Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Politics for Pros- moderated -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: carranza2 who wrote (135218)	8/30/2005 12:30:57 PM
From: Jorj X Mckie	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 793559

Perhaps you are prepared to let them suffer; I'm not. If it takes tax money to do it, so be it. I think that this goes to the libertarian argument that if you are not willing to let them suffer, there is no reason that you shouldn't volutarily sign your paychecks over to the victims of their own stupidity (living in Los Angeles, I'll wear that hat proudly). But because you are not willing to let them suffer, does not give you the right to forcibly take my money (through taxes) to address your pet charity.

To: carranza2 who wrote (135218)	8/30/2005 12:32:40 PM
From: miraje	Read Replies (4) \| Respond to of 793559

Will you say the same when the foolish people who live in LA and SF are hammered, as they surely will be? There is no federally supported earthquake insurance (unlike flood). What is offered in CA by private insurers is exorbitantly expensive, even with huge deductibles. For most residents, it doesn't pencil out. It's cheap government provided flood insurance that's responsible for houses and businesses to be rebuilt, time and again, in places that are unfit and unsafe, such as flood plains and beach areas that are regularly in the path of hurricanes. Taxpayers are supporting construction in places where diligence and personal responsibility would dictate otherwise. I cannot, for the life of me, understand why anyone would want to stay in these areas that get hit, time and again..

To: carranza2 who wrote (135218)	8/30/2005 12:49:29 PM
From: MulhollandDrive	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 793559

The fact of the matter is that not everyone can handle the losses associated with these disasters. My insurance will take care of me, but there are countless others who will be seriously affected who cannot afford the coverage I have and who will be much more damaged than I will be. Perhaps you are prepared to let them suffer; I'm not. If it takes tax money to do it, so be it. like i said, this is a big, big country, some parts are much more prone to getting 'hammered' than others....and i see james bowers properly pointed out the federal (taxpayer) underwriting of the rebuilding of these locations simply enables those who are otherwise (------->REAL WORLD) unable to afford it, do so.... there's a saying 'if you have to ask how much, you can't afford it' if a person living in a flood prone area cannot afford the REAL cost of insurance to live there, then they should be moving to higher ground and btw, do you think building and rebuilding in flood plain and moving people back in only to suffer yet again, a compassionate thing to do? i don't