DrDawkinstein Posted May 16, 2011 Share Posted May 16, 2011 (edited) And I have to agree. I've always wondered why people/local governments act surprised when a natural disaster that is KNOWN TO OCCUR in the area hits. And Ive been even more confused that everyone sits around and waits for the federal government to fix it. Especially growing up in Buffalo, where we shovel our own driveways, and pay local taxes to make sure we have salt and plows ready to go. Ron Paul basically tells these folks to "shovel your own driveway" by suggesting they build their own levees. And I dont see a problem with it. If you live on a known flood plain and you don't want to get wet, build a wall. Pretty simple. http://www.politicususa.com/en/ron-paul-levees I mean, this is the kind of dilemma that wouldn’t happen in a society that didn’t expect the government to solve our problems. But to expect the government and people who aren’t benefiting to pay for me to live on the beach and get my house blown down, that’s not morally correct and it’s not in the Constitution, if that’s what we’re supposed to be doing. Edited May 16, 2011 by DrDareustein Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DrDawkinstein Posted May 16, 2011 Author Share Posted May 16, 2011 no one in flood areas, hurricane areas, etc, want to chime in on this? is it because i didnt stake out a clear "Liberal" or "Conservative" view point for you to attack? The man says "When weather hits, fix it yourself, dont call the Federal Government". Agree? Disagree? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ieatcrayonz Posted May 16, 2011 Share Posted May 16, 2011 no one in flood areas, hurricane areas, etc, want to chime in on this? is it because i didnt stake out a clear "Liberal" or "Conservative" view point for you to attack? The man says "When weather hits, fix it yourself, dont call the Federal Government". Agree? Disagree? You make a point because after all the federal government is going to be busy telling businesses which people to hire and when. They won't have time to build levees. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dan Posted May 17, 2011 Share Posted May 17, 2011 no one in flood areas, hurricane areas, etc, want to chime in on this? is it because i didnt stake out a clear "Liberal" or "Conservative" view point for you to attack? The man says "When weather hits, fix it yourself, dont call the Federal Government". Agree? Disagree? As someone living in Greenville, MS, with the river currently cresting at over 64ft today (the highest level since 1927), I'll readily state that this notion of "don't build in a flood plain" is completely asinine. You do realize that the flood plain of the Mississippi River covers millions upon millions of acres of some of the richest farmland in the world. So, no one should live there? The country should abandon it all because it floods? Really? The Army Corps has built levees, yes to protect people and property, but the levees are also built so that this country can have access to some of the richest farmland in the country. Because the development of the Mississippi flood plain from IL to LA is in the best interest of the nation and covers multiple states, why wouldn't the federal government be the responsible party and do exactly what they did... build a levee and flood control system that protects our citizens, our commerce, and our economic development? If you follow the original line of logic further, where would you build/live in this country? The vast majority of this great nation is in a flood zone, earthquake zone, hurricane zone, tornado zone, or some other natural disaster zone. Should we abandon all of those areas and leave the people there to fend for themselves? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peace Posted May 17, 2011 Share Posted May 17, 2011 no one in flood areas, hurricane areas, etc, want to chime in on this? is it because i didnt stake out a clear "Liberal" or "Conservative" view point for you to attack? The man says "When weather hits, fix it yourself, dont call the Federal Government". Agree? Disagree? Did you respond to yourself whining about a lack of attention after 3 hours? Mom not hug you enough? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExiledInIllinois Posted May 17, 2011 Share Posted May 17, 2011 As someone living in Greenville, MS, with the river currently cresting at over 64ft today (the highest level since 1927), I'll readily state that this notion of "don't build in a flood plain" is completely asinine. You do realize that the flood plain of the Mississippi River covers millions upon millions of acres of some of the richest farmland in the world. So, no one should live there? The country should abandon it all because it floods? Really? The Army Corps has built levees, yes to protect people and property, but the levees are also built so that this country can have access to some of the richest farmland in the country. Because the development of the Mississippi flood plain from IL to LA is in the best interest of the nation and covers multiple states, why wouldn't the federal government be the responsible party and do exactly what they did... build a levee and flood control system that protects our citizens, our commerce, and our economic development? If you follow the original line of logic further, where would you build/live in this country? The vast majority of this great nation is in a flood zone, earthquake zone, hurricane zone, tornado zone, or some other natural disaster zone. Should we abandon all of those areas and leave the people there to fend for themselves? What are you saying? Nobody is "geographically blessed?" Oh... How do you feel about the lock and dam system and flood control? ;) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted May 17, 2011 Share Posted May 17, 2011 no one in flood areas, hurricane areas, etc, want to chime in on this? is it because i didnt stake out a clear "Liberal" or "Conservative" view point for you to attack? The man says "When weather hits, fix it yourself, dont call the Federal Government". Agree? Disagree? I think that the distinguished gentleman from Galveston has opined on the flood zones. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peace Posted May 17, 2011 Share Posted May 17, 2011 I think that the distinguished gentleman from Galveston has opined on the flood zones. Yeah, but it took him 8 hours. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rob's House Posted May 17, 2011 Share Posted May 17, 2011 As someone living in Greenville, MS, with the river currently cresting at over 64ft today (the highest level since 1927), I'll readily state that this notion of "don't build in a flood plain" is completely asinine. You do realize that the flood plain of the Mississippi River covers millions upon millions of acres of some of the richest farmland in the world. So, no one should live there? The country should abandon it all because it floods? Really? The Army Corps has built levees, yes to protect people and property, but the levees are also built so that this country can have access to some of the richest farmland in the country. Because the development of the Mississippi flood plain from IL to LA is in the best interest of the nation and covers multiple states, why wouldn't the federal government be the responsible party and do exactly what they did... build a levee and flood control system that protects our citizens, our commerce, and our economic development? If you follow the original line of logic further, where would you build/live in this country? The vast majority of this great nation is in a flood zone, earthquake zone, hurricane zone, tornado zone, or some other natural disaster zone. Should we abandon all of those areas and leave the people there to fend for themselves? Asinine? It's really quite simple. If the rich farmland on the flood plain is as valuable as you say, the production of those farmlands should be sufficient that those who use the lands (be it the individual farmers, a co-op, local, or state government depending on the circumstances) should be able to protect those lands with that which is produced from it. If the levees cost so much that the affected areas can't sustain them, and other people have to subsidize them (welfare) then it's inefficient use of that land. It's very basic economics actually. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nanker Posted May 17, 2011 Share Posted May 17, 2011 Floods should be outlawed. They worked well for the Pharaohs, but today - not so much. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted May 17, 2011 Share Posted May 17, 2011 Asinine? It's really quite simple. If the rich farmland on the flood plain is as valuable as you say, the production of those farmlands should be sufficient that those who use the lands (be it the individual farmers, a co-op, local, or state government depending on the circumstances) should be able to protect those lands with that which is produced from it. If the levees cost so much that the affected areas can't sustain them, and other people have to subsidize them (welfare) then it's inefficient use of that land. It's very basic economics actually. People from Alaska should be careful in demonizing federal welfare to the states. The only reason that you're not paying 10x the amount for anything to reach the Arctic Circle is thanks to the godfathers of bacon - Stevens & Young. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExiledInIllinois Posted May 17, 2011 Share Posted May 17, 2011 (edited) Asinine? It's really quite simple. If the rich farmland on the flood plain is as valuable as you say, the production of those farmlands should be sufficient that those who use the lands (be it the individual farmers, a co-op, local, or state government depending on the circumstances) should be able to protect those lands with that which is produced from it. If the levees cost so much that the affected areas can't sustain them, and other people have to subsidize them (welfare) then it's inefficient use of that land. It's very basic economics actually. Bit of a sticky wicket here because in this case (the area questioned in the topic), "navigable waters"come into play. We all know how that is tied directly into the US Constitution (precedents set with regard to the "Commerce Clause.") and even older precedents like the NorthWest Ordinace of 1787. The fed has exclusive jurisdiction here with regard to these waters. State or private property IS being taken over by the flood right? Can a flood envoke eminent domain? Edited May 17, 2011 by ExiledInIllinois Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dan Posted May 18, 2011 Share Posted May 18, 2011 Asinine? It's really quite simple. If the rich farmland on the flood plain is as valuable as you say, the production of those farmlands should be sufficient that those who use the lands (be it the individual farmers, a co-op, local, or state government depending on the