It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable 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: 4
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in


posted on Sep, 1 2008 @ 12:16 AM
reply to post by HIFIGUY

Here here...also people who continue to build in dangerous zones should be required to purchase flood insurance, with a high premium so as to discourage building in obviously dangerous flooding zones. Personal responsibility should be encouraged not discouraged. What sort of message is being sent when government continually subsidizes people's propensity to take unnecessary risks.

I like what Dr. Paul, has to say regarding personal responsibility...

[edit on 1-9-2008 by Gateway]

posted on Sep, 1 2008 @ 12:21 AM

Originally posted by mybigunit
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.

I'm not going to flame you, mbu. I'm in agreement. Katrina was just about 3 years ago to the day. If you haven't left the city permanently, or made your own evacuation plan since then for when this sort of disaster would inevitably happen again, I have no sympathy for you. Three years is plenty of time to come up with some sort of contingency plan.

Hurricaines will never stop. If you can't evacuate yourself then you shouldn't continue to live below sea level. There is no way taxpayers should be forced to pay for regularly occurring, continuous disasters.

posted on Sep, 1 2008 @ 12:40 AM
reply to post by Gateway

Ron Paul is a genius. I am writing him in.

posted on Sep, 1 2008 @ 01:13 AM
Wanted: Looking to buy new or used planet (size not a problem) without any weather patterns or natural disasters. We prefer a deserted planet but are very adept at eradicating indigenous species, so neighbors are not a problem.

Ps. Needs a large enough backyard so we can kill our own after squabbling over money. Thanks

-The Humans.

posted on Sep, 1 2008 @ 03:48 AM
for the price of 1 b2 spirit stealth bomber, you could afford buses to ship all hurricane effected peoples for a 100years

its not really a big deal when it comes to costs , when considering the national budget

you should be angery with the constant Overpaying of corporations for their products so those contractors can get mega profits. And the lobby organizations that pay off congresspeople to allow it. A 300 dollar hammer is a huge waste. Even I am willing to sell hammers for 100$ cmon

If the govt would insist on getting better deals, we could cut down on at least 75% of our costs.

That would be a good start.

posted on Sep, 1 2008 @ 11:41 AM
yeah you should get flamed. typical mainstream American- "all for one, none for all"

posted on Sep, 1 2008 @ 11:45 AM

No matter where you live, there will be a major problem someday that you need help with.
When that happens I'm sure New Orleans folks will do what they can to help.

posted on Sep, 1 2008 @ 01:48 PM
If America would finally realise that global warming exists and actually do something then maybe you wouldn't have to keep worrying about your tax money being spent on evacuating away from these hurricanes.

Not only that but whilst doing so, using no or at least a lot less oil, so you don't need to worry about wars with Iraq, Iran, or a resurgent Russia.

I wish people would DO SOMETHING! I want to, but I can't stand alone.

posted on Sep, 1 2008 @ 02:26 PM
In a word...No. I'm all for aiding people when we have the means to do so & can make the free & willful choice to help, as compared to having it ripped away from us. The government's broke & the public is in hock to the private bank (masquerading as our national bank) up to our eyeballs for I don't know how many more generations because of government overspending. We can't let the government borrow more money to pay for it, because those "loans" come out of our pockets.

For those that can help by physically traveling & aid with the evacuation effort, all fine: For those who can afford to front their own money willingly, fine. But to demand & steal from people who have no means is no less than "robbing Peter to pay Paul." That is not any of the Powers granted to government by the Constitution.
Source: Not Yours to Give: A story of Davy Crockett (excerpted):

"'Yes, I know you; you are Colonel Crockett, I have seen you once before, and voted for you the last time you were elected. I suppose you are out electioneering now, but you had better not waste your time or mine. I shall not vote for you again.'

"This was a sockdolager . . . I begged him to tell me what was the matter.

