Posted on 08/29/2005 12:39:10 PM PDT by Smogger
Mayor Ray Nagin said that 200 people were stranded on rooftops in the Lower Ninth Ward and several “bodies are floating in the water” in the Bywater neighborhood and in Eastover.
Nagin made the announcement in his first press briefing after Hurricane Katrina slammed just east of the city, but did plenty of devastation to New Orleans.
Nagin said that the 200 stranded people included 20 police officers who were riding out the storm at their homes in preparation to take over shifts from other officers. He said that boats would be dispatched on rescue missions later in the afternoon.
Mayor Nagin issued a "boil water" recommendation for water in the city - except for Algiers and the CBD due to a water main line break that may have compromised the water.
Nagin said at least 20 buildings in the city had collapsed and that it might be 48 hours before residents would be allowed back to their homes to assess the damage.
(Excerpt) Read more at wwltv.com ...
Yea, and as such the people who pay for them should determine who may use them.
No, I'm saying he attached essentially no specific meaning to the "general welfare" clause, either one of them.
Rather, they are a general sort of statement, designed to illustrate the conceptual necessity of even having a federal government.
Taken in and of itself, the clause has been twisted to mean that social security, medicare, welfare, public schools, foreign aid to Africa... are all Constitutional.
My question is simple. Where do we draw the line between disaster relief for hurricane victims in Louisiana and sending cash to Africa so war lords can continue to enslave the people?
Since neither are specifically in the Constitution, the entire argument becomes morally relativistic, something I thought conservatives argued against when leftists advance such policies...
As I see it, we are talking about which policies should we enact. Should we send money to foreign governments, should we have Social Security, should we have food stamps, etc., etc.
Since these are issues that folks have differences of opinion on, they clearly illustrate the advantage of our governing system over others. You aren't forced to go along with an opinion you disagree with. Instead you are given a vote. You get to send representatives to debate these issues around proposed legislation. Their votes will reject some and enact others into law if it gets signed by that final arbiter of your interests, the President.
You have had your say on all the issues such as SocSec, food stamps, etc. If you like them, then your side won. If you don't like them, then your side lost.
Just because you lose, though, isn't reason to give up. You are still able to continue trying to influence the situation so that these things can be reversed.
The danger in our system is when that process is short-circuited by judges who force some policy issues down our throats.....like abortion, rampant eminent domain, gay marriage, etc.
They IGNORE what the legislature does or never give them a chance to even consider the issue.
Each time they do so, they assist in the destruction of democracy.
I think the government should have better plans in place to evacuate those who have no access to transportation out of the city for times like this, when it is an absolute emergency.
Why didn't they use the public transportation system to get those people OUT? Why shut it down & leave them to fend for themselves? Doesn't sound like very good planning to me.
You shouldn’t because it is obvious you do not understand satire. Satire is used to mock and ridicule those whose position you do not agree, and to amuse those that agree with your point, and last, to convert those with no opinion .
It's your problem if you cannot have your ideas challenged or your opinion of President Bush questioned.
Calling President Bush “King George” wows them over at DU, but immediately subtracts any validity your argument may have had, here on FreeRepublic.
We have a negative net worth as a country, thanks to politicians like George Bush who think it is the role of government to redistribute the wealth of the people according to the tenets of Karl Marx.
Now we get to the meat of your argument. You have pointed out a problem, the federal government is spending too much money. In this case on disaster relief. Besides saying they should not do so, what is your real world solution?
Do you have one?
I don’t think so, because you have not pointed out the reason why it is the way it is. I think I know the reason, and I think I know the solution. But, in the real world, that train has left the station. It would take a constitutional amendment to solve this problem, but those in power would not allow it to occur.
So, while I may agree in theory with your general views (the government should not be in the welfare business), in the real world I do not object to providing aid to our fellow citizens in time of natural disaster.
There are a lot of people who don't drive, or are old and sick with no one to help them. You are a heartless twit.
Not if you were old and sick and had no one to help you.
Amen. My thoughts exactly.
I agree in principle, but you confuse democracy, which we are not supposed to be, with a Constitutional Republic, which I hope we still are.
In the latter, certain "things" are absolutely impermissible, and are not subject to the whim of any majority.
For example, IMO, the Constitution forbids the federal government from collecting taxes to fund charity efforts because it is not expressly enumerated anywhere in the document.
In short, I "lost" the Social Security debate, but we have all lost really, since our government abandoned the idea that it may only operate within the boundaries of the Constitution.
Once the government makes up its own power as it goes along, all we are left with is a fancy monarchy in which the People falsely believe they have control over the government.
And what foreign country will offer their help? Don't hold your breath waiting though.
And how many homeless or poor had TV and radio? You have to consider that many may not have.
Yeah, if they COULD walk. Cheez. Some of you are really something else!
You sound like the people who wanted to fight the British King but didn't because they said "the British Army is too strong".
i.e. "While I'd like to be free, in the real world it just isn't possible".
As to the rest:
"You shouldn’t because it is obvious you do not understand satire. Satire is used to mock and ridicule those whose position you do not agree, and to amuse those that agree with your point, and last, to convert those with no opinion ."
My attempt at satire seemed to work on you...
"Calling President Bush “King George” wows them over at DU, but immediately subtracts any validity your argument may have had, here on FreeRepublic."
So differences of opinions have no place here? Or is it just that FReepers are more likely to accurately judge the entire philosophy of anonymous posters by one or two comments?
The best solution I have is to go with a third party in every election from local tax collector to US President.
The train has not left the station, because I believe that the People of this country still have enough control left to make changes, if only we got together to join forces against the politicians instead of fighting amongst ourselves.
I believe our entire federal political system is broken beyond repair and that none of the people whose names are well known enough to win federal office can or will solve the problems we face.
I am very pessimistic about our country's future, and I believe that either a civil war or a depression far worse than the first one we had is inevitable. Perhaps both...
The next entitlement program: digital cable television for all Americans!!!
I can't believe they couldn't get busses in to pick folks up. What a sad commentary on their readiness in emergencies. I sure would have thought of SOMETHING.
I could never walk that long distance. I'm not strong enough due to health reasons. I'm sure many people are much worse off than that!
That's right, old friend. I wonder what God would say to these heartless idiots on this thread? Depart from me, I never knew you, comes to mind.
Thank you for your helpful note. I fully agree that we are a Constitutional Republic. In fact, since the point of a republic is representative democracy, I'd like to point out that went to pains to be clear that we are not a direct democracy. I specifically pointed out the representative nature of the US.
I also agree that our Constitution puts some limits on the decisions that our representatives might make.
However, I do not recall anyplace in the Constitution that forbids the government from collecting taxes for charitible purposes, social security, or other "general welfare" purposes. I would appreciate it if you would direct me to the section of the Constitution that says that.
I agree.
Instead of WAITING to come rescue folks, they should have had the plans to evacuate those who do not have the means.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.