With the latest round of flooding, this time in the northeast, do you consider Federal disaster relief a good idea or another entitlement program? Personally, I think that if the government is going to send aide it should be with the stipulation that a person can not rebuild in a flood plain or a flood prone area. It is a waste of money to rebuild a house, homes, or a community in an area that is prone to flooding. I think some Federal assistance should be given to an area one time, but if a person decides to rebuild in a flood prone area and there is additional flooding then too bad, you made a bad choice and there is no second bailout. No pun intended.

I agree. Low interest loans to help people, and even grants in aid, during disasters are a role of the federal government I have no problem with. It's likely the only entity that can help a large number of people withstand such hits so long as funds are managed and planned for properly.

There are plenty of other programs now funded by the federal government that have no business being there, and should be abolished, which would easily fund annual disaster assistance programs. We could start with the Department of Education, and follow up with Agriculture, most of the EPA, and several others.

Hell, kill the so-called war on drugs altogether, and there would be enough money to fund these disaster assistance programs for the next decade.

All safety nets are needed. But all safety nets can EASILY turn into entitlement. If people would just use them the right way...

A safety net provided when one can easily provide their own is an entitlement in the worst sense of the word. If I choose to purchase flood insurance and my next door neighbor doesn't, why should I have to pay through taxes to repair/rebuild his house?

queencitybuckeye;887240 wrote:A safety net provided when one can easily provide their own is an entitlement in the worst sense of the word. If I choose to purchase flood insurance and my next door neighbor doesn't, why should I have to pay through taxes to repair/rebuild his house?

I still think they're needed. The way the Govt. chooses to distribute has nothing to do with them actually being needed. There is poor management and distribution of safety nets, and we ALL know that!

queencitybuckeye;887240 wrote:A safety net provided when one can easily provide their own is an entitlement in the worst sense of the word. If I choose to purchase flood insurance and my next door neighbor doesn't, why should I have to pay through taxes to repair/rebuild his house?

Flood insurance isn't going to immediately provide you with a place to sleep, clothes to wear and food to eat.

LJ;887274 wrote:Flood insurance isn't going to immediately provide you with a place to sleep, clothes to wear and food to eat.

In my world, that's what family is for.

queencitybuckeye;887276 wrote:In my world, that's what family is for.

Your whole family lives within a 5 mile radius. Same thing happened to them. You have no vehicles because they are all flooded out and destroyed. What do you do?

Or, all your family lives 2,000 miles away, your car is destroyed, your house is destroyed. Yeah, in your world, your family must be full of wizards to help you out in that situation.

Give me a break.

LJ;887304 wrote:Your whole family lives within a 5 mile radius. Same thing happened to them. You have no vehicles because they are all flooded out and destroyed. What do you do?

Or, all your family lives 2,000 miles away, your car is destroyed, your house is destroyed. Yeah, in your world, your family must be full of wizards to help you out in that situation.

Give me a break.

Eat a salad, fat ass.

There are also PLENTY of people out there that have no family, are estranged from their family, etc. Get out of your utopian bubble.

ernest_t_bass;887307 wrote:There are also PLENTY of people out there that have no family, are estranged from their family, etc. Get out of your utopian bubble.

I'm not in one, I'm actually not against government assistance in emergencies, I was guilty of overstating my position. What I am against is the concept that the first place we look in times of trouble is to the government as opposed to family, friends, and even oneself. This was not always the case, it has actually happened in my lifetime.

I like Ron Paul's stance on this. Charities can help people with food and temporary housing in a disaster, especially if the government allows people to have money to donate. The state can also have programs for that if necessary. The federal government can have a role in search and rescue, but everything else is a waste of money. And federal insurance just encourages people to build in areas where they shouldn't because they could never get private insurance. Then they all get bailed out when the predictable disaster happens.

Cleveland Buck;887316 wrote:I like Ron Paul's stance on this. Charities can help people with food and temporary housing in a disaster, especially if the government allows people to have money to donate. The state can also have programs for that if necessary. The federal government can have a role in search and rescue, but everything else is a waste of money. And federal insurance just encourages people to build in areas where they shouldn't because they could never get private insurance. Then they all get bailed out when the predictable disaster happens.

I agree with the insurance standpoint. If they want to help insure ports and warehouses and such, that is understandable, because that could be a major help to the economy and private business. But insuring houses because people can't afford to or no one will insure them? That is just ridiculous.

LJ;887323 wrote:I agree with the insurance standpoint. If they want to help insure ports and warehouses and such, that is understandable, because that could be a major help to the economy and private business. But insuring houses because people can't afford to or no one will insure them? That is just ridiculous.

