|
| Author | Thread |
|
|
09/02/2005 02:21:53 PM · #101 |
I think you're comparing apples to oranges...a news crew in a van or truck is far less likely to draw gunfire and attention from the snipers and random gunmen who keep shooting at the more obvious military and rescue helicopters and vehicles. Every reporter I've seen has brought in what they could, but they don't have the manpower or large enough vehicles to transport food and water for 30,000 people. The National Guard, as well as any other soldiers, governmental entities, relief workers, etc. can't deliver ANYTHING when they're continuously fired upon.
|
|
|
|
09/02/2005 02:40:23 PM · #102 |
Originally posted by thatcloudthere:
I don't understand your response...I suspect you misunderstood what I was saying. I think the USA needs aid, I really do! I'm just wondering about the impression Bush gave to the world at the beginning that no aid was needed...it seems confusing and I'm wondering if it's because he didn't realize the devestation you desribed above. |
It's not that we don't want aid....but it's American determination. Regardless of aid...we will overcome...
That's essentially the idea. |
|
|
|
09/02/2005 02:40:56 PM · #103 |
Heres a question?
If our Homeland security needs billions of dollars to combat terrorists, how come at the same time the Feds can't prevent major events like the flooding of New Orleans?
Isn't this a ripe time for a terrorist attack?
If we can spend the money for our personal safety around the world, and not take care of the needs of the people that our government is supposed to look after, why are we spending that money?
Granted, there are bad people out there and we need to be protected from. But, isn't part of that protection supposed to be in the well being, and health of our country?
|
|
|
|
09/02/2005 02:45:47 PM · #104 |
Originally posted by swinging_johnson_v1:
Heres a question?
If our Homeland security needs billions of dollars to combat terrorists, how come at the same time the Feds can't prevent major events like the flooding of New Orleans?
Isn't this a ripe time for a terrorist attack?
If we can spend the money for our personal safety around the world, and not take care of the needs of the people that our government is supposed to look after, why are we spending that money?
Granted, there are bad people out there and we need to be protected from. But, isn't part of that protection supposed to be in the well being, and health of our country? |
The former head of the Army Corps of Engineers stated that even if funding had not been cut (going back to Carter) for the levy projects, and all the work had been done to strengthen them as planned, New Orleans would have STILL flooded. People and money can't prevent the flooding of anything when Mother Nature has different plans.
|
|
|
|
09/02/2005 03:04:47 PM · #105 |
Originally posted by laurielblack:
[quote=swinging_johnson_v1] People and money can't prevent the flooding of anything when Mother Nature has different plans. |
As dynamic and complex as fighting terrorist is, having a plan to HELP our civilians in this country, with all the stuff that is already here, with the support at our fingertips, I would have to think that no matter what mother nature does, our preplanning for the worst case is severly lacking.
|
|
|
|
09/02/2005 03:11:44 PM · #106 |
i don't blame bush for the hurricane.
i don't blame bush for the funding cutbacks for levee projects.
really, i don't blame bush for much at this point. BUT, as the chief cowboy, the buck stops with him. therefore, he is responsible for the actions of his underlings.
so, when people like Michael Brown, the head of FEMA and a bush appointee says stuff, he should know what he's talking about. this guy has no clue, and i DO blame bush for putting someone in charge who really can't perform the job.
all quotes taken from CNN transcripts, and from an article examining why there's such a disconnect between local and federal officials:
hospital evactuations
I've just learned today that we ... are in the process of completing the evacuations of the hospitals, that those are going very well.
civil unrest
I've had no reports of unrest, if the connotation of the word unrest means that people are beginning to riot, or you know, they're banging on walls and screaming and hollering or burning tires or whatever. I've had no reports of that.
new orleans
Considering the dire circumstances that we have in New Orleans, virtually a city that has been destroyed, things are going relatively well.
--
now, i understand that things are crazy and insane, but i'm with the mayor of new orleans on this point. people need to stop holding press conferences and do their jobs. or, at the very least, do everything they can to get their story straight before they jump in front of a microphone.
keep in mind, too, that these are the people feeding information back to the cowboy in chief. if they don't know what's going on, how is he supposed to know?
