Katrina victims sue US for $3 quadrillion dollars

[Conan]

They already got more than enough aid/money from the federal government.

[Ebowed]

They already got more than enough aid/money from the federal government.

Wow!  Now your position on immigration makes sense.

The ultimate corporate Democrat- the little guy is what matters least.

[Ban my account ffs!]

Nobody is in a position to say "well, they shouldn't have lived there."  Most people cannot just pack up and move.  If you can't understand that, then you're not ready to debate this.

Most of the city was built above sea level.  Much of it has sunk several feet and sits at or below sea level now because the soil is very loose, having been laid down by periodic floods from the river.  Over time, that sediment settles, and since the river can no longer flood, it doesn't get replaced, so the city sinks.

It is possible, as it is in Holland, to build below sea level and protect yourself from floods.  This was clearly a case of neglect by the federal government, who took on the task of protecting the city from flood waters, as they built the levees to handle only a moderately strong hurricane.

Now that it has happened, it would be prudent to relocate, using federal funds, to higher ground and turning the lowest levels of the city back into natural marsh land that would act like a sponge in another case of flooding.

The neglect at the local, state, and federal level has been disgusting, at best.  There is not one person here who wouldn't be knocking at the government's door if a similar thing happened to them, whether that be "the big one" that strikes somewhere on the western North American coast, a hurricane that slams the Carolinas, or floods and tornadoes in the midwest.

The government should spend the $billions necessary to rebuild the city right. 

And it is a good argument to say that if we can use the money to invade, occupy, and rebuild a different country, then we can certainly do it to one of our own cities.

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

Nobody is in a position to say "well, they shouldn't have lived there."  Most people cannot just pack up and move.  If you can't understand that, then you're not ready to debate this.

Most of the city was built above sea level.  Much of it has sunk several feet and sits at or below sea level now because the soil is very loose, having been laid down by periodic floods from the river.  Over time, that sediment settles, and since the river can no longer flood, it doesn't get replaced, so the city sinks.

It is possible, as it is in Holland, to build below sea level and protect yourself from floods.  This was clearly a case of neglect by the federal government, who took on the task of protecting the city from flood waters, as they built the levees to handle only a moderately strong hurricane.

Now that it has happened, it would be prudent to relocate, using federal funds, to higher ground and turning the lowest levels of the city back into natural marsh land that would act like a sponge in another case of flooding.

The neglect at the local, state, and federal level has been disgusting, at best.  There is not one person here who wouldn't be knocking at the government's door if a similar thing happened to them, whether that be "the big one" that strikes somewhere on the western North American coast, a hurricane that slams the Carolinas, or floods and tornadoes in the midwest.

The government should spend the $billions necessary to rebuild the city right. 

And it is a good argument to say that if we can use the money to invade, occupy, and rebuild a different country, then we can certainly do it to one of our own cities.

Holland doesn't get storms like the Gulf though.

[Ban my account ffs!]

No, but Holland gets storms of slightly less intensity (say, a cat. 2 storm) on a much more frequent basis.  And I didn't advocate building everything below sea level, but we can't just pick up the entire city and move it.  The lowest portions can be relocated and those areas can be turned into natural marsh land.

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

No, but Holland gets storms of slightly less intensity (say, a cat. 2 storm) on a much more frequent basis.  And I didn't advocate building everything below sea level, but we can't just pick up the entire city and move it.  The lowest portions can be relocated and those areas can be turned into natural marsh land.

What cat. 2 storms have hit Holland?  I only see 3 that came kinda close.

[Ebowed]

Nobody is in a position to say "well, they shouldn't have lived there."  Most people cannot just pack up and move.  If you can't understand that, then you're not ready to debate this.

Rightwingers tell D.C. residents to move if they want representation in Congress.  Weird, huh?

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

Nobody is in a position to say "well, they shouldn't have lived there."  Most people cannot just pack up and move.  If you can't understand that, then you're not ready to debate this.

Rightwingers tell D.C. residents to move if they want representation in Congress.  Weird, huh?

D.C. should have representation.

[Ban my account ffs!]

No, but Holland gets storms of slightly less intensity (say, a cat. 2 storm) on a much more frequent basis.  And I didn't advocate building everything below sea level, but we can't just pick up the entire city and move it.  The lowest portions can be relocated and those areas can be turned into natural marsh land.

What cat. 2 storms have hit Holland?  I only see 3 that came kinda close.

That's not the point.  We have the technology and the wherewithal to build levees to withstand even a category 5 storm.

What cannot do is to sit around and bitch about it and tell them not to rebuild there and offer them no help at all at building at an alternative site.  It was the federal government's responsibility to keep the city from flooding (as the federal government has said).  They failed and now they need to pay to rebuild the city either at an alternative site or with superior flood protection.

