Anyone wanna dis on Governor Blanco at this point? (1 Viewer)

[varanook]

Sure Great , i notice all those projects are either on the river or north LA, what about the rest of us. Lafayette/New Iberia, Lake Charles, Alexandria.

She hasn't done squat for us. Our roads are terrible and getting worse, congestion is unreal. but some senator can have 11 reservoirs built at 45 mil a piece (up north) and have his brother or brother in law as a project manager.

I believe there is an expansion coming to I-49-Blanco is doing this or at least talking about it.
There is a rail car building plant in Alexandria-Blanco got this I think. Not to mention wasn't she a part of that Procter and Gamble facility in Alexandria as well?
Lake Charles has many industrial job opportinities although I cannot pinpoint anything Blanco did there.
Unfortunately I now little about Lafayette and New Iberia, so someone can educate me.

Let's also not forget the Synfuels facility that will hopefully make it to Geismar. Won't it use a coal product from North La.?
1. Synfuels?
2. New refinery?
3. Toyota Plant?
4. Taking federal government to court over Oil and Gas revenues and basically winning.
5. Steel mill?
6. Tank car facility in Alexandria.
Anything else? I don't think she has done too badly on the economic front. She gets half of this and she has done better than Foster.

 

[TPS]

>>She gets dissed enough by just speaking... she is an idiot

Heh. While I personally like the guy, I'm assuming you didn't vote for President Bush either. Would that be correct?



TPS

 

[MSUSousaphone]

I think your comment is almost identical to what I said about you in an earlier post. I was reported by "someone" and was given points and a warning. Where is the spot where I can report your comment?

Is it okay for you to disrespect the opinion of others, while nobody is allowed to reciprocate?

Don't other people have a right to feel a certain way about a subject, even it it is one you dislike? Who made you the Saint Forum thought police?

I told "Saint by the Bay" that I would not be posting on this board in the future, but you made me come out of lurk mode because of your hipocricy.

I plan on sending him a PM, because I think you also need to take a chill pill.

Before she was a politician, Blanco was a school teacher. Our school system is either 49th or 50th in the nation in education.

I rest my case.

Joe

Hey now, man. I think we're 48th. Represent.

 

[varanook]

Hey now, man. I think we're 48th. Represent.

Thanks for the correction, I feel much better now. Word.

 

[St. Widge]

I know we have gobs of people affected by this and the last time I mentioned my opinion on this government buyout TPS and others jumped for insensitivity.
What I do not understand is why folsk without insurance deserve a buyout. The plausible reason I can come up with is New orleans simply needs residents to survivve.

To answer this question, I suggest that you read up on the philosophy of Objectivism. More specifically, read some Ayn Rand. Basically what it comes down to is that from a selfish point of view, I might not like giving people money who failed to get enough insurance (I know some could not get enough insurance), but it will actually be a benefit to me if we do give them money.

Why? Because if New Orleans goes under so will the rest of this state. I work downtown so it has more of a direct consequence for me, but even Gonzales would fall on some very hard times if New Orleans failed. You are right that New Orleans needs residents to survive, but don't for get that the state needs New Orleans in order for it to survive. And America needs the gas and chemcials produced in LA and shipped up the MS River for it to survive.

So, there is the argument in favor of the plan from a point of view of Rational Self-interest. How high do you think your insurance rates would go if everyone getting LRA money instead sued their insurance companies and the oil companies who kept MRGO open and destroyed the marsh for all of their damages?

Beyond that, the plan is essentially compensation for a tort/act of negligence committed by the United States government. Katrina was more of a man made disaster than a natural disaster. The oil companies helped by destroying the natural barrier provided by the wetlands, but it was the failure of the Army Corps of Engineers to properly design and maintain the levee system that they proposed, designed and built that caused most of the Katrina Damage. If not for the preventable failure of those levees, my total damage would have been around$17,000 with only a little wind damage, instead, it was more like $100,000. I was fully insured so I get no LRA money, but I can understand based on the above why others think they deserve it and from a Rational Self-interest point of view, I can see why it is a good idea.

 

[varanook]

To answer this question, I suggest that you read up on the philosophy of Objectivism. More specifically, read some Ayn Rand. Basically what it comes down to is that from a selfish point of view, I might not like giving people money who failed to get enough insurance (I know some could not get enough insurance), but it will actually be a benefit to me if we do give them money.

Why? Because if New Orleans goes under so will the rest of this state. I work downtown so it has more of a direct consequence for me, but even Gonzales would fall on some very hard times if New Orleans failed. You are right that New Orleans needs residents to survive, but don't for get that the state needs New Orleans in order for it to survive. And America needs the gas and chemcials produced in LA and shipped up the MS River for it to survive.

