Replies

I have nothing to be ashamed of. Conservatives don't all bow to the Bushkin like the majority on this forum seem to do. There is nothing non-conservative about wanting to fix a problem that needs fixing, especially if it makes economic sense to do so. This measure was not a gimme program, it was a loan, to be repaid by those who redevelop the properties. What's wrong with this approach?

BTW, having attended both Clinton impeachment rallies in Washington, DC should tell you that I am certainly not a liberal.

Here if you build or buy in a flood-prone area, you must buy separate flood insurance or your loan will not be approved. If your home or business is seriously damaged by a flood, your insurance pays you for the damage and you choose to re-build it in the same place, that insurance will not re-write your policy. In most cities, and even in this rural area where I live you are not allowed to build in a floodplain, although some people in isolated areas do manage to get away with it-but their insurance will not cover if they get flooded. Why is it that the banks of NO did not send out any real estate inspectors when these homes that are now gone were built/bought? As a taxpayer, I'm really not interested in paying any more money than I do now for stupidity, whether it is that of a bank or an individual.

It has nothing to do with Bush and everything to do with the residents of NO asking for handout after handout.

How does it make economic sense to rebuild those parts of a city protected by inadequate levees and sinking further below sea level every year ?

I don't care if it is in the form of loans - if you can't get it from a bank(or other private institution), it's not worth doing. So you take a loan from the government at whatever interest rate, and another hurricane comes along next year. Gonna stick it to the taxpayer again, or what ?

Move to higher ground, folks, the rest of the country is tired of subsidizing this stupidity.

In case you're wondering, I don't like student loans either.

This measure was not a gimme program, it was a loan, to be repaid by those who redevelop the properties. What's wrong with this approach?

What if nobody, or very few, buy the properties?

Would you buy property in an area below sea level with defective levees?

If nobody buys the properties, then the taxpayers are stuck with the bailout.

Conservatives don't all bow to the Bushkin like the majority on this forum seem to do.

Your opposition to President Bush goes back far earlier than Katrina and your blame of him for your forseeable woes is not unexpected.

What you don't seem to grasp is the feeling here that we've already pitched in. With no gratitude. None.

We're still pitching in. Louisiana residents are still in our hotels living for free, running around killing our residents, engaging in gang wars, and generally doing nothing to do anything to change that.

When is enough enough?

New Orleans is sinking at a rate of 3-5 feet per century and nothing will change that. It's not manmade subsidence. It's Gulf Coast geology. Bourbon Street, with its strippers and barf in the gutters, is not so important that every taxpayer in America needs to pay out the nose to keep it intact when it's eventually going to be 50 feet below sea level on an unprotected coastline.

We don't owe you jack. You haven't been grateful so far and eventually even a fool realizes he's been suckered.

Let the private sector give you the "loans" you want if they make sense. Uncle Sam is not your insurance agency.