As Coasts Rebuild and U.S. Pays, Repeatedly, the Critics Ask Why

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 21, 2012 8:54 PM GMT
    http://www.nytimes.com/2012/11/19/science/earth/as-coasts-rebuild-and-us-pays-again-critics-stop-to-ask-why.html?_r=0
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 21, 2012 9:05 PM GMT
    OP“We’re Americans, damn it,” said Robert S. Young, a North Carolina geologist who has studied the way communities like Dauphin Island respond to storms. “Retreat is a dirty word.”
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 21, 2012 9:13 PM GMT
    Pouncer saidGlobal warming, riddler.


    Why would you subsidize then building in places knowing that they are at severe risk of being wiped away?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 21, 2012 9:17 PM GMT

    lol good plan. Evacuate coastal FLA, New Orleans, Lousiana, depopulate Kansas etc (hey tornadoes)

    Evacuate the California coast and all US areas near on on fault lines.

    Washington State?
    Yikes, they got volcanoes!

    In one word, why Riddle is interested in this:

    'entitlements'

    He hates those. It stinks of a society that cares about each other using taxation to accomplish that instead of every man for himself. icon_wink.gif

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 22, 2012 2:39 AM GMT
    I guess you enjoy paying higher taxes and getting deeper into debt in order for people to continue to live in dangerous areas. People who can afford to live anywhere.

    "Let's play with fire, and when we get burnt, it's someone else's fault, and their responsibility to make us better again".
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 22, 2012 2:52 AM GMT
    Blakes7 saidI guess you enjoy paying higher taxes and getting deeper into debt in order for people to continue to live in dangerous areas. People who can afford to live anywhere.

    "Let's play with fire, and when we get burnt, it's someone else's fault, and their responsibility to make us better again".


    Your other posts indicate that you were working with Hurricane Sandy relief in your home area. Was that correct?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 22, 2012 2:56 AM GMT
    Yes it is.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 22, 2012 3:00 AM GMT
    Do you think most of the people in your area want to rebuild or will they choose to relocate? What about your own choice?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 22, 2012 3:42 AM GMT
    Hmm. I guess the choices will vary. Who has insurance, who will be reimbursed by FEMA, who would rather live elsewhere, I really can't say. I'm in the middle of the island, my only danger is fallen trees, so my partner and I will stay for now. The only reason we will be looking to eventually move is brutal winters and high taxes.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 22, 2012 3:48 AM GMT
    Blakes7 saidI guess you enjoy paying higher taxes and getting deeper into debt in order for people to continue to live in dangerous areas. People who can afford to live anywhere.

    "Let's play with fire, and when we get burnt, it's someone else's fault, and their responsibility to make us better again".


    So when are you moving from NY Blakes?

    As an interesting exercise, locate all the areas in the US that don't have repeated natural disasters and imagine the entire population of your country living there.

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 22, 2012 3:48 AM GMT
    riddler78 said
    Pouncer saidGlobal warming, riddler.


    Why would you subsidize then building in places knowing that they are at severe risk of being wiped away?

    So we shouldn't build anywhere near coasts, hurricanes, tornadoes, earthquakes, volcanoes, wildfires, etc.? Where should we build then?

    Don't you live in Hong Kong? Isn't that on the coast?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 22, 2012 4:10 AM GMT
    ..and of course Riddie and his family will now immediately move out of Ontario because of repetitive ice storms (the last one required about 60 million in federal aid and the deployment of over 15,000 troops) The Ontario Conservative gov't at the time was ever so grateful to the feds for help.

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 22, 2012 4:12 AM GMT
    meninlove said..and of course Riddie and his family will now immediately move out of Ontario because of repetitive ice storms (the last one required about 60 million in federal aid and the deployment of over 15,000 troops) The Ontario Conservative gov't at the time was ever so grateful to the feds for help.


    Supposedly Riddler lives in Hong Kong.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 22, 2012 4:14 AM GMT
    sfbayguy said
    riddler78 said
    Pouncer saidGlobal warming, riddler.


    Why would you subsidize then building in places knowing that they are at severe risk of being wiped away?

    So we shouldn't build anywhere near coasts, hurricanes, tornadoes, earthquakes, volcanoes, wildfires, etc.? Where should we build then?

    Don't you live in Hong Kong? Isn't that on the coast?


    No but I am there enough to know that most of HK is shielded because of where the population is - not directly facing the ocean.

    Also there's simply the question of whether or not you should have the government insuring properties that private firms aren't willing to because of the risk - which is basically within the first mile in areas that frequently get hurricanes. These properties aren't exactly cheap either - do you enjoy having the poor directly subsidizing the lifestyles of the rich as meninlove does?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 22, 2012 4:19 AM GMT
    meninlove said..and of course Riddie and his family will now immediately move out of Ontario because of repetitive ice storms (the last one required about 60 million in federal aid and the deployment of over 15,000 troops) The Ontario Conservative gov't at the time was ever so grateful to the feds for help.



    Do you know how much is being subsidized for the rich to live on the coast in the US? Or is it their right to do so?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 22, 2012 4:36 AM GMT
    riddler78 said
    meninlove said..and of course Riddie and his family will now immediately move out of Ontario because of repetitive ice storms (the last one required about 60 million in federal aid and the deployment of over 15,000 troops) The Ontario Conservative gov't at the time was ever so grateful to the feds for help.



    Do you know how much is being subsidized for the rich to live on the coast in the US? Or is it their right to do so?


    Sorry, I'm still enjoying reading the bailouts your Conservative Provincial gov't got from the feds during your last ice storm.

    Adding all the Provinces affected has come up to over 5 billion so far in gov't aid. Insurance companies with all their wonderful deductions paid out 1 billion.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 22, 2012 4:38 AM GMT
    riddler78 said
    sfbayguy said
    riddler78 said
    Pouncer saidGlobal warming, riddler.


