It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Should Taxpayers Foot The Bill For Gustav Evacuations

page: 1
2
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 31 2008 @ 05:13 PM
link   
News came out that the taxpayers will be funding the evacuation of the thousands of New Orleans residents in light of Gustav. Ok thats fine this time around. But what about when it happens again and again should the taxpayer have to foot the bill everytime. These people CHOOSE to live on the coast and I shouldnt have to bail out people if I live in Montana or Utah because these people choose to live their. (I happen to live in Florida but have the means to evacuate myself) I think these people who couldnt afford to evacuate themselves should stay in the cities they are being transferred to. Im not heartless and I know Ill get flamed as such I just dont think its fair to continually have to pay for storm evacuations no matter where it is.




posted on Aug, 31 2008 @ 05:22 PM
link   
reply to post by mybigunit
 


Some people live there because they have to. They grew up there and dont have the money to move.

Whatever happened to helping out our fellow man?



posted on Aug, 31 2008 @ 05:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by bknapple32
reply to post by mybigunit
 


Some people live there because they have to. They grew up there and dont have the money to move.

Whatever happened to helping out our fellow man?


Nothing thats why I dont mind helping out here. But if this becomes continuous something HAS to change. Its not fair to people who would LOVE to move on to the coast and get that water view that does not because THEY dont want to deal with the storms to have to pay for continual evacuations. Its not right. I say this as a living resident of South Florida not to mention. But once again I have the means to get myself out.



posted on Aug, 31 2008 @ 05:29 PM
link   
United we STAND, divided we Fall!

We are all Americans, and we take care of our own. Of course we will support and help any community stricken by such a massive disaster.



posted on Aug, 31 2008 @ 05:29 PM
link   
reply to post by mybigunit
 

You live in So. florida and you are complaining that taxpayers shouldnt foot the bill??? Odd...

I understand you have the means to get out, but lots dont. And its not like those people wont be suffering much more than the rest of us... Our taxes go up , what, for the cost to evacuate???

If my taxes are going to save lives, then damn, ive finally found something useful for my taxes.



posted on Aug, 31 2008 @ 05:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by yankeerose
United we STAND, divided we Fall!

We are all Americans, and we take care of our own. Of course we will support and help any community stricken by such a massive disaster.


Fair enough but one question where do we get the money? The part I didnt mention was the rebuilding of New Orleans. If this gets flooded again do we continue to spend billions to rebuild? The fact is America is bankrupt as it is and to keep paying for stuff like this makes no sense. Ok so lets continue to borrow money from China and the Arabs to rebuild cities. I do get your point though.



posted on Aug, 31 2008 @ 05:38 PM
link   
The question asked in the OP is should we pay for the evacuation for the people in the path of a massive hurricane. I answered your question with my own thoughts...

Now if your going to change the question, or just want to argue... perhaps you should reword your OP.



posted on Aug, 31 2008 @ 05:39 PM
link   
From a country that is completely below sealevel my reaction


If evacuation will repeat itself over and over again taxpayers shouldn't pay for the evacuation, but for constructing something better to prevent it from happening again. Maybe naive, but i thought that already happened after the last time. Why did all the dutch engineers head that way?

Anyway...Every part of the country has it's risks another part has to pay for. That's the way society works! In the big cities there might be more crime and people from the countryside have to pay for it too. Is that honest? I think it is...The evacuation costs divided by 300,000,000 people how much do you realy feel of it?



posted on Aug, 31 2008 @ 05:45 PM
link   
reply to post by Roosje
 


Seems like it should be something the state/province pays and plans for, not the federal government......A much bigger question is whether and how the federal government (read all of us taxpayers) should pay to rebuild!!!

I live on a barrier island in south florida, I choose to and buy flood insurance because it is available. My flood insurance is a taxpayer subsidized program. Should it be? no, it should be something I pay for because I CHOOSE to live at 9 feet ASL (above sea level)!!!



posted on Aug, 31 2008 @ 05:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by yankeerose
The question asked in the OP is should we pay for the evacuation for the people in the path of a massive hurricane. I answered your question with my own thoughts...

Now if your going to change the question, or just want to argue... perhaps you should reword your OP.


Not changing anything just posing another thought. I dont agree with what you are saying so no I am not changing the subject. I am just saying I understand your point thats all.



posted on Aug, 31 2008 @ 05:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by habu71
reply to post by Roosje
 


Seems like it should be something the state/province pays and plans for, not the federal government......A much bigger question is whether and how the federal government (read all of us taxpayers) should pay to rebuild!!!

I live on a barrier island in south florida, I choose to and buy flood insurance because it is available. My flood insurance is a taxpayer subsidized program. Should it be? no, it should be something I pay for because I CHOOSE to live at 9 feet ASL (above sea level)!!!


