Obama's FEMA versus Bush's FEMA

[classy]

Katrina was a much different animal. I think to compare Sandy and Katrina in a way to judge each individual administration would be in error.

 

[Don Vito Corleone]

Actually, it appears that Katrina was much worst than this storm. Right now the estimates are approximately 50 lives lost with $10 to $20 Billion of property damage.

Katrina has a confirmed death toll of 1,836 lives and $81.2 billion of property damage.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hurricane_Katrina

As I said, I believe the death toll from Sandy would have been worse than Katrina, had it been handled in the same slipshod way. Instead, the local, state and federal authorities were well prepared for Sandy and appropriate evacuations were done promptly and thoroughly. That was my whole point.

Based on the images I have seen from NYC I firmly expect the property damage from Sandy to be much greater than $10-20B, but I would be pleased (well, as pleased as one can be under the circumstances) if that estimate proves accurate.

 

[classy]

As I said, I believe the death toll from Sandy would have been worse than Katrina, had it been handled in the same slipshod way. Instead, the local, state and federal authorities were well prepared for Sandy and appropriate evacuations were done promptly and thoroughly. That was my whole point.

Based on the images I have seen from NYC I firmly expect the property damage from Sandy to be much greater than $10-20B, but I would be pleased (well, as pleased as one can be under the circumstances) if that estimate proves accurate.

I don't disagree, but we learned a lot AFTER Katrina. So while the Obama admin should be praised for its execution of plans, clearly looking at the mistakes of Katrina gave some much added insight to a better diaster preparedness blueprint.

 

[werepossum]

Katrina was a much different animal. I think to compare Sandy and Katrina in a way to judge each individual administration would be in error.

We'll never know, but a Fugate-level FEMA leader might have been able to bitch-slap Blanco out of the way early on, if nothing else by shaming her in the media. A Brown-type FEMA leader can do nothing more than flit about admiring himself in his emergency duds, for he has no clue what needs to be done and neither skills nor credibility to convince anyone even if he mustered the sense to listen to those who do know what needs to be done. Clearly Bush parked him at FEMA thinking he could do no harm, and he didn't - but he couldn't help either. Leadership positions should be about more than political patronage, with the bureaucracy carrying on without them.

 

[emperus]

I don't disagree, but we learned a lot AFTER Katrina. So while the Obama admin should be praised for its execution of plans, clearly looking at the mistakes of Katrina gave some much added insight to a better diaster preparedness blueprint.

You're making it seem like there has never been a disaster before Katrina. Why couldn't it have been that Bush and Brownie were just simply incompetent. Again, look at Brownie's resume. Why was he even in the position to be managing that disaster. That was on Bush.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

It's a bit funny that some thought the reps would use Sandy to attack Obama but it seems that Sandy is being used to attack a President not even in office. I wondered if this would happen.

 

[Fern]

-snip-
That being said, the sheer magnitude of the present storm, and the property damage that it will likely cause, are if anything far greater than Katrina.

No, I must disagree.

By now everyone should know that it is the storm surge that causes the real damage and loss of life.

Sandy storm surge was about 11-13 ft by most accounts I've seen. Katrina's was much much larger:

In the United States, one of the greatest recorded storm surges was generated by 2005's Hurricane Katrina, which produced a maximum storm surge of more than 25 ft (8 meters) in the communities of Waveland (41.5 feet), Bay St. Louis (38 feet), Diamondhead (30 feet) and Pass Christian (35 feet) in Mississippi.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Storm_surge

Clearly the local and state officials did a far better job than those buffoons in NOLA and the people in NE responded much better than many in NOLA, but these storms cannot be reasonably compared.

Had the NY/NJ etc coast suffered a storm surge like that of Katrina things would be looking much different now.

Fern

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

No, I must disagree.

By now everyone should know that it is the storm surge that causes the real damage and loss of life.

Sandy storm surge was about 11-13 ft by most accounts I've seen. Katrina's was much much larger:



Clearly the local and state officials did a far better job than those buffoons in NOLA and the people in NE responded much better than many in NOLA, but these storms cannot be reasonably compared.

Had the NY NJ etc coast suffered a storm surge like that of Katrina things would be looking much different now.

Fern

It's even simpler than that. For practicle purposes New Orleans was erased. It took years just to get people back into homes. Which east coast city was wiped off the map? There is no comparison.

 

[DucatiMonster696]

You're making it seem like there has never been a disaster before Katrina. Why couldn't it have been that Bush and Brownie were just simply incompetent. Again, look at Brownie's resume. Why was he even in the position to be managing that disaster. That was on Bush.

Katrina was a systematic series of failures and circumstances which compounded on upon each other and these issues were not just found at one level of government. These issues were found at all levels from the local level, state level and yes the federal level.

To say that the resulting mess which occurred due to hurricane Katrina is all due to one factor is to ignore all other evidence and lessons taught by the event known as Katrina. Of course I know you have a political axe to grind so this point will go through one ear and out the other.

 

[davmat787]

As I said, I believe the death toll from Sandy would have been worse than Katrina, had it been handled in the same slipshod way. Instead, the local, state and federal authorities were well prepared for Sandy and appropriate evacuations were done promptly and thoroughly. That was my whole point.

Are you factoring in the heat and other weather conditions during Katrina? I don't think that can be underestimated. Also, whether it is fair or not, a natural disaster in the NYC area will automatically receive a better and quicker response than one on the Gulf Coast.

Whatever the case, it does seem like the death toll for Sandy could have been much higher. Glad those folks don't have to deal with 95 degree weather and 80% humidity in addition to everything else.

 

[Darwin333]

No, I must disagree.

By now everyone should know that it is the storm surge that causes the real damage and loss of life.

Sandy storm surge was about 11-13 ft by most accounts I've seen. Katrina's was much much larger:



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Storm_surge

Clearly the local and state officials did a far better job than those buffoons in NOLA and the people in NE responded much better than many in NOLA, but these storms cannot be reasonably compared.

Had the NY/NJ etc coast suffered a storm surge like that of Katrina things would be looking much different now.

Fern

Oh come on Fern, everyone knows that the Category 1 Hurricane Sandy, with max winds of 75mph, is directly comparable with the Category 5 Hurricane Katrina, with max winds a full hundred miles per hour more, more than double that of Sandy) and Category 3 Hurricane Katrina on its second landfall. Hell, it had 120mph winds on its 3rd landfall, but yeah, umm, Sandy is at least as bad or something.

And you are right, the surge is a huge factor and one of the broken aspects of the current saffir-simpson scale but to say that these storms are even in the same ballpark, hell even playing the same game is amusing.

 

[davmat787]

Katrina was a systematic series of failures and circumstances which compounded on upon each other and these issues were not just found at one level of government. These issues were found at all levels from the local level, state level and yes the federal level.

To say that the resulting mess which occurred due to Hurricane Katrina is all due to one factor is to ignore all other evidence and lessons taught by event known as Katrina. Of course I know you have a political axe to grind so this point will go through one ear and out the other.

I could have sworn there was a thread recently that basically asked how long it will take for righties to blame Sandy on Obama for partisan reasons. Yet, we see many of the posters in that thread using Sandy for partisan sniping at the Bush administration. This seems hypocritical to me, but that is par for the course.

No one can deny the failures that occurred in the Katrina aftermath, but to pretend it is all on Bush is ignoring history.

 

[Nemesis 1]

When you come up with similar disaters . Get back to us on Femas performance . These 2 disasters are worlds differant . Look at videos of joplin tornado . What good did fema do there .. What good was the presidents visit .. Give people the goody goody feeling. Grow up . This thing was wide spread . Alot easier areas to cover. than the mississippi delta . Way to play politics at the cost of human suffering Godless prick

 

[Tylanner]

The OP is trying to disseminate a "lessons learned" from Katrina. Chiefly an organizational weakness identified as having a poorly qualified person in authority.

People attacking the OP are stating "lessons learned" from Katrina are the reasons why contemporary disasters are handled more efficiently, with the right amount of urgency.

What is the point of this particular post?

A thread about this pitfall during Katrina response is certainly one that is biased towards an obama supporter's views but I think the issue can be analyzed with a bit more comity.

The issue is, are we willing to accept the risk of reducing the role of FEMA? Dems would argue that everything possible should be done to prevent the loss of lives and support those in need. Reps tend to fall in the camp that says the particular states/county local officials are best suited and equiped to prepare/respond. You cannot argue the fact that the Rep view is inherently more risky but it will most likely lead to cost savings in general (except for those affected).

 

[davmat787]

It's a bit funny that some thought the reps would use Sandy to attack Obama but it seems that Sandy is being used to attack a President not even in office. I wondered if this would happen.

Yep, I commented the same thing earlier. Sad, isn't it?

 

[silverpig]

It's even simpler than that. For practicle purposes New Orleans was erased. It took years just to get people back into homes. Which east coast city was wiped off the map? There is no comparison.

Ogdenville, Brockway, and North Haverbrook.

 

[Agent11]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...-New-Jersey-victims.html?ICO=most_read_module

If there were more people in these areas when it hit I think the death toll would have been higher.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Ogdenville, Brockway, and North Haverbrook.

I hope Marge is OK.