circumstances) should be able to protect those lands with that which is produced from it. If the levees cost so much that the affected areas can't sustain them, and other people have to subsidize them (welfare) then it's inefficient use of that land. It's very basic economics actually. I absolutely love this every man for himself attitude. Ever hear the term, a chain is only as strong as the weakest link? How do you build a nation if you leave everything up to individuals? Wanna grow here... build your own levees. Wanna transport your goods and services across the country... build your own roads. Wanna power your factories... build your own power plants and lines. It's a backwards, close-minded attitude that concludes that the government should do nothing to help grow the infrastructure, commerce, economy, and general welfare of the nation. This nation is reliant upon the crops produced from the farm fields of the Mississippi River delta. This nation is reliant upon the shipping that uses these rivers. This nation is reliant upon the factories that operate in these states. To say the federal government should do nothing to help develop and protect such a vast portion of the nation, is to say that you'd prefer America to not be the nation it currently is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NoSaint Posted May 18, 2011 Share Posted May 18, 2011 (edited) if only it were so simple. as it turns out, your snow covered driveway and an earthquake/tornado/hurricane/volcano/40 foot wave of water are not the same thing. i also seem to remember things like the really bad blizzards getting federal funds at times. just saying. Edited May 18, 2011 by NoSaint Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
....lybob Posted May 18, 2011 Share Posted May 18, 2011 I absolutely love this every man for himself attitude. Ever hear the term, a chain is only as strong as the weakest link? How do you build a nation if you leave everything up to individuals? Wanna grow here... build your own levees. Wanna transport your goods and services across the country... build your own roads. Wanna power your factories... build your own power plants and lines. It's a backwards, close-minded attitude that concludes that the government should do nothing to help grow the infrastructure, commerce, economy, and general welfare of the nation. This nation is reliant upon the crops produced from the farm fields of the Mississippi River delta. This nation is reliant upon the shipping that uses these rivers. This nation is reliant upon the factories that operate in these states. To say the federal government should do nothing to help develop and protect such a vast portion of the nation, is to say that you'd prefer America to not be the nation it currently is. I have to say if every European settler did everything as an individual it would have been a lot better for the native Americans- I'd like to drop about a hundred of these Ayn Rand fan-boys into the Forest or Jungle with nothing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rob's House Posted May 18, 2011 Share Posted May 18, 2011 I absolutely love this every man for himself attitude. Ever hear the term, a chain is only as strong as the weakest link? How do you build a nation if you leave everything up to individuals? Wanna grow here... build your own levees. Wanna transport your goods and services across the country... build your own roads. Wanna power your factories... build your own power plants and lines. It's a backwards, close-minded attitude that concludes that the government should do nothing to help grow the infrastructure, commerce, economy, and general welfare of the nation. This nation is reliant upon the crops produced from the farm fields of the Mississippi River delta. This nation is reliant upon the shipping that uses these rivers. This nation is reliant upon the factories that operate in these states. To say the federal government should do nothing to help develop and protect such a vast portion of the nation, is to say that you'd prefer America to not be the nation it currently is. You don't get it. I have to say if every European settler did everything as an individual it would have been a lot better for the native Americans- I'd like to drop about a hundred of these Ayn Rand fan-boys into the Forest or Jungle with nothing. Bob, occasionally you have something mildly amusing or not retarded to say. This is not one of those times. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted May 18, 2011 Share Posted May 18, 2011 I absolutely love this every man for himself attitude. Ever hear the term, a chain is only as strong as the weakest link? How do you build a nation if you leave everything up to individuals? Wanna grow here... build your own levees. Wanna transport your goods and services across the country... build your own roads. Wanna power your factories... build your own power plants and lines. It's a backwards, close-minded attitude that concludes that the government should do nothing to help grow the infrastructure, commerce, economy, and general welfare of the nation. This nation is reliant upon the crops produced from the farm fields of the Mississippi River delta. This nation is reliant upon the shipping that uses these rivers. This nation is reliant upon the factories that operate in these states. To say the federal government should do nothing to help develop and protect such a vast portion of the nation, is to say that you'd prefer America to not be the nation it currently is. How is it that so many people only recognize "unorganized individuals" and "monolithic government", and have no concept of an in-between? In regards to the underlined...for much of this country's history, that's largely how things were done. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OCinBuffalo Posted May 18, 2011 Share Posted May 18, 2011 I absolutely love this every man for himself attitude. Ever hear the term, a chain is only as strong as the weakest link? How do you build a nation if you leave everything up to individuals? Wanna grow here... build your own levees. Wanna transport your goods and services across the country... build your own roads. Wanna power your factories... build your own power plants and lines. It's a backwards, close-minded attitude that concludes that the government should do nothing to help grow the infrastructure, commerce, economy, and general welfare of the nation. This nation is reliant upon the crops produced from the farm fields of the Mississippi River delta. This nation is reliant upon the shipping that uses these rivers. This nation is reliant upon the factories that operate in these states. To say the federal government should do nothing to help develop and protect such a vast portion of the nation, is to say that you'd prefer America to not be the nation it currently is. I love that you don't seem to understand the difference between: "every man for himself" and "some men deciding to work with others to benefit themselves, but can leave if the benefits aren't suitable" "a whole bunch of men deciding that they should all kick into something that benefits them all" and "Dan and his friends deciding what they will force on every man economically and socially." "Dan and his friends deciding for all that no man's individual rights outweigh the state's, that no man should benefit solely from his own labor when other men who won't labor can benefit too" Here's a hint. This nation was built on the middle ones, not the first one, and not the third ones. Get it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Magox Posted May 18, 2011 Share Posted May 18, 2011 Bob, occasionally you have something mildly amusing or not retarded to say. This is not one of those times. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dan Posted May 18, 2011 Share Posted May 18, 2011 You don't get it. I reckon not. How is it that so many people only recognize "unorganized individuals" and "monolithic government", and have no concept of an in-between? In regards to the underlined...for much of this country's history, that's largely how things were done. I love that you don't seem to understand the difference between: "every man for himself" and "some men deciding to work with others to benefit themselves, but can leave if the benefits aren't suitable" "a whole bunch of men deciding that they should all kick into something that benefits them all" and "Dan and his friends deciding what they will force on every man economically and socially." "Dan and his friends deciding for all that no man's individual rights outweigh the state's, that no man should benefit solely from his own labor when other men who won't labor can benefit too" Here's a hint. This nation was built on the middle ones, not the first one, and not the third ones. Get it? I'm not arguing for extremes. I'm stating that some things are larger, and more impactful, than one individual or a group of individuals. The MS levee flood control system is a perfect example of that. The Army Corps has had to manage the water levels in the MS and all major tributaries to keep this flood under control. The TN river, OH, Columbia, and dozens others have all had their flow controlled so as not to inundate the MS river and exacerbate the problem. The floodways have been opened to protect people and land many miles down stream. A group of individuals in a relatively small area cannot do that alone. It's an example of managing a system that encompasses 9? states. This is not me or any one small group of individuals saying "protect me". This situation is a prime example of the federal government recognizing long ago that you can't let such a large, economically important area of the country be at risk. I fail to see how a few small individuals are dictating or demanding that the rights of everyone be set aside so they can live in the Delta. There are 2 issues here, as I see it: 1. Should the federal government maintain and operate a flood control system on the MS River and most every other major waterway in the US. I think the country decided quite some time ago that it was best for the nation to do so. And I would contend that, to the benefit of all, it has been money well spent. This it not a case of a few individual farmers benefiting; this is the entire nation benefiting from the production of these crops. 2. Should the federal government help disaster victims, via additional FEMA money. Everyone complains about that.... until the disaster is in their back yard. And eventually, it seems 90% of the country gets their's sooner or later. The floods and hurricanes may get all the media attention; but FEMA and other federal monies and resources kick in and help people in all corners of the country every year recover from wildfires, floods, blizzards, tornadoes, earthquakes, oil spills, disease out breaks you name it. Once again... presumptions run wild around here! What are you talking about OC? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts