Posted on 11/03/2012 10:26:02 AM PDT by Paladins Prayer
Living near the coast in the Northeast, I see the devastation wrought by Hurricane Sandy firsthand. Many have been without power for days; there are long lines at gas stations; some supermarket shelves are bare; and, more to the point here, some in vulnerable areas lost their homes. And because the storm is such a horrible, high-profile disaster, government aid to rebuild is in the offing. But should it be?
This question may seem heartless. And, don't worry, you won't hear a politician asking it anytime soon, as doing so might very well cost him the next election. But political expediency isnt always synonymous with fairness.
Lets start like this: On the day Sandy struck and every day since, there surely have been low-profile disasters in other parts of the country. Perhaps someones home was struck by lightning and burned down, maybe an anomalous and isolated flood destroyed a lonely hinterland abode, or it could have been something else. This is a big country and many things happen.
And the question is, if you suffer such a disaster and have no insurance, will Uncle Sam ride to the rescue with tax dollars? We know the answer. But why the different treatment?
(Excerpt) Read more at thenewamerican.com ...
Well, everyone else is on the wagon, so, why not?
"This is why people who study the oceans don't live near them."
Refresh my memory . What list of declared national disasters did not get federal aid?
People in power want to stay in power (usually).
NO
Been through three floods and no one ever gave me a dime
It’s life, and family, churches are more effective
What did they do in pioneer days?
I don’t think money is really the problem here. I’ve seen estimates that private insurance policies would cover at least 50%-60% of the damage, and most of the remaining losses involve public infrastructure that is certainly a government responsibility but may not be a Federal one. The big issue from the standpoint of these states around here is that they were pretty much bankrupt before Sandy formed in the Atlantic Ocean and therefore have a vested interest in pushing off the public expenses onto the Feds.
I wasn’t in NYC or DC on 9/11 .
Why should my tax dollars go to people too stupid to stay away that day?
Same as gulf oil spill . I only eat Alaskan fish and don’t visit that area. Why take my money?
What about tornadoes in south and Midwest .
It’s known to happen in those areas. Not my fault people are too stupid to live there.
Why should they get my money to finance their
stupidity?
I could go on and on but I think I made my point.
“Should Sandys Victims Get Your Tax Money?”
Better them than those stimulus package recipients and the “green crap” zero has been pushing for four years..
Feel free to give your money to whomever you want, it’s not the government’s responsibility to take my money and redistribute it as they see fit. I will, and have, given money to various relief efforts throughout our country. We don’t need Big Gov taking their cut as the money is funneled to wherever they want it to go.
“We have the right, as individuals, to give away as much of our own money as we please in charity; but as members of Congress we have no right so to appropriate a dollar of the public money.”
Davy Crockett
I saw of a lot photos of beautiful beach homes, some of them quite grand and obviously very expensive. Those homes should have been insured by the homeowners who could obviously afford it. I’m sorry for their loss, but that’s the risk you run for building your house on the beach, and that’s what private insurance is for. I live in a big city, and that has risks of its own and that’s why I insure my home appropriately. If my home were robbed, I don’t expect someone in another state to pay for my loss via their taxes.
As for using taxpayer money to pay deductibles and so forth, doesn’t that encourage moral hazard?
And the question is, if you suffer such a disaster and have no insurance, will Uncle Sam ride to the rescue with tax dollars? We know the answer. But why the different treatment?
There is plenty of room to debate whether it is the proper role of government (and the Federal government in particular) to aid in re-building areas devastated by Sandy (and Katrina, and other storms/earthquakes/etc.). But the simple reason there is different treatment of major natural disasters like Sandy on the one hand, and individual houses being struck by lightning on the other, is that the destruction of an entire geographic region (including one of the largest financial centers in the world, and one of the busiest seaports on the east coast) has a much greater economic impact than the destruction of a single house.
If its not your fault, then certainly the government should help you to get on your feet again.
If its the result of something you did, you should do it yourself.
How about we cancel all these corporate subsidies to “green” and other companies and ethanol and spend some of that on disaster relief?
(2) The inhabitants of the communities that were hit have been paying far more in federal taxes than they have been receiving for a very long time. They are not taking other people's money. They are getting a fraction of the money they've already paid, paid back.
Not certain about constitutionality, but statement (2) is a very interesting thought. Valid, too.
How many of these people had Hurricane and Flood Insurance??? Probably very few...we have to pay because they did not???...Cuomo wants to screw the insurance company after they made contracts...they all deserve to go to hell...I mean the politicians
Every natural disaster federal money is used.
You are not given a choice.
Feel free to write your congressman and complain.
Let me know how that works so I can write mine.
Thanks :)
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.