Digg Townhall Tonight!
Tune into the live Digg townhall tonight at 5:00pm PST/8:00pm EST.
Katrina victims may have to repay money
msnbc.msn.com — NEW ORLEANS - Imagine that your home was reduced to mold-covered wood framing by Hurricane Katrina. Desperate for money to rebuild, you engage in a frustrating bureaucratic process, and after months of living in a government provided-trailer that gives off formaldehyde fumes you finally win a federal grant.
vladin- 990 diggs
- digg it
- sungoddess808, on 03/30/2008, -36/+28I'm sorry but the Katrina victims should NOT have to repay a dime to anyone! It took the government and insurance companies much to long responding to aid the victims of this natural disaster. Katrina hit in the year 2005 and many people are still homeless! That's f**ked up!
When you are a victim of a disaster, whether natural or not, there are so many vultures (horrible people) who take advantage of you and your grim situation. Those poor folks needed help and many still do!
In '06, I went through a similar situation where everything I owned was destroyed and sustained hundreds of thousands of dollars damage to my home. To this day, my insurance company has not stepped up to the plate to take care of things. Lawsuits take forever, cost a fortune, and we should NOT have to go through this BS!- nomadofthehills, on 03/30/2008, -12/+36Hey, why don't you RTFA.
They are only going to be taking money back from people who got more than they were supposed to.- CoolWind, on 03/31/2008, -5/+3Yes, but that money has already been spent by most of those people. When somebody gives you something it becomes yours. You don't have to take into account that they may change their mind later. Having to pay it back could be a great hardship to many of them. Let the people/company who made the mistakes pay it back. Or write it off altogether. Don't put an economic burden on poor people who have done nothing wrong.
- bjornski, on 03/31/2008, -2/+4If they spent it, and didn't get housing with it, they misused those funds anyway.
***** 'em.- zombies187, on 04/04/2008, -0/+1Incomplete thought.
- BOFH2, on 03/31/2008, -0/+4I would like someone to read the grant agreement. It more then likely has a clause for this.
- worldgate, on 03/31/2008, -1/+3The majority of them used it to buy frivolous ***** anyways, like 200 dollar purses and 500 dollar bling-bling. If they have a nice house somewhere and used the money the way they were supposed to then its on the government, otherwise, pay up.
- zombies187, on 04/01/2008, -0/+1@bjornski
If they spent it, and didn't get housing with it, they misused those funds anyway.
So if they spent it on housing...what?
@worldgate
source on majority bought frivolous *****.
I live here and you guys obviously don't know what people spent the money on.
- bjornski, on 03/31/2008, -2/+4If they spent it, and didn't get housing with it, they misused those funds anyway.
- CoolWind, on 03/31/2008, -5/+3Yes, but that money has already been spent by most of those people. When somebody gives you something it becomes yours. You don't have to take into account that they may change their mind later. Having to pay it back could be a great hardship to many of them. Let the people/company who made the mistakes pay it back. Or write it off altogether. Don't put an economic burden on poor people who have done nothing wrong.
- LarryLacuna, on 03/30/2008, -16/+5Who are you apologizing to exactly? I think the general consensus is that they shouldn't have to repay anything.
- Parisjune, on 03/30/2008, -2/+12Wrong. They shouldn't have been given money to begin with -- that goes for other disasters too.
- Chompy, on 03/31/2008, -3/+6Seriously. Didn't have any government-subsidized flood insurance? Too ***** bad. Pick up your *****, move somewhere *above sea level*, and GET A ***** JOB.
- bjornski, on 03/31/2008, -2/+5I'd have to agree. If you live in a flood plain, you get flood insurance. If you don't, there's ZERO reason for the government to bail you out for being a dumbass.
Gee. New Orleans. On the coast and most of the area is BELOW SEA LEVEL. Maybe some flood insurance would have been a good idea.....
I feel the same way about people in Florida and hurricanes. Or people in California and their fires and mudslides. - zombies187, on 04/01/2008, -0/+1Having flood insurance was not enough. But you would know that if you had been following the facts. No matter. Continue to spew FOXs talking points.
- Parisjune, on 03/30/2008, -2/+12Wrong. They shouldn't have been given money to begin with -- that goes for other disasters too.
- threemagic, on 03/30/2008, -5/+32SO.. you put a home down where hurricane's hit, you buy insurance (which mostly doesn't cover hurricane damage), you STILL stay there and a hurricane hits. You get money ANYWAY.. and you are suggesting if they got too much they shouldn't pay it back.
Sometimes I don't understand the way people think.- CoolWind, on 03/31/2008, -3/+3That's because you haven't thought it through, except from /your/ point of view. Imagine someone gives you $20,000. That money is now yours. They can't come back a couple of years later and say, hey, we made a mistake and we should have only given you $10,000 dollars, so now you owe us $10,000. That's absurd. How are you supposed to take this kind of logic into account when you spend the money they gave you? Screw them. It's their mistake and it shouldn't affect you in any way whatsoever.
- carlosos, on 03/31/2008, -0/+4But it will affect the people that don't get any money (or less) because someone else received too much. Now tell the person that didn't get anything, "sorry, your neighbor got your money but doesn't want to give it backt"
- CoolWind, on 03/31/2008, -3/+3That's because you haven't thought it through, except from /your/ point of view. Imagine someone gives you $20,000. That money is now yours. They can't come back a couple of years later and say, hey, we made a mistake and we should have only given you $10,000 dollars, so now you owe us $10,000. That's absurd. How are you supposed to take this kind of logic into account when you spend the money they gave you? Screw them. It's their mistake and it shouldn't affect you in any way whatsoever.
- diggcensors, on 03/30/2008, -4/+8Why is it the governments responsibility to bale out people who make poor decisions on residential investments and people who help those people make the poor decisions. This includes people who live on the storm prone Louisiana coast and those execs at bear sterns.
- jgtg32a, on 03/30/2008, -2/+3The levy system wasn't up to standards, they topped (NOT BREACHED), I guess that is some justification.
- Chompy, on 03/31/2008, -1/+3Solution: do not rebuild any part of New Orleans that is below sea level. The whole place is going to be gone in 80 years anyway.
- jgtg32a, on 03/30/2008, -0/+4wait, no backwards, they were breached not topped.
- bjornski, on 03/31/2008, -2/+2If you live in an area that needs levees, maybe your ass should have some flood insurance......
- zombies187, on 04/04/2008, -0/+1It won't help. If you live in an area that needs levees, the insurance companies will do their best not pay damages. America shrugs and looks the other way.
- bjornski, on 03/31/2008, -2/+2If you live in an area that needs levees, maybe your ass should have some flood insurance......
- jgtg32a, on 03/30/2008, -2/+3The levy system wasn't up to standards, they topped (NOT BREACHED), I guess that is some justification.
- stoanhart, on 03/30/2008, -7/+9This case is a bit of a gray area, I believe.
I am of the opinion that there should have been no federal program in the first place; as mentioned elsewhere, it's up to the people to insure their homes, and state governments and charities to provide aid where they see fit.
Also, as threemagic mentioned, these people got money despite the fact that they weren't technically entitled to any of it. The article also states that "upon receiving money from Road Home, grantees sign forms that say they must refund any overpayments." So, really they have no leg to stand on.
HOWEVER, it seems that many people who were entitled to money under the Road Home program didn't receive a penny, and many others who weren't qualified for a grant received the full amount! Yet others received more or less than they should have. This would indicate that the program was extraordinarily poorly managed.
Many of the victims who got money have now spent it on rebuilding their homes. Why should they pay for the incompetence of others? If the Road Home program was going to recollect overpayments, they should have done it before now, since most of the victims have no means of paying it back anymore. Then again, they are contractually obligated...- CoolWind, on 03/31/2008, -3/+2I would question the legal obligation to pay back money freely given, regardless of any form that may have been signed at the time. No sane system of granting people money can include the possibility that the government has the right to demand repayment of all or part of the grant at any time, just because some auditor determines that mistakes were made. Maybe the people who administered the grants should go to jail for fraud.
- Chompy, on 03/31/2008, -0/+3There exists extensive legal precedent for paying back money "freely given", and that's without people signing documents saying that they agree to pay back overages.
- CoolWind, on 03/31/2008, -3/+2I would question the legal obligation to pay back money freely given, regardless of any form that may have been signed at the time. No sane system of granting people money can include the possibility that the government has the right to demand repayment of all or part of the grant at any time, just because some auditor determines that mistakes were made. Maybe the people who administered the grants should go to jail for fraud.
- Midtowner, on 03/30/2008, -4/+7It's simple fairness. Many were given grant money which they weren't entitled to. Why should some victims see a windfall profit which they're not entitled to while others, as you say, are still homeless? How is that unfair exactly?
I'm sorry, I know several people who lost their homes in Katrina, moved, and are now fine because they have good educations, good jobs, etc. There's no excuse for being homeless because you lost your stuff in something three years ago. Get a damn job. Get an apartment. It's not impossible. Anyone who spent more than a month or so in government subsidized housing following Katrina, not having a job, not trying to get a job is probably a waste of oxygen anyhow.- lamiaconfitor, on 03/31/2008, -2/+2/sarcasm: yea, ***** victims of natural disasters!
theres anti big government, and then there is being a douche.- Chompy, on 03/31/2008, -2/+1That's true. If you're still living in a trailer eating government cheese three years after a natural disaster, you are a douche.
- Midtowner, on 03/31/2008, -1/+2Okay, then how much free money do I deserve because my car got some hail damage? Surely you should give me fifty bucks out of your pocket? No? That's not fair?
Well that's what you're asking of the American people. This country is not (or should not be) in the business of insuring every single natural disaster. If I build my home below sea level, or choose to live there, and it floods, (shocker!) why do you think there should be an expectation that the government pay me $150,000 when I probably haven't paid a dime of taxes in my life?
Nope. The government has to be fair to the taxpayers as well. The government's supply of money is not unlimited. You show me a worthy cause for free money, I can show you ten more. Until you're ready to take a bite at the apple of Marxism, then I'm just going to look at irresponsible "victims" who are largely responsible for their own plight and say "tough."- zombies187, on 04/04/2008, -0/+1Apples and oranges.
- CoolWind, on 03/31/2008, -2/+1That's the compassionate point of view.
- Midtowner, on 03/31/2008, -1/+1What is compassion? If you lived below sea level and had your home flooded, then continued to live off the government for three years while doing nothing to better your own situation, why are you deserving of compassion? The people of the United States, you and me, shouldn't be in the business of subsidizing peoples' poor lifestyle choices.
Make them get work -- starvation is a wonderful motivator.- zombies187, on 04/04/2008, -0/+1What is compassion? You asked but never answered. It looks like you don't believe in it.
- Midtowner, on 03/31/2008, -1/+1What is compassion? If you lived below sea level and had your home flooded, then continued to live off the government for three years while doing nothing to better your own situation, why are you deserving of compassion? The people of the United States, you and me, shouldn't be in the business of subsidizing peoples' poor lifestyle choices.
- lamiaconfitor, on 03/31/2008, -2/+2/sarcasm: yea, ***** victims of natural disasters!
- Bodhinature, on 03/31/2008, -0/+3If these guys have to give back overpayments, then so does Halliburton and Bechtel and others.
- winnestow, on 03/31/2008, -1/+1if we had a smaller government we wouldn't have these problems
- nomadofthehills, on 03/30/2008, -12/+36Hey, why don't you RTFA.
- recipezaar, on 03/30/2008, -39/+13I like Bush - the president who ruined American economy and now tries to repair it on the back of the victims!
- JimmySpaza, on 03/30/2008, -12/+48Nice try...but it was never the federal government's responsibility to provide flood insurance for private citizens below sea level in New Orleans. What other anti-Bush whines do you have?
- Bodhinature, on 03/31/2008, -2/+3Yeah, serves those poor people right for being so poor that they can't afford to live above sea level with all the rich people! Who cares if Federal moneys to fix the levies were denied. The Federal Government has no responsibility to the upkeep of the infrastructure of a city whose location is crucial to the internal operations of the economy. It should be able to use taxpayer dollars as it see fit, not to help United States citizens. Who do they think they are, asking their own government for assistance after a disaster? Assistance should only be given to huge contracting firms friendly to governmental officials without bidding. They should not be given to local contractors to aid the local economy. Those large contracting firms should be able to squander Federal moneys and under perform and refuse to reimburse local subcontractors for services rendered.
By golly, that's how things should be done.- kemp34, on 03/31/2008, -1/+3"can't afford to live above sea level" LMAO!! Yeah, there's no where above sea level that is inexpensive to live in! Right!
- Bodhinature, on 03/31/2008, -2/+3Yeah, serves those poor people right for being so poor that they can't afford to live above sea level with all the rich people! Who cares if Federal moneys to fix the levies were denied. The Federal Government has no responsibility to the upkeep of the infrastructure of a city whose location is crucial to the internal operations of the economy. It should be able to use taxpayer dollars as it see fit, not to help United States citizens. Who do they think they are, asking their own government for assistance after a disaster? Assistance should only be given to huge contracting firms friendly to governmental officials without bidding. They should not be given to local contractors to aid the local economy. Those large contracting firms should be able to squander Federal moneys and under perform and refuse to reimburse local subcontractors for services rendered.
- whereiseljefe, on 03/30/2008, -4/+8Right, because the president has that much power over the economy.
- jgtg32a, on 03/30/2008, -4/+1/sarcasm?
- tyho, on 03/31/2008, -2/+2Why are you whining when you don't contribute to the economy. In fact, you didn't even contribute to the discussion.
- JimmySpaza, on 03/30/2008, -12/+48Nice try...but it was never the federal government's responsibility to provide flood insurance for private citizens below sea level in New Orleans. What other anti-Bush whines do you have?
- EyeSurgery, on 03/30/2008, -7/+19"The biggest grant amount allowed by the Road Home program is $150,000, so ICF believes it paid some recipients the maximum when they should not have received a penny."
What? So they rushed it so bad they just threw money at everyone, even people who had no rightful claim and now they're going to spend more money on collections? Unbelievable. So either we have to believe they're grossly incompetent or they're wasting money by trying to bully people who are appealing their awards, as suggested on the second page of the article. Oh, how to choose...- insomniac8400, on 03/30/2008, -1/+6Sounds just like the billions they gave out in iraq in cash. Of course they aren't asking any of those corrupt people who intended to defraud our country for that money back. But someone needing to rebuild there home in our own country, yup, they have to give it all back.
- arobar, on 03/31/2008, -1/+4You don't really "spend money" on collections, the collection agency just takes a percentage of what they collect.
- lamiaconfitor, on 03/31/2008, -3/+2You are acting like collecting payments costs more then the payments themselves. in that case no one would ever, ever lend money. grow a brain.
- franklymister, on 03/31/2008, -1/+2Dugg down for childish "grow a brain" comment.
- BassMastr, on 03/30/2008, -18/+46I sure as hell don't think they should pay anything back, but at what point is Katrina no longer a valid excuse for not supporting yourself?
- theghoul, on 03/30/2008, -18/+7How do support yourself if you're poor and lose everything?
- BassMastr, on 03/30/2008, -5/+23Take the free money I got for years and get an apartment and then get a job...like the rest of the world. If you started at McD's after this happened and had half a brain cell you could be management by now. People have had plenty of time to get back on their feet...or at least get to the point where they don't need help anymore.
- and303, on 03/30/2008, -9/+4Since when does a job at McD's (management or burger flipper) pay a living wage? Especially if you have children, or an illness or unavoidable expense of some sort.
Maybe you're from Canada and haven't figured it out yet. - BassMastr, on 03/30/2008, -2/+10I never said it was a great living, but you can make a living off it. These are averages so i'm guessing if you are any good you can make more or less if you suck.
http://www.payscale.com/research/US/Industry=Fast_ ...
I have no problem with those who need legitimate help. If someone has issues like you mentioned above then get help as long as you neeed it. That's what it's there for. It's really not THAT hard to succeed. - Dstin, on 03/31/2008, -2/+3Starting pay at McD's in New Orleans was 10$ an hour with signing bonus just a few months after the storm...you could have set yourself up fine I assure you.
- CoolWind, on 03/31/2008, -1/+2And how many people did McD's hire at that time? And how many people were jobless and homeless? Kind of a huge discrepancy there, isn't it?
- lamiaconfitor, on 03/31/2008, -3/+2lets see, so your theory is that everyone in new orleans would be a manager at a fast food restaurant by now? I doubt that there is high enough demand.
- BassMastr, on 03/31/2008, -0/+1Nope...it was just an example and not all of these people are still in NO.
- Midtowner, on 03/31/2008, -0/+4A living wage? REALLY? At an entry level job? Hell.. you can't even get that with a college degree. Newsflash: You are not entitled to be paid more than you are worth. Want a living wage? Go to welding school. Go learn to be a plumber or an electrician. There's even free money to put you through those sorts of programs. You might have to work at McDonalds and have a roommate or two while eating Ramen, but it's quite doable.
If you lack a work ethic, you don't deserve a damned thing. Crap happens. Pull yourself up, dust yourself off and get back to work. For the VAST majority of these people, illness is not an issue. Laziness is.
- and303, on 03/30/2008, -9/+4Since when does a job at McD's (management or burger flipper) pay a living wage? Especially if you have children, or an illness or unavoidable expense of some sort.
- FuzzyBunny, on 03/30/2008, -6/+13Get a job, live within your means, pay your bills? Works for millions of other people. Just because you lost your possessions in a natural disaster doesn't change that.
- insomniac8400, on 03/30/2008, -3/+7Most of the people affected by katrina were poor and had nothing to begin with. If someone without a house before katrina got free money to rebuild there non-existent ant house, that could be perceived as a problem.
- BassMastr, on 03/30/2008, -5/+23Take the free money I got for years and get an apartment and then get a job...like the rest of the world. If you started at McD's after this happened and had half a brain cell you could be management by now. People have had plenty of time to get back on their feet...or at least get to the point where they don't need help anymore.
- roosterjm2k2, on 03/30/2008, -7/+16"Imagine you live below sea level, protected only by 100-year old levies...now imagine that you don't have the foresight to purchase flood insurance. Now imagine that...." ... wait, no...that would never happen....
- BassMastr, on 03/30/2008, -5/+7I don't think anyone is blaming them for what happened to them. I think we are saying...ok it's time to support yourself. It's called being a good neighbor. It's for their own good. You know the whole "teach a man to fish" thing...
- smurfsahoy, on 03/31/2008, -3/+9I don't think there's any saying that goes, "Give a man a fish, and he eats for a day. Give a man a fish, and then wait until he's eaten half of it and demand a whole fish back, and he eats for a lifetime."
- BassMastr, on 03/31/2008, -3/+2If you read my comments above you will see that i said they shouldn't have to give anything back. I am just saying that giving these people a free ride is not only hurting things but themselves as well. Who wants to hire someone who hasn't worked in years? Since you didn't figure it out the first time I will spell it out for you this time...
Give a man hand outs and feed him for a day (meaning he will come back every day and be depend ant upon you.) Teach a man how to work (fish) and he will not be dependent upon someone else and will be able to depend on himself. Get it? - smurfsahoy, on 03/31/2008, -2/+1I didn't realize you were the same person a the original poster. We are in agreement I think.
- CoolWind, on 03/31/2008, -2/+1It's more like wait until he's eaten the whole thing and fed the bones to his dog then demand he give it back.
- bjornski, on 03/31/2008, -0/+2You're also forgetting the Capitalist attitude toward the fish motto.
"Sell a man a fish, and make a profit. Teach a man to fish, and lose your own job."
- BassMastr, on 03/31/2008, -3/+2If you read my comments above you will see that i said they shouldn't have to give anything back. I am just saying that giving these people a free ride is not only hurting things but themselves as well. Who wants to hire someone who hasn't worked in years? Since you didn't figure it out the first time I will spell it out for you this time...
- smurfsahoy, on 03/31/2008, -3/+9I don't think there's any saying that goes, "Give a man a fish, and he eats for a day. Give a man a fish, and then wait until he's eaten half of it and demand a whole fish back, and he eats for a lifetime."
- BassMastr, on 03/30/2008, -5/+7I don't think anyone is blaming them for what happened to them. I think we are saying...ok it's time to support yourself. It's called being a good neighbor. It's for their own good. You know the whole "teach a man to fish" thing...
- theghoul, on 03/30/2008, -18/+7How do support yourself if you're poor and lose everything?
- Bukowsky, on 03/30/2008, -19/+7This is horrible.. Haven't these people been through enough? I realize that some of them are nothing but junkies who have little ambition, but that is a very small percentage of the entire scope of Katrina victims...
...But I will say this, If this actually goes thru and they have to start paying back the government... it will cause a spike in the crime rate here in Houston...- nomadofthehills, on 03/30/2008, -5/+13RTFA. Only people who got more than they were supposed to have to pay back what was not supposed to be theirs anyway.
- HayString, on 03/30/2008, -2/+2"I realize that some of them are nothing but junkies who have little ambition, but that is a very small percentage of the entire scope of Katrina victims..."
Were the hell did you ever get that statistic?
- ralphthemagi, on 03/30/2008, -21/+11George Bush doesn't care about black people.
- Persian5Life, on 03/30/2008, -8/+6George Bush dose not care about humans in general
- cheezintern, on 03/30/2008, -4/+2George Bush does not care about non-neocon humans specifically.
- CoolWind, on 03/31/2008, -1/+2Which makes ralphy right.
- kemp34, on 03/31/2008, -0/+1True, Bush is a scourge.
- Persian5Life, on 03/30/2008, -8/+6George Bush dose not care about humans in general
- SkittlesUSA, on 03/30/2008, -12/+91The federal government should not have given grants to begin with. Insurance, charity organizations, or state-level programs are supposed to help the victims.
It is not a function of the federal government to provide charity to anyone. They shouldn't have given the victims money in the first place.- bobburn, on 03/30/2008, -6/+28Exactly. Since when was the government responsible for every-single-thing in one's life? FDR and his ABC agencies will continue to ***** us for the foreseeable future.
- serif69, on 03/31/2008, -1/+7The New Deal ruined Americans' view of the government. It was one giant government bail-out that was supposed to be temporary to get a nation thrown into financial ruin back on its feet, but its effects on the role of government can still be felt. Social security, welfare, and the general idea that the government is responsible for the financial well-being of the citizens were created during that time, and still linger. Now we are left with a great majority of politicians who only want more and more power for the federal government, social programs that should be handled privately being expanded, and talk of social healthcare being added to the mix. Brace yourselves, for it looks as if the next two to four years will be spent with a Democrat in the White House and a Democrat majority in both houses of Congress, all of whom expect to maintain and expand these programs, and have made promises to do just that.
- kemp34, on 03/31/2008, -1/+4Yes, the federal government has grown far beyond any scope of reasonableness and needs to be cut back immediately.
- serif69, on 03/31/2008, -1/+7The New Deal ruined Americans' view of the government. It was one giant government bail-out that was supposed to be temporary to get a nation thrown into financial ruin back on its feet, but its effects on the role of government can still be felt. Social security, welfare, and the general idea that the government is responsible for the financial well-being of the citizens were created during that time, and still linger. Now we are left with a great majority of politicians who only want more and more power for the federal government, social programs that should be handled privately being expanded, and talk of social healthcare being added to the mix. Brace yourselves, for it looks as if the next two to four years will be spent with a Democrat in the White House and a Democrat majority in both houses of Congress, all of whom expect to maintain and expand these programs, and have made promises to do just that.
- Persian5Life, on 03/30/2008, -3/+27amen to that brother. most people are confused about the role of the government.
- gamerscalling, on 03/30/2008, -8/+2They shouldn't have had to, but if no one steps up I know I would like help from somewhere. Maybe they could have forced the organizations that are supposed to help to actually help. The USA needs an overhaul on many levels, then we can have a government that functions as it should here, just fixing one part will just break the system all together.
- Parisjune, on 03/30/2008, -3/+9Private companies tried to "step-up" but your government kept them away. Also, you cannot "force" help -- that's an oxymoron. Yes, the USA needs an overhaul. It needs to be scrapped for the most part. It's become a big, socialist, octopus.
- jdaniel284, on 03/30/2008, -1/+26What's your problem, have you been reading the U.S. Constitution or something?
- edstate, on 03/30/2008, -0/+15Sadly, that opinion is hard to come by these days. We've raised several generations that do expect the Government to "take care" of pretty much everything. And some would say we're at a point where it's "too late to change".
- HotDogBun, on 03/30/2008, -1/+11After i saw that the red cross's 2000 dollar relief cvredit cards, which had been given to victims of katrina, had been used to purchase large television sets, tribal tattoos and other stupid, I stopped giving money/blood to the red cross. They need to quit wasting charity on idiots.
- jgtg32a, on 03/30/2008, -1/+15Charity should never be in the form of a check.
- kinseyincanada, on 03/30/2008, -8/+5what about the fact that the levies that broke were built by the government? and how about the idea of helping out your fellow man? there entire city was basically ruined and then the government did nothing to get them out of there.
- bjornski, on 03/31/2008, -1/+5While I agree that yes, the levees were a government problem, if you live in a flood plain in an area that needs levees then you should have flood/homeowner's insurance. The government shouldn't have to pay anything more than the deductible on that policy and rebuilding the area. They shouldn't be handing out money to be spent on TV sets and other garbage.
- Midtowner, on 03/31/2008, -1/+2Why should the taxpayers who didn't build below sea level have to pay for new houses for those who built below sea level? Remember, the government's money comes from your pocket.
- bjornski, on 03/31/2008, -0/+3You mis-read my post. I'm saying the government shouldn't have to pay for anything, except for the deductible on the homeowners policies which any homeowner/renter with their head not firmly implanted in their ass would have had. The only reason I think they shoudl have to pay the deductible is because the levees being insufficient WAS something that the Army Corps of Engineers was handling, and not the city itself.
If you live in a flood plain, get insured. Don't expect the government check, because you shouldn't get one.
- bjornski, on 03/31/2008, -0/+3You mis-read my post. I'm saying the government shouldn't have to pay for anything, except for the deductible on the homeowners policies which any homeowner/renter with their head not firmly implanted in their ass would have had. The only reason I think they shoudl have to pay the deductible is because the levees being insufficient WAS something that the Army Corps of Engineers was handling, and not the city itself.
- Midtowner, on 03/31/2008, -1/+2Why should the taxpayers who didn't build below sea level have to pay for new houses for those who built below sea level? Remember, the government's money comes from your pocket.
- bjornski, on 03/31/2008, -1/+5While I agree that yes, the levees were a government problem, if you live in a flood plain in an area that needs levees then you should have flood/homeowner's insurance. The government shouldn't have to pay anything more than the deductible on that policy and rebuilding the area. They shouldn't be handing out money to be spent on TV sets and other garbage.
- FRsaveababy, on 03/31/2008, -6/+1Well, id rather see them throw my tax money where i rather seen it be thrown , then some unfounded war in witch we will never see of a postive out come in.. so i dont give dang if it charity or not... let say if your house got blown off it foundation to tonight, and your left with absoltely nothing i bet if you knew there way like the road to a home aid youd be the first in line, so dont sit there make squat comments when you havnt been in those people shoes, since your comments are about unfounded as the iraq war!
- geauxtig3rs, on 03/31/2008, -0/+2Dug down due to a complete lack of proper English.
- vampgrrl, on 03/31/2008, -1/+3Those levees were guaranteed to with stand a level of water and they did not sustain their maximum threshold of force yet they still failed, that's why people get money.
New Orleans didn't get hit by a hurricane, it was the wave action of the hurricane over the lake which spun the waters back into canals with shoddy levees. The hurricane had already just passed over New Orleans (this does not apply to the Army Corps of Engineers MR-GO which is another engineering failure) - CoolWind, on 03/31/2008, -4/+2Yeah. But they wanted to, because they felt it would be in everyone's best interests. That's how representative government works.
- kemp34, on 03/31/2008, -0/+3Plunder is not a good thing regardless of how it is decided to be done.
- SoulDrift404, on 03/31/2008, -2/+5The levees were created under the Flood Control Act of 1965 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flood_Control_Act_of_ ... So yes, they are a federal responsibility.
- kemp34, on 03/31/2008, -3/+2Bad law. The federal government should not be in the business of "flood control". Don't you folks get it? Number one, they are not good at these things. Number two, they take the responsibility out of the hands of the people and local governments. Problems are not solved in Washington DC, they are STARTED there. Wake up.
- bobburn, on 03/30/2008, -6/+28Exactly. Since when was the government responsible for every-single-thing in one's life? FDR and his ABC agencies will continue to ***** us for the foreseeable future.
- Masticity, on 03/30/2008, -12/+10They shouldnt have to pay back anything that can verifyably be an expense directly related to the hurricane.
For example: If someone was driving a Ford Escort before, but now they're driving an Escalade. They should be paying back the difference.
Its not the Governments reposibility to provide you the ability to live above your means.- HayString, on 03/30/2008, -2/+4"For example: If someone was driving a Ford Escort before, but now they're driving an Escalade. They should be paying back the difference."
But what if they bought it with the money they made from selling drugs, long after they blew their "Katrina money"?- Masticity, on 03/30/2008, -4/+1Well then maybe we should just kill them...
- CoolWind, on 03/31/2008, -0/+2Or ask for a discount on our drugs...
- Masticity, on 03/30/2008, -4/+1Well then maybe we should just kill them...
- Parisjune, on 03/30/2008, -2/+4It's not the government's responsibility to provide any "service" other than to coin money and protect you from foreign invasion. That's it.
- nycmac247, on 03/31/2008, -1/+1So you are going to spend money (i.e. hire people, etc.) to save money?
AMERICA!!! - Rich711, on 03/31/2008, -1/+1Oh, so just cause a brotha is poor he doesn't have a right to own an Escalade? THAT IS RACIST!
- worldgate, on 03/31/2008, -0/+1I agree, they should also do search-and-siezure. If they live in a trailer and have a escalade, then they hsould be living in a trailer and walking. Tax payers, like myself, shouldnt be giving up taxes to let people be lazy.
- HayString, on 03/30/2008, -2/+4"For example: If someone was driving a Ford Escort before, but now they're driving an Escalade. They should be paying back the difference."
- DaDrake, on 03/30/2008, -6/+18So much money has been given to Katrina victims with little to show for it. Just shows you can't throw money at a problem. Most of the problems occur because of local corrupt/idiot politicians who.... instead of helping people..... use racial tensions to blackmail the fed for more money.
They shouldn't need to pay anything back.... but the handouts should stop.- gamerscalling, on 03/30/2008, -3/+2I agree, kind of like if you sign a contract you can't say "Whoops, didn't mean to do that, give me back my payment." in most cases.
- SuperMoses, on 03/30/2008, -0/+5Most of the money didn't go to the victims. This is nonsense.
- daybreaker, on 03/31/2008, -1/+1Let me fix that for you: So much money has been earmarked by the government FOR Katrina victims.
Katrina victims arent rolling in the cash as much as you think. Quite the opposite. But hey, you must know whats going on down here, because you have the internet.
- gamerscalling, on 03/30/2008, -3/+2I agree, kind of like if you sign a contract you can't say "Whoops, didn't mean to do that, give me back my payment." in most cases.
- RoanokeRich, on 03/30/2008, -7/+0Just let them touch it
- mustafya, on 03/30/2008, -1/+44So let me get this straight... some people were paid up to 150,000 dollars more than they were eligible for. The people that got overpaid are going to be forced to pay the money back. This is no different than getting overpaid at work and having to pay it back.
- bclinton, on 03/30/2008, -9/+9Yes there is a diference. The folks involved with this are primarily black.
- mikes1, on 03/30/2008, -9/+3So you think the difference between forcing people who got overpaid on Katrina relief to pay it back, and people "getting overpaid at work and having to pay it back" is that the former are black.
Simple logic tell us that you think black people don't work. Racist.
- mikes1, on 03/30/2008, -9/+3So you think the difference between forcing people who got overpaid on Katrina relief to pay it back, and people "getting overpaid at work and having to pay it back" is that the former are black.
- and303, on 03/30/2008, -0/+19Congratulations! You're the only person here who's read the article.
- smurfsahoy, on 03/31/2008, -6/+1The difference is that 150,000 is enough money that they could easily have changed their entire lives and invested heavily in things that are no long liquid, etc. To pay the money back, they'd have to accept ***** deals for their house, car, etc. that they purchased with it, to get the money on time, thus losing everything, far more than they started with even. People overpaid at work are overpaid much less, and it is reasonable for them to pay it back without being completely screwed.
- bclinton, on 03/30/2008, -9/+9Yes there is a diference. The folks involved with this are primarily black.
- olay1739, on 03/30/2008, -7/+10maybe they should have gotten insurance
- bclinton, on 03/30/2008, -3/+12Why? The rest of America will bail the freeloaders out. I was down there the second week after it hit. By that time there were warehouses full of food free for the taking. I saw more abuse during that week. It was a joke. Thats why I never give a penny when these things happen. The folks were laughing as they drove off. If you had LA. plates you could load up your truck. More food driving north out of Baton Rouge then going south. It was sick to watch.
- GGoldberry, on 03/31/2008, -0/+2Most of them did have insurance. But the insurance companies would not pay because the flooding was caused by the levys breaking, not the storm itself. And they consider that the govts fault. Also many insurance policies don't cover flood damage.
- hersman, on 03/30/2008, -10/+22I still have always said that if people are dumb enough to live under sea level then you deserve what you get.
- lilac6124, on 03/30/2008, -4/+4if you look at other town planning san francisco los angeles etc places with topography changes often the poorer places are given to the lower places and the high places above sea level are for the richer citizens
- GezusK, on 03/30/2008, -2/+2And there's a whole country to choose from...I'm sure they can find a place.
- daybreaker, on 03/31/2008, -1/+4dumb enough to live where there are earthquakes, tornadoes, blizzards, mudslides, forest fires, etc. etc. etc. Dumbass.
- lilac6124, on 03/30/2008, -4/+4if you look at other town planning san francisco los angeles etc places with topography changes often the poorer places are given to the lower places and the high places above sea level are for the richer citizens
- beneathbrooklyn, on 03/30/2008, -16/+10This is disgusting. We spend $122,820 per minute in Iraq. According to my calculations $122,820 ÷ $35,000 said to be owed on average by the 5,000 cases who were over paid by this Federal Grant. = 3.5 people per minute spent in Iraq could have their debts erased. 5,000 cases ÷ 3.5 = 1,428 minutes of the Iraq War to pay off the total debt or 23.8 hours. Less than one day's worth of money blown in Iraq could be diverted to forgive the recipients of this fund. But no, they have to pay it back which for most will probably mean debt for the rest of their life. Every American should be ashamed.
- HotDogBun, on 03/30/2008, -4/+13I have a great idea, lets not pay for iraq OR katrina. What the ***** ever happened to personal accountability??
- jgtg32a, on 03/30/2008, -1/+2personal accountability thats crazy talk.
- blazes816, on 03/31/2008, -1/+1But if the government doesn't take care of us, who will!?
- raybury, on 03/30/2008, -3/+8So you think spending money on war is a bad thing, and you're entitled to that opinion. But you think spending it on rewarding theft by con men taking advantage of provisions for families in need is a GOOD way to spend money? I know I used to be a liberal, but I was never that dumb.
- bjornski, on 03/31/2008, -0/+4I'm still a liberal, and I'm not that dumb.
- beneathbrooklyn, on 03/30/2008, -4/+2Wow, clearly this has gone over a few peoples heads. My point is that as we speak we're blowing pallets of cash per day on this War. If we must spend billions (which according to many in Washington we do) I would much rather it be spent here at home and maybe just give the Katrina Victims a free pass, just so the country and these families can move on.
In a perfect world I wouldn't want any government spending at all when it comes to "relief for disaster victims" and especially on perpetual warfare. Any time the government gets involved there's overspending and corruption.
But we don't live in a perfect world. I was merely trying to put things into perspective. That thousands of families who's lives have been turned upside down if not outright destroyed are now being forced to pay for the incompetence of a bloated Federal Grant program. And that $35,000 to these families is a huge amount meanwhile it's evaporated in the blink of an eye via the Iraq War regardless of whether they really owe this amount or not.
Sorry if I upset your high and mighty economic principles by presenting a hypothetical scenario in an effort to illustrate how disgusting it is to see our Federal Government nickel and dime the American People while at the same time wasting billions of dollars carrying out a genocidal campaign of endless war.- warsql, on 03/31/2008, -0/+2Not over our heads, you get dug down for being off topic. Your point could have been just as effective using any number of government expenditures.
- beneathbrooklyn, on 03/31/2008, -0/+1Certainly any example of government "boondoggle" would do. I just think the 800 pound gorilla in the room is the "war on terror". Too many people fail to see the connection between what happened in New Orleans and the war in Iraq and Afghanistan. The questions involve Federal funding and American Citizens being subjected to scrutiny, because some recipients may have squeezed a few thousand dollars out of the program than they should have. Is this a joke?
When this same government has the audacity to turn around and blow hundreds of billions on an illegal War. To continue to allow the Federal Reserve to swindle us out of our pensions and savings by recklessly expanding the money supply.
Its a glaring, offensive hypocrisy on a biblical scale. And that people are so outraged these destitute disaster relief "victims" are trying to take advantage of a system that has so far reduced their living standard to something resembling the Third World.
Its petty, and shameless. The real crime is that thousands of people are still homeless because they lost everything they owned. Unfortunately people put their trust in the System and surprise! It failed them.
Everything is connected, every action has consequences.
- beneathbrooklyn, on 03/31/2008, -0/+1Certainly any example of government "boondoggle" would do. I just think the 800 pound gorilla in the room is the "war on terror". Too many people fail to see the connection between what happened in New Orleans and the war in Iraq and Afghanistan. The questions involve Federal funding and American Citizens being subjected to scrutiny, because some recipients may have squeezed a few thousand dollars out of the program than they should have. Is this a joke?
- warsql, on 03/31/2008, -0/+2Not over our heads, you get dug down for being off topic. Your point could have been just as effective using any number of government expenditures.
- HotDogBun, on 03/30/2008, -4/+13I have a great idea, lets not pay for iraq OR katrina. What the ***** ever happened to personal accountability??
- RaggTopp, on 03/30/2008, -0/+18What about all the people that didn't have ***** to begin with, claimed they lost everything anyway, and scammed the government for money that wasn't even intended for them?
- ephrils1, on 03/30/2008, -1/+2Well, that assuming we're not being scammed bythe government to being with. Which is assuming way too much.
- papipablo, on 03/30/2008, -13/+7Sorry black people, we need that money to bail out Bear Stearns.
- MeatyDoughnut, on 03/30/2008, -6/+3Gut Check America.
- HotDogBun, on 03/30/2008, -1/+6Before we get to the gut check, maybe we need to initiate a brain check.
- bjornski, on 03/31/2008, -1/+1I'm PRAYING For that day.
"You can not be a full citizen with voting rights if your IQ doesn't at least match room temperature..."
- bjornski, on 03/31/2008, -1/+1I'm PRAYING For that day.
- HotDogBun, on 03/30/2008, -1/+6Before we get to the gut check, maybe we need to initiate a brain check.
- BassMastr, on 03/30/2008, -5/+9See what happens when you are over paid by your employer...they either ask for it back or take it out of your next check. Get a job...
- HotDogBun, on 03/30/2008, -5/+4The problem is most of these people never had jobs, they've been on the dole since they popped out of their welfare momma's blown out vagina. They'll never be able to comprehend your analogy.
- omnithought, on 03/30/2008, -13/+11***** that. the gov't should pay. They ***** up on not fixing the levees, and they KNEW they needed fixing.
- laserblazer, on 03/30/2008, -2/+5Then they forbade foreign relief teams from helping until over two weeks later, at which time the Feds finally got their ***** together.
Yes, the government should pay for being dangerously incompetent. - Viti, on 03/30/2008, -1/+1lol
- claremontstu, on 03/30/2008, -5/+3I agree! People on this site are assholes! Did you even watch the devastating effects katrina had on new orleans? did you not see the dead people floating in the water, children and elderly people homeless?? yeah, my 99 year old grandmother and my 6 year old nephew should get a job. You people make me want to vomit!
- Screamsalvation, on 03/30/2008, -1/+8Where do you live? Do you even live close to New Orleans? I do.. And you know what? The people should have to pay that ***** back, I know a woman who is now living in an apartment with beautiful wood flooring, a large projection tv, new furniture, drives an escalade. And guess what? Your tax dollars bought all of it for her!!!! MY tax dollars paid for it!!! I work my hands to the bone and cant afford that ***** but because she was in Katrina (she didn't have ***** before but got money just for being there) She now lives in a rent free apartment, with lots of nice things. So why don't you shut up till you move to the area!
- batman1211, on 03/30/2008, -7/+2It was the responsibility of the city, parish, and state governments to oversee the levee system. All led by Democrats. So, the gov't that was responsible is paid for by the people that were affected. So let's just let the people keep there money not pay more taxes so the money can be filtered through a corrupt system and handed back to them at a fraction of what it started at, and realize that the Democrat lead party is completely corrupt and responsible for the failures.
- omnithought, on 03/31/2008, -1/+3And that party is part of what? The government. Partisan hackery has no place when we're talking about people's lives.
- sw33tsarin, on 03/31/2008, -0/+2Unless they're republicans. Then everyone's quick to whip out the torches and rope.
- omnithought, on 03/31/2008, -1/+3And that party is part of what? The government. Partisan hackery has no place when we're talking about people's lives.
- Dstin, on 03/31/2008, -0/+1Blame the corps, not the feds...actually for that matter blame the city.
- geauxtig3rs, on 03/31/2008, -1/+0You do know that Louisiana gets more money for the US Corps of Engineers than any other state, right? Do you also know that the state squanders the funding on cleaning man made lakes at LSU campus right? Blame the people that say where the money should go (local and state governments) not the federal government that supplies the money.
- EuphopiaB, on 03/31/2008, -1/+1If someone wants to live on top of an active volcano, is it the Federal government's responsibility to protect them from it? We shouldn't have to pay for them just because they are taking an unnecessary risk living there.
- laserblazer, on 03/30/2008, -2/+5Then they forbade foreign relief teams from helping until over two weeks later, at which time the Feds finally got their ***** together.
- lilac6124, on 03/30/2008, -5/+9The government should not have to pay... They knew those levees that caused the flood were in need of repair, they made the cheapest levee a 8 inch thick wall 8 feet high to protect the poor areas...
Of course their levees broke, and now the government has to pay out for inadequately protecting its poorer citizens. Most of those people actually owned their own homes and were not simply paying rent, homes that have been in their families for generations.- laserblazer, on 03/30/2008, -2/+5Indeed - the rural poor often live in just that situation. This is an example of rich fat-cats pissing on the poorest, weakest victim class they could possibly find. The way the rest of the American population reacts will determine if we are, in fact, united states.
- localzuk, on 03/30/2008, -13/+17Wow, this thread really does make me dislike a lot of people. What happened to human kindness and compassion? What happened to helping out those in need? These people lost everything, probably couldn't afford insurance in the first place due to being so poor and living in an area that provided little opportunity for self-help, yet so many of you say things like 'freeloaders' and 'why didn't they get insurance'. etc...
Makes me kinda sick really.- GezusK, on 03/30/2008, -5/+7I don't help those that won't or refuse to help themselves.
- localzuk, on 03/30/2008, -2/+7There is a difference between refusing to help themselves and providing the means to help themselves. This is a situation where the area was destroyed and therefore there wasn't anything available to help themselves with...
- Parisjune, on 03/30/2008, -2/+9People did help. Millions of dollars was given to the Red Cross. Food and clothing were sent. Orphaned animals were housed. Others flew in when they could to help personally. Wal-Mart showed up with water (turned away by govt.) People DID respond and that is how it should be. The government screwed it up from beginning to end. If you are really feeling "sick" of things, get rid of FEMA and most other government organizations.
- localzuk, on 03/30/2008, -5/+3Wow, you lack any reading comprehension skills don't you. I opened my statement with "Wow, this thread really does make me dislike a lot of people. What happened to human kindness and compassion? What happened to helping out those in need?", thus, my comments are aimed at those selfish bastards on here who have no sense of helping their neighbours in need.
- Danktolker, on 03/30/2008, -3/+7I agree. Some people just don't understand how our society is responsible for creating capitalist "serfdom" where those born into the wrong family are inept in most cases to increase their education and financial situation. You may digg me down, but Marx was right in that we will eventually reach socialism then communism when capitalism has failed us and I think America has come to that point and only needs realization.
- dbldwn, on 03/31/2008, -1/+2Then millions of people are murdered, people realize that the only difference between communism and capitalism is how the powerful people at the top get there, and it's full circle back to capitalism. Rinse. Repeat.
- Danktolker, on 03/31/2008, -0/+2It doesn't have to be that way. When people finally understand that power and money do not measure the greatness of existence, we will be ready. It will not be easy as those threatened by this thinking have placed powerful distractions in the way to cloud the mind with greed and a false need to feel superior to our neighbor, but it is only a matter a time. I am no one special and my thoughts are not entirely original, so it is only logical that there are a great many out there who share my same feelings, and our society shall finally evolve.
- dbldwn, on 03/31/2008, -1/+2Then millions of people are murdered, people realize that the only difference between communism and capitalism is how the powerful people at the top get there, and it's full circle back to capitalism. Rinse. Repeat.
- kinseyincanada, on 03/30/2008, -4/+7thank you! finally someone on digg you cares about his fellow citizens.
- smurfsahoy, on 03/31/2008, -4/+8People who had nothing to begin with do not deserve to get TAX dollars to give them a ton of free stuff!! That's not charity, that's unjustified slave labor to help undeserving arbitrarily chosen people get rich.
It's not even fair to give them tax dollars to get them up to where they started! If I have a house, and it burns down tomorrow, and I didn't buy insurance, I get ***** for it. zero dollars. Why should Katrina people in the exact same situation get everything back but not me, guaranteed by the government? New Orleans people just get special rules applying to them when it comes to insurance laws and economies?
You can justify giving the victims enough to keep them alive with tax dollars, but that's about it. Anything else should be voluntarily donated (and if people are kind and giving, there won't be any problem)
All that being said - once they've given the money, it's ridiculous to ask for it back. Especially after a big lag time in between.- localzuk, on 03/31/2008, -6/+4Well, you are a poor excuse for a human being. Who gives a damn about money? What does it matter to you if 0.03c from your yearly income (and everyone elses) went to get these people's lives up to a livable standard? Do you not care that people live in poverty through no fault of there own?
You are a poor example of the human species. Selfishness is your guide it seems, rather than trying to improve humanity. Sad.- smurfsahoy, on 03/31/2008, -1/+9Several things are wrong with your comment:
1) It IS through fault of their own - they lived under sea level with an underfunded wall between them and destruction, and didn't bother to look into flood insurance, or into moving.
2) If money isn't important, then you shouldn't have any problem with anything I said - obviously YOU give a damn about money, along with everybody else.
3) It isn't a fraction of a cent of mine going to relief. First of all, Katrina alone costs me more in the dollars range - but the same exact thing happens all over the rest of the country too, and the OVERALL cost to me is a significant amount of cash from my taxes, that affects my quality of life in a very palpable way.
4) I said I was willing to pay tax dollars to keep people alive, sheltered, bare minimum things like that. From there, if they can't get themselves out of poverty, then they are either children (who are already helped by parents or by the state), elderly (they should be getting social security, etc. and living off retirement plans if they were productive citizens in their adult lives), are somehow disabled (also will receive state aid already), or they are simply LAZY. With food and shelter paid for you, you can easily get a job and pull yourself together in two years if you have any motivation to do so at all. I don't expect them to become investment bankers or something - but they could work construction or wait tables or anything, and would save PLENTY of money to make themselves self sufficient when they don't have to worry about rent or food in the meantime. Anybody who has not tried to do that does not deserve to have me (somebody who does work for a living) pay for them to have a high quality of life anyway. - localzuk, on 03/31/2008, -3/+11) So it is there fault that they were born in an area? Moving costs money, it means leaving behind everything you've known, your family and friends etc... It isn't a quick and easy fix. Insurance costs money. When you are below the poverty line, how do you do either? Sorry but you simply don't have any grasp of poverty or even just being poor.
2) I don't care about money - it is a means to an end. I could quite happily live without it. All I need is food, a place to live, something to keep my mind active and my friends/family. Money isn't part of that.
3) That figure was for an individual household. It works out at about $20 for each american for one year overall. That is still not a lot, it will not affect your life in a very palpable way - you have internet access, so you can afford it.
4) You seem to fail at basic economics. There is a shortage of jobs in New Orleans. One of the major ways of earning money in that city was through music and tourism. Why would tourists visit a city which is mostly in ruins? What about restaurants which have closed due to lack of custom? The people who worked there are now unemployed? Therefore there is less money available, and therefore less people can get jobs. Look at Detroit, there are many people there who are unemployed, and too poor to leave the area. How should they fix their poverty?
So, basically, your entire view of these people is flawed. You fail to understand what porverty is, fail to grasp economics and fail in being a decent human being. I'm pretty sure if you were destitute, which an increasing number of people in the USA are due to your weak economy, you will be looking for help to get yourself back on your feet.- smurfsahoy, on 03/31/2008, -1/+21) Moving only costs money (or at least more money than a bus ticket) if you have a lot of stuff to move, in which case you clearly aren't so poor after all. As for family and friends - bring them along too. It's equally silly for them to live there if they can't afford insurance or elevated property. I don't care how poor you are; it is not difficult to pack some bags, gather your family together, and get on a train or bus for 15 bucks total to go live somewhere that isn't begging to be pwned by nature. Failing that, is there some reason why poor people cannot walk? The same people seemed to be perfectly able to leave after everything flooded. There's no reason that couldn't have happened before.
3) $20 for Katrina. $10 for WTC. $5 for some chemical leak in Montana, or whatever. It all adds up to more like hundreds of dollars, which I very well might not be able to afford, all due to this general mentality that if a lot of people are hit by a disaster at once, somehow they are more deserving than if one guy's house floods or burns down, and he doesn't have insurance. This is very illogical and wasteful. They can get food and shelter like anybody else who is uninsured and unlucky. They don't need or deserve extra bonuses fro tax dollars over and above others out there.
4) Your whole response here is based on the flawed assumption that they should look for new jobs in New Orleans. That would be a pretty dumb thing to do. You're right about the tourists not wanting to come. Now apply that same logic to everybody else in the country. NOBODY should want to come. Just leave it in ruins and go live somewhere else that isn't artificially built in the middle of the ocean. There are plenty of jobs everywhere else (national unemployment is currently at more or less minimal levels)
- smurfsahoy, on 03/31/2008, -1/+21) Moving only costs money (or at least more money than a bus ticket) if you have a lot of stuff to move, in which case you clearly aren't so poor after all. As for family and friends - bring them along too. It's equally silly for them to live there if they can't afford insurance or elevated property. I don't care how poor you are; it is not difficult to pack some bags, gather your family together, and get on a train or bus for 15 bucks total to go live somewhere that isn't begging to be pwned by nature. Failing that, is there some reason why poor people cannot walk? The same people seemed to be perfectly able to leave after everything flooded. There's no reason that couldn't have happened before.
- smurfsahoy, on 03/31/2008, -1/+9Several things are wrong with your comment:
- localzuk, on 03/31/2008, -6/+4Well, you are a poor excuse for a human being. Who gives a damn about money? What does it matter to you if 0.03c from your yearly income (and everyone elses) went to get these people's lives up to a livable standard? Do you not care that people live in poverty through no fault of there own?
- GezusK, on 03/30/2008, -5/+7I don't help those that won't or refuse to help themselves.
- Craftybadger, on 03/30/2008, -3/+11Wait till Kanye hears about this.
- trentasaurus, on 03/30/2008, -10/+3I'm so proud of you digg! All the whiny bleeding heart liberals are being dugg down!
- gr3yn3t, on 03/30/2008, -10/+17what a bunch of ***** comments.
Damn you guys are mean.- FuzzyCat, on 03/31/2008, -1/+1
Sorry, I just don't understand why Americans aren't really embarrased about the whole event. I guess it's just the '***** you, I'm alright Jack' attitude. Sad.
- FuzzyCat, on 03/31/2008, -1/+1
- HappyScrappy, on 03/30/2008, -9/+9Why shouldn't they have to pay anything back?
Whatever happened to self-reliance? If you get bailed out, it's a loan. You say you can't afford to pay the loans back? You should have had insurance then.
Also, every house has formaldehyde fumes, since particle board and engineered number both use them. The thing with these trailers is they had been closed so long the fumes built up. A short time after opening the doors up, the fumes reach a normal level and it's very safe to live in.
