Sure, the levy issue was a big part of this, and those can be built to be better than they were before. The thing is, you can't look to the past to understand what NO is gonna be like in the future. We may NOT be able to prevent it. The climate is changing. More hurricanes, higher sea levels. . . perhaps there was a time when the cost-benefit analysis worked out, but it doesn't now, and it sure as hell won't in a few decades.

I'm not saying that those generations don't matter, or are worth nothing. What is happening is deeply unfortunate, and could have been prevented in several ways. But we didn't. And you know, shit happens. Those generations of people put down roots in a swamp. They're gonna end up being uprooted. It's not fair, but it's not fair for the rest of us to pay for the alternative. Look at our economy. We can't AFFORD it.

We can afford a lot. There are reasons we can't afford stuff right now. Tax breaks for those who have everything in the world they could possibly need and want....and then some. The Iraq war. It's all about priorities. If we have half a trillion to spend on Republican follies, we can surely muster up the money to save an American City.

the federal goverment has an army. the states do not. otherwise we'd have New York attacking New Jersey

It's just hilarious that you resort to the states rights when it's convenient for your cause but fall back on the federal government when it suits you Typical.

The fact that we could reprioritize and cough up the money doesn't mean that we can afford it, or that we SHOULD. What do we, as a nation, want: affordable health care, or to subsidize the residents of New Orleans? Decent public education, or a major urban area to continue to be rebuilt on a marsh every few years? We have limited resources. YES we're squandering them. My argument is that we should stop squandering them, and continuing to pay for New Orleans is not wise.

I cannot get behind eliminating a major US city, not even for the reasons you have set forth. Like I said, gut the city and level it to the ground and it becomes beachfront oil property and that will still need to be protected for the economic health of the companies that move in. We can do that for people too.

Companies that move in should have to accept the economic risk just like people who move in. And it's a big risk.

I didn't say I thought it should be "eliminated". I think that if people want to be there, they should be allowed to be there. But they can take that risk on their own behalves, not on all of our behalves. No insurance, no federal bailout.

On the upside, land should be cheap. They can put their savings in a repair fund. I'm serious.

it was a poorly civil designed city to begin with, poor city planning, poor location, just my two cents.

but culturally speaking, it was one of the brightest gems in our crown. beyond coca-cola and military might, there's not much we have by way of legacy that contributes to the culture of civilization. but at least we have had new orleans, the home of jazz music.

As someone outside the country looking in, I'm amazed at the lack of effort there is in helping these people. On the news today they showed New Orleans still looking the same as it did a year ago.
Where is the effort in cleaning it up and rebuilding?

It's the "chocolate city" thing. If Detroit were to suffer the same disaster, I doubt the federal government would care for it either.

How did it get built up in the first place? Does anyone know?

It seems so counterintuitive.