Limbaugh linked New Orleans humanitarian disaster to "the welfare and entitlement thinking of government"
On the September 1 broadcast of his nationally syndicated radio show, Rush Limbaugh linked the humanitarian disaster in the wake of Hurricane Katrina to "the welfare and entitlement thinking of government." Referencing an entry in the American Thinker weblog by Thomas Lifson, who asserted that New Orleans failed to develop economically due to a history of corrupt and intrusive government, Limbaugh claimed that the urban poverty underlying the current humanitarian crisis is a result of social welfare programs: "If you, as a mayor, or if you, as a city council, run a city based on the welfare and entitlement thinking of government -- bammo! -- you're going to get poor citizens!"
Limbaugh also accused city officials of "passing the buck all over the place and accepting all the money that the government's sending in to you," instead of taking the initiative themselves to fix the levee system that was designed to help protect the city from flooding. He added, "[S]ocialism versus capitalism; entrepreneurialism and self-reliance versus the entitlement mentality -- so much on display here. That's what nobody's got the guts to say."
From the September 1 broadcast of The Rush Limbaugh Show:
LIMBAUGH: So I run across Thomas Lifson's piece comparing Houston to New Orleans and why Houston shouldn't be the capital of the oil business in this country, but it is. And there are reasons for it. They have nothing to do with race. They have everything to do with politics. They have everything to do with worldview.
If you, as a mayor, or if you, as a city council, run a city based on the welfare and entitlement thinking of government -- bammo! -- you're going to get poor citizens! If you run a city that believes in entrepreneurialism and growth and so forth, you're not going to have as much of that.
But if your city believes that it's entitled, if that's, if that's the worldview of the leaders of a community, then I don't care what their race is -- if their worldview is that this is a welfare state -- "the government needs to protect us. The government needs to feed us. The government needs to transport us. The government" -- well, guess what? The government needs to build the levees. The government needs to make sure the levees are -- the government. You're passing the buck all over the place and accepting all the money that the government's sending in to you, ah, and then something like this happens and then you start, you know, wringing your hands.
"Oh, look how poor the population --" Well, what do you expect when you have a welfare state mentality as your city government? I mean, I'm not even being critical. I'm just trying to point out something obvious here! That -- talking about this for 18 years, folks -- socialism versus capitalism; entrepreneurialism and self-reliance versus the entitlement mentality -- so much on display here. That's what nobody's got the guts to say.
Media Matters: Limbaugh's Off the Wall spin on Michael Jackson's death
Howard Kurtz's wasted opportunity
Yes, BLAME THE VICTIMS. Feel better now?
"If you, as a mayor, or if you, as a city council, run a city based on the welfare and entitlement thinking of government -- bammo! -- you're going to get poor citizens!"
I didn't know that poverty began with the New Deal or the Great Society. What was that Oliver Twist stuff about anyway? It couldn't have had anything to do with 300 years of slavery and 100 years of Jim Crow. Nahhh, that is just crazy thinkin'.
I only hope that the next hurricane is precise enough to destroy all that he owns. I would say that he would cry, but snakes don't.
So, if the government is not supposed to protect and help the people, why have DHS, why have FEMA in the first place (that has been sucked up by DHS)?
I'm biting my tongue because since it's Rush - This stuff is to be expected.
Based on many of his remarks over the years, it's often seemed to me that Limbaugh's heart (if he indeed has one) must be hard enough to cut a diamond -- but in the face of tragedy such as this, this comment seems to take the cake. After all, Katrina affected plenty of hard-working Americans and not just the "undeserving poor" -- as a column on today's Slate Magazine makes all too clear. Here's the link -- [link to slate.msn.com]
On the other hand, if Limbaugh believes that the people of New Orleans deserve what has befallen them (as his words seem to suggest)...why bother with the benefit performance which he apparently has in the works? (Here's the link -- [link to kevxml2a.infospace.com] He deserves credit for that, I grant you -- but if he really cares about the people of New Orleans, then why make remarks which make him appear so utterly callous and indifferent to their plight? It doesn't seem to make much sense...
After listening to the clip, I have to ask Rush; who, in this capitalist utopia of yours, would build and maintain the levees of New Orleans? Would there be no levees? Would New Orleans not be allowed to exist, because building levees requires taxes? Should the government build anything for the good of the community?
I have to ask Rush; who, in this capitalist utopia of yours, would build and maintain the levees of New Orleans?
----------------------------------------
How about a private company, like "Dave Levees, Inc"? You can't possibly believe that without the Govt., things would not get done? Wait, you might, you're a lefty. Its a mindset.
Who pays Dave's Levees for their work?
And how would you get any sort of a fair legal system? How would anything be enforced from person to person? Would it just devolve into who has more money for more/better "security forces"? Heck why not, the justice system is already bent toward money as is anyway.
dave - Tuesday September 6, 2005 07:35:15 PM EST
Who would pay Daves levees for building a levee or what profit is there for a private company to build a levee? Maybe Daves levees is the first private company in the history of the world to build things out of the goodness of their heart for the public good
by solon - Tuesday September 6, 2005 10:21:07 PM EST -
----------------------------------
Dave's Levees Inc would have to be paid for by your local NO taxes. Being a capitalist, I'm not willing to do it for the "good of humanity". Being a private corp, I'm in the feild of making money for services rendered. Therefore, a charity job of that size is completely out of the question. However, I could do the job without the assistance of the US Govt. Thus the private sector wins again and Rush is right....again.
