤋
No, I think that if you choose to live below sea level that you get you some scuba tanks or whatever. It is rediculous to try and maintain this place. When the French settled the area they did not build in these places, it was only the arrogant Democrat congress who said we must do this.
There are far better things to do with this money, like let the citizens who the money belongs to, keep some of it.
2007-08-23 08:44:13 · answer #9 · answered by Make My Day 2 · 2⤊ 3⤋
No I don't think so. The next big hurricane will just take them out again.
If the people of Louisiana and New Orleans want to pay for it, let them.
2007-08-23 08:35:05 · answer #10 · answered by Sean 7 · 1⤊ 3⤋