 

[Darwin333]

A thread about this pitfall during Katrina response is certainly one that is biased towards an obama supporter's views but I think the issue can be analyzed with a bit more comity.

The issue is, are we willing to accept the risk of reducing the role of FEMA? Dems would argue that everything possible should be done to prevent the loss of lives and support those in need. Reps tend to fall in the camp that says the particular states/county local officials are best suited and equiped to prepare/respond. You cannot argue the fact that the Rep view is inherently more risky but it will most likely lead to cost savings in general (except for those affected).

Even most "righties" I know think that this is one of the things that the Federal Government SHOULD do. Huge natural disasters are just to much for State and Local governments to handle on their own. The Feds have much more and better resources that they can bring to bear much faster. Especially when you consider that a significant portion of the afflicted states resources and command and control are more than likely in a reduced capacity. There are a few really conservative people that think the Feds shouldn't do anything but field an absurdly huge military for "National Defense" (which is bullshit, we need a military like that for offense) but, for some reason, don't see defending the nation from a natural disaster as at least as important.

Take wildfires for instance, we hear about these huge wildfires every year and the states trying to fight them. I have never understood why the Federal Government doesn't have a fleet of a few dozen huge fire fighting tankers and helicopters that they can use to help the states. It is in the entire nations best interests for events like that to be over as quickly as possible.

 

[Auric]

Which what exactly what was needed at the time and what was vitally necessary before any sort of real rescue or relief action could get seriously underway.

Supplies and transportation are required ahead of time. The military is most able at that. Enforcement is not necessarily necessary given order is not allowed to break down due to poor organization in the first place. Armed forces are commonly used around the world to maintain order while explicitly avoiding enforcement.

 

[marincounty]

It's a bit funny that some thought the reps would use Sandy to attack Obama but it seems that Sandy is being used to attack a President not even in office. I wondered if this would happen.

Bush screwed up so many things that we still need to fix it's understandable his name would be brought up. What's remarkable is Republicans pretending he never existed and keeping him hidden during the election season.

 

[DucatiMonster696]

Bush screwed up so many things that we still need to fix it's understandable his name would be brought up. What's remarkable is Republicans pretending he never existed and keeping him hidden during the election season.

I think the fact that you guys keep obsessing over Bush is what is most interesting because him taken out the discussions your political agendas fall flat.

 

[Tylanner]

Even most "righties" I know think that this is one of the things that the Federal Government SHOULD do. Huge natural disasters are just to much for State and Local governments to handle on their own. The Feds have much more and better resources that they can bring to bear much faster. Especially when you consider that a significant portion of the afflicted states resources and command and control are more than likely in a reduced capacity. There are a few really conservative people that think the Feds shouldn't do anything but field an absurdly huge military for "National Defense" (which is bullshit, we need a military like that for offense) but, for some reason, don't see defending the nation from a natural disaster as at least as important.

Take wildfires for instance, we hear about these huge wildfires every year and the states trying to fight them. I have never understood why the Federal Government doesn't have a fleet of a few dozen huge fire fighting tankers and helicopters that they can use to help the states. It is in the entire nations best interests for events like that to be over as quickly as possible.

I'm with you on all points. And I should have clarified that Romney is the one who advocates the state and local, not neccesarily Republicans in general.

“I believe that FEMA plays a key role in working with states and localities to prepare for and respond to natural disasters,” Romney said in the statement. “As president, I will ensure FEMA has the funding it needs to fulfill its mission, while directing maximum resources to the first responders who work tirelessly to help those in need, because states and localities are in the best position to get aid to the individuals and communities affected by natural disasters."

 

[sportage]

I noticed not one storm victim has been shot by police in Obama's FEMA, as was the case with the GW FEMA.

Just imaging the public outrage and mad violent people taking to the streets under an Romney FEMA, as FEMA had been turned over to the states and private sector. And the states fought with the private sector to see who and when, say, Bain Capital would step up and take charge to help n save people?

And you have to then ask... When would a Bain Capital find it profitable to get involved in the recovery?

People may have issues with Obama, but before you decide on Mittens as the answer, just remember... It "could" be worse.
Much worse....

 

[sportage]

I noticed not one storm victim has been shot by police in Obama's FEMA, as was the case with the GW FEMA.

Just imaging the public outrage and mad violent people taking to the streets under an Romney FEMA, as FEMA had been turned over to the states and private sector. And the states fought with the private sector to see who and when, say, Bain Capital would step up and take charge to help n save people?

And you have to then ask... When would a Bain Capital find it profitable to get involved in the recovery?

People may have issues with Obama, but before you decide on Mittens as the answer, just remember... It "could" be worse.
Much worse....