Message edited by author 2005-09-02 15:12:09. |
|
|
|
09/02/2005 03:41:51 PM · #107 |
I think what concerns me is the large role FEMA will play, and how little, relatively speaking, they will actually do.
Last year when Francis and Ivan devestated this area (and it was nothing compared to the damage on the Gulf Coast), eveyone was hopeful that FEMA would help them get back on their feet.
That turned into the joke of the year.
One couple I know were emergency response team members. While they were evacuating other people, their mobile home, and everything they owned swept down river. they could not go to their house to get anything, because they were on duty. FEMA gave them somewhere in the neighborhood of $5K. Which sounds like a lot (and was compared to most others who only got a few hundred or a couple of thousand) until you realize that you can't find a place to live around here, and replace the things you need to live day to day with that much.
The other problem was the oddball stipulations they put with their "aid." My sister's business (trail riding stables) was directly affected by the hurricanes. The high winds pushed trees down over the trails. The huges amount of ran washed trails away, etc. etc. Yes, FEMA could help, BUT she would have to purchase flood insurance for the entire property (almost 100 acres of mountain). Her damage wasn't flood damage. This property would never flood (unless the animals start lining up two by two). The flood insurance was going to cost her several hundred dollars a year. No thanks.
It's not a republican issue. It's not a democratic issue. It's a real life issue. The government (regardless of which party is in control) will (or would) be able to do minimal amounts to help these people.
It sounds cheesy, but I honestly think it will take the efforts of those of us "not" affected to rebuild the lives of those who have lost everything.
|
|
|
|
09/02/2005 03:58:20 PM · #108 |
And our attempting to dictate mother nature like that leads to this kind of tragedy. Very stupid and very sad. |
|
|
|
09/02/2005 03:59:02 PM · #109 |
Originally posted by karmat:
It sounds cheesy, but I honestly think it will take the efforts of those of us "not" affected to rebuild the lives of those who have lost everything.
|
not cheesy. totally true, imho. i wish there was more -- anything, really -- that i could do. |
|
|
|
09/02/2005 04:49:40 PM · #110 |
Just got this in an email from my father-in-law. Don't know the link for this or I'd post it. Makes me feel a little better about Wal-Mart, anyway.
BENTONVILLE, Ark., Sept. 1 /PRNewswire-FirstCall/ -- Following President
Bush's announcement today that former Presidents Bush and Clinton will lead a
nationwide fundraising effort to help the victims of Hurricane Katrina, Wal-
Mart President and CEO Lee Scott contacted President Clinton and the White
House and committed $15 million from Wal-Mart to jump-start the effort.
As part of this commitment, Wal-Mart will establish mini-Wal-Mart stores
in areas impacted by the hurricane. Items such as clothing, diapers, baby
wipes, food, formula, toothbrushes, bedding and water will be given out free
of charge to those with a demonstrated need.
Wal-Mart previously donated $2 million in cash to aid emergency relief
efforts and has been collecting contributions at its 3,800 stores and CLUBS,
and through its web sites [www.walmartfacts.com, //www.walmart.com,
//www.walmartfoundation.org, //www.walmartstores.com, //www.samsclub.com].
Through its Associate Disaster Relief Fund, the company will also give
displaced associates immediate funds for shelter, food, clothing and other
necessities.
Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. operates Wal-Mart Stores, Supercenters, Neighborhood
Markets and SAM'S CLUBS in all fifty states. Internationally, the company
operates in Puerto Rico, Canada, China, Mexico, Brazil, Germany, United
Kingdom, Argentina and South Korea. The company's securities are listed on
the New York and Pacific stock exchanges under the symbol WMT.
|
|
|
|
09/02/2005 05:35:30 PM · #111 |
Originally posted by laurielblack:
I think you're comparing apples to oranges...a news crew in a van or truck is far less likely to draw gunfire and attention from the snipers and random gunmen who keep shooting at the more obvious military and rescue helicopters and vehicles. Every reporter I've seen has brought in what they could, but they don't have the manpower or large enough vehicles to transport food and water for 30,000 people. The National Guard, as well as any other soldiers, governmental entities, relief workers, etc. can't deliver ANYTHING when they're continuously fired upon. |
[ Really?? Do you have a link to this report about continuous gunfire ? CNN mentioned reports of sporadic gunfire,and no equipment showed any damage...Nevertheless,we've been airlifting supplies to our people in combat zones for well over 60 years,so it's a feeble excuse at best.. |
|
|
|
09/02/2005 05:39:20 PM · #112 |
Originally posted by saracat:
Makes me feel a little better about Wal-Mart, anyway.
|
Walmart donating 15 Million might seem like alot. But consider that they made $288 BILLION in sales last year alone, and #1 on the Fortune 500 for the fourth straight year.