I also agree with this. If you recall, the original poster stated people only get one shot at living in a flood prone area with assistance; after that, they're on their own. Flood insurance is only "viable" because the federal government underwrites it. Private insurers won't touch it.

If we really wanted to get pissy about potential threats, we'd never help anyone who built in an area that might get struck by a hurricane, tornado, earthquake, or fire. That would pretty much eliminate all of the continental US, Alaska and Hawaii (I'll throw volcanoes in the mix, too).

queencitybuckeye;887276 wrote:In my world, that's what family is for.

My 2 sons live in Minot, ND and lost their home to the flood that reached the 2nd floor with seepage all the way to the top. He was told to evacuate his house 20 days before the full flood actually hit and was not able to return to his house to see the damage for another 30 days after the flood. Needless to say his house was destroyed and he did not have flood insurance as many ,many of his neighbors didn't also. It hasn't flooded in Minot for nearly 60 years and it was not a flood plain. His closest family is 1800 miles away. FEMA along with other charity agencies helped him with temporary housing needs and funds for the necessities. I am thankful some "safety net" from the Gov't was available for them.
It is a pretty helpless feeling when your that far away and your not able to go and help even if it is 1800 miles away because the City is basically shut down to travelers and no where to stay. Like LJ said not everyone has family close by.

Cleveland Buck;887316 wrote:I like Ron Paul's stance on this. Charities can help people with food and temporary housing in a disaster, especially if the government allows people to have money to donate. The state can also have programs for that if necessary. The federal government can have a role in search and rescue, but everything else is a waste of money. And federal insurance just encourages people to build in areas where they shouldn't because they could never get private insurance. Then they all get bailed out when the predictable disaster happens.

I agree, and I heard him address this issue last night. And his best point was refuting those who claim that he is not compassionate because he does not readily support federal tax dollars going to rebuild flooded homes etc..... by indicating that he had compassion but market forces must come into play in dictating how/when/where homes should be rebuilt etc..etc..

Skyhook79;887476 wrote:My 2 sons live in Minot, ND and lost their home to the flood that reached the 2nd floor with seepage all the way to the top. He was told to evacuate his house 20 days before the full flood actually hit and was not able to return to his house to see the damage for another 30 days after the flood. Needless to say his house was destroyed and he did not have flood insurance as many ,many of his neighbors didn't also. It hasn't flooded in Minot for nearly 60 years and it was not a flood plain. His closest family is 1800 miles away. FEMA along with other charity agencies helped him with temporary housing needs and funds for the necessities. I am thankful some "safety net" from the Gov't was available for them.
It is a pretty helpless feeling when your that far away and your not able to go and help even if it is 1800 miles away because the City is basically shut down to travelers and no where to stay. Like LJ said not everyone has family close by.

It's good to hear that your sons got the relief that they needed. Unfortunately, most of the folks on this forum would be perfectly happy to let them fend for themselves rather than have the eeevil government help out.

Yeah, because those are the only two options. SMH.

QuakerOats;887491 wrote:I agree, and I heard him address this issue last night. And his best point was refuting those who claim that he is not compassionate because he does not readily support federal tax dollars going to rebuild flooded homes etc..... by indicating that he had compassion but market forces must come into play in dictating how/when/where homes should be rebuilt etc..etc..

Compassion and market forces are literally polar opposites.

I Wear Pants;889471 wrote:Compassion and market forces are literally polar opposites.

Explain. Seems non sequitur to me.

queencitybuckeye;887240 wrote:A safety net provided when one can easily provide their own is an entitlement in the worst sense of the word. If I choose to purchase flood insurance and my next door neighbor doesn't, why should I have to pay through taxes to repair/rebuild his house?

If I choose to get an education and work and my next door neighbor doesn't, why should I have to pay through taxes to feed, cloth and house the mofo? Oh! I forgot and spread my wealth and good fortune

Belly35;889777 wrote:If I choose to get an education and work and my next door neighbor doesn't, why should I have to pay through taxes to feed, cloth and house the mofo? Oh! I forgot and spread my wealth and good fortune

If your employer chooses to lay you off and you can't find another job right away why should I, or your neighbor whose employer didn't choose to layoff, have to pay through taxes to have you draw unemployment?

LJ;887274 wrote:Flood insurance isn't going to immediately provide you with a place to sleep, clothes to wear and food to eat.

Well, a disaster insurance carrier in Virginia is paying for their customers' rent - at our house! 3 months rent. Woohoo! I don't know about clothes or food, but they certainly have a place to sleep.

*sigh*

I heart threads like these.