Should we help Oklahoma rebuild?

[Travis]

The case against help

Oklahoma told the victims of Hurricane Sandy "**** you, take care of that yourselves!"

So conceivably it would be a reap-what-you-sow situation.

The case for help

Even petulant children who always refuse to help others will need some help themselves. Maybe they learn from it and grow up.

Besides, society works because we can forgive and forget.

 

[Foolmewunz]

The case against help

Oklahoma told the victims of Hurricane Sandy "**** you, take care of that yourselves!"

So conceivably it would be a reap-what-you-sow situation.

The case for help

Even petulant children who always refuse to help others will need some help themselves. Maybe they learn from it and grow up.

Besides, society works because we can forgive and forget.

I don't think the people of Oklahoma actually had a plebiscite on the Sandy Relief bill, did they? I was just watching a bit on the news where a lady who'd gone to Missouri to help after their twister had destroyed hundreds of homes was one of the victims this time in Oklahoma. Maybe we give her a pass? How about the nice Taylor family who help out at the PTA Cupcake Sale every spring?

 

[shuize]

I would much rather help the folks in Oklahoma rebuild than throw money at a multi billion dollar high-speed rail boondoggle in California.

 

[theprestige]

The case against help

Oklahoma told the victims of Hurricane Sandy "**** you, take care of that yourselves!"

So conceivably it would be a reap-what-you-sow situation.

The case for help

Even petulant children who always refuse to help others will need some help themselves. Maybe they learn from it and grow up.

Besides, society works because we can forgive and forget.

The amount of irrational bigotry in these few lines is pretty staggering.

 

[theprestige]

I would much rather help the folks in Oklahoma rebuild than throw money at a multi billion dollar high-speed rail boondoggle in California.

A thousand times this.

Perhaps the good people of central California could amuse us with their rationale for why rebuilding Oklahoma is fine, so long as their precious high-speed rail project doesn't suffer.

And then we can take turns using those same rationalizations to excuse the good people of Oklahoma from providing disaster relief for the victims of Hurricane Sandy.

 

[daredelvis]

Frankly, you all disgust me (except you Foolmewunz, you got it right).

Daredelvis

 

[mikedenk]

Oklahoma told the victims of Hurricane Sandy "**** you, take care of that yourselves!"

Is that what they said?

I thought is was more along the lines of "I'm okay with federal disaster aid, but don't use the opportunity to cram the bill full of pork and then guilt-trip anybody who complains about it".

 

[Bikewer]

Obviously, the tornado was God's wrath in action. Commies, homos, fornicators... So, attempting to help those naughty people would be a slap in God's face, eh?

At least, that would be the point made by certain prominent evangelists....

 

[carlitos]

The case against help

Oklahoma told the victims of Hurricane Sandy "**** you, take care of that yourselves!"

So conceivably it would be a reap-what-you-sow situation.

The case for help

Even petulant children who always refuse to help others will need some help themselves. Maybe they learn from it and grow up.

Besides, society works because we can forgive and forget.

Cool story, bro.

 

[rustypouch]

I don't think the people of Oklahoma actually had a plebiscite on the Sandy Relief bill, did they? I was just watching a bit on the news where a lady who'd gone to Missouri to help after their twister had destroyed hundreds of homes was one of the victims this time in Oklahoma. Maybe we give her a pass? How about the nice Taylor family who help out at the PTA Cupcake Sale every spring?

Well, the people they'd chosen to represent them spoke out against helping out when their fellow Americans were in need of aid. That has to be an indication of their values.

 

[maxpower1227]

Is that what they said?

I thought is was more along the lines of "I'm okay with federal disaster aid, but don't use the opportunity to cram the bill full of pork and then guilt-trip anybody who complains about it".

What was being said exactly when 67 House Republicans voted against a bill for flood insurance funding that had no pork in it whatsoever?

