Here we go again

Osterkraut wrote: As citizens, or as a government? As a federal government, or as a state/local government?

Yes.

What should we as citizens do.
What should we encourage our (state/local) governments to do. What should we expect their (state/local) governments to do (in this case NO, and Louisiana). What should Our (federal) government be prepared to do, and be expected to do.

I'm not trying to be argumentative, I'm not trying to flame, or otherwise disparage anyones remarks. I think we all have valid opinions that come from our collective backgrounds, and the fact that we as a country can voice those opinions, and for the most part, be heard and respected is what makes this country great. However, The last part about respected tends to take a bit of a nosedive in election years..

nocones wrote:

MrJoshua wrote: Ignored!

What is the purpose of this post? If it's to let us know you're ignoring this thread, your obviously not. If it's to point out that you've read something some one has posted and didn't feel it needed a response, you've failed.

You too are being ignored!

ignorant wrote: duke.. you advocate killing people

I do? That's news to me. Quite the opposite, in fact - I believe that a person's life is their sacred possession. That doesn't make me responsible for it, though.

Please show me where I said we should send in the National Guard to kill anyone that stays in New Orleans. Oh, wait, it was the good citizens of NO that were shooting at the National Guard! I get it - this reversal fits right in with the rest of your "I know you are but what am I" thinking.

ignorant wrote: and letting them drown...

Now you're getting somewhere. They were warned to evacuate, with several days' notice. They didn't. They left more than a hundred empty schoolbuses to flood, right next to a high and dry road. A large and potentially deadly hurricane comes toward that area every berkeleying YEAR... What is the nation's responsibility? Should we each drive down, take a New Orleans resident by the hand, and personally make sure they stay somewhere above sea level?

ignorant wrote: ohhh and because you admitted you would help people.. means I won..

Ummmm, let me think, NYET. How does that follow in any way? All it means is that you've incorrectly stereotyped me as a puppykicker and failed to grasp the proper application of charity. No one resents helping people in dire emergencies. But if you repeatedly save people from the consequences of their own actions, it doesn't take very long for them to learn that there are no consequences that they need to worry about. That has a lot to do with why we're in some of the social messes that we are currently in.

And besides...

ignorant wrote: have fun with your little hate filled life..

...means that I won.

Why do you say I hate? Because I refuse to believe that every other person in the world is my responsibility? That doesn't mean I hate them. I'm not their responsibility, either. I'm filled with admiration for the people that left NO when they were warned to, and have stayed away. I've met several and even hired one. It takes guts and hard work to move away from your lifelong home and start over somewhere safer.

On the other hand, if your life is repeatedly repaired for you, all that is required to stay in danger is obstinance and laziness.

ignorant wrote: your behind the keyboard bravado is staggering.

Bravado? Have I yet stated that I'm going to come over there and kick your ass? Have I yet made any ad hominem attacks on you? I've said that you blame Bush for everything and that your arguments lack logic and reasoning. Both of those are pretty much true as demonstrated by the words you've typed, and they are both aimed at the statements you've made.

Osterkraut wrote: Duke is more than welcome at the Gainesville House of Guns, Greed, and Grain.

Thanks. I'll bring the beer. I don't own a weapon any more, but I know how to use one. I'm an architect and a decent shadetree mechanic. Hopefully there's a useful spot for me.

nocones wrote: Again there is a lot of blame to go around, but what should we do going forward? These people are on welfare, they don't own their own homes, they don't have jobs, and they live below sea level. When there house is flooded and they are forced out it's not like they can just raid their savings and relocate. They can't get a job because they are homeless.

Why can't they get a job? I hired a guy who was relocating from Katrina, and at the time I worked for a big corporation, not some fly-by-night cash employer. He didn't have an address, but he was diligent and worked hard. It wasn't impossible for him to get back on his feet - it just took effort and some sacrifice. His wife also found work and they've since had a baby in their new home here in the Midatlantic area.

nocones wrote: I'll admit they might not want to change their situation and that's their fault, but we as the people signing their welfare checks do have the obligation to either restore their living to the way it was on our dollar in NO, or Pay for them to move somewhere else and get them back to where they were before. By offering welfare in NO we set ourselves up for this.

Why, again? Because we have before, we always have to? I disagree wholeheartedly. The point of charity is to get good people over temporary hard times. The point of charity is NOT to make it so they don't need to be responsible for themselves.

nocones wrote: I'm not a Democrat or Republican...

Neither am I.

nocones wrote: but one thing I've noticed about a lot of the republicans I know is their father, grandfather, mother, etc. sacrificed a lot and instilled hard working values in them so they really came out of the box into a successful life, had a good education, lots of oportunities, etc.

Maybe that should be used as a positive example for those that don't.

nocones wrote: ...where they lose me is when they can't understand that someone from the Ghetto's parents gave them crack, and weren't there, and they had no start in life.

This being the Grassroots board, I'm sure we can find dozens of success stories from people who had "no start" in life.

It doesn't take much of a start in life to realize that you need to work for your living. But that realization is made MUCH harder when you've been taught that the government will take care of you if you don't.

I've seen plenty of day laborers that work for cash, buy their food and a night in a flop house, and can sustain themselves indefinitely that way. No education, no training, no "start" in life - but no dependency on the public dole, either. These aren't illegals, but American citizens. It's a narrow life, but there are no guarantees of a wide one. Most of the ones worth hiring wouldn't take welfare because they don't think it would be right if they can work.

But again, if the government has trained you to expect it to take care of you, then why would you bother?

nocones wrote: And they say things like, these welfare babies are just living on my dime, and support ending all these social programs. They have no plan for these messed up people, and aren't prepared for what will happen when they pull the plug. These people aren't just going to die, they are going to rob and steal to survive. I don't have the answers, and I really don't think either party does. However if our country, and everyone in it can get past this us verse them mentality of Rep. V. Dem, liberal v. conservative, and deal with the real issues and the reality of where we are we will be a MUCH better country for it.

I've done lots of renovation work at public housing projects. I've seen filthy, abused houses full of Rent-A-Center stereo equipment, game consoles, etc. These are the ones who have been trained that their lives are someone else's problem. I've seen cared-for, clean houses with a Goodwill sofa and a coffee table made of milk crates. These are the people who need a little public assistance and you can trust to get off it as soon as they possibly can.

During the course of one renovation, I met one woman who was the unofficial 'mayor' of the housing project. She was all up in arms about how the tenants were getting inconvenienced, etc. while we were fixing up their free houses for free! She mentioned that she had been one of the project's first tenants. That meant she'd been living there for almost 30 years.

Tell me again how this is constructive? Tell me again how this is helping anyone - teaching new generations that they will be taken care of with little or no effort on their own part.

This problem falls squarely on the shoulders of FDR and the New Deal. We're not going to solve a problem 75 years in the making overnight. We're certainly not going to solve the problem if half the population can't even recognize it as a problem.

But we have to start somewhere, and soon.

Duke's experience with the free housing tenants reminds me of something that happened several years ago with one of my dad's properties.

Back when my dad was selling his (now demolished) apartment complex, a potential buyer came in and made a presentation to the tenants concerning his plans. My dad was present at the meeting as well. The prospect was going to have the property converted to Section 8 (gov't subsidized housing).

There was an 'unofficial mayor' at this complex as well. The prospective buyer laid out his plans for the Section 8, which would have reduced the rents to almost nothing (like $10 a month!) and for a new community center with a seriously large pool, clubhouse, etc. This 'mayor' stood up and said, 'How big is this pool?' Measurements were given, pretty darn big (Olympic size, according to Dad). She said, 'That's not big enough. And it needs to be indoors.'

Needless to say, the deal evaporated. The guy told my dad to keep the earnest money, he just wanted OUT.

Duke wrote:

ignorant wrote:.... Blah, blah, blah

Well put, Sir Duke.

Duke said:This problem falls squarely on the shoulders of FDR and the New Deal.

I berkeleying love you.

That was a good post, Duke, covering a lot of the problems we face today. Yes, 75+ years in the making won't be fixed tomorrow. A natural human desire to want to help those less fortunate than ourselves has been perverted to a nanny-state and 4th generation welfare recipients, run by people who find it very easy to give away someone else's money. Educating people so that they see there is a problem is the start, and boards like this are a good place to do it. CBS certainly never will, as keeping people poor like those you describe means they can be controlled and others can be richer off the rest of our money.

JM, that pool was pretty funny, and typical. No matter how much you give them, it is never enough.

I got it..

we're arguing past each other.....

http://www.anonymousliberal.com/2008/09/mocking-service.html

That explains a great deal though,

computer crapped out in posting...

