Did FEMA Fail Us? - Page 4 - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

smooth · 09-14-2005, 05:58 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by stevo

Why is the FEMA failure only Bush's fault. Why are we not holding senators and congressman responsible? If you remember shortly after 9/11 bush opposed the DHS. It was the senators that drafted the bill and both houses passed it. While bush could have vetoed the bill, it is not entirely bush's fault. I have yet to hear, once on this board, that the Senate or House should take any blame at all. They are the ones in this country who make the laws and decide where money gets spent. Go look at the bill and look at all your favorite liberal senate leaders who voted to put FEMA under the new Homeland Security department and tell me again how this is all Bush's fault.

Raveneye is talking about something else.
The point you quoted him on, and the reason why his point is Bush's fault, is because President Bush placed those persons in FEMA. He made those appointments. He did it on his own. He is personally responsible for revamping the organization.

stevo · 09-14-2005, 06:06 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pan6467

I am not trying to defend anyone, I am trying to end the partisan bullshit and the finger pointing so that we can help these people in the best and united ways possible. We can't blame anyone, for noone has been through anything like it before, and training and hypotheticals are just those.... I truly don't believe anyone was prepared or knew how to handle it and I don't believe anyone would ever have had that knowledge.

We just need to go in and continue doing what we have, doing the best we can to help as many as we can and to rebuild a better and stronger city. Now we have experienced worst case and now we can truly be prepared...... until the next worst case comes through.... but even then we have a better starting point IF WE LEARN FROM THIS AND STOP POINTING FINGERS.

A good way to keep this sort of thing from happening again is to end the liberal policies that have caused the poor in NO to remain poor and unemployed and to rely entirely on the government for a solution to their problems. The poor and unemployed in NO have been coddled by liberal policies for years and who wouldn't expect them to rely on that same government to save them in a time of disaster? Perhaps if they did not have the mentality that the government should and would solve all of their problems they would have been able to save themselves. Perhaps if they did not rely on the government for their only means, many who stayed on September 1, to collect their welfare checks, would have made an attempt to evacuate.

What about the inherent racism in liberal policy? There is talk all over the place about how whitey kept the black man down and left him to drown in NewOrleans. How about how whitey kept giving the poor and unemployed (who are overwhelmingly AfricanAmerican) measley welfare and unemployment checks every month instead of creating policies and an environment that would stimulate the economy and create jobs? These welfare checks weren't enough to bring these people out of poverty, only enough to keep the poor voting for the democratic party, because who, afterall, would want to loose the free money they've been given all these years? Democrats have been using African Americans for votes ever since LBJ.

I always hear how it is capitalism's fault that people are poor, why then are we the richest country on earth? Socialist policies that redistribute wealth and take away the incentive for people to work and make something for themselves are to blame, but you won't hear that from the left. If such policies worked, would NewOrleans have an unemployment rate higher than the national average and a poverty rate near 40%? This can't be bush's fault, he hasn't been in office 6 years, while the liberals have ruled LA and New Orleans for half a century. If these policies worked, the situation would have been different.

I think perhaps a good place to start to find the cause of the problems that plague New Orleans is to look at the social policies that govern the city and state. Look at what the officials have been spending taxes and federal funds on. Take a deep look at the policies that proclaim to help the disenfranchised, but do nothing to lift these people out of poverty. Take a deep look at the corruption in the local governments and see if they really have the best interest of their constituents in mind, or just care getting votes and retaining power. Think critically at the true causes of the problems and why, if great liberal policies and income redistribution worked, we have so many poor and disenfranchied in one area.

It is not my intention to come out pointing fingers, but to me the problem is clear as day and I have to point it out.

stevo · 09-14-2005, 06:07 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by smooth

Raveneye is talking about something else.
The point you quoted him on, and the reason why his point is Bush's fault, is because President Bush placed those persons in FEMA. He made those appointments. He did it on his own. He is personally responsible for revamping the organization.

OK. and bush is taking responsibility for that. I hold him accountable for brownie as well, but it is hardly an issue of impeachment for me.

sapiens · 09-14-2005, 06:22 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by smooth

Raveneye is talking about something else.
The point you quoted him on, and the reason why his point is Bush's fault, is because President Bush placed those persons in FEMA. He made those appointments. He did it on his own. He is personally responsible for revamping the organization.

From what I have heard, when Brown first joined FEMA, he was appointed as deputy director by Bush (whatever the title was, it was a deputy position). It appears that he was unqualified and should have never been appointed, BUT he did go through a senate confirmation. Only 4 senators showed up for the confirmation. It took 5 minutes.

Sen. Lieberman was on NPR this morning talking about the confirmation process for appointments. He said that the Senate usually figures the president has done a proper selection and confirms appointments without really looking at the candidates. He said that when FEMA was placed under Homeland Security, it was decided that individuals who had already been confirmed in the senate for doing similar jobs did not need to be confirmed when moving to a new job. So, when Brown was promoted to head of FEMA there was no Senate confirmation.

Although I don't know much about Brown, it seems that he should have never been appointed. He also should not have made it past Senate confirmation.

Redlemon · 09-14-2005, 06:46 AM

This is certainly overstating the point, but I found this random blog post interesting nonetheless...

Quote:

Bush only “takes responsibility” because there are no consequences for doing so. I just saw this headline “Owners of flooded St. Rita’s Nursing Home charged with 34 counts of negligent homicide, Louisiana attorney general says.”… well, shouldn’t you charge Bush then, too? He says he takes responsibility for the failures of the response. He should have offered transit for those especially at risk for catastrophic events like this. He’s equally negligent, and therefore should be equally culpable for real, tangible consequences.

Charlatan · 09-14-2005, 06:49 AM

Redlemon... they are being charged because they were offered assistance to move the patients but declined the assistance... this was not a failure of response to a need it was the idiocy (or worse) of the owners of that residence.

Bush can't be held responsible for this.

smooth · 09-14-2005, 07:07 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by stevo

A good way to keep this sort of thing from happening again is to end the liberal policies that have caused the poor in NO to remain poor and unemployed and to rely entirely on the government for a solution to their problems. The poor and unemployed in NO have been coddled by liberal policies for years and who wouldn't expect them to rely on that same government to save them in a time of disaster? Perhaps if they did not have the mentality that the government should and would solve all of their problems they would have been able to save themselves. Perhaps if they did not rely on the government for their only means, many who stayed on September 1, to collect their welfare checks, would have made an attempt to evacuate.

What about the inherent racism in liberal policy? There is talk all over the place about how whitey kept the black man down and left him to drown in NewOrleans. How about how whitey kept giving the poor and unemployed (who are overwhelmingly AfricanAmerican) measley welfare and unemployment checks every month instead of creating policies and an environment that would stimulate the economy and create jobs? These welfare checks weren't enough to bring these people out of poverty, only enough to keep the poor voting for the democratic party, because who, afterall, would want to loose the free money they've been given all these years? Democrats have been using African Americans for votes ever since LBJ.

I always hear how it is capitalism's fault that people are poor, why then are we the richest country on earth? Socialist policies that redistribute wealth and take away the incentive for people to work and make something for themselves are to blame, but you won't hear that from the left. If such policies worked, would NewOrleans have an unemployment rate higher than the national average and a poverty rate near 40%? This can't be bush's fault, he hasn't been in office 6 years, while the liberals have ruled LA and New Orleans for half a century. If these policies worked, the situation would have been different.

I think perhaps a good place to start to find the cause of the problems that plague New Orleans is to look at the social policies that govern the city and state. Look at what the officials have been spending taxes and federal funds on. Take a deep look at the policies that proclaim to help the disenfranchised, but do nothing to lift these people out of poverty. Take a deep look at the corruption in the local governments and see if they really have the best interest of their constituents in mind, or just care getting votes and retaining power. Think critically at the true causes of the problems and why, if great liberal policies and income redistribution worked, we have so many poor and disenfranchied in one area.

It is not my intention to come out pointing fingers, but to me the problem is clear as day and I have to point it out.

Why do you keep posting comments like this?
You act as though all the poor, black residents were unemployed and on welfare.
Where are you pulling this information from, if not your own predispositions?

pan6467 · 09-14-2005, 07:18 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by stevo

A good way to keep this sort of thing from happening again is to end the liberal policies that have caused the poor in NO to remain poor and unemployed and to rely entirely on the government for a solution to their problems. The poor and unemployed in NO have been coddled by liberal policies for years and who wouldn't expect them to rely on that same government to save them in a time of disaster? Perhaps if they did not have the mentality that the government should and would solve all of their problems they would have been able to save themselves. Perhaps if they did not rely on the government for their only means, many who stayed on September 1, to collect their welfare checks, would have made an attempt to evacuate.

What about the inherent racism in liberal policy? There is talk all over the place about how whitey kept the black man down and left him to drown in NewOrleans. How about how whitey kept giving the poor and unemployed (who are overwhelmingly AfricanAmerican) measley welfare and unemployment checks every month instead of creating policies and an environment that would stimulate the economy and create jobs? These welfare checks weren't enough to bring these people out of poverty, only enough to keep the poor voting for the democratic party, because who, afterall, would want to loose the free money they've been given all these years? Democrats have been using African Americans for votes ever since LBJ.

I always hear how it is capitalism's fault that people are poor, why then are we the richest country on earth? Socialist policies that redistribute wealth and take away the incentive for people to work and make something for themselves are to blame, but you won't hear that from the left. If such policies worked, would NewOrleans have an unemployment rate higher than the national average and a poverty rate near 40%? This can't be bush's fault, he hasn't been in office 6 years, while the liberals have ruled LA and New Orleans for half a century. If these policies worked, the situation would have been different.

I think perhaps a good place to start to find the cause of the problems that plague New Orleans is to look at the social policies that govern the city and state. Look at what the officials have been spending taxes and federal funds on. Take a deep look at the policies that proclaim to help the disenfranchised, but do nothing to lift these people out of poverty. Take a deep look at the corruption in the local governments and see if they really have the best interest of their constituents in mind, or just care getting votes and retaining power. Think critically at the true causes of the problems and why, if great liberal policies and income redistribution worked, we have so many poor and disenfranchied in one area.

It is not my intention to come out pointing fingers, but to me the problem is clear as day and I have to point it out.

I guess you missed the whole point of not dividing the nation further and keeping politics and partisanship out of saving people's lives.....

Aw well, some people understand and some don't let's hope to God the majority get over the Goddamned partisan politics and finger pointing bullshit.

PS we are NOT the richest country..... we are the most IN DEBT (trade deficits and national (of which China and Saudi have been buying up massive amounts of), and the debts will come due someday, then we'll see how "perfect" Capitalism was. But this isn't the thread to argue that, if you choose open another to argue that.

Charlatan · 09-14-2005, 07:23 AM

pan... that debt is not the fault of Capitalism... the Soviet Union was a planned economy and it bankrupted itself all the same.

I don't disagree with your assessment of the US debt just where the problem lies.

I'd be more concerned with nations like China dumping US dollars for Euros or the oil nations starting to do all of the their business in Euros... the subsequent devaluation of the US dollar would be catastrophic for many.

The cynic in me notes that Saddam Hussien switched the oil for food program to Euros and was subsequently invaded (this probably belongs in paranoia but there you go).

stevo · 09-14-2005, 08:31 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by smooth

Why do you keep posting comments like this?
You act as though all the poor, black residents were unemployed and on welfare.
Where are you pulling this information from, if not your own predispositions?

Perhaps you misunderstood me. I did not mean to imply that all the poor black residents were unemployed and on welfare. There were many people that couldn't evacuate that were not on welfare. The point I was making was that Louisiana and New Orleans created and ran a welfare state for the last half a century. It was this created welfare state, as well as a poor education system and corrupt government officials, that kept the people poor. While the people with means were able to leave, people without means had no choice. Now why did they have no means? What was it that caused them to be poor, employed or not, actually receiving cash welfare payments or not? I argue that it was the welfare-state and handouts created by liberalism in New Orleans. I argue that it was the system "created to help the poor and needy" that kept them poor and needy, and that is why they couldn't evacuate. I also argue that when the government allows the people to rely on them for assistance, they had a responsibility to not leave them alone in a time of crisis, but give them an equal opportunity to leave the city as any wealthy citizen has (That is the liberal ideal, is it not?). I argue that it is that local governments' responsibility to evacuate the dependent.

Here's a quick breakdown of the welfare state in New Orleans created by Louisiana:

Background statistics -
Total pop: 485,000
Black pop: 326,000 (Why are so many of the poor black? Because there are a high percentage of African Americans in New Orleans)

as of 11/20/03
43,650 (9% of pop) NO citizens recieve cash welfare payout
82,450 (17%) of NO citizents reside in public or subsidized housing
43% of households in NO did not have a vehicle
Of married families in NO, 17% had no spouse employed
28% of NO families had no adult employed
82% of low-income families in NO are African American

http://www.state.la.us/tanf/needsassess.htm

Quote:

Originally Posted by pan6467

I guess you missed the whole point of not dividing the nation further and keeping politics and partisanship out of saving people's lives.....

Aw well, some people understand and some don't let's hope to God the majority get over the Goddamned partisan politics and finger pointing bullshit.

I think the way to save people's lives is to find the problems that caused such a disproportionate percentage of the population to be poor and dependent on the government. If we can solve these problems, next time people will have the means to save themselves and there will be no one to blame. Don't you agree that we should take an in-depth look at the root of these problems? Ignoring them because they appear partisan does not solve it, but looking into the root of the problem does.

Charlatan · 09-14-2005, 08:40 AM

Quote:

43% of households in NO did not have a vehicle

This may be nit-picking but this is not always an indication of poverty. Car ownership rates drop significantly in urban centres (where people actually live in the urban centre -- like NYC and New Orleans). No need for a car if you can walk or take dependable public transit.

smooth · 09-14-2005, 08:48 AM

Perhaps I did misunderstand you.
But your latest post didn't clarify anything for me.

You are arguing that the "welfare" state has kept these people poor and uneducated?
regardless of whether they actually receive welfare or were employed?

That doesn't make much sense to me.
Your statistics indicate a relatively small percentage of the population received government assistance, yet you want to blame the government assistance programs (of which a large number don't even utilize) for their poverty?

That's ridiculous argument from the way you've presented it.
Your self-sufficiency, from the data you provided, falls flat on its ass where it belongs.
You cite that roughly 10% of the families recieve cash welfare, and approx. 15% of them recieve subsidized housing.

Yet, nearly 30% aren't employed. That leaves 20% not utilizing welfare and 15% not utilizing public housing. The majority of the impoverished population, despite your claims to the contrary, are doing exactly what you claim they aren't doing--taking care of themselves.

If you really think that people are poor because they utilize government welfare programs, I don't know really what to tell you other than no person educated in this field that I know of holds the same view. The data you provided doesn't support your view. I think the way you came to your view is your dislike for government programs and predispositions to believe a certain way about welfare programs and who is on them.

More to the point, black citizens have lived in persistent poverty far longer than welfare was even conceived of. I think you need to rethink your position and come up with some factual basis for your assertions.

stevo · 09-14-2005, 08:50 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Charlatan

This may be nit-picking but this is not always an indication of poverty. Car ownership rates drop significantly in urban centres (where people actually live in the urban centre -- like NYC and New Orleans). No need for a car if you can walk or take dependable public transit.

Your right, its not necessarily an indication of poverty. Its only a statistic, but it does illustrate the point that a lot of people in New Orleans needed some way to evacuate the city, and in a government-created welfare-state, where does that responsibility lie? Many people without cars I'm sure found a way out, but many people without cars did not evacuate? I ask why is that. Is it because they have grown dependent on the government to give them everything the need?

smooth · 09-14-2005, 08:58 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by stevo

Your right, its not necessarily an indication of poverty. Its only a statistic, but it does illustrate the point that a lot of people in New Orleans needed some way to evacuate the city, and in a government-created welfare-state, where does that responsibility lie? Many people without cars I'm sure found a way out, but many people without cars did not evacuate? I ask why is that. Is it because they have grown dependent on the government to give them everything the need?

No, you have that backwards.
The impoverished, black experience has been the opposite of what you are claiming.
An unresponsive government, one that doesn't provide for them, in times of crisis or non-crisis.

You'll find that a lot of people stayed home because they wanted to protect the few assets they have.
That they realized a government wouldn't protect them, move them out, but most importantly, wouldn't safeguard their homes against looting and vandalism.
it appears their fears were accurate

Their safety is and was in their hands.
Has been before the welfare state came into existence. and continues even with any measley check they may or may not recieve.

If you go into any large urban center and canvas opinions about the government, law enforcement, and self-sufficiency, you would realize how preposterous your claims are.

Put simply, you just don't get it.
Impoverished people, black and white, are among the most self-sufficient people I've ever been part of and known. I can't say the same for the wealthy people I've met. But then again, poor people have to take care of themselves and wealthy people don't. so it makes sense to me except in all areas where a talking point might secure some group of people toward hating another group they know nothing about.

stevo · 09-14-2005, 09:16 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by smooth

Perhaps I did misunderstand you.
But your latest post didn't clarify anything for me.

You are arguing that the "welfare" state has kept these people poor and uneducated?
regardless of whether they actually receive welfare or were employed?

That doesn't make much sense to me.
Your statistics indicate a relatively small percentage of the population received government assistance, yet you want to blame the government assistance programs (of which a large number don't even utilize) for their poverty?

That's ridiculous argument from the way you've presented it.
Your self-sufficiency, from the data you provided, falls flat on its ass where it belongs.
You cite that roughly 10% of the families recieve cash welfare, and approx. 15% of them recieve subsidized housing.

Yet, nearly 30% aren't employed. That leaves 20% not utilizing welfare and 15% not utilizing public housing. The majority of the impoverished population, despite your claims to the contrary, are doing exactly what you claim they aren't doing--taking care of themselves.

If you really think that people are poor because they utilize government welfare programs, I don't know really what to tell you other than no person educated in this field that I know of holds the same view. The data you provided doesn't support your view. I think the way you came to your view is your dislike for government programs and predispositions to believe a certain way about welfare programs and who is on them.

More to the point, black citizens have lived in persistent poverty far longer than welfare was even conceived of. I think you need to rethink your position and come up with some factual basis for your assertions.

A review of the numbers would leave 11% who are unemployed not receiving government subsidies. The majority of the unemployed (assuming all those receiving gov't aid are unemployed, and all those receiving welfare checks live in public or subsidized housing) That would be 28%-17%=11%.

How many people did not evacuate before Katrina? Estimates put the figures around 90,000. There will always be people that choose not to evacuate for various reasons. Greyhound and Amtrack stopped service before the storm, that, ultimately stranded more people. My focus is on the welfare state becoming a primary reason why many people were unable to help themselves.

smooth · 09-14-2005, 09:21 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by stevo

assuming all those receiving gov't aid are unemployed

This is what I'm talking about, you are making a lot of assumptions--that much is clear the more you post.

anyone recieving welfare checks, especially cash assistance, is employed or in school.
these requirements were put in place during clinton's era, precisely because of blowhards claiming, once again without evidence, that people were milking the system and living from generation to generation on the government tit.

stevo · 09-14-2005, 09:38 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by smooth

No, you have that backwards.
The impoverished, black experience has been the opposite of what you are claiming.
An unresponsive government, one that doesn't provide for them, in times of crisis or non-crisis.

You'll find that a lot of people stayed home because they wanted to protect the few assets they have.
That they realized a government wouldn't protect them, move them out, but most importantly, wouldn't safeguard their homes against looting and vandalism.
it appears their fears were accurate

Their safety is and was in their hands.
Has been before the welfare state came into existence. and continues even with any measley check they may or may not recieve.

If you go into any large urban center and canvas opinions about the government, law enforcement, and self-sufficiency, you would realize how preposterous your claims are.

Put simply, you just don't get it.
Impoverished people, black and white, are among the most self-sufficient people I've ever been part of and known. I can't say the same for the wealthy people I've met. But then again, poor people have to take care of themselves and wealthy people don't. so it makes sense to me except in all areas where a talking point might secure some group of people toward hating another group they know nothing about.

I'm not saying all poor people aren't hard working and not self-sufficient, but that the LA welfare state has created a dependency for many. I don't hate any of those people, and I'm not blaming them.

Maybe we have a fundamental disagreement on what taking care of one's self means. You don't think wealthy people have to take care of themselves? Then who does it? Not the state, who?

I'm kind of confused about this last post. maybe I'll understand what you are trying to say later.

stevo · 09-14-2005, 09:42 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by smooth

This is what I'm talking about, you are making a lot of assumptions--that much is clear the more you post.

Well where are your assumptions coming from?

Quote:

Originally Posted by smooth

anyone recieving welfare checks, especially cash assistance, is employed or in school.
these requirements were put in place during clinton's era, precisely because of blowhards claiming, once again without evidence, that people were milking the system and living from generation to generation on the government tit.

Your right, 1996.

Explain to me why you used basically the same assumptions to come up with this:

Quote:

Originally Posted by smooth

That's ridiculous argument from the way you've presented it.
Your self-sufficiency, from the data you provided, falls flat on its ass where it belongs.
You cite that roughly 10% of the families recieve cash welfare, and approx. 15% of them recieve subsidized housing.

Yet, nearly 30% aren't employed. That leaves 20% not utilizing welfare and 15% not utilizing public housing. The majority of the impoverished population, despite your claims to the contrary, are doing exactly what you claim they aren't doing--taking care of themselves.

You assume the same as I did.

smooth · 09-14-2005, 09:53 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by stevo

Maybe we have a fundamental disagreement on what taking care of one's self means. You don't think wealthy people have to take care of themselves? Then who does it? Not the state, who?

I could argue that the most wealthy people have been given their wealth by their ancestors.
That's one way a wealthy person wouldn't need to take care of his or herself.

Wealthy people have assets to invest. Further wealth comes from those investments, the investments their counselors make for them.
Unless you're going to argue that wealthy people have to learn to live from paycheck to paycheck and know what it means to make ends meet, then I don't see how you would dispute the fact that poor people are more self-reliant than wealthy people.

Now on to your last comment about the role of the state:
How do you come up with the conclusion that the state does not look after the interests of the wealthy?

Is it not understood by you that the wealthy pay the bulk of the taxes?
The wealthy cast the majority of the votes
The wealthy own vast resources, and those resources are proteced by law enforcement and military, social systems and social stabilty.
Do the wealthy not benefit from civil infrastructure?
Who will pay for the rebuilding of New Orleans, as a poignant example?
It will come from public coffers, yet the public does not benefit from it's significant trade relevance in the ways that capitalists benefit.

I don't see how you can simultaneously hold the notion that the rich pay the bulk of the tab for this government, they are able to fund interest groups to ensure their interests are secured on the Hill, yet you don't think the state is taking care of them in return for their patronage.

smooth · 09-14-2005, 09:59 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by stevo

Well where are your assumptions coming from?

Your right, 1996.

Explain to me why you used basically the same assumptions to come up with this:

You assume the same as I did.

I didn't assume anything.
I used your data along with other relevant data from the US census.

I have experience with this kind of data and I was pointing some things out to you that you missed.
You inaccurately assumed that I was linking the unemployed 30% to the other two figures (subsidized housing and cash welfare recipients). I wasn't, however, I am referring the nearly 30% of the working poor still living below poverty. They are the ones who qualify for government assistance. Now please step back and review the data before accusing someone well-versed in it of assuming things.

EDIT: I looked over my post and see why you made that assumption. You should read my sentence as "not adequately employed" These people are not the same 30% you cited in your initial post regarding the adult population that is unemployed.

But, regardless of how each of us is going to view this statistical quandry, the fact remains that your position still hasn't come to terms with (ie, explained) the fact that persisitent poverty was a problem for black citizens long before welfare came into existence.

stevo · 09-14-2005, 10:19 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by smooth

But, regardless of how each of us is going to view this statistical quandry, the fact remains that your position still hasn't come to terms with (ie, explained) the fact that persisitent poverty was a problem for black citizens long before welfare came into existence.

And welfare has done nothing to correct the problem. After 70 years of new-deal policies and liberal rule. New Orleans residents are worse off, on average, than the rest of the country.

I'm arguing that welfare doesn't cause poverty, but continues it, in that it doesn't work toward the solution, but acts more as a payout to buy votes. If the welfare system worked, are these the results?

smooth · 09-14-2005, 10:28 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by stevo

And welfare has done nothing to correct the problem. After 70 years of new-deal policies and liberal rule. New Orleans residents are worse off, on average, than the rest of the country.

I'm arguing that welfare doesn't cause poverty, but continues it, in that it doesn't work toward the solution, but acts more as a payout to buy votes. If the welfare system worked, are these the results?

look stevo, I'm not going to turn this into a welfare/anti-welfare thread.

I'm just pointing out that you are missing the boat here.
I understand that you are claiming welfare programs have created a subsistence mentality among these black citizens. But you're wrong to assume that's why they stayed put when the crisis hit.

Evidence indicates the opposite.
I don't understand why you think my scenario is less believable than yours...other than your personal ideology concerning welfare and what you think about liberals and their arguments in general.

The fact of the matter is that minotiry NO residents have been more poor than the rest of the nation for about 200 years.

They haven't recieved a lot of help from the federal government.

They don't have adequte protection from local law enforcement.

The social structures don't respond very kindly to them.

Anecdotally, and from interviews in the news, and from my experience with likewise situated peoples, the more likely scenario is not that people sat on their asses waiting for the government to come save them...and then they died waiting.

What is more likely is that people, to the extent they even realized a crisis of this magnitude was going to happen (and then we have to wonder just how many poor people sit around reading the papers and watching CNN/CSPAN to know that funding for levee constrution has been an issue for decades, & etc.), thought to themselves: the feds don't care, the cops don't care, if I leave everything I own behind, it won't be here when I get back. Even if I do go, where would I go? I got no car, I got no money in the bank. Shit, the best thing I can do is:
button up the hatches and pray for the best...it's what I've done my whole life

stevo · 09-14-2005, 10:43 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by smooth

What is more likely is that people, to the extent they even realized a crisis of this magnitude was going to happen (and then we have to wonder just how many poor people sit around reading the papers and watching CNN/CSPAN to know that funding for levee constrution has been an issue for decades, & etc.), thought to themselves: the feds don't care, the cops don't care, if I leave everything I own behind, it won't be here when I get back. Even if I do go, where would I go? I got no car, I got no money in the bank. Shit, the best thing I can do is:
button up the hatches and pray for the best...it's what I've done my whole life

agreed. I'd add: the mayor don't care the governor don't care either. And then ask them why. And ask why my government promises to help me get out of poverty, but I am still in it. Ask why liberal policies have failed me.

smooth · 09-14-2005, 11:04 AM

stevo,

the only thing I still don't understand is why you think that "liberal" policies have failed anyone. mainly because we haven't ever really implemented any liberal policies. pehaps some warped versions that appear on their face like what liberal oriented experts might suggest we do, but nothing closely approximating what those same liberals would have implemented themselves.

it's just really discouraging that you wouldn't evaluate idea on their own merits instead of what you think they are packaged inside of.

I mean, just your repeated disparaging remarks of welfare are troubling.
To my knowledge, even conservative experts have written that implementing New Deal policies were far from liberal...they sustained capitalism, for one thing, which was rapidly losing currency with the bulk of the population. If it weren't for welfare, we'd have a system of government much more like all those places you consistently rank as no-gos for you--places like canada, france, sweden, or *gasp* cuba.

that was the state of affairs then.
and interestingly, we came close to eradicating poverty before a bunch of changes were implemented (which, ironicly, would have destabilized capitalism if you can draw those linkages as to why, I invite you to do so yourself) and experienced some of the most growth and prosperity this nation has witnessed.

but welfare didn't teach all those white people dependency somehow?
more whites are on welfare than black people, but it's always the black welfare mom that takes the brunt of criticism.
I thought people pretty much understood by now that jobs are leaving the country rapidly and the ones left behind aren't paying enough to raise families on. I don't see how any of that is caused by someone being lazy or dependent on the government for food and shelter.

pan6467 · 09-14-2005, 11:14 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by stevo

I think the way to save people's lives is to find the problems that caused such a disproportionate percentage of the population to be poor and dependent on the government. If we can solve these problems, next time people will have the means to save themselves and there will be no one to blame. Don't you agree that we should take an in-depth look at the root of these problems? Ignoring them because they appear partisan does not solve it, but looking into the root of the problem does.

I agree with this statement.

However, your first statement that I replied to was EXTREMELY partisan and partisanship will accomplish nothing but the continuation of deterioration.

The only way to truly come to a working solution is to find a medium between both parties, both philosophies, both extremes and work from there.

Blasting one side and believing that you have all the answers is foolhardy, ignorant and divisive. But seeing the problems, working on a solution together brings strength, ideas and a true working solution.

Right now, I don't think those people are worried about much other than staying dry, getting fed and working toward a recovery.

That is where our focus should be in NO, which is what the topic is of this thread. We need FEMA (the Federal government's department that handles this, supposedly), the state and the city to get together and work for the people and help rebuild the city, the dreams and the people's spirits. We do not need finger pointing, partisanship, egos and hatreds to keep us from truly helping these people.

If we want to debate what is the best solution to "cure" poverty, that belongs in another thread and is a good debate. And again, I say partisanship is not the answer and never will be.

But respect must be shown to the originator of this topic by keeping it on topic.

stevo · 09-14-2005, 11:17 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by smooth

stevo,

the only thing I still don't understand is why you think that "liberal" policies have failed anyone. mainly because we haven't ever really implemented any liberal policies. pehaps some warped versions that appear on their face like what liberal oriented experts might suggest we do, but nothing closely approximating what those same liberals would have implemented themselves.

it's just really discouraging that you wouldn't evaluate idea on their own merits instead of what you think they are packaged inside of.

I mean, just your repeated disparaging remarks of welfare are troubling.
To my knowledge, even conservative experts have written that implementing New Deal policies were far from liberal...they sustained capitalism, for one thing, which was rapidly losing currency with the bulk of the population. If it weren't for welfare, we'd have a system of government much more like all those places you consistently rank as no-gos for you--places like canada, france, sweden, or *gasp* cuba.

that was the state of affairs then.
and interestingly, we came close to eradicating poverty before a bunch of changes were implemented (which, ironicly, would have destabilized capitalism if you can draw those linkages as to why, I invite you to do so yourself) and experienced some of the most growth and prosperity this nation has witnessed.

but welfare didn't teach all those white people dependency somehow?
more whites are on welfare than black people, but it's always the black welfare mom that takes the brunt of criticism.
I thought people pretty much understood by now that jobs are leaving the country rapidly and the ones left behind aren't paying enough to raise families on. I don't see how any of that is caused by someone being lazy or dependent on the government for food and shelter.

Now we've gone off onto a whole nother topic. I'm talking about how the democratic government in Louisiana and New Orleans, that has governed the area for the last 70 years did a piss poor job of handling the crisis. The welfare-state was part of that. Look at Mississippi (who has a republican gov and took the worst hit from Katrina) and Florida (who has a republican governor and has been through 5 hurricanes in the last 2 years) and look at the difference in government, politics, and where the responsibility lies in protecting the people. Why is it that the Louisiana gov't couldn't take care of itself? did fema fail us or did the people's own govt?