But Dave...
Taxes are disgusting.
by dave - Tuesday September 6, 2005 07:19:39 PM EST
are local taxes different somehow? Seems to me taxes are taxes.
So this company is still being subsidized with public funds. It does not matter whether or not the money is from the federal, state, or local government, it is still public money and therefore not private enterprise. Note to Dave, New Orleans is a POOR city, there probably is not enough money in the entire state of Louisiana to finance a project along the lines of levee construction and strengthening.
So, where's your outrage over the quarter billion federal tax dollar bridge to nowhere in Alaska?
Dave, I agree with you. Private companies should be used to do most things. However, the levee systems are not just a local issue. It should be paid by shipping fees for moving goods around in Ole Miss. Ultimately, you still have to pay, regardless of who takes the payment. Nothing is free, and you get what you pay for. Now, would you privatize the Defense Dept., the CIA, theTransportation Dept., and so on? Just how far would you go with your libertarian philosophy?
In any case, what Rush said was incorrect. Poverty has always existed, and aloways will. The best we can do is to mitigate the repercussions from it.
Like Dave said as a capitalist he doesn’t believe in doing anything for the public good, money is his singular motivator.
great comment.
dave's attitude exemplifies republican "morality".
by atheist - Wednesday September 7, 2005 05:10:14 PM EST
--------------------------------------
That's not what I said, but you already knew that if you read the quote. Nice spin, though, you get an A for effort.
In a way, I support Rush's opinion, that welfare is an enabler of slothful behavior, so whenever corporate American is ready to stop sucking the teat of governmental largess, I'm all for it.
Bingo.
what doughburly pillsboy is ignoring is that new orleans is an important port that serves much of the middle part of the country. the government has supported and maintained the levees for many years because they have an interest in keeping not only new orleans but the entire mississippi open to ship traffic. i was in vicksburg and natchez a few years ago and watched barge after ship after barge going down the river. [the national battlefield at vicksburg is well worth it if you are interested in the civil war.] as maureen dowd pointed out the recent 286 billion highway bill included a 230 million dollar bridge to an island in alaska with almost no people. that doesn't bother rush but a few million to protect a city of a half million does.
Wait! I have an idea! (As suggested to me by the various right-wing blogs and Karl Rove who are willing to spin reality their way).
Why don't we start writing that we "heard" that Rush suggested that folks start Charging for their rescue efforts so they would not be part of the "entitlement society". We could say that we "heard" Rush assert that a price be set to rescue those people sitting on the tops of houses or floating on top of wreakage. Perhaps $25 a head for an easy rescue and $50 or $100 for a tricky rescue. Additional money could be made by charging for water and food.
Rush says a lot of stuff, and in order for him to deny this claim that he wanted to charge for rescues, he would have to prove that he never said it. Negative proofs are so much more fun...
In San Francisco's experience: "You get more of that which you subsidize". Intended or unintended.
[link to www.sfexaminer.com]
Thank you Rush, thank you for pointing out what it is to be a conservative republican in 2005. You straight forward compassion is right on with Barbara Bush, you must be in the "Have and Have mores" otherwise you are untitled to anything from this administration. Thanks but actually I got the answers I needed last week watching the tragedy in New Orleans.
I wonder if Rush's bible-beating listeners are going to call him out on it. After all, doesn't the Bible say something about caring for the poor?
...and it also says something about not eating fish without scales right after that "man should not bed down with another man" stuff they always fall back on. These people pick and choose, remember?
Rush's listeners calling him out, imagine that. Imagine the sheer force of 20 million people suddenly coming to their senses. One could probably even hear such an event unfold. Ah, it would be a golden moment of enlightenment...wait, this is ridiculous.
by blueblood - Tuesday September 6, 2005 10:35:53 PM EST --------------------------
Fair enough Blue. I used the analogy the other day that suggested that if these same "poor" folks had prior notice that a nuclear strike was coming, they would've left. Why not for a killer storm?
Because a nuclear strike ensures certain death with NO chance of survival and a radiocative city for BILLIONS of years. Also, a nuclear strike is indefensible, whereas a flood of of epic proportions IS NOT. The death toll from a direct nuclear strike would be in the hundreds of thousands. Sure, the poor of NO would have left, but they would only be able to walk, since they had no cars and could not afford to rent any. Furthermore, there was NO inkling of a threat from a nuclear strike on New Orlenas, whereas there was PLENTY of evidence supporting the possibility of what recently happened in that city.
And many citizens of coastal regions have lived through hurricanes before. Plus, nearly everyone has read or heard about people who evacuated before a hurricane only to learn that the storm veered and didn't strike their home. These personal experiences lead people to believe that hurricanes are survivable, which they are, sometimes. But this mindset is not limited to the poor - plenty of people with the means to evacuate don't because they don't want to leave their homes available to looters. The poor, in particular, are very reluctant to walk away from the few material possessions they have.
