We were asking for free disaster help

  • Thread starter Rich Stern [URL]http://news.yahoo.com/s/usatoday/2
  • Start date
Advertise with us
Shop deals on ebay
shop deals on amazon
Nitro Owners Forum

Help Support Nitro Owners Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
R

Rich Stern

Well-Known Member
Joined
Feb 26, 2000
Messages
2,618
Reaction score
1
FEMA is billing Louisiana $3.7 billion for Katrina help. That's 9% of the total bill.



Does anybody remember the governor of Louisiana asking for "all available FREE help?" How about the mayor of New Orleans? No, I don't remember that either. And yet, they resent getting a bill for the 9%.



The rest of us get to pick up the other $36 billion. That's our reward for choosing not to live in an poor, below-sea level city in a hurricane prone region.



And, did you know that FEMA will pay up to $26,600 per household for uninsured losses?



Why do I bother spending money on insurance? I can get the rest of you taxpayers to pay for my irresponsibility.



The great giveaway continues...
http://news.yahoo.com/s/usatoday/20051104/ts_usatoday/louisianacantpaykatrinaritabills
 
I have issues with this as well. Not too mention that other programs are being cut to foot the bill. This hits close to home for me. My sister found out that one of the program being looked at funds one of the places my brother in law goes to therapy. He may not be eligible to go there much longer...



Rich D
 


The split is, according to the law, 75/25 with state and local governments but presidents can reduce the state and local share. Clinton usually reduced it to zero state and local governments. That uninsurable losses program has some restrictions on how a disaster vicitm can spend that money, but it too has been increased annually since the law way back. The big deal is going to be housing. Fema can't rebuild houses,(or rather, is not supposed to) but can provide up to 18 months's in those trailers or in rentals the victims find themselves (even hotels for awhile). SBA kicks in with low interest home loans for those with the ability to pay it back, but for those with no visible means, sorry. Many people who were already in subsidized housing will go back to the same, but maybe somewhere else until it is rebuilt in the disaster area. You apparently have an argument with our taxes paying for someone else's disaster losses. For the record, the Congress has never said no to any supplemental request for disaster relief for the simple reason they know it could happen at home too. I guess when you look at it that way, it's a sorry setup, but figure out something better. The Japanese had a neat approach to a disaster years ago while I was stationed there. They just gave every household $25,000 and walked away. Think about that. At today's rates, just give every household double or even triple and walk away. I bet the cost would be reduced dramatically in those areas of relief for people (not governments, roads, public buldings, etc).

 


The split is, according to the law, 75/25 with state and local governments but presidents can reduce the state and local share. Clinton usually reduced it to zero state and local governments. That uninsurable losses program has some restrictions on how a disaster vicitm can spend that money, but it too has been increased annually since the law way back. The big deal is going to be housing. Fema can't rebuild houses,(or rather, is not supposed to) but can provide up to 18 months's in those trailers or in rentals the victims find themselves (even hotels for awhile). SBA kicks in with low interest home loans for those with the ability to pay it back, but for those with no visible means, sorry. Many people who were already in subsidized housing will go back to the same, but maybe somewhere else until it is rebuilt in the disaster area. You apparently have an argument with our taxes paying for someone else's disaster losses. For the record, the Congress has never said no to any supplemental request for disaster relief for the simple reason they know it could happen at home too. I guess when you look at it that way, it's a sorry setup, but figure out something better. The Japanese had a neat approach to a disaster years ago while I was stationed there. They just gave every household $25,000 and walked away. Think about that. At today's rates, just give every household double or even triple and walk away. I bet the cost would be reduced dramatically in those areas of relief for people (not governments, roads, public buldings, etc).

 
Sorry for the double post...I have no idea how I did that.
 
Hey Rich,....I'm sure Farrakhan will be all over it,...afterall...he thinks the "Man" bombed the dikes on purpose to keep the black man down!! WTF?!:angry:
 
Jack, we have to toss out the whole system and start again.



I was reading Newsweek's coverage of Katrina, and Jonathan Alter, an admittedly liberal but otherwise solid writer was bemoaning how Katrina underscored that we have walked away from the poverty fight in the time since the welfare-to-work bill was passed in the mid 1990s.



He's describing some of the victims. One woman he profiles as a hardship case, on welfare, foodstamps and various substistence programs her whole life, is someone he claims is hit hard by Katrina and falls through the cracks because she lost her meager assets. And she can't earn much more than minimum wage. Well, he glosses over the fact that she was pregnant at 17, has little education, and not done for herself what many Americans who pay her way do every day: Go out and fight the good fight to improve their lives with education, training, hard work, savings, etc. Food is free (foodstamps). Education is free (public schools, libraries). Healthcare is nearly free (medicaid). Housing is subsidized. Retirement is subsidized.



What's next? We buy you the lottery tickets, beer and cigarettes you "have a right to enjoy?"



