I've read alot of answers where people are saying that it is wrong for Bush to offer govt. aid to the victims of the fires in California. Why don't they deserve Govt. help?
2007-10-28 07:15:40 · 5 answers · asked by carmeliasue 6 in News & Events ➔ Current Events
Tom: Ok,,point made,,but what about the Katrina victims? They ARE still receiving aid. Why are they more deserving the California? Shouldn't they of had homeowner's and flood insurance?
2007-10-28 09:46:37 · update #1
Both were/are natural disasters. Louisiana folks knew that New Orleans was below flood level and COULD easily flood under the right conditions.
2007-10-28 09:48:42 · update #2
no one got screwed after Katrina by the feds. the mess in the south, especially in New Orleans was the result of incompetent government leadership there. FEMA had emergency aid in the area in less than six hours, but the mayor and the governor had nothing in place to distribute that aid, it sat in large shipping containers for weeks without being used. Louisiana screwed herself without any help from the feds.
But, of course, the media put such an incredibly fallacious slant on everything that went on down there, and people actually believed all that crap, so there is an attitude that California is being promised aid when Louisianna was not. It simply isn't true. The feds are STILL trying to help in the south, and the states that are smart, are taking all the help they can get, but they have to do the work themselves, Louisianna it seems wants it all done FOR them. So, when you want to say that the feds are playing favorites, you (speaking in general terms here, not you personally) are an idiot that will believe anything the media will display.
2007-10-28 07:53:13 · answer #1 · answered by essentiallysolo 7 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Govt aid is not George Bush's personal wealth to just be offering around. If he implies that he personally will ensure that those people get aid, it seems as though he is placing them above the people who had Democratic governors and got screwed over by the federal govt after Katrina, etc.
We are angry that he cannot manage any aspect of his job, but he goes out there and smiles and says "sure, I'll just tell my lackeys to send you some cash."
I don't think people question the need for federal aid to the people in California, it's just that your president tends to hand-pick the groups he considers worthy.
2007-10-28 07:26:37 · answer #2 · answered by noname 7 · 2⤊ 0⤋
I think that people in other parts of the country tend to blame Californians for the frequent fires, mudslides and other such disasters that befall them.
There may be a good reason for this. California is overbuilt, its population far exceeding its water table. Because of the frequent disasters the perception is Californians are causing real problems to the insurance costs of other people in other states.
On the other hand, I've noticed that people in any given part of America seem to hate people from other parts of the country, in general. Seems to have gotten truer and truer since we 'elected' George Bush: a divider not a uniter.
2007-10-28 07:29:04 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 0⤋
I say shame on them for feeling that way. This is what we pay our taxes for, to help out our fellow countrymen in a time of need. I would much rather send millions or billions of dollars to the people of southern California than to people overseas! I am a firm believer in helping ourselves first. That may be very selfish, but thats how I feel.
2007-10-28 07:25:57 · answer #4 · answered by ? 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
If you have insurance then the insurance company should cover the fire losses. If you did not have home insurance, the taxpayers shouldn't pay. You decided to "save" the insurance money and took a chance.
If my house burns down tomorrow, and I have no insurance will the government (i.e. taxpayers) pay or do I have to be fortunate enough to be in a "fire zone" where a bunch of homes burn down?
2007-10-28 07:27:33 · answer #5 · answered by Tom S 7 · 2⤊ 0⤋