Bush touts $4.2 billion plan for Louisiana homeowners

CNN Dot Com ^ | 3/8/2006 | CNN

[xrp]

Bush touts $4.2 billion plan for Louisiana homeowners

President eyes recovery efforts on 10th trip to devastated Gulf

Wednesday, March 8, 2006; Posted: 12:29 p.m. EST (17:29 GMT)

NEW ORLEANS, Louisiana (CNN) -- During a tour of the hurricane-damaged Gulf Coast, President Bush on Wednesday pressed Congress to pass a proposal that would offer up to $150,000 to each Louisiana homeowner who lost a residence to Katrina.

[Tucson]

From the article:

"Congress is considering allowing all homeowners affected by Katrina to apply for the $4.2 billion in proposed housing aide, according to The Associated Press. Bush wants to limit access to those funds to Louisianans, the AP reported."

Although LA apparently had the greatest amount of damage, Mississippi was pretty well dessimated as well. How can he justify this? And while we are at it, what about the folks in Florida who got their backsides handed to them with four hurricanes in 1994, one in 1995. They got some FEMA assistance but not to that extent and, oh by the way, while we are counting the days since Katrina, many homes in Port Charlotte area (Hurricane Charlie) still have blue tarps on roofs. If true, this is demented.

[Little Ray]

Maybe 'cause homeowners (like me) are supposed to take care of things like this with their own insurance and NOT suck it out of the taxpayers?

Where in the Constitution does it say the Federales must help people who build their homes on coastal sites below sea level, rebuild said homes when Mother Nature catches up to 'em?

[babygene]

"Providing rebuilding funds for land-owners whose property does not contain a livable home, will be a huge shot in the arm for the local economy, and pay for itself many times over in jobs, capital and investment in the region."

Why would my tax money pay for this? This is a BAD idea.

[Pessimist]

So this is compassionate conservativism, huh?

I like the classic flavor better.

[kenth]

What does it matter whether or not the person was a homeowner before or not? It's still a giveaway. You could give away the same amount to a person who wasn't a homeowner and the local economy would still be spurred. I think you're making some assumptions about those against the giveaway. They aren't upset at who would be getting the money, but that anyone is getting the money at all.

[Pessimist]

"If this is a buyout, it make sense and will be cheaper in the longrun."

I don't think it is. I think I read somewhere this is to "help them rebuild".

[brainstem223]

Spin spin spin...BUT

Its a giveaway program. If anyone with a home gets it trashed by a tornado, (like mine was in 1998), or a fire, landslide or hit by a meteor; and the government steps in and gives money to the owners of the trashed house; its a giveaway program. Worse yet, its the most sleazy kind of politics imaginable. Sets a evil president.
Unless you can find a clause in the Constution that says otherwise.

[Pessimist]

"Providing rebuilding funds for land-owners whose property does not contain a livable home, will be a huge shot in the arm for the local economy, and pay for itself many times over in jobs, capital and investment in the region."

Wow. Sounds like you're all for gvt "investment".

Do you actually call yourself a conservative, or just a republican?

[RAY]

Could it be that a precedent for such governmental giveaways was established when the taxpayers “gave” large sums to the 911 victims' families??

[Stellar Dendrite]

ping

[LA Woman3]

[Pukin Dog]

By your responses and others, I should probably kick myself for bothering to respond on a thread where the level of economic understanding is so low.

I'll be going now, thanks.

[half-cajun]

He's thinking, "can there be two greater idiots than these two." Seriously, why does he even bother to be seen with them. As soon as he turns around to leave, they're going to stab him in the back.

[Reagan Man]

This is just more big government Republicanism from the biggest domestic liberal spending POTUS in US history. OUTRAGEOUS.

This looks like part of the supplimental funding that is going through Congress right now for the military and disaster appropriations. Guess this will be voted on in conjunction with the new ports legislation brought up because of the concerns with the DPW/UAE sweetheart deal.

[LA Woman3]

Blanco looks like she is napping....is that possible to do standing up??

[Reagan Man]

Looks like Curly, Moe and Larry, left to right.

[Independentamerican2]

Someone tell me - why even bother to get insurance anymore?



Yeah leave it up to the insurance companies why don't ya. lol

[Independentamerican2]

Could it be that a precedent for such governmental giveaways was established when the taxpayers “gave” large sums to the 911 victims' families??


Some want to question if LA residents ever heard of home owners ins. Well I guess we could say the families that suffered in 9/11 should have had life insurance too.

[Independentamerican2]

Could it be that a precedent for such governmental giveaways was established when the taxpayers “gave” large sums to the 911 victims' families??


Some want to question if LA residents ever heard of home owners ins. Well I guess we could say the families that suffered in 9/11 should have had life insurance too.

[LA Woman3]

Poor Laura!