Help Lizard Breath Save Bush from Hurricane Katrina

Looks like the plan failed, badly. $6,000 per year, even tax free, is not really the kind of money that says "private enterprise to erect hurricane defenses". Even at $20,000 tax free you aren't looking at being able to do much alone (perhaps you can raise some unsightly levees around your own house? That might be problematic for your house prices), though you can afford insurance to imdemnify you in case the risk is realized.What would probably be a good idea is if the governors of the area taxed the residents and used those funds to enact a city wide civil project to defend the city against predicted natural disasters. What would great would be if the Federal government used funds collected from all states to help out the project because not helping the project could have large financial ramifications for the entire republic.That's just my opinion of course, and I'm sure Bush's plan would have worked if only there wasn't a hurricane in the next few years.

I'm an adopted N'awlins fella (my step-mother is born and bred, as is my half borther). I doubt that your statement is fully accurate, though I have not got the figures in front of me. Do you have them? Would it be better if we reworded that to 'a disproportionate amount of the citizens rely heavily on government support'? That was largely my point, when I said

quote:

---

$6,000 per year, even tax free, is not really the kind of money that says "private enterprise to erect hurricane defenses".

---

I'm not entrely fluent in USian tax structures, but I'm assuming that $6,000 wagers don't pay much, if any income tax. Perhaps they pay taxes in other ways though, public transport? sales tax? Do you guys have anything like council tax? I'm assuming that if you do, the poorest still don't pay it.So yes indeed: what good are tax cuts to give people a break to put money towards helping themselves, when those tax cuts don't effect those that were always going to be hit hardest by a natural disaster?We both agree that this is absurd...according to Lizard Breath this was Bush's plan. I tend to give Bush a little more credit for having a better plan than that.

Your excerpt says: The OP, and most (if not all) posters agree. Bush isn't necessarily the prime blame candidate. However, does he have some responsibility? Is he accountable for some of the screw ups that happened? This thread is not about holding Bush ultimately responsible for all things, and this has been painstakingly addressed.

I feel a terminal topic drift coming rapidly here.There is actually an open thread dealing with this, you haven't posted in it, so perhaps you can expand on your ideas there where they can be discussed (that is to say, I might actually be interested in discussing this, or at least see it being discussed, and it can't carry on here)

Well, its not really underpaying these people, it's merely suspending the The Davis-Bacon Act which allows the contractors to pay lower wages, reducing costs and allowing the contractors to employ more workers to get the job done. As Bush said this "will result in greater assistance to these devastated communities and will permit the employment of thousands of additional individuals." Thus, those that have lost their jobs to the disaster have a greater chance of getting employed by the contractors until such time that they can find other employment.Of course this is the classic 'does minimum wage help or hinder things' debate. Both sides have fair points, but its generally all about opinion rather than hard facts. The anti-minimum wagers point out that that it lowers employment rates and drives costs up for everybody...to the point where increased minimum wages means an increase in costs to the consumer, so the cost of living increases, negating the point of having minimum wages. These same people argue that the market should decide what the wages are, and that if an employer is proposing too low a wage, people will work elsewhere - and with the increased amount of employment opportunities they will have that choice.

Bush supporters are quick to point out that he isn't a moron, and is actually a smart guy with a quick mind. After all, he got a degree, right?So if he isn't stupid he's either
a) Very forgetful
b) A liarI'm not keen on either qualities in a man as powerful as he. Anybody else have another interpretation of his actions?

So are you saying that Bush is a very forgetful moron?I was actually saying that he was a liar, which is more realistic. The best we can say about him is that he is very forgetful...that's the nicest and best thing we can say.I have just learned that the right have begun niggling over 'breach' and 'overtopped' and that 'we are fully prepared' and the likes. I'd have thought you'd go for that defense.