just thought i'd share a little more doom and gloom with all y'all.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qL_x8gXKkGU&feature=related

you're welcome!

just thought i'd share a little more doom and gloom with all y'all.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qL_x8gXKkGU&feature=related

you're welcome!


I bet that was a hell of a concert!

Any idea why that town was formed? I.e., natural disaster or something else?

Hmm, having looked closer at the video, I noticed a link to streetrevival.org.

*checks link*

Ah, it all makes sense now.  ::)

Ant

http://www.opensecrets.org/pressreleases/2008/YearEndPresidential.2.4.asp

Half a billion dollars on losing campaigns. Twenty million starving and dieing.

I bet that was a hell of a concert!

Any idea why that town was formed? I.e., natural disaster or something else?

Hmm, having looked closer at the video, I noticed a link to streetrevival.org.

*checks link*

Ah, it all makes sense now.  ::)

Ant
the url seems to link to a site dedicated to advocacy for the homeless. admittedly, there's a religious angle that's a bit offputting to me personally, but still... i guess i'm not sure why that makes the shantytown video "make sense," in that i get the sense you're implying it's unreal or a sham in some way. could you elaborate? because if a shantytown does literally exist in LA i would think a homeless advocacy organization would be among the first to call attention to it.

i'm not saying the original youtube video is real or isn't, i havent been able to verify it, but i'm curious what youre getting at.

it's funny, when i saw the original video i almost immediately thought it looked like a dead show. but then i felt a little morbid for thinking that.

The true legacy of Reaganomics and a preview of coming attractions.
>:(

Karma+1

the url seems to link to a site dedicated to advocacy for the homeless. i guess i'm not sure why that makes the shantytown video "make sense," in that i get the sense you're implying it's unreal or a sham in some way. could you elaborate? because if a shantytown does literally exist in LA i would think a homeless advocacy organization would be among the first to call attention to it.

i'm not saying the original youtube video is real or isn't, i havent been able to verify it, but i'm curious what youre getting at.

it's funny, when i saw the original video i almost immediately thought it looked like a dead show. but then i felt a little morbid for thinking that.



Well, I was thinking at first the video was a documentary, something with no agenda, just a "fyi" kind of thing, you know? Regardless of what the video says or what it is titled, there is no way to know why that particular town exists. I do not doubt its existence.

If we take the video at face value, that town would appear to exist solely because of the "housing bubble bust" - and that's entirely possibly.

Did you go to this link?:

http://www.revivalarmy.com/outreach/

The video touched a nerve with me because, although I do not subscribe to theist beliefs, I surmise a fair number of those who lost their asses in the housing bust do. It irritates me that some are trying to push religion and "help" hand-in-hand. I don't see it as help, I see it as taking advantage of the downtrodden and hopeless.

If I seem bitter about this, it's because a similar thing happened to me several years ago, and it took a while to un fudge my head of the cult crap I was hearing. The "we'll 'help' you if you do x action" is self-serving: if you truly want to help people, you would do it unconditionally, with no agenda, with no expectation of converts. Perhaps that is too altruistic a viewpoint.

The site I saw is preachy, to say the least. It makes no sense to say what they are saying: if there is a.... ah, nevermind: check out this video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MeSSwKffj9o

(caution: some harsh language)

Back to your video: yes, it is messed up that people here are living like that. However, when you know there are millions of homeless in the US, and mulitple millions abroad who are living without even clean water (let alone older RVs and cars)... well, I guess I have a different perspective on the 350 homeless people in California featured in that video.

And as far as it making sense, it doesn't, hence the "roll eyes" smiley.

So, how's that for "doom and gloom"?

Ant

yeah, that's the site i went to. i dont actually differ with you on the anti-theist sentiments -- or, well, in this case the anti-born-again sentiments, if i read you right. believe me, not in the least. and i definitely wouldnt have disseminated that video in the interest of prosthelytizing, but sometimes folks make strange bedfellows in the interest of spreading a message. if organized social groups of homeless people are actually starting to carve out public real estate like this, then that really does smack of the desperation of the great depression. that's the only reason i posted that link, and even knowing it's some freaky born-again thing, which i didn't recognize when i posted to it, i'm still okay with having done so cuz it gets the subject out there. sometimes the born-agains do good work despite themselves.  ;)

incidentally, if you like carlin you may love this...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=atTSwau9fwM

The true legacy of Reaganomics and a preview of coming attractions.
>:(

Karma+1



That's why many people hate Reagan. (And still today). I think the Government of California should do something rather than raise the rent over there, it looks like Schwarzenegger isn't doing a good job.