The question is not whether or not, but how.

And when it comes down to it, the levees in Holland experience many more storms than Louisiana, even if they aren't as strong.  We should take a few pointers from people that have been doing this for centuries rather than sitting on our asses and whining about the bill (and all the while supporting the squandering of $trillions in other countries for other peoples' citizens)

[Stranger in a strange land]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22571349/?GT1=10755

 Hurricane Katrina's victims have put a price tag on their suffering and it is staggering — including one plaintiff seeking the unlikely sum of $3 quadrillion.

Does that much money even exist?

[Gabu]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22571349/?GT1=10755

 Hurricane Katrina's victims have put a price tag on their suffering and it is staggering — including one plaintiff seeking the unlikely sum of $3 quadrillion.

Does that much money even exist?

The gross world product is $48 trillion, so... no.  It's two orders of magnitude above the entire money supply in the entire world.

[Josh/Devilman88]

Well the stupid people shouldn't have lived somewhere that is below sea level.

[© tweed]

Well the stupid people shouldn't have lived somewhere that is below sea level.

a joke?

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

No, but Holland gets storms of slightly less intensity (say, a cat. 2 storm) on a much more frequent basis.  And I didn't advocate building everything below sea level, but we can't just pick up the entire city and move it.  The lowest portions can be relocated and those areas can be turned into natural marsh land.

What cat. 2 storms have hit Holland?  I only see 3 that came kinda close.

That's not the point.  We have the technology and the wherewithal to build levees to withstand even a category 5 storm.

What cannot do is to sit around and bitch about it and tell them not to rebuild there and offer them no help at all at building at an alternative site.  It was the federal government's responsibility to keep the city from flooding (as the federal government has said).  They failed and now they need to pay to rebuild the city either at an alternative site or with superior flood protection.

The question is not whether or not, but how.

And when it comes down to it, the levees in Holland experience many more storms than Louisiana, even if they aren't as strong.  We should take a few pointers from people that have been doing this for centuries rather than sitting on our asses and whining about the bill (and all the while supporting the squandering of $trillions in other countries for other peoples' citizens)

So you try to b.s. your way in fooling a weatherman and get caught and your response is "That's not the point" - the point is, no, we can't stop hurricanes and Holland never has.  In fact, they don't have such a great track record when it comes to floods.  Since New Orleans was formed, there have been 6 severe floods in the Netherlands.

[2952-0-0]

You're only in first year buddy, so you can hardly call yourself a "weatherman", let alone display such arrogance.

And off the top of my head, the last great flood to hit the Netherlands was in 1953. Since then, they have embarked on one of the greatest engineering projects ever, designed to keep out one-in-10,000 year storms (or one-in-100,000 year storms), and are expanding the system to deal with rising sea levels. Please don't use your knowledge to deceive others, while displaying such a condescending attitude.

[Left-Wing Blogger]

Move to Oklahoma. That way you can lose your home in a tornado instead.

[Brandon H]

So if we shouldn't live on the Gulf Coast, if we put our houses up for sale, whose going to buy them?

[Gabu]

Well the stupid people shouldn't have lived somewhere that is below sea level.

I have a feeling that the majority of people who lived in New Orleans prior to the flood were probably born there, and thus did not have any input on the matter.

[MODU]

Most people cannot just pack up and move. 

Unfortunately, that just is not correct.  It would be correct if you said "some people..."  Most people can move if they had the desire to do so.

[tik 🪀✨]

Judge throws out case against Katrina army corps
http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/0,,2249840,00.html

A judge has thrown out a class-action lawsuit against the US Army Corps of Engineers while castigating it for failing to protect New Orleans from flooding after Hurricane Katrina.

Federal judge Stanwood Duval ruled that the corps, which designed and built the levees and floodwalls meant to keep the below-sea-level city from being inundated, could not be sued because of a 60-year-old law.

The flood control act of 1928 makes the federal government immune from lawsuits over flood control projects. But Judge Duval harshly criticised the corps.

Duval said he was forced by law to hold the corps immune even though the agency "cast a blind eye" in protecting New Orleans and "squandered millions of dollars in building a levee system ... which was known to be inadequate by the corps' own calculations".

Duval added: "It is not within the court's power to address the wrongs committed. It is hopefully within the citizens of the United States' power to address the failures of our laws and agencies."

Katrina's storm surge breached canals bounded by levees and floodwalls in August 2005, flooding 80% of the city and killing as many as 1,600 people.

The lead plaintiffs' lawyer Joe Bruno said he would appeal the decision. "I know I'm fighting an uphill battle, but I'm not going to give up." ...