$150,000,000,000...think you could spend it all?

[Banned]

Think you could spend $1,000,000 buckolas in one week?

I think most of us could do it easily.

How about $1 million EVERY week for a year, no vacations? Spend every cent--no leftovers.

A few could probably do this (oh we're drooling).

How about spending $1,000,000 every week, week in and week out, no vacations for 2,870 years.

That is how long it would take to at the above spend rate, to go through $150,000,000,000.

$150 Billion is the estimated cost of rebuilding New Orleans. (I will stay with this estimate, we all know government budgets always go way up from the original estimates).

This is to rebuild a city that averages 9 feet under water level.

A city that had the highest poverty rate in this country.

A city that had at some estimates a 70% welfare rate.

Does anyone think we should spend all of this money (our money)
to rebuild a city that could be washed away again this June when the next hurricane season starts?

Why do I not hear anyone in government questioning if this should be looked at closer before we start blowing hundreds of billions?

[RobTheDrummer]

Where's your compassion man?

[RobTheDrummer]

Sorry to double post but, the city is an American city. It's been around for a long time. Just because a natural disaster gave it hell this past year, doesn't mean we just give up on the city and it's people. It can be a way better city if we rebuild. We can make a stronger barrier to the elements as well. Money is one thing, but we're talking about helping a city in dire need of help. There have been towns ripped apart by tornados in the midwest....they rebuild. Florida gets hit EVERY year, people stay. You can't deny an entire city for monetary reasons. I say we help the people out, they are Americans and deserve to live just like we do. Imagine if Altoona was gone tomorrow and the government said...."Ehh, costs to much...fuck em...."

[tonefight]

I would have to agree that the money would be better spent relocating the whole damn city. It doesn't make sense to have a city below sea level that damn close to the sea. I said/thought this from the start.

[Banned]

New Orleans is important as a shipping port to the middle of the country. But with today's technology, the port can run with much less manpower than it needed 50 or 100 years ago.

There is just no need to build a city of 1 million people under sea level.

Build up above ground areas of Louisiana. But is a colossol waste of our hard earned money to rebuld that swamp.... worse than a swamp, at least a swamp is at water level.

The history of mankind is full of lost cities. Nothing is forever.

Anyway, a whole lot of people who moved to other areas are not planning on moving back.

[HarleyRo1]

I had the pleasure of working directly to relocate 4 families from Mississippi and Lousiana to our area. They came here because they had no where else to go - because everything they owned was destroyed. As of today, 6+ months later, one of the families has returned 'home'. Another of the families plans to move back 'home'. The other two families, as things stand right now are planning to remain in the Blair County area.

What I saw first hand were Moms, Dads and children who's lives were literally turned up-side-down. Imagine being 6 years old and every piece of clothing, every toy, literally everything in your life - gone. Imagine standing infront of an empty cement slab where your home used to stand. Imagine getting in a van to travel over 1,500 miles to a place where you know no one. The house is different, the climate is different, the people are different, your school is different - not a single thing remains the same.

We all take "home" for granted. Whether home to you means a physical building, a familiar smell, or just a feeling in your heart - we all deserve to feel at home. I don't think it's up to us to put a price on 'home'.

[tonefight]

Harley, it is sad, it is terrible but why spend the money to set them back up there when it could likely happen again ? I think the money should be used to relocate these people to another area and help them get there lives back.

[Banned]

We do have a right to put a price on building these nice people a home that could be washed away every hurricane season.

We PAY for that home they expect t be rebuilt.

How about moving to a place that is not constantly under threat of flooding.

They live if the highest risk area of having everything wiped out and we should keep spending our money to keep them there.

In the 1930's, the dust bowl era, many people moved away from the midwest, many to California. Should we spend $150 billion dollars to relocate them to their farms in Kansas? That was thier home. I bet they were nice people too.

[f.sciarrillo]

They could spend less relocating the people to new areas and building them homes. This is something that habitat for humanity could thrive on; getting a community to come out and help with the construction/remodeling would be the best thing that could happen to the people down there.

