DawgTalkers.net Forums DawgTalk Tailgate Forum Irene on direct line to hit Carolinas

Quote:

---

the rest of us were watching the media talk like the entire east coast had been obliterated.

---

Quote:

---

Can I ask a serious question ..... and I absolutely do not want to offend anyone .... but I just really wonder about this .....

Where does the federal government's responsibility for personal property damaged or destroyed by natural disasters begin and end?

If there is a lightning storm in Youngstown one night, and my home is hit,catches fire, and burns to the ground ... the federal government does not step in with aid, food, or even a note that says "Sorry". My insurance picks up the tab, minus, of course, my deductible, and life goes on.

It always seems like every time there is a natural disaster, like a hurricane, forest fire, earthquake, and so on ..... the federal government jumps in to help rebuild ......house people ...... feed them ...... replace lost household goods ...... and all of the things that insurance companies and property owners themselves should be doing.

Why? Not to be rude or anything .... but you assume certain risks living in certain parts of the country. If you live on a coast, you can get severe storms. If you live in parts of California, then forest fires are occur almost every year. Certain areas get tornadoes. There is a reason we carry homeowners insurance, (and/or business insurance) and, if you life in a flood prone area, flood insurance. It is to protect your investment, and to help rebuild in the even of a disaster. That is the home owner's responsibility, and the insurance company's responsibility. It is not the government's responsibility. The government can assist in things like clearing roads, providing security until local officials can handle things again, and the like. Why do the taxpayers have to foot the bill? If you choose to remain in the path of a disaster when told to leave, and you starve to death because you have no food, that's your choice.

I heard that some in Congress want to offset aid to victims of the storm with other spending cuts to the federal budget. Others feel that this is wrong, evil, and downright inhuman. Why? People should have insurance, and if they do, then their insurance should take care of their damages and losses. If they lost everything and didn't have insurance, well, I'm sorry, but you rolled the dice, and lost. Should the federal government be giving out aid in these situations? If so, then why carry insurance, if paying a premium every month, year after year, offers no advantage over pocketing the money?

Ignoring anything that happens anywhere else in the world, should the government be responsible for the primary funding of disaster relief and reconstruction?

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

the rest of us were watching the media talk like the entire east coast had been obliterated.

---

^This

I don't think anyone is doubting that the storm was dangerous and that it caused damage.

The problem many of us have is that the media made it sound like the love child of Hurricane Andrew and Hugo washed ashore and sent NYC the way of Atlantis.

Instead of just reporting that it was a dangerous storm that could cause damage, the media sensationalized it. That's the problem I had with it.

---

Quote:

---

Yeah, but if it's only going to hit the southern states, it won't be a big deal.

But if it might hit Washington DC or New York, it will be the biggest and most important hurricane in the history of the universe.

---

Exactly. There was a Cat 2 hurricane that hit somewhere in Louisiana or Mississippi a couple of years ago and the media never even mentioned it. If it was DC or NY you would have heard about FEMA response, flooding, people in shelters defecating in football stadiums, homes destroyed, Army Corps of Engineers, etc. for weeks and weeks and then Spike Lee would make a movie.