Korean Job Discussion Forums

EFLtrainer · Joined: 04 May 2005

The following story at Yahoo! is startling. Among the revelations the sad fact that studies and work to repair, improve and construct flood control projects gutted by Bush in favor of Iraq, even in the face of the massive hurricane season of last year.

The War on Iraq, a.k.a., The Insanity in the White House, has just claimed an entire US city. Read on:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ep/didneworleanscatastrophehavetohappen;_ylt=Apc.XvvpmZHdgd61Fm5E8kGs0NUE;_ylu=X3oDMTA2Z2szazkxBHNlYwN0bQ--

hypnotist · Joined: 04 Dec 2004 Location: I wish I were a sock

Bush misses the point of Bjorn Lomborg's doctrine, perhaps?

I'm going to be interested to see how this plays with the Global Warming armchair-scientist community in the US. Already seen some Harvard prof on CNN warning that this may be the first of many, given the affect warmer water has on the intensity of storms.

BigBlackEquus · Posted: Wed Aug 31, 2005 6:32 pm Post subject:

There are a fair number of people in the USA who believe that the people should know better than to build all of that in such a hurricane prone area, then expect the rest of the nation to clean up after it with money every time it happens.

I expect these discussions to start up again, as they once did in recent years after other hurricanes.

Is it fair for someone in New York to pay higher insurance rates to cover semi yearly destruction caused to homes in this area? Those people down there get a low-cost rebuild at the expense of others. This time, it hit much worse.

Dont know if its possible, but If I were living in America, Id try to find an insurance company that didnt offer insurance to people in those areas at all. It might keep my rates down.

And even though Id a staunch Liberal, to blame this on Bush only comes across as idiocy. The key to winning people over to the Liberal side isnt in making ridiculous statements like this. It only wrongfully paints Liberals such as myself as idiots who are pulling stuff out of their butts in a vain attempt to make Bushie look bad.

This style of the blame game is why weve lost two straight elections.

If we are ever to win an election again in the USA, then Liberals there need to get past the infantile BUSH BAD blame game, where we say Bush is reponsible for the dummest things, just like this post. It just makes us look like pure idiots to those in the middle.

Is it possible for us to offer anything to the public besides BUSH IS BAD?

Gopher · Joined: 04 Jun 2005

[deleted]

EFLtrainer · Joined: 04 May 2005

EFLtrainer · Joined: 04 May 2005

Gopher · Joined: 04 Jun 2005

[deleted]

BigBlackEquus · Posted: Wed Aug 31, 2005 7:32 pm Post subject:

No, my friend. The levies broke because of a natural disaster.

Citing Bush as responsible is you looking for a way to pin it on him. Look back and I am certain anyone could find another reason to blame somebody for it. Someone could blame the mayor. Someone could blame another public works project that received more funding. The list goes on and on.

Sadly, the other 55% of voters realize this, because its the same old thing those in control of my left party have been chewing on and spitting out for years. Bush bad. He is responsible. Right wingers are cooky.

Where has it gotten us?

Weve lost elections and continue to lose.

Thus, it has no effect other than to make us look like fools.

The American liberals need some new blood. Throw out babbling idiots like Kennedy, who is riding on his brothers legacy and put in some people who can do more than point fingers and whine.

Oh, how I miss clinton. He would have been great if he had kept it in his pants, not pardoned crimiinals, and as a Christian would say, robbed peter to pay for his own political paul.

EFLtrainer · Joined: 04 May 2005

Gopher · Joined: 04 Jun 2005

[deleted]

EFLtrainer · Joined: 04 May 2005

BigBlackEquus · Posted: Wed Aug 31, 2005 7:44 pm Post subject:

Gopher:

And sadly, brothers like you are why we are just shy of enough votes to turn the tide. You are too far overboard. You scare people in the middle. They will simply stick with the status quo because they dont see things as negatively as you do.

The middle range on the fence is not what we need to aim to turn. Aim to turn the far right wingers, and we will naturally draw the middle to us. And that will be enough.

We cannot do that led by overboard comments like yours. I am sorry, but that is merely how I feel. Dont change your vote.

BigBlackEquus · Posted: Wed Aug 31, 2005 7:47 pm Post subject:

EFLTrainer:

Let go of your hate. That leads to the dark side, and costs us votes.

I did read the article.

Gopher · Joined: 04 Jun 2005

[deleted]

desultude · Posted: Wed Aug 31, 2005 7:51 pm Post subject:

Yes, the insurance companies and the Federal government are to blame for the level of building in coastal regions that never sshould have been occupied.

Federally subsidised and guaranteed flood insurance is a program that was initially intended to protect small farmers from river floods in order to insure the national food supply.

Now it is required of anyone building in a flood prone, especially coastal, region, in order to get a mortgage. If the feds weren't supplying subsidised insurance, people would just not be able to build and buy those houses and condos on the shoreline. Shoreline property is not usually owned by the poor. In the Gulf States, many cities with poor people have sprung up along coast lines, but in general, as we used to say in Seattle- if you can see the water, you are Republican (in terms of precinct politics, it was largely true).

Now it is true that when it comes to flood insurance, everyone in the country is subsidising the home owners. The other homeowners insurance
is more market driven, and the rates vary by regions. The insurance companies' stocks didn't take a hit this week, but no matter what happens, in the end, they smell like roses. I heard once that the insurance companies were more powerful than the oil industry- I think it could be true.

One other thing about New Orleans- it used to be a lot less vulnerable because there was more coast and more swamp land around it. This all started diminishing when the Mississippi River became dammed and controlled. The vegetative and organic materials necessary to maintain the coast and the bayous got trapped by these developments up river, so ground was lost. On the other end, on the ocean side, we all know (well, most of us, anyway) that the coasts are eroding and shrinking due to global warming and climate change- the same thing that helped generate such a huge storm.

There is so much blame to go around. Almost none of it falls on poor who are there suffering the consequences, as is most often the case.