Trying to rebuild a city of the caliber with the way it was is just plain ridiculous. I understand the feeling of no place like home. But, when it is your life or move I would chose move. The cost involved in keeping the upkeep of the levees and such alone would be in the billions annually. And people wonder why the deficit hasn't been paid off yet. Well the fact that we give money to foreign countries and spend on it thing that shouldn't be in this country have a lot to do with it. Not saying that new Orleans rebuild is a wasted spending, it's more of a survival risk.

[Gallowglass]

I like John Larroquette's (a New Orlean's native-I believe) idea: he says we should abandon the first floor of every structure and turn New Orleans into America's Venice. Everyone could ferry around by boat.

But seriously, the potential cost of this is staggering. The estimated amount of money spent on the victims of Katrina already amounts to over $200,000 per individual. Did you see the tax exemptions in the 2006 code booklet for Katrina victims? This is unprecidented. What about these individuals' responsibilities for themselves? I have to have insurance for my home. If I lived in a potential flood zone, I'd damn well have flood insurance.

I have empathy for the victims, but throwing money at a problem has never resulted in an efficient solution. Usually it just results in the same old problem, which must now be continually subsidized by the govt. Rebuilding the city and putting 70% of the population back on welfare does nothing but sustain a failed system and encourage dependence upon the govt. (which = votes). The solution must come from within. I think we should let the principles of the free market decide what must be done. If there are enterprising individuals who wish to make something of themselves and the city, let them do it: If not, I don't think we should be responsible for supporting a system that refuses to work for itself. Just my two cents.

[Larry]

It's a redistribution of wealth. Lots of contractors and poor people will benefit from the work that this rebuilding creates.

Plus, New Orleans is a great party. Would we really want to lose a place where we can walk around with an open container of alcohol and enjoy the blended aroma of urine and vomit while looking at the flash of a woman's boobs?

[killyourscene]

physical geography changes,..sometimes over time,..sometimes instantly.

destroying and rebuilding iraq is already putting our grandchildren into serious fucking debt.

i say relocate. sorry.

maybe if we didn't just borrow one trillion dollars for that bullshit excuse for "freedom abroad"

[Jeramy]

I have to have insurance for my home. If I lived in a potential flood zone, I'd damn well have flood insurance.

First of all I agree that the cost to rebuild is rediculous due to the fact that the city could end up under water again in 6 monthes. I just wanted to post because I would say that most people did have insurance on their houses. Maybe not all, but most. I had heard, when Katrina first happened, that a lot of insurance companies went bankrupt due to the amount of claims. So it would sorta be a "sorry about your luck" situation as far as insurance money if thats true. Correct me if I'm wrong about that though. Of course knowing insurance companies there was probably some loophole so they didnt have to pay. I can see it now, there must have been a $200,000 deductable or something! lol
-Jeramy

[songsmith]

I'm not much concerned about insurance co's going belly up. They were in the business of risk. They DEFINE the business of risk.
The government also insures against flooding, and should have to pay those who paid into it, because they had the forethought to cover their asses. Otherwise, those in New Orleans were aware their city was under sea level. Those who stayed in the Superdome were told to leave the city for days. I knew, and I live 1300 miles away. I was concerned for my property, after last fall's Hurricane Ivan, and I live far, far away. My opinion is that if you live on the edge of the ocean, you should PLAN on the ocean rising. Not just hope against it, plan on it's unavoidability. I have no pity for beautiful multi-million-dollar oceanfront homes going into the drink. I love the Juniata River, but I wouldn't build a shed in it's floodplain, much less a castle.
My opinion (plus a dollar gets you Sheetz coffee) is that, while the aid response was botched, those people knew where they lived, and tempted fate and Mother Nature every day. New Orleans was a poor city before, and I shouldn't have to make it's residents any better off, with my money. My suggestion? Let the land have the ruined places back. Fix the French Quarter, so tourist dollars can pay me back. Stop all grants and further aid to displaced residents starting one year from the day Katrina left. Give them a small payment equal to the value of their land if it were undeveloped. Let them assimilate into other communities nationwide, where they can contribute to the betterment of those areas. Stop corporations from using the disaster and it's results to make money, and do not allow them to develop the places residents were forced from. Open the levees... in the battle of man vs. nature, nature will eventually always win, and to think differently is purely ego and arrogance. Open the Gulf oilfields, and flood the market with cheap gasoline to counteract the obscene profits made by oil corps (they couldn't say there's a shortage if the whole world knew there wasn't). That's my plan.
Oh, yeah... turn the natural areas into a bass-fishing mecca. I'd go. ------------->JMS