By my calculations that̢۪s .0052% of the sales money from 2004 alone. The Walton family combined is worth twice as much as Bill Gates.
To put this into even more perspective; if an American who made $30,000 a year donated .005% of his yearly income, it would be $1.50
Walmart sure is generous! :/ |
|
|
|
09/02/2005 05:43:33 PM · #113 |
Originally posted by muckpond:
i don't blame bush for the hurricane.
i don't blame bush for the funding cutbacks for levee projects.
really, i don't blame bush for much at this point. BUT, as the chief cowboy, the buck stops with him. therefore, he is responsible for the actions of his underlings.
so, when people like Michael Brown, the head of FEMA and a bush appointee says stuff, he should know what he's talking about. this guy has no clue, and i DO blame bush for putting someone in charge who really can't perform the job.
all quotes taken from CNN transcripts, and from an article examining why there's such a disconnect between local and federal officials:
hospital evactuations
I've just learned today that we ... are in the process of completing the evacuations of the hospitals, that those are going very well.
civil unrest
I've had no reports of unrest, if the connotation of the word unrest means that people are beginning to riot, or you know, they're banging on walls and screaming and hollering or burning tires or whatever. I've had no reports of that.
new orleans
Considering the dire circumstances that we have in New Orleans, virtually a city that has been destroyed, things are going relatively well.
--
now, i understand that things are crazy and insane, but i'm with the mayor of new orleans on this point. people need to stop holding press conferences and do their jobs. or, at the very least, do everything they can to get their story straight before they jump in front of a microphone.
keep in mind, too, that these are the people feeding information back to the cowboy in chief. if they don't know what's going on, how is he supposed to know? |
Perhaps instead of spending so much time doing media briefings and interviews, Mayor Nagin could have spent his time talking, instead, to agencies that could have engaged some of the government response teams that he was complaining weren't acting. Instead, it looks like the federal government has to find out just like the rest of us - by watching television. I'm not surprised that if Brown wasn't watching TV, then he wouldn't have known what was going on.
"There is way too many fricking ... cooks in the kitchen," Nagin said in a phone interview with WAPT-TV in Jackson, Mississippi".
Mayor Ray Nagin told CNN that at least 30 buildings had collapsed
Nagin's interview Thursday night on WWL radio came as President Bush planned to visit Gulf Coast communities battered by Hurricane Katrina...
It wasn't until my ( WDSU ) interview with Mayor Ray Nagin on Tuesday night at 9 p.m...
Meanwhile: He ( Nagin ) called for a moratorium on press conferences. He said he doesn't want any more press conferences there until there is actual manpower on the ground helping his city
Is there a really big difference between press conferences and interviews? I don't think so. |
|
|
|
09/02/2005 05:46:10 PM · #114 |
They (Wal-Mart) don't have to give anything.
|
|
|
|
09/02/2005 05:52:54 PM · #115 |
Originally posted by elderell:
Really?? Do you have a link to this report about continuous gunfire ? CNN mentioned reports of sporadic gunfire,and no equipment showed any damage...Nevertheless,we've been airlifting supplies to our people in combat zones for well over 60 years,so it's a feeble excuse at best.. |
Anything anyone ever says to you will always be a feeble excuse. You've made up your mind so there's no point telling you anything. Blame whomever you wish...it certainly seems to make you feel better.
|
|
|
|
09/02/2005 06:05:28 PM · #116 |
| I've never blamed any one particular person-it's the entire political system...For God's sake,if a person is drowning,you throw him a life-preserver, you don't FORM A COMMITTEE to decide what action needs to be taken! |
|
|
|
09/02/2005 06:12:20 PM · #117 |
Originally posted by MadMordegon:
Originally posted by saracat:
Makes me feel a little better about Wal-Mart, anyway.
|
Walmart donating 15 Million might seem like alot. But consider that they made $288 BILLION in sales last year alone, and #1 on the Fortune 500 for the fourth straight year.
