GOP Lawmakers Offer Disaster Victims Prayers, But Not Aid

The government mantra: "We can do it less effectively, at much greater cost and with poorer results."

HEARTLESS wrote: At 9,400 ft elevation I would need a Biblical flood, not a 500 year flood.

I wouldn't be so sure about that. In 1987 I lived at about that same altitude near Idaho Springs. A severe rain/hail storm caused the soil under my home's foundation to give way, causing $30,000 in damage. Insurance would not cover it as it was attributed to "flood".

AspenValley wrote: You might want to check to see if your own homeowners insurance would cover you if your house flooded.

This is a 500 year flood, most of the people affected almost certainly don't have flood insurance.

And again, I ask, the Right is always talking about how charity should take care of people in distress, so why didn't they call for people to donate to charities helping out the victims?

Do you know for a fact that they did not or are you presuming because it was not included in the text of the resolution it was not done. Huffpo isn't, after all, interested in reporting the news, only in creating intrigue and demonizing those who disagree with the progressive agenda - much like our own beloved LJ.

Someone who lives in the Mississippi River flood plain and doesn't have flood insurance has no one and nothing to blame but themselves for that oversight. Flood insurance is available. If you gamble and lose it is your fault for gambling. Those without the insurance will need more of our charity to help them recover what they have lost and to help sustain them until they can get back on their feet.

I agree it would have been better if that sentiment, as well as the request for prayers, had been included in the text of the resolution. It has been my experience, however, that an appeal of prayer for those who are suffering also results in more help than mere prayers from those who hear the appeal, especially in this nation. When you hear that your neighbor has suffered a loss or a hardship, do you not offer your help to them in addition to your prayers, even if neither is asked for specifically?

PS, I really doubt even HP would edit out an appeal for donations.

Also....I have a lot of family in the Mississippi valley. Flood insurance is insanely expensive and most people who live outside of areas known to flood aren't going to buy it because the perception is it would be a waste of money.

Do you have flood insurance?

Yet, believe me, you can have a flood casualty loss even if you don't live in what is seen as a flood zone.

I just hope it never happens to you and then have someone tell you your loss is your own darned fault for being so "irresponsible" as to not buy flood insurance.

I think they could have and should have called on people to be generous not just with prayers but with concrete aid. The fact that they didn't really makes the "private charity" theory look like just so much hypocritical BS.

FEMA did a fantasic job with the Hurricane tragedy.

And besides we have already spent all the money overseas.

As a matter of fact, I do have flood insurance because I don't want to run the risk of paying for the type of damage you have described out of pocket.

If you decide that the flood insurance would be a waste of money, then you run the risk of losing far more in value than you would have paid for the insurance. I still carry full coverage insurance on my 2003 vehicle with 300K on the odometer because in the event of an accident at this point in time I might have difficulty coming up with a down payment to purchase a replacement. I could use that extra money being paid in the insurance premium to help with other bills, but the risk isn't worth taking in my opinion so I don't take the risk. I am sure that flood insurance in a known flood plain is quite a bit more expensive than my flood insurance is, just as the cost for full coverage on a car is more expensive in an area with a high auto theft rate is, but the cost/risk/benefit analysis is something that a person has to decide for themselves and then live with the results of the decision they have made. If I had no input on the decision, why should I then have any financial responsibility for the results of that decision?

LadyJazzer wrote:

Republican Lawmakers Offer Disaster Victims Prayers, But Not Federal Aid

WASHINGTON -- Republican lawmakers have been quick to rush to the assistance of disaster victims with that priceless commodity, prayer, but when it comes to tangible assets, they've been a bit less spirited.

An email circulated by the office of Rep. Randy Neugebauer (R-Tex.) and obtained by The Huffington Post asked lawmakers to co-sponsor H. Res 254, a straightforward measure encouraging Congress and the American public to pray for the victims of the recent disasters in the United States.

