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.
People conveniently ignore the very logical points he is making so they can instead sensationalize the sound byte and take the argument out of context. Here is what he is saying:
1. The Federal Government literally cant afford to continue doing this. Eventually (and likely soon) there will be no FEMA to help in a disaster because they wont have the money to put gas in the trucks, helicopters, and boats that come to rescue everyone. Simply put, we act as though there is an unlimited money supply to support this.
2. It encourages people to take unhealthy risk by making it easier to live in areas that have historically shown that they are dangerous and not suitable for daily life without great risk. If insurance companies cant find a way to charge a reasonable premium to provide coverage, that means that the cost of living there greatly exceeds the resources (time, money, and people) required to sustain life there.
3. If we drastically reduce our global military footprint, you could easily address the need for more money and human resources to support disasters, while slowly weening cities and states off of their reliance of the Federal Government. This would also allow them to slowly set up their own localized/specialized programs and agencies to support their specific needs.
I cant give good reasons or prove it, but I have a feeling that #3 above would actually force local communities to be more proactive and be better prepared for disasters.
This (post 92) is what I was responding to, and my response was before post #98.
I was discussing your assertion that we are somehow "enabling" people who build close to the ocean. There is no place in the US that is immune to natural disasters. Where do you propose that people live that their homes won't be in danger at some point in time from a natural disaster? The only place I can think of is a bunker, and I didn't say you thought that, I asked a question.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Katiana
This (post 92) is what I was responding to, and my response was before post #98.
I never claimed this was possible, so I don't know why you ask for supporting details to something that I am not claiming to be true.
They'd have imported the whiskey from Canada but it would have disappeared before reaching Galveston. FEMA would have blamed it on Rick Perry, Canada would have blamed it on the Queen. The citizens of Galveston would have said 'Never again' and built a seawall and then elected Ron Paul as their Congressional Representative.
A lesson, it becomes obvious, Kathleen Blanco did not learn. At least, not in time to escape the wrath of FEMA.
And Galveston would then have built a causeway as an escape from the island should another storm threaten the same destruction.
Excellent post. One of the few buildings left standing in Galveston was a church, and they had services in it the next day. Galveston didn't receive or ask for a penny from the government and the city was rebuilt by it's own citizens in a little over a year. Compare that with New Orleans.
Excellent post. One of the few buildings left standing in Galveston was a church, and they had services in it the next day. Galveston didn't receive or ask for a penny from the government and the city was rebuilt by it's own citizens in a little over a year. Compare that with New Orleans.
The 1900 Storm: Galveston, Texas (http://www.1900storm.com/rebuilding/index.lasso - broken link)
111 years ago. Do you think life has changed just a little bit since then? That's a faux comparison.
111 years ago. Do you think life has changed just a little bit since then? That's a faux comparison.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Katiana
"Again, BS! Some of these housing patterns are based on ancient ideas, and Vermont isn't even close to the ocean, nor is my friend in New Hampshire. Shall we just move everyone into bunkers? There is no area of the country that is at zero risk for a natural disaster."
So in 111 years things have changed too much, but when its convenient for you, you will use "ancient times" as a point of reference to prove a point? Again...I'm having a really hard time following any of your logic here.
So in 111 years things have changed too much, but when its convenient for you, you will use "ancient times" as a point of reference to prove a point? Again...I'm having a really hard time following any of your logic here.
Allow me to be of some help, though I shouldn't as you made a personal attack on me. All of society has changed in 111 years. How big was Galveston in 1900? I'll tell you: 37,000 people. And here in 2011 we're talking about 25% of the US population being affected, more than 75 million.
Allow me to be of some help, though I shouldn't as you made a personal attack on me. All of society has changed in 111 years. How big was Galveston in 1900? I'll tell you: 37,000 people. And here in 2011 we're talking about 25% of the US population, more than 75 million.
Wow, a personal attack, sorry you think that, but please point that out to a moderator so I can be properly punished then.
Quite honestly I dont care about the population in 1900 vs. 2011, its not the point. I'm trying to get a grasp on your logic in this thread and its been very challenging. I'd love to hear direct responses or rebuttals to the points I specifically made about your initial comments.
Wow, a personal attack, sorry you think that, but please point that out to a moderator so I can be properly punished then.
Quite honestly I dont care about the population in 1900 vs. 2011, its not the point. I'm trying to get a grasp on your logic in this thread and its been very challenging. I'd love to hear direct responses or rebuttals to the points I specifically made about your initial comments.
That is a wonderful plan, shows Paul's common sense intelligence. Hope the original poster reads your post on Paul being for FEMA controlled by each state separately. The more I read on Ron Paul the more I see how great he is.
In theory things might work out the way Ron Paul thinks they will, but there is another way to view this and there are facts to back it up...
Quote:
As a factual matter, natural disasters hit American communities in 1900, and in time, they’d recover. But “in time” is the key part of that sentence — families and communities would struggle for a very long time to get back on their feet before federal agencies played a role in disaster response. FEMA isn’t “magic,” but so long as we overlook 2001 to 2008, it is an efficient, effective agency that’s proven itself very capable of providing much-needed assistance to hard-hit areas. If Galveston is ever hit again by hurricane, I suspect Ron Paul’s constituents will be very glad to see FEMA on the scene.
What’s more, voluntary coordination among states is a recipe for one outcome: failure. Cash-strapped states barely have the resources for schools and law enforcement; the notion that they’ll be able to prepare and respond to a natural disaster, and rebuild in its wake, without any federal role whatsoever, is ridiculous.
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.
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.