If you want to talk about how if true liberal policies were implemented the people would be better off, we can start a new thread once you show me the instances where socialism has upheld its promise of equality, of no haves and have-nots, only haves. Find that, start the thread, and I'll be more than willing to discuss the failures of socialism.

smooth · 09-14-2005, 11:25 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by stevo

Now we've gone off onto a whole nother topic. I'm talking about how the democratic government in Louisiana and New Orleans, that has governed the area for the last 70 years did a piss poor job of handling the crisis. The welfare-state was part of that. Look at Mississippi (who has a republican gov and took the worst hit from Katrina) and Florida (who has a republican governor and has been through 5 hurricanes in the last 2 years) and look at the difference in government, politics, and where the responsibility lies in protecting the people. Why is it that the Louisiana gov't couldn't take care of itself? did fema fail us or did the people's own govt?

If you want to talk about how if true liberal policies were implemented the people would be better off, we can start a new thread once you show me the instances where socialism has upheld its promise of equality, of no haves and have-nots, only haves. Find that, start the thread, and I'll be more than willing to discuss the failures of socialism.

ok, stevo, if all you can understand is democrat == bad, republican == bad, and reduce these complicated issues of how various states have dealt with various catastrophes (and then only pick three that support your thesis, while ignoring ones that don't, to boot) then I'll just agree to disagree.

And I didn't say anything about implenting socialism or "true" liberal poliices. I just questioned the basis of your claim that liberal policies have failed people when they haven't been implemented as liberals would have liked them to be. if you take my idea and inject it with your ideas and then implement it, that doesn't make it a liberal policy anymore, does it?

host · 09-18-2005, 11:38 AM

The thread title is the question, "Did FEMA Fail Us?"

Quote:

http://www.salon.com/news/feature/20...ugh/print.html
The crony who prospered
Joe Allbaugh was George W. Bush's good ol' boy in Texas. He hired his good friend Mike Brown to run FEMA. Now Brownie's gone and Allbaugh is living large.
- - - - - - - - - - - -
By Mark Benjamin

Sept. 16, 2005 | George W. Bush relied most heavily on three trusted staffers in his bid for the White House in 2000: political strategist Karl Rove, communications czar Karen Hughes and national campaign manager Joe Allbaugh, who had been Bush's chief of staff in Texas, when Bush was governor. The three were dubbed the "iron triangle" of Bush's top staff. Allbaugh was "the enforcer," says Texan Robert Bryce, the author of "Cronies," about Bush and the oil industry. "And he looked the part: crew-cut, cowboy boots, and just slightly smaller than a side-by-side refrigerator."

When Bush moved into the Oval Office, Hughes took a job as counselor in a spacious White House corner office with a view of the Truman balcony. Rove moved in as senior advisor. Allbaugh, on the other hand, went down the road to C Street in southwest Washington to take over the Federal Emergency Management Agency.

FEMA?

"Everybody thought [Allbaugh] was going to be White House chief of staff," Robert Novak said on CNN at the time. "And your initial reaction is, boy, what did he have against Allbaugh? But as I talked to politicians, they say this was a brilliant maneuver because FEMA is very important, politically, to any president dealing with disasters."

The FEMA director has turned out to have political consequences for the president all right, but not the kind that Bush supporters could have ever envisioned. Critics say Allbaugh hastened the decline of FEMA -- even before he turned the agency over to his buddy from Oklahoma, Michael D. Brown, the hapless captain when Katrina struck, whose political career appears to have been shipwrecked for good.

As for the president, a recent Washington Post-ABC News poll found that 54 percent of Americans disapprove of his response to Katrina. Allbaugh, meanwhile, has risen above the morass. He and his wife, Diane, now work as Washington lobbyists and consultants for such companies as Halliburton and Northrop Grumman, companies involved in homeland security and disaster relief that do business with the federal government.

<h4>When Allbaugh inherited FEMA in February 2001, the relief agency may have been in its best shape since its inception in 1979. It had been in the hands of James Lee Witt for the previous seven years.</h4> Witt was an experienced disaster manager who had been the director of the Arkansas Office of Emergency Services for four years before going to FEMA. Witt is credited with implementing sweeping reforms to speed disaster relief, and he was the first FEMA director to get Cabinet-level status -- and crucial access -- to the president. "Access to the president, I think, is critical in an agency like this," Witt told reporters over lunch just as he was leaving FEMA.

Bush, however, did not hand the FEMA reins to Allbaugh because of any long experience in emergency services. "Look at Joe Allbaugh's qualifications," says Eric Holdeman, director of the King County, Wash., Office of Emergency Management, who last month penned an editorial in the Washington Post, <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/08/29/AR2005082901445.html">"Destroying FEMA."</a> "He was campaign manager for Bush. He was a political strategist. He saw FEMA as a federal entitlement program for people. He had no interest in the mission and functions of the emergency management agency."

However, at FEMA, Allbaugh led federal rescue efforts at Ground Zero with apparently good results, though New York City officials, notably Mayor Rudolph Giuliani, got most of the attention. Allbaugh could also move fast. In February 2001, the Nisqually earthquake in Washington state occurred at 11 a.m. By 11 p.m., Allbaugh was in the Puget Sound area, leading a $157 million response.

Following the terrorist attacks on 9/11, Allbaugh backed plans to fold FEMA into the Department of Homeland Security. "I fully support FEMA's transfer into the new department and commit myself to ensuring its success," Allbaugh told the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee in September 2002. "This is the right action, at the right time, for the good of the country."

In March 2003, FEMA was folded into DHS. FEMA critic Holdeman explains that the move stripped the FEMA director of Cabinet-level status, buried the agency in red tape, and caused key talent to flee. DHS employees now rate it as one of the worst places to work in the federal government, according to a nonprofit agency's report, "Best Places to Work in the Federal Government," released this week. "FEMA first became ill with the appointment of Joe Allbaugh," Holdeman says. Not only is it on the back burner of DHS priorities, he says, "it is not even on the stove."

After FEMA's move to DHS, Allbaugh promptly left the agency. "I have been a longtime advocate for the Department of Homeland Security, and now that it is a reality and the president has a great team in place, I feel I can move on to my next challenge," he said in a statement. Of course, before he drove off, he appointed the now infamous Brown as team leader, whom he had brought to FEMA in 2001 as general counsel. Appearing before the Senate Governmental Affairs Committee in June 2002, Brown said: "My friend, Joe Allbaugh, whom I have known for some 25 years, has asked me to serve with him. Our friendship goes back many years."

Allbaugh graduated from Oklahoma State University in 1975, the same year Brown moved from Southeastern Oklahoma State University to the University of Central Oklahoma. (It has been incorrectly reported that Allbaugh and Brown were college roommates. They did not attend the same college and were never college roommates.) Both were active in Oklahoma municipal or state government. Allbaugh was once the Oklahoma deputy secretary of transportation, and Brown was the staff director of the Oklahoma Senate Finance Committee from 1980 to 1982.

Patti Giglio, Allbaugh's spokeswoman, says Allbaugh is unavailable for interviews. She says that she is not sure exactly how Allbaugh and Brown met in Oklahoma, but that Allbaugh is "absolutely" responsible for first bringing Brown to FEMA. "He hired him because he was a solid attorney with a strong ethics background," she says.

Like Allbaugh himself, Brown was no veteran of emergency services. He worked as general counsel for Dillingham Insurance in Enid, Okla., from 1988 to 1991, and evaluated judges for the International Arabian Horse Association for the 10 years ending in 2001.

Brown's sole piece of emergency experience before FEMA came in the 1970s, working for the city of Edmond, Okla. In the spring of 2002, Brown delivered written biographical materials to a Senate panel considering his nomination to FEMA as a political appointee. In those papers, Brown said he worked as "Assistant City Manger, Police, Fire & Emergency Response," in Edmond from 1975 to 1978. He signed an affidavit stating that his biographical material and written answers to that Senate panel were "current, accurate and complete."

However, Edmond city spokeswoman Claudia Deakins says city records list Brown as an "assistant to the city manager" -- as opposed to "assistant city manager" -- from August 1977 through September 1980. Randel Shadid was on the Edmond City Council from 1979 to 1991 and was mayor from 1991 through 1995. He says he remembers Brown and described the Edmond job as relatively low level. "My best I can recall he was an assistant to the city manager, which basically means he did certain tasks for the city manager," he says. "He would not have been in charge of the police and fire departments. We had a fire chief and a police chief."

Shadid says Brown may have assisted the city in preparing a response plan for a tornado or a freight train spill. "He was a nice guy, hard worker and pretty bright," he says. "But the scope of doing anything in the city of Edmond is nowhere near the scope of trying to handle what's going on in the gulf."

Today, with the disgraced Brown having quit FEMA, and President Bush's post-Katrina poll numbers sinking, Allbaugh continues to prosper. His stint at FEMA has proven to be lucrative for him and his wife Diane, who are lobbyists and consultants for the Allbaugh Co.

A review by Salon of lobbying registration records shows that seven months after Allbaugh left what was to become the Department of Homeland Security, Diane Allbaugh registered as a lobbyist with three companies to work on homeland security or disaster relief issues. Prior to that, she focused almost exclusively on energy companies and electric utility clients.

Records also show that Diane Allbaugh contacted DHS for undisclosed reasons on behalf of two of those clients. She did less than $10,000 of work for each company and all three contracts were terminated in the summer of 2004.

Washington is full of folks in power with spouses who are lobbyists. Allbaugh's spokeswoman, Giglio, points out that Diane has her own substantial credentials as an attorney and a lobbyist. "Her work is much broader than 'electric utility lobbyist,' as you have described it," Giglio says in an e-mail. "She is an experienced government affairs consultant across many industry sectors."

Federal ethics law bars senior employees from contacting their former employers on business matters for a period of one year. But not necessarily their spouses. Scott Amey, general counsel at the Project on Government Oversight, says it is unclear if Diane violated any of a complex web of ethics laws, but there are provisions intended to prevent the use of spouses to skirt restrictions.

It is not the first time Diane's lobbying could be perceived as cashing in on her husband's connections. Then-governor Bush in 1996 learned from a report in the Dallas Morning News that Diane had been hired by Texas utility companies who had business before the state. Diane and Joe Allbaugh had moved to Texas from Oklahoma because Joe had become Bush's executive assistant. The paper said Diane could get $250,000 from the companies, even though she "had no previous experience with Texas legislators." Diane later dropped the clients to avoid the "perception of a conflict," she wrote Bush's general counsel.

This year, the Allbaugh Co. registered to lobby for Halliburton Co. subsidiary Kellogg Brown & Root, Northrop Grumman Corp., and Shaw Group, according to lobbying registration forms. In all three cases, the Allbaughs said they would "educate Congress" on either homeland security or disaster relief issues on the companies' behalf.

The Washington Post reported last week that Allbaugh was in Baton Rouge, La., helping his clients get business in the wake of Katrina. Allbaugh told the Post that he guides his clients toward "entities" that might need their services but, he said, "I don't do government contracts."

Press reports show that Kellogg Brown & Root received a $30 million contract to rebuild Navy bases in Louisiana and Mississippi, and Shaw got a $100 million FEMA contract for housing construction and management. Giglio says Allbaugh had nothing to do with those contracts at all. "He is not in the government contracting business," she says. "Everybody is trying to connect the dots. They just don't connect. He did not secure these contracts for either of these companies."

Watchdog Amey says Allbaugh clearly got the job at FEMA because he was a political operative and he appears to be cashing in on his FEMA post now. "Bush may have stacked the [FEMA] administration with people who may not have been the most qualified, and who then steer business their way afterward. Cronyism gets them into the White House. The revolving door gets them business."

Here is a sample of Karen Hughes, at work in her newly appointed capacity as "undersecretary of state for public diplomacy".....

Quote:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...090801788.html
Hughes Is Varnishing the Nation's Tarnish

By Dana Milbank

Friday, September 9, 2005; Page A02

.......But Karen Hughes has another view. The Bush confidante, now undersecretary of state for public diplomacy, held a meeting with her staff in Foggy Bottom yesterday and was asked about the international ramifications of the response to the New Orleans flooding. The problem, Hughes replied, was not a failed relief effort but a foreign press that did not appreciate the federal government's good work.

"There are a lot of things being said about us around the world that aren't true," said the woman in charge of polishing the American image abroad. "We've marshaled the resources of our federal government" to help fellow Americans, she said, and if people think otherwise, "we need to aggressively challenge that idea around the world."..........

..........Remarks by prominent Republicans have left the party on the defensive. The president's mother suggested that life in the Astrodome is "working very well" for impoverished evacuees. Sen. Rick Santorum (Pa.) suggested fines for people who didn't heed evacuation warnings. And House Speaker Dennis Hastert (Ill.) proposed bulldozing New Orleans.

Two-thirds of Americans say the administration botched the relief effort, a new Pew poll found, and only 40 percent approve of Bush's performance overall. Vice President Cheney was cursed out yesterday in Gulfport, Miss.

Yet the Bush administration, whether discussing Iraq or Katrina, remains unfailingly upbeat. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, introducing Hughes, said nothing of Katrina as she repeated the Bush mantra that "freedom is on the march."

Hughes picked up the theme. "We have to offer a positive vision of hope," she began. As if preparing troops for combat, she described her plans for improving world opinion of the United States: a "rapid-response unit," a plan to "forward-deploy regional SWAT teams" and create "a dual-headed DAS for public diplomacy."

One of her underlings rose to ask how this effort squared with the administration's famously tight control over its message. "Recently, we've had tremendous amount of difficulty in some cases getting clearance for our ambassadors to speak," he said.

<h4>Hughes replied that ambassadors are free to talk -- if they use the talking points she sends them. "If they make statements based on something I sent them," she said, "they're not going to be called on the carpet."</h4>

I've posted the two preceding articles to provide more background about Allbaugh's and Bush's influence on FEMA. With Allbaugh gone, two members of Bush's "Iron Triangle" are still in positions to influence Bush and to directly exercise power; Karen Hughes and Karl Rove.

It astounds me that in all the posts on TFP politics, there are only three recent posters who provided content here that contain Joe Allbaugh's name.
( "host", "Elphaba", and "raveneye" : http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/search.php?searchid=441869)
Considering his background, his influence with Bush and Bush's political success, and his "contribution" as head of FEMA, there should be more recent mention of him. Bush, Rove, and Hughes are still in government, and they can only function against most of our best interests with your continuing support.

Elphaba · 09-21-2005, 01:57 PM

FEMA's fall under the direction of Albaugh continued with the appointment of Brown. He may have known little or nothing about disaster response, but he certainly understood political motivations during an election year.

http://www.freepress.org/departments...y/19/2005/1460

Quote:

FEMA Chief Brown Paid Millions in False Claims to Help Bush Win Fla. Votes
by Jason Leopold
September 19, 2005

Michael Brown, the embattled head of the Federal Emergency Management Agency, approved payments in excess of $31 million in taxpayer money to thousands of Florida residents who were unaffected by Hurricane Frances and three other hurricanes last year in an effort to help President Bush win a majority of votes in that state during his reelection campaign, according to published reports.

“Some Homeland Security sources said FEMA's efforts to distribute funds quickly after Frances and three other hurricanes that hit the key political battleground state of Florida in a six-week period last fall were undertaken with a keen awareness of the looming presidential elections,” according to a May 19 Washington Post story.

Homeland Security sources told the Post that after the hurricanes that Brown “and his allies [recommended] him to succeed Tom Ridge as Homeland Security secretary because of their claim that he helped deliver Florida to President Bush by efficiently responding to the Florida hurricanes.”

The South Florida Sun-Sentinel uncovered emails from Florida Gov. Jeb Bush that confirmed those allegations and directly implicated Brown as playing politics at the expense of hurricane victims.

“As the second hurricane in less than a month bore down on Florida last fall, a federal [FEMA] consultant predicted a "huge mess" that could reflect poorly on President Bush and suggested that his re-election staff be brought in to minimize any political liability, records show,” the Sentinel reported in a March 23 story.

“Two weeks later, a Florida official summarizing the hurricane response wrote that the Federal Emergency Management Agency was handing out housing assistance "to everyone who needs it without asking for much information of any kind."

The records the Sentinel obtained were contained in hundreds of pages of Gov. Jeb Bush's storm-related e-mails the paper received from the governor’s office under the threat of a lawsuit.

The explosive charges of mismanagement of disaster relief funds made against Brown and FEMA were confirmed earlier this year following a four-month investigation by Richard Skinner, the Department of Homeland Security’s inspector general. Skinner looked into media reports alleging that residents of Miami-Dade were receiving windfall payments from FEMA to cover losses from Hurricane Frances they never incurred.

Hurricane Frances hit Hutchinson Island, Fla., about 100 miles north of Dade County, on Sept. 5. Miami-Dade officials described damage there from heavy rain and winds of up to 45 mph as ''minimal,'' according to the Post.

Indeed. A May 14 story in the Sun-Sentinel said: “Miami-Dade County residents collected Hurricane Frances aid for belongings they didn't own, temporary housing they never requested and cars worth far less than the government paid, according to a federal audit that questions millions in storm payouts.

Responding to those allegations, Brown held a news conference Jan. 11 blaming the overpayments on a “computer glitch” and said the disbursements were far less than the $31 million that was cited in news reports and involved 3,500 people. Moreover, to silence his critics who said that Hurricane Frances barely touched down in Miami-Dade, Brown cited a report by the National Oceanic Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) to prove that there were legitimate hurricane conditions there and as a result that a bulk of the payments was legitimate.

But according to the Sun-Sentinel, NOAA had refuted the weather maps Brown claimed to have obtained from them. That report prompted Congressman Robert Wexler to send off a scathing letter to President Bush calling for Brown’s resignation.

Bush rebuffed Wexler. However, the DHS’ inspector general launched a probe to determine how widespread the problems were involving overpayments to Miami-Dade residents. In May, the inspector general released his report. What he found was damning.

“The review found waste and poor controls in every level of the Federal Emergency Management Agency's assistance program and challenges the designation of Miami-Dade as a disaster area when the county "did not incur any hurricane force winds, tornados or other adverse weather conditions that would cause widespread damage."

In identifying one of the overpayments, the inspector general’s report said FEMA paid $10 million to replace hundreds of household items even though only a bed was reported to be damaged, the inspector general’s report said.

"Millions of individuals and households became eligible to apply for [money], straining FEMA's limited inspection resources to verify damages and making the program more susceptible to potential fraud, waste and abuse," the report states.

Sen. Susan Collins, R-Maine, chairwoman of the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs committee, said during a committee hearing in May that Brown “approved massive payouts to replace thousands of televisions, air conditioners, beds and other furniture, as well as a number of cars, without receipts, or proof of ownership or damage, and based solely on verbal statements by the residents, sometimes made in fleeting encounters at fast-food restaurants.”

“It was a pay first, ask questions later approach,'' Collins said. ''The inspector general's report identifies a number of significant control weaknesses that create a potential for widespread fraud, erroneous payments and wasteful practices.''

But the most interesting charge against Brown is that he helped speed up payments in Florida and purposely bypassed FEMA’s lengthy reviews process for distributing funds in order to help Bush secure votes in the state during last year’s presidential election.

Bob Hunter, director of insurance for the Consumer Federation of America, who was a top federal flood insurance official in the 1970s and 1980s and a Texas insurance commissioner in the 1990s, told the Post “that in the vast majority of hurricanes, other than those in Florida in 2004, complaints are rife that FEMA has vastly underpaid hurricane victims. The Frances overpayments are questionable given the timing of the election and Florida's importance as a battleground state.”

FEMA consultant Glenn Garcelon actions certainly lends credibility to questions raised by Hunter.

On Sept. 2, 2004, Garcelon, wrote a three-page memo titled "Hurricane Frances -- Thoughts and Suggestions."

“The Republican National Convention was winding down, and President Bush had only a slight lead in the polls against Democrat John Kerry,” the Sentinel reported in its March 23 story. “Winning Florida was key to the president's re-election. FEMA should pay careful attention to how it is portrayed by the public, Garcelon wrote in the memo, conveying "the team effort theme at every opportunity" alongside state and local officials, the insurance and construction industries, and relief agencies such as the Red Cross.”

Gov. Bush received the memo Sept. 30, 2004 shortly before a swell of payments made its way to residents in Miami-Dade who did not sustain damage as a result of Hurricane Frances.

A couple of weeks before Gov. Bush received the memo from Garcelon, Orlando J. Cabrera, executive director of the Florida Housing Finance Corp. and a member of the governor's Hurricane Housing Work Group, said in a different memo to Gov. Bush that FEMA was allocating short-term rental assistance to "everyone who needs it, without asking for much information of any kind," the Sentinel reported.

In addition, "standard housing assistance," of up to $25,600, Cabrera wrote, is "liberally provided without significant scrutiny of the request made during the initial months; scrutiny increases remarkably and the package is far more stringent after an unspecified time."

The DHS audit report found that, under Brown, FEMA erroneously distributed to Miami-Dade residents:

* $8.2 million in rental assistance to 4,308 applicants in the county who "did not indicate a need for shelter" when they registered for help. In 60 cases reviewed by auditors, inspectors deemed homes unsafe without explanation, and applicants never moved out.

* $720,403 to 228 people for belongings based on their word alone.

* $192,592 for generators, air purifiers, wet/dry vacuum cleaners, chainsaws and other items without proof that they were needed to deal with the hurricane. Three applicants got generators for their homes, plus rental assistance from FEMA to live somewhere else.

* $15,743 for three funerals without sufficient documentation that the deaths were due to the hurricane.

* $46,464 to 64 residents for temporary housing even though they had homeowners insurance. FEMA funds cannot be used when costs are covered by insurance.

* $17,424 in rental assistance to 24 people who reported that their homes were not damaged.

* $97,500 for 15 automobiles with a "blue book" value of $56,140. In general, the report states that FEMA approved claims for damaged vehicles without properly verifying that the losses were caused by the storm.

I'm of the opinion that the "Iron Triangle" and their associates could teach the mafia a thing or two.

Elphaba · 09-29-2005, 05:11 PM

An update to this thread:

Quote:

On Friday, September 30, 2005 at 8:30 p.m. on PBS (check local listings), NOW's Maria Hinojosa investigates the management mess at FEMA through the eyes of insiders and former insiders at the agency. The report documents the depletion of resources, cronyism, and lack of support at the highest levels of government that have crippled the agency and contributed to Katrina response failures.

I'm not sure what relevance NOW has in this report.

vautrain · 09-29-2005, 05:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by stevo

OK. and bush is taking responsibility for that. I hold him accountable for brownie as well, but it is hardly an issue of impeachment for me.

You're kidding me. Brownie is hardly qualified to be a junior associate attorney at a mediocre law firm. You don't think there is something eggregiously incompetent about appointing him to the directorship of the Federal Emergency Management Agency, especially in the wake of 9/11? I really have to wonder if Bush is concerned at all about national security.

pan6467 · 09-29-2005, 06:30 PM

All I have to say is it took the press hours to get into places that it took FEMA 4 days to get into. (Say what you will about how they reported it, they were there far faster than FEMA.)

Something is wrong with that picture.

Plus, you can not truly hold responsible or expect local First Responders to be doing the job to the best of their abilities, that is why FEMA should be one of our better programs.

I defy anyone on here to say in all honesty that if you were police or fire and as a disaster hit your family was in serious jeopardy, that you would stay on duty and do the best job with total focus on the job at hand and not having it stray. It's impossible, so with FEMA you have first responders that most likely have no family there and will be able to give that 100% focus on the job at hand.

