Should storm-damaged states get federal aid?

Having the appropriate insurance is good, but personal responsibility does not end there. Mitigation of known risks is also part of personal responsibility.

Using the military for firefighting and natural disaster relief programs should not be permitted. It's another disgusting use of these highly trained personnel.

It's a state issue...and there is no reason why states can't form mutual firefighting and disaster relief agencies...and fund them appropriately should they desire to.

The only reason the states are NOT prepared is because they know the FEDs will run the show. That was the issue in Louisianna during Katrina...the state government wanted to run the show...but wanted the Federal money.

Since you wouldn't allow highly-trained federal firefighters to participate in fighting fires, that means the state would have to train firefighters to the federal level and have its own resources (air tankers etc) to fight its own fires.

How do you propose funding that?

kresspin wrote: Since you wouldn't allow highly-trained federal firefighters to participate in fighting fires, that means the state would have to train firefighters to the federal level and have its own resources (air tankers etc) to fight its own fires.

How do you propose funding that?

Collective bargaining with neighboring states... rofllol

We have what are called "The Hot Shots". They are specfically trained to fight fires of this nature, and do travel to different states.

Remember Storm King Mountain? I have a book detailing all that went on. More of a training book (which was given to each Volunteer Firefighter with the Fire Dept that I was on at the time). I cannot answer if Federal money is given for the slurry bombs or who pays the "Hot Shots".

I do know (unless it has changed) that if a local Fire Dept is on Federal land fighting a fire for any length of time, that Fire Dept will receive Federal money for as many Firefighters on scene.

I do agree with taking personal responsibility & having proper insurance. Unforturnately, the poorer states & people do not always take that responsibility, so the Government does put more out. Louisiana was the perfect example.

I also feel when these kind of diasters happen it is God's way of relieving population, and maybe maybe bringing Government back to reality, reminding them to take care of their own.....

Sundance wrote:
I also feel when these kind of diasters happen it is God's way of relieving population, and maybe maybe bringing Government back to reality, reminding them to take care of their own.....

God didn't kill these people! Wow, the sustainability of stupidity continues to reveal itself.

This is one example of the federal goverment being a good thing. When you have regional disasters, the other parts of the country can come to the aid with money, low interest rebuilding loans, and other assets.

kresspin wrote: jf mentioned fires up here.

I have fire insurance. When I lived in a flood-prone area, I had flood insurance. If I lived in California I'd have earthquake insurance (if there is such a thing).

I don't think New Orleans should have been rebuilt, but if it was rebuilt, it shouldn't have been with U.S. dollars. The U.S. government is not an insurance company and is especially not a free insurance company.

Agreed. N.O. already sat below sea level and thereby begging to be flooded. With sea level continuing to rise as a result of global warming, we can eventually expect sea level rise another 100 feet. (I'm not an advocate of us triggering global warming and certainly think it is hilarious to think we can do anything to stop it from happening) Much of the Gulf coast is threatened in this way. We should have take this opportunity to move N.O. inland in advance of the rising sea.

kresspin wrote: jf mentioned fires up here.

I have fire insurance. When I lived in a flood-prone area, I had flood insurance. If I lived in California I'd have earthquake insurance (if there is such a thing).

I don't think New Orleans should have been rebuilt, but if it was rebuilt, it shouldn't have been with U.S. dollars. The U.S. government is not an insurance company and is especially not a free insurance company.

Will you marry me?

Rockdoc Franz wrote:

kresspin wrote: jf mentioned fires up here.

I have fire insurance. When I lived in a flood-prone area, I had flood insurance. If I lived in California I'd have earthquake insurance (if there is such a thing).

I don't think New Orleans should have been rebuilt, but if it was rebuilt, it shouldn't have been with U.S. dollars. The U.S. government is not an insurance company and is especially not a free insurance company.

Agreed. N.O. already sat below sea level and thereby begging to be flooded. With sea level continuing to rise as a result of global warming, we can eventually expect sea level rise another 100 feet. (I'm not an advocate of us triggering global warming and certainly think it is hilarious to think we can do anything to stop it from happening) Much of the Gulf coast is threatened in this way. We should have take this opportunity to move N.O. inland in advance of the rising sea.

You actually believe what you just posted? Any part of it?