And some people in those Shantytowns want Bush to die, and this way too. http://www.inthe00s.com/smile/03/crucified.gif

And WE are the 3rd world?  :-\\

And WE are the 3rd world?  :-\\

We are becoming Third World because we think like the Third World: Grab what you can when you can and devil take the hindmost.  Anybody who can't cut it deserves to suffer and die.  That's what I was saying about the legacy of Ronald Reagan. 

How many of those people in the shantytowns had half million to a million dollar homes that they purchase with mortgages they couldn't afford?  You can only refinance so many times.  I read that there are more than two million empty house.  Either foreclosed or have been vacant because the owner has moved and it hasn't been purchased.  Homeless people are now living in foreclosed houses without electricity or running water.  I've got a feeling it's going to get worse before it gets better.

How many of those people in the shantytowns had half million to a million dollar homes that they purchase with mortgages they couldn't afford?  You can only refinance so many times.  I read that there are more than two million empty house.  Either foreclosed or have been vacant because the owner has moved and it hasn't been purchased.  Homeless people are now living in foreclosed houses without electricity or running water.  I've got a feeling it's going to get worse before it gets better.

Free market fundamentalism at its finest!
::)

Free market fundamentalism at its finest!
::)


Yep, just don't tell anyone.  People who have a firm belief don't like their delusions disturbed.

The true legacy of Reaganomics and a preview of coming attractions.
>:(

Karma+1



The homeless have existed during Reagan, During Carter, Bush 1, Clinton, Bush 2.  and they will continue to exist in the next democratic presidency.

The homeless have existed during Reagan, During Carter, Bush 1, Clinton, Bush 2.  and they will continue to exist in the next democratic presidency.


Correct, but when since the Depression have people gone from being well off to having nothing in a very short time?

The homeless have existed during Reagan, During Carter, Bush 1, Clinton, Bush 2.  and they will continue to exist in the next democratic presidency.


Pretty much...  and America's poverty pales in comparison with most of the world's.

i dont think the poverty in the US is as bad as most of the third world but income disparities are getting worse than they are in western europe, as are a lot of quality of life indicators.

another matter is community support. i get the impression there's a lot less of that here than there is in a lot of the rest of the world, because of the style of living in the US where families are very isolated and dont really get to know their neighbors. plus there's the problem of conservatives in the US, who, let's face it, dont care about the issue. hell, bill o'reilly doesn't even think they exist!

Good points, but it's part of our individualism.  We have a fairly Darwinian society.  We prefer to err on the side of individualism over community, which I can't say that I mind so much.

Granted, I realize it has some obvious drawbacks....

Good points, but it's part of our individualism. 
Individualism is the myth.  Fascism is the reality.  You cannot declare individualism when the game is rigged in favor of certain individuals and against others. 

We have a fairly Darwinian society.  We prefer to err on the side of individualism over community, which I can't say that I mind so much.
What do you mean "we"? You got a mouse in your pocket? If "Darwinian" refers to "social darwinism" you have struck a misnomer.  Darwin never said "survival of the fittest."  That was classical liberal philospher Herbert Spencer, a contemporary of Darwin. 

I think it is more productive to talk in terms of investment.  We need a Marshall Plan for America, including a workable healthcare system and revival of our infrastructure.  If we let this country rot away, you won't be proud of what you see in another generation.

yeah, that's the site i went to. i dont actually differ with you on the anti-theist sentiments -- or, well, in this case the anti-born-again sentiments, if i read you right. believe me, not in the least. and i definitely wouldnt have disseminated that video in the interest of prosthelytizing, but sometimes folks make strange bedfellows in the interest of spreading a message. if organized social groups of homeless people are actually starting to carve out public real estate like this, then that really does smack of the desperation of the great depression. that's the only reason i posted that link, and even knowing it's some freaky born-again thing, which i didn't recognize when i posted to it, i'm still okay with having done so cuz it gets the subject out there. sometimes the born-agains do good work despite themselves.  ;)

incidentally, if you like carlin you may love this...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=atTSwau9fwM


Great video link - thank you for that!

There are other organized homeless groups in places - there was a news story a week or so ago about a small community of homeless "sex offenders" ordered to move from an overpass in Florida. I don't have the time at the moment to go into why I think that situation is fubar.

Even after thinking about the words "born again" (and a quick glance at Wikipedia), I'm not sure what the heck that phrase really means. Anyway...