Plato
You seem to be forgetting that it wasn't actually Katrina that took out New Orleans. In the initial aftermath of the storm, the city was fine. It was the levees breaking from being badly in need of both completion and repair, plus the HUGE amount of rainfall that caused the massive flooding. Which, ultimately, is the Shrub administration's fault because the last four years running they have slashed the very funding that would have allowed the levees to be fixed.
This is the misinformation that is being used to lay all of the blame at the foot of Bush. The fact is that during the past five years under Bush the budget for the levees has exceeded the budget the previous five years under Clinton. Additionally, I have seen conflicting reports as to which part of the levee system actually failed. Some have said it was an area that wasn't completed, but another report said the levees that failed were already completed projects.
I have a work acquaintance that grew up in Southern Louisiana, and still has relatives there, and he said that everybody knew that the levee system could not take a direct hit from a level 4 or level 5 hurricane, regardless of how much was spent to build them.
The levee system did not take a direct hit from a Cat 4 or Cat 5. The Cat 4 winds were well to the East of the city and Lake Pontchartrain.
There was a seven-year plan to replenish the levees so that they could sustain a direct hit from a Cat 3. The funds evaporated under Bush's watch. Then a Cat 3 storm surge broke the levees.
Is that simple enough for you, or shall I explain it again?
by k2 - Tuesday September 6, 2005 10:45:37 PM EST
--------------------------
And a good reply. Taxes are disgusting. I personally do not live in LA. I have enough trouble with my own taxes in NY. I will not benefit from levees built in NO. Will the folks that live there? Absolutely. Let them finance levees from whomever will build them.
So besides the whole, ya' know, "they should be considered your countrymen" aspect, you don't see the NATIONAL SECURITY issue here? You don't see how having that area secured quickly and always benefits the whole country? Weren't we supposed to be concerned with that sort of thing as a nation? Isn't that what these thugs were suppose to be strong on?
Because the majority of your coffee, bananas and grain come through the port of New Orleans. If that is all that motivates you to care about the welfare of your fellow countryman, then so be it, but you do live in a COUNTRY, and it is not New York, but the United States of America. If the tables were turned and I said screw you, pay for your own protection of the Indian Point nuclear power plant, then I would be saying that YOUR taxes would have to be raised to finance the project. But I care about my fellow countryman, and a disaster in one state is a disaster in my state.
"I have enough trouble with my own taxes in NY. I will not benefit from levees built in NO." Ah, but you do Dave, and you already know you do. How are the gas prices now? Well over $3/gallon here, and I am sure close to $4 for you. How about before New Orleans was wiped out? Prices here have gone up about 15%. And this will raise the cost of other goods as well, NATION WIDE. So yes, the levees around New Orleans were doing something for all of us. They were allowing commerce to flow up the mighty Mississip. Please stop posting until you think these things through, I hate to see you embarassed so often here. It's like watching poor Charlie Brown trying to kick that football Lucy is holding.
by blueblood - Tuesday September 6, 2005 10:51:48 PM EST
----------------------------------------------------
You are arguing that they may have been less likely killed in this storm and more likely killed in a nuclear strike? These people took that risk and lost. As far as I'm concerned, when you hear a storm of that magnitude is coming, you leave, walking if need be, but you are alive.
"when you hear a storm of that magnitude is coming, you leave"
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
...on foot, with no money, pushing grandma's wheelchair and carrying a couple of kids. If the (400 mile wide) storm hits before you get out of the area, well that's just too dam bad. Sucks to be poor. Did you read about the group of folks who tied themselves to each other to do just that? They're all dead now. Great idea, dave.
These people took that risk and lost.
Ah, the ugly underbelly of compassionate conservatism is exposed to the light of day. I'd love to see you say that face-to-face to that man who lost his wife right out of his arms in the storm surge.
by wanderwoman - Tuesday September 6, 2005 11:13:25 PM EST -
---------------------------
Yes, you push Grandma's chair and carry your kids. If not, you die, as you've stated. It does suck to be poor, but it serves no purpose to be stupid, as well.
"Yes, you push Grandma's chair and carry your kids. If not, you die ..."
=====================
From "dave", an insight into the thoughts of Bush, Brown, Chertoff & associates, and why people all over the world will see the deaths of thousands in Louisiana, Alabama and Mississippi.
The scenes of what unrestrained capitalism and government selfishness wrought gave the world an eye full. I think neo-conservatism will likely remain a domestic problem.
"It does suck to be poor, but it serves no purpose to be stupid, as well."
It apparently "serves no purpose" to be handicapped and without proper assistance too.
, but it serves no purpose to be stupid, as well.
____________________
Dave --
You said it. Now quit being stupid.
At 15 miles a day, by the way the length of a force march by the Roman legion -- really good marchers without "pushing Grandma" or carrying kids. If they would have left on foot they would have been in the hurricane's path without shelter. They can't afford to rent cars what makes you think they could rent hotel rooms? I can imagine being unprotected in 130+ winds. Can you? Deaths would have been quicker but probably no less in number.
The free market solution to flooding:
DEATH
On CBS tonight, they stated that people in Biloxi, MS, could perform the needed tasks without the Feds. They are not dependant on Feds for survival. And how about some self reliance here?
