Should storm-damaged states get federal aid?

I just question if some of you have any feelings what so ever.

I have insurance but I am a compassionate person and will answer the question with a loud YES the government should help we are America and as Americans we do not leave our fellow Americans suffering. If you want that I could suggest many countries you might want to live in.

The government may not do the best job but to not want them to help is just stupidity coming out of your mouth. Maybe spending your time coming up with better ways for the government to help is a better use of your time.

and

The lack of compassion of several people on this topic is mind-boggling.

I agree with both of the above.

Since at least the Disaster Relief Act of 1974, and followed by the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act, PL 100-707, signed into law November 23, 1988, the federal government has been involved in disaster response/relief. The National Response Plan, which was in effect during Katrina, has been replaced by the National Response Framework (NRF). These are attempts by the federal government as well as states and non-governmental agencies to create a continually improving approach to disasters.

The NRF is not, and probably never can be, a perfect plan, but it is being continually improved by a very concerted effort of all those involved in disaster response/relief. It is a complex subject, and requires a complex plan to approach it.

For anyone who actually wants to learn something about this subject, I highly recommend the self study course available at http://www.training.fema.gov/EMIWeb/IS/IS800b.asp

major bean wrote:

HappyCamper wrote: I just question if some of you have any feelings what so ever.

I have insurance but I am a compassionate person and will answer the question with a loud YES the government should help we are America and as Americans we do not leave our fellow Americans suffering. If you want that I could suggest many countries you might want to live in.

The government may not do the best job but to not want them to help is just stupidity coming out of your mouth. Maybe spending your time coming up with better ways for the government to help is a better use of your time.

Our country is compassionate. But shipping money before finding that money is needed is just stupid. We provide a free education to people so that they might get a job that would provide the monies to ensure that they can have insurance and other protections. Those who reject the opportunity to take advantage of that education and its benefits do not deserve assistance. They made their own choices in life. We should not have to suffer also whenever their shortsightedness comes home to haunt them.

So are you saying these folks that got hit hard during the storm decided for that to happen. I know some good people from that area. Educated and now retired, they may have lost everything. So they should not get assistance? Good damn thing I took my happy pills. They should get some help, but I also agree with RockDoc, we need to pay attention on how the money is dispensed and who it goes to. Not have another Katrina cluster where folks went out bought the big tv's or better yet, went and spent the money at the casinos, thats not what it is for.

navycpo7 wrote:

major bean wrote:

HappyCamper wrote: I just question if some of you have any feelings what so ever.

I have insurance but I am a compassionate person and will answer the question with a loud YES the government should help we are America and as Americans we do not leave our fellow Americans suffering. If you want that I could suggest many countries you might want to live in.

The government may not do the best job but to not want them to help is just stupidity coming out of your mouth. Maybe spending your time coming up with better ways for the government to help is a better use of your time.

Our country is compassionate. But shipping money before finding that money is needed is just stupid. We provide a free education to people so that they might get a job that would provide the monies to ensure that they can have insurance and other protections. Those who reject the opportunity to take advantage of that education and its benefits do not deserve assistance. They made their own choices in life. We should not have to suffer also whenever their shortsightedness comes home to haunt them.

So are you saying these folks that got hit hard during the storm decided for that to happen. I know some good people from that area. Educated and now retired, they may have lost everything. So they should not get assistance? Good damn thing I took my happy pills. They should get some help, but I also agree with RockDoc, we need to pay attention on how the money is dispensed and who it goes to. Not have another Katrina cluster where folks went out bought the big tv's or better yet, went and spent the money at the casinos, thats not what it is for.

How many retired individuals are capable of driving down to that part of the country and give a helping hand...or are they just interested staying at home watching Wolf Blitzer reporting and hope that Uncle Sam is taking care of their fellow Americans....

This country is pitiful...we know: the US government isn't capable of administrating efficient relief. Yet, we surrender our needs to government.

Yes, these individuals ...who don't have insurance...need help... so here's a compassionate idea...

1) If they are currently unemployed or on entitlements, send them to another part of the state or country where Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac have an extra house. Charge them reduced rent. Problem solved.

2) If they are employed and don't receive any entitlements, why don't retired or volunteering Americans get together and rebuild their houses?

Rockdoc Franz wrote:

residenttroll wrote:

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.

The FRENCH built New Orleans below sea level...that explains it all. If the seas are continuing to rise....why did Al Gore buy beach front property in California. It's a hilarious myth that the ocean is rising. Actually, I think the continent is sinking..... LOL LOL

In the case of NO, it is a combination we call relative rise in sea level. In the case of California, the continent is emerging given the tectonic stress field there, yet a rise in sea level can be measured since the last ice age. I have data of how much of a rise there has been if you actually wish to see it.