By my calculations that̢۪s .0052% of the sales money from 2004 alone. The Walton family combined is worth twice as much as Bill Gates.
To put this into even more perspective; if an American who made $30,000 a year donated .005% of his yearly income, it would be $1.50
Walmart sure is generous! :/ |
Doesn't anyone study economics any more? Where do you get off basing your generousity index on SALES? Have you considered that SALES are offset by the costs of goods & services & wages & benefits & real estate & taxes & etc.? In fact, in 2004, Wal-Mart's operational PROFIT was only around 13.4 billion, significantly less than the $268 billion in SALES you base your calculations on. That means that the $15 million comes out to around .1% ( one-tenth of 1% ) of their operational profit. On your hypothetical income of $30,000, if your "disctetionary, expendible" income were the same 5.5% as Wal-Mart's, then that .1% donation would be 10% higher, or $1.65 - significantly more than the $1.50 figure that you posted :-).
Message edited by author 2005-09-02 18:18:44. |
|
|
|
09/02/2005 06:20:29 PM · #118 |
Originally posted by RonB:
Originally posted by MadMordegon:
Originally posted by saracat:
Makes me feel a little better about Wal-Mart, anyway.
|
Walmart donating 15 Million might seem like alot. But consider that they made $288 BILLION in sales last year alone, and #1 on the Fortune 500 for the fourth straight year.
By my calculations that̢۪s .0052% of the sales money from 2004 alone. The Walton family combined is worth twice as much as Bill Gates.
To put this into even more perspective; if an American who made $30,000 a year donated .005% of his yearly income, it would be $1.50
Walmart sure is generous! :/ |
Doesn't anyone study economics any more? Where do you get off basing your generousity index on SALES? Have you considered that SALES are offset by the costs of goods & services & wages & benefits & real estate & taxes & etc.? In fact, in 2004, Wal-Mart's operational PROFIT was just slightly more than $15 billion, significantly less than the $268 billion in SALES you base your calculations on. That means that the $15 million comes out to .1% ( one-tenth of 1% ) of their operational profit. On your hypothetical income of $30,000, if your "disctetionary, expendible" income were the same 5.5% as Wal-Mart's, then that .1% donation would be 10% higher, or $1.65 - significantly more than the $1.50 figure that you posted :-). |
lol my mistake. |
|
|
|
09/02/2005 06:48:51 PM · #119 |
Originally posted by muckpond:
so, when people like Michael Brown, the head of FEMA and a bush appointee says stuff, he should know what he's talking about. this guy has no clue, and i DO blame bush for putting someone in charge who really can't perform the job.
|
This guy is a complete clown. He does not have a clue.
My g/f and I were watching him in on CNN just shaking out heads, and the reporter was saying ...
WHAT....WHAT....WHAT DID YOU JUST SAY?? |
|
|
|
09/02/2005 07:17:02 PM · #120 |
Originally posted by RonB:
Originally posted by MadMordegon:
Originally posted by saracat:
Makes me feel a little better about Wal-Mart, anyway.
|
Walmart donating 15 Million might seem like alot. But consider that they made $288 BILLION in sales last year alone, and #1 on the Fortune 500 for the fourth straight year.
By my calculations that̢۪s .0052% of the sales money from 2004 alone. The Walton family combined is worth twice as much as Bill Gates.
To put this into even more perspective; if an American who made $30,000 a year donated .005% of his yearly income, it would be $1.50
Walmart sure is generous! :/ |
Doesn't anyone study economics any more? Where do you get off basing your generousity index on SALES? Have you considered that SALES are offset by the costs of goods & services & wages & benefits & real estate & taxes & etc.? In fact, in 2004, Wal-Mart's operational PROFIT was only around 13.4 billion, significantly less than the $268 billion in SALES you base your calculations on. That means that the $15 million comes out to around .1% ( one-tenth of 1% ) of their operational profit. On your hypothetical income of $30,000, if your "disctetionary, expendible" income were the same 5.5% as Wal-Mart's, then that .1% donation would be 10% higher, or $1.65 - significantly more than the $1.50 figure that you posted :-). |
Perhaps you should keep in mind that they are not required to donate anything but instead have opted to help, even if they are not living up to some people's standards of giving.
