Wow... The Anti-Paul people must be celebrating today.
The only time the news mentions Paul is if they can do it in a negative light. Where's the full interview? Oh that's right, this is taken out of
context. This isn't a news piece, but a hit piece using a recent disaster to play on the emotional responses of the reader.
This is nothing more then manipulative reporting.
I'll be honest, if I live in an area that is prone to disaster, and there is an insurance that exists that covers my losses from said disasters then
I'll buy it... if I really want to live in that area I'll make sure that my assists are covered.
My decision to live in a disaster prone area is my own, and I will not leave my insurance duties up to my fellow Americans. Why would I?
If people can not afford the proper insurance, then there are almost limitless other areas in our vast country to live that are less prone to
twisters, earthquakes, and or hurricanes. People always MAKE EXCUSES on why they don't have the insurance, but really there is no excuse. IF YOU LIVE
IN A DISASTER PRONE AREA IT IS YOUR DUTY TO HAVE INSURANCE. Not having insurance is a risk. It's less costly in the mean time, but as we can see here
it can turn around and bite you.
To put it in a smaller context, if a person hits and demolishes your car, and runs from the scene and you don't have car insurance should it be the
Federal Government's responsibility to cover your losses? Car Insurance is mandated in many areas. You can not legally drive a car without owning car
insurance (at least in Rhode Island). Why isn't home insurance mandated in the same way in disaster prone areas?
Oh that's right, because the costs of living and operating in said areas wouldn't be financially feasible, and towns would close up, and move. The
only way for these areas to continue on without insurance is Federal Funds, which is nothing more forced socialized insurance (bailout). Personally, I
would support sending our funds to help our own out during disasters instead of using it on foreign aid, banking bailouts, or war but I understand
Paul's reasoning for this.
Also, how many Billions were lost or mismanaged during Katrina?
The costs of living in a disaster prone area exceeds the benefits, if the Federal Government didn't provide funds to rebuild in said locations, then
people would NOT REBUILD. Eventually, the lack of rebuilding would save lives and the costs on the taxpayer through relief funds.
Why would any sane person want people to continue rebuilding in an area that is constantly demolished by Nature?
edit on 4-3-2012 by squidboy because: (no reason given)