Grey2000 · 09-29-2005, 10:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pan6467

All I have to say is it took the press hours to get into places that it took FEMA 4 days to get into. (Say what you will about how they reported it, they were there far faster than FEMA.)

Something is wrong with that picture.

Plus, you can not truly hold responsible or expect local First Responders to be doing the job to the best of their abilities, that is why FEMA should be one of our better programs.

I defy anyone on here to say in all honesty that if you were police or fire and as a disaster hit your family was in serious jeopardy, that you would stay on duty and do the best job with total focus on the job at hand and not having it stray. It's impossible, so with FEMA you have first responders that most likely have no family there and will be able to give that 100% focus on the job at hand.

So, in other words. The First-responders shouldn't really be expected to respond first ?

Oh, and naturally, equating FEMA's ability to mobilize thousands of people, equipment and resources to the ability of pre-positioned news-teams to
deliver reports via satellite is entirely fair.

pan6467 · 09-30-2005, 04:42 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Grey2000

So, in other words. The First-responders shouldn't really be expected to respond first ?

I am saying to expect ANYONE in this situation to stay on the job and not leave their post to make sure their families are ok is ridiculous and unreasonable. After it hit and they knew their families were ok, thhat is a bt different.

Quote:

Oh, and naturally, equating FEMA's ability to mobilize thousands of people, equipment and resources to the ability of pre-positioned news-teams to deliver reports via satellite is entirely fair.

FEMA had how many days before it knew? You sit there and accuse the locals for not doing anything, yet FEMA had the same amount of time, and yes I do equate that to the press because THAT IS FEMA'S JOB.... that is what they are there for, to mobilize in the shortest amount of time...... 4 DAYS does not = the shortest amount of time possible.

pan6467 · 09-30-2005, 05:09 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Grey2000

So, in other words. The First-responders shouldn't really be expected to respond first ?

Oh, and naturally, equating FEMA's ability to mobilize thousands of people, equipment and resources to the ability of pre-positioned news-teams to
deliver reports via satellite is entirely fair.

Quote:

Originally Posted by pan6467

I defy anyone on here to say in all honesty that if you were police or fire and as a disaster hit your family was in serious jeopardy, that you would stay on duty and do the best job with total focus on the job at hand and not having it stray. It's impossible, so with FEMA you have first responders that most likely have no family there and will be able to give that 100% focus on the job at hand.

By the way what would you have done?

09-14-2005, 06:49 AM	#126 (permalink)
Charlatan Getting it. Super Moderator Location: Lion City	Redlemon... they are being charged because they were offered assistance to move the patients but declined the assistance... this was not a failure of response to a need it was the idiocy (or worse) of the owners of that residence. Bush can't be held responsible for this. __________________ "My hands are on fire. Hands are on fire. Ain't got no more time for all you charlatans and liars." - Old Man Luedecke

09-14-2005, 07:23 AM	#129 (permalink)
Charlatan Getting it. Super Moderator Location: Lion City	pan... that debt is not the fault of Capitalism... the Soviet Union was a planned economy and it bankrupted itself all the same. I don't disagree with your assessment of the US debt just where the problem lies. I'd be more concerned with nations like China dumping US dollars for Euros or the oil nations starting to do all of the their business in Euros... the subsequent devaluation of the US dollar would be catastrophic for many. The cynic in me notes that Saddam Hussien switched the oil for food program to Euros and was subsequently invaded (this probably belongs in paranoia but there you go). __________________ "My hands are on fire. Hands are on fire. Ain't got no more time for all you charlatans and liars." - Old Man Luedecke Last edited by Charlatan; 09-14-2005 at 07:25 AM..

09-14-2005, 08:48 AM	#132 (permalink)
smooth Junkie Location: Right here	Perhaps I did misunderstand you. But your latest post didn't clarify anything for me. You are arguing that the "welfare" state has kept these people poor and uneducated? regardless of whether they actually receive welfare or were employed? That doesn't make much sense to me. Your statistics indicate a relatively small percentage of the population received government assistance, yet you want to blame the government assistance programs (of which a large number don't even utilize) for their poverty? That's ridiculous argument from the way you've presented it. Your self-sufficiency, from the data you provided, falls flat on its ass where it belongs. You cite that roughly 10% of the families recieve cash welfare, and approx. 15% of them recieve subsidized housing. Yet, nearly 30% aren't employed. That leaves 20% not utilizing welfare and 15% not utilizing public housing. The majority of the impoverished population, despite your claims to the contrary, are doing exactly what you claim they aren't doing--taking care of themselves. If you really think that people are poor because they utilize government welfare programs, I don't know really what to tell you other than no person educated in this field that I know of holds the same view. The data you provided doesn't support your view. I think the way you came to your view is your dislike for government programs and predispositions to believe a certain way about welfare programs and who is on them. More to the point, black citizens have lived in persistent poverty far longer than welfare was even conceived of. I think you need to rethink your position and come up with some factual basis for your assertions. __________________ "The theory of a free press is that truth will emerge from free discussion, not that it will be presented perfectly and instantly in any one account." -- Walter Lippmann "You measure democracy by the freedom it gives its dissidents, not the freedom it gives its assimilated conformists." -- Abbie Hoffman

09-14-2005, 11:04 AM	#144 (permalink)
smooth Junkie Location: Right here	stevo, the only thing I still don't understand is why you think that "liberal" policies have failed anyone. mainly because we haven't ever really implemented any liberal policies. pehaps some warped versions that appear on their face like what liberal oriented experts might suggest we do, but nothing closely approximating what those same liberals would have implemented themselves. it's just really discouraging that you wouldn't evaluate idea on their own merits instead of what you think they are packaged inside of. I mean, just your repeated disparaging remarks of welfare are troubling. To my knowledge, even conservative experts have written that implementing New Deal policies were far from liberal...they sustained capitalism, for one thing, which was rapidly losing currency with the bulk of the population. If it weren't for welfare, we'd have a system of government much more like all those places you consistently rank as no-gos for you--places like canada, france, sweden, or gasp cuba. that was the state of affairs then. and interestingly, we came close to eradicating poverty before a bunch of changes were implemented (which, ironicly, would have destabilized capitalism if you can draw those linkages as to why, I invite you to do so yourself) and experienced some of the most growth and prosperity this nation has witnessed. but welfare didn't teach all those white people dependency somehow? more whites are on welfare than black people, but it's always the black welfare mom that takes the brunt of criticism. I thought people pretty much understood by now that jobs are leaving the country rapidly and the ones left behind aren't paying enough to raise families on. I don't see how any of that is caused by someone being lazy or dependent on the government for food and shelter. __________________ "The theory of a free press is that truth will emerge from free discussion, not that it will be presented perfectly and instantly in any one account." -- Walter Lippmann "You measure democracy by the freedom it gives its dissidents, not the freedom it gives its assimilated conformists." -- Abbie Hoffman

09-29-2005, 06:30 PM	#152 (permalink)
pan6467 Lennonite Priest Location: Mansfield, Ohio USA	All I have to say is it took the press hours to get into places that it took FEMA 4 days to get into. (Say what you will about how they reported it, they were there far faster than FEMA.) Something is wrong with that picture. Plus, you can not truly hold responsible or expect local First Responders to be doing the job to the best of their abilities, that is why FEMA should be one of our better programs. I defy anyone on here to say in all honesty that if you were police or fire and as a disaster hit your family was in serious jeopardy, that you would stay on duty and do the best job with total focus on the job at hand and not having it stray. It's impossible, so with FEMA you have first responders that most likely have no family there and will be able to give that 100% focus on the job at hand. __________________ I just love people who use the excuse "I use/do this because I LOVE the feeling/joy/happiness it brings me" and expect you to be ok with that as you watch them destroy their life blindly following. My response is, "I like to put forks in an eletrical socket, just LOVE that feeling, can't ever get enough of it, so will you let me put this copper fork in that electric socket?" Last edited by pan6467; 09-29-2005 at 08:54 PM..