Biloxi recovers faster than NOLA does. Bet?
Recovers? Man, there is no more New Orleans! This isn't a little setback.
"[Biloxi, MS] is not dependant on Feds for survival ..." --dave
=====================================
Wrong again, dave.
"Even as local and FEDERAL health officials began their laborious inventory of toxic hot spots, help began arriving [in Biloxi] in other forms, including more NATIONAL GUARD troops and U.S. MARINES and a cherry-picker army of power-line crews."
[link to www.dfw.com]
"On CBS tonight, they stated that people in Biloxi, MS, could perform the needed tasks without the Feds."
Wow are you kidding? You just continue to display your ignorance or at least blind faith. Do you REALLY not see the difference between Biloxi and NO here? Wow...cut from the same Bushcloth
"On CBS tonight, they stated that people in Biloxi, MS, could perform the needed tasks without the Feds. They are not dependant on Feds for survival. And how about some self reliance here"
Would have been intersting if you would have cited your source. I have not heard of any body in power that is turning down federal assistance. Quite the contrary, they are accepting it graciously. In any case, they COULD is not the same as they WILL.
"Biloxi recovers faster than NOLA does. Bet?"
Biloxi will recover with federal funds. Bet?
Rush Limbaugh's radio program is carried on WWL 870 AM in New Orleans.
We pay taxes in the United States, Federal taxes to the IRS, state income taxes and sales taxes and county and city property taxes and school district taxes.
We pay those taxes to maintain our own community and the communities of other US citizens.
We pay taxes because it benefits us to provide these services to our neighbors, and our neighbors pay taxes to help provide us with services.
Sharing the burdens in this way we all have better lives. We all chip in a little, and pay for the roads that we all travel on. And because we have a good Interstate Highway system, we have less expensive goods that can be rapidly delivered to our communities from far away at a reasonable cost. And the goods that the factories in our community make can be sold for a profit across the country after travelling on those same Interstate Highways.
It benefits everyone to pay school taxes. Those taxes provide an education for all of our youngsters, and that enables many of them to work and become productive citizens. It benefits everyone to pay taxes that provide the bare necessities to those that are too poor to provide for themselves and their children. It keeps most of them from stealing in order to feed themselves and their kids. It keeps most of them from having to live on the streets, which would make our streets nastier and more dangerous and would endanger their health and lives. Giving them food stamps gives them that ability to feed themselves with restrictions so they must buy the cheapest available healthy food. That keeps them healthier than they would likely be without food stamps. Healthier people are better parents, better workers, better citizens, better neighbors, better Americans.
Paying taxes that redistribute wealth and provide goods and services to all Americans makes America a better place to live for all Americans.
Monkey, you are correct. The Social Darwinists, however, are not concerned with what is best for society; they slept through that civics class. They are only concerned with what is best for THEM, and Rush Limbaugh has helped make that conceit fashionable again. Greed, bigotry, and selfishness are back in style; that is Rush's legacy. In my generation, Archie Bunker was a comical figure; for the post-Limbaugh generation, he's a role model.
I buy into the idea of the need for taxes at the federal level to pay for those things which can be best provided by the federal government. Like a good highway system, national defense, maintaining a single monetary system, foreign relations etc etc. Then you close your post with how taxes are for "redistribution of wealth". One of the underlying problems that Rush may have been trying to point out is that the "war on poverty" has been hugely unsuccessful, regardless of how sits in the oval office. The idea that we can somehow tax ourselves into prosperity by taking money from "rich" and giving it to the poor just doesn't work.
The idea that we can somehow tax ourselves into prosperity by taking money from "rich" and giving it to the poor just doesn't work.
by asatru - Friday September 9, 2005 12:43:33 PM EST -
Another strawman argument.
If I'm a Straw man, then I am in good company. My comment is basically just a paraphrase of something said by President Lincoln.
At some point the level of taxation will be just right, and will lead to more prosperity. You can't use Lincoln's quote to claim that we are eternally on the "too high" side.
Sagra,
At what point, in your view, will the level of taxation "be just right?"
Yes, but your comment that we can tax our way into prosperity has nothing to do with a redistribution of the wealth in this country.
Redistribution of wealth because it benefits everyone to provide services and benefits and taxing our way into prosperity are two different issues.
That's why your tacking that sentence on at the end after discussing my post was a strawman argument.
I was not saying we should tax our way into prosperity. I said that taxes that provide services for the community benefit everyone in the community even if some individuals do not use those services. Having a good school system helps everyone, even those that don't have kids. Having good Interstate Highways lowers the cost of goods for everyone in trucking expenses. My post had nothing to do with taxes being related to prosperity. And my post was the one you were replying to.
Why is it that a mainly white (and Republican) state like Alaska can get a bridge to nowhere on the taxpayer's dime, but when predominately black New Orleans needs money to repair the levees, it's "welfare?"
The issues raised by Katrina in our political systems, social and education systems, media and communications networks cannot be solved by bumper sticker solutions raised by idiots like Rush, Sean, Ann and Bill. They are but one piece of the puzzle. This is a country formed and driven by race and increasingly divided by fear, fear of losing all we have in a heartbeat because there really is very little social net for our citizens. This is not new.
