Posted August 31, 200519 yr I haven't seen any breaking news in the past couple of days where some other country is standing in line to help out the United States with financial assistance in this disaster of hurricane Katrina. We are always the first ones to give our money away to all these 3rd world countries when some disaster takes place. How many are standing in line for us? Where is France, Germany, and all the other usual suspects? If a major disaster struck there, we'd be the first ones sending millions of dollars worth of aid their way to help them.
August 31, 200519 yr and we were heavily criticized because we weren't helping the Tsunami victims enough
August 31, 200519 yr we were critized because at first we were offering almost no aid at all. But I believe you will see "some" aid start to come in over the next few weeks. God, I hope most of the people will get free and be alright. The city is typically 6 ft below sea level, I wonder what they are going to do over this in the long run.
August 31, 200519 yr I know it sounds rash, but why should the city be re-built at all. What makes anyone think it won't happen again next year. Re-building in a place that should not have been built on in the first place is foolish.
August 31, 200519 yr I know it sounds rash, but why should the city be re-built at all. What makes anyone think it won't happen again next year. Re-building in a place that should not have been built on in the first place is foolish. 923474[/snapback] Two words: Mardi Gras
August 31, 200519 yr If the dikes burst here, you could be looking at close to the same thing. Would you want Miami/Fort lauderdale to be rebuilt? In the 1900s this happend to south florida, that is why the river was straightend out going into the Lake. That is why the drainage and dykes were made from a hurricane that killed Thousands of people. That made Anddrew look like a joke. If the dykes here broke the same could happen. Please consider if it was your property, your birthplace, your life. One of the oldest cities in the nation ( I believe 5th oldest after St'Augustine and a few more). Not to even mention the history of the place in the national outlook. Just the personal issue, would you want it rebuilt? I understand your reasoning for asking so please dont take this as a shot at you. Just consider, these are peoples lives vs money. (yes billions it will take though most likely). If we can pay for citizens of Iraq to get their homes and education and needs. The US should take care of it's own here and get them back their city. Even if it does take a year or five to fully rebuild. I hope that just helps perspective some at least? If not sorry for the wasted space hehe
August 31, 200519 yr I know it sounds rash, but why should the city be re-built at all. What makes anyone think it won't happen again next year. Re-building in a place that should not have been built on in the first place is foolish. 923474[/snapback] There are many, many, many other cities built in areas where natural disasters are a big risk. It's foolish to think they'll just abandon New Orleans.
August 31, 200519 yr The city should and will be rebuilt. It isn't the first time folks, Betsy caused similar damage relatively speaking to New Orleans.
August 31, 200519 yr I know it sounds rash, but why should the city be re-built at all. What makes anyone think it won't happen again next year. Re-building in a place that should not have been built on in the first place is foolish. 923474[/snapback] I agree to a point. but I guess folks will have to make their own decision on this one. The Levee system is a joke, can they make it better? Is the money needed to build a reliable Levee system worth it? Who pays for it? I don't think the Federal government should pay for it. Real Estate prices there are going to be going really low, are people going to be able to pay higher taxes to build better services?
August 31, 200519 yr I know it sounds rash, but why should the city be re-built at all. What makes anyone think it won't happen again next year. Re-building in a place that should not have been built on in the first place is foolish. 923474[/snapback] I agree to a point. but I guess folks will have to make their own decision on this one. The Levee system is a joke, can they make it better? Is the money needed to build a reliable Levee system worth it? Who pays for it? I don't think the Federal government should pay for it. Real Estate prices there are going to be going really low, are people going to be able to pay higher taxes to build better services? 923510[/snapback] The federal government places money into areas for "disaster relief" like hurricanes every year in the budget. I cant see the US Governement telling Mr. Smith whose home was destroyed, job lost that his taxes are gonna skyrocket there in order to rebuild.
August 31, 200519 yr If the government spent $14B on the Big Dig, they should spend 14B on a levee system that protects a major American city.
August 31, 200519 yr I know it sounds rash, but why should the city be re-built at all. What makes anyone think it won't happen again next year. Re-building in a place that should not have been built on in the first place is foolish. 923474[/snapback] I agree to a point. but I guess folks will have to make their own decision on this one. The Levee system is a joke, can they make it better? Is the money needed to build a reliable Levee system worth it? Who pays for it? I don't think the Federal government should pay for it. Real Estate prices there are going to be going really low, are people going to be able to pay higher taxes to build better services? 923510[/snapback] The federal government places money into areas for "disaster relief" like hurricanes every year in the budget. I cant see the US Governement telling Mr. Smith whose home was destroyed, job lost that his taxes are gonna skyrocket there in order to rebuild. 923518[/snapback] recovery activities, yes. Federal government should aid those in need. we are talking about building something huge (a new levee) so this doesn't happen again (after the recovery). In addition, this Levee was supposed to wistand Cat 3 storm. The eye of the storm didn't go throught the city and they got a comparable Cat 3 storm and the Levee failed. building something new is not going to guranteed success next time. Big business and a lot of people are going to avoid NO, so I don't think they will get the same economic inflows
August 31, 200519 yr It is a tourist/city of history anyways mostly. It also has alot of shipping for oil and other imports/exports with the missippi right near there.
August 31, 200519 yr The Levee system is a joke, can they make it better? Is the money needed to build a reliable Levee system worth it? Who pays for it? I don't think the Federal government should pay for it. 923510[/snapback] Well the levee system works 99.9% of the time. The exception being when a freak of nature known as a category 5 hurricane comes ripping through.
August 31, 200519 yr The Levee system is a joke, can they make it better? Is the money needed to build a reliable Levee system worth it? Who pays for it? I don't think the Federal government should pay for it. 923510[/snapback] Well the levee system works 99.9% of the time. The exception being when a freak of nature known as a category 5 hurricane comes ripping through. 923562[/snapback] it didn't work this time, and that's the important thing. It was not a Cat 5, it was a CAT 4. And, the eye did not go through the city (or the worst of the storm) We are talking about one of the biggest catastrophic events in US history. should we risk going through the same thing again?
August 31, 200519 yr btw, back to original topic. Not a fan of Chavez but at least he cares: CARACAS (AFP) - Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez offered to send food and fuel to the United States after the powerful Hurricane Katrina pummeled the US south, ravaging US crude production. The leftist leader, a frequent critic of the United States and a target himself of US disapproval, said Venezuela could send aid workers with drinking water, food and fuel to US communities hit by the hurricane. ?We place at the disposition of the people of the United States in the event of shortages ? we have drinking water, food, we can provide fuel,? Chavez told reporters... http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/a...il_050829235602
August 31, 200519 yr 1 storm in 50 years and u think this is a frequent occurence? 923590[/snapback] well, there are theories out there that his is supposed to get worse due to global warming, etc. And who's to say it won't happend again next year?
August 31, 200519 yr U.S. Ranks 12th Among Richest Nations for Foreign Aid By Sonni Efron, Times Staff Writer WASHINGTON -- The United States has significantly increased its foreign aid to poor countries but still ranks 12th among the 21 richest nations in its overall performance in helping the world's poor, according to a widely watched annual report. Denmark ranks as the most generous country in the world, spending 89 cents per person per day in government aid and one cent per person per day in private giving, according to the "Ranking the Rich" survey released today by the Center for Global Development and Foreign Policy magazine. ADVERTISEMENT The United States spent 15 cents per person per day in government aid to poor nations and 6 cents per person daily in private giving, the report found. The foreign aid statistics were based on 2003 data, and did not include the unprecedented outpouring of charity sparked by last December's tsunami. The United States pledged $950 million for tsunami relief, out of an estimated $12 billion promised by all Western donors. More than 2 billion people live on less than $2 a day. The controversial index attempts to measure how countries help these global poor, not only by their direct foreign aid contributions but also by their policies on trade, migration, the environment, technology, security and foreign investment. For example, the index penalizes nations that sell expensive weapons systems to undemocratic, impoverished dictatorships, but gives points to countries that accept migrants from underdeveloped countries. It subtracts from the totals interest payments made by underdevelopment countries to aid donors. Japan ranked last among the 21 donors, mainly because of high trade barriers, low per capita foreign aid spending, and a poor environmental record in developing countries, the survey found. After the tsunami, conservative opinion leaders and others were outraged by suggestions that the U.S. response to the disaster had been "stingy" and lambasted the index. Among other criticisms, they argued that such measurements do not include the amount Americans give to domestic charities. Nor do they give the United States credit for the billions it spends in military operations that it says provide the global security that allows other nations' economies to flourish. Responding to such criticisms, the 2005 Commitment to Development Index uses a revised methodology, according to David Roodman, who heads the study at the Center for Global Development, a liberal Washington think tank. For example, this year's report gives the United States points for its military contributions to keeping the world's sea lanes open for global trade, Roodman said. The United States, the European Union and Canada also are given points for eliminating tariffs on textile imports from developing nations under a World Trade Organization agreement. However, the United States, Britain and France all lose points as the world's largest arms merchants, though the United States was selling fewer weapons to undemocratic countries than it did in the past, Roodman said. The United States spent $18.7 billion in foreign aid in 2003, more than any other nation. But more than $1 billion of that was write-offs for uncollectible loans, mostly to the Democratic Republic of Congo, formerly Zaire, Roodman said. Such debt relief is "a good thing, but it's also overrated because most of that money would never have come anyway," Roodman said. "It's more about rich countries accepting reality" than truly helping the global poor, he said. The index also subtracted from the U.S. aid total the $1.5 billion in debt repayment that Washington received from the developing world, leaving a net total of $15.8 billion in material foreign aid given in 2003, Roodman said. Even measured by that stricter standard, U.S. foreign aid has increased sharply, from $12.4 billion in 2001 and $14.7 billion in 2002. "Our aid really has gone up a lot and the Bush administration deserves credit for that," Roodman said. Overall, however, the U.S. rank slipped from 11th in last year's survey to 12th this year. The United Nations has called on all nations to give 0.7% of their gross domestic product in foreign aid, but the United States rejects that standard, noting that it would require a U.S. foreign aid budget of $91 billion per year. If the United States were ever to spend that sum, it would so dominate the global aid effort that it would be "imperial development by the United States," Andrew Natsios, head of the U.S. Agency for International Development, said at the United Nations in June. "We couldn't spend $91 billion if we wanted to," Natsios added, according to the Associated Press. Nevertheless, Roodman said, "if you want a meaningful measure of how much countries are trying, you have to look at aid either per capita or as a share of GDP," which measures countries by their capacity to give. "We preach the values of political equality and economic opportunity all over the world," he added. "What we do with this index is look at how each country is pursuing those same ideas beyond their borders." Food for thought about how great we are.
August 31, 200519 yr 1 storm in 50 years and u think this is a frequent occurence? 923590[/snapback] well, there are theories out there that his is supposed to get worse due to global warming, etc. And who's to say it won't happend again next year? 923595[/snapback] certainly but its just as likely or less likely then the big quake california is waiting for. Florida could also be pummelled like last year. They can protect themselves from this in NOLA. Theyve just done a terrible job. Perhaps they will learn from this.
August 31, 200519 yr U.S. Ranks 12th Among Richest Nations for Foreign Aid By Sonni Efron, Times Staff Writer WASHINGTON -- The United States has significantly increased its foreign aid to poor countries but still ranks 12th among the 21 richest nations in its overall performance in helping the world's poor, according to a widely watched annual report. Denmark ranks as the most generous country in the world, spending 89 cents per person per day in government aid and one cent per person per day in private giving, according to the "Ranking the Rich" survey released today by the Center for Global Development and Foreign Policy magazine. ADVERTISEMENT The United States spent 15 cents per person per day in government aid to poor nations and 6 cents per person daily in private giving, the report found. The foreign aid statistics were based on 2003 data, and did not include the unprecedented outpouring of charity sparked by last December's tsunami. The United States pledged $950 million for tsunami relief, out of an estimated $12 billion promised by all Western donors. More than 2 billion people live on less than $2 a day. The controversial index attempts to measure how countries help these global poor, not only by their direct foreign aid contributions but also by their policies on trade, migration, the environment, technology, security and foreign investment. For example, the index penalizes nations that sell expensive weapons systems to undemocratic, impoverished dictatorships, but gives points to countries that accept migrants from underdeveloped countries. It subtracts from the totals interest payments made by underdevelopment countries to aid donors. Japan ranked last among the 21 donors, mainly because of