Thus, there's no way you can be living in a dangerous trailer for months, because after living in it for a short period it's no longer dangerous.- Parisjune, on 03/30/2008, -1/+2That's true. If you have carpet, paint, MDF board, etc. in your house, you have formaldehyde. Sorry.
- bjornski, on 03/31/2008, -0/+1Not at the levels being recorded in those trailers. Those things were death-traps.
- HappyScrappy, on 03/31/2008, -0/+1Because they had been closed up for a long time right after completing them. Just open it up for 2 days and it's no longer a death trap.
- bjornski, on 03/31/2008, -0/+1Not at the levels being recorded in those trailers. Those things were death-traps.
- smurfsahoy, on 03/31/2008, -0/+7Great logic, except for the tiny detail that they were GRANTS, not loans... As in, you're not supposed to ever have to pay it back. So you spend it on a house in a buyer's housing market. Now they ask you to give it back - crap! You get 50 cents on the dollar for what you paid in order to get the money back in time before they repossess everything you own. Now you are back where you started, PLUS 75,000 dollars of debt to the government.
That's why.- HappyScrappy, on 03/31/2008, -1/+1Boo-hoo. They shouldn't have gotten grants in the first place.
- Parisjune, on 03/30/2008, -1/+2That's true. If you have carpet, paint, MDF board, etc. in your house, you have formaldehyde. Sorry.
- ephrils1, on 03/30/2008, -6/+13Wow... having lived about 20 miles away from New Orleans during Katrina this is just sad.
First the Stimulus PAckage being a loan on next year's tax refund, now they want money back for Katrina. Fire 'em all. Get 'em out of office. - diggdiggerid, on 03/30/2008, -4/+5A few years ago when I considered myself a small-l libertarian I would have said some of the comments that were posted above. They just seem bizarre to hear now.
- matador3, on 03/31/2008, -0/+1So what are you now?
- and303, on 03/30/2008, -0/+16Has anyone even noticed that the article clearly states, in the ***** BOLD HEADLINE, that only the people who were overpaid or fraudulent in their claims will have to return the money?
- endustry, on 03/31/2008, -1/+6DIGG should be an acronym just like ADHD.
- smurfsahoy, on 03/31/2008, -3/+2Doesn't matter - Okay, the fraudulent people have it coming to them if they did it intentionally. But if you really did have a claim to money, and you just got overpaid, then having to pay back that money out of illiquid investments you made with it can cause you to lose money that you SHOULD have gotten due to inefficiencies. You could even end up in debt overall when you should have legitimately still gotten tens of thousands of dollars.
Maybe if they wanted to say something like, "sell off everything you bought with the EXTRA money, and however much you get for it, that's what we ask for back, but no more," then it would be okay. But that's just a mess. How do you deal with people who bought services with the money, or consumables, or who didn't keep receipts, because they logically assumed the government wouldn't take back fricking grant aid money? - eir574, on 03/31/2008, -1/+4I understand that all of the people who received money had to sign statements acknowledging that any overpayments would have to be returned, even if they weren't made due to fraud on the part of the recipient. What kind of a system is that, though? Overpayments supposedly occurred (according to the company that made them) because they were in such a hurry to get the money out so that it could help people that they didn't have time to error check everything. How did they expect people to use the money if they reserved the right to ask for a large percentage of it back? To some extent, I think compassion is in order. Just as they sometimes overpaid, I'm sure they sometimes underpaid. I'm sure they're not in a hurry to find those latter cases.
- beneathbrooklyn, on 03/30/2008, -1/+9I guess the people who lost their homes in Katrina should have gotten together and formed an investment bank rather than apply for this idiotic Fed Grant. They could call it "Katrina Financial". Then they pool together any spare change they can scrounge up, invest it in a credit swap derivatives hedge fund leveraged $40 dollars to every $1 they invest. Then when the fund melts down and their bank is totally underwater in debt. The Federal Reserve can just bail them out and cut them a check for a cool 30 billion. No biggie.
- shadowsurfr1, on 03/30/2008, -4/+8I've been down there, over my spring break, actually. I went with 105 other people to help them rebuild ($0 cost to them) and we worked on 8 homes, I'm pretty sure. But what I'm trying to say is that there is a lot of work still to be done and the government isn't doing squat.
- Dstin, on 03/31/2008, -1/+1Do you know why? Because FEMA is working on a BFE, Base Flood Elevation, meaning that either a) you're home already is above the BFE and you have to raise it 3feet or b) that you have to raise your home above the BFE in some areas this could be 10+ feet and you virtually cannot rebuild there.
- smurfsahoy, on 03/31/2008, -3/+7The government isn't obligated to do anything to prop up uninsured people, and certainly not to rebuild a city in the same damn flood zone. I don't think they should be paying a cent beyond what is necessary to keep people relatively safe with enough food to keep them alive. Anything else is not the government's business. What they paid already needs to not be taken back, but no more in the future.
- ZooMigo, on 03/31/2008, -0/+2I too have been down there, I went to Gulfport/Biloxi where the real damage occured. All that happened in NO was the levee break. Mississippi recieved a thousand times as much wind/water/storm caused damage. ...but thats besides the point.
I saw so much waste, fraud and abuse of the system it was insane. I worked around homes that had minor damage, but the people received a trailer anyway. You know what a lot of people did? They rented out the trailers to people that came in to do work! These are trailers that were paid for by our tax dollars to help people displaced, and the displaced were making profits by renting them. I know many people that grew tired of living in tents (I only lived in mine for 4 months before I went home) that paid $600 or more to rent these things.
Yes, there was a lot of suffering, but Im amazed and how much waste and corruption followed right behind. Along those lines, people should do some research on the history of the levee system and how the ACOE tried for over 30 years to improve them, but were blocked by the likes of the sierra club because of "negative environmental impacts". Look for the future history of another flood to follow because the enviro-nazis wont let the system be rebuilt to handle cat-5 storms. Many of the levee boards are only asking to be rebuilt to cat-3 levels.
dislaimer: I left the area 2 years ago so my current knowledge of the political state is out of date.
- solid12345, on 03/30/2008, -2/+16Funny how the same people who have so much hate for the politicians who did not come to the aid of Katrina worship hacks like Ray Nagin as heroes who never put money in to re-enforce the levees in the first place.
New Orleans, while a wonderful city and wonderful people, has had problems for decades with a welfare mentality among many parts of its community. They were living off the government before the hurricane and will continue to do it for years to come.- gwhardyiv, on 03/31/2008, -4/+1Therefore, they deserve to have their lives ***** up by the largest natural disaster that anybody alive has ever seen.
- solid12345, on 03/31/2008, -0/+1Nobody deserves that but it doesn't mean they deserve a lifetime of handouts either.
- gwhardyiv, on 03/31/2008, -4/+1Therefore, they deserve to have their lives ***** up by the largest natural disaster that anybody alive has ever seen.
- camino262, on 03/30/2008, -0/+8My parents live in Mobile AL, and the area was hit mildly by Katrina. The residents qualified for FEMA handouts, and many people who didn't have any damage collected the cash. My parents refused the money because they didn't need it. I think those who collected and didn't really need it should have to pay money back. Good luck finding them though. It would cost more money to get the money back than they would recoup.
- logdesigner, on 03/30/2008, -0/+8George Bush hates white people...
- m0nte, on 03/31/2008, -0/+1(i live in New Orleans)PLEASE make this happen. Another issue is extremely overpaid employees that work for FEMA " watchin the fema parks" They watch movies and play cards all day for $20-25 an hour with overtime. The supervisors even tell them to stop working. ----------Am i paying for this????(tax $'s)
- Screamsalvation, on 03/31/2008, -5/+18Anyone who does not have direct experience with the situation should not even bother to comment. If you just saw Katrina on tv then you should shut your mouth and go elsewhere. A lot of people died, yes, a lot of homes where destroyed, yes. But I personally know many people who now drive escalades, live in beautiful rent free apartments, have TONS of electronics (new computers, 50 inch projection tvs, stereos to drool over, etc) and GUESS WHAT? Your and my tax dollars paid for it all, because these people got this money handed to them and they still dont work! Their families have been on welfare for 2 generations and we are still supporting their lazy asses. I work 6 days a week to afford anything I have, but these people dont lift a finger. Make them pay that ***** back! Make all these families that have been on welfare for 20+ years pay that ***** back too! We as tax payers need to start something and get these monkeys off our backs.
- beneathbrooklyn, on 03/31/2008, -0/+6Treating the symptoms (i.e. going house to house with your hand out asking for these people to pay back money they may or may not have received unfairly) won't accomplish anything and certainly won't relieve the burden from the shoulders of those who work "six days a week". If you want welfare reform the entire system needs to be overhauled if not completely dismantled. A pretty tall order, and one that most people don't have the balls to implement. Its a lot easier to just bitch and whine on the Internet. There is no political will in this country to make genuine changes for the better and so people who have milked the welfare system for generations will continue to do so and not you or anyone else is going to do anything about it.