Socialist, Communist, "State-run", etc. are phrases thrown around by them to their audiences, who for the most part, have no idea what the differences are in the respective philosophies. The fact that these blog responses include these tags to malign individuals whose sense of community outweighs their individual interest is the real issue. The fact that Jesus had a lot more in common with Che than Jerry and Pat, Tom and George is lost on them. Actually one of their own, Jack Kemp, has more solutions to these problems than most of their other leaders whose will to win is more powerful than their will to serve.
Capitalism is the best system for individual achievment. But even John Locke advocated governments' role as a protector of the individual against the abuses of the powerful. Community, it is what made this country great and it is what we are now struggling to maintain. We will never get it back though by allowing these dividers free reign over our dialogue and our search for solutions.
instead of taking the initiative themselves to fix the levee system that was designed to help protect the city from flooding. He added, "[S]ocialism versus capitalism; entrepreneurialism and self-reliance versus the entitlement mentality -- so much on display here. That's what nobody's got the guts to say."
Ok. Two things.
First, the city has/had no authority to mess with the dykes. That's a fed jurisdiction. Pure. Simple. And that's probably a good thing.
Second? Socialism? Um. See, I live in Hamburg, Germany. Which would be pretty close to Holland. Holland would not be considered a hotbed of rightwing politics...but they have not had a devestating dyke break for almost a half century.
Dudes like Limbaugh...they need to read more. And then, like get out...and check stuff out. But if your world is a 28 million dollar mansion and first class flights to and from NYC...your perspective can get pretty perverted. (at least I bet it would)
So the city should have paid for all evacuations and for any hurricane releif needed. My question is, which city? This hurricane not only hit New Orleans, it hit 3 different states. How can one city, or even one state be responsible for things occuring across state lines? At that point it has to become a federal issue (even if you wrongly believe if it had just hit LA it would be a state issue). Anyone know how much Jeb's state got in federal relief after it's last big hurricane? I don't recall anyone saying he should have handled it better so he wouldn't need federal help.
BINGO!!!!
3 state disaster=federal problem.
Key words.
Obviously Blanco failed to take the one step that could have saved her state -- she failed to marry Neil Bush.
rush mocks the belief that the government should be responsible for the levees, as if this was somehow a product of wooly-headed 60's liberalism. in 1928 a hurricane hit south fla's lake okeechobee and pushed the water from the lake into the south shore towns like belle glade. over 2000 people died. in the next four years the army corps of engineers built a large dike around the lake and maintains it to this day. and the name of it is....the herbert hoover dike, named after the conservative republican president who saw the funding was there.
Why the heck does DHS have such a HUGE budget if we are not supposed to depend on them in times of crisis? We pay for a service when we pay taxes, and the DHS has failed to provide that service. This has nothing to do with welfare mentality.
>> This has nothing to do with welfare mentality.
I think you're ignoring a totally different welfare class -- political operatives who helped the Republicans gain power and now expect their just rewards.
Is there any societal or economic problem that isn't the liberals' fault? Just asking.
Nope, I think you can pretty much blame it all on them.
Liberals: All Bad
Conservatives: All Good
I feel so much better since I realized this. No more messy shades of grey. No personal responsibility. No more troubling complex thoughts. Wow! That stuff is hard work. Well, I better head back to the ranch, there's some brush needs clearin'
"..If you, as a mayor, or if you, as a city council, run a city based on the welfare and entitlement thinking of government -- bammo! -- you're going to get poor citizens!"
It's true, it's true...
If it's true then why can't anyone back it up?
Wow. You got that exactly backward.
Where does he get off assuming that all poor people are on welfare? Lots of people work very hard just to make it from day to day.
So once again we let the dems off the hook. The FACT is they were in power.-by vrwc
***
No; it is not a matter of letting the Dem’s off as you say. The Dem’s in this case were local government. With the exception of the locals the rest of the country is not at the mercy of the Governor Louisiana and local New Orleans Mayor.
The bigger picture that affects us all is the fact that our Federal Government is unable to handle a disaster occurring on its own soil whether that disaster is natural or terrorism. In the shadow of 9/11, after four years of Home Land Security, and we are still unable to cope. That is a problem for us all. Local Dem’s are simply a problem that affects the locals and not the rest of the country. That is why concerned citizens are focusing on the lack of competence on the federal level.
We care about our fellow citizens and that is why we offer our assistance to the people devastated by this disaster. We are worried about the security of this country and that is why we turn to the federal government for answers.
by lostlogic - Thursday September 8, 2005 11:39:30 AM EST -----------------------------
I agree with your post. When you have days to prepare a response to a disaster, one would THINK that various scenarios would be played out in advance by State and Federal government agencies. What I saw was nothing short of pure incompetence.
This hurricane didn't just appear out of thin air like 9-11 did; these things can and are tracked minute by minute for crying out loud. Heads should roll. That's a conservative viewpoint believe it or not.
Actually Mike Foster was governor of Louisiana from 1996 to 2004. You might want to blame him too if you are going to blame Democratic governors. You didn't give any facts to support your arguement except that Democrats have been in charge most of the time.
How are welfare laws in Louisiana any different than is Texas? If the laws are not significantly different, then Limbuagh should call Texas a welfare state also.
The whole concept of "welfare moms" or "welfare state" should have ended when major national welfare reform happened in 1996. There are no more people getting welfare for more than 13 months. If somebody doesn't get another job after that, the checks stop coming.
Many cons like Limbaugh talk as though people had been getting free money forever in New Orleans.
by bruce1ace - Thursday September 8, 2005 11:50:37 AM EST ------------------------------
Bruce, completely agree with your post. And taking it one step further, some of the blame does come down on the residents who chose to stay despite all the warnings. Pure stupidity. But I know I can count on a response from those on the left about how these people were "poor" and could not possibly be expected to use their brains to get out even though they had advanced warnings. And besides, GW hates poor folks....and blacks.
GW hates poor folks....and blacks.
by dave
The only part of your post that is true.
Bruce, completely agree with your post. And taking it one step further, some of the blame does come down on the residents who chose to stay despite all the warnings. Pure stupidity. But I know I can count on a response from those on the left about how these people were "poor" and could not possibly be expected to use their brains to get out even though they had advanced warnings. And besides, GW hates poor folks....and blacks.-by dave
***
Dave, you say you completely agree with Bruce but the rest of your post proves you missed the point.
Whether or not you want to ascribe some of the blame to the folks that chose to stay is not what is relevant. The point was it matters not what the locals did in this particular situation. What we all need to look at is how unprepared the federal government is to handle a disaster on our soil. That is what effects all of our security in these unstable times.
by lostlogic - Thursday September 8, 2005 12:49:20 PM EST ----------------------------
Didn't miss the point. Bruce advised that we should blame everyone at all levels, Feds, State, local, etc. I added the part about personal responsibility of the individual who also can take some blame. If you want to solely blame the Feds, so be it. Bruce wanted, and rightly so, to spread the blame around.
Of course the blame should not be exclusively laid on one individual or entity. The locals let the residents down, the state and the federal government did as well. To say differently is denying the truth to advance one's political agenda.
And I agree the resident's should shoulder some responsibility here as well. If this has taught us anything is that we need to be prepared to care for ourselves for a short period of time if a disaster occurs, the government at any level is not always on our doorstep immediately to help.
If this has taught us anything is that we need to be prepared to care for ourselves for a short period of time if a disaster occurs, the government at any level is not always on our doorstep immediately to help.-by tommy
***
Good afternoon Tommy
What do you consider ¡±a short time¡±? I read an earlier post where they said they had a 72 hour kit ready to go in case of emergency. I think that is great but these people were left without assistance for more the three days. So how long should we have provisions for?
I don¡¯t know about you but I pay an obscene amount in taxes. Now I understand some of my dollars go to help others and some go to things I may not agree with. But I do expect a certain return for my contribution. DHS has a large allotment of our tax dollars so is it unreasonable to expect a return on that investment? Same way I expect my streets swept as part of a return on my property tax, I expect DHS and FEMA to efficiently respond to emergency situations. I don¡¯t consider that lacking personal responsibility I consider it reasonable return for my tax dollars. If the right wants to say this is not the responsibility of government then perhaps they should cut off funding for DHS and FEMA.
lostlogic,
Good afternoon, I totally agree with you on the taxes and what we should expect from our government - no argument there. My only point was sometimes what we expect does not happen and that, in a matter of life and death, we need to be prepared for ourselves and families. However, that does not mean we don't hold these people's feet to the fire regarding their accountability in all of this - we absolutely should.
lostlogic, Good afternoon, I totally agree with you on the taxes and what we should expect from our government - no argument there. My only point was sometimes what we expect does not happen and that, in a matter of life and death, we need to be prepared for ourselves and families. However, that does not mean we don't hold these people's feet to the fire regarding their accountability in all of this - we absolutely should. by tommy
***
I understand what you are saying and I agree to a certain extent. But I’m not sure how you protect yourself and your family from all the “what ifs”. You could put in place provisions to see yourself through the “attack” in this case the attack being the hurricane. But it is the aftermath that is so difficult and sometimes impossible for the individual to prepare for. And that is why we fund DHS and FEMA. We expect these government agencies to be there to help in the aftermath. We expect them to have plans in place for getting that assistance to us in a timely and efficient manner. Not only did these agencies not respond timely and efficiently they prevented others from doing so too…and that is nothing short of criminal.
But I’m not sure how you protect yourself and your family from all the “what ifs”.
----------------------------
Why not? You have no problem asking the Feds to do it.
Why not? You have no problem asking the Feds to do it. by dave
***
Dave
You don’t really actually read my post before responding with some preplanned message do you?
I’m not asking the feds to do it…I’m PAYING them to do it. Don’t know if you pay taxes but as I said I pay plenty so I expect them to do what we are paying them for.
You must realize the individual does not have access to the same resources the Federal government does. Well, guess what Dave…we pay for them to have those resources so they can provide assistance at these times.
by lostlogic - Thursday September 8, 2005 03:41:46 PM EST -----------------------------------
Of course I read your posts before responding. They are quite funny.I understand you pay taxes, as do I. I do not expect the Govt. to take care of all my needs as you do because I pay taxes. I have a better grasp on my families needs than do the Feds. I take proper steps to make sure they are safe, fed, etc. Its the left who believe that the Govt is more prepared to handle my families needs. I would've gotten my family out there, that was the rational thing to do, whether I'm paying the Govt to save me or not.