high trade barriers, low per capita foreign aid spending, and a poor environmental record in developing countries, the survey found. After the tsunami, conservative opinion leaders and others were outraged by suggestions that the U.S. response to the disaster had been "stingy" and lambasted the index. Among other criticisms, they argued that such measurements do not include the amount Americans give to domestic charities. Nor do they give the United States credit for the billions it spends in military operations that it says provide the global security that allows other nations' economies to flourish. Responding to such criticisms, the 2005 Commitment to Development Index uses a revised methodology, according to David Roodman, who heads the study at the Center for Global Development, a liberal Washington think tank. For example, this year's report gives the United States points for its military contributions to keeping the world's sea lanes open for global trade, Roodman said. The United States, the European Union and Canada also are given points for eliminating tariffs on textile imports from developing nations under a World Trade Organization agreement. However, the United States, Britain and France all lose points as the world's largest arms merchants, though the United States was selling fewer weapons to undemocratic countries than it did in the past, Roodman said. The United States spent $18.7 billion in foreign aid in 2003, more than any other nation. But more than $1 billion of that was write-offs for uncollectible loans, mostly to the Democratic Republic of Congo, formerly Zaire, Roodman said. Such debt relief is "a good thing, but it's also overrated because most of that money would never have come anyway," Roodman said. "It's more about rich countries accepting reality" than truly helping the global poor, he said. The index also subtracted from the U.S. aid total the $1.5 billion in debt repayment that Washington received from the developing world, leaving a net total of $15.8 billion in material foreign aid given in 2003, Roodman said. Even measured by that stricter standard, U.S. foreign aid has increased sharply, from $12.4 billion in 2001 and $14.7 billion in 2002. "Our aid really has gone up a lot and the Bush administration deserves credit for that," Roodman said. Overall, however, the U.S. rank slipped from 11th in last year's survey to 12th this year. The United Nations has called on all nations to give 0.7% of their gross domestic product in foreign aid, but the United States rejects that standard, noting that it would require a U.S. foreign aid budget of $91 billion per year. If the United States were ever to spend that sum, it would so dominate the global aid effort that it would be "imperial development by the United States," Andrew Natsios, head of the U.S. Agency for International Development, said at the United Nations in June. "We couldn't spend $91 billion if we wanted to," Natsios added, according to the Associated Press. Nevertheless, Roodman said, "if you want a meaningful measure of how much countries are trying, you have to look at aid either per capita or as a share of GDP," which measures countries by their capacity to give. "We preach the values of political equality and economic opportunity all over the world," he added. "What we do with this index is look at how each country is pursuing those same ideas beyond their borders." Food for thought about how great we are. 923596[/snapback] Yeah but it doesnt include private charity aid, :confused We give a lot more of that. I think I once heard we were number one in charity or something.
August 31, 200519 yr Saudi Arabia ready to help US after hurricane 08.31.2005, 04:14 PM RIYADH (AFX) - Saudi Arabia said it is prepared to help the US in any way it could to ease the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina, the official SPA agency reported. According to the agency, King Abdullah assured President George W. Bush in a telephone conversation of the 'support of the kingdom to its friend the United States during its misfortune.' http://www.forbes.com/business/feeds/afx/2...afx2199722.html
August 31, 200519 yr Saudi Arabia ready to help US after hurricane 08.31.2005, 04:14 PM RIYADH (AFX) - Saudi Arabia said it is prepared to help the US in any way it could to ease the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina, the official SPA agency reported. According to the agency, King Abdullah assured President George W. Bush in a telephone conversation of the 'support of the kingdom to its friend the United States during its misfortune.' http://www.forbes.com/business/feeds/afx/2...afx2199722.html 923604[/snapback] Saudis: Yes Mr. Bush we are ready to help you in anyway possible. Bush: Give us free oil. Saudis: *click*
August 31, 200519 yr Saudi Arabia ready to help US after hurricane 08.31.2005, 04:14 PM RIYADH (AFX) - Saudi Arabia said it is prepared to help the US in any way it could to ease the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina, the official SPA agency reported. According to the agency, King Abdullah assured President George W. Bush in a telephone conversation of the 'support of the kingdom to its friend the United States during its misfortune.' http://www.forbes.com/business/feeds/afx/2...afx2199722.html 923604[/snapback] Saudis: Yes Mr. Bush we are ready to help you in anyway possible. Bush: Give us free oil. Saudis: *click* 923605[/snapback] I'll be happy if they can make the OPEC increase the supply of oil
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.