Quote:
Originally Posted by Kevin
So the government owes them new homes now? Iraq is important for strategic and international reasons which we could delve into in another thread.
Even if I concede that it's stupid to spend $50 billion in Iraq, it's still stupid to spend any money -- one dime on returning New Orleans to a state where it can once again be flooded and destroyed.
|
You should have just said this in the first place. It seems your true objection isn't to the location of the land NO is sitting on - it's to the "poor people" who wish to live there because it's all they know, and what they love.
Take for example, Malibu, CA, an area poorly planned, subject to wildfires and suffering from crappy irrigation. In '95 there were massive mudslides which destroyed million-dollar homes and blocked the PCH. There were slides again in 97, 98, 01 and 05. Presumably, the government spends plenty of money shoring up the cliffs, yet, down they come time and time again.
Who lives in Malibu? People who can afford to rebuild, and choose to do so because it's home to them.
The idea that our government should just "move them" elsewhere is ludicrous, and something of a slippery slope.
(Now, as far as spending $50 billion in Iraq, that's irrelevant here. And if that's what Congress is willing to give, then so be it. Restricting funding isn't going to help the situation.)
Threaded Mode
