Thread: FEMA short on money

Originally Posted by Marcus1124

FEMA does more harm long-term than good. Has it ever occured to you that by effectively subsidizing people making foolish long-term decisions, (such as...no offense...building their homes and lives below see level).

By lowering the cost of living and developing in more disaster-prone areas, FEMA and all federal "aid" to disaster recovery amerlioration put more people in harms way in the long-term.

ahoy Mrs. M,

i quoted Marcus thar because i think he brings up a good point. bear in mind, lass, that i think americans really ought to want to help out fellow americans who hath been struck by the destructive forces 'o nature.

but what say ye to the bolded he hath scribed? imma not really thinkin' 'o New Orleans...because if we yearn fer all the oil that most seem to feel we need to harvest from the seas, then a major coastal city near them refineries in the gulf would seem to be in order. imma referrin' more to the Outer Banks, the coastal barrier islands here in me state 'o NC.

- MeadHallPirate

Originally Posted by Forplay

You continue to get it wrong, I am not against helping, but rather how the help is provided. All those agencies balled up in FEMA are federal layers of bureaucracies that are better handled at the state level.

Speaking of selfish, I would suggest to you that it is you that is selfish, funding a useless FEMA with borrowed money that our grandchildren are going to have to pay back. And you call that helping your neighbor, no you are helping to burden your neighbor with a shit load of debt.

This. FEMA is both unconstitutional, and inefficient. Help should start with the individual, by choosing not to live in a disaster area, and to insure your property against disasters, prepare, and save money. Next it should come from your family and community and private charity. Then it should come from govt when everyone consents to such programs.

Originally Posted by MeadHallPirate

ahoy Mrs. M,

i quoted Marcus thar because i think he brings up a good point. bear in mind, lass, that i think americans really ought to want to help out fellow americans who hath been struck by the destructive forces 'o nature.

but what say ye to the bolded he hath scribed? imma not really thinkin' 'o New Orleans...because if we yearn fer all the oil that most seem to feel we need to harvest from the seas, then a major coastal city near them refineries in the gulf would seem to be in order. imma referrin' more to the Outer Banks, the coastal barrier islands here in me state 'o NC.

- MeadHallPirate

New Orleans has a levee system that if it had adequately maintained, they wouldn't have seen anything more than some street flooding from overtopping and wind damage after Katrina. Hopefully, with the rebuilding of the levees, they'll get it right and we won't see the same scenario ever again.
There was talk at one time on placing a limit on the number of times one can receive FEMA assistance if the person had no insurance the first time. I think that's a very good idea and wouldn't mind seeing it such a rule implemented. I also think that there should be a limit on how many times you could collect in your lifetime if you live on a barrier island. Don't get me wrong though, I don't think we should just forget those islands because they are so important for protection during major storms but those who choose to live on them shouldn't be allowed to grab FEMA monies every time the wind blows if they remain uninsured. Having insurance helps eliminate the need for FEMA for individuals in the rebuilding process but as I mentioned earlier, insurances aren't always quick to pay and we can't have people living homeless if their primary dwelling is destroyed while being held hostage by the companies. That's where FEMA comes in with things like trailers (not the most comfortable thing to live in, btw) and then if and when an insurance pays, FEMA does ask for reimbursement if there is duplicate funding and I have no problem with that.

Mrs. M
New Orleans has a levee system that if it had adequately maintained, they wouldn't have seen anything more than some street flooding from overtopping and wind damage after Katrina. Hopefully, with the rebuilding of the levees, they'll get it right and we won't see the same scenario ever again.

And if we once again happen to see the results of your local and state official's failure to prioritize and maintain those levees, would you once again expect your fellow citizens to have billions of dollars taken from them to rebuild, again?

Mrs.M
There was talk at one time on placing a limit on the number of times one can receive FEMA assistance if the person had no insurance the first time. I think that's a very good idea and wouldn't mind seeing it such a rule implemented. I also think that there should be a limit on how many times you could collect in your lifetime if you live on a barrier island. Don't get me wrong though, I don't think we should just forget those islands because they are so important for protection during major storms but those who choose to live on them shouldn't be allowed to grab FEMA monies every time the wind blows if they remain uninsured. Having insurance helps eliminate the need for FEMA for individuals in the rebuilding process but as I mentioned earlier, insurances aren't always quick to pay and we can't have people living homeless if their primary dwelling is destroyed while being held hostage by the companies. That's where FEMA comes in with things like trailers (not the most comfortable thing to live in, btw) and then if and when an insurance pays, FEMA does ask for reimbursement if there is duplicate funding and I have no problem with that.

