Scattered in a Storm's Wake and Caught in a Clash of Cultures




Limbaugh linked New Orleans humanitarian disaster to "the welfare and entitlement thinking of government"

How important was the "welfare mentality" of Hurricane Katrina victims in determining the severity of the disaster in New Orleans?

Is "Why didn't they just get out?" a fair question to ask?

Was the "self-reliant" spirit in comparatively short supply in New Orleans?

If so, why?

Is a less intrusive government more likely to handle disasters like Katrina better or worse?

How important was the "welfare mentality" of Hurricane Katrina victims in determining the severity of the disaster in New Orleans?

Since the official death toll is 964, the 10,000 deaths predicted by the authorities was obviously overblown. The severity of the disaster has little to do with the mentality of the victims. Someone who's not on welfare likely wouldn't care for having their home destroyed or blown away anymore than someone who is.

Is "Why didn't they just get out?" a fair question to ask?

Yes and no. I think assuming that ALL the welfare recipients in New Orleans were just lazy or passive is pretty silly. It's not that easy for people with no money, no cars of their own, and no destination, to evacuate. Maybe they had relatives thousands of miles away ... well, gas was 6 bucks a gallon during those days. Who was going to pay for that? It's my understanding that no transportation was provided for people who had none until far too late in the crisis.

Was the "self-reliant" spirit in comparatively short supply in New Orleans? If so, why?

I wouldn't say that. Some people were passive, yes, but others weren't. I don't think we can paint it with one brush or another.

Is a less intrusive government more likely to handle disasters like Katrina better or worse?

I don't think so. A less intrusive government would hold local authorities to an even lower standard of accountability for preparing the city, the parish, the state, whatever governing body, for such disasters.

1. It did, in my opinion, play some role. A lot of people were on or below the poverty level, relying on public transportation and welfare to make ends meet. These people are the most vulnerable persons in society and were struck extra hard when Katrina hit their city. These people have to rely on the government and the government failed on them. This is in my eyes unacceptable, no matter what your policical view is.



This is turning the world upside down. What he is saying the people are poor because the local government allowed welfare and entitlement. I am sorry, but everybody knows living on welfare, especially in the U.S, is not something people want. Welfare and entitlement came into being, not to stimulate poverty, but to fight it.

2. Is "Why didn't they just get out?" a fair question to ask? Of course, that was the first thing I asked myself. Why are there still people in New Orleans? The question is legitimate, but to use it to promote views like Rush Limbaugh's is wrong.

3. Apparently there were people that just couldn't get out. Self-reliancy apparently was low, but for a reason: poverty! As long as extreme poverty in the U.S. still exists there will always be people who just need governmental help. And as long as this is not properly solved, self-reliancy will stay low in certain social groups and regions.

4. A less intrusive government will not handle crises like natural disasters more effectively than a strong centralized government. I know there are people here on AD that argue that corporations can handle crisis better than local, regional or national government, but I do not agree with this view. Government has all the resources, doesn't have to think about profits and has already a lot of experience with calamities. That teh U.S. governmental response in Louisianna was too slow and in the beginning not effective, doesnt change my view', it shows that the policy should be reevaluated and improved.

How important was the "welfare mentality" of Hurricane Katrina victims in determining the severity of the disaster in New Orleans?

Is "Why didn't they just get out?" a fair question to ask?

Many people were truly destitute and stranded, given the lack of personal mobility and the absence of city provided transport, they just couldn't exit NOLA, save for walking out. Now I personally would have considered that option, but I'm fit and healthy, many were elderly, ill or caring for those that were.
But I also think that you can't discount the possibility that many people used to a lifestyle of dependence didn't take it upon themselves to leave, or stock up on essentials (like water), knowing that they live in a flood prone soupbowl. Many people don't think past the present day or the next episode of American Idol to plan or prepare for a disaster. And when one strikes, they expect the government to do absolutely everything to look after their needs.

Was the "self-reliant" spirit in comparatively short supply in New Orleans?

My opinion is that many urban dwellers lack a certain amount of self reliant spirit, not just in NOLA. That's probably an unfair stereotype, but having lived urban, suburban, rural and downright primitive........when faced with a lack of basic services, urbanites tend to have a greater difficulty, in my experience.


Is a less intrusive government more likely to handle disasters like Katrina better or worse?

Do you mean government in general or at the federal level? Clearly the rulebook that is adhered to by state and federal agencies and government failed many citizens. Given the generosity and effectiveness of Wal-Mart, Home Depot, Lowes and the casino's to employees and neighbors alike, there is certainly a case to be made for less intrusiveness and less hamstringing by government at least at the federal level, despite fervent bashing of privatization and deregulation by some.

How important was the "welfare mentality" of Hurricane Katrina victims in determining the severity of the disaster in New Orleans?

Considering that 5.4% of New Orleans households were on public assistance by 2000, down 63.4% from 1990, I'd say not very important at all. Rush Limbaugh has never been what anyone might consider a "well informed" commentator. Even before the reform act of 1996, a majority of people receiving public assistance had to work to make ends meet. That is even more true under TANF. The welfare queen, driving a Caddy and sittin' back chillin' on the government dole, has always been a myth, perpetuated by people with no clue what it's like to live at that level of poverty.

The fact that over 40% of the children in New Orleans were living at or below the poverty level in 2000 might lead us to conclude that poverty is a much larger factor than some mythical welfare "mentality."

( [URL=www.downstate.edu/.../Urban%20Center%20Website/ web%20design2/pdf%20files/report3pdfs/urbanreport3.pdf]source[/URL] )

Is "Why didn't they just get out?" a fair question to ask?

No, but it's an easy question for those of us far away watching it all on FOX News. It's also a question remeniscent of the ignorant questions so many people have about people in poverty - why don't they just get jobs? Why don't they just go to college? Why don't they just eat cake?

Was the "self-reliant" spirit in comparatively short supply in New Orleans?

I haven't seen any evidence that this is the case. It was likely in short supply among the old and ill, though.

Is a less intrusive government more likely to handle disasters like Katrina better or worse?

Well, I disagree with the premise (I'm not implying this is Turnea's permise) that a government of, by, and for the people, being involved in their welfare and protection, is "intrusive."

How important was the "welfare mentality" of Hurricane Katrina victims in determining the severity of the disaster in New Orleans?

I do indeed believe that it played an important role in the socio-economic situation present in NO at the time. There is of course the possibility that many people were waiting for a government bus to roll up in front of their house. It is also possible that many people did not want to leave. But make no mistake... i don't think that the "welfare-mentality" is the sole cause. For if an upper class person is faced with disaster in a situation where their money is rendered useless...you would see that person behave most likely in the same manner.

Welfare in this country needs reform and constant attention. As Reagan once said, the purpose of the program is to in affect eliminate it's need. I think that 'welfare-mentality' is prevalent in our society but it can only be solved by our politicians in Washington, who must stop making wild promises and assertions about what the welfare system is supposed to be.

Is "Why didn't they just get out?" a fair question to ask?

As i said, for some, maybe most, it is a fair question. But there were a lot of people who were ill, elderly, and unable to obtain gasoline for the travel.

Was the "self-reliant" spirit in comparatively short supply in New Orleans?

If you got your news from ourmedia, one would likely say no. Our sensational media highlighted ever negative story of the disaster and it turns out even inflated a few relatively minor stories. This is where the country's perception of the truth is hindered. Its very similar to the media coverage of Iraq. There are plenty of good news stories about Katrina...people taking strangers into their homes and such that go unreported. As the poet Pindar wrote: “Unsung, the noblest deed will die.”

Is a less intrusive government more likely to handle disasters like Katrina better or worse?

LOL i am not so sure the government was intrusive at all in the Katrina disaster. There has to be a balance. The government has the resources and the imperative to take charge in that situation whether it be federal, state or local. But they need the help of the private sector because that is what is going to help rebuild and carry the burden of development.

How important was the "welfare mentality" of Hurricane Katrina victims in determining the severity of the disaster in New Orleans?
I don't think it was much of a factor.

