From: "Mark" 


"Geo"  wrote in message news:43236cb6{at}w3.nls.net...
> "Mark"  wrote in message
news:4323635e$1{at}w3.nls.net...
>
>> That said, we have no choice but to spend
>> the money either way
>
> Why? I fail to understand why for all the people who didn't purchase flood
> insurance that it is you think the federal government should bail them
> out?

I don't think they will be paying for someone's house in, for instance,
Gulfsport who didn't have flood insurance. They will most likely make them
loans with favorable terms though, but that's not giving them the money.
They are going to be picking up the tab for the initial clean-up of the
2x4s that were those homes and they will fix the below that you mention.

> All that's required of the government is to fix things like roads,
> bridges,
> etc. There is no requirement to rebuild a city below sea level with public
> funds.

I agree to a degree -- but that city has been there forever. I think they
should pay for this reconstruction, but only if they fill in the land to
way above sea level, not if they propose some massive levee system to
better protect it for next time.

The thought has come up about a future terrorist attack on the levees --
that's way too real for me, and it would immediately flood the city all
over again, so the only proper answer is mucho landfill. If they are stupid
enough to rebuild at the present levels, then it must come with the caveat
that next time you don't get a single dime, nor any help at all.

--- BBBS/NT v4.01 Flag-5