From the email sent out to congressional offices on Tuesday:

Severe tornadoes and record amounts of flooding in the South, Southeast, and lower Midwest have taken hundreds of lives and caused thousands of injuries. Property damage could reach into the billions of dollars, uprooting entire communities throughout the region.

The Southern Plains, lower Mississippi Valley, and Southwest have been experiencing the worst drought conditions in decades, leading to wildfires that have burned more than 2.2 million acres and caused massive losses in agricultural production. These wildfires have resulted in deaths, the destruction of homes and business, and severe financial hardship.

Many communities have been devastated by these disasters, but have maintained a spirit of resiliency, hope, and faith. It is only appropriate that Congress and the American people come together in prayer for the victims of the disasters and their families, and for the fair weather conditions that these regions desperately need.

The message was signed by Neugebauer, as well as Reps. Stevan Pearce (R-N.M.) and Spencer Bachus (R-Ala.).

All three lawmakers voted for the House FY 2011 continuing resolution, which included significant cuts to funding for the federal response to weather, climate and natural disasters (The cuts were no longer in the bill by the time it went through the Senate and was signed by the President).

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/05/1 ... 60628.html


Dang, I love "compassionate conservatism"... I could sit and watch it for hours... "Coming together in prayer" for the victims. How thoughtful... Are they sure they can spare it?

Many churches are helping out, many out of state churches are becoming involved by sending donations (food, tools, temp shelters) and workers. Love it when some libs here are wrong..right LJ?

Cost/risk benefits are not what I am talking about here, PS. Even if I was, it is all too easy to guess wrong on that one. If I calculate the odds of being flooded tomorrow as 1 in a million, there is still that ONE chance I am wrong and I could lose everything. On the other hand, I could decide that even a one in a million chance is too big a risk to take, and I spend $50 a month for the next 30 years insuring against that possibility and it never happens, I will be out thousands and thousands of dollars. To me, maybe that wouldn't be such a big deal. But to tens of thousands of people living in the Mississippi river valley, many of whom are much less economically fortunate than I am, throwing away that much money on a long shot gamble that it will pay off might be a very big deal, indeed.

Again.

This isn't about risks, it isn't about gambling, it's about the veracity of those who say we can safely get rid of all government safety nets because private charity will kick in when people run up against the odds.

It won't.

As demonstrated by you, yourself, PS.

People will always find a reason to decide that a victim of a flood, earthquake, terrorist attack isn't "worthy" of their charity. They will say the victims should have been more responsible, should have seen this could happen, should have bought more insurance. This is the very reason that I thought your theory that private charity will kick in if we eliminate all government safety nets would never really be effective.

I don't think government safety nets are a great idea. But I see evidence all the time that without them, we'd have an unacceptable number of people suffering, starving, and dying. Oh, I've no doubt that individuals and many churches and private charities WILL indeed show their genorosity in helping out the victims of this event. But I have my doubts that once the headlines die away, that kind of support will continue to be there. How many churches do you know of that are still helping out victims of the Haitian quake?

As I have mentioned before, I met MLK while I was working in Memphis 1967 and 1968. What I was doing was managing a Branch Office for a major Mortgage Banker, making FHA/VA loans and having worked there I happen to know for a fact that all FHA/VA and all Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac loans made throughout that whole area required flood insurance as the area fell within what was called a 100 year flood plain. The only properties that wouldn't have coverage would be the farms or paid off properties where the people, no longer required by the lender to have the coverage, may have decided to no longer carry it.

Nmysys wrote: As I have mentioned before, I met MLK while I was working in Memphis 1967 and 1968. What I was doing was managing a Branch Office for a major Mortgage Banker, making FHA/VA loans and having worked there I happen to know for a fact that all FHA/VA and all Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac loans made throughout that whole area required flood insurance as the area fell within what was called a 100 year flood plain. The only properties that wouldn't have coverage would be the farms or paid off properties where the people, no longer required by the lender to have the coverage, may have decided to no longer carry it.

Then you know that the 500 year flood plain is approximately 100 times larger than the 100 year floodplain. This is a 500 year flood.