What N.O. public rebuilding funds should NOT be used for

  • Topic: News 
  • Thread starter Thread starter Loren Booda
  • Start date Start date
Join the discussion
Registration is free. Start your own thread to ask a follow-up.
34 replies · 4K views
Pengwuino said:
Yah that does make sense. Started to think about it and was wondering exactly where an insurance company could make money on flood insurance. there's very little "maybe" with floods. Either there's no chance in hell you could have a flood... or its almost guaranteed. The middle ground is where insurance companies make money. Here in CA is probably a great place ot sell insurance from earthquakes. People probably think its a decent enough danger to get it but it doesn't happen enough to make many payouts necessary.

But then again if its such a guarantee that there is going to be a flood at some point, what the hell are you doing living there :-p

I was under the impression that California law required every homeowner to purchase earthquake insurance.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
loseyourname said:
I was under the impression that California law required every homeowner to purchase earthquake insurance.

That'd be news to me... ill ask my parents about their insurance...
 
SOS2008 said:
Federal funds should be used to help the homeless and jobless until they can find new housing and jobs (in a reasonable time and amount), to help cities with infrastructure, or loans to business (obviously not for criminal enterprise)--loans that are to be repaid as would any venture capital. We will collectively pay higher insurance premiums to cover the insurance claims.

As for the uninsured, here is a question... If Americans can know that the government will bail them out when they don't have insurance, what is the incentive to have insurance, and how is this fair to those who were insured and probably paid premiums for year? Is this government responsibility toward citizens? I don't feel it is.
If they don't have insurance, there's no guarantees. In general, I don't feel there's any obligation to bail them out.

Sometimes, though, it's economically beneficial to make sure a town's not wiped out and New Orleans is one of those cases, only because it's such an important port - for just about everything the Midwest buys or produces, not just oil.

New Orleans was a case where money spent on the levees wasn't just local pork. St Louis, Kansas City, Memphis, and just about every other river town benefited a lot and everyone in the Midwest benefited at least some. Maintaining the levees was rightly a federal responsibility and we didn't quite put enough money into it to preserve it. We don't really have much choice but to pour money into it now to rebuild it.
 
BobG said:
If they don't have insurance, there's no guarantees. In general, I don't feel there's any obligation to bail them out.

Sometimes, though, it's economically beneficial to make sure a town's not wiped out and New Orleans is one of those cases, only because it's such an important port - for just about everything the Midwest buys or produces, not just oil.

New Orleans was a case where money spent on the levees wasn't just local pork. St Louis, Kansas City, Memphis, and just about every other river town benefited a lot and everyone in the Midwest benefited at least some. Maintaining the levees was rightly a federal responsibility and we didn't quite put enough money into it to preserve it. We don't really have much choice but to pour money into it now to rebuild it.
That's what the highway bill is largely about--infrastructure. As someone mentioned, wouldn't it be great if the highway bill was reopened and funds directed to address these very issues? Because as you say this affects many areas, not just NO, and a tremendous amount of commerce in our country.
 
Last edited:
SOS2008 said:
That's what the highway bill is largely about--infrastructure. As someone mentioned, wouldn't it be great if the highway bill was reopened and funds directed to address these very issues? Because as you say this affects many areas, not just NO, and a tremendous amount of commerce in our country.
Bingo.

The problem is federal tax money is allocated by political clout not need. That is why the levees that protect a city of 500,000 gets it's funding cut while Alaska gets a Bridge to Nowhere.

The proposed $2 billion Knik Arm Bridge - one of several projects that could make Alaska the biggest winner in this year's transportation-bill sweepstakes - has stirred outrage from critics who see it as pork-barrel spending that will send federal deficits spiraling up. Some call it "the Big Dig of the Far North," a reference to Boston's overbudget tunnel project.