NationStates Jolt Archive

COMMENTARY: "I know my rights, and it's right there in the Constitution: you have to pay for me and my family to stay somewhere nice, rent free, and pay all my bills. If you kick me out after a year, I'll sue!"

Or maybe it's just free food for lawyers? Who knows?


Lawsuit Is Filed to Force FEMA to Continue Housing Vouchers (http://www.nytimes.com/2006/05/20/us/20vouchers.html?_r=1&th&emc=th&oref=slogin)


By SHAILA DEWAN
Published: May 20, 2006
Lawyers for New Orleans evacuees filed suit in Houston yesterday, asking a federal court to stop the Federal Emergency Management Agency from ending housing benefits for tens of thousands of people who fled the flooding of Hurricane Katrina. The evacuees had been issued 12-month housing vouchers by local governments but are now being told by FEMA that they must pay rent or leave.

The class-action suit, filed in United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas, says the agency has made "arbitrary, inconsistent and inequitable housing decisions without using any ascertainable standards" and describes the situation of several plaintiffs who, it contends, received vague or contradictory letters from FEMA or were denied further housing assistance for false reasons.

The suit was filed by Caddell & Chapman, a Houston firm, joined by a consortium of public interest legal groups.

The vouchers provided, in most cases, one year of housing and utilities to about 55,000 families, and were issued by Houston and other cities with the understanding that FEMA would reimburse them. Last month, agency officials said that nearly a third of the families — some 8,000 in Houston alone — were ineligible for such assistance.

But the mayor of Houston, Bill White, said many of the ineligibility rulings from FEMA were wrong. Some evacuees were told that their homes in New Orleans had not been damaged badly enough to qualify for assistance: that someone else in their household had already qualified for assistance elsewhere; that they failed to appear in person for an inspection of their home; or that their housing assistance had been withdrawn because a signature was missing from their paperwork.

Some were even told that they were not eligible for housing assistance because they had received a voucher, though the vouchers were being discontinued.

A FEMA official declined to discuss the lawsuit. "We're aware of the situation," said the official, Aaron Walker, a spokesman for the agency in Washington. "According to FEMA policy, we cannot comment on any pending litigation."

Agency officials have defended the decision to end the program, saying the vouchers were issued under the emergency housing program, which is available to virtually anyone from a disaster area but is not intended to be used for extended periods. That program ended in March. Hurricane Katrina families are being converted to the agency's long-term individual assistance program, which has stricter eligibility requirements.

FEMA officials have also said that the voucher program was unfair because not all evacuees received them — some entered the individual assistance program right away and received money to pay their own rent, which counts against the agency's per-family limit of $26,200.

The lawsuit says that in at least one previous disaster the agency has provided emergency housing for longer than a year. Federal law does not specify a time limit for emergency housing.

The lawsuit also addresses what it says are onerous requirements even for the eligible, who must now sign a new lease with their landlords, pay for their own utilities and requalify every three months. FEMA has failed to adjust its estimation of fair-market rents or provide clear criteria for requalification, the suit says.

But what are these people supposed to do when they have these vouchers withdrawn? It's not as if they are just scrounging work shy buggers - their homes were destroyed, afterall.

COMMENTARY: "I know my rights, and it's right there in the Constitution: you have to pay for me and my family to stay somewhere nice, rent free, and pay all my bills. If you kick me out after a year, I'll sue!"

Or maybe it's just free food for lawyers? Who knows?


Lawsuit Is Filed to Force FEMA to Continue Housing Vouchers (http://www.nytimes.com/2006/05/20/us/20vouchers.html?_r=1&th&emc=th&oref=slogin)


By SHAILA DEWAN
Published: May 20, 2006
Lawyers for New Orleans evacuees filed suit in Houston yesterday, asking a federal court to stop the Federal Emergency Management Agency from ending housing benefits for tens of thousands of people who fled the flooding of Hurricane Katrina. The evacuees had been issued 12-month housing vouchers by local governments but are now being told by FEMA that they must pay rent or leave.

The class-action suit, filed in United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas, says the agency has made "arbitrary, inconsistent and inequitable housing decisions without using any ascertainable standards" and describes the situation of several plaintiffs who, it contends, received vague or contradictory letters from FEMA or were denied further housing assistance for false reasons.

The suit was filed by Caddell & Chapman, a Houston firm, joined by a consortium of public interest legal groups.

The vouchers provided, in most cases, one year of housing and utilities to about 55,000 families, and were issued by Houston and other cities with the understanding that FEMA would reimburse them. Last month, agency officials said that nearly a third of the families — some 8,000 in Houston alone — were ineligible for such assistance.

But the mayor of Houston, Bill White, said many of the ineligibility rulings from FEMA were wrong. Some evacuees were told that their homes in New Orleans had not been damaged badly enough to qualify for assistance: that someone else in their household had already qualified for assistance elsewhere; that they failed to appear in person for an inspection of their home; or that their housing assistance had been withdrawn because a signature was missing from their paperwork.

Some were even told that they were not eligible for housing assistance because they had received a voucher, though the vouchers were being discontinued.

A FEMA official declined to discuss the lawsuit. "We're aware of the situation," said the official, Aaron Walker, a spokesman for the agency in Washington. "According to FEMA policy, we cannot comment on any pending litigation."

Agency officials have defended the decision to end the program, saying the vouchers were issued under the emergency housing program, which is available to virtually anyone from a disaster area but is not intended to be used for extended periods. That program ended in March. Hurricane Katrina families are being converted to the agency's long-term individual assistance program, which has stricter eligibility requirements.

FEMA officials have also said that the voucher program was unfair because not all evacuees received them — some entered the individual assistance program right away and received money to pay their own rent, which counts against the agency's per-family limit of $26,200.

The lawsuit says that in at least one previous disaster the agency has provided emergency housing for longer than a year. Federal law does not specify a time limit for emergency housing.

The lawsuit also addresses what it says are onerous requirements even for the eligible, who must now sign a new lease with their landlords, pay for their own utilities and requalify every three months. FEMA has failed to adjust its estimation of fair-market rents or provide clear criteria for requalification, the suit says.

This is the time when I start to really hate humanity...:mad:

But what are these people supposed to do when they have these vouchers withdrawn? It's not as if they are just scrounging work shy buggers - their homes were destroyed, afterall.
It's been a whole year.

It's been a whole year.

It's been a whole year.

If these people have jobs, they can find a place to live on their own.

If they don't have a job, they need to go out and find one. It's not fucking impossible.

For those who are elderly, indigent for reasons beyond their control, or unable to work for medical reasons, sure, keep housing them.

The US is not a place where you get cradle to grave handouts from the government when you are able-bodied and can work.

The US is not a place where you get cradle to grave handouts from the government when you are able-bodied and can work.
Or where you can get any sympathy from people who can't even begin to imagine what you've been through, it would seem. :rolleyes:

Well the Mayor of Houston looks like he agrees with the lawsuit. Seems like he thinks FEMA is trying to shirk their responsibilities. It's a typical way for government agencies to fudge figures and reduce costs. Only this time the affected people aren't just taking it lying down.

There isn't enough information in the original post to ascertain whether or not FEMA should be sued. On one hand, the evacuees shouldn't get money forever. On the other hand, it seems as though FEMA is being arbitrary or deliberately misinforming people on how to apply for further assistance.

The US is not a place where you get cradle to grave handouts from the government when you are able-bodied and can work.Not every job pays enough to support a family on.

But what are these people supposed to do when they have these vouchers withdrawn? It's not as if they are just scrounging work shy buggers - their homes were destroyed, afterall.
:headbang: Oh heaven forbid they just leave an unliveable area and go somewhere else get a job and start working for a living,like alot of thier former nieghbor have done already:eek:

Or where you can get any sympathy from people who can't even begin to imagine what you've been through, it would seem. :rolleyes:


Oooooh! This is going to be FUN!!!


I HAVE been through it - and no - I don't have any sympathy for them.

On August 13th 2004 Hurricane Charley blew directly over my home. Unlike Katrina we didn't get four days notice that it was coming - we got roughly two hours notice after the storm changed course, went from category one to four+, sped up, and headed right for us. When it hit 2 of 4 sliding door panels in my second story living room blew - intact and with explosive force - through one side of the room and out the windows on the other side - without ever touching the floor! Winds of 150 MPH blew through my livingroom stripping the plaster from the ceiling and draining down through to the downstairs. Immediately after the storm it was like a waterfall running down my staircase. Regardless I was grateful that my family was safe. It was shortly afterwords that I was in my car checking on neighbors and loved ones.

For two weeks to a month my community had no power, no refridgeration, no ac, no internet, no cable, no cellular and no telephones. To make an insurance claim I had to drive to the opposite end of the county (which is harder and more dangerous than it seems when half the streets are closed and there are no traffic lights) and wait in line for hours. Clean up of my flooded home was much more difficult without any power.

It took until February to get through the morasse of insurance and regulatory bullshit before I could finally start the process of begging any contractor I could find to begin restoration of my home. My family and I finally moved in last November (and JUST got the Cert of Occupancy last week!) and consider ourselves lucky. There are still people living in trailers in front of their now dilapidated homes. Thursday on my way to work I saw a damaged home being demolished - a good sign that they are finally able to start reconstruction. My community has been completely forgotten and we know it. Nobody gave a shit how good or bad the government support was when we got hit. (and I can promise you it was no different than anywhere else)

I saw people lose everything. Renters with no insurance who lost the contents of their home and had their job literally blown away. Many many people moved away to start life anew. I saw many more who just took their insurance money - sold their homes 'as is' and left rather than face the frustration of rebuilding. I know I often wish I had.

So yes, you arrogant ass - I HAVE gone through it. I did not get any vouchers for free rent or utilities, I did not get any slack from my boss (in fact I didn't even get paid for driving around handing out my labor and emergency supplies provided by my company for the month after the storm) I did not get a $1500 VISA. I did not get special tax deductions for my losses - not even my homeowners deductible of $6000. Not one single person who was displaced got any absentee ballots for any elections. I got exactly one bag of groceries and one tank of gas and that was from my corporation - not the government. The rest came - with much dispute and wrangling, from my insurance company.

Yes - I do agree that one year is not long enough to rebuild a home after such a storm. So fucking what. It is plenty of time to find a new community - a new job - make a new start - as so many of my friends did. And for anyone who says some may have been too poor for homeowners - Think you stupid shit! - if they can afford a free and clear home then they can afford insurance. If it is not F+C then they are required to have insurace by the mortgagor. If they lost their uninsured F+C home then tough shit. Move away sell the land when you can and count yourself lucky to be alive. There is no reason why the taxpayors should support these nimrods for even one half of a year with free housing. If they lacked the foresight to be insured then boo fucking hoo for them. If we are to bail out everyone who does not have insurance they why fucking get it to begin with? If they are poor then they can get standard public assistance and maybe a small grant to assist them with moving and housing aquisition (first and last month or whatever) One year of free shit is bullcrap.

There - now you know how someone (in fact I've share the opinion of many people) who HAS gone through it feels about it.

Or where you can get any sympathy from people who can't even begin to imagine what you've been through, it would seem. :rolleyes:
I can imagine exactly what they went through, I have been through it. I lost my house, 3 times. It was completely blown away, I have lost family members. There are 2 kinds of people, ones that pick up with life and move on, and those who are content to lay around whining about everything and getting a free ride. I am one of the first. It's hard, sometimes you don't get back to the place where you were, and yeah, it sucks. It's also necessary.

btw, when I lost my house FEMA gave us $1500 and that was about it. People with insurance didn't get anything.

It's been a whole year.

It's been a whole year.

It's been a whole year.

If these people have jobs, they can find a place to live on their own.

If they don't have a job, they need to go out and find one. It's not fucking impossible.

For those who are elderly, indigent for reasons beyond their control, or unable to work for medical reasons, sure, keep housing them.

The US is not a place where you get cradle to grave handouts from the government when you are able-bodied and can work.10 months isn't really a whole year. Even if it had been a whole year, is it really reasonable to expect that the economy of the area would have fully recovered? Katrina distroyed almost 600,000 jobs in New Orleans and 1,000,000 state wide. New Orleans' current population is less than 45% of what it was before the hurricane. Houston, which is over 300 miles east of NO, saw its population by 1.5%. An increase that had taken over 4 years previously, occured in a matter of weeks. Anyone who believes Houston could generate an additional 35,000 jobs within a year is a fool. And Houston is one of the least affected cities due to the sheer size of its population.

Quite simply, the refugees make well be able to work, but there certainly aren't enough jobs to go round.

...snip...
What a wonderful argument. "I had it bad, therefore anyone else who gets assistance is a selfish git."

I shall ignore the pointless and childish insults. I would say that the 'arrogant ass' is the one who assumes that everyone in this case is just being lazy, and doesn't think that maybe, just maybe, there might be other factors involved.

I can imagine exactly what they went through, I have been through it. I lost my house, 3 times. It was completely blown away, I have lost family members. There are 2 kinds of people, ones that pick up with life and move on, and those who are content to lay around whining about everything and getting a free ride. I am one of the first. It's hard, sometimes you don't get back to the place where you were, and yeah, it sucks. It's also necessary.

btw, when I lost my house FEMA gave us $1500 and that was about it. People with insurance didn't get anything.
There is nothing in the article that can tell you enough to say whether these people are getting a 'free ride' or whether they are being hard done by. There is nothing to tell you about the circumstances; whether it is possible to 'get on with it', or whether things have been destroyed to such an extent that this isn't possible.

I would rather have a few people abuse the safety net for a while than whip it away when there are people who are still in genuine need of it.

<snip>Not to belittle your experience, but Katrina caused around $75 billion in damage - 5 times more than Charley. Katrina also distroyed 1,000,000 jobs, which is 100 times more than Charley did. Finally Katrina killed over 1,800 people, whereas Charley killed 30. The damage that Katrina did was phenominal. It raised the unemployment rate of the entire country by 0.6%. Federal aid to the victims of the Hurricane accounted for 5% of the federal budget.

This hurricane was unlike anything the USA had witnessed before.

Or where you can get any sympathy from people who can't even begin to imagine what you've been through, it would seem. :rolleyes:
Sympathy? They've had sympathy til it hurts. They need a good kick in the butt, now. It's been a year.

There is nothing in the article that can tell you enough to say whether these people are getting a 'free ride' or whether they are being hard done by. There is nothing to tell you about the circumstances; whether it is possible to 'get on with it', or whether things have been destroyed to such an extent that this isn't possible.

I would rather have a few people abuse the safety net for a while than whip it away when there are people who are still in genuine need of it.

Let me clear this up for you, if you don't have a job and the government is paying for your rent, utilities, and food, you ARE getting a "free ride".

It's always possible to "get on with it", sometimes it's hard work (yeah, I know hard work, in this country:eek: ) but, yeah you can rebuild your life.

Or where you can get any sympathy from people who can't even begin to imagine what you've been through, it would seem. :rolleyes:
Asking how much "sympathy" is enough is like asking "how high is up."

Let me clear this up for you, if you don't have a job and the government is paying for your rent, utilities, and food, you ARE getting a "free ride".

It's always possible to "get on with it", sometimes it's hard work (yeah, I know hard work, in this country:eek: ) but, yeah you can rebuild your life.
I meant 'free ride' in the sense as whether they are getting free rent etc because they can't get a job, or whether it is because they won't get a job.

If it's the latter I have no sympathy. But I refuse to jump to the conclusion that it is when nothing is provided in this article to suggest it may be. If you genuinely can't get a job then I don't think it's unreasonable to have assistance.

Not every job pays enough to support a family on.
Not every taxpayer thinks that people deserve an open-ended free ride, either.

Asking how much "sympathy" is enough is like asking "how high is up."
'Up' is exactly the same height as the length of string I have.

I meant 'free ride' in the sense as whether they are getting free rent etc because they can't get a job, or whether it is because they won't get a job.

If it's the latter I have no sympathy. But I refuse to jump to the conclusion that it is when nothing is provided in this article to suggest it may be. If you genuinely can't get a job then I don't think it's unreasonable to have assistance.

If you can't get a job because you are disabled then file for public assistance (like social security disablilty) FEMA is for emergencies, not for supporting the general public who "can't work".

If you can't get a job because you are disabled then file for public assistance (like social security disablilty) FEMA is for emergencies, not for supporting the general public who "can't work".
Why do they have to be disabled? It is possible that there isn't work to get.

You are assuming that they are all just being lazy. But this is absurd - among these 'lazy' people, I bet you will find thousands who have worked hard all their lives, paid all their taxes, never taken anything off anyone - and now turn to you for help in their time of need. Are you really going to just turn them out on the basis of your assumption?

Oooooh! This is going to be FUN!!!

I HAVE been through it - and no - I don't have any sympathy for them.

< mega-snip >

There - now you know how someone (in fact I've share the opinion of many people) who HAS gone through it feels about it.
LOL! Good for you!

Since when is it the responsibility of the government ( read, taxpayers ) to support people who endure hardship? Yes, I agree we should provide help to those in need, but certainly not indefinitely. What worries me is what is going to happen if there's a real disaster, like a nuclear detonation in a major city, for example? The mind boggles!

Why do they have to be disabled? It is possible that there isn't work to get.

You are assuming that they are all just being lazy. But this is absurd - among these 'lazy' people, I bet you will find thousands who have worked hard all their lives, paid all their taxes, never taken anything off anyone - and now turn to you for help in their time of need. Are you really going to just turn them out on the basis of your assumption?


Uh Uh.. *shakes head*

See, the thing is that the continuous inflow of illegal immigrants looking for work and surviving without social welfare proves that there IS work out there.

10 months isn't really a whole year. Even if it had been a whole year, is it really reasonable to expect that the economy of the area would have fully recovered? Katrina distroyed almost 600,000 jobs in New Orleans and 1,000,000 state wide. New Orleans' current population is less than 45% of what it was before the hurricane. Houston, which is over 300 miles east of NO, saw its population by 1.5%. An increase that had taken over 4 years previously, occured in a matter of weeks. Anyone who believes Houston could generate an additional 35,000 jobs within a year is a fool. And Houston is one of the least affected cities due to the sheer size of its population.

Quite simply, the refugees make well be able to work, but there certainly aren't enough jobs to go round.
Ever heard of m_o_v_i_n_g?

I would say that the 'arrogant ass' is the one who assumes that everyone in this case is just being lazy, and doesn't think that maybe, just maybe, there might be other factors involved.
Such as???

Ever heard of m_o_v_i_n_g?
That requires money. And seeing as many of these people would have had most of their life savings and investments destroyed, it's hard to see where such money would come from.

Such as???
Such as the fact that they can't get a job. Each individual family will have its own story - what I am saying is don't assume that they are all just being lazy. I have no sympathy for people who are just being idle, but it's quite a step to say that everyone in this case is being like that.

That requires money. And seeing as many of these people would have had most of their life savings and investments destroyed, it's hard to see where such money would come from.

Money for shoes?
I'm sure the Salvation Army etc. can help out.

I meant 'free ride' in the sense as whether they are getting free rent etc because they can't get a job, or whether it is because they won't get a job.

If it's the latter I have no sympathy. But I refuse to jump to the conclusion that it is when nothing is provided in this article to suggest it may be. If you genuinely can't get a job then I don't think it's unreasonable to have assistance.
It goes a LOT deeper than that. It's not a matter of not being able to find a job, it's a matter of accepting responsibility for your own life, and the lives of your family. Some people have no sense of personal responsibility and expect the rest of us to carry them on our shoulders.

'Up' is exactly the same height as the length of string I have.
What am I missing here? Explain thyself! :)

Money for shoes?
I'm sure the Salvation Army etc. can help out.
Did no one ever tell you that it's not actually possible to live in a shoe like the old woman? I am sorry to have to break the news to you.

Such as the fact that they can't get a job. Each individual family will have its own story - what I am saying is don't assume that they are all just being lazy. I have no sympathy for people who are just being idle, but it's quite a step to say that everyone in this case is being like that.


You have to prove that you really are indigent, and deserving in the UK as well, you know?
And you need quite a lot of proof to do so.
*shrug*
Apply for JSA - and keep notes of what you are required to do in order to qualify.

It is YOUR burden to prove you need support.

What am I missing here? Explain thyself! :)
Sorry, just a bad joke that no one other than myself could hope to understand. :p

Did no one ever tell you that it's not actually possible to live in a shoe like the old woman? I am sorry to have to break the news to you.

I was talking about moving.
You know, left-foot right-foot left-foot right-foot!

You have to prove that you really are indigent, and deserving in the UK as well, you know?
And you need quite a lot of proof to do so.
*shrug*
Apply for JSA - and keep notes of what you are required to do in order to qualify.

It is YOUR burden to prove you need support.
And how do you know these people are not proving they need the support? Quote the piece in the article to me that says they don't have a case and are just being lazy.

That requires money. And seeing as many of these people would have had most of their life savings and investments destroyed, it's hard to see where such money would come from.
Explain to me why it requires money.

I was talking about moving.
You know, left-foot right-foot left-foot right-foot!
:eek: Walk across America? After you...

Besides, I was referring to the fact that you need somewhere to live once you've walked to your destination.

Explain to me why it requires money.
How do you get yourself to the new place? Where do you live once you're there? How do you even buy the stamps to post applications off, or get some time on the web in an internet café?

Such as the fact that they can't get a job. Each individual family will have its own story - what I am saying is don't assume that they are all just being lazy. I have no sympathy for people who are just being idle, but it's quite a step to say that everyone in this case is being like that.
I didn't say that. I just don't think it's the responsibility of the American taxpayer to indefinitely support ANYone, regardless of the reasons why they are in dire straits. All that does is make people rely on the government and takes away their motiviation to accept responsibility for their own welfare. It's called "learned dependency."

I was talking about moving.
You know, left-foot right-foot left-foot right-foot!
LOL! Exactly! Oh ... but I forgot! No one should ever be expected to take THAT much initiative! Shame on me!

I didn't say that. I just don't think it's the responsibility of the American taxpayer to indefinitely support ANYone, regardless of the reasons why they are in dire straits. All that does is make people rely on the government and takes away their motiviation to accept responsibility for their own welfare. It's called "learned dependency."
I don't think that they should support anyone; I simply think there should be a safety net in place for those who genuinely need it. It's very hard to strike the right balance, but as I said earlier, I would prefer a handful of people to abuse the system than have a handful of people who really need it fall through the net.

LOL! Exactly! Oh ... but I forgot! No one should ever be expected to take THAT much initiative! Shame on me!
Yeah, but you probably walk to California and back as your morning exercise. :p

How do you get yourself to the new place? Where do you live once you're there? How do you even buy the stamps to post applications off, or get some time on the web in an internet café?
Holy shit! You have GOT to be kidding! To find a job, you walk into the first place of business you come to and ask, "I desperately need a job. I'm willing to work at anything." Repeat as needed until job is found.

To find a place to live, you walk to a newspaper dispenser, use all of 50 cents out of whatever FEMA gave you, and read "rooms for rent."

Holy shit! You have GOT to be kidding! To find a job, you walk into the first place of business you come to and ask, "I desperately need a job. I'm willing to work at anything." Repeat as needed until job is found.

To find a place to live, you walk to a newspaper dispenser, use all of 50 cents out of whatever FEMA gave you, and read "rooms for rent."
Yes, but for the 'job' part to work you need to be the only one doing it, not one in a city of hundreds of thousands in the same position, where many of the jobs have been washed away as well.

For the second - I don't know about the US, but here most places for rent will require a deposit.

Yeah, but you probably walk to California and back as your morning exercise. :p
Heh! Even with this 3 lbs of metal in my leg I probably could, although it might take awhile. :)

Ever heard of m_o_v_i_n_g?Indeed I have, but as I pointed out later Katrina but a huge dent in the n_a_t_i_o_n_a_l unemployment figures and jobs. Maybe you were thinking that some could move to another country to help alleivate the economic problems that Katrina has caused? But I mean hey, who cares if half of the population of Lousiana has to move. I mean you can just start using the state as the national landfill. Just think it'll help to get rid of all those smelly and unsightly landfills in your own state.

Yes, but for the 'job' part to work you need to be the only one doing it, not one in a city of hundreds of thousands in the same position, where many of the jobs have been washed away as well.

For the second - I don't know about the US, but here most places for rent will require a deposit.
If there is a glut of people looking for a job in one place, use some shoe leather to get to a place where there are fewer people looking for a job.

If you can't afford a deposit and one is required. Spend some time at a local place that lets people sleep there overnight: the Salvation Army, a local church, some kind-hearted person's home or barn ... wherever you can get in out of the rain.

Taking personal responsibility for your life means having to endure a bit of hardship from time to time in order to get to where you'd like to be. There are people all over the world who have never even IMAGINED a "saftey net," yet somehow manage to find the necessary food, clothing and shelter.

Yes, but for the 'job' part to work you need to be the only one doing it, not one in a city of hundreds of thousands in the same position, where many of the jobs have been washed away as well.

For the second - I don't know about the US, but here most places for rent will require a deposit.

Yup! And even with a job, housing isn't cheap. In the Midwest, I see $600 a month advertised as a bargin. You can't afford that flipping burgers or washing dishes.

Indeed I have, but as I pointed out later Katrina but a huge dent in the n_a_t_i_o_n_a_l unemployment figures and jobs. Maybe you were thinking that some could move to another country to help alleivate the economic problems that Katrina has caused? But I mean hey, who cares if half of the population of Lousiana has to move. I mean you can just start using the state as the national landfill. Just think it'll help to get rid of all those smelly and unsightly landfills in your own state.
Ever wonder where all those illegal immigrants find jobs? Hmmm?

But what are these people supposed to do when they have these vouchers withdrawn? It's not as if they are just scrounging work shy buggers - their homes were destroyed, afterall.

These folks have had 12 months to find a JOB so they could start rebuilding their lives. I'm sorry their homes were destroyed, but they should no live off the government forever because of it. :mad:

Holy shit! You have GOT to be kidding! To find a job, you walk into the first place of business you come to and ask, "I desperately need a job. I'm willing to work at anything." Repeat as needed until job is found.

To find a place to live, you walk to a newspaper dispenser, use all of 50 cents out of whatever FEMA gave you, and read "rooms for rent."That's all great and well if there are more houses and jobs than people. Unfortunately more houses and jobs didn't just magically appear in LA's surrounding states when the huge amounsts of houses and jobs in LA were distroyed.

In regards to your comment about being able to respond to nuclear bomb. If it weren't for the stockmarkets a nuclear bomb would probably be less damaging to the US economy than Katrina. Not only would the houses and jobs be gone, but the people who needed to find houses and jobs would be gone too. The rest of the US economy would not have to cope with a large sudden influx of refugees that Katrina created. A cynical attitude, I know, but I don't think many of you considering just how fragile economies are. If one person wants to up sticks and move then it's fine, but when around 500,000, the population of NO, have to then it actually becomes a problem. Economies can cope with change, but they can't cope with change happening fast.

Ever wonder where all those illegal immigrants find jobs? Hmmm?1,000,000 illegal immigrants do not enter the country every month.

...snip... Anyone who believes Houston could generate an additional 35,000 jobs within a year is a fool. And Houston is one of the least affected cities due to the sheer size of its population.

Quite simply, the refugees make well be able to work, but there certainly aren't enough jobs to go round.

There are enough jobs in the United States. Sometimes people have to move to get a job. :eek:

There are enough jobs in the United States. Sometimes people have to move to get a job. :eek:You may think that there are, but I do not. No one has said anything to convince me otherwise. I have shown that huge amounts of jobs and houses are distroyed and no one has shown me any evidence to show that these jobs and houses have been replaced. The world is not a place of infinite plenty - there is not always enough for everyone.

Yup! And even with a job, housing isn't cheap. In the Midwest, I see $600 a month advertised as a bargin. You can't afford that flipping burgers or washing dishes.

Then how come illegal aliens are able to find a place to live while flipping burgers or washing dishes? :confused:

It does my heart good to see such a sensible attitude to these free loading wasters being taken. Jeez ... you'd think they didn't ask for that hurricane to wipe out there entire city and half the surrounding state ... and don't say they didn't because everyone gets what they deserve out of life so they must have been at fault for it.

It used to make grandad's blood boil when these malingering bastards would come back from the Somme and expect some assistance from the country just because they'd lost a couple of limbs!!! "Get off your arse (or on your arse as the case may be) and get a job stumpy" he'd say. " I didn't fight in the war ... I admit ... just to give you a free ride". Some of them would even have the audacity to claim that they couldn't move because they had a wife and kids to think about. "Whaaat" grandad would splutter. "Wife and kids are for those that can afford them. If you've no money to feed 'em then get on your feet (or foot, or whatever they had at that point) and leave 'em behind to fend for themselves. I'm not payin' for 'em".

Sensible chap old grandad. We were very proud of him.

I do so hope the sarcasm comes through here ;) .

1,000,000 illegal immigrants do not enter the country every month.

That is true, the number is in the thousands or hundreds of thousands. Katrina did not happen this month or last month, it happened 12 months ago. Long enough ago for the able bodied people to go out find a job and get a place to live just like thousands of illegals do every month.

You may think that there are, but I do not. No one has said anything to convince me otherwise. I have shown that huge amounts of jobs and houses are distroyed and no one has shown me any evidence to show that these jobs and houses have been replaced. The world is not a place of infinite plenty - there is not always enough for everyone.

Yes, thousands of jobs have been lost in one relatively small area of the US. Thousands of jobs have been created in other areas of the country. It is not a case of no jobs like the great depression, it is a case of having to move to where the jobs are.

Dude, if the goverment were DIRECTLY RESPONSILBE for Hurrican Katrina, it would be one thing, but they're not. It's not their fault, and it's not our fault, but yet WHO will pay for it? WE will. Let THEM get their own houses, if they don't have insurance that will cover it, well that's to bad isn't it?

That is true, the number is in the thousands or hundreds of thousands. Katrina did not happen this month or last month, it happened 12 months ago. Long enough ago for the able bodied people to go out find a job and get a place to live just like thousands of illegals do every month.thousands or hundreds of thousands per year, not per month. And If I remember correctly about 1,000,000 illegal immigrants are removed from the USA each year.

If I take Houston as an example. Houston recieved about 35,000 refugees, at the job creation rate of Houston (12,000 jobs per year), it would take 3 years for Houston to completely absorb these refugees into the economy.
http://recenter.tamu.edu/mnews/mnsearch.asp?AID=10&TID=8

Yes, thousands of jobs have been lost in one relatively small area of the US. Thousands of jobs have been created in other areas of the country. It is not a case of no jobs like the great depression, it is a case of having to move to where the jobs are.No, not thousands, a million. What you also have to remember is if their is slow change then an economy can normally cope. The number of illegal immigrants entering the USA has slowly increased since the 80s. Whilst the number isn't static it is increasingly slowly and reliable. It's not like one month so many people will just decide not to immgrate to the US. The problem with Katrina was it immedeately distroyed one million jobs. Suddenly one million workers were out of a job. This is bound to shock an economy, and it will take time for the economy to recover. Longer than one year at any rate.

edit: So, whilst a certain proportion of refugees will have been able to find jobs, not all of them will. Suddenly ending the handouts for refugees who weren't able to find a job will have seriously repercussions. If we assume that 15,000 of the refugees were able to find jobs in Houston then this would leave 20,000 people with no source of income and no shelter. I'd say that was a very definate recipe to increase crime rates in the area.

What a wonderful argument. "I had it bad, therefore anyone else who gets assistance is a selfish git."

I shall ignore the pointless and childish insults. I would say that the 'arrogant ass' is the one who assumes that everyone in this case is just being lazy, and doesn't think that maybe, just maybe, there might be other factors involved.




Dang you make it easy. First of all - my experience is not an argument - it is evidence that I an fully capable and experieced at understanding what the people displaced by a hurricane are going through - nothing more. You are the one not qualified to have an opinion by your own definition. That you don't like the opinion of someone you have already defined as qualified is your own flaw.

Nor have I said that anyone is 'lazy- let alone everyone. You are the first person to use that term. My post simply indicated that the Katrina storm victims are no more worthy of assistance than any other storms victims - and certainly not worthy of more per capita.

I do so hope the sarcasm comes through here ;) .

no, but your thorough lack of comprehension of the topic at hand did.

10 months isn't really a whole year. Even if it had been a whole year, is it really reasonable to expect that the economy of the area would have fully recovered? Katrina distroyed almost 600,000 jobs in New Orleans and 1,000,000 state wide. New Orleans' current population is less than 45% of what it was before the hurricane. Houston, which is over 300 miles east of NO, saw its population by 1.5%. An increase that had taken over 4 years previously, occured in a matter of weeks. Anyone who believes Houston could generate an additional 35,000 jobs within a year is a fool. And Houston is one of the least affected cities due to the sheer size of its population.

Quite simply, the refugees make well be able to work, but there certainly aren't enough jobs to go round.

Good thing Houston isn't the only place in the US they are allowed to go... :rolleyes:

US unemployment did take a hit after the storm - but has since recovered completely. No excuse.

Not to belittle your experience, but Katrina caused around $75 billion in damage - 5 times more than Charley. Katrina also distroyed 1,000,000 jobs, which is 100 times more than Charley did. Finally Katrina killed over 1,800 people, whereas Charley killed 30. The damage that Katrina did was phenominal. It raised the unemployment rate of the entire country by 0.6%. Federal aid to the victims of the Hurricane accounted for 5% of the federal budget.

This hurricane was unlike anything the USA had witnessed before.

On a national scale it was. It covered at least four times more territory than Charley and had average windspeeds 15mph faster. That still does not negate the fact that my (and many many others) home was uninhabitable. Just because the other storm affected more people does not make those individuals each more worthy of assistance. THAT is my whole point.

The longer we coddle them the harder it will be to cut them loose.

Isn't this a self solving problem?

1. You have people who need jobs.
2. You have people who need laborers to rebuild. (Based on info from the poster who had trouble finding a contractor to rebuild his home after Charley)
3. Well really there is no 3rd point. #3 = #1 + #2.

I am well aware that many construction jobs require a lot skill and training, but I also know that some of it just takes a willingness to get the job done and some practice. You might not get your 2,000 sq.ft. architected and landsacped mansion back like this, but you'll have a roof over your family and a job to work your way back up.

The phrase is over used, but "hand up instead of a hand out" is still the way to go.

1,000,000 illegal immigrants do not enter the country every month.
How many illegals come in during a year then? That's how long these people have been on the public teat.

I do so hope the sarcasm comes through here ;) .
It does, but it just happens to be totally irrelevant to the topic at hand.

Isn't this a self solving problem?

1. You have people who need jobs.
2. You have people who need laborers to rebuild. (Based on info from the poster who had trouble finding a contractor to rebuild his home after Charley)
3. Well really there is no 3rd point. #3 = #1 + #2.

I am well aware that many construction jobs require a lot skill and training, but I also know that some of it just takes a willingness to get the job done and some practice. You might not get your 2,000 sq.ft. architected and landsacped mansion back like this, but you'll have a roof over your family and a job to work your way back up.

