Ron Paul Tells Mississippi River Flood Victims To Build Their Own Levees

Paul's quote from the link:


So, no, FEMA is a problem. You brought up the subject, you know, of the Mississippi. FEMA is more or less in charge. But their decision now, because of government levees, because of the flood and no natural result and taking care of this flood, they have a decision to make. OK, down the Mississippi and flood this city, or down here and flood some innocent farmers.

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.

http://www.politicususa.com/en/ron-paul-levees

How long before he would be in line with his hand out.

Didn't take him long to ask for help after Katrina.

He may not have been an advocate of no government like Paul but he sure did like less government.

Effective levees are so easily built. :sarcasm: just in case

It is totally insane. Build a house in an area where 20 floods will fill your home to the ceiling with mud, but then expect someone to subsidize your insanity.

He has a point.

Midwest: Tornadoes every year
West coast: Earthquakes any time, droughts
Northeast and upper Midwest: Blizzards, ice storms every year
Southeast: Lethal hurricanes every three to four years

Southwest seems to be the only place that doesn't get routinely savaged, but then there's that water problem.

If your home floods every 5, 10, or 20 years -- don't live there anymore. Period. Don't whine about federal aid or the lack of it or how much insurance costs or that you cannot buy insurance at all. Move away. Do so voluntarily or do so the next time your house is destroyed. Just go.

Blizzards don't destroy houses. You shouldn't build on an active fault line. You shouldn't build where lethal hurricanes blow through every 3-4 years. Not saying you cannot, but you should not; and, if you do, tough shit. No insurance, no federal aid. Period.

This is a real easy concept. Don't pretend you don't get it.

should be off limits to human habitation.

We need to save our money to fix up after our tornadoes and the inevitable New Madrid earthquake.

Not to mention the high risk areas for tornadoes outside of tornado alley.

So if everyone in that area decides it's too risky to live there, I guess the wheat and beef will just magically appear anyway.

Those homes built where it floods all the friggin' time get no assistance. Period. Live there at your own peril.

Blizzards can and do destroy houses. Enough snow will cause a roof to cave or bring down a tree or hot power lines - guess where. Ice storms can and do take out whole power grids, let alone a house. Check the '97 storm that ripped up New England and eastern Canada.

I noticed you couldn't answer my question, so I'll ask again in one syllable words: Go where? Get it?

and generally, one blizzard is not going to collapse your roof. Ice storms can bring down the grid temporarily but we don't tend to be out of power as long as some of these areas in Fl or the Gulf. The community is pretty good about providing shelters for when it does but, honestly, it isn't longer than a week before we have everything in hand. Most of our city housing is very old stock and they have held up for over 100 years and will likely another hundred barring fire. I live in the burbs where the houses are a bit more recent (built in the 1970's) and this winter many of my neighbors used snow rakes to eliminate some of the snow build up on their roofs. The worst is the occasional tree that falls on a roof or car d/t wind and that is usually d/t the fact the tree is dying or was dead and the property owner did not take it down promptly.

I've lived here most of my life (over 40) and have not experienced a weather related disaster in which many were caused to be homeless. Yes, we get fires -more often in the winter but no wildfires, mudslides, earthquakes, devastating tornadoes, hurricanes, tsunamis, etc. The worst disaster that caused the greatest loss of life in my state in recent memory was 9/11. And well, we know what the other states thought of our first responders seeing how there were hardly any survivors (I guess we couldn't rely on the federal government either--maybe Ron Paul thinks we should mount anti-aircraft weapons atop our skyscrapers). Now there are flood plains in the south western part of the state and probably Long Island has a risk for tsunami -- we have rivers that can swell and likely some fault lines and the occasional small earthquake or half hearted tornado... I think we are at more risk from the polluting corporations, Wall St. bankers and natural gas frackers.
example:
Onondaga Lake, NY has been described as the most polluted lake in the United States.
ALBANY — Natalie Brant, a mother of eight from Erie County, held up a plastic bottle of greenish, cloudy water. It was three years ago, she said, after hydrofracking started on the property of her rented home, that the drinking water changed into something foul-smelling and flammable..

or ones where the contractors played fast and loose with the codes.

During that ice storm I mentioned, many communities in this state went for three weeks and more without power. In some rural up the mountain areas rescue teams had to go in and bring people out. They were trapped by downed trees - a lot of down trees. Three linemen killed on the job. Sorry, but blizzards and ice storms aren't always merely inconvenient; they can be deadly.

Oh yeah, about four years ago, a micro bust (wannabe tornado) came down the mountain and took o/a 20 pine trees out back and no, they weren't old. They were planted 30 years ago.

Except for the Northwest, I've lived in every part of this country and in each Mother Nature can and does go postal - tornadoes, blizzards, ice storms, flash floods, hurricanes, earthquakes, wind chills of minus 50F, heat index, 120F.

driving on a highway in a whiteout. I don't believe it is mere inconvenience. It is just not on the scale of these other disasters such as the tornadoes through Alabama and Katrina. While your storm came down mountain and took out 20 pine trees-- how many homes were destroyed by that? I can only talk about my region so cannot answer to other Northeastern states. Watertown/Adams was out of commission for a good amt of time from an ice storm a number of years ago but things were put to rights and the community came together.

The 1998 Ice Storm was one of the most destructive and it did take about 3 weeks for everyone to get their power back. Luckily, most did not have their homes destroyed though many farmers lost livestock.
Here is a link to documentation of the storm and its aftermath: http://www.northcountrypublicradio.org/news/icestorm.html

Apparently NY received about $12M in federal aid. I don't think that will even appreciably dent the bills of damage in Mississippi and Alabama.

Weatherwise it's probably the safest place we've ever lived. My husband and I often remark upon it. However, when it does go bad, it can be hair raising.

No houses destroyed. One house farther up the mountain had the roof taken off. On the other, had that burst been 50 feet to the left, we could have lost our home; it was that bad.

The bill for MS and AL will no doubt run into the billions. The crop loss alone is terrible.

No power? Yeah, that sucks. But houses built where blizzards happen survive the storms.

It seemed to have been a valid question. Where precisely in the U.S. are the safe zones that are indeed not prone to natural disasters? :shrug:

If you can buy tornado insurance, hurricane insurance, etc. You're good. If you can't, think about not buying or not building. Or moving away.

... those who choose to live there and get their butt mowed down by a hurricane get no aid.

I am really, really shocked at these responses. Is this the same DU that sits in stunned belief at the number of nuclear power plants built on fault lines and near coasts? Geez.

Libertarians live in this "nothing ever bad could happen" type of fantasy land.

My husband also mentioned the flash floods that come from a thunderstorm 50, 60 miles away.

Just finished making a fair portion of Alabama look like Berlin after WWII.

I guess Paul would tell them to put up some sort of wind break.

What a cold hearted piece of work.

And those areas are changing along with climate.

There is also the aspect that more often than not, these areas are cheaper.

Natural disasters are always have a man-made element.

Are not being flooded due to climate change. They're being flooded because they built their homes on a flood plain, floods happen every so often, and they knew this because they had to sign an easement when they bought their property that gave the government the RIGