|
Post by goods on Jul 16, 2008 7:46:39 GMT -5
JimB FEMA was not setup to be the primary source of diaster relief. Do you really think it makes sense for someone in New Orleans (or anywhere) to wait for help from someone 2000 miles away? JC stop being a fucking prude.
|
|
|
Post by JimB on Jul 16, 2008 8:12:14 GMT -5
Do you really think it makes sense for someone in New Orleans (or anywhere) to wait for help from someone 2000 miles away? In the abstract, of course it doesn't make sense. But in your lousy example of Katrina, the kind of help needed wasn't available within 2000 miles. There's no infrastructure in place anywhere that allows for rebuilding on that kind of scale in a short period of time. There weren't enough materials, labor, security, anything. There wasn't even food and clean water. FEMA is supposed to provide the band-aid until the infrastructure gets set up, and they failed to do so. And I suspect most New Orleanians would take issue with your assumption that they were just "sitting around waiting". I have no idea where you got that idea from.
|
|
|
Post by goods on Jul 16, 2008 9:07:04 GMT -5
It must be nice to look at the world with your liberal colored glasses. The failure wasn't the Feds, it was the individuals, it was the mayor, it was the governor... It was the corrupt politicians of New Orleans who took the money allotted to improve the infrastructure and funneled it to cronies. When you give up responsibility for yourself and your family to government you are asking for problems.
|
|
|
Post by freckles on Jul 16, 2008 9:11:33 GMT -5
They Live in a Swamp
They have to put the Dead above ground
They have Dirt piled up to keep the water out
They live in a Hole
In a Wet Muddy Swamp
What else can you say ?
|
|
|
Post by sheyd on Jul 16, 2008 9:26:20 GMT -5
So what you are saying, Goods, is that because there are a few corrupt politicians or incompetent people, or because the systems fail sometimes, we should have no system in place? We should essentially tell everyone else to go to hell and only look out for "our own people"? What you want is a wild west type of society where we all live or die based on the vagaries of the moment or the generosity of our family? This would be great for those who HAVE money and power. For those who hit hard times, for those with less family, and for things that contribute to the greater good (like roads, schools, the environment) it would pretty much be terrible. I thought we were supposed to be more advanced than that? I thought we had evolved enough to realize that people ARE basically selfish and self-centered if we don't have some governing body, and that the few really bad ones would totally overwhelm the rest?
I am all for personal responsibility - but I am ALSO for SOCIAL responsibility. I think that is the basic difference. Think beyond yourself and your family to your neighbors, your city, your state, your country, your world. Not just the people, but the things that make this world great. Take care of your own problems the best you can, but there is no shame in needing help from others, and there should be great pride in being willing to help others. That is what makes humans above squabbling beasts.
|
|
|
Post by goods on Jul 16, 2008 9:35:42 GMT -5
Yes that is exactly what I am saying..... (rolleyes) What I AM SAYING is "Think Globally, act LOCALLY" I am saying that responsibilty starts with the individual, that is what made this Country what it is today, the greatest country in the history of this little blue marble floating in space. Leftest think government starts in Washington DC and ends with the individual, Conservatives think it starts with the individual and ends with the Fed.
|
|
|
Post by sheyd on Jul 16, 2008 10:22:38 GMT -5
This would be great for those who HAVE money and power. For those who hit hard times, for those with less family, and for things that contribute to the greater good (like roads, schools, the environment) it would pretty much be terrible. ... that the few really bad ones would totally overwhelm the rest? I disagree with how you see Leftists and Conservatives - I think responsibility starts with the individual - and a BIG part of that responsibility IS in supporting the government, AND our fellow humans. I see conservatives as self-serving. I want to keep what I have, and I don't care what happens to anyone else. Most conservatives HAVE more money - so they can afford to do that with less fear. People who have less family, or fell on hard times, or can't get out of poverty no matter how hard they try, or have had natural disasters occur - those people realize how interdependent we are and are more supportive of social programs. We all disagree on which ones are important and how best to run them, of course, and how much money should go to each, etc - but we generally support the idea that our resources pooled help us all in the end.
|
|
|
Post by Mel (cherry) on Jul 16, 2008 10:27:02 GMT -5
I see conservatives as self-serving. I want to keep what I have, and I don't care what happens to anyone else. Most conservatives HAVE more money - so they can afford to do that with less fear. People who have less family, or fell on hard times, or can't get out of poverty no matter how hard they try, or have had natural disasters occur - those people realize how interdependent we are and are more supportive of social programs. Really?? That is funny........
|
|
|
Post by sheyd on Jul 16, 2008 10:44:33 GMT -5
Not that that is true of ALL - my dad is a fiscal conservative, even though he has heavily relied upon various social programs throughout his VERY hardworking life. Which never made much sense to me that he then says we shouldn't spend money on social programs.
