|
xx: New orleans was a major source for taxation xx: But the state couldn't afford to improve the levees? b: the funding for that was cut by the Bush administration xx: A lot of the netherlands rests under sea level b: the Army of Corps Engineers got a $71 million cut in funding for the levee system xx: Look, for years people have been saying they need to improve the levees xx: Just because bush cut it b: yes, and the Clinton Administration earmarked funds for the levee system xx: There's been years to improve it beforehhand b: which was cut by the Bush administration xx: Well, did the state USE the money set aside to improve the levees? b: What money set aside? xx: Or did they divert it to other projects? b: I don't know, but I do know that funding for it was cut by the Bush administration xx: You said the clinton administration earmarked funds for the levee system b: yes, it was xx: It should have been done years ago b: those funds were cut by the Bush administration xx: It's not bush's fault b: Yes it is xx: It's the state of louisiana's b: He's cut funding for wetland protection around New Orleans brapolitics: That's why it was made much more vulnerable to flooding xx: Look xx: The levees were built to withstand a category 3 xx: Katrina wavered from 4 to 5, fron 5 to 4 xx: Louisiana had plenty of time to demand the strengthening of the levees
Was it the state's responsibility to strengthen the levee system? That's what my friend, b, says. Is there any evidence to the contrary?
|