And perhaps you should keep in mind that, right or wrong according to your perception of the world, Wal-Mart has an obligation as a business to make money for its owners and shareholders and does not have any obligation to save the world, or any part of it.
Yes, if it were my $15 billion I would donate much more than .1%. However, it is not my money, or your money, or the money of the people affected by the hurricane, and I would think that one should applaud any effort to help and not use it as an excuse to bitch about the inequalities of rich vs. poor. I would think that all this time spent griping about how much more the "rich and greedy" should give would be better used by thanking them and encouraging them in a positive manner to give more. And I would think that anyone who wants the wealthy (people or corporations) to give a higher percentage of their profits should perhaps reach deeper into their own pockets so as not to appear hypocritical when complaining about how much more other people could/should be doing.
And before anyone comes back and says, "well, they're just doing that b/c they have to so they don't alienate customers", well maybe they are. But then again, maybe they're doing this because they do care, and maybe they (and not just Wal-Mart) aren't giving more b/c they don't have the cash on hand. Perhaps they actually use some of their profits to reinvest in their companies.
It's very easy to target "them", and it's very easy to spout figures and say that "they" should do more, but until you have been in their place with their responsibilities, I personally do not think that it's very fair to condemn those who choose to try to help.
But that's just my two cents.
|
|
|
|
09/02/2005 10:59:24 PM · #121 |
I really dont understand this at all. On 9-11 there was a ship set up in the bay with a hospital and food, victims were transported there to recieve what they needed. I think there should be troops there build roads, bridges what ever they need to get these americans to saftey. Why not use military bases for housing. I'm not a big history buff but didnt we build some kind of camps to house foriegn people during ww2 or ww1. And wht the hell does the government need to raise money for. We are the richest and most powerful antion in the wirld, but yet we cant help our own citizens.
I also just seen some footage of cops being shot at, there were not many police there to control this. These are just some questions I had on my mind, I hope I didn't affend anyone.
God Bless
Travis
|
|
|
|
09/02/2005 11:32:15 PM · #122 |
There should be troops...a lot of them are over seas fighting a different battle.
--
Where is the REST OF THE WORLD? When another country needs help, the US is the first to run there...when the tsunami hit, we raised a ton of money and our time and helped...where's the money from other countries, where's the man-power, where's their military forces?
No one helps the US...I say the US stands for itself from this point forward. If you mess with us, you get a big bomb dropped on you and your entire country...end of story.
--
I'm fed up, sick of the US helping others at our own expense...THOSE ARE MY TAX DOLLARS after all...Let's just look out for #1 from this point on out.
The problem is the US has gone soft. At work, there are 3 retired military guys that work part time, they ALL share my views (all of those expressed above). If this stuff went on back in the day, an end would be put to it.
|
|
|
|
09/02/2005 11:37:28 PM · #123 |
Originally posted by Travis99:
We are the richest and most powerful antion in the wirld, but yet we cant help our own citizens. |
I would agree, the US is the richest nation...it is home to the richest people in the world.
However, America is becomming a third world country. The rich are getting richer, the ever-growing middle class, and the poor are getting poorer. America and its government is controlled by those who are the richest...it's a sad sad truth.
|
|
|
|
09/02/2005 11:40:56 PM · #124 |
Are you kidding me, deapee? Do you watch the news?
Do you realize the help that has been offered to you from over two dozen nations before Condoleeza Rice finally cleared up President Bush's statements in which he said no aid was needed?
|
|
|
|
09/02/2005 11:46:16 PM · #125 |
Originally posted by thatcloudthere:
Are you kidding me, deapee? Do you watch the news?
Do you realize the help that has been offered to you from over two dozen nations before Condoleeza Rice finally cleared up President Bush's statements in which he said no aid was needed? |
Obviously, I missed that part. Anyway...no I'm not kidding. I say everyone for themselves. Quit wasting money. Would you care to comment on anything else I've said, or just point out that I missed the local 11:00 news tonight?
|
|
|
|
Current Server Time: 09/22/2025 01:41:18 PM  |
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 09/22/2025 01:41:18 PM EDT.
|