Correct and this is my point. I think FEMA should be eliminated and people in their own states should have to pay a tax for things like this. Making the federal government continue to pay for it is not right.



posted on Aug, 31 2008 @ 05:52 PM
link   
reply to post by mybigunit
 


What about all the Oil Revenue that Louisiana provides. It pays for itself more than many other states.



posted on Aug, 31 2008 @ 05:58 PM
link   
did you know there is nothing like a flood insurance in The Netherlands?


I'm not really into the way state/federal government works over there. I only know how we do it. And that is that the federal government pays for preventing flooding. When things do go wrong a part is paid by the government and there is always something like own risk.... But evacuation would be paid by the federal government! But hey, we are a small country


For the USA in the end i don't think it would make any difference in your wallet if state would pay of federal. By the federal approach things are more slightly...And every state has it's risks... And by starting this...i wonder what would happen with the oil profits...are they going to the state or federal?

Excuse me when i don't get the situation right...i try my best



posted on Aug, 31 2008 @ 06:00 PM
link   
I understand the point that people live there because its their home.
I was born and raised in one state and moved and lived in another for 6 months and then moved back, then moved again.
Do I still consider the first state, the first place I was born, etc my home?
No. Not really. I miss my home state as that's where my childhood and young life was, but home is where you make it.

Home can be somewhere else. The comments on "But they have no way to leave" is a little off too, since I've read and watched news stories about planes, trains, buses, cars, bicycles, etc being provided by the state / government to haul people to safe zones. They gave plenty of options for those disabled, elderly, etc to get help in leaving or securing their house. DirecTV had a channel solely to show evac routes, places to go to catch the free rides out, etc. So then, what is the excuse of them not being able to leave?

There comes a time when you have to stop and say "Enough is enough" and not put yourself in harms way anymore. As as a people, a union, etc - we should look after those to protect them from being in harms way ...



posted on Aug, 31 2008 @ 06:07 PM
link   
reply to post by mtmouse32
 

You write as if nothing can be done to prevent N O from being flooded. That is completely wrong. Read Roosje's post and try to read up on the Netherlands. Louisiana pays for itself through Oil revenue. It is a valuable asset to the United States and it is worth to put a flood defense system in place and not moan about whether or not people should be living there. It is a free country!



posted on Aug, 31 2008 @ 06:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by Lebowski achiever
reply to post by mybigunit
 


What about all the Oil Revenue that Louisiana provides. It pays for itself more than many other states.


What about the revenues. All states contribute to the fund in one way or another Louisiana is oil. Ok then lets put aside all the funds for all the evacuations and forget all the other federal government programs that is funded.



posted on Aug, 31 2008 @ 06:20 PM
link   
reply to post by bknapple32
 


I'm impressed with your response in this thread.

Thanks for standing up for the little guy.

your statement, and I paraphrase, "finally my taxes going to something useful" is wonderful in my opinion.



posted on Aug, 31 2008 @ 06:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by Lebowski achiever
reply to post by mtmouse32
 

You write as if nothing can be done to prevent N O from being flooded. That is completely wrong. Read Roosje's post and try to read up on the Netherlands. Louisiana pays for itself through Oil revenue. It is a valuable asset to the United States and it is worth to put a flood defense system in place and not moan about whether or not people should be living there. It is a free country!


Its a free country and people are free to move. The fact is if new orleans was allowed to just go under nothing changes. Just a little more water so you create a new city inland more that isnt 10 ft below sea level.



posted on Aug, 31 2008 @ 06:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by bknapple32
reply to post by mybigunit
 

You live in So. florida and you are complaining that taxpayers shouldnt foot the bill??? Odd...

I understand you have the means to get out, but lots dont. And its not like those people wont be suffering much more than the rest of us... Our taxes go up , what, for the cost to evacuate???

If my taxes are going to save lives, then damn, ive finally found something useful for my taxes.


People in south florida dont cost the taxpayers millions to evacuate. We pay for it ourselves or we hunker down. There is a difference.

Finally my taxpayer dollars are going somewhere? Sorry Id rather them be in my pockets and not paying to evacuate people who refuse to stand up for themselves and leave.



posted on Aug, 31 2008 @ 06:30 PM
link   
Do you honestly think that rebuilding a city more inland is going to be cheaper than building a flood defense like the one that Holland has? And besides, Oil Revenue will provide for either a flood defense or an evacuation or two in the future. Do you think that an evacuation for FL is going to be cheaper? Just because you provide for your evac. doesn't mean that the millions of others that live there will be able to. Let's just close FL as well then if we are going to use that argument. I hate beach, sunshine, palm trees and Disney anyway. (No I don't but just saying..)



new topics

top topics



 
2
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join