Should We Blindly Bail Out Natural Disaster Victims? (Rush Limbaugh, conspiracy, March)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Yes!
Put on a blind fold,get out your bill fold,and hand over your money.
It's paper...And they are People.
On a serious note...Send a care package,if money isn't your thing. I sent towels,sheets and socks because they were on sale...And most folks could use these items.
It's obvious to anyone that can count that the government cannot be expected to make people fully whole. That is the responsibility of insurance companies, family, friends, charity, etc. with some HELP from the various levels of government (based on their rainy day funds, etc.).
Just taking some basic calcs - if Houston costs 200 Billion...and Irma causes another 100 Billion, that would be 300 Billion just in one months time. This would equal $2,000 apiece for 150 MILLION filing taxpayers.
I have a heart (already donated and pay a lot of taxes), but I also have a budget. I have a small place in Florida and if it gets blown to bits in Irma I will deal with it without a speck of help from any agency. I have a very high deductible...but even if I self-insured I'd end up with a decent lot and then build something on it.
Those are the breaks when you want to live near the coast.
And what will be the economic cost if the government didn't do anything? Recession perhaps?
Thanks for this info. This topic came up recently, just in casual conversation somewhere, and I commented that some communities should be relocated out of flood zones, but people were outraged! (This conversation took place in the middle of the desert Southwest, lol) They said you can't do that, because there's industry there. Entire industries would have to be relocated. So I don't know how this idea we're discussing would apply to entire cities, like Houston. But I think there are some areas, where it's obvious that it's pointless, even irresponsible, to keep rebuilding.
Makes you really wonder about New Orleans. A real sitting duck of a city, if there ever was one. But I suppose one could say the same about Florida, and even NYC, as more severe and far-reaching storms come upon us, one by one, over years. And being from California originally, I shudder to think what could happen to the small communities nestled in the redwood forests in the mid-coastal regions, around the greater Bay Area. The north coast is still wet enough to stave off major fires, I think, but the Bay Area forests are at risk. There are expensive homes in the mountains outside Santa Cruz, on Monterey Bay, for example. As I contemplate relocating back to CA, I'm very wary of locations like that.
I live on the coast but I purposely bought property at 50 feet MSL. I watch my mom lose 150 feet of her lawn and the seawall to Hurricane Gloria. Hurricane Bob put a 36 foot yacht in her living room and a 30 footer in the swimming pool. After these storms, FEMA flood insurance pricing is going to soar. Unless you're rich and paying cash, nobody is going to buy oceanfront homes since they won't be able to afford the insurance. I personally don't see why my taxes should subsidize that.
arent texans all conservative republicans??
arent these people always preaching personal resposibilities??
arent they always against government hand outs??
arent they the biggest bunch of hypocrites???
What would you want the government to do if your area was flooded?
Would you be saying "Don't bail me out, I'm a conservative republican" or "Help, I need a hand!" ?
arent texans all conservative republicans??
arent these people always preaching personal resposibilities??
arent they always against government hand outs??
arent they the biggest bunch of hypocrites???
After Hurricane Sandy, the Texas Republican congressmen voted against the bailout for New York/New Jersey, and now?
Why focus this discussion solely on flooding? What about people who've built along the San Andreas or other fault line? Live in Tornado Alley? In the path of a potential mudslide, avalanche, wildfire, or ice storm?
People have built and live in all sorts of places at risk for natural disasters. Either the govt "bails out" everyone or it bails out no one.
Earthquakes don't do near the damage of floods/hurricanes/tornado's.
Proof of that is looking at the video footage of Fukishima after that mega quake of 9.2. Look carefully, many of the buildings remained intact. The biggest damage came from the tsunami!
Seattle had a 7.1 back in 2000? and the only damage was to the dome of the Capital Building in Tacoma, built in the 30's, never seismically retrofitted.
The 1906 quake in San Francisco, most of the damage came from the resultant fires, and after the Quake, city leaders insisted henceforth, all structures to be built of concrete or steel. That didn't last long! Too many homeless crowded into the Tenderloin district, crying out for housing, and what goes up the fastest? Wooden construction!
If any country knows how to build earthquake proof structures it's Japan. Any damage in Tokyo due to the Fukishima quake?
Chile has had some mega-quakes over the years (8.0-9.0) and what major damage was there?
Yes, the big worry on the West Coast is the resultant tsunami's.
That mega-quake in Alaska (1964) sent a wall of water 40 feet high crashing into the southern coastal areas.
Last edited by tijlover; 09-06-2017 at 07:14 AM..
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.