The reason why I started getting angry and arguing in that manner was the way that people were saying they shouldn't help people period. No help.. None.. I do not necessarily equate help with money, but a good deal of you do.. So.. my example about helping a drowning person works. because you would help people. individually you would.. period..

but.. when money comes into it.. you're alittle more tight fisted and that exposes some real problems with our society..

you advocate letting people drown which is in essence killing. but that's beside the point..

Effectively.. I proved you would help people.. which you didn't want to do .. so I win. In my own demented way.

on another note.. you might be a happier person if you started separating everything from money.

btw..

I win.

Duke wrote: why, again? Because we have before, we *always* have to? I disagree wholeheartedly. The point of charity is to get good people over temporary hard times. The point of charity is NOT to make it so they don't need to be responsible for themselves.

I don't dissagree with you. Long term Welfare reform needs to happen, and happen now. We should help people who need help. However in this situation we were supporting people on welfare in NO, their houses went bye bye, this isn't just our convenient jumping off point to tell them, you had your chance goob bye.

Duke wrote: Maybe that should be used as a positive example for those that don't.

I totally agree, and we need to use our social programs to help people when they are truly in need and to show them that these people worked hard for their kids, and themselves and recieved good rewards for that work.

Duke wrote: This being the Grassroots board, I'm sure we can find dozens of success stories from people who had "no start" in life.

I'm absolutly certian you can. I'd seriously hope, no one on this board who is into motorsports as a hobby is living in anyway off of welfare/foodstamps/etc. while actively pursuing a "project car". I know you can find people who have risen from nothing to greatness. You can find people who had the world handed to them and squandered it to nothing. This still does nothing to deal with the issues that the current systems have. Just pointing out, some people were successful obviously doesn't convince these people to pull themselves up and get off these programs. We need to try something different.

Duke wrote: It doesn't take much of a start in life to realize that you need to work for your living. But that realization is made MUCH harder when you've been taught that the government will take care of you if you don't.

Again, I totally agree, but some of these people didn't even have "much of a start". We MUST change our social programs to NOT teach people that the government will take care of you if you don't. They MUST teach personal responsibility, and only help as long as it takes to teach that. The issue is really two sided. What programs would actually work is one decision that needs to be made and explored. And the other is what to do with the people who are dependent (either through choice or circumstance) on the current systems. Personally on this 2nd part, I feel we can't just shut them off, unless the new programs are ready immediatly.

Duke wrote: I've seen plenty of day laborers that work for cash, buy their food and a night in a flop house, and can sustain themselves indefinitely that way. No education, no training, no "start" in life - but no dependency on the public dole, either. These aren't illegals, but American citizens. It's a narrow life, but there are no guarantees of a wide one. Most of the ones worth hiring wouldn't take welfare because they don't think it would be right if they can work. But again, if the government has trained you to expect it to take care of you, then why would you bother?

I have tons of respect for those people. But again, the government needs to stop training people that they take care of them. We need to find out why these people were successful, and figure out how to use our goodwill to help the people that sit around waiting for their "paycheck".

Duke wrote: Tell me again how this is constructive? Tell me again how this is helping anyone - teaching new generations that they will be taken care of with little or no effort on their own part.

It's not constructive. It's not helping anyone. We need to change the way we go about doing social programs. But, Again, we need to figure out what to do with the people on them now.

Duke wrote: This problem falls squarely on the shoulders of FDR and the New Deal. We're not going to solve a problem 75 years in the making overnight. We're *certainly* not going to solve the problem if half the population can't even recognize it as a problem. But we have to start somewhere, and soon.

I don't disagree that th New deal initiated these programs. There have been a lot of people between then and now though, republican, and democrat, that have let the status quo keep going. However, going back and forth figuring out who is responsible for the problem will do NOTHING but divide us. You can all blame whoever you want for the current situation, I really don't care, I'm more interested in figuring out what do do now, and HOW to get it done.

I agree 100% with your last point. We do Have to do something soon.

All in all Good post, and thanks for bringing your personal experiences out. What do you think would work to help these people learn?

ignorant wrote: I got it.. we're arguing past each other.....

We are? Or am I just arguing past you?

ignorant wrote: http://www.anonymousliberal.com/2008/09/mocking-service.html That explains a great deal though,

What exactly does it explain? Public service doesn't get any automatic free pass as a good thing just because it's public service (even though working for your own interests DOES get an automatic condemnation if you happen to be a white male). It's not intrinsically more moral than working for yourself. If it is NON-CONSTRUCTIVE public service it is just as evil and immoral as the most selfish person, even if it is being done "to help others" (always said as if those were the magic words).

If Obama spent his time teaching people trades and helping them find jobs, great! More power to him. If he spent his time showing people how to get more public assistance and helped keep them in the system, hisssssssssssssss...

ignorant wrote: The reason why I started getting angry and arguing in that manner was the way that people were saying they shouldn't help people period. No help.. None.. I do not necessarily equate help with money, but a good deal of you do.. So.. my example about helping a drowning person works. because you would help people. individually you would.. period..

So... Well, so what?

ignorant wrote: but.. when money comes into it.. you're alittle more tight fisted and that exposes some real problems with our society..

Why? Because we feel each person is obligated to support themselves and those they bring into life? Because we DON'T feel it's our duty to protect everybody from the big bad world (let alone, from themselves)?

ignorant wrote: you advocate letting people drown which is in essence killing. but that's beside the point..

It's not beside the point, and it's also NOT TRUE. Advocating letting people make potentially deadly mistakes is NOT the same as killing them in any way. Your equation of it leads directly to "protect everybody from everything" mentality. That mentality leads directly to a world full of inane idiots who need to be told that coffee is hot and smoking is bad, but it's OK, because McDonalds and RJR will pay for your medical treatment if you sue them, and government disability will pay you for not working due to your burned crotch and emphysema.

ignorant wrote: Effectively.. I proved you would help people.. which you didn't want to do .. so I win. In my own demented way.

1) No, you didn't prove I would help people; I freely admitted it.

2) No one but you said I didn't want to help people (or didn't want to admit I would; I'm not sure what you are getting at).

3) You win? Wait, what now?

ignorant wrote: on another note.. you might be a happier person if you started separating everything from money.

You're assuming I'm an unhappy person. In fact, I'm one of the happiest people I know. I'm happy to be alive and well and able to think for myself. I don't need much more than that since that allows me to support myself and my family. The only way I could be happier is if there were more people in the world like those of us on this side of this discussion.

ignorant wrote: btw.. I win.

You can say it as many times as you want, but...

nocones, you're making intelligent posts and I don't mean to be ignoring this latest one. I'll try to get back to you later.

Duke wrote: You can say it as many times as you want, but...

but you have proved nothing.. excpet you are selfish and greedy. I don't need anything else.

ignorant wrote: but you have proved nothing.. excpet you are selfish and greedy. I don't need anything else.

You can't prove anything to someone who is impervious to thought.

Selfish? Sure - until I steal something, that's no crime. Greedy? Why - because I don't feel that every other person in the world owns a share of me? I don't think so.

ignorant wrote: I got it.. we're arguing past each other..... http://www.anonymousliberal.com/2008/09/mocking-service.html That explains a great deal though, computer crapped out in posting... The reason why I started getting angry and arguing in that manner was the way that people were saying they shouldn't help people period. No help.. None.. I do not necessarily equate help with money, but a good deal of you do.. So.. my example about helping a drowning person works. because you would help people. individually you would.. period.. but.. when money comes into it.. you're alittle more tight fisted and that exposes some real problems with our society.. you advocate letting people drown which is in essence killing. but that's beside the point.. Effectively.. I proved you would help people.. which you didn't want to do .. so I win. In my own demented way. on another note.. you might be a happier person if you started separating everything from money.

nobody said they would not save someone from drowning, just that they dont' think they should have to keep holding people's heads above water when they won't get out of the pool.

Duke wrote: Your equation of it leads directly to "protect everybody from everything" mentality.

Please find a part of my posts where I advocate "protecting everyboyd from everything." So you're basing everything on an assumption and inference?

edit so again we're arguing past ourselves... You believe I want to protect everyone from everything.. which is stupid. I believe you are greedy and selfish which is true.

Strizzo wrote: nobody said they would not save someone from drowning, just that they dont' think they should have to keep holding people's heads above water when they won't get out of the pool.

thank you I see that now.. and I agree..

But where I was hung up was the fact that it sounded like once people helped one person and it didn't pan out they would shut down completely and not help anyone else.

ignorant wrote: Please find a part of my posts where I advocate "protecting everyboyd from everything." So you're basing everything on an assumption and inference?

