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: Lane3 who wrote (139561)	9/19/2005 7:32:34 PM
From: carranza2	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 794389

That's a response that borders on the silly. The amount of above sea level housing available in NO is tiny, not enough to support a city. Perhaps a village, but certainy insufficient to support a city of any magnitude. Forget about dockworkers working that "national asset"; they wouldn't be able to afford the high and dry real estate since it has always sold at a premium. By your logic, the Feds should not rebuild any place subject to a calamity, natural or man-made. It's a silly idea because calamities happen, and the type of calamities whose reconstruction you suggest should not be funded by taxpayers are rare, ultimately affordable, and the reconstruction of the affected cities is in the public interest. The thinking can be taken to extremes. Say you are fat, old, poor and diabetic. If you were to lose weight, you'd have fewer health problems. Using your logic, the feds should not pay your Medicare, despite your contributions into the system, until you lose weight and get healthier since, obviously, you got fat and diabetic by voluntarily eating too much and not exercising enough.