    Why would you subsidize then building in places knowing that they are at severe risk of being wiped away?

    So we shouldn't build anywhere near coasts, hurricanes, tornadoes, earthquakes, volcanoes, wildfires, etc.? Where should we build then?

    Don't you live in Hong Kong? Isn't that on the coast?


    No but I am there enough to know that most of HK is shielded because of where the population is - not directly facing the ocean.

    Also there's simply the question of whether or not you should have the government insuring properties that private firms aren't willing to because of the risk - which is basically within the first mile in areas that frequently get hurricanes. These properties aren't exactly cheap either - do you enjoy having the poor directly subsidizing the lifestyles of the rich as meninlove does?


    Your disingenuous bullshit is bullshit. icon_lol.gif
  • GQjock

    Posts: 11649

    Nov 22, 2012 4:43 AM GMT
    There are a few things here at play
    The Federal Government has long been the resource for disaster aid
    Mainly because no one else will

    Try walking into a bank and ask for a loan after an earthquake or a flood
    Mark Twain said a Banker is someone who gives you an umbrella on a sunny day and takes it away when it starts to rain

    But the more salient thing is now we are coming up on something that is more than disaster relief and that is Climate change

    Climate Change? You mean that thing were more and more data is showing that it actually exists and is as we speak changing the face of the earth?
    ..... Yeah THAT Climate Change

    Have YOU SEEN the coast of New Jersey and the Coast of New York lately?
    When things happen to people's homes the government does not want to be in the business of telly people .... Sorry you can't live here anymore
    Not usually good politics for any party
    ESPECIALLY when one party says there's nothing wrong with our climate

    I whole heartedly agree ... there are places on the Coast that are no longer viable as communities any longer but try floating THAT at your next republican town hall meeting
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 22, 2012 4:54 AM GMT
    meninlove said
    riddler78 said
    sfbayguy said
    riddler78 said
    Pouncer saidGlobal warming, riddler.


    Why would you subsidize then building in places knowing that they are at severe risk of being wiped away?

    So we shouldn't build anywhere near coasts, hurricanes, tornadoes, earthquakes, volcanoes, wildfires, etc.? Where should we build then?

    Don't you live in Hong Kong? Isn't that on the coast?


    No but I am there enough to know that most of HK is shielded because of where the population is - not directly facing the ocean.

    Also there's simply the question of whether or not you should have the government insuring properties that private firms aren't willing to because of the risk - which is basically within the first mile in areas that frequently get hurricanes. These properties aren't exactly cheap either - do you enjoy having the poor directly subsidizing the lifestyles of the rich as meninlove does?


    Your disingenuous bullshit is bullshit. icon_lol.gif


    Is it? You support building on the coast even though this is often also the most expensive real estate owned by the rich for a view of the coast. And you want to subsidize this.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 22, 2012 5:09 AM GMT
    riddler78 said
    meninlove said
    riddler78 said
    sfbayguy said
    riddler78 said
    Pouncer saidGlobal warming, riddler.


    Why would you subsidize then building in places knowing that they are at severe risk of being wiped away?

    So we shouldn't build anywhere near coasts, hurricanes, tornadoes, earthquakes, volcanoes, wildfires, etc.? Where should we build then?

    Don't you live in Hong Kong? Isn't that on the coast?


    No but I am there enough to know that most of HK is shielded because of where the population is - not directly facing the ocean.

    Also there's simply the question of whether or not you should have the government insuring properties that private firms aren't willing to because of the risk - which is basically within the first mile in areas that frequently get hurricanes. These properties aren't exactly cheap either - do you enjoy having the poor directly subsidizing the lifestyles of the rich as meninlove does?


    Your disingenuous bullshit is bullshit. icon_lol.gif


    Is it? You support building on the coast even though this is often also the most expensive real estate owned by the rich for a view of the coast. And you want to subsidize this.


    OK (this is too too funny and ironic), so raise the taxes on those rich people.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 22, 2012 2:54 PM GMT
    Yeah, let rich people pay higher taxes to subsidize their very own housing. icon_idea.gificon_exclaim.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 22, 2012 3:10 PM GMT
    Blakes7 saidYeah, let rich people pay higher taxes to subsidize their very own housing. icon_idea.gificon_exclaim.gif


    lol, so I guess now some of the Repub/libertarians here are finally seeing an example of why the very wealthy should in fact be paying more in taxes.


  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 22, 2012 4:00 PM GMT
    meninlove said
    Blakes7 saidYeah, let rich people pay higher taxes to subsidize their very own housing. icon_idea.gificon_exclaim.gif


    lol, so I guess now some of the Repub/libertarians here are finally seeing an example of why the very wealthy should in fact be paying more in taxes.




    Personally, I don't think people's personal habits or pet projects should be financed by governments - when there are certainly more pressing priorities. It seems even less reasonable though for the wealthy to be subsidized to own beach front property.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 22, 2012 4:42 PM GMT
    meninlove said
    Blakes7 saidYeah, let rich people pay higher taxes to subsidize their very own housing. icon_idea.gificon_exclaim.gif


    lol, so I guess now some of the Repub/libertarians here are finally seeing an example of why the very wealthy should in fact be paying more in taxes.




    they will quickly forget this train of thought and soon return to their previously determined attitudes and fallacies, I expect ;)
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 22, 2012 5:13 PM GMT
    meninlove said
    Blakes7 saidYeah, let rich people pay higher taxes to subsidize their very own housing. icon_idea.gificon_exclaim.gif


    lol, so I guess now some of the Repub/libertarians here are finally seeing an example of why the very wealthy should in fact be paying more in taxes.





    That was tongue in cheek.