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: 3
2
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 31 2008 @ 07:03 PM
link   
Ahh just out
"Blackwater gears up for Gustav"
www.abovetopsecret.com...

Our tax dollars hard at work.....let the cronyism begin.




posted on Aug, 31 2008 @ 07:09 PM
link   
you arrange better jobs, housing and moving for all these people and i bet a lot of them will leave....But who will do the dirty work that is needed over there? Who will get the oil where the money is? Sometimes we have to live where we live. Since there is hardly any other option...

And every state for it's own? It's just stupid.. You don't carry those risks alone when you can share them...Or are you in favor of having health insurance for men and women seperated? Just to be sure the men won't pay for the womens problems?



posted on Aug, 31 2008 @ 07:12 PM
link   
And if there is a problem with the contracters...just focus on THAT problem... A hard one, but give it a shot...



posted on Aug, 31 2008 @ 07:14 PM
link   
I say yes. If my tax money will help get those people out of harm's way and avoid their deaths then so be it.

Now if NOLA gets destroyed and these people move back there to risk it all again then next time they should be on their own. Harsh I know but there comes a time when people should realize to stay out of danger if they can.



posted on Aug, 31 2008 @ 07:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by mybigunit
Wow so much for self sufficiency and if you look at history the U for United means the individual self sufficient states in the republic are all united. Self sufficiency is the key here. Read the constitution. No where does it say the federal government will bail out cities like SF and NO during disasters. It is for the state to do and if the disasters are frequent then the state needs to charge a heft tax. Hey its a part of living where you live deal with it. I see when YOU dont have to pay the tab you dont mind living there. But when its others its fine. Self sufficiency people cmon this is ridiculous. We as a nation have the freedom to DONATE to the cause but should not be forced to with our tax dollars. That is where the freedom comes into play.

[edit on 31-8-2008 by mybigunit]


Where to begin... Um well the constitution doesn't ask for things like bail outs of SF and NO, because the constitution was ratified with t 13 colonies... Neither of which being California or Louisiana. The Constitution was made in the eyes of scrutiny on the backbone of UNITING 13 separate but equal colonies.

Hm I'll steal one from the ultra right... Dont like it? Move to Mexico.



posted on Aug, 31 2008 @ 07:38 PM
link   
reply to post by mybigunit
 


Yeah... screw the 500000 people living there so you can save a little bit of money every year. .

"That's the promise of America - the idea that we are responsible for ourselves, but that we also rise or fall as one nation; the fundamental belief that I am my brother's keeper; I am my sister's keeper."

we rise and fall as one nation. If we could pick and choose what our taxes go to, we fall. If we don't fund the evacuation of 500000 people in grave danger of flooding and hurricane force winds, we fall. You should be proud that your tax money is going to save the lives of those people, and make sure they have someone safe, warm, and dry to stay. That they have something to eat and drink. You should be proud that you made a difference in a very grave situation. All of us taxpayers did. I disagree with the way our dollars are being spent in some cases, but this is one we should be unified on, these are citizens of OUR country, they deserve our help.



posted on Aug, 31 2008 @ 08:17 PM
link   


Now if NOLA gets destroyed and these people move back there to risk it all again then next time they should be on their own. Harsh I know but there comes a time when people should realize to stay out of danger if they can.


That's kinda the point I was trying to make earlier. I was speaking to a friend about this. One comment made in another thread ( I believe ) was that the government was to fix this / that ( levee's / etc ). Great.
If it got fixed, do you realizes that it could STILL flood? ... Levee's don't stop rain from falling. Hurricanes bring tons of rain ... the town is below sea level. Where, pray tell, shall water go if you are at the bottom already?

You could defend the cities from the ocean, but how do you defend the city from the amounts of rain that will come? Or the wind that blows in? ... You can defend from only so many things.

I live in an area that gets forest fires every year. I can defend my home from the fires, but I can't stop the fires from happening.



posted on Aug, 31 2008 @ 08:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by Anonymous ATS
reply to post by mybigunit
 


Yeah... screw the 500000 people living there so you can save a little bit of money every year. .