And most of the people like you, that have computers, that have vehicles, that have credit cards did get themselves out of New Orleans.
But what about those that could not? What about those that get a monthly check and had no cash, no bottled water on hand, no ready to eat food in their pantry? What about those that were disabled and have no private transportation? What about those that feared the criminals that lived in poor sections of New Orleans and wanted to stay behind to protect the few material possessions that they had from looting?
They deserve help.
What about the people that could have left but stubbornly did not choose to leave? People that made grave errors in judgment and so are really suffering now? Should they get pulled aside and get no aid, since they are suffering from their own stupidity?
Or do we help everyone, even if they are suffering from their own stupidity? Many were too poor to leave - their only options were to stay in their homes or travel either by foot or by city bus to the shelter of last resort, and they needed to provide their own food and drinks.
So, there were some few people that were financially capable, like you would be Dave, of leaving town who did not. Do we punish them, starve them, let them drown or catch some horrible disease from the putrid water? Or do we help even those that were too stupid and stubborn to leave, because they are all victims? I'm disabled, and have no car. Luckily in my town, we have great public transportation opportunities, and so I can call for an individual pick-up if I am in a location that the general bus routes don't service. I have family so they would have helped me evacuate in an emergency, but I see older people every day that don't have the same community resources that I do.
Of course I read your posts before responding. They are quite funny.I understand you pay taxes, as do I. I do not expect the Govt. to take care of all my needs as you do because I pay taxes. I have a better grasp on my families needs than do the Feds. I take proper steps to make sure they are safe, fed, etc. Its the left who believe that the Govt is more prepared to handle my families needs. I would've gotten my family out there, that was the rational thing to do, whether I'm paying the Govt to save me or not. by dave -
***
You are still missing the point. Your focus is too narrow. I too would like to believe that I would have removed my family from the danger of the hurricane if warned. I too would like to believe we have the ability to take care of ourselves. But this is an untested belief on my part so unlike you I wouldn’t speak in absolutes on the subject. I have not been in the mist of this type of disaster so I can’t honestly say how I would react.
However, my point from the beginning of this exchange was not how they handled a hurricane. It was the fact our government could not handle the aftermath of a disaster.
Dave, I am sure you are well equipped to protect your family from a hurricane and would have removed them from the area. But what about the terrorist attack that gives you no warning? That is the crux of the argument; if the way DHS and FEMA handled the aftermath of this disaster is indicative of the way they will handle a terrorist attack of this magnitude and its aftermath then they are not holding up their end. If they can’t hold up their end why are we funding them?
Lostlogic wrote: "Not only did these agencies not respond timely and efficiently they prevented others from doing so too…and that is nothing short of criminal."
I don't know if its criminal, (that is another discussion,) but it is self evident the government did not quickly help all these people. I think Tommy and Rush do have it right. We expect the government to protect us, but the sad fact is, it does a very poor job in the face of physical threats, of doing so.
No doubt the people working at those agencies are concientious and well meaning and do as much as they can. It is just the nature of the beast that prevents them from helping the way you and I expect it to be done.
As an example take police protection. We expect the police to protect us from physical violence, but rarely they do. How many murders, muggings, rapes, assaults, robberies, etc. occur in the country every year? We've grown to accept all sorts of mayhem when we shouldn't accept any of it. How can the government protect us against a robber? Only if they are there can they do something. Can they be everywhere? Obviously no.
How about natural disasters? The government (state, local,and federal) isn't set up to handle anything of the scope from Katrina.
My home was without power for 7 days over Christmas due to an ice-storm. In that time the temperature went below zero. Clearly a dangerous time at my house. It took days to even remove the trees that had fallen over the roads. We were lucky to have a place 30 miles away that had heat. 29 of us had a very cozy Christmas.
It is a wakeup call to all of us. Unless something drastic happens and govt changes, we cannot count on them to save us in moments of regional or even local disasters.
It is a wakeup call to all of us. Unless something drastic happens and govt changes, we cannot count on them to save us in moments of regional or even local disasters. by anotheramerican
***
Hi anotheramerican
So am I to understand you think it is ok we are funding emergency response agencies that are unable to respond efficiently to an emergency?
I don’t know what you expect from the police but I don’t expect they can see into the future and prevent crime before it happens. I would expect them to provide protection if they knew the crime was going to occur, I would expect them to enforce the law when someone violates it, I expect them to provide a presence that will help deter crime and I believe they do their job very well.
Now what do you expect from homeland security and an emergency management agency? I will tell you I expect them to be at the ready to respond to EMERGENCIES. It is there job to be planning for these types of contingencies. If they were unable to respond efficiently when they have a warning, then how pathetic would the response be to a terrorist attack with no warning? DHS had previously warned us that dams and levees were a potential target. So what did they do with this knowledge? I can tell you what has become apparent…they didn’t prepare a plan to deal with the aftermath if their prediction of a dam or levee attack happened. This is what they get paid for…it is what we pay them for with our tax dollars.
