Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
United States

Journal pudge's Journal: Speak For Yourself 28

Journal by pudge

Americans want the Gulf Coast not just to survive, but to thrive, not just to cope, but to overcome. We want evacuees to come home, for the best of reasons -- because they have a real chance at a better life in a place they love.
-- George W. Bush

Who's this "they"? For the record: it's not me.

I don't NOT want it to thrive, but I don't want it to "thrive" on my dime. Let them build their own city if they want to, I don't care. But I don't want to pay for it. I really don't.

This discussion was created by pudge (3605) for no Foes, but now has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Speak For Yourself More

Speak For Yourself

Comments Filter:
  • I want there the be a harbor and shipping near the mouth of the mississippi. And I want the federal government to maintain it for defense purposes. Federal tax money going to rebuild/build the ports on the gulf, it would be wisely spent.

    The city of NO does not need to be rebuilt on the federal tax payer dime though. Not only does it encourage a lack of responsibility of people, but also businesses. If someone wants their castle in a swamp, let him build it on his own.

    My view is that you can either have
    • I want there the be a harbor and shipping near the mouth of the mississippi. And I want the federal government to maintain it for defense purposes. Federal tax money going to rebuild/build the ports on the gulf, it would be wisely spent.

      I don't. But, I am willing to be convinced. No, I am not asking you to convince me at this time. :-)

      And if the federal government is going to pay to have NO rebuilt, it better not be on a peice of sinking land.

      I oppose rebuilding NO with federal money for reasons of princi
      • Amen.

        That's all I had. You already said it all. :-)
      • As a bit more of a pragmatist, I know it is a moot point. NO will be rebuilt in some fashion with federal funds. Just as I know federal money will be spent this year on education and dozens of other programs that should not be covered at the federal level. Heck, look at the holders of the purse strings stumbling over themselves to send money that direction. They have not even let the waters recede before allocating billions of dollars.

        It is interesting that what possibley should have been the best lesso

      • So why is the government so stupid?

        Because the government is composed of voters. :)

  • much sense, politically. I mean, it's not going to get the left to like him, and the right is going to balk at the big-government federalism of it.

    It's still the right thing to do though. New Orleans has to be fixed, it's too important of a port(not to mention historical and cultural significance), and no way can LA float the bill on their own.

    Just wanna make sure the money is spent well, not funneled into ineffective private contractors that are going to fleece us taxpayers.
    • It's still the right thing to do though. New Orleans has to be fixed, it's too important of a port

      Then just use federal money for the port.

      (not to mention historical and cultural significance)

      I could not care less. I don't see anything in the Constitution about furthering historical or cultural significance of local regions.

      and no way can LA float the bill on their own.

      That's not the federal government's problem to solve. Again, according to this thing called the Constitution.
      • So, we should ignore Mississippi, Alabama, and other devastated areas of Louisiana, and just spend federal money on the New Orleans port/supporting infrastructure in your view?

        See, I'm all liberal, so I have no problem with government bailing out it's citizens. Just trying to feel you out here.
        • So, we should ignore Mississippi, Alabama, and other devastated areas of Louisiana, and just spend federal money on the New Orleans port/supporting infrastructure in your view?

          Why do states even exist if not to take care of their own internal affairs?
  • When Rainier blows Seattle off the face of the planet, do you thing that the city should just rebuild or relocate with its own funds (after all they did build at the base of an active volcano) or would you expect that the federal government would step in?

    I am honestly curious.

    You do live in and/or near Seattle, right?
    • I do not want the federal government's help with that, no. Not in the slightest bit.
      • When FEMA comes knocking, you'll stand on principle and turn them away?!?! You are indeed a strong person of much conviction.
        • I think I probably would refuse it. As I am not in that situation, I can't say for sure. But just because I might, in my desperation, take ahold of aid I think is wrong, doesn't mean I can't oppose it. I am not blaming people for wanting or taking rebuilding aid. I am blaming the people who are offering and providing it.

          I saw WFB in an 1993 interview on CSPAN's Book TV last weekend. He was asked about his use of and support by public TV, which is supported by taxpayers; WFB said he will participate on
          • Of course you'd take it. There is no shame in it, because that's what it is there for and that is what we as a Repulic have chosen to provide our fellow citizens.

            But you're saying if it didn't exist and you needed it, you wouldn't call for it to be in existence. You'd be fine with that as being the right and proper way of the world. You would accept your lot (living in a volcano ravaged landscape after having had plenty of warning - decades - that it was a real possibility) and NOT curse the Fed for aban
            • Of course you'd take it.

              Unlikely. More likely, I'll have sufficient means to provide for myself (or friends/family to do same), and wouldn't need it, and would opt to not accept it.

              (I'm not talking about emergency relief, of course, but assistance in rebuilding.)

              There is no shame in it, because that's what it is there for and that is what we as a Repulic have chosen to provide our fellow citizens.

              I agree.

              But you're saying if it didn't exist and you needed it, you wouldn't call for it to be in existence.

              Yes

      • I always get a kick out of the recurring line of argument in your journal that goes:

        arguer: pudge, you should abandon position A because if you were in that situation, you would think differently.

        pudge: no, if I were in that situation, I would stick to my principles and accept the consequences, even though possibly detrimental to myself.

        arguer: no you wouldn't; noone's like that.

    • I live just south of Seattle. If Rainier blows and destroys this area I am moving and not moving back.

      You see first there would be seismic activity well in advance of any eruption. Then there would be a lahar [google.com]. Then there would (most likely) be deformation of the volcano. Then there would be an eruption.

      If I saw that there was going to be a disaster and it was going to take out western Washington, my ass would be elsewhere in a hurry.

      If Seattle were leveled by a 9.5 earthquake I would also leave, as
      • Political reality is that most likely some sort of Federal aid would be provided.

        OTOH much of the cost of fixing things in our case would either be covered by the private sector[1] or local funds[2].

        [1]Insurance covering earthquakes and volcanos is much easier to get around here than insurance covering hurricanes in NOLA. Also due to relative wealth a much higher percentage of homes and businesses carry insurance.
        [2]Washington and Seattle are much wealthier and the governments in much better fiscal shape th
        • OTOH much of the cost of fixing things in our case would either be covered by the private sector[1] or local funds[2].

          Which is what I want to happen in NO.

          [1]Insurance covering earthquakes and volcanos is much easier to get around here than insurance covering hurricanes in NOLA.

          Which is only begging the question: if insurance companies won't cover you, why should the government? Why doesn't the government back stock market investments?

          Also due to relative wealth a much higher percentage of homes and busine
      • Yes, given those events, you certainly wouldn't find many buyers for your home.

        If there was a FEMA buyout of your area, would you take it? Pudge wouldn't.

        I guess he has good insurance.
        • Not being faced with that situation I cannot give an honest comment, however I would first look towards my insurance company and then make a decision from there.

          FEMA would, however, be my absolute last choice on the list of help I would want to accept.
          • Of course. That's what I thought and you shouldn't feel ashamed about that, despite what rwingers would say about it.

            If you've lost everything, you are going to accept the help (insurance and/or government) that is offered. No shame.
      • As a 1994 Northridge earthquake [google.com] survivor living less than 20 yards from the infamous 2-story apartment building that sandwiched many 1st floor victims in their sleep, it ain't worth staying behind...

        We got FEMA money (800 or 2K, can't remember) but that came almost 90 days later in the U.S. MAIL, while we're displaced in another part of Los Angeles county.

        Our insurance took up all the expenses (we did get earthquake coverage, thank God!)

        1994... You'd think we'd have learned from our mistake. And they did f
  • I don't NOT want it to thrive, but I don't want it to "thrive" on my dime. Let them build their own city if they want to, I don't care. But I don't want to pay for it. I really don't.

    So if no Federal money should go to help rebuild the Gulf Coast, why should any be going to rebuild Iraq?
    • I am speaking in terms of Constitutional authority and responsibility. Clearly, such for rebuilding NO lies with the state of Louisiana, and clearly, the federal government alone has such for Iraq.
      • Well for the record I'd cut off Iraq before I'd cut off LA, MS, AL, or FL.

        Further question, should the Federal government pay to rebuild Federally owned facilities on the Gulf Coast?

        How about for things that were built with Federal funds?

        What about things considered important in interstate commerice?
        • Further question, should the Federal government pay to rebuild Federally owned facilities on the Gulf Coast?

          If it wants to.

          How about for things that were built with Federal funds?

          I don't believe government handouts implies an ongoing financial responsibility.

          What about things considered important in interstate commerice?

          If infrastructure to support interstate commerce, that's one thing. Like rebuilding interstates and railroads, and of course somehow dealing with the unique nature of being on the mouth of

Slashdot Top Deals

"Ada is PL/I trying to be Smalltalk. -- Codoso diBlini

Close