Is "Why didn't they just get out?" a fair question to ask?
For the non-mentally impaired and healthy, the answer is H-E double toothpicks, YES. Ask the Bosnians who escaped extermination by carrying children in their arms over mountains, on foot. The bottom line is, I think most of the people who stayed simply didn't believe this would be "the big one". It never happened before, and New Orleans is a very old city by US standards. The native New Orleans citizens knew that the levees were set to fail if a large natural disaster struck. They had been warned to evacuate many times in previous years and nothing happened, except they boarded up their homes and were robbed blind while they were gone. Eventually many weighed the potential cost to gains, stayed and rolled the bones. I've seen the same mentality in Florida, where I resided (near the coast) for 21 years.

Was the "self-reliant" spirit in comparatively short supply in New Orleans?
The only person I know very well who is a New Orleans native can hit a squirrel in the head with a rock from about 20 yards away, skin it and cook it for dinner. He went through survival training and actually enjoyed himself. I think he taught the instructor a few things. IMO, New Orlean citizens are likely as self-reliant as anyone else (if not more so).

Is a less intrusive government more likely to handle disasters like Katrina better or worse?
I think it's better to not rely on the government to handle almost anything, but it is the government's job to protect its citizens. I'd like to see them handle it better the next time. I also hope that this will be a message to all that you cannot actually rely on the government to save you in the event of a natural disaster.

Elderly and ailing citizens are part of every city in the United States. They'll be found in Seattle, Dallas, NYC, and of course New Orleans. That argument is futile in that their self-reliance is a moot point. Of course Grandma in the wheel chair who wasn't capable of showering cannot get out of the city.

However, due to the city's history of exaggerating the impending doom of hurricanes, many citizens chose not to leave. Why else did you see numerous able bodied citizens being airlifted?

I love your Fox News reference, but the rhetoric is debatable. The thing is that no one saw a line of people walking up I-10 because there wasn't one. Many nations whom have experienced refugee situations have seen people leave on-foot, in which case I'm sure would've prompted further action from the National Guard and/or Federal Government. Can you imagine what it would've looked like if 15,000 people were walking down the interstate, and no one helped?

The use of "why don't they get jobs/cake?" statement doesn't negate the point that there were plenty of pictures of flooded cars and busses. There were local bus companies that didn't help, plenty of half-filled cars, and many people whom owned automobiles that just didn't leave. Is that the federal government's fault? Were all of the automobiles broken down? How many broken-down cars can there be in one city?!?!?!?

As of 2003, New Orleans was # 17 in reference to Poverty levels in the US (according to the census bureau). http://www.census.gov/acs/www/Products/Ran...003/R01T160.htm
What does this mean?

Well, I believe that you'll find that something we haven't discussed is that the history of hurricanes in the city left many feeling as if the city was over-reacting. Ivan, for instance, came just the year prior with far less impact. This left many feeling as if they could "weather the storm", so to speak. Many people with money for gas, cars, and time didn't leave because they thought their families would make it through. Many figured that the government should provide for them (consider the masses at the Superdome).

Self-reliant? It wasn't like you saw 500 families on news broadcasts prior to the storm asking for help out of the city. What you did see was people lined up at the Superdome at the last minute without the required supplies....why? ... Because they knew they'd be taken care of.

I believe that if President was bright and strong enough to, he should've stated the obvious. He should've said that he knows that the gov't could've acted faster, but the most capable and plentiful resources were sitting in Louisiana, within the city and about an hour away from New Orleans. Baton Rouge and Lafayette Louisiana, home to multiple national guard units, bus companies, school districts, etc are only about 75 and 125 miles away respectively. This means that the citizens and the state government could've mobilized far faster and more efficiently than any federal aid could've ever arrived. Where was the mayor w/ school busses and private bus companies? Were their transportation hotlines? I'll help with the answer... of course not.

How important was the "welfare mentality" of Hurricane Katrina victims in determining the severity of the disaster in New Orleans?