So, there is the argument in favor of the plan from a point of view of Rational Self-interest. How high do you think your insurance rates would go if everyone getting LRA money instead sued their insurance companies and the oil companies who kept MRGO open and destroyed the marsh for all of their damages?

Beyond that, the plan is essentially compensation for a tort/act of negligence committed by the United States government. Katrina was more of a man made disaster than a natural disaster. The oil companies helped by destroying the natural barrier provided by the wetlands, but it was the failure of the Army Corps of Engineers to properly design and maintain the levee system that they proposed, designed and built that caused most of the Katrina Damage. If not for the preventable failure of those levees, my total damage would have been around$17,000 with only a little wind damage, instead, it was more like $100,000. I was fully insured so I get no LRA money, but I can understand based on the above why others think they deserve it and from a Rational Self-interest point of view, I can see why it is a good idea.

I suppose that is the reason for getting more money if you stay in NO, as opposed to just in state or leaving all together.
Things like that I understand. Especially the sueing part because as much as I hate to say it Americans would do it and probably will anyway even if they do get the money.

Objectivism, huh? Will have to look that up? Lots of ism's out there.

 

[TPS]

>>I know we have gobs of people affected by this and the last time I mentioned my opinion on this government buyout TPS and others jumped for insensitivity.

Did I? I may have gotten onto some point about it, but I don't remember that being a specific problem I had. Because it's like this - those of us with insurance are definitely penalized by the fact that we had it and played by the rules (thought gams, SharonT and others agreed with me on that point if I'm remembering the thread in question accurately). But so what if I would have ended up coming out ahead? No one can adequately compensate me for the year I lost my children. There's little worth that can be put on that. And though I got money for my contents, I can't replace the keepsakes I had accumulated in my 42 years. I thought the fairest way was for everyone to get "x" amount - rather than those who were uninsured or underinsured getting the benefit of the doubt. They might have changed my mind had they further agreed to refund my insurance premiums adjusted for cash value .

Realistically, I understand that some people never flooded, didn't see a need to be insured, couldn't afford it and such. But we lived by smoke and mirrors for a couple of years in order to afford a house in a neighborhood that we felt was appropriate for our children to grow up in. Because we did pay those premiums, we were able to pay off the house (had to use our contents coverage), but we can't get our lives back.

JMO

TPS

 

[jimwnola]

This has what to do with our education system. Did she personally teach every child in the state?



Can you expand on this?


I tend to think that I would rather slow things down a bit than see fraud rear it's ugly head. As far as I know and someone correct me if needed, the contract has already been given and no more will be paid out. I saw that the company performing does seem to be ahead of schedule.
Also I don't remember hearing that money would be "flowing" in August. I remember hearing it would start trickling in and really get going in first and second quarter of 2007.

I know we have gobs of people affected by this and the last time I mentioned my opinion on this government buyout TPS and others jumped for insensitivity.
What I do not understand is why folsk without insurance deserve a buyout. The plausible reason I can come up with is New orleans simply needs residents to survivve.

Right now what is far more damaging to the recovery is the insane rise in insurance rates.

It's easy to say that preventing fraud is more important than getting the money out when you are not directly effected. Also, I am not against all safeguards; they have just gone beyond what they should have done. St. Widge's answer pretty much covers the rest. The lack of recovery of New Orleans hurts the whole state, and the slow motion of the LRA is possibly causing permanent damage to the recovery, which also hurts the whole State.

This isn't like the FEMA credit card situation, where the idiots gave money to prisoners in Hawaii, etc. These are homeowners in areas that often quickly can be determined to have been destroyed. The money is given in phases regardless. The LRA will have years to audit the applications, prosecute, place liens on property and stop further payments. They didn't need to do it this way.

The Corps of Engineers have admitted to negligence. Virtually no one disputes now that my area, Lakeview, was destroyed by their negligence on the 17th street canal. They are immune from any lawsuit. If not immune, I would be able to sue them and collect far more than what might be offered. My own insurance money wouldn't have even been considered in damages for a lawsuit, and they would have to pay full anount of loss regardless of my insurance. Now, they are pains-takingly doing everything to make sure whatever they offer is as little as possible.

Lastly, they passed the money and said they would do this program. If they didn't do that, I would have planned around that. If you say you are going to do something to help, and make the rest of the country think that they passed money to help, then you actually do have to help.

 

[jimwnola]

After 911, as they doled out all the cash, I don't recall them subpoeing all the life insurance records of the widows to make sure they subtracted those amounts.

 

[Crusader]

Gov. Blankstare is a pathetic politician whose inaction after the storm resulted in lost lives. How could anyone possibly have anything kind to say about her on any subject whatsoever??

