kilikini wrote:
> "sf" > wrote in message
> ...
> > On 25 Sep 2005 08:01:02 -0700, SD wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > Interesting because the news I saw from international sources (TVE, RAI
> > > CNN Espanol, CNN international. Canal Vasco, Galicia TV) showed plenty
> > > of white folks, both rich and poor who had suffered losses.
> > >
> > Unfortunately, Americans get a different version of the news.
> >
>
> Isn't that the truth?!?!?! Listen to public radio..................

Yup, in NOLA anyway white folks lost more, much more... they had more
to lose. The poor black folks, which is primarilly what the population
of NOLA is/was comprised (a fact), didn't lose much, can't lose what
you don't own. The vast majority of those demolished shacks were
rented... those who will suffer the loss are the owners... and I've no
idea what color the landlords are, yoose tell me.

Btw, the real losers in such cases are the lien holders and insurers,
they will suffer the greatest losses, in the short term... in the long
term all those losses will be absorbed by the "haves" over the entire
country. The poor never suffer any losses... again, can't lose what
you don't own. In fact the poor will benefit most (for many this was a
blessing in disguise), they will be given more to get on with their
existence than the value of whatever personal goods they left behind
that they actually owned... and most either rented their furnishings or
they were on credit with minimal equity... the poor rarely own even the
clothes on their backs, Walmart will absorb that loss... and eventually
pass it on to those who pay.

And there is nothing racist, there are far more pockets of poverty
accross America that have suffered disasters where the impoverished are
mostly white.

Sheldon