"That's the promise of America - the idea that we are responsible for ourselves, but that we also rise or fall as one nation; the fundamental belief that I am my brother's keeper; I am my sister's keeper."

we rise and fall as one nation. If we could pick and choose what our taxes go to, we fall. If we don't fund the evacuation of 500000 people in grave danger of flooding and hurricane force winds, we fall. You should be proud that your tax money is going to save the lives of those people, and make sure they have someone safe, warm, and dry to stay. That they have something to eat and drink. You should be proud that you made a difference in a very grave situation. All of us taxpayers did. I disagree with the way our dollars are being spent in some cases, but this is one we should be unified on, these are citizens of OUR country, they deserve our help.



If you want to bail them out you as a free American can make a large donation of your own money. Thats how this works. I shouldnt have to be forced to pay the overpriced government cronies like blackwater and KBR to fix New Orleans many times over. if you want to donate your own money great you can do that no one is stopping you. But to continually force the taxpayers to bailout people who choose to live where they live or businesses who choose to screw themselves or auto industry who chooses to make a crappy product then that is their choice but I shouldn't have to bail them out.



posted on Aug, 31 2008 @ 08:45 PM
link   
Not this time. If you lost everything in Katrina it is just as easy to start over in TX or Iowa with nothing. But to go back to same place and expect the US to foot the bill so you can rebuild in NOLA...Not gonna happen.



posted on Aug, 31 2008 @ 08:46 PM
link   
I agree, why should I fork out the equivalent of a pack of Chiclets to pay for an 86-year-old grandmother on social security to get a free ride for 8 hours on an unairconditioned Greyhound bus so she can sleep on a the floor in a gymnasium for 3 days and eat MREs 100 miles away from her family? Jeesh, the nerve. Why can't these people take some responsibility?



posted on Aug, 31 2008 @ 09:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by mybigunit
Its a free country and people are free to move.


Are you serious here? Where are these people going to move to? The midwest? Then are you going to make a thread complaining about how you have to pay .01% of your wages to help people whose lives have been ruined by tornados (I don't know the actual percentage, but I assume it's not a very noticeable amount)? Or how about here in sunny California? No, they shouldn't live here, because we don't want to have to pay for their lazy arses when the earthquakes hit, right? Come on now, any place you live has some sort of risk associated with it. A huge percentage of your taxes go to the war(s), and the thing you're worried about is giving a little to your fellow countrymen during a natural disaster? Have some compassion, man.



Edited to remove my (totally hilarious) elitist grammar joke.

[edit on 31-8-2008 by Wintermute]



posted on Aug, 31 2008 @ 10:02 PM
link   
New Orleans will always exists because it is important real estate and has essential infrastructure.

It should never reach the size that it once was, but it's not going to just go away.

New Orleans is not the only vulnerable city on the US coast line. We have a budget for helping out citizens in times of disaster, so yes, the taxpayers should pay for it.

What taxpayers should not pay for are those who have done nothing for themselves and seek to make hay out of an unfortunate situation.

[edit on 2008/8/31 by GradyPhilpott]



posted on Aug, 31 2008 @ 10:46 PM
link   
reply to post by mybigunit
 


They have as much right to live there as you do in Florida, or as anyone does to live anywhere. The idea of a civilisation is that everyone takes care of everyone else. It's incredibly selfish to think otherwise.



posted on Aug, 31 2008 @ 10:54 PM
link   
I don't mind a bit paying to help fellow Americans (or human beings, for that matter), but certainly we should be questioning a system which gives localities the power to allow unsustainable development which ultimately is insured by the whole nation.

There is nothing wrong in questioning people who claim an absolute right to freedoms which injure others.

If New Orleans as it exists today is unsustainable, then it needs to be redeveloped in more intelligent ways.



posted on Aug, 31 2008 @ 10:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by Grumble
I don't mind a bit paying to help fellow Americans (or human beings, for that matter), but certainly we should be questioning a system which gives localities the power to allow unsustainable development which ultimately is insured by the whole nation.