Regardless of why the clip was posted to YouTube, it does bring to light a situation that most likely would be ignored by mass media.

Ant

Good points, but it's part of our individualism.  We have a fairly Darwinian society.  We prefer to err on the side of individualism over community, which I can't say that I mind so much.

Granted, I realize it has some obvious drawbacks....


Americans are individualists?  Since when?  If that is the case why aren't their about 30 political parties that have equal say instead of two crappy ones.  It has nothing to do with individualism it has to do with the wealthy saying screw the poor.  Never in the history of America has there been more of an economic and social gap between the rich and poor.  The middle class is almost non existant.

Americans are individualists?  Since when?  If that is the case why aren't their about 30 political parties that have equal say instead of two crappy ones.  It has nothing to do with individualism it has to do with the wealthy saying screw the poor.  Never in the history of America has there been more of an economic and social gap between the rich and poor.  The middle class is almost non existant.

The Right uses "individualism" as a euphemism for protection of inherited wealth and corporate hegemony.  It's just like the way laissez-faire means "what's mine is mine and what's yours is mine."
:D

The Right uses "individualism" as a euphemism for protection of inherited wealth and corporate hegemony.  It's just like the way laissez-faire means "what's mine is mine and what's yours is mine."
:D


Oh yes, the individualism of the "Gilded Age".  You would have thought we'd progressed since then.  The individualism of those people who made it by using poor immigrant workers till they were half dead.  It nice to see exactly where priorities lie.  Cooperated America didn't get the way it is by considering the individual.

Individualism is the myth.  Fascism is the reality.  You cannot declare individualism when the game is rigged in favor of certain individuals and against others. 

In that case, you can't claim any society is individualistic.  There is practically no society where the rich aren't favored.  Even Norway has rich people that run the government for the most part, and they're probably the most egalitarian society on the planet (next to Iceland, perhaps).

There are other countries where the rich don't rule, but the government does (with an elite class of its own), like in North Korea.

Either way, individualism does not equal equality.  It never has and it never will.  In fact, I would argue that it tends to go against equality.  Collectivism is more likely to promote equality, but it has plenty of problems in its own right.

Overall, I'd say finding a balance between individualism and collectivism is probably best, but everyone has their own preference for what balance of the two fits their ideal.  I personally prefer the balance we have, for the most part.  Although I suppose a little more collectivism might be ok in certain respects.

What do you mean "we"? You got a mouse in your pocket? If "Darwinian" refers to "social darwinism" you have struck a misnomer.  Darwin never said "survival of the fittest."  That was classical liberal philospher Herbert Spencer, a contemporary of Darwin. 

I think it is more productive to talk in terms of investment.  We need a Marshall Plan for America, including a workable healthcare system and revival of our infrastructure.  If we let this country rot away, you won't be proud of what you see in another generation.


Good points, but I don't see increasing the size of the government as the solution here.

Americans are individualists?  Since when?  If that is the case why aren't their about 30 political parties that have equal say instead of two crappy ones.  It has nothing to do with individualism it has to do with the wealthy saying screw the poor.  Never in the history of America has there been more of an economic and social gap between the rich and poor.  The middle class is almost non existant.

I'll agree with you on the first part, but I'll also point out that, while the current gap between the rich and poor is widening, it's still nothing like how it was during the Gilded Age and the first few decades of the 20th Century.

I'll agree with you on the first part, but I'll also point out that, while the current gap between the rich and poor is widening, it's still nothing like how it was during the Gilded Age and the first few decades of the 20th Century.
wouldnt it be nice if that were true?

http://money.cnn.com/2007/10/12/news/economy/income/

Gap between rich, poor seen growing
Income disparity reaches highest since 1920s, paper reports, with recent Wall Street boom partly to blame.
October 12 2007: 9:56 AM EDT

NEW YORK (CNNMoney.com) -- The income gap between the wealthiest and poorest Americans grew to its widest level since the 1920s, according to a report published Friday.

Citing Internal Revenue Service data, the Wall Street Journal reported that the wealthiest 1 percent of all Americans earned 21.2 percent of all the nation's income in 2005, up from the previous high of 20.8 percent in 2000.

I'll agree with you on the first part, but I'll also point out that, while the current gap between the rich and poor is widening, it's still nothing like how it was during the Gilded Age and the first few decades of the 20th Century.

But still even with the Gilded Age and the beginning of the 20th Century there was a considerable sized middle class.  The middle class is disappearing fast.

