[Talkhard]

Originally Posted by Dan

White people behave better.

That seems like a racially insensitive comment to me. You'd better check your attitude.

Maybe it has more to do with living in the midwest and being raised to work hard and be responsible for yourself and not look for a handout from the government everytime you have a problem.

I know someone who went to Louisiana with a church group to fix a guy's roof, and she said he sat on his porch the whole time and never even offered to help. Unfortunately, that's the attitude of a lot of Katrina victims. "Something horrible happened to us and now someone else has to come fix it!!!"

[Dan]

Originally Posted by Talkhard

That seems like a racially insensitive comment to me. You'd better check your attitude.

Maybe it has more to do with living in the midwest and being raised to work hard and be responsible for yourself and not look for a handout from the government everytime you have a problem.

I know someone who went to Louisiana with a church group to fix a guy's roof, and she said he sat on his porch the whole time and never even offered to help. Unfortunately, that's the attitude of a lot of Katrina victims. "Something horrible happened to us and now someone else has to come fix it!!!"

reading between the lines: Those damn lazy blacks in the south. why can't they be more like the hard working real americans in the heartland?

[Talkhard]

Originally Posted by Dan

reading between the lines: Those damn lazy blacks in the south. why can't they be more like the hard working real americans in the heartland?

Go ahead and make it into a racial thing, if you like. That's just one more way to avoid the real issue of personal responsibility.

[Dan]

Originally Posted by Talkhard

Go ahead and make it into a racial thing, if you like. That's just one more way to avoid the real issue of personal responsibility.

Reading between the lines: white people in Iowa obviously have personal responsibility and the black people in New Orleans obviously don't.

[Krstic All Star]

I'd actually like to see some figures that deal with the difference between people's reactions to catastrophes in urban areas versus suburban and rural areas. As much as it is not a racial matter, any differences in reaction can be linked to the urban/rural dynamic and correlated accordingly.

[hasoos]

Great Talkhard, since you have brought this up, maybe you can explain why your beloved Bush administration and their love child FEMA have done this:

http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/06/24/mat...nce/index.html

That's right. FEMA told folks in the area to not buy flood insurance, and now they are all F'd. Good job Republicans!

[It's_GO_Time]

Originally Posted by hasoos

Great Talkhard, since you have brought this up, maybe you can explain why your beloved Bush administration and their love child FEMA have done this:

http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/06/24/mat...nce/index.html

That's right. FEMA told folks in the area to not buy flood insurance, and now they are all F'd. Good job Republicans!

So it sounds like the Bush administration (working in conjunction with "they are doing a heck of a job" FEMA) ****ed up NO and Iowa.

But no worries, Bush is banking on global warming to stop these floods in the future. : )

[MARIS61]

Originally Posted by hasoos

Great Talkhard, since you have brought this up, maybe you can explain why your beloved Bush administration and their love child FEMA have done this:

http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/06/24/mat...nce/index.html

That's right. FEMA told folks in the area to not buy flood insurance, and now they are all F'd. Good job Republicans!

A flood such as the one in Iowa happens on average every 500 years.

Not to defend Bush, but the Iowans were merely told they were not required by law to buy flood insurance (just as I am not although I own several acres of riverfront property in Beautiful Central Oregon, most of which flooded last month). They were not advised that they shouldn't buy it or that it was a waste of money, or that they were in no danger at all of flooding, simply that they were not required by law. To save money they took a gamble and lost. Most understood that at the time and most accept that as a personal error in judgement.

[hasoos]

Originally Posted by MARIS61

A flood such as the one in Iowa happens on average every 500 years.

Not to defend Bush, but the Iowans were merely told they were not required by law to buy flood insurance (just as I am not although I own several acres of riverfront property in Beautiful Central Oregon, most of which flooded last month). They were not advised that they shouldn't buy it or that it was a waste of money, or that they were in no danger at all of flooding, simply that they were not required by law. To save money they took a gamble and lost. Most understood that at the time and most accept that as a personal error in judgement.

Actually I would wait for this to play out. You may have been told that. That doesn't mean they were told that.

[MARIS61]

Originally Posted by Krstic All Star

I'd actually like to see some figures that deal with the difference between people's reactions to catastrophes in urban areas versus suburban and rural areas. As much as it is not a racial matter, any differences in reaction can be linked to the urban/rural dynamic and correlated accordingly.

There you go!

Despite HappyDan's insistence on playing the racial card anytime Talkhard posts rather than take an active part in the discussion, the obvious difference here is not so much race (there ARE people of many colors in Iowa, just not as many as in NO) as it is culture.

Rural areas tend to be populated with people who desire personal independence, close-knit community activism and a chance to stand on their own. They know right from wrong and live by the Golden Rule. They know their neighbors well and draw pride, pleasure and satisfaction when they can help each other out.

Urban areas tend to be populated with people seeking to build personal wealth, whether through honest hard work, or through the myriad of handouts and scams available in most urban areas. They don't know their neighbors, don't want to know their neighbors, and in fact fear most of their neighbors. When the chips hit the fan, they think of themselves.

[MARIS61]

Originally Posted by hasoos

Actually I would wait for this to play out. You may have been told that. That doesn't mean they were told that.

As a former employee with the US Army Corps of Engineers for 11 years I have worked closely with FEMA on many disasters including the Tillamook flood, the Exxon/Valdez Oil Spill, and the Mt. St. Helens Eruptions.

The rules on requiring flood insurance are quite simple and clearly worded. FEMA does not advise people one way or another on flood insurance as long as the legal requirement is met.

More than likely anyone who was advised they didn't need it was advised by a mortgage broker trying to get them into a home they could afford. Flood insurance isn't cheap by any means, and I'd guess less than 5% of the posters here have it.

[e_blazer1]

MARIS61 is correct. FEMA rules relating to flood insurance have been in effect for years and are readily accessible to the public at FEMA's website:

http://www.floodsmart.gov/floodsmart..._explained.jsp

People living outside of the 100 year floodplain (areas with less than a 1% chance of flooding in any given year) do not have to obtain flood insurance in order to obtain a mortgage. People living in areas protected by a levee are in the same category. The Bush Administration had nothing to do with setting these policies.

If you're looking for the Federal government to protect you from the impacts of any and all natural disasters, you may be severely disappointed at some point in your life. For example, in Oregon, we live in an area that could suffer from major earthquake damage and yet hardly anybody carries earthquake insurance. If you choose not to pay for it and the big one hits, don't expect either your homeowner's insurance or the Feds to cover you for the costs of repairs.