The phrase is over used, but "hand up instead of a hand out" is still the way to go.*nods in agreement*
when Kauai was hit by Hurricane Iwa. the communty pulled together and helped each other. FEMA and the Army/National Guard did alot, but the communities were the main supporting factor.

granted it wasn't as big as Katrina, but Kauai is an Island and thus the logistics are harder in getting supplies there and also "moving" to another area.

If we assume that 15,000 of the refugees were able to find jobs in Houston then this would leave 20,000 people with no source of income and no shelter. I'd say that was a very definate recipe to increase crime rates in the area.
Oh ... so let me see if I have this straight:

If we don't continue to feed, house and clothe those who choose not to take responsibility for their own welfare, not only will they sue us, they'll rob from us and shoot us if we don't? Interesting life position that. :rolleyes:

Oh ... so let me see if I have this straight:

If we don't continue to feed, house and clothe those who choose not to take responsibility for their own welfare, not only will they sue us, they'll rob from us and shoot us if we don't? Interesting life position that. :rolleyes:Not really. The position is that a little bit of spending in the right places can reduce larger costs elsewhere.

You're also assuming that all these people are bums who haven't tried to get jobs when you have absolutely no evidence to sugest that they are. You have seized upon the fact that there are still some families they haven't been able to find jobs and homes and made a link that it must be because they're lazy. Nothing in that article sugests what you have concluded. In fact the article mentions that the Mayor of Houston reckons FEMA is trying shaft these people. Hence impying the opposite of your conclusions.

*nods in agreement*
when Kauai was hit by Hurricane Iwa. the communty pulled together and helped each other. FEMA and the Army/National Guard did alot, but the communities were the main supporting factor.

granted it wasn't as big as Katrina, but Kauai is an Island and thus the logistics are harder in getting supplies there and also "moving" to another area.I think that Kauai was an island perhaps made it easier for the community to stick together. After Katrina there was no community in New Orleans. A year later and only 200,000 are back in NO.

On a national scale it was. It covered at least four times more territory than Charley and had average windspeeds 15mph faster. That still does not negate the fact that my (and many many others) home was uninhabitable. Just because the other storm affected more people does not make those individuals each more worthy of assistance. THAT is my whole point.

The longer we coddle them the harder it will be to cut them loose.You make two good points. Which for me raises a question 'What has FEMA done differently for aftermath to turn out differently?'. I'm assuming that if FEMA had acted in exactly the same way both times then the results would have been similar. From appearances it seems that FEMA has just been handing out money with no regard to what is actually happening to that money. Why as FEMA paid for people to live in hotels for a year? Was there no program to move people out of expensive hotels and into cheaper, more permanent accomodation?

What it seems to me to have happened is that FEMA has been spending its money irresponibly and it is now beginning to run out of money. Hence the move to cut costs by cutting the number of people eligible for assistance for the most flimsiest of reasons. Such as withdrawing assistance because the person had forgotten to sign in the right place, rather than simply sending the paperwork back and asking them to sign in the right place.

Not really. The position is that a little bit of spending in the right places can reduce larger costs elsewhere. BIG SNIP


Just one question for you. If you decided to build your house below sea level and a natural disaster wiped out your home and your city, how long should you be able to suck off the public tit?

Just one question for you. If you decided to build your house below sea level and a natural disaster wiped out your home and your city, how long should you be able to suck off the public tit?I don't know. But I guess the harder they tried to get off the teet the longer they should recieve assistance if they failed.

I do agree with your views that those that don't try should expect help, but I think you're jumping to conclusions as to what has been happened over the last year.

chances are most of these people were on welfare or living in the complete slums. where they are living now courtesy of FEMA fills like a vacation for them. a year long vacation and they have no intention of returning without a fight. they depend on the government but they also dont want government intervention in their lifes :rolleyes: .

Not really. The position is that a little bit of spending in the right places can reduce larger costs elsewhere.

You're also assuming that all these people are bums who haven't tried to get jobs when you have absolutely no evidence to sugest that they are. You have seized upon the fact that there are still some families they haven't been able to find jobs and homes and made a link that it must be because they're lazy. Nothing in that article sugests what you have concluded. In fact the article mentions that the Mayor of Houston reckons FEMA is trying shaft these people. Hence impying the opposite of your conclusions.

I think that Kauai was an island perhaps made it easier for the community to stick together. After Katrina there was no community in New Orleans. A year later and only 200,000 are back in NO.

You make two good points. Which for me raises a question 'What has FEMA done differently for aftermath to turn out differently?'. I'm assuming that if FEMA had acted in exactly the same way both times then the results would have been similar. From appearances it seems that FEMA has just been handing out money with no regard to what is actually happening to that money. Why as FEMA paid for people to live in hotels for a year? Was there no program to move people out of expensive hotels and into cheaper, more permanent accomodation?

What it seems to me to have happened is that FEMA has been spending its money irresponibly and it is now beginning to run out of money. Hence the move to cut costs by cutting the number of people eligible for assistance for the most flimsiest of reasons. Such as withdrawing assistance because the person had forgotten to sign in the right place, rather than simply sending the paperwork back and asking them to sign in the right place.

IMHO FEMA handled both poorly. If they wanted to really help here is what would happen;

1) As Machtfrei pointed out - there was a sever shortage of labor. All types - skilled and unskilled. To encourage labor FEMA would provide free or discounted housing during the process to people employed at reconstruction to encourage workers to stay or, even better, come. (Trailers and portable buildings)

2) Taxes on income earned during reconstrction would be waived for businesses and their employees directly involved in the process - including suppliers.

3) A Cadre of officials would come and issue the necessary permits and inspections as the restoration continued. Permitting would be standardized - simplified and expedited.

4) Insurance claims would be reviewed by the state. Companies which have a pattern of neglect would go straight to receivorship. No bullshitting around. There would be a slew of workers brought in to arbitrate disputes immediately and a database would link the claims to detect patterns of neglect or abuse. Federal workers would also assist private insurers who may not be staffed to handle the claims.

5) Tax incentives for relocation and employement services who assist people who just decide to move.

None of these things involve handouts, but they all would have been greatly appreciated had they been offered and likely would have produced far better retsults than a years worth of free rent and utilities, $1500, etc.

We didn't want FEMA to fix it - we simply wanted them to help us get it fixed. Huge difference.

chances are most of these people were on welfare or living in the complete slums. where they are living now courtesy of FEMA fills like a vacation for them. a year long vacation and they have no intention of returning without a fight. they depend on the government but they also dont want government intervention in their lifes :rolleyes: .

That is so wrong on so many levels I don't know where to begin... Suffice to say it speaks volumes more about you than it does anything else.

IMHO FEMA handled both poorly. If they wanted to really help here is what would happen;

<snip>

We didn't want FEMA to fix it - we simply wanted them to help us get it fixed. Huge difference.That seems very well informed. I do think that things could have turned out very differently if those points had been implemented. Thanks for the post.

That is so wrong on so many levels I don't know where to begin... Suffice to say it speaks volumes more about you than it does anything else.

yeah i know, the truth sucks.

I think that Kauai was an island perhaps made it easier for the community to stick together. After Katrina there was no community in New Orleans. A year later and only 200,000 are back in NO.
after Katrina there were those who stayed behind.

and while the fact that Kauai was an Island did keep everyone together. it also made getting aid to them harder. Ports as well as the one airport were heavily damaged.

and the other islands sent help via any boat that could get to the island.

But what are these people supposed to do when they have these vouchers withdrawn? It's not as if they are just scrounging work shy buggers - their homes were destroyed, afterall.
They are supposed to go live on the streets like the rest of the bums the neocons are tired of.

But what are these people supposed to do when they have these vouchers withdrawn? It's not as if they are just scrounging work shy buggers - their homes were destroyed, afterall.
the problem is that some people are abusing this money

It saddens me that so many people are willing to spend what ever it takes and stay as long as it takes 'to help' only if they get to shoot people in the process. If someone doesn't get to shoot brown people, then folks in dire straights are on their own. Your priorities are showing, and they are unsightly...

Indeed I have, but as I pointed out later Katrina but a huge dent in the n_a_t_i_o_n_a_l unemployment figures and jobs. Maybe you were thinking that some could move to another country to help alleivate the economic problems that Katrina has caused? But I mean hey, who cares if half of the population of Lousiana has to move. I mean you can just start using the state as the national landfill. Just think it'll help to get rid of all those smelly and unsightly landfills in your own state.

And above we have a lovely example of ad hominem.

And above we have a lovely example of ad hominem.
No it's not. It's more of a reductio ad absurdum (nope, not going to spell check that, deal.) It takes an argument to and absurd conclusion, it doesn't attack the arguer personally. If you're going to be a gnit (THATS an ad hominum) about logical fallacies at least sort them right.

That's all great and well if there are more houses and jobs than people. Unfortunately more houses and jobs didn't just magically appear in LA's surrounding states when the huge amounsts of houses and jobs in LA were distroyed.