No:

ignorant wrote: The question of where do you stop? with helping people is not a question that should be asked. You keep going. Always working at from the bottom up... continous improvement.

ignorant wrote: Here's what I advocated... Helping people and not drawing the line on helping people.

Inference this. You've just placed every human being in the world as a millstone around the neck of every other human being in the world.

Duke wrote:

ignorant wrote: Please find a part of my posts where I advocate "protecting everyboyd from everything." So you're basing everything on an assumption and inference?

No:

ignorant wrote: The question of where do you stop? with helping people is not a question that should be asked. You keep going. Always working at from the bottom up... continous improvement.

ignorant wrote: Here's what I advocated... Helping people and not drawing the line on helping people.

Inference this. You've just placed every human being in the world as a millstone around the neck of every other human being in the world.

Read what I said above, the "helping people and not drawing the line on helping people" is in direct reference to what I believe is people who would help one person and then stop because the results wereen't good. same with the other.

Please remove your wallet from the equation.... You are standing upon assumption and inference, you are putting words in my mouth with your own interpretations.

ignorant wrote:

Strizzo wrote: nobody said they would not save someone from drowning, just that they dont' think they should have to keep holding people's heads above water when they won't get out of the pool.

thank you I see that now.. and I agree.. But where I was hung up was the fact that it sounded like once people helped one person and it didn't pan out they would shut down completely and not help anyone else.

nobody has said that, you're assuming that. i think what everyone is saying is that we need to remove the people who put no effort into a system other than leech off of it. and before you make another assumption, no, that doesn't mean i want to kill them.

Strizzo wrote:

ignorant wrote:

Strizzo wrote: nobody said they would not save someone from drowning, just that they dont' think they should have to keep holding people's heads above water when they won't get out of the pool.

thank you I see that now.. and I agree.. But where I was hung up was the fact that it sounded like once people helped one person and it didn't pan out they would shut down completely and not help anyone else.

nobody has said that, you're assuming that. i think what everyone is saying is that we need to remove the people who put no effort into a system other than leech off of it. and before you make another assumption, no, that doesn't mean i want to kill them.

pretty easy to do when you people say things like... "welfare babies" and "let them drown"

ignorant wrote:

Strizzo wrote:

ignorant wrote:

Strizzo wrote: nobody said they would not save someone from drowning, just that they dont' think they should have to keep holding people's heads above water when they won't get out of the pool.

thank you I see that now.. and I agree.. But where I was hung up was the fact that it sounded like once people helped one person and it didn't pan out they would shut down completely and not help anyone else.

nobody has said that, you're assuming that. i think what everyone is saying is that we need to remove the people who put no effort into a system other than leech off of it. and before you make another assumption, no, that doesn't mean i want to kill them.

pretty easy to do when you people say things like... "welfare babies" and "let them drown"

WTF you mean "you people"?

sounds like you're the hateful, unhappy person here

and show me where i said any of that

"you people" was a generality at the thread not directed at you.

geeeeeeeez

When I attack I don't use passive aggressive terms. I'm overtly aggressive thank you very much.

ignorant wrote: You are standing upon assumption and inference, you are putting words in my mouth with your own interpretations.

You mean assumptions like:

ignorant wrote: I could argue that I am supporting your unsustainable lifestyle, by building a bridge nearby for you to drive your hummer H2 over.

ignorant wrote: You really have a low opinion of other folks..

ignorant wrote: duke.. you advocate killing people and letting them drown... have fun with your little hate filled life.. ohhh and because you admitted you would help people.. means I won.. your behind the keyboard bravado is staggering.

ignorant wrote: you advocate letting people drown which is in essence killing. Effectively.. I proved you would help people.. which you didn't want to do.. you might be a happier person if you started separating everything from money.

ignorant wrote: you are selfish and greedy.

Thanks for putting words in my mouth. Project much?

right overtly aggressive.. instead of passive aggressive....

duh..

http://www.comcast.net/articles/news-national/20080904/Gustav.FEMA/

FEMA may cover hotel expenses for evacuees. The hell of it; scroll to the bottom. I can't copy/paste, unfortunately. The line that stands out: some evacuees wonder if FEMA will cover their lost wages and other expenses as well.

I want my gas money back for the evacuation for Hurricane Floyd, dammit.