Even without that, this excuse is ********. The kids of things being described by the reprehensible Inhofe and others as "pork" were things like roofing repairs in other places which were also in the path of Sandy.

 

[uke2se]

Yes, you should help OK rebuild. You should do this because it's the humane thing to do. You should not let some conservative a-holes determine your actions for you by not helping just because OK is a red state.

 

[Tony]

Yes, you should help OK rebuild. You should do this because it's the humane thing to do. You should not let some conservative a-holes determine your actions for you by not helping just because OK is a red state.

^This.

Plus, you don't want to sink to the level of conservatives.

 

[Quinn]

I also don't want to sink to the level of people of people who claimed we shouldn't shouldn't bother rebuilding New Orleans after Katrina since, you know, we were just gonna get hit by another hurricane eventually anyway.

(Though I will admit to allowing myself a tiny amount of schadenfreude on that front after Sandy, since a disproportionate amount of those comments seemed to come from New York.)

 

[The Fallen Serpent]

I am fully in favor of using US Federal funds for US disaster aide. This is not dependent on the location in need nor the personal political opinions of any living there.

 

[Travis]

I would much rather help the folks in Oklahoma rebuild than throw money at a multi billion dollar high-speed rail boondoggle in California.

Maybe you would rather spend your money elsewhere. But the high speed train isn't going to be a boondoggle.

A thousand times this.

Perhaps the good people of central California could amuse us with their rationale for why rebuilding Oklahoma is fine, so long as their precious high-speed rail project doesn't suffer.

And then we can take turns using those same rationalizations to excuse the good people of Oklahoma from providing disaster relief for the victims of Hurricane Sandy.

Interesting. California and Federal government have more than enough money to do both. And I think they should do both.

 

[Travis]

Yes, you should help OK rebuild. You should do this because it's the humane thing to do. You should not let some conservative a-holes determine your actions for you by not helping just because OK is a red state.

To say I agree would be putting it lightly.

 

[theprestige]

I also don't want to sink to the level of people of people who claimed we shouldn't shouldn't bother rebuilding New Orleans after Katrina since, you know, we were just gonna get hit by another hurricane eventually anyway.

(Though I will admit to allowing myself a tiny amount of schadenfreude on that front after Sandy, since a disproportionate amount of those comments seemed to come from New York.)

Some parts of New Orleans are at substantial risk in the event of a hurricane, and are likely to incur substantial costs to protect them adequately. It is also likely that they will need to be rebuilt from time to time as well.

So I would say it's entirely reasonable to seriously consider whether it makes sense to have settled those parts in the first place, or whether to re-settle them at all. And while I might not agree with the conclusion, I don't think it's particularly low-level at all to conclude that no, we shouldn't re-settle those parts.

 

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Obviously, the tornado was God's wrath in action. Commies, homos, fornicators... So, attempting to help those naughty people would be a slap in God's face, eh?

At least, that would be the point made by certain prominent evangelists....

The tornado was punishment for people rebuilding after Sandy because New Orleans was already done.

 

[The Fallen Serpent]

Some parts of New Orleans are at substantial risk in the event of a hurricane, and are likely to incur substantial costs to protect them adequately. It is also likely that they will need to be rebuilt from time to time as well.

So I would say it's entirely reasonable to seriously consider whether it makes sense to have settled those parts in the first place, or whether to re-settle them at all. And while I might not agree with the conclusion, I don't think it's particularly low-level at all to conclude that no, we shouldn't re-settle those parts.

I would agree it is reasonable to discuss such, as in is it better to rebuild or relocate. With National Flood Insurance there are certain levels of risk designation that any payout is for relocation with the flooded property becoming Federal land. Such questions become increasingly complex the larger an area we are trying to make such a determination over. I doubt we will ever see an entire metropolitan complex ruled as not worth rebuilding. A slower more imperceptible shift in boundaries over the course of multiple incidents seems more plausible.

If I am recalling correctly, there has been a major shift in various areas hit by Hurricane Sandy under such a determination.