About spending Federal money to build storm shelters etc.

[9sublime]

If the government isn't there to protect the lives of its citizens, who can't do it themselves, against the indiscriminate and devastating lethal force of a hurricane, what is the government supposed to do with its money??

I understand Americans are always very conscious about keeping the government small, and tax low, which is admirable in many social and economic ways. However, this is exactly the kind of project a government should be undertaking in the name of protecting its citizens. Whether it is implemented at state level or federal level is neither here not there; whichever way ensures the most cost and time efficient way of getting shelters built should be undertaken.

 

[Texas_tea]

whichever way ensures the most cost and time efficient way of getting shelters built should be undertaken.

Ever known the Federal Government to be "cost and time efficient"....

Just saying ....

 

[steveox]

We need more jails and bigger prisons than schools.

 

[dogtowner]

If the government isn't there to protect the lives of its citizens, who can't do it themselves, against the indiscriminate and devastating lethal force of a hurricane, what is the government supposed to do with its money??

I understand Americans are always very conscious about keeping the government small, and tax low, which is admirable in many social and economic ways. However, this is exactly the kind of project a government should be undertaking in the name of protecting its citizens. Whether it is implemented at state level or federal level is neither here not there; whichever way ensures the most cost and time efficient way of getting shelters built should be undertaken.

what is the government supposed to do with ITS money ?

the government has no money. it hastax payer money. importent distinction.

if local citizens feel there is.some need of a shelter then there is nothing stopping it from building it. except the wishes of the taxpayers.

of course the idea that the government could ever protect the citizens from something as random and caorecious as weather is silly.

 

[9sublime]

what is the government supposed to do with ITS money ?

the government has no money. it hastax payer money. importent distinction.

I would argue this is semantics. I am fully aware where government money comes from.

of course the idea that the government could ever protect the citizens from something as random and caorecious as weather is silly.

The idea that the government could protect its citizens from weather is silly, so no effort should be made whatsoever to reduce potential casualties in a know storm zone?

 

[dogtowner]

I would argue this is semantics. I am fully aware where government money comes from.




The idea that the government could protect its citizens from weather is silly, so no effort should be made whatsoever to reduce potential casualties in a know storm zone?

semantics of course but looks to be well in line with the liberal perspective

i said licalities were within their authority to do what they wished. but it is silly to build.shelters over the whole midwest when the odds of any one place being hit are small. warning systems (such as they have had for decades) make sense as its specific and useful.

but trying to protect even Oklahoma is silly.

 

[9sublime]

So the issue rests on the effectiveness of said shelters, rather than whether or not the government should use tax money to protect it's citizens from the elements? If so, I think we are probably more in agreement than disagreement here.

However, in more frequently hit areas, places such as schools should surely be considered for having shelters installed no?

 

[dogtowner]

So the issue rests on the effectiveness of said shelters, rather than whether or not the government should use tax money to protect it's citizens from the elements? If so, I think we are probably more in agreement than disagreement here.

However, in more frequently hit areas, places such as schools should surely be considered for having shelters installed no?

shelters to house the displaced have been planned for for generations if not longer.

shelters to run to for the millions and millions of people in the midwest (spread across a last expanse of land) is a construction project so far beyond anything thats every been contemplated is silly. its easy enough to construct an effective storm shelter but ones to house millions across vast areas of sparcely populated land. silly.

 

[Cruella]

I do not think the fed should tell state or local governments what should be in the building codes.

Nor do I. Calif. has a problem with earthquakes and wild fires. Gulf and eastern seaboard states with hurricanes. The plains with tornados. It should be a state issue.

 

[Texas_tea]

Nor do I. Calif. has a problem with earthquakes and wild fires. Gulf and eastern seaboard states with hurricanes. The plains with tornados. It should be a state issue.

Whoa ... why are you saying it should not be a state issue?

 

[dogtowner]

Whoa ... why are you saying it should not be a state issue?

hopefully as in let the peopleof each state decide what is appropriate to their situation and as their state constitutions allow. there isnothing in the federal constitution that allows for action in this area.

 

[Dr.Who]

So the issue rests on the effectiveness of said shelters, rather than whether or not the government should use tax money to protect it's citizens from the elements? If so, I think we are probably more in agreement than disagreement here.

However, in more frequently hit areas, places such as schools should surely be considered for having shelters installed no?

If the goverment could more effectively decide with whom you should have sex or marry would that be the role of gov?

 

[Dr.Who]

I would argue this is semantics. I am fully aware where government money comes from.

If it is just semantics then you should have no problem humoring us who care by always calling the money that government uses "taxpayer money".

 

[Dr.Who]

If the government isn't there to protect the lives of its citizens, who can't do it themselves, against the indiscriminate and devastating lethal force of a hurricane, what is the government supposed to do with its money??

It is my opinion that the greatest threat facing the citizens of this country is that they will be banished from the presence of God as a result of their sins. It is not merely their physical lives that are in danger for a fleeting moment but their eternal souls.

So clearly the gov should be there to protect the souls of its citizens. Right?

What is clear is that we need a set of rules to decide which of the many worthy projects the gov has the authority to tackle. I suggest the constitution.

And who says that people cannot protect themselves from tornadoes? Certainly any modification to one's own home is far superior to a modification done to a public building two miles away. In fact, plywood shutters on the windows of a single room in every house would offer more protection from tornadoes than concrete bunkers placed every two miles.

 

[Dr.Who]

The idea that the government could protect its citizens from weather is silly, so no effort should be made whatsoever to reduce potential casualties in a know storm zone?

A local or state gov may indeed have in its charter authority to protect against weather. Are you aware of any state constiutions that grant the state that authority? There might be.

But I do not believe the federal gov has that authority. lacking the authority it must either have the constitution revised or back off and let the states handle it. The nearest clause in the const that I can think of is the mandate for the military to protect from enemies both foreign and domestic. Is a storm a domestic enemy? I don't think so.

Unless you want the fed gov to start protecting people from their sins then we must have a limited government and that includes limits even on things we think are worthy until those things are authorized in the const.