And that is fiscal conservatives - many are conservative for "values" reasons- which doesn't match with the idea of not having government get involved in peoples' lives- since that conservativism is usually about dictating morals. Family values, religious values, etc.
|
|
|
Post by goods on Jul 16, 2008 10:49:03 GMT -5
Shey... you really are backwards on this. Traditional "Blue States", Traditional Democrat strong holds are much more wealthy than "Red States". AND those "Red State" folks give more money to charities than the "Blue Staters".... Conservatives are very giving people as a whole, they just don't want the Government taking from them. www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/03/conservatives_more_liberal_giv.html
|
|
|
Post by Mel (cherry) on Jul 16, 2008 10:50:18 GMT -5
wow Shey, I never realized how blindly flaming liberal you really were............. *shakes head*
|
|
|
Post by sheyd on Jul 16, 2008 10:58:35 GMT -5
I wouldn't say blindly, Cherry - but the only reason you didn't KNOW I was a liberal is because I didn't post my opinion as a general rule where there would be newbies, and people would have to TALK to me personally. Those who know me know my politics, and those it bothers I am happy to not discuss it with them.
And Goods - I give quite a bit, every year (as many on here can attest), but my numbers won't show. I don't take tax breaks for any of my giving. One liberal, showing zero donations... where are the numbers from that coming from?
|
|
|
Post by JimB on Jul 16, 2008 10:59:52 GMT -5
It must be nice to look at the world with your liberal colored glasses. The failure wasn't the Feds, it was the individuals, it was the mayor, it was the governor... It was the corrupt politicians of New Orleans who took the money allotted to improve the infrastructure and funneled it to cronies. When you give up responsibility for yourself and your family to government you are asking for problems. Look. Disasters are apolitical. Katrina didn't lean to the left as it ripped the shit out of New Orleans. There is plenty of blame to go around for how the aftermath was handled, but the Feds are due their share. There's nothing political about a federal agency that has a specific responsibility - disaster relief - and fails utterly in that responsibility. It's just a fact. What you don't seem to understand is that without the governmental involvement you abhor, life in this country would be very, very different. If every individual has to attempt to foresee every conceivable 100 year disaster that might come his way, our society comes to a standstill. You end up with a bunch of individuals living in concrete bunkers, stockpiling weapons, and saving every penny for the next disaster. Let me try to explain it in a term you might understand: "negative economic growth". Our country didn't become great through paranoia - it happened as people took risks. If every individual has to apply so many of his own resources to self-preservation, it reduces the resources that individual can apply to societal and economic growth. Again, not a political statement, but a simple sociological fact. There are cases where the government must play the role of short term insurance agent. I'm open to debate on the degree of that role in a lot of areas, but disaster relief isn't one of them. We must have the ability to deal with disasters, because we're not able to prevent them, either as individuals or in groups.
|
|
|
Post by Mel (cherry) on Jul 16, 2008 11:01:20 GMT -5
Oh believe me Shey there isn't any way to hide that you are a liberal. I will be back to discuss this, because I am interested in speaking my point of view and discussing both mine and yours. And I can tell you why your dad probably feels the way he does.........it is easy to see why if you have ever had to be in that place.
|
|
|
Post by shattered on Jul 16, 2008 12:36:58 GMT -5
Your lack of compassion astounds me, and you're wrong on so many levels I just don't know where to begin. Do you believe rape is a failure on the victim's part, as well? Suffice to say that Katrina was NOBODY'S FAULT. Bad shit sometimes happens. It's not our place to sit in judgment of people forced to choose between homelessness at home or homelessness on the road. I suggest that if your entire legacy as a human being, along with that of your whole family, happened to be tied up in your home, you wouldn't find it very easy to turn your back on it, no matter what the circumstances. Every social system has abusers. The school system has them, the legal system has them, the governmental system has them. So naturally, social welfare systems are going to have them too. We pay attention the best we can and try to install competent people (unlike Michael Brown) to oversee them. It galls me that you have the nerve to suggest - without any proof - that the abusers are the rule rather than the exception. Katrina was a special case. Whether you like it or not, an infrastructure (FEMA) does exist to assist people in case of disaster. Right or wrong, people have come to expect government aid when their personal assets are suddenly reduced to zero (or less). That aid system FAILED. Your little hierarchy of personal responsibility breaks down completely when you place a person and their entire community in a situation where the basic needs of food, clothing and shelter are unmet. So much for painting with a broad brush - looks like you might have to narrow that focus just a tetch. Jim, I agree with much, if not most, of what you say here, but I think it's a mistake, not to mention unfair and communication-killing, to accuse people with a different approach of lacking compassion. Yes, of course some people lack compassion, but unless you know for sure that someone does, I really think it's better to stick to facts only and not toss around insults like that. And goods, to my knowledge, has never given any indication that he lacks compassion. Just saying. ; ) shattered
|
|