Alrighty...  I stand corrected, but at least the bottom half overall has a much higher standard of living today than it did back then.

You are correct that the middle class is shrinking, but honestly, I don't see any way of changing that....  at least, no way that voters would actually support....

Alrighty...  I stand corrected, but at least the bottom half overall has a much higher standard of living today than it did back then.

You are correct that the middle class is shrinking, but honestly, I don't see any way of changing that....  at least, no way that voters would actually support....


Perhaps, all though the overall well being of the bottom half is debatable.  Economics is only part of the equation when you're dealing with "class".

Start with tax breaks for Middle Class, it can only help them and the economy.

well the voters are being constantly bombarded by scads of propaganda geared toward selling the political interests of the rich. for instance, this whole canard of equating any kind of public spending with "socialism" and saying that tax cuts for the rich are always good no matter what. i think if the punditocracy started actually talking about real solutions to the problems of economic disparity people would come around pretty fast. no one actually wants the middle class to disappear, least of all the middle class.  ;D it's just the country's public discourse has basically been getting choked off with far-right extremist ideas ever since they claimed credit for the Berlin Wall coming down. this basically got sold to us as a vindication of reaganomics when we were just fortunate enough to have the USSR go bankrupt from out of control military and deficit spending before we did. this time it doesn't look like we're going to be so lucky, and as the real effects of Reaganomics 2.0 become clearer i think all this other stuff -- the idea that laissez-faire unregulated anarcho-capitalism is the way to go -- that's gonna be a lot less popular. at least if people aren't so stupid they'll willingly and consciously support their own bankruptcy rather than admit that the political ideologies we've been following since the 80s have been pipe dreams.

Tax cuts for the middle class are good, as long as we make the appropriate spending cuts as well.  That's the problem with our current government.  They love to cut taxes, but all they do is increase spending.

Tax cuts for small business owners would be a smart idea that Democrats could really tap into, since that's the part of the business world that Republicans have been neglecting for years.

well the voters are being constantly bombarded by scads of propaganda geared toward selling the political interests of the rich. for instance, this whole canard of equating any kind of public spending with "socialism" and saying that tax cuts for the rich are always good no matter what. i think if the punditocracy started actually talking about real solutions to the problems of economic disparity people would come around pretty fast. no one actually wants the middle class to disappear, least of all the middle class.  ;D it's just the country's public discourse has basically been getting choked off with far-right extremist ideas ever since they claimed credit for the Berlin Wall coming down. this basically got sold to us as a vindication of reaganomics when we were just fortunate enough to have the USSR go bankrupt from out of control military and deficit spending before we did. this time it doesn't look like we're going to be so lucky, and as the real effects of Reaganomics 2.0 become clearer i think all this other stuff -- the idea that laissez-faire unregulated anarcho-capitalism is the way to go -- that's gonna be a lot less popular. at least if people aren't so stupid they'll willingly and consciously support their own bankruptcy rather than admit that the political ideologies we've been following since the 80s have been pipe dreams.


Well, I see it slightly differently.  I'm not a Reagan supporter by any means, but I'm also not a big fan of Social Security.

I would prefer we leave Iraq, cut military spending, phase out Social Security, mandate better benefits provided by corporations to their employees, and cut income taxes dramatically to stimulate growth.  I guess all that sounds a little bit like Ron Paul, but even I'll admit that Libertarians trust the private sector too much.

I just wish we could transform the government from being a social welfare state to being a regulatory body that makes sure corporations provide sensible benefits while cleaning up their production methods.

well, there's also what you spend it on. the thing is, if you actually spend revenue on public infrastructure, public transit and social programs, this can increase productivity as workers spend less time commuting, get sick less often, and enjoy better morale and a sense of security. on the other hand, turning it into smart bombs for blowing the legs off kids halfway across the world is pretty much a negative return on investment, if you ask me.

it's amazing to me when people think there's "too much spending" while our bridges are collapsing, a city floods and they pretty much dont raise a finger to help, our sewer pipes are rotting, our toys have lead and the regulatory agencies dont catch it until it's too late, college kids are going on shooting sprees because the mental health system in this country is a joke without a punchline... i mean, if we keep bankrupting our domestic infrastructure spending on this prespammersite idea that it's somehow "socialist" to have decent roads, schools and utilities i dont know how the outcome isn't going to be anything but the obvious.

I just wish we could transform the government from being a social welfare state to being a regulatory body that makes sure corporations provide sensible benefits while cleaning up their production methods.

see, though, that's what we have now -- the government outsources everything to the private sector. of course given that system you can forget about regulation because once the government's contracting out its essential services the relationship between the government and the private sector goes from an adversarial relationship to a business relationship. but as for the rest of it, we're pretty much in private sector outsourcing nirvana right now. unfortunately there are just some things you cant do privately and make it profitable -- like provide health insurance to sick people, which is why the health insurance companies make it their business to only ensure healthy people and the second you get sick they find a way to get you off their rolls. it makes sense -- what's their motivation to pay for a sick person's treatment? where's the percentage in that? for that you really need a tax base supporting a government that has a humanitarian stake in the society as a whole.

well, there's also what you spend it on. the thing is, if you actually spend revenue on public infrastructure, public transit and social programs, this can increase productivity as workers spend less time commuting, get sick less often, and enjoy better morale and a sense of security. on the other hand, turning it into smart bombs for blowing the legs off kids halfway across the world is pretty much a negative return on investment, if you ask me.

The problem is that we depend so much on foreign economic interests.  We wouldn't care about Saudi Arabia if they didn't have so much oil.  The same goes for Iraq.  Because we have extended ourselves economically so much, we are forced into a situation where we are continually using our military to protect various economic interests.

I would prefer we move away from foreign oil because of this sort of thing, because it would also allow us to spend less on the military.  By the same token, however, we have to stay active in world affairs, because China and Russia generally take up the slack we provide.  Look at how China has intervened in Darfur while we're stuck in Iraq and Afghanistan, for example.  I don't want us to become isolationist, but I think we can agree that we intervene too much currently.

it's amazing to me when people think there's "too much spending" while our bridges are collapsing, a city floods and they pretty much dont raise a finger to help, our sewer pipes are rotting, our toys have lead and the regulatory agencies dont catch it until it's too late, college kids are going on shooting sprees because the mental health system in this country is a joke without a punchline... i mean, if we keep bankrupting our domestic infrastructure spending on this prespammersite idea that it's somehow "socialist" to have decent roads, schools and utilities i dont know how the outcome isn't going to be anything but the obvious.


A lot of what you just mentioned is what I consider the responsibility of states.  I think the main problem today is that we rely too heavily on the federal government for various programs.  As New Orleans showed us, you really can't depend on FEMA.  I believe that the federal government should be considerably shrank to allow more taxation at the state level, so that each state can better attend to its needs.  Emergency services and mental health systems are generally better suited for state governments, not the feds.

see, though, that's what we have now -- the government outsources everything to the private sector. of course given that system you can forget about regulation because once the government's contracting out its essential services the relationship between the government and the private sector goes from an adversarial relationship to a business relationship. but as for the rest of it, we're pretty much in private sector outsourcing nirvana right now. unfortunately there are just some things you cant do privately and make it profitable -- like provide health insurance to sick people, which is why the health insurance companies make it their business to only ensure healthy people and the second you get sick they find a way to get you off their rolls. it makes sense -- what's their motivation to pay for a sick person's treatment? where's the percentage in that? for that you really need a tax base supporting a government that has a humanitarian stake in the society as a whole.


Well, I'm not necessarily against a state-based healthcare system.  I just don't want the feds to run it.  I think state governments could generally do a decent job of running socialized systems.

When it comes to retirement and Social Security, however, I would prefer a privatized approach, because Social Security is running up record debts (easily comparable to the Iraq War).

The problem is that we depend so much on foreign economic interests.  We wouldn't care about Saudi Arabia if they didn't have so much oil.  The same goes for Iraq.  Because we have extended ourselves economically so much, we are forced into a situation where we are continually using our military to protect various economic interests.the problem with this theory is... the supply of oil from the middle east wasn't in jeopardy before we went into iraq. nor is it in jeopardy from saudi arabia, although the saudi arabians are in danger of being fundamentalist dickweeds. but that's another matter. anyway, i'm sure you've heard we get most of our oil from canada, venezuela and nigeria, yes? i rather think the use of the military isn't so much to protect economic interests in the broad sector so much as create them in narrow sectors. so war breaks out, oil companies make fat profits, weapons manufacturers get cushy contracts, and everybody's happy except the rest of us.



A lot of what you just mentioned is what I consider the responsibility of states.  I think the main problem today is that we rely too heavily on the federal government for various programs.  As New Orleans showed us, you really can't depend on FEMA.  I believe that the federal government should be considerably shrank to allow more taxation at the state level, so that each state can better attend to its needs.  Emergency services and mental health systems are generally better suited for state governments, not the feds.
yeah, i've heard this argument before and i've always found it puzzling. the analogy i think of is, say someone's on a sinking ship, they send out a distress signal and the answer they get back is, "well, you're closest to the problem. fix it yourself." but of course they're gonna be too busy bailing out the water to plug the leak. so in new orleans, mayor nagin was supposed to fix the problem on his own and deploy those school buses and all that business when he was busy trying to relocate his headquarters and maintain communication lines! no, the federal government is going to be the only institution with the resources, brainpower and base of operations secure from the local devastation that you'd need. that FEMA's been whizzing the NO recovery down their leg has less to do with the idea of FEMA being flawed in its essence, and more to do with the fact that a moron let his college roommate run it. ;D

also, these guys (the administration) comes from financial interests that have found ways to profit from disasters. (see ms. klein, once again.) ever wonder why all these billions of dollars into the recovery and yet still no one has drinking water? it's probably because the companies getting the contracts are spending all the money on overhead for subcontracting schemes, elaborate scenes to "re-vision and re-purpose" the French Quarter as more of an organized recreational zone, and otherwise spreading the funds around to their business partners without actually putting any workers on the ground. this isn't the fault of FEMA; it's the fault of unregulated outsourcing.

the problem with this theory is... the supply of oil from the middle east wasn't in jeopardy before we went into iraq. nor is it in jeopardy from saudi arabia, although the saudi arabians are in danger of being fundamentalist dickweeds. but that's another matter. anyway, i'm sure you've heard we get most of our oil from canada, venezuela and nigeria, yes? i rather think the use of the military isn't so much to protect economic interests in the broad sector so much as create them in narrow sectors. so war breaks out, oil companies make fat profits, weapons manufacturers get cushy contracts, and everybody's happy except the rest of us.

Well yeah, more than anything, the Iraq War was about war profiteering, but we also have an interest in extending our business into Iraq.  I guess "protect" was probably not as good of a word as "extend."  Either way, I think we can agree that it was economically imperialist to invade.

yeah, i've heard this argument before and i've always found it puzzling. the analogy i think of is, say someone's on a sinking ship, they send out a distress signal and the answer they get back is, "well, you're closest to the problem. fix it yourself." but of course they're gonna be too busy bailing out the water to plug the leak. so in new orleans, mayor nagin was supposed to fix the problem on his own and deploy those school buses and all that business when he was busy trying to relocate his headquarters and maintain communication lines! no, the federal government is going to be the only institution with the resources, brainpower and base of operations secure from the local devastation that you'd need. that FEMA's been whizzing the NO recovery down their leg has less to do with the idea of FEMA being flawed in its essence, and more to do with the fact that a moron let his college roommate run it. ;D

Ray Nagin is far from blameless in this, as is Blanco.  However, I will agree that Michael Brown is a collossal *uckup.  Still, there was a bipartisan governmental study done on the Katrina situation that stated that privatization of emergency services was the best option for the future.  I don't see why we shouldn't privatize them, and furthermore, do it on a state level.

While I agree that some states probably do still need federal help on emergency services, I would think that all future situations should involve some strings attached.  For example, the next time a hurricane blows through Florida, no reconstruction efforts should fund rebuilding in vulnerable areas.  There's no sense whatsoever in rebuilding in areas that just get hit year after year by disasters.  If we're going to spend federal money on these reconstruction efforts, it should be done with an eye for the future and with a focus on avoiding future disasters.  We can build people's homes and businesses in less vulnerable areas, so that they are less likely to be hit in the future.

If no area nearby can be found that is significantly less vulnerable, then they should be helped one last time but told that they will not be helped in the future unless they choose to relocate altogether with the money allotted for their help.  I and many others don't want to continually fund reconstruction in areas literally waiting for disaster to strike.

also, these guys (the administration) comes from financial interests that have found ways to profit from disasters. (see ms. klein, once again.) ever wonder why all these billions of dollars into the recovery and yet still no one has drinking water? it's probably because the companies getting the contracts are spending all the money on overhead for subcontracting schemes, elaborate scenes to "re-vision and re-purpose" the French Quarter as more of an organized recreational zone, and otherwise spreading the funds around to their business partners without actually putting any workers on the ground. this isn't the fault of FEMA; it's the fault of unregulated outsourcing.


Those are good points, but it sounds like maybe this is a stronger argument in favor of just making insurance companies shell out the dough they say they're going to when a disaster strikes.