"'Well, Colonel, it is hardly worth-while to waste time or words upon it. I do not see how it can be mended, but you gave a vote last winter which shows that either you have not capacity to understand the Constitution, or that you are wanting in the honesty and firmness to be guided by it. In either case you are not the man to represent me. But I beg your pardon for expressing it in that way. I did not intend to avail myself of the privilege of the constituent to speak plainly to a candidate for the purpose of insulting or wounding you. I intend by it only to say that your understanding of the Constitution is very different from mine; and I will say to you what, but for my rudeness, I should not have said, that I believe you to be honest. . . . But an understanding of the Constitution different from mine I cannot overlook, because the Constitution, to be worth anything, must be held sacred, and rigidly observed in all its provisions. The man who wields power and misinterprets it is the more dangerous the more honest he is.'

"'I admit the truth of all you say, but there must be some mistake about it, for I do not remember that I gave any vote last winter upon any constitutional question.'

"'No, Colonel, there's no mistake. Though I live here in the backwoods and seldom go from home, I take the papers from Washington and read very carefully all the proceedings of Congress. My papers say that last winter you voted for a bill to appropriate $20,000 to some sufferers by a fire in Georgetown. Is that true?'

"'Well, my friend; I may as well own up. You have got me there. But certainly nobody will complain that a great and rich country like ours should give the insignificant sum of $20,000 to relieve its suffering women and children, particularly with a full and overflowing Treasury, and I am sure, if you had been there, you would have done just as I did.'

"'It is not the amount, Colonel, that I complain of; it is the principle. In the first place, the government ought to have in the Treasury no more than enough for its legitimate purposes. But that has nothing to do with the question. The power of collecting and disbursing money at pleasure is the most dangerous power that can be intrusted to man, particularly under our system of collecting revenue by a tariff, which reaches every man in the country, no matter how poor he may be, and the poorer he is the more he pays in proportion to his means.

"'What is worse, it presses upon him without his knowledge where the weight centers, for there is not a man in the United States who can ever guess how much he pays to the government. So you see, that while you are contributing to relieve one, you are drawing it from thousands who are even worse off than he.

"'If you had the right to give anything, the amount was simply a matter of discretion with you, and you had as much right to give $20,000,000 as $20,000. If you have the right to give to one, you have the right to give to all; and, as the Constitution neither defines charity nor stipulates the amount, you are at liberty to give to any and everything which you may believe, or profess to believe, is a charity, and to any amount you may think proper. You will very easily perceive what a wide door this would open for fraud and corruption and favoritism, on the one hand, and for robbing the people on the other. No, Colonel, Congress has no right to give charity.

"'Individual members may give as much of their own money as they please, but they have no right to touch a dollar of the public money for that purpose. If twice as many houses had been burned in this county as in Georgetown, neither you nor any other member of Congress would have thought of appropriating a dollar for our relief. There are about two hundred and forty members of Congress. If they had shown their sympathy for the sufferers by contributing each one week's pay, it would have made over $13,000. There are plenty of wealthy men in and around Washington who could have given $20,000 without depriving themselves of even a luxury of life.

"'The congressmen chose to keep their own money, which, if reports be true, some of them spend not very creditably; and the people about Washington, no doubt, applauded you for relieving them from the necessity of giving by giving what was not yours to give. The people have delegated to Congress, by the Constitution, the power to do certain things. To do these, it is authorized to collect and pay moneys, and for nothing else. Everything beyond this is usurpation, and a violation of the Constitution.

"'So you see, Colonel, you have violated the Constitution in what I consider a vital point. It is a precedent fraught with danger to the country, for when Congress once begins to stretch its power beyond the limits of the Constitution, there is no limit to it, and no security for the people. I have no doubt you acted honestly, but that does not make it any better, except as far as you are personally concerned, and you see that I cannot vote for you.'

"I tell you I felt streaked. I saw if I should have opposition, and this man should go to talking, he would set others to talking, and in that district I was a gone fawn-skin. I could not answer him, and the fact is, I was so fully convinced that he was right, I did not want to. But I must satisfy him, and I said to him:

"'Well, my friend, you hit the nail upon the head when you said I had not sense enough to understand the Constitution. I intended to be guided by it, and thought I had studied it fully. I have heard many speeches in Congress about the powers of Congress, but what you have said here at your plow has got more hard, sound sense in it than all the fine speeches I ever heard. If I had ever taken the view of it that you have, I would have put my head into the fire before I would have given that vote; and if you will forgive me and vote for me again, if I ever vote for another unconstitutional law I wish I may be shot.'

Fix our own economy first, weed out the cancerous corruption in government & do away with big-corporate money lobbying in government...As America begins to recover, more Americans will be better able to help others as well. All of this only points out that our so-called "representatives" are not truly representing us, preferring instead to act upon their own desires with everyone else's money without contributing their own...Which is, I point out, a violation of their Oaths of Office.

[edit on 1-9-2008 by MidnightDStroyer]

posted on Sep, 1 2008 @ 02:57 PM
When the government & authorities force you to leave your home
via a Mandantory Evacuation Order then transportation should be arranged by those who gave the order.

by the same reasoning... anyone that did not heed the evacuation orders should be taken into custody until the emergency condition returns to 'normal'.
the main purpose being the control of all those unprotected properties from theft or vandalism by those scattered few who hid out in the evacuation areas.

if you were one of those who did not obey the evacuation order, but stayed holed up, didn't pillage & plunder evacuated businesses or rsidences...lucky you, as you got away with it during Gustav.

Now that the worst case scenario of Gustav only skirted NOLA,
the next evacuation order will be dismissed by 10s or 100s of thousands next storm warning...i can imagine

posted on Sep, 1 2008 @ 03:21 PM
I was watching the footage of the levvy type wall thats looks to be about 3-4 feet. The water was lapping over the edge. I forget what they called this area, I dont think it was Lake Ponch. I was guessing that skinny concrete wall was newly installed after Katrina.

Although I could see it being strongly reinforced with steel and footers/pilings. They were concerned of the soil it was situated in becoming heavily saturated.
Surely if a big section of this was to give way the water would hurl the barrier and you have to wonder what type of destruction it could do If the water kept coming.

I could'nt get a good view what all was located on the dry side of this wall, but seeing a 3-4 foot body of water sitting there with just what appeared to be a highway divider. If this is what communities have to do to inhabit an area, maybe it would be best to let nature claim what it wants.

I was wondering if this wall is always retaining water, or if we are seeing a usually dry area, and this is just surge and flooding. Either way it seems the design of this wall was just barely engineered to meet the need. Is that what we pay for also?

It was just so unatural to see a body of water floating there 4 feet above dry ground. It doesnt make sense why people have to live there. Born there or not, How much money are you going to spend to keep a major delta from eroding naturally. I had this same response to katrina.

posted on Sep, 2 2008 @ 01:35 PM

posted on Sep, 2 2008 @ 01:45 PM
Many of the people in New Orleans don't have the money to leave and relocate. Many of them don't have cars and don't have the money to stay in a hotel, either. I think America should help the less fortunate. We should help our own. We all go through difficult times in our lives. It's nice to have help! I'm so glad that New Orleans was more organized this time. It was so refreshing.

posted on Sep, 2 2008 @ 03:04 PM
Yes I believe the people from Louisiana should pay for damages to New Orleans,no way should other states have to pay,we have had some devestation in California with fires quakes,notice this is never brought up I think every state should take care of it's own

posted on Sep, 2 2008 @ 03:16 PM

Originally posted by Blueangel7
Many of the people in New Orleans don't have the money to leave and relocate. Many of them don't have cars and don't have the money to stay in a hotel, either. I think America should help the less fortunate. We should help our own. We all go through difficult times in our lives. It's nice to have help! I'm so glad that New Orleans was more organized this time. It was so refreshing.

I agree with you in this respect. Once the disaster is over, we should assist them in the relocation, and we should take heed that this is a dangerous area that is becoming an excessive burden and make it uninhabitable.

When a person builds there house along a river, and they wonder year after year why their home is getting flooded, at what point do they move away from the river? Such is the case with New Orleans.

There are many cases like this around America, but the problem becomes that others around them are not willing to assist fixing the situation, labeling it as a local issue.

Perhaps California would like to not get assistance from Colorado in terms of its water supply. That would sure put a crimp in the California fire fighting capability and its agriculture.

This is not a US and THEM thing, but a WE.....We The People...


[edit on 2-9-2008 by HIFIGUY]

<< 1  2  3   >>

log in