In regards to your comment about being able to respond to nuclear bomb. If it weren't for the stockmarkets a nuclear bomb would probably be less damaging to the US economy than Katrina. Not only would the houses and jobs be gone, but the people who needed to find houses and jobs would be gone too. The rest of the US economy would not have to cope with a large sudden influx of refugees that Katrina created. A cynical attitude, I know, but I don't think many of you considering just how fragile economies are. If one person wants to up sticks and move then it's fine, but when around 500,000, the population of NO, have to then it actually becomes a problem. Economies can cope with change, but they can't cope with change happening fast.

People have to stop building and living in places where acts of nature destroy their houses and jobs on a regular basis. Then expect other people's money to keep rebuiding in the same place!

Or, if they "have" to live there, at least build structures using engineering that can withstand the natural forces.

BTW Infinite, how many of these poor retched folks have you taken in? How many are you going to "save" to prevent them from being "victimized" by the heartless government? You talk the talk, but are you willing to actually walk it?

Seems to me to be pretty clear cut--FEMA issued 12 month vouchers and is trying to back out now. What happens after the 12 months is over is a subect for debate, but not this, it seems to me.

No it's not. It's more of a reductio ad absurdum (nope, not going to spell check that, deal.) It takes an argument to and absurd conclusion, it doesn't attack the arguer personally. If you're going to be a gnit (THATS an ad hominum) about logical fallacies at least sort them right.

You must feel better now.

It saddens me that so many people are willing to spend what ever it takes and stay as long as it takes 'to help' only if they get to shoot people in the process. If someone doesn't get to shoot brown people, then folks in dire straights are on their own. Your priorities are showing, and they are unsightly...

What in the heck are you talking about?

I have been helping some people work on an Informational Hurricane Video for the State of Florida and some people interviewed have the same complaint.


One reason these people are broke is because their Insurance is dragging their feet and making up excuses not to pay up, but since the Insurance Industry has good lawyers, who are you going to get the money from?
The Government.

Blame people like State Farm and the others who refuse to pay up and yet keep charging them interest..

You must feel better now.
Did you call me something, pot? So touchy...
What in the heck are you talking about?
Try to find another situation that the US is currently involved in that is taking a bunch of taxpayer money that doesn't seem to have any end to it. Contrast and compare, consider who is saying that one should have no time or spending limit and the other should end yesterday.

Not every taxpayer thinks that people deserve an open-ended free ride, either.There's nothing about the article that says that the people filing the lawsuits want the aid to be open-ended, merely continued. At the very least, the lawsuit seems to allege that FEMA was being disingenuous about how to file the proper applications for continued aid.

There are enough jobs in the United States.If there were enough jobs here then why is there an unemployment level?

My post simply indicated that the Katrina storm victims are no more worthy of assistance than any other storms victims - and certainly not worthy of more per capita.Which indicates to me that the victims of other storms should also have received aid.

People have to stop building and living in places where acts of nature destroy their houses and jobs on a regular basis. Then expect other people's money to keep rebuiding in the same place!

Or, if they "have" to live there, at least build structures using engineering that can withstand the natural forces.

BTW Infinite, how many of these poor retched folks have you taken in? How many are you going to "save" to prevent them from being "victimized" by the heartless government? You talk the talk, but are you willing to actually walk it?On average NO gets brushed by a hurricane every 4 years and hit directly by one even less frequently. So they aren't all that regular. I, as someone not living in the USA, would consider New Orleans to be one of the major cultural cities of the country. To give the city up to the sea would be to give up a huge chunk of the US' cultural history.

New Orleans did have engineering in place to help with natural disasters, but, as I remember, the city hadn't suffered a major natural disaster for a while and the authorities had cut corners on spending in this area.

You'll never know about your last question as I do not live in the USA. Besides, it would be slightly absurd to evacuate people from New Orleans all the way across the Atlantic to Europe. You could have saved yourself asking that question if you'd taken a little bit more time to read the thread. As for my home country, well I'm lucky enough to live in a country that has only ever experienced one hurricane in its history and the most shocking of natural disasters is normally when winds pick up and blow a tree across an electricity pylon. Hardly cataclysmic.

And above we have a lovely example of ad hominem.Meh, it was a tit for tat response. Deal. However, your succinct point doesn't invalidate the argument that I gave.

Now, if you'd care to actually post something that contributes towards the topic, then I'd be happy to debate it with you.

For the reference, the above is lovely example of ad hominem, and this sentence probably is too. As they could easily be construed to imply that I am calling you stupid.

It saddens me that so many people are willing to spend what ever it takes and stay as long as it takes 'to help' only if they get to shoot people in the process. If someone doesn't get to shoot brown people, then folks in dire straights are on their own. Your priorities are showing, and they are unsightly...


What are you talking about and who are you saying it too?...

oh, and can I have some of what you're on?

I have been helping some people work on an Informational Hurricane Video for the State of Florida and some people interviewed have the same complaint.


One reason these people are broke is because their Insurance is dragging their feet and making up excuses not to pay up, but since the Insurance Industry has good lawyers, who are you going to get the money from?
The Government.

Blame people like State Farm and the others who refuse to pay up and yet keep charging them interest..

Don't get me started on insurance companies. That post alone would take up one whole page. Local governments are almost as bad with their doublespeak permit rules and little ceasar inspectors.

Suffice to say - some companies were pretty good - some were really bad. Sadly - much of the reason why the bad ones were so bad was because the behavior of the claimants was even worse. Countless people trying to get a free ride on the insurance company - and it does not take a hurricane for that. Also - most insurance companies are poorly prepared to handle a glut of claims coming in at once as which happened with Katrina and during the 4-storms that hit Florida in 04. (Hell - my ins co home office had to be evacuated twice - you can imagine what THAT did to claims)

Try to find another situation that the US is currently involved in that is taking a bunch of taxpayer money that doesn't seem to have any end to it. Contrast and compare, consider who is saying that one should have no time or spending limit and the other should end yesterday.
Gawd how one-dimensional. You really need to find new topics to discuss. I can imagine how boring your breakfast table must be.

Which indicates to me that the victims of other storms should also have received aid.

Oh there was aid and it was apreciated. There just wasn't enough of the useful stuff done - as I pointed out in the later post. Just throwing money around foolishly is not constructive. Believe me - they threw it around foolishly down here also - but not to the extent as with Katrina. As I said before - We don't want FEMA to fix everything - we just wanted them to help us get it fixed.

COMMENTARY: "I know my rights, and it's right there in the Constitution: you have to pay for me and my family to stay somewhere nice, rent free, and pay all my bills. If you kick me out after a year, I'll sue!"

Or maybe it's just free food for lawyers? Who knows?


The sad thing is they would have won in Israel.

Originally posted by BOzzy
Originally Posted by Llanarc

I do so hope the sarcasm comes through here .


no, but your thorough lack of comprehension of the topic at hand did.

I was drawing attention to the complete lack of sympathy for people who, through no fault of their own, find themselves on the bottom rung of the ladder with absolutely nothing. I was also drawing attention to the way many of the anti-evacuee ranters seemed to believe all the evacuees were just individuals with no ties or responsibilites which might of necessity kept them from leaving the area. Perhaps it all flew over heads :rolleyes: .

I find it shocking that there should be such a lack of compassion for these people in the USA all for the sake of a small amount of tax dollars. Perhaps if they had spent those tax dollars on flood defences in the first place instead of constructing cheap shortcuts the situation would not have arisen to the extent it has :( .

Oooooh! This is going to be FUN!!!


I HAVE been through it - and no - I don't have any sympathy for them.

On August 13th 2004 Hurricane Charley blew directly over my home. Unlike Katrina we didn't get four days notice that it was coming - we got roughly two hours notice after the storm changed course, went from category one to four+, sped up, and headed right for us. When it hit 2 of 4 sliding door panels in my second story living room blew - intact and with explosive force - through one side of the room and out the windows on the other side - without ever touching the floor! Winds of 150 MPH blew through my livingroom stripping the plaster from the ceiling and draining down through to the downstairs. Immediately after the storm it was like a waterfall running down my staircase. Regardless I was grateful that my family was safe. It was shortly afterwords that I was in my car checking on neighbors and loved ones.

For two weeks to a month my community had no power, no refridgeration, no ac, no internet, no cable, no cellular and no telephones. To make an insurance claim I had to drive to the opposite end of the county (which is harder and more dangerous than it seems when half the streets are closed and there are no traffic lights) and wait in line for hours. Clean up of my flooded home was much more difficult without any power.

