I am curious- why no criticism of the people in the Midwest who live in flood plains?

[Cali Coug]

After Katrina, many people on this board lambasted those who lived in New Orleans for owning a house in a city that was susceptible to flooding and hurricanes. Several said we shouldn't even bother rebuilding.

Why no criticism for those in the Midwest now? The people who are losing their homes now are the same ones who lost them in 1993. Should the government help them?



And yes, I think the government clearly should help them. Just pointing out the clear hypocrisy that I am guessing was largely race driven.

[MikeWaters]

Notice how many of the people being affected might be descended from Missourians who persecuted the Saints?

[UtahDan]

Originally Posted by Cali Coug

After Katrina, many people on this board lambasted those who lived in New Orleans for owning a house in a city that was susceptible to flooding and hurricanes. Several said we shouldn't even bother rebuilding.

Why no criticism for those in the Midwest now? The people who are losing their homes now are the same ones who lost them in 1993. Should the government help them?

And yes, I think the government clearly should help them. Just pointing out the clear hypocrisy that I am guessing was largely race driven.

Well I wasn't one who was critical of anyone for living in NO, but might it have something to do with the fact that the people living in the flood plain aren't blaming their plight on a racists government? I agree that there is a racial component here.

[Cali Coug]

Originally Posted by UtahDan

Well I wasn't one who was critical of anyone for living in NO, but might it have something to do with the fact that the people living in the flood plain aren't blaming their plight on a racists government? I agree that there is a racial component here.

So the people in the Midwest are just more "likable" and therefore can rebuild with the help of the government?

New Orleans has been devastated by Katrina level flooding only twice in its history now. The Midwest seems to get hit with massive flooding around once every 10-15 years. I have no problem with either them or the people in New Orleans rebuilding- it is their home, and no matter where you live you are at risk for a catastrophic event (like SLC which would be totally destroyed in a massive earthquake as the sandy base of the valley would liquify and sink, the Great Salt Lake would then flood the valley, and the homes and buildings in the region would be crushed).

I just wanted to point out the sheer hypocrisy of those who complained so vociferously about the people rebuilding in New Orleans.

[Tex]

Originally Posted by UtahDan

Well I wasn't one who was critical of anyone for living in NO, but might it have something to do with the fact that the people living in the flood plain aren't blaming their plight on a racists government? I agree that there is a racial component here.

This is what I sarcastically alluded to a few weeks ago as well. Cali didn't get it then either.

http://cougarguard.com/forum/showpos...56&postcount=8

[Cali Coug]

Originally Posted by Tex

This is what I sarcastically alluded to a few weeks ago as well. Cali didn't get it then either.

http://cougarguard.com/forum/showpos...56&postcount=8

One of us certainly doesn't get it.

[SeattleUte]

I thought the people who got flooded in Katrina were poor people who could only afford to live below sea level, by the levees.

[BigFatMeanie]

Originally Posted by Cali Coug

After Katrina, many people on this board lambasted those who lived in New Orleans for owning a house in a city that was susceptible to flooding and hurricanes. Several said we shouldn't even bother rebuilding.

Why no criticism for those in the Midwest now? The people who are losing their homes now are the same ones who lost them in 1993. Should the government help them?



And yes, I think the government clearly should help them. Just pointing out the clear hypocrisy that I am guessing was largely race driven.

My thoughts:

1. No, the govt shouldn't help them. They built in a floodplain, it's their tough crap if they didn't have flood insurance.
2. The amount of whiners crying for a govt bailout is significantly less in this case than in the Katrina case. I'm guessing that lack of major outcry on the part of concerned citizens like yourself is largely race driven.

[Cali Coug]

Originally Posted by BigFatMeanie

My thoughts:

1. No, the govt shouldn't help them. They built in a floodplain, it's their tough crap if they didn't have flood insurance.
2. The amount of whiners crying for a govt bailout is significantly less in this case than in the Katrina case. I'm guessing that lack of major outcry on the part of concerned citizens like yourself is largely race driven.

Outcry for what? The government is heavily mobilized and is working diligently in the Midwest. Compare that to the total ineptitude of the government in dealing with Katrina (at the federal, state and local levels). The lack of outrage in the Midwest isn't due to race, it is due to a lack of outrageous conduct.

At least you are consistent in saying they shouldn't rebuild in the Midwest either. I can't say that makes a whole lot of sense, though. Many of the people who have lost their homes and property are farmers who supply the nation with food and energy. It is in the country's best interest to have them living where they live.

Should the government help people in SLC if SLC is destroyed by an earthquake? Most there don't have earthquake insurance, despite the obvious risks.

How about in California which is being hammered by wildfires? Should the government assist?

What about Florida and Texas when the hurricanes come (and they will)?

Every region in this country has risk associated with living in it. Everyone can be harmed, and most cannot possibly protect against that harm adequately with insurance. The role of the government in such instances is to provide the assistance it can provide to the people in need. Everyone bears the burden because everyone stands to benefit from the government's assistance at some point or other.

[BigFatMeanie]

Originally Posted by Cali Coug

Outcry for what? The government is heavily mobilized and is working diligently in the Midwest. Compare that to the total ineptitude of the government in dealing with Katrina (at the federal, state and local levels). The lack of outrage in the Midwest isn't due to race, it is due to a lack of outrageous conduct.

At least you are consistent in saying they shouldn't rebuild in the Midwest either. I can't say that makes a whole lot of sense, though. Many of the people who have lost their homes and property are farmers who supply the nation with food and energy. It is in the country's best interest to have them living where they live.

Should the government help people in SLC if SLC is destroyed by an earthquake? Most there don't have earthquake insurance, despite the obvious risks.

How about in California which is being hammered by wildfires? Should the government assist?

What about Florida and Texas when the hurricanes come (and they will)?

Every region in this country has risk associated with living in it. Everyone can be harmed, and most cannot possibly protect against that harm adequately with insurance. The role of the government in such instances is to provide the assistance it can provide to the people in need. Everyone bears the burden because everyone stands to benefit from the government's assistance at some point or other.

SLC - no
CA - no
FL,TX - no

Life is tough.