Posted on 09/15/2005 4:52:29 PM PDT by Howlin
Edited on 09/15/2005 5:05:17 PM PDT by Admin Moderator. [history]
9 P.M. EDT.
That is just a talking point. Most of that area is very sparsely populated and in very little need of assistance.
One medium sized city (New Orleans) and a few small cities (Biloxi, Gulf Port, Mobile) were affected.
For one, Great Britain is famous for being VERY SMALL. It is also very heavily populated while this area is not.
It's easy to be compassionate with other people's money. That is what liberal have been doing for generations.
Liberals are compassionate with taxpayer money while conservatives are compassionate with their own money.
How is it compassionate when the federal government confiscates property and wealth from one group of people with the police power of the state and then gives it to other people?
Maybe you should read the board charter. This is a CONSERVATIVE message board, not a REPUBLICAN one.
That was shown on national TV, I caught it too. Locally, in southern California, abc7 interviewed some black NO refugees who also placed blame on the mayor. That was something to see. When you screw up in this country, you can't fool very many people....
Where in this world are we perfectly safe from: tornado, flood, earthquake, hurricane, winds, rains, drought?
When Loma Prieta struck, Californians rebuilt, strengthened existing structures. The Bay Bridge lost part of the roadbed, were we supposed to just move everyone out of the East Bay? Do we not rebuild when the dreaded Big One hits us on the West Coast? No, we're Americans and we love our freedom to settle where we want.
Should everyone else have to pay for rebuilding is the argument. Require insurance, make certain that the construction private homes to public buildings meet existing standards and are upgraded.
My point was to follow the lead of the Netherlands where they do not have to constantly rebuild because their locks and floodgates were designed (and to my understanding - upgraded) to withstand what the North Sea sends their way.
This is one time where I want to see teams from the Army Corps of Engineers sent to other countries who face these types of weather related problems and have learned to deal with them effectively.
Now that things have calmed down a bit, we're hearing from NO folks and finding out how smart they are. They are getting the word out about 'the real deal.'
Do you not agree that the Port of New Orleans, indeed the Gulf Coast is not intrinsic to keeping the American economy moving?
Great Britain is very small - in terms of the size of the USA, indeed it is. However, 90,000 square miles does not seem small to me in terms of one lethal storm.
Moreover, I don't think whether a city is small medium or large should be the determining factor in rebuilding, so I perhaps miss your point. For that I apologize.
Some places are more risky than others. For example, 5 miles within the gulf coast is much more prone to flooding than say Atlanta. Also, the risk of earthquakes are much greater in San Fransciso than in Chattanooga.
Insurance companies take these risks into account when they price their policies. If a person can't afford the insurance to cover their property and possessions then they shouldn't live there.
Not really, but I have no problem with low interest federal loans to help rebuild the port. This is not what the vast majority of the $200 billion is going to though so the argument is a red herring.
Great Britain is very small - in terms of the size of the USA, indeed it is. However, 90,000 square miles does not seem small to me in terms of one lethal storm.
Great Britian is very small in any terms.
Moreover, I don't think whether a city is small medium or large should be the determining factor in rebuilding, so I perhaps miss your point. For that I apologize.
The size of the area isn't important - it's the amount of real damage that is important. A storm damaging 500 square miles in the middle of Wyoming isn't going to be as big of a deal as one that damaged 50 square miles in the middle of New York City.
Regardless, the number of people affected is not relevant. The feds can assist in emergency procedures but not in wealth redistribution.
Do you think Ronald Reagan would have proposed these same programs to rebuild a great American city?
What is the difference between that and saying to a 2nd Amendment supporter, "Why don't you wave your Constitution in the face of a mother who's son was gunned down"? I fail to see a difference.
No. The question is sort of moot though as Reagan was a great conservative but he is the definition of conservatism.
A conservative would give the federal government's assistance in emergency situations and then provided low interest loans to businesses, and state and local governments to rebuild.
A true conservative would not use the police power of the state to confiscate money from those who don't even live in the area and then give it people who were irresponsible enough to live in a very flood prone area and not buy flood insurance.
This won't end with Katrina. How about the next hurricane, earthquake or flood? The federal government has now set a precedent of being an ATM for anyone involved in a natural disaster. That is what insurance is for.
What do you think that liberals are going to do with this precedent when they are in charge? They will find ways to say that 'poverty' or 'racism' is a 'natural disaster' and use that as an excuse for even more wealth transfer.
It is obvious that you and I will disagree and that you will ignore anything I've said about learning from other countries, such as the Netherlands.
I apologize for taking up your time.
You did miss some points. The President made several references to Mississippi and Alabama; specifically mentioned losses of homes in those states, specifically referred to the devastation in Biloxi and so forth. He declared the entire devastated Gulf region to be an opportunity zone. He had visited Miss. earlier in the day, not covered much my press. True, he was speaking from New Orleans but that was a big opportunity to win the hearts of minds of New Orleanians and to comfort those who were most abandoned by local government.
Maybe money can't buy love but it can buy friendship.
If someone gives me gifts and remembers my birthday, our friendship has a much better chance of blooming. And, of course, I do the same for my friends.
The quickest way to make someone lose respect for you is to give them money.
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.