It took until February to get through the morasse of insurance and regulatory bullshit before I could finally start the process of begging any contractor I could find to begin restoration of my home. My family and I finally moved in last November (and JUST got the Cert of Occupancy last week!) and consider ourselves lucky. There are still people living in trailers in front of their now dilapidated homes. Thursday on my way to work I saw a damaged home being demolished - a good sign that they are finally able to start reconstruction. My community has been completely forgotten and we know it. Nobody gave a shit how good or bad the government support was when we got hit. (and I can promise you it was no different than anywhere else)

I saw people lose everything. Renters with no insurance who lost the contents of their home and had their job literally blown away. Many many people moved away to start life anew. I saw many more who just took their insurance money - sold their homes 'as is' and left rather than face the frustration of rebuilding. I know I often wish I had.

So yes, you arrogant ass - I HAVE gone through it. I did not get any vouchers for free rent or utilities, I did not get any slack from my boss (in fact I didn't even get paid for driving around handing out my labor and emergency supplies provided by my company for the month after the storm) I did not get a $1500 VISA. I did not get special tax deductions for my losses - not even my homeowners deductible of $6000. Not one single person who was displaced got any absentee ballots for any elections. I got exactly one bag of groceries and one tank of gas and that was from my corporation - not the government. The rest came - with much dispute and wrangling, from my insurance company.

Yes - I do agree that one year is not long enough to rebuild a home after such a storm. So fucking what. It is plenty of time to find a new community - a new job - make a new start - as so many of my friends did. And for anyone who says some may have been too poor for homeowners - Think you stupid shit! - if they can afford a free and clear home then they can afford insurance. If it is not F+C then they are required to have insurace by the mortgagor. If they lost their uninsured F+C home then tough shit. Move away sell the land when you can and count yourself lucky to be alive. There is no reason why the taxpayors should support these nimrods for even one half of a year with free housing. If they lacked the foresight to be insured then boo fucking hoo for them. If we are to bail out everyone who does not have insurance they why fucking get it to begin with? If they are poor then they can get standard public assistance and maybe a small grant to assist them with moving and housing aquisition (first and last month or whatever) One year of free shit is bullcrap.

There - now you know how someone (in fact I've share the opinion of many people) who HAS gone through it feels about it.

Did you have to put up with being raped? Or hearing the rapes of children that you could do nothing about because it was too dark to see properly? And then try to get help from the army to stop it only to be hurt or killed? Or did you have to live in shit (actual human shit)? No? Then SHUT THE FUCK UP.

But what are these people supposed to do when they have these vouchers withdrawn? It's not as if they are just scrounging work shy buggers - their homes were destroyed, afterall.

Whether or not their need is legitimate or beyond their control is irrelevant. The unanswered question is still, how does that create an obligation on the rest of us to fulfill it?

Whether or not their need is legitimate or beyond their control is irrelevant. The unanswered question is still, how does that create an obligation on the rest of us to fulfill it?
Well, the government provided 12-month vouchers. Whether you agree that it should have is not up for discussion here--they did. Now they're trying to turn 12 month vouchers into 10 month vouchers--that's crap.

Did you have to put up with being raped? Or hearing the rapes of children that you could do nothing about because it was too dark to see properly? And then try to get help from the army to stop it only to be hurt or killed? Or did you have to live in shit (actual human shit)? No? Then SHUT THE FUCK UP.

I doubt that many of those who disapprove of open ended financial support for disaster victims are as callous as you alledge. We did not commit the crimes you describe and don't condone or excuse them. We too are outraged.

But, using these repugnant behaviors committed to justifiy open ended or excessive supplementation is in error.

Millions of people have suffered the same crimes and received NO compensation, not even justice. Their only additional "crime" was that they weren't ALSO victims of a natural disaster.

I was drawing attention to the complete lack of sympathy for people who, through no fault of their own, find themselves on the bottom rung of the ladder with absolutely nothing. I was also drawing attention to the way many of the anti-evacuee ranters seemed to believe all the evacuees were just individuals with no ties or responsibilites which might of necessity kept them from leaving the area. Perhaps it all flew over heads :rolleyes: .

I find it shocking that there should be such a lack of compassion for these people in the USA all for the sake of a small amount of tax dollars. Perhaps if they had spent those tax dollars on flood defences in the first place instead of constructing cheap shortcuts the situation would not have arisen to the extent it has :( .

I have a great deal of sympathy for them and everyone like them.

What I find shocking is how so many were abandonded by their local leaders. The Mayor of New Orleans and the Governor of LA. Why weren't all those school buses employed to evacuate people the authorities KNEW had no transportation of their own? Why was help, in the form of a passenger train, refused?

The Federal programs and FEMA are not, and should not be expected to be, the first responder. Local officials/leaders/authorities are. And the local officials failed their own people. If the people of New Orleans have learned anything from this, they will elect a new mayor and a new governor, at least.

Try to find another situation that the US is currently involved in that is taking a bunch of taxpayer money that doesn't seem to have any end to it. Contrast and compare, consider who is saying that one should have no time or spending limit and the other should end yesterday.

Lets see...IRAQ.
How about Social Security, Medicare, Welfare.

I am not disputing the need of the latter three. Just offering other situations where the US is spending money and that don't seem to have an end to it.

COMMENTARY: "I know my rights, and it's right there in the Constitution: you have to pay for me and my family to stay somewhere nice, rent free, and pay all my bills. If you kick me out after a year, I'll sue!"

Or maybe it's just free food for lawyers? Who knows?


Lawsuit Is Filed to Force FEMA to Continue Housing Vouchers (http://www.nytimes.com/2006/05/20/us/20vouchers.html?_r=1&th&emc=th&oref=slogin)


By SHAILA DEWAN
Published: May 20, 2006
Lawyers for New Orleans evacuees filed suit in Houston yesterday, asking a federal court to stop the Federal Emergency Management Agency from ending housing benefits for tens of thousands of people who fled the flooding of Hurricane Katrina. The evacuees had been issued 12-month housing vouchers by local governments but are now being told by FEMA that they must pay rent or leave.

The class-action suit, filed in United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas, says the agency has made "arbitrary, inconsistent and inequitable housing decisions without using any ascertainable standards" and describes the situation of several plaintiffs who, it contends, received vague or contradictory letters from FEMA or were denied further housing assistance for false reasons.

The suit was filed by Caddell & Chapman, a Houston firm, joined by a consortium of public interest legal groups.

The vouchers provided, in most cases, one year of housing and utilities to about 55,000 families, and were issued by Houston and other cities with the understanding that FEMA would reimburse them. Last month, agency officials said that nearly a third of the families — some 8,000 in Houston alone — were ineligible for such assistance.

But the mayor of Houston, Bill White, said many of the ineligibility rulings from FEMA were wrong. Some evacuees were told that their homes in New Orleans had not been damaged badly enough to qualify for assistance: that someone else in their household had already qualified for assistance elsewhere; that they failed to appear in person for an inspection of their home; or that their housing assistance had been withdrawn because a signature was missing from their paperwork.

Some were even told that they were not eligible for housing assistance because they had received a voucher, though the vouchers were being discontinued.

A FEMA official declined to discuss the lawsuit. "We're aware of the situation," said the official, Aaron Walker, a spokesman for the agency in Washington. "According to FEMA policy, we cannot comment on any pending litigation."

Agency officials have defended the decision to end the program, saying the vouchers were issued under the emergency housing program, which is available to virtually anyone from a disaster area but is not intended to be used for extended periods. That program ended in March. Hurricane Katrina families are being converted to the agency's long-term individual assistance program, which has stricter eligibility requirements.

FEMA officials have also said that the voucher program was unfair because not all evacuees received them — some entered the individual assistance program right away and received money to pay their own rent, which counts against the agency's per-family limit of $26,200.

The lawsuit says that in at least one previous disaster the agency has provided emergency housing for longer than a year. Federal law does not specify a time limit for emergency housing.

The lawsuit also addresses what it says are onerous requirements even for the eligible, who must now sign a new lease with their landlords, pay for their own utilities and requalify every three months. FEMA has failed to adjust its estimation of fair-market rents or provide clear criteria for requalification, the suit says.

So they try to take away rights that are clearly IN the constitution but ADD ones that AREN'T?

I must say that's messed up. Noone HAS to pay for your home or vouchers.

Gawd how one-dimensional. You really need to find new topics to discuss. I can imagine how boring your breakfast table must be.
Ah, I see you've decided to follow in Trusci's footsteps and instead of adress the issue make up stuff about what I post. I understand, sand keeps your head warm...

Who knows?
Go on then - you know. You're just not saying. How cute can you get?

this thread is depressing to the non-american reader.

is there no sense of society in the US anymore?

this thread is depressing to the non-american reader.

is there no sense of society in the US anymore?
Nah.

Oh there was aid and it was apreciated. There just wasn't enough of the useful stuff done - as I pointed out in the later post. Just throwing money around foolishly is not constructive. Believe me - they threw it around foolishly down here also - but not to the extent as with Katrina. As I said before - We don't want FEMA to fix everything - we just wanted them to help us get it fixed.Unfortunately, it seems as though the government would rather throw money at the problem instead of doing the useful stuff.

LOL! Good for you!

