Posted on 09/27/2005 11:08:23 AM PDT by fight_truth_decay
People have always known the risks of living on the Gulf Coast. New Orleans has now had four severe category 4 hurricanes since 1915 (1915, 1947, in 1969 a category 5 narrowly missed, and 2005 Katrina). That's a category 4 or bigger storm every 22.5 years. This is hardly a once in 200- or 300-year event. Hurricanes for the Gulf Coast region are predictable, frequent and are going to happen again. Knowing this, what should the federal government do in response to the hurricanes?
If the federal government takes $200 billion out of the American economy to finance Gulf Coast rebuilding, countless thousands of people will be enticed to move back to this hurricane-prone region. People will follow the money. This great financial temptation will cause people to ignore the ever-present threat of hurricanes and flock back, at great human and economic risk.
American taxpayers should not be forced to subsidize putting Americans back in harm's way. Unfortunately, the politicians are encouraging people to go back to inherently dangerous areas. Instead of putting the American economy at risk, there is a much simpler solution.
The risks associated with living in hurricane-prone regions should be assumed only by the people who choose to live there. It is time for individuals to take full responsibility for their actions. They should not force the rest of America to subsidize their risky lifestyle choices.
Due to the actions of politicians, Hurricane Katrina is still churning at the borders of every American city, and the forecast is for an economic disaster. Only sensible legislation from Washington, which does not subsidize putting families and children back in harm's way, can save America from disaster. Politicians should not take billions out of our economy to make unsound investments in unsafe locations. We should let individuals weigh the true risks and rewards of either returning to the Gulf region or relocating to places like Illinois -- independent of government interference.
When the next major hurricane strikes, how much of that $200 billion investment will be lost? How many people who were enticed by federal tax dollars to move back into the region will lose their homes, jobs or lives? How much more can politicians put the American economy at risk?
Hurricane Katrina's lasting legacy is transforming into a man-made disaster. Only the American people can force our politicians to make the right decisions, and stop them from encouraging people to go back into harm's way.
Brian Costin, Elk Grove Village
The American way--freedom of choice and each American is responsible for their choices--and should be held to that standard.
OK then in 15 years they will be getting an even bigger deal.
Yeah, this guy is right, but nobody in the fed gov has the balls to say this. Bush won't, because he'll be called a racist; same goes for every weak-kneed Republican who is afraid to stand up to Jesse Jackson.
Question - do any Republican "leaders" really inspire you? I know Reagan really inspired me, but since him, not many have. Maybe Gingrich in '94. Maybe Tancredo. The rest of them just seem interested in being Democrat-like and getting re-elected.
Knowing the taxpayers are going to foot this bill, I suggest you find a true list of Current residents in this area, give them OH, say 300,000 bucks, make them sign a waiver and tell them do what you want to do, don't ask for more. Would save a lot in the long run.
"Why can't people be more like us and make the right decisions in their lives?"
Don't include me in your rightous living. I'll be telling my kids to "do as I say, not as I did". I have taken a lot of missteps, fortunately, I have always landed on my feet. :)
Even have a spare generator for friends in need. Common sense my good neighbor goes a long way in hurricane season!
Ditto back at you.
There should be no discrepancies. All people must be responsible for seeking the insurance coverage, etc that is needed for any catastrophies inherent in their area. No one guarantees a safe existence--or is that going to be the new entitlement?
This man's point is exactly the point I've made about all the new public housing going up in Chicago. These welfare queens lived for free for years on the government dole, trashed their properties, sold drugs and generally allowed the neighborhoods to disintegrate. So, what does the ever wise Mayor Daley and other government entities do? They tear down the old, trashed facilities and build these welfare queens new town homes. Way to reward these low lifes.
How about stating enough is enough? No more free low income housing. It's over - find a job and find a place to live. If you can't do that for yourself, then screw you.
"How do you draw a line between one type of catastrophy like New Orleans, and others which are in the gray area?"
My answer would be "You don't" In no case should it be the inherent responsibility of the fed to make good anyone,s losses for natural disasters.
Naturally the gvt should fix its own affected infrastructure, but that's all.
Although I understand your point they did make a decision to live their when they enlisted.
I agree 100%. Now if we could extend this to other risky choices (unprotected sex, obesity, smoking, having children out of wedlock, dropping out of school,...) I'd be very happy.
Taking two specifics in your listing, obesity and smoking, I am not aware of the government directly subsidizing either of these for the individual.
But, direct subsidities such as unprotected sex and having children may fall into welfare. Dropping out of school could result in a free education via alternative education when a public education is already provided.
I think there is a real difference between the two or are we going to redefine freedom of choice to comply with someone's opinion of what is correct? More political correct crap.
Devastation is in the eye of the beholder.
Welcome to FreeRepublic Chang. You're no mystery, though.
The only problem with this is - where are we going to relocate all of the ports and oil refineries along the Gulf Coast to if people don't live there, and what will that cost the economy?
Why does a port have to have a city surrounding it? The oil rigs out in the gulf do not have cities built beside them.
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.