Now you say we can not count on the federal government for these disasters then who do we count on when the problem is too big for the individual? If your answer is local authorities and the private citizens and corporations pull together to help, well that is a dandy idea too bad the federal agencies prevented them from helping when they came to the rescue. Why? Because FEMA was “in-charge” and they prevented outside assistance until they could decide “how best to utilize the resources".
anotheramerican - Thursday September 8, 2005 03:53:00 PM EST
When large disasters strike it only makes sense to deal with them with a large allocation of resources. That way the cost is spread around to the entire pool of citizens. So when an Earthquake happens in San Francisco, a huge disaster that would swamp any state or cities ability to put huge resources into the area to alleviate suffering. Everyone pays a bit, then when a Tsunami strikes Alaska like in 64, a hurricane in New Orleas, a series of Tornadoes in Kansas, the cost of providing immediate help to those citizens is spread around. We are all in this together, we need to care when our brother is in need or pain or danger. Those who are saying I got mine, screw you, are not being good citizens. My fellow Americans DESERVE better than that. A disaster can strike anywhere, anytime and when we spread the cost, as well as the danger, we are ALL better off for it.
Well said. And even just being sort of cold and pragmatic, it's economically advantageous for government to have a major role. I don't think govt should tell people who don't want to wear a motorcycle helmet but when the same person has ends up with a 400K/yr rehab tab, guess who pays it? Same in Iraq, we can't leave. Iran or a regressive, dangerous Islamic regime might prevail (might anyway, but we're stuck now with trying to decrease the probability of this happenning). The downside risks just in terms of pragmatics, costs, security - in both cases - are just too great. In the case of Iraq, I feel we also owe it to the people to at least leave them better off than they were under Saddam and hopefully even if it takes a decade or two, we'll help found a government where the citizens have a voice.
Lost Logic
What country are you in, or what kind of a keyboard are you using that you are getting symbols in your posts instead of simple appostrophes and other punctuation?
Lost Logic What country are you in, or what kind of a keyboard are you using that you are getting symbols in your posts instead of simple appostrophes and other punctuation? by monkey
***
LOL. Annoying isn’t it. Unless you consider NY another country, like some, I am in the good old US of A. I am using my computer while commuting so sometimes when I am on the road these weird characters appear in my posts. Must have something to do with the wireless connections.
Didn't miss the point. Bruce advised that we should blame everyone at all levels, Feds, State, local, etc. I added the part about personal responsibility of the individual who also can take some blame. If you want to solely blame the Feds, so be it. Bruce wanted, and rightly so, to spread the blame around.-by dave -
***
My earlier response was deleted so I will repeat: Yes Dave, you missed the point entirely. You attributed words to Bruce¡¯s post that were simply not there. I assume you did this to make your argument appear relevant to the exchange between Bruce and me You are trying to argue against statements that were not made in the exchange, instead of addressing the actual point.
The question was never if we should solely blame the federal government for the events that took place in New Orleans. The point was the federal government¡¯s inability to deal with a disaster on our own soil is what is relevant to the security of all of us
And this exactly what the Dept of Homeland Security was established to do; maintain security on the homeland. And in their first large scale disaster since its creation, they were asleep at the wheel for 2 days. Local and state officials do bear some responsibility, but DHS did not live up to its name, and deserves every bit of criticism for failing to come through while an American city drowned. That's what's important here; not hurricane preparedness, not whether or not people could have gotten out [who was supposed to drive those 250 busses?], not even foreknowledge that the levees would fail [strictly in terms of disaster response, this is an afterthought], but a painfully delayed response that resulted in many more needless deaths.
Wow, someones been on a flagging frenzy here. To bad, some very interesting discussions are now gone.
And, as I'm sure you've noticed, the threads get "archived" prematurely, before they're off the home page.
They get archived after 3 days - 72 hours.
I complained to Media Matters via email that especially over the long weekend it seemed really foolish.
I have done some research into older threads, and it looks like this is a new change. Since I've only been posting a week, I have known nothing else, but it seems too quick to me.
If they can’t hold up their end why are we funding them?
by lostlogic - Thursday September 8, 2005 06:09:58 PM EST ------------------------------------
Agree with that completely. Why are we funding them? Sorry that I missed your point. :)
Agree with that completely. Why are we funding them? Sorry that I missed your point. :) by dave
***
Cute. (-:
But to tell you the truth this is the closest you have come to understanding my point. Now I assume from your comment you do not think we should have emergency response agencies in our federal government at all. You perhaps are a proponent of “every man for himself and if beyond your capabilities rely on the kindness of strangers approach” to disaster management.
On this we do not agree. I think we do need these types of agencies to deal with catastrophic disasters. But I think they need to be filled with those who are experienced in emergency management. I think they have to do more then come up with pretty color systems and periodic warnings without purpose to remind us to be scared of the latest potential target. I don’t think they should only be required to put on their best game when the disaster strikes before an election. There job is an important one and the results of that job have serious consequences.
Somebody's upped their Oxy-Contin dose again!
So Florida after four hurricanes never got and federal aid. hmmmmm Go Flrida.
I wonder how many synthetic heroin (oxycontin)pills did rush chew on before spewing that crap?