I think Mrs P hit the nail on the head with her “this isn’t the big one” analysis. Less than two weeks later you had folks riding out the storm in the Carolinas. But humans are not beyond conditioning and when you have everything given to you why would you expect the government to stop short in helping you evacuate.

Is "Why didn't they just get out?" a fair question to ask?

Disclaimer: the following comments do not apply to the elderly and handicapped.

If you’re asking “why didn’t they just get out of New Orleans”, that may be a fair question. It would depend on how many who stayed back were aware of the governments plan to use busses to evacuate those that had no transportation.

If you’re asking “why didn’t they just get out of poverty” to a second generation of welfare recipients, that’s a very fair question. Months ago I was at home recuperating from an operation and became a fan of the Larry Elder show. When someone came on who was living in poverty, on welfare, what ever the circumstances, he would ask a very simple but important question: “What did you do yesterday to better your life, what about the day before, the week before or the month before?”. Hopefully everyone who was caught up in the horrible aftermath will ask themselves that very question and take action to avoid being caught in a similar situation.

I’m all for helping those who try to help themselves, but it’s a two way street in my book.

Was the "self-reliant" spirit in comparatively short supply in New Orleans?

I’m not sure how self reliant anyone could have been since there was no clean water, no electricity and no food. Last I looked New Orleans isn’t at the top of the list for “game hunting” and not know for it’s abundance of fresh water springs. But I do recall a clip of what appeared to be a healthy woman outside her home saying “I want somebody to bring me water, I want somebody to bring me food, I want somebody to bring me dry clothes”. Obviously missing the self sufficiency part of the equation.

But I think it underscores the mentality of having everything given to you: you lose or never gain your ability to “work”, not necessarily employed, but work for what you need. You can’t expect self sufficiency when the only “work” people have done is applying for handouts. It’s a skill set that must learned and constantly honed. I’ve seen the converse of this with trust fund friends who literally had everything given to them, never had to lift a finger and when you get them out of their nest they panic.

But, flash ahead into bayou country after Rita hit, I saw a clip on CNN of an interview with a “true Cajun” and he basically said (in his thick accent) “We don’t need no stinking FEMA. Our ancestors were exiled over 200 years ago to the most rotten piece of property in the country. We’ve taken care of ourselves since then and will continue to do so.”

You go Beaudreux. How do you like your nutra rat cooked?

Is a less intrusive government more likely to handle disasters like Katrina better or worse?

A slightly different but related thread covered this ground. But to address the slight difference, a plan to handle a disaster like Katrina requires exact planning. And like most major plans the success often comes down to a lot of details. I don’t know how you can capture every detail and propose an effective plan without being intrusive.

It wasn't really. The people in New Orleans weren't standing there with there arms raised up, waiting for Mommy Government to pick them up. Most of the people who stayed there had no choice. Some didn't have a car, some didn't have gas in there car and couldn't pay for it, and some didn't even have a HOUSE. Where the "welfare mentality" was VERY apparent was in the mayor's office in New Orleans and the Governor's Mansion in Baton Rouge. Those were the people who didn't get those who couldn't get out, out. Until recently, a fleet of school buses was under water in New Orleans that the Mayor could have used to get those poor people out. It seems to me that the government in NO needed a lesson in Federalism, as did the Governor. So, no, the welfare mentality was not apparent in the citizens of New Orleans, just in their Mayor and Governor's office.


No. It would be very similar to asking Rush, "Why didn't you just stop taking pain-killers?" If these people had no means of getting out, what did you expect them to do...walk? If you're talking about people who COULD get out, then yes, it's a legit question, and in my oh so humble opinion, if you could have gotten out of N'awlins and didn't, you're either: psychotic, stupid or suicidal.

What did we see people do after their houses were destroyed and their supplies washed away? We saw them swim through toxic water to get downtown and get themselves some food and water...What could possibly be more "self-reliant" than that?

That depends, at the federal or state or local level? Obviously, one would want more involved state and local government, but if we're talking federally, then no, not necessarily. After all, the bureaucracies like FEMA who came in were certainly not much of a help.

CP