Someone in another thread claimed that a city was, strategically speaking, needed around the New Orleans area, being at the mouth of the nation’s longest river.
If so, that could certainly be used as justification, though I suppose you could also say that only businesses and people directly related to that function would be covered or something…
And those people have kids, and those kids need to go to school, and that school needs employees, and everyone need hospitals, and everyone needs stores etc. ect
I think you see the problem…
This is one of the very few times that a post has caused me to literally laugh out loud. Some days, I have a very simple sense of humour.
Why? That seems an odd stance for one opposed to FEMA assistance. When you drain a swamp and build on it, you’re begging for a flood, and FEMA will have to come to your aid.
With what money? Their land value will become practically worthless. How will they afford a new home? They’ll need to find new good-paying jobs, and those aren’t exactly falling from the trees. One also needs “start-up money” when moving to a new area for utilities and deposits. Where are they supposed to get that?
It’s not so simple as “They should just move!” Believe it or not, there are a lot of pesky practicalities to be considered.
Temporarily, yes, but cities can grow up stronger and better after a disaster like this. Hell, look at Chicago or San Fransisco.
Out of this tragedy, jobs will be created, at least for several years. Products and supplies will be purchased. There will be strong demand for lumber, steel and concrete. New businesses will open to serve the needs of those workers.
Those “diverted” monies are partly from funds specifically set aside for emergency purposes. We budget for this sort of thing.
In my personal opinion, I’d rather see billions go to rebuild lives than the other crap on which it’s wasted.
The coastal cities have been there for a lot longer than FEMA has existed, you know. Galveston, for example, devestated by a hurricane long before federal assistance, stubbornly rebuilt in exactly the same place.
Human nature is to live where your family lives. These people didn’t suddenly appear out of nowhere, saying “Praise God for FEMA! Now we can live here!” No, they are there because they’ve been there for generations.
I can think of very, very few examples of where a city was abandoned by its inhabitants after a disaster. Historically, people pick up the pieces and rebuild where their roots are. It’s nothing new.
FEMA is just a mercy for those hit by circumstances beyond their control. I, for one, am thankful to see my tax dollars go to such a good purpose, rather than a corporate subsidy or to buy new bombs. We’re not judged by how nice we are to people on an average day, but by the generosity and kindness we show to those who have been kicked in the teeth by fate.
Me, too (obviously). 
I’d like to understand why it’s strategically necessary, or even helpful, especially in modern times.
Other countries seem to go without such cities just fine. London, for example, is near the mouth of the Thames, but not on it. And I don’t think Brazil has any sizable city on or near the mouth of the Amazon.
Don’t be so quick to giggle. I was in Iowa City for the 1993 floods. That wasn’t any damn fun at all.
And I just went through two floods in six months here in Ohio.
Dammit. I’m a magnet. Maybe I should move in with my mom in the Black Hills. Other than blizzards what could go wrong?
I’m certainly not adverse to federal aid where warranted. I do, however, have to question the wisdom of rebuilding a city that is virtually certain to be destroyed.
It sits in a ditch. It’s surrounded by water. It’s in a hurricane belt.
It’s saturated, polluted, and probably toxic.
Hm.
These factors alone should give a reasonable person pause before considering investing billions of dollars in additional, replacement infrastructure.
But, where would the people/jobs go?
To that I say, where are they now? There are damn few jobs for the people who left to come back to. Maybe not for a long while.
As for those who are still there, ask them if they’d rather leave or not.
Where would they go?
Wherever they’d go anyway. It’s unlikely the current inhabitants want to stay, and the ones that left, well, for many, there’s not alot of reason to come back.
So–I propose that a vast new shipping/housing/entertainment area be built with the current inhabitants given first dibs on the jobs that would be created in order to build the complex.
Where?
Farther upriver. Higher. Site to be determined.
For those that want to remain, that’s fine, with the exception that federal flood insurance should not be made available.
Why? No flooding here in recent times. And if there were, why does it need to be FEMA that comes to my aid?
I know, and I’m not in favor of forcing anyone to move. I simply want to get rid of FEMA. If people want to stay in an area knowing they won’t be reimbursed by the government, then they can do so.
Sure, but also consider how much better it would have been, economically, if they would not have been forced to spend all that money recovering.
And all this means is that money that would have been spent elsewhere is spent in these areas. A businessman who would have possibly hired a new person must now spend that money on replacing all his business windows, for instance. That is not good for the economy.
Yes, and that money has to come from somewhere. I’m saying that we shouldn’t even have this money in the budget.
I’ll agree that the government wastes a lot of money. One of the most wasteful agencies – FEMA.