The question is, why should people without insurance EVER be able to have their losses paid for by third parties?

The funding for FEMA should be, as I've said, either a direct tax on states in an escalating proportion to their receipt of FEMA aid over the precedeing 10 years; or it should be through long-term loans to the states.

Originally Posted by Marcus1124

And if we once again happen to see the results of your local and state official's failure to prioritize and maintain those levees, would you once again expect your fellow citizens to have billions of dollars taken from them to rebuild, again?

As I have said hundreds of times, ACE bears much of the blame when it comes to the levees. As they are the ones rebuilding them now, yes, I would expect the feds to help if they fail again.

The question is, why should people without insurance EVER be able to have their losses paid for by third parties?

The funding for FEMA should be, as I've said, either a direct tax on states in an escalating proportion to their receipt of FEMA aid over the precedeing 10 years; or it should be through long-term loans to the states.

There are many reasons a person doesn't have insurance and while it doesn't excuse them, I think it would be wrong to not assist them at least one time. After that, if they haven't learned their lesson, then no, don't provide them with assistance to rebuild.

The states do pay back a portion of FEMA aid but since we ALL pay taxes, I don't think they should be required to pay back everything.

Originally Posted by goober

I would definitely consider suspending federal aid to places like Eric Cantor's district, I'd close federal offices in GOP districts, to free up the funds for more spending in blue states.
Shouldn't the people who voted for spending cuts, get spending cuts?

Should they also get special tax breaks and have the blue states pay for everything?

Mrs. M
As I have said hundreds of times, ACE bears much of the blame when it comes to the levees. As they are the ones rebuilding them now, yes, I would expect the feds to help if they fail again.

Why should the ACE or the federal government have any role in the building or maintanence of those levees? Why shouldn't that cost be born by the people and businesses of New Orleans who benefit from the levees?

Mrs. M
There are many reasons a person doesn't have insurance and while it doesn't excuse them, I think it would be wrong to not assist them at least one time. After that, if they haven't learned their lesson, then no, don't provide them with assistance to rebuild.

Well, I can only think of three reasons why people wouldn't have insurance:

1. Insurance is not available because the risk is too high -

2. They individual cannot afford the insurance

3. The insurance is available, is afordable by the individual, and the indivual has opted to spend that money on something else.

Not a single one of these reasons justifies subsidization by other tax payers.

First, if markets have determined that the risk in the area is too high, that should be a red flag to those who would live and work in the area that the potential costs of doing so might be too high

Second, if the individual can't afford the insurance, they have no more expectation of others paying for it than if they have a car or home or any lifestyle choice they can't afford themselves.

Third, if they are irresponsibly refusing to purchase insurance, that certainly shouldn't be subsidized by others.

Mrs. M
The states do pay back a portion of FEMA aid but since we ALL pay taxes, I don't think they should be required to pay back everything.

Why not? If a particular state consistently in the long-term costs FEMA more than another state, why shouldn't that state and its citizens pay more in the long-term?

Let me ask you this, suppose you and your 4 coworkers or friends went out to dinner together every Friday night. Three of them agree that the bill should be split evenly, and those three consistently order the most expensive items on the menu, while you always get something far less expensive. How long would you feel it was fair paying a signficantly disproportionate share of the bill based on what you actually got compared to the others?

Originally Posted by Marcus1124

Why should the ACE or the federal government have any role in the building or maintanence of those levees? Why shouldn't that cost be born by the people and businesses of New Orleans who benefit from the levees?

ACE is responsible for building levees throughout the US, not just New Orleans, along with other projects in all 50 states. As to why they're responsible for our waterways, well, all it takes is a little research:

Neglected waterways, demands for hydropower throughout the country, and calls for irrigation projects in the West drew attention to the nation's water resources at the beginning of the 20th century. Multipurpose partisans advocated the application of scientific management to insure efficient water use. This meant a program of basinwide development that would address all potential applications of the resource.

