Quote:
Originally Posted by myboynoah
No, your question was why no criticism for the people in the midwest. I offered some explanations.
|
It was a rhetorical question designed to show the hypocrisy of those who lambasted the people of New Orleans for their lack of preparation. The point is that the government should help both groups.
Quote:
I don't understand your point? You create imaginary disasters and then want people to show indignation for the people's lack of preparation for these imaginary disasters. I've insured myself. My neighbors that I've talked to have as well. It surprises me that others haven't, even a majority. Should disaster strike, I'll have limited compassion for their financial loss. That's why I think it's folly to rebuild significant housing and such in parts of New Orleans.
But then, perhaps I'm the bigger fool. I think people should be responsible for themselves, and admire those that take efforts to do so.
|
Again, the point is that the government should help all Americans recover from natural disasters. The overwhelming majority of Americans simply cannot afford insurance for catastrophes. If you live in flood plain, you need flood insurance. The flood insurance from the government only covers the basement, though. So you also need private flood insurance that covers the rest of your home. If you are also in an earthquake zone (as in St. Louis and Memphis), you need earthquake insurance too in order to be fully protected. The cost of those three different insurance policies is prohibitive to most Americans, particularly when they also have to have health, auto, home, medical and other forms of insurance. You want to trump how prepared you are and how you don't feel bad for the people who haven't properly insured, but that shows a very clear lack of understanding of the economic situation of most Americans. It is one thing to be prepared to the extent possible (which is admirable and desirable) and another thing to refuse aid to those who weren't able to be as prepared.