Every time government teaches people that they aren't responsible for their choices and that others can be made to pay for the cost of mistakes, we reinforce that there is no reason to be personally responsible. Society will carry you on its back.



Until someday, the back breaks.
 
Yeah, what Rich said.:angry:



I know it's not politically correct, but if you want to eat, have a roof over your head, have transportation, get off of your sorry, blood sucking a$$, and get a job.

There, I feel much better.:D



BruceM
 
I have no problem with "taking care of those who can't care for themselves" - I have a problem when the words 'chose not to' are put in place of 'can't'
 
I have no problem with "taking care of those who can't care for themselves" - I have a problem when the words 'chose not to' are put in place of 'can't'
Click to expand...



Well said, velcro. Blurring that line has become the mark of fine political craftsmanship.
 
I too, do not like having to pay the bill for those without insurance. I am not very happy about spending money to help all of the overseas countries either.

I have a problem with those who say we choose to live in a POOR, below sea level area. I live on the westbank of New Orleans, in a middle class or above subdivision. The poor folks around here pay $400,000 or better for their homes. I was born and raised here, it is great hunting and fishing. I am 52 years old, and it has been 35 years since we had a hurricane, of this nature, and even this time I had only minor damage. I am not sure where you live Rich, but I do not suppose you would like the residents of New Orleans to live there. Maybe, though, since you made such a great decision, you could let us all move there. I was born and raised here, own a business here, my roots are here, but since you believe you are having to foot the bill for a disaster, we should all pack up and leave. I pay insurance, and resent people who say we choose to live in diaster alley. In closing, I would like to say, I would rather help Americans, than any foreign countries.

Bubby:angry::angry:
 
North Dakota News Bulletin



This text is from a county emergency manager out in the western part of North Dakota state after the storm.



Amusing, if it were not so true...



WEATHER BULLETIN



Up here in the Northern Plains we just recovered from a Historic event --- may I even say a "Weather Event" of "Biblical Proportions" --- with a historic blizzard of up to 24" inches of snow and winds to 50 MPH that broke trees in half, stranded hundreds of motorists in lethal snow banks, closed all roads, isolated scores of communities and cut power to 10's of thousands.



FYI:



George Bush did not come....

FEMA staged nothing....

No one howled for the government...

No one even uttered an expletive on TV...

Nobody demanded $2,000 debit cards.....

No one asked for a FEMA Trailer House....

No one looted....

Phil Cantori of the Weather Channel did not come....

And Geraldo Rivera did not move in.



Nope, we just melted snow for water, sent out caravans to pluck people out of snow engulfed cars, fired up wood stoves, broke out coal oil lanterns or Aladdin lamps, and put on an extra layer of clothes because up here it is 'work or die'. We did not wait for some affirmative action government to get us out of a mess created by being immobilized by a welfare program that trades votes for 'sittin at home' checks.



Even though a Category "5" blizzard of this scale has never fallen this early...we know it can happen and how to deal with it ourselves.



"In my many travels, I have noticed that once one gets north of about 48 degrees North Latitude, 90% of the worlds social problems evaporate."



 
Bubby, sorry, don't mean to throw the baby out with the bathwater.



I'm upset that your elected officials resent having to be responsible for their choices. Your governor and mayor are terrible leaders. Since you understandly love your home and are going to live there, please elect politicians who will do a better job of dealing with the realities of where you live, so I am not held fiscally responsible for their choices; if I am, don't expect a positive opinion.



 
Rich, I agree. I do not vote for or do I want to vote for the the mayor of New Orleans. I do however vote for the governor's office, and did not vote for Blanco. I do however have a problem being linked to New Orleans. Most people believe this whole area was destroyed. I had 30 singles missing, and maybe 12 wooden fence boards broken. We are back to normal living here. The Media does a great job making the most out of their stories. I watch them acting like they are being blown sideways by 40 mph winds and walking in water up to their knees, sooooo dramatic. When the storm passed here, New Orleans included, the damage was minal, however the tidal waters flooded these areas. AS far as politicans go, there is not many I trust. If any of them were worth a crap, this problem would not have happened. For years Louisiana has been asking for 27 ft. levees, if anyone would have decided to do something about them it would have cost less than a quarter of the price of this diaster. Had they done something 15 years ago when cries for the eroding coast were given it would have cost 1/10 of todays prices. I am not defending any governor or mayor, just leave out the part about us chosing to live in an area below sea level. We pay DEARLY for insurance to live here, and yes it is going up again. We could shut down Louisiana, and the refineries, the gas ports from the gulf. WE would not have to worry about paying for repairing La., or New Orleans ever again. Just think what it would do to gas prices, it would give us something else to complain about.

Bubby
 
I do not believe that the President has the ability to reduce the state's share. It's written into law. I believe that the congress will have to pass special legislation, to reduce their share. This, according to reports that I read yesterday.



Tex
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Back
Top