Unlike the West, where irrigation became the focus of attention, the East was more concerned over hydropower development. Beginning in the early 1880s, when a plant in Appleton, Wisconsin, first used falling water to produce electricity, the construction of hydroelectric dams on the nation's waterways proliferated. These private dams threatened navigation and forced Congress, acting through the Corps of Engineers, to regulate dam construction. The Rivers and Harbors Acts of 1890 and 1899 required that dam sites and plans be approved by the secretary of war and the Corps of Engineers before construction. The General Dam Act of 1906 empowered the federal government to compel dam owners to construct, operate, and maintain navigation facilities without compensation whenever necessary at hydroelectric power sites.

Private interests developed most power projects before World War I. The Corps of Engineers did install a power station substructure at Lock and Dam #1 on the upper Mississippi River. The government later leased the power facility to the Ford Motor Company. In 1919, the Corps began construction of Dam #2 later renamed Wilson Dam as a hydroelectric facility at Muscle Shoals on the Tennessee River. Support for the facility, which was intended to supply power for nitrate production, declined with the end of World War I, and its completion was threatened. However, by 1925 that project was substantially finished.

President Franklin Roosevelt favored the development of federal hydropower projects to provide consumers with low-cost energy. During the New Deal, the Corps participated in three major hydroelectric power projects: Passamaquoddy Tidal Power Project in Maine, Bonneville Dam on the Columbia River, and Fort Peck Dam on the Missouri River. In 1937, Congress created the Bonneville Power Administration to dispose of the power and set the rates for the power generated at Bonneville Dam.

Meanwhile, concern over flood control intensified. In 1912 13, two terrifying floods had devastated the lower Mississippi Valley and showed the inadequacy of the levee system. Another flood came in 1916, and the first flood control act was passed the following year; it applied only to the Mississippi and Sacramento rivers. Still, the Mississippi River Commission and the Corps continued to depend on levees. That policy was finally changed in 1927, when one of the worst disasters in the nation's history hit the lower Mississippi. The flood was the result of high waters from throughout the Mississippi River's drainage area 41 percent of the continental United States coming together and inundating the lower Mississippi Valley. Between 250 and 500 people were killed, over 16 million acres were flooded, and over 500,000 people were forced from their homes to refugee camps.

Clearly, depending on levees was not the answer. The chief of engineers, Major General Edgar Jadwin drew up a new plan requiring that the water be dispersed through controlled outlets and floodways as well as confined between levees. After lengthy debate, Congress approved this plan in the 1928 Flood Control Act and placed its implementation under the control of the Corps of Engineers. This act launched what today is called the Mississippi River and Tributaries Project. The project has prevented over $100 billion worth of damages since 1928.

Floods continued elsewhere, especially on the Ohio River. Additionally, during the 1930s, there was the misery caused by the Great Depression. Responding to the twin needs for flood protection and work relief, Congress passed the 1936 Flood Control Act, one of the most important events in the history of the Corps of Engineers. For the first time, Congress declared that flood control was a proper activity of the federal government. The act put the Corps firmly into the reservoir construction business, despite earlier Corps' reservations about the effectiveness of reservoirs. It also established that a potential project's economic benefits must exceed its costs. Furthermore, the act specified the obligations that would have to be assumed by local interests before the Corps could begin certain projects.

The 1944 Flood Control Act signaled the victory of the multipurpose approach. It empowered the secretary of the interior to sell power produced at Corps and other federal projects. The act also authorized the gigantic multipurpose civil works project for the Missouri Basin commonly called the Pick-Sloan Plan. It amalgamated the plans for developing the Missouri Basin proposed by Major General Lewis Pick, formerly Missouri River Division engineer, and W. Glenn Sloan, the assistant regional director for the Bureau of Reclamation. In the ensuing years, the Corps built several huge dams on the main stem of the Missouri River. These dams were all multipurpose. They provided flood control, irrigation, navigation, water supply, hydropower, and recreation.

Following World II, federal multipurpose projects expanded considerably. Congress authorized major systems involving hydroelectric power on the Columbia and Snake rivers in the Pacific Northwest, and the Missouri and the Arkansas rivers. The Eisenhower administration challenged some of these ambitious projects as costly federal burdens. However, overall federal power development continued to increase. By 1975, Corps projects the largest on the Columbia and Snake rivers were producing 27 percent of the total U.S. hydropower and 4.4 percent of all electrical energy output.

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers: A Brief History

Look at what you guys are doing, coming up with even more regulations for FEMA. Youre just making the problem worse.