 

[SaintsFanJeff]

Im sick of Gov Coach!!! Go Bobby!

 

[mrFuggles]

To answer this question, I suggest that you read up on the philosophy of Objectivism. More specifically, read some Ayn Rand. Basically what it comes down to is that from a selfish point of view, I might not like giving people money who failed to get enough insurance (I know some could not get enough insurance), but it will actually be a benefit to me if we do give them money.

Why? Because if New Orleans goes under so will the rest of this state. I work downtown so it has more of a direct consequence for me, but even Gonzales would fall on some very hard times if New Orleans failed. You are right that New Orleans needs residents to survive, but don't for get that the state needs New Orleans in order for it to survive. And America needs the gas and chemcials produced in LA and shipped up the MS River for it to survive.

So, there is the argument in favor of the plan from a point of view of Rational Self-interest. How high do you think your insurance rates would go if everyone getting LRA money instead sued their insurance companies and the oil companies who kept MRGO open and destroyed the marsh for all of their damages?

Beyond that, the plan is essentially compensation for a tort/act of negligence committed by the United States government. Katrina was more of a man made disaster than a natural disaster. The oil companies helped by destroying the natural barrier provided by the wetlands, but it was the failure of the Army Corps of Engineers to properly design and maintain the levee system that they proposed, designed and built that caused most of the Katrina Damage. If not for the preventable failure of those levees, my total damage would have been around$17,000 with only a little wind damage, instead, it was more like $100,000. I was fully insured so I get no LRA money, but I can understand based on the above why others think they deserve it and from a Rational Self-interest point of view, I can see why it is a good idea.

Seems to me you are talking Utilitarianism, ie greatest benefit for the greatest amount of people. Maybe you should read some Bentham or Singer. Ayn Rand is such a joke.

 

[St. Widge]

Seems to me you are talking Utilitarianism, ie greatest benefit for the greatest amount of people. Maybe you should read some Bentham or Singer. Ayn Rand is such a joke.

Raynd is not a joke and I have read J.S. Mill, Bentham, Singer, etc. It is not Utilitarianism that I am talking about. The idea is not greatest good for the greatest number. The idea is that in order to motivate naturally self-interested beings to act in a moral way, morality must be designed around benefiting them. People need to realize that when they are acting in their own self-interest, they must act rationally. In the Katrina example, I might want to say that everyone should have bought insurance just like me and that I don't want my tax dollars bailing them out when they should have bought insurance, but because I work in New Orleans, my job depends on New Orleans, the State of Louisiana depends on New Orleans and the United States depends on New Orleans, if I think rationally, I realize that it is in my self-interest for money to go to people through the LRA. The focus is not on the greatest good for the greatest number, the focus is on what rationally benefits me.

I would agree that Raynd was not the best "philosopher", partly because what she wrote was never intended to be a philosophy, however, I find her work inspiring and I think it makes a lot of sense. In addition, she was a remarkable woman.

 

[St. Widge]

>>I thought the fairest way was for everyone to get "x" amount - rather than those who were uninsured or underinsured getting the benefit of the doubt. They might have changed my mind had they further agreed to refund my insurance premiums adjusted for cash value .

I agree. I get a little tired at times of people complaining about the amount of money they get and how fast it comes. I can't help but wonder why I didn't get back all the insurance premiums I paid. I know the LRA is for the best and that it will benefit me indirectly in the long run, but I have to admit I get a little bitter about it at times.

 

[mrFuggles]

Raynd is not a joke and I have read J.S. Mill, Bentham, Singer, etc. It is not Utilitarianism that I am talking about. The idea is not greatest good for the greatest number. The idea is that in order to motivate naturally self-interested beings to act in a moral way, morality must be designed around benefiting them. People need to realize that when they are acting in their own self-interest, they must act rationally. In the Katrina example, I might want to say that everyone should have bought insurance just like me and that I don't want my tax dollars bailing them out when they should have bought insurance, but because I work in New Orleans, my job depends on New Orleans, the State of Louisiana depends on New Orleans and the United States depends on New Orleans, if I think rationally, I realize that it is in my self-interest for money to go to people through the LRA. The focus is not on the greatest good for the greatest number, the focus is on what rationally benefits me.

I would agree that Raynd was not the best "philosopher", partly because what she wrote was never intended to be a philosophy, however, I find her work inspiring and I think it makes a lot of sense. In addition, she was a remarkable woman.

Got you, but note that you will end up benefiting because others get the maximum benefit that society will give them. Rand is very appealing to a lot of people, I think her books sell very well even now, I guess I just personally disagree with her "philosophy" although I think Singer is also a too extreme in his views involving infanticide and handicapped people.