Since when is it the responsibility of the government ( read, taxpayers ) to support people who endure hardship? Yes, I agree we should provide help to those in need, but certainly not indefinitely. What worries me is what is going to happen if there's a real disaster, like a nuclear detonation in a major city, for example? The mind boggles!
You know, it is comments such as yours, and others, and threads such as these that "boggle" the imagination. Here you are bemoaning "taxpayer" dollars going to help people afflicted by one of the greatest US disasters of all time, and yet you wholeheartedly support the unnecesary war in Iraq.

Iraq is a man made "disaster", whereby "taxpayers" such as you are spending hundreds of billions of dollars to destroy the country and then hundreds of billions of "taxpayer" dollars to rebuild what your country destroyed.

And yet you want to chide your fellow countrymen, over a natural "disaster" called Katrina. You don't want to spend "taxpayer" dollars to help them rebuild their lives?

Why do you hate America?

And how do you know these people are not proving they need the support? Quote the piece in the article to me that says they don't have a case and are just being lazy.


*shakes head*
The burden of proof is the other way.

If you want dosh of Uncle sam - or the DPP, it is up to you to prove beyond doubt that you are entitled to it.

It's been a whole year.

It's been a whole year.

It's been a whole year.In these matters, years are a very short time indeed.

It's been a whole year.
It's been a whole year.
It's been a whole year.
You need a new calender? It is just over eight months.

If these people have jobs, they can find a place to live on their own.

If they don't have a job, they need to go out and find one. It's not fucking impossible.

For those who are elderly, indigent for reasons beyond their control, or unable to work for medical reasons, sure, keep housing them.

The US is not a place where you get cradle to grave handouts from the government when you are able-bodied and can work.
Another passionate pro Iraq war supporter who cannot seem to find any compassion for his fellow countrymen?

Yup, lots of money for bombs and bullets in Iraq, but no money for bricks and mortar in your own country. How disturbingly ironic.

I doubt that many of those who disapprove of open ended financial support for disaster victims are as callous as you alledge. We did not commit the crimes you describe and don't condone or excuse them. We too are outraged.

But, using these repugnant behaviors committed to justifiy open ended or excessive supplementation is in error.

Millions of people have suffered the same crimes and received NO compensation, not even justice. Their only additional "crime" was that they weren't ALSO victims of a natural disaster.

So you're trying to say those people should get no justice, and no further assistance, simply because other people have been victims of similar crimes? Get off the fucking planet. :upyours:

So you're trying to say those people should get no justice, and no further assistance, simply because other people have been victims of similar crimes? Get off the fucking planet. :upyours:

Uhm, get a grip already and READ. Reading comprehension goes a long way towards getting the gist of a statement.
This is the part of what I said that you missed or disregarded. Note the emphasis in BOLD.
using these repugnant behaviors committed to justifiy open ended or excessive supplementation is in error.

My point is valid. Being the victim of a crime does not, in and of itself, entitle anyone to perpetual tax payer support. If it did, there'd be millions more getting checks every month. The fact that crimes occured in the aftermath of the disaster is neither surprising nor a mitigating factor for increasing the length of eligible time for receiving FEMA supplements.

Also, If you want to have your opinions considered express them without the nasty personal attacks. Name calling is an exhibition of lack of facility with the language, lack of maturity and/or emotional insecurity. At least.

*shakes head*
The burden of proof is the other way.

If you want dosh of Uncle sam - or the DPP, it is up to you to prove beyond doubt that you are entitled to it.Yes, but if Uncle Sam is being unclear about what kind of proof he requires and misleading people, as the article implies, then it makes it difficult to prove that you need more support.

:upyours:
Isn't it the cutest little thing? :D

Hey Bozzy, would you happen to reside in Lee County? Just wondering. I too got slammed by Charley and Wilma (I think, can't remember).

..should these people get support.

The question is, should the US government live up to its word?

I see a lot of people here arguing that because these people don't meet their personal philosophy or agenda, the US government should be free to break their word to them.

This attitude is what explains why I've been writing my MP and MLAs trying to encourage support for any firm in my country that chooses to avoid doing business in the US.

Individual citizens of the US may be honest, noble, responsible people who live up to their word. Their government however, is increasingly shown to be the opposite.

I used to wonder why.

You know, it is comments such as yours, and others, and threads such as these that "boggle" the imagination. Here you are bemoaning "taxpayer" dollars going to help people afflicted by one of the greatest US disasters of all time, and yet you wholeheartedly support the unnecesary war in Iraq.

Iraq is a man made "disaster", whereby "taxpayers" such as you are spending hundreds of billions of dollars to destroy the country and then hundreds of billions of "taxpayer" dollars to rebuild what your country destroyed.

And yet you want to chide your fellow countrymen, over a natural "disaster" called Katrina. You don't want to spend "taxpayer" dollars to help them rebuild their lives?

Why do you hate America?
And just what has led you to the belief that I "wholeheartedly support the unnecesary war in Iraq," pray tell?

Hey Bozzy, would you happen to reside in Lee County? Just wondering. I too got slammed by Charley and Wilma (I think, can't remember).


Nope - Charlotte. If you look at the path Charley's eye took I live right there.

this thread is depressing to the non-american reader.

is there no sense of society in the US anymore?


There is plenty - so much so that we do not need the government to meddle with it.

Well, the government provided 12-month vouchers. Whether you agree that it should have is not up for discussion here--they did. Now they're trying to turn 12 month vouchers into 10 month vouchers--that's crap.

I would agree with that if it is true. Do you have proof that the government both offered 12 months and is attempting to renig on those same vouchers?

Ah, I see you've decided to follow in Trusci's footsteps and instead of adress the issue make up stuff about what I post. I understand, sand keeps your head warm...


yes, I forget, everything is about Iraq.
"Pass the cereal please"
Cereal? Do you know that the kids inIraq don't have any cereal?
"Look - I got an A on my homework!"
Right. And Bush gets an F on Iraq!
"Lets Watch cartoons!"
Cartoons?! There's no cars in Cartoons. And it's a good thing or else Bush would invade them to steal their oil - just like Iraq!
"You suck"
Yes, Just like the war in Iraq!

You know, it is comments such as yours, and others, and threads such as these that "boggle" the imagination. Here you are bemoaning "taxpayer" dollars going to help people afflicted by one of the greatest US disasters of all time, and yet you wholeheartedly support the unnecesary war in Iraq.

Iraq is a man made "disaster", whereby "taxpayers" such as you are spending hundreds of billions of dollars to destroy the country and then hundreds of billions of "taxpayer" dollars to rebuild what your country destroyed.

And yet you want to chide your fellow countrymen, over a natural "disaster" called Katrina. You don't want to spend "taxpayer" dollars to help them rebuild their lives?

Why do you hate America?

You have a point - we should ask for a refund for WW2 also. Compounded for inflation it cost WAY more than Iraq. - Pass the cereal.

In these matters, years are a very short time indeed.

And you know this exactly how...? You don't know jack.

So you're trying to say those people should get no justice, and no further assistance, simply because other people have been victims of similar crimes? Get off the fucking planet. :upyours:

They deserver no MORE assistance, per capita, than victims of any other disasters. Now - go back to your fucking planet and, well, planet yourself.

Yes, but if Uncle Sam is being unclear about what kind of proof he requires and misleading people, as the article implies, then it makes it difficult to prove that you need more support.

Exactly! But it is not limited to Uncle Sammy. The states are also to blame. Federal beurocracy is shitty. The less we depend on the government the better. As far as prooving they need more support - the ship has about sailed on that. There is no longer may excuses for needing support - and they are expiring rapidly.

Did you have to put up with being raped? Or hearing the rapes of children that you could do nothing about because it was too dark to see properly? And then try to get help from the army to stop it only to be hurt or killed? Or did you have to live in shit (actual human shit)? No? Then SHUT THE FUCK UP.

Wow - your post says far more about you than it does anything else. You are a sad, misinformed, bitter person. I hope one day you find peace with yourself.

..should these people get support.

The question is, should the US government live up to its word?

I see a lot of people here arguing that because these people don't meet their personal philosophy or agenda, the US government should be free to break their word to them.

This attitude is what explains why I've been writing my MP and MLAs trying to encourage support for any firm in my country that chooses to avoid doing business in the US.

Individual citizens of the US may be honest, noble, responsible people who live up to their word. Their government however, is increasingly shown to be the opposite.

I used to wonder why.


riiiight. And I bet you don't buy gas on Thursdays also... :rolleyes:

http://www.snopes.com/politics/gasoline/nogas.asp

Exactly! But it is not limited to Uncle Sammy. The states are also to blame. Federal beurocracy is shitty. The less we depend on the government the better. As far as prooving they need more support - the ship has about sailed on that. There is no longer may excuses for needing support - and they are expiring rapidly.That's true, though I'm not certain if the state of Louisiana is offering aid to the victims of the hurricane or not, but if they are then they would also need to be clear about how to apply for it.