Thank you for proving my point. These cities existed long before the feds got into the disaster relief business. If there was no FEMA there would still be people living there. My point is not that people should not live in disaster-prone areas. My point is that if they do live there, they should not expect others to pay when their stuff gets destroyed.
Exactly, so there really is no need for FEMA.
You don’t get any points for generosity due to how the government spends money. You are not generous because the government takes money from one group of people and gives it to another. Generosity comes from actually giving your own money, not the money of others.
Cities are built by water. Water will always be problematic.
Canada ?
I agree we should get rid of FEMA. I also think we should get rid of the 911 and police services and leave victims of crime to die. After all, statistically, more crime happens in bad neighborhoods. These people should know better, and move to better neighborhoods.
</sarcasm>
But why the concentration on FEMA spending? Why not look at all federal spending on a region, comparing it to federal tax revenue from the region. Spending is higher? Starve the region off resources until expenditure matches income. Spending is lower? Give the region a refund! I’d be curious to see how Washington D.C. does in this scenario compared to, say, South Florida.
When the schools crumble and the crime rates soar in the regions that leach the most, that’ll make people think twice about where they live!
Flood insurance is an interesting problem. Overland flooding (as opposed to that caused by leaky pipes or bad caulking in your windows) is uninsurable because there’s no pooled risk. Things like tornadoes are insurable because a lot of people each stand a a very small chance of being hit by one. Floods are different, because people will either never get flooded so they wouldn’t buy it (eg people in Denver) and others almost certainly will be flooded at some point (eg people in New Orleans), so nobody will sell it to them.
Enter FEMA’s National Flood Insurance Program.
I don’t know much about it but from what I can tell, people in flood-prone areas are obliged to buy it.
Anyone know more about it?
You’re talking about federal aid, right? Well, since the feds only supply a tiny percentage of the money that is spent on schools and police, I don’t think your proposal will have much effect.
Don’t Do It!
Do you really want Blizzards and Floods? Maybe at the same time?
more importantly, is Deuce McAlister still a good fantasy football back, or will the Saints be playing all their games on the road??
You know, I will find this an especially bizarre argument if the largely Republican legislators in this area start using the same logic. By extension, we should stop fighting terrorists who seek to do large amounts of expensive damage to our infrastructure in an attempt to hurt us. Why, anyone here can see there are Darwinian forces at work that we would be far better off embracing than attacking. We all can dream of a day when skyscrapers will be able to deflect the impact of an Airbus A380; and we all know the money spent to get there will be worth it. Right?
Yet.
Who else will? The Red Cross can do a lot, but there’s no way that every aid organization put together could give out all the help needed.
Guess who that will be? The poor-- those who can’t afford to move. The ones who don’t have a choice.
Oh, well. Fuck 'em. It’s their fault they’re poor, anyway.
Ah, but the owner of the glass company had to hire five new workers to keep up with all the orders, and five new installers, and someone has to be hired to paint the buisnesses’ logos on the windows . . .
Odd that you would pick one of the few things that actually does some good.
No, your point was not proved. You know what happened before federal assistance? Disease, hunger, homelessness and untold suffering.
I don’t know about you, but I don’t think we need a good ole-fashioned cholera outbreak in New Orleans right now. Maybe you don’t really care all that much about those people getting sick from polluted drinking water and lack of sanitation, but realize that many of those illnesses can spread to you.
Nor do I long to go back to the wonderful times of children starving, seperated from their families because there was no organization and communication, widespread looting and people dying trapped in their homes because no one could free them.
You really should read some books on what happened after the disasters I mentioned, and other catastophic events in our history. I think perhaps you have the wrong idea about what the aftermath was like for the residents of those areas.
It’s not just replacing people’s stuff, it’s about keeping more people from dying like dogs in the streets. It’s about keeping New Orleans from turning into a shanty town full of crime, disease and poverty.
It’s about restoring these cities to income-producing, tax-paying status. Would you rather have a mud-pit full of shanties, or a city which brings in tourists and is a booming economic center? would you rather have these people working, or with utterly no prospects for jobs, living on welfare?
No man is an island. We must act as a whole society, not depend solely on individuals. Personal contributions, while helpful, cannot possibly make a dent in the amount needed to get this area back on its feet. This is a problem which affects the whole nation, thus the whole nation should work to fix it.
I’m not asking for “points” for generosity. What I am saying is that I would hate to live in a society which could look at a million suffering people and shrug it off saying, “Ah, to hell with 'em. Shouldn’t have lived there in the first place!” That is a morally reprehensible outlook. Spending federal money to help these people is not something which will earn us “points”-- you don’t get credit for doing what is humane and decent. It’s simply expected of any civilized nation.
They are usually spearated by at least an hour or two. 