So why have we been rebuilding New Orleans ...if we KNOW that the sea is rising? Why didn't we move it ...outside of the protection of levees?

Also, explain how you got data that goes back to the last ice age? In fact, how do you know that any melting taking place is not part of the melting of "last ice age?"

residenttroll, I never said GOD KILLED those people. READ WHAT I SAID, NOT READ INTO WHAT I SAID!!!! AND I AM NOT STUPID! You must not believe in anything higher up for you to say this. You are an Idiot for even accusing me of saying something like this......We all bleed red, We are all the same.....

Sundance wrote: residenttroll, I never said GOD KILLED those people. READ WHAT I SAID, NOT READ INTO WHAT I SAID!!!! AND I AM NOT STUPID! You must not believe in anything higher up for you to say this. You are an Idiot for even accusing me of saying something like this......We all bleed red, We are all the same.....

Uh, I hope you feel better now...but YES YOU DID...

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's way of relieving population means killing people. Either rephrase your statement or man up to what you wrote.

No it does not mean that. It is what I just said YOU as a sick individual reading into what someonelse said. God takes people. SO, in death, is he killing all of us?
It is how he chose those people to leave this earth.

I do not have to man up to anything I said. YOU need to not tell, order someone to change anything they say. YOU are out of control!!!

residenttroll wrote:

Rockdoc Franz wrote:

residenttroll wrote:

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.

The FRENCH built New Orleans below sea level...that explains it all. If the seas are continuing to rise....why did Al Gore buy beach front property in California. It's a hilarious myth that the ocean is rising. Actually, I think the continent is sinking..... LOL LOL

In the case of NO, it is a combination we call relative rise in sea level. In the case of California, the continent is emerging given the tectonic stress field there, yet a rise in sea level can be measured since the last ice age. I have data of how much of a rise there has been if you actually wish to see it.

So why have we been rebuilding New Orleans ...if we KNOW that the sea is rising? Why didn't we move it ...outside of the protection of levees?

Also, explain how you got data that goes back to the last ice age? In fact, how do you know that any melting taking place is not part of the melting of "last ice age?"

You know this is a political decision, not anything else. Furthermore, the whole global warming has been taken over by politicians and few know the truth.

It is not my data, but data that other scientists have gathered. For example Bob Ginsburg, professor emeritus at the U. Miami and others have been recording the position of mangrove peat relative to sea level. Mangroves, as you may know, grow only in the intertidal zone, so in essence the peat derived from mangroves records the position of the intertidal zone. Mangrove peat is now found at various positions below sea level as rising sea level forces mangroves to repopulate at the shifting shore lines. One can use carbon 14 to date the age of the mangrove peats at various levels below sea level and in that way plot a record of sea level rise. I do not have my Belize material handy right now, but if you like, I will look for it and post the data.

Sundance wrote: No it does not mean that. It is what I just said YOU as a sick individual reading into what someonelse said. God takes people. SO, in death, is he killing all of us?
It is how he chose those people to leave this earth.

I do not have to man up to anything I said. YOU need to not tell, order someone to change anything they say. YOU are out of control!!!

I am not out of control....you are in denial. I say the tornadoes are tool of the devil.

rockdoc....this subject is really no different than the Obama birth certificate issue.....they know what they know and no evidence to the contrary will change their minds.

I personally don't think that scientists have come up with difinitive evidence of man-made global warming, but I do believe we are in the midst of a global climate change. Logic tells me though, that years of spewing toxins in the air has to have a negative effect on our planet....same as the pollution in the waters and the ground have had an effect. It is pure human arrogance to think that we can treat the earth as a garbage dump and not pay for it later. Wed personally may not pay, but our descendents certainly will. We can never go back to the way we were before the industrial revolution, but we can, and should, mitigate what we can and make plans for the future. My understanding is (and please correct me if I am wrong) that a few degrees change in average temperature will over time change entire agricultural zones, and also effect ocean life. It will also melt enough ice to change the ocean levels.

We are no longer nomadic people, we don't move with the slow changes in climate like our ancient ancesters did, if the climates changes drastically where we live humans will have to adapt......if we can slow the progress of that change down then we will have longer to plan how to deal with it. Should it be proven that this change is not man made, and nothing we do will change it, then what have we lost? nothing. But, we will have gained cleaner air, less polluted waters, and more fertile ground to grow food for our ever increasing numbers. Seems like a win-win to me.