There is nothing wrong in questioning people who claim an absolute right to freedoms which injure others.

If New Orleans as it exists today is unsustainable, then it needs to be redeveloped in more intelligent ways.


Exactly. People are portraying me as some inhumane guy who is greedy for not helping his fellow humans when I have posted above I dont mind helping this time or even last time. But to keep doing this in the future is absurd and needs to be addressed. Whether we have to relocate the city, build 30 foot walls, or just dont allow people who cant afford to leave everytime a storm comes to live there something has to be addressed because paying millions for evacuation everytime a storm comes or billions everytime NO gets destroyed makes no sense at all. If people dont want it relocated then they can pay to keep rebuilding the city themselves. If people want to keep donating to the cause that is their choice to do so. What no one has addressed is my question WHERE ARE WE GETTING THE MONEY TO KEEP DOING THIS? America is bankrupt how many times do I have to say this.



posted on Aug, 31 2008 @ 11:03 PM
link   
personally i believe as a UNITED STATES we (all states) should help each other out. every region in our country has specific disasters. however i do not agree with insurance companies not allowing or not giving policies in areas that are prone to specific problems. isn't that why we pay for insurance? and why should we as taxpayers allow our govt to spend billions upon billions of dollars in financial aid to other countries to watch the food rot on runways when we could be spending that money here to help our own citizens? who sends us aid when we have a major disaster? we are pretty much on our own. i have no problem helping my fellow citizens in times of need but we as a country have to take care of our citizens FIRST before we worry about other countries. if we have money left over after that fine then we can help others.
just my 2 cents



posted on Aug, 31 2008 @ 11:12 PM
link   
My only opposition is paying for the guy rebuilding in the same spot that always gets creamed by natural disasters.



posted on Aug, 31 2008 @ 11:46 PM
link   
Taxpayers shouldn't foot the bill for people who live in high risk zones, regardless if its quakes, tornadoes, or hurricanes, that's why we have insurance.

If people in Malibu have their house fall into the sea, should we as taxpayers pay to rebuild their house? Most people will say no, because they will say that they are rich and that they should know better. They don't apply this same criteria of self responsibility when it comes to other people, why? Simply because of envy, there is an inherent nature in people to hate another class, because of economic standing, rather than apply logic and reason on an even Kiel. This is truly evil thinking, in man.



[edit on 31-8-2008 by Gateway]



posted on Aug, 31 2008 @ 11:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by Roosje
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?


Other parts of the country have building codes, especially in regards
to flood plains.

They need to start a slow relocation plan over 50 - 75 years.

This area has been hit by Camille, Betsy, Katrina, and now Gustav,
there has been a lot of others over the years, 15 in fact.

Hurricanes that came close to New Orleans

In california they have building codes to deal with Earthquakes.

The same should apply to new buildings here, and incentives to
relocate should be gradually put in place over the long haul.

It is not going to happen overnight, but they could start with the
worst areas first such as the ones that are 9 feet below sea level.

Areas of New Orleans below level of River and Lake

[edit on 1-9-2008 by Ex_MislTech]



posted on Sep, 1 2008 @ 12:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by wutone
My only opposition is paying for the guy rebuilding in the same spot that always gets creamed by natural disasters.


Having personally gone through the FEMA program for some loss in a flood last year, it was said to me by a representative that there are some people who are making FEMA claims a regular habit, and profiting from the process.

It is my belief, to give people employment assistance, and revenue to relocate should their property be destroyed, allowing them to regain their lifestyle in a less hazardous environment.

But after its been done once, I have witnessed, people go back to business as usual thinking its never going to happen again, and when it happens again, then the process repeats.

At a certain point, FEMA needs to just let New Orleans flood and evacuate what is there. Its a hazard to those who live there, and is appearing to be a repetitive burden.
When we have a situation of cyclic disaster, a certain amount of personal accountability needs to occur, when alternative options are available.

Help the people to relocate to a safe location, and designate that area as a hazard zone that will not be habitable in the future.

Peace



new topics

top topics



 
2
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join