- worldgate, on 03/31/2008, -1/+1Calling black people monkeys is racist! Their called 'gorillas' dude, get with the current racism.
- mal1964, on 03/31/2008, -1/+3Now how much will the government waste trying to collect the money?
- jm4847, on 03/31/2008, -5/+3If they lived in a poor place and built a home too weak for a hurricane (mine has endured several and remains fully intact) they kind of deserve their fate.
Poor, dumb people who don't plan their lives end up with nothing. In human society, that is natural selection.
They're like those idiots who make a house out of wood in a tornado area, it ends up destroy by a tornado, and then they make ANOTHER HOUSE OUT OF WOOD. Idiots. - jm4847, on 03/31/2008, -9/+1Also I'm ***** tired of the term "victim". Hurricane victim, rape victim. What's next? "Alcoholism victim"?
- eir574, on 03/31/2008, -1/+4You object to the term "rape victim?" Is it because you prefer a more empowering term, such as "rape survivor," or because you think rape survivors/victims are just whining too much?
- jm4847, on 03/31/2008, -1/+1A bit of both.
- eir574, on 03/31/2008, -1/+1Do all victims/survivors of crime whine a little too much for you, or just rape victims? In either case, how so? I think it's very hard for those of us who haven't been victims of violent crimes to imagine how it can devastate another person.
- jm4847, on 03/31/2008, -1/+1It's not the end of your life. Why carry a label? It doesn't help anyone.
- eir574, on 03/31/2008, -0/+2In the end, we need some reasonably concise way to refer to those who have been the victims/survivors of crime. They don't need to carry those labels for the rest of their lives (and I believe encouraging people to drop the term "victim" for the term "survivor" is a technique that's sometimes used to help that process along), but how would you refer to a person who was raped yesterday other than as a rape victim/survivor or crime victim/survivor? Carrying the label for a period of time is not whining. It's just fact.
- jm4847, on 03/31/2008, -3/+1"how would you refer to a person who was raped yesterday other than as a rape victim/survivor or crime victim/survivor?"
Rapee, for example.
Instead of murder victim, murderee.
Instead of mugging victim, muggee.
And so on... - eir574, on 03/31/2008, -0/+3And then, if people referred to themselves as rapees for too long, would you still say they're whining too much and clinging to a label? Language has power, but it's not everything. Besides, language evolves. If we started calling people rapees, mugees, and murderees, eventually those words would take on the same connotations as rape victim, mugging victim, and murder victim. It happens all the time. Just look at how PC terms evolve. A word is replaced because it has come to mean something offensive, but eventually the new word takes on negative connotations, so we replace it again.
- eir574, on 03/31/2008, -1/+1Do all victims/survivors of crime whine a little too much for you, or just rape victims? In either case, how so? I think it's very hard for those of us who haven't been victims of violent crimes to imagine how it can devastate another person.
- jm4847, on 03/31/2008, -1/+1A bit of both.
- hplasm, on 03/31/2008, -1/+2Bush victim?
- eir574, on 03/31/2008, -1/+4You object to the term "rape victim?" Is it because you prefer a more empowering term, such as "rape survivor," or because you think rape survivors/victims are just whining too much?
- 140Suffolk, on 03/31/2008, -4/+3All over the US the media blamed the Republicans for the Katrina disaster. But Louisiana knew better. Louisiana knew it was Democrats fault.
You know how I know? Cause Louisiana just voted OUT the Democrat governor and voted IN a non-white Republican! Bobby Jindal !
Cause real Louisianans know that it was their own corrupt, stupid Democrat governments that squandered the money they received to fix up the levees for decades.
And it was all a big joke, until there's water up to your waist.- madmccoy, on 03/31/2008, -0/+1No no, that means it was the WHITE MAN's fault.
Get your facts straight.- 140Suffolk, on 03/31/2008, -0/+2You get YOUR facts straight. Republican Bobby Jindal doesn't play that race-card game. Besides, he's an Indian-American.
Everybody in the state has known for 50 years that these floods were going to happen.
And everybody knew that the local Dem politicians were diverting money meant to fix the levees. When Katrina struck, the federal government was in the middle of suing some state agency in Louisiana for millions and millions of dollars that had been sent there for the levees. And just spent on other things.
Not to mention that we subsidize flood insurance for those people and many of them STILL wouldn't buy it.
- 140Suffolk, on 03/31/2008, -0/+2You get YOUR facts straight. Republican Bobby Jindal doesn't play that race-card game. Besides, he's an Indian-American.
- madmccoy, on 03/31/2008, -0/+1No no, that means it was the WHITE MAN's fault.
- gquaglia, on 03/31/2008, -3/+3Good luck getting it back. Any extra money was probably spent on liquor and cigarettes.
- JointVenture, on 03/31/2008, -1/+2How much of the grant money was spent on booze, crack and cigs?
Honestly, Id really like to see what most of the people who receive checks do with the money. - zmigliozzi, on 03/31/2008, -2/+2I wish I could have been in that pool of free money.
- eir574, on 03/31/2008, -1/+1Yes. I, too, wish my home would have been destroyed, my city devastated, and my life thrown into turmoil so that I could get some of those grants.
- johnnyfistfight, on 03/31/2008, -1/+4Keep throwing money at the "victims" who insist on living in hurricane ally and below sea level. What separates these morons from the ones in California who insist that they must live on crumbing hillsides that are fire prone?
- m0nte, on 03/31/2008, -0/+1(i live in New Orleans)PLEASE make this happen. Another issue is extremely overpaid employees that work for FEMA " watchin the fema parks" They watch movies and play cards all day for $20-25 an hour with overtime. The supervisors even tell them to stop working. ----------Am i paying for this????(tax $'s)
- cyborg, on 03/31/2008, -1/+2Ugh, talk about adding insult to injury, that's horrible.
- TakezoKensei, on 03/31/2008, -1/+3So collectors will be up some legitimate peoples rear ends as they will probably re-evaluate many many of their payouts that have taken years to move forward. As well, they will also be after people they determined were paid too much. Then we have the Fed paying out *30 Billion*, a choice they made after a few days, which is a drop in the bucket when compared to Louisiana; because a bunch of millionaire executives promised they would be paying out a bunch of money in this "sub-prime" meltdown. I say if they paid out too much to people in Louisiana then that probably means they were the only ones who were paid enough for all the years of crap they endured from insurance companies and the governments' response to this years old tragedy. Its a great governmental response comparison between the little people who may never get paid what they are owed and the big shots couldn't make enough money so they concealed their losses for years.
- thedogfatherx, on 03/31/2008, -2/+7Most of the people who received a bunch of money probably spent it on nice cars, alcohol, and a bunch of other worthless *****. They won't get most of the money back because it's probably all ready been spent!!! Great that my tax money is going to some lazy ass people on welfare. Stop the payments.
- daybreaker, on 03/31/2008, -1/+3"Most" of the people? This wasnt a scenario where you just had to re-lay some flooring and maybe some drywall. THOUSANDS of homes were COMPLETELY destroyed.
So yes, while SOME people misused fema money and should have to pay it back, to say that MOST misused it just ***** stupid. Because MOST of the people used it to try and rebuild not only their house, but their entire ***** LIFE.
- daybreaker, on 03/31/2008, -1/+3"Most" of the people? This wasnt a scenario where you just had to re-lay some flooring and maybe some drywall. THOUSANDS of homes were COMPLETELY destroyed.
- pidge, on 03/31/2008, -0/+4Wow. I really hate how terribly managed the whole Katrina incident has been handled. I'm sorry but the world is not fair. I have no problem if they received financial assistance but $150k? That is insane.
- nusuni, on 03/31/2008, -1/+4Wow, I am shocked to see some Digg users actually defend the federal gov! The pigs are gonna be flying tomorrow in frozen hell!
- ExSlashdotter, on 03/31/2008, -1/+7I left New Orleans 8 months after the hurricane for Tampa, Fl.
If you don't have insurance, you're making a gamble. These people gambled and lost. That's life. Guess what? I had insurance. I didnt expect the friggin government to pick up the tab if something happened to me.- logdesigner, on 03/31/2008, -1/+0How come I never got a check from the government when I limped out of Mississippi after a bad night of gambling?
- MarrowMan, on 03/31/2008, -2/+2Wow, that's like a kick in the balls, then being made to say "thank you" for it.
- m0nte, on 03/31/2008, -0/+1(i live in New Orleans)PLEASE make this happen. Another issue is extremely overpaid employees that work for FEMA " watchin the fema parks" They watch movies and play cards all day for $20-25 an hour with overtime. The supervisors even tell them to stop working. ----------Am i paying for this????(tax $'s)
- TertiusOculum, on 03/31/2008, -4/+1Good, the black people don't deserve the money anyways.
-
Show 51 - 75 of 75 discussions
Check out the new & improved 
© Digg Inc. 2008 — Content posted by Digg users is