[bassist_25]

I'm not much concerned about insurance co's going belly up. They were in the business of risk. They DEFINE the business of risk.
The government also insures against flooding, and should have to pay those who paid into it, because they had the forethought to cover their asses. Otherwise, those in New Orleans were aware their city was under sea level. Those who stayed in the Superdome were told to leave the city for days. I knew, and I live 1300 miles away. I was concerned for my property, after last fall's Hurricane Ivan, and I live far, far away. My opinion is that if you live on the edge of the ocean, you should PLAN on the ocean rising. Not just hope against it, plan on it's unavoidability. I have no pity for beautiful multi-million-dollar oceanfront homes going into the drink. I love the Juniata River, but I wouldn't build a shed in it's floodplain, much less a castle.

I understand what you're saying, Johnny, but insurance companies have about as much integrity as human trafficers and crooked police officers. They will hold onto every last red cent and attempt to accuse you of fraud if you make the slightest claim. Just last January, my neighbor's car popped out of gear, slid down his driveway, and crashed into my family's house. We barely got half of what our contractor quoted us. Obviously we didn't sue. I don't believe in suing people unless there's malicious intent or excessive stupidity (i.e. drinking and driving). Luckily, my parents are handy enough with tools that we can save a lot of money and repair most of it ourselves. The insurance company treated us like shit through the whole process and dragged its ass with the claim.

Then there was the time that my father and I were driving through Blandburg and some shithead decided that it would be funny to put a steel cable across the road. Of course, we snagged onto it and damaged the finish of our van. Luckily, we were the ones that hit it, because there was a motorcycle behind us. I can only imagine what would have happened if he were the one who snagged up on it. The claims adjuster acted like we were trying to rip off the insurance company. In a way, I could understand them being susicious about something like that - it isn't everyday that someone hits a steel cable strung across a major highway - but my father has made three vehicle claims in his life: The other two were for cracked windshields. If we're going to commit insurance fraud, I think it would be for something a little more than a paint job on the front of a fiberglass (i.e. WON'T RUST ANYWAYS!) van.

I do know some people who have committed insurance fraud, and it's just something that makes me lose all respect for them. Sorry, I didn't mean to go off on such a diatribe.

As far as the original point of thread. I consider myself a libertarian and I'm critical of bloated government spending, but I also consider myself socially liberal and think that we should give a helping hand to those in need. Should we rebuild New Orleans? I agree with the idea that someone said of letting the free market decide that. Should we help the survivors relocate and restart their lives. I would have to say yes!

[songsmith]

I'm against suing people. I have sued the insurance company, though. And won, too. I bought a PA and went to Disneyworld. They should have settled. -------->JMS

[Banned]

Songsmith, You mentioned rebuilding the French Quarter. Luckily that part of New Olreans was above sea level and did not flood. (did the French know something? yeah, water seeks it's own level)

Insurance companies are in business to make money or they go out of business, just like ALL businesses. They will make up their loses down there by raising everyone else's rates.

My homeowners went up by $100 this year. I called, and they said it was just a normal rate change. I did not have any changes in the previous 4 years I have lived here. Go figure. I am paying for the flood losses.

[bassist_25]

I'm against suing people. I have sued the insurance company, though. And won, too. I bought a PA and went to Disneyworld. They should have settled. -------->JMS

We did talk to a lawyer when the insurance company gave us its quote, and he said there wasn't much we could do. My aunt sues people for a living. I just couldn't live like that. She sued Wal-Mart a few years back because the automatic door malfunctioned and hurt her shoulder. Now she wonders why the employees are jerks to her when she's in there. Duh, usually when there's a saftey issue that needs money to be fixed, 9 times out of 10, it's coming out of the employees bonuses.

My homeowners went up by $100 this year. I called, and they said it was just a normal rate change. I did not have any changes in the previous 4 years I have lived here. Go figure. I am paying for the flood losses.

Unfortunatley, that's the price you pay by having insurance. The libertarian in me believes it to be a personal choice whether someone wants to put on their seatbelt when they get in a vehicle (I always put mine on for saftey reasons), but another part of me knows that less people wearing seatbelts could = higher insurance premiums.

One of my favorite Simpsons quotes is from the episode that Ned Flanders loses his house in a hurricane.

Marge: I'm sure insurance will cover the cost.

Mod: Umm, Neddy doesn't believe in insurance. He sees it as a form of gambling (obviously a joke about Ned being a fundementalist Christian).

Insurance, either way, is a form of gambling. With it, you are paying money to a company whose services you may never need. If you don't have it, you are taking a risk of losing something. Personally, I think that piece of mind is worth an insurance premium. I wish I had full-coverage on my car just for piece of mind, especially with all of the deer here in PA. Unfortunatley, being under 25 years old and also being a po college student makes full-coverage rather unaffordable for me right now. If I were playing gigs 5 nights a week, I wouldn't even think twice about buying insurance for both my gear, and my hands/ears.

[FretBored]

It is a historical landmark!

I think they need to evaluate what is above sea level, use it and scrap the rest.

Can't fight mother nature.. never enough tax dollars for that.

[bfoust]

They should start thinking about building underwater cities.

[AtoMikEnRtiA]

What about a Sea Wall? Japan has one of those to prevent Tsunamis from swallowing the whole fucking country whole - why couldnt New Orleans construct a Sea Wall by the lake where the levees failed - as well as near all parts that are below sea level..

Upsides:

1) Sea Wall at 100 feet tall, will keep anything short of a mega tsunami from penetrating

2) Keeps pollution out of the gulf, and Lake Ponchatrain..

3) 100 foot tall murals and grafitti art..

Downsides:

1) Immense heat will build up off the wall, from sun reflection

2) sound will echo like a mother-fucker..

3) will cost a good deal of money..

i think it's worth it though.. better than moving an entire city atleast.

[Jeramy]

Upsides:

3) 100 foot tall murals and grafitti art..

Downsides:

2) sound will echo like a mother-fucker..

Rattle rattle rattle *rattlerattlerattlerattlerattlerattle* shhhhhh shh *shhhhhhshhhhhhshhhhhhshhhhhh*

thats the sounds of the grafitti artists painting and the echo from it... it would be funnier if there were sound i guess... typed it just loses some pizzaz lol.
-Jeramy

[AtoMikEnRtiA]

Upsides:

3) 100 foot tall murals and grafitti art..

Downsides:

2) sound will echo like a mother-fucker..

Rattle rattle rattle *rattlerattlerattlerattlerattlerattle* shhhhhh shh *shhhhhhshhhhhhshhhhhhshhhhhh*

thats the sounds of the grafitti artists painting and the echo from it... it would be funnier if there were sound i guess... typed it just loses some pizzaz lol.
-Jeramy

you're the goofiest mother fucker ive ever met. you should come up to altoona friday, we'll rub eachother's nipples and then i'll indian wrestle you.. it'll be fun hahaha

[lonewolf]

They should make a Katrina Memorial Park out of the area below sea level.

The rest of the city should be rebuilt according to the free market (like everywhere else) with normal justified reactionary funding from government. The idea of setting aside $150B is a ridiculous idea that has no justification other than feel-good politics. If Bush wants his ratings to go up, he should just start having press conferences once in awhile instead of throwing money away.

It is a rare opportunity that a city gets a chance to completely rebuild. This federal boondoggle will probably create a welfare city like the world has never seen instead of the modern bustling hi-tech port that it should become.

[AtoMikEnRtiA]

This federal boondoggle will probably create a welfare city like the world has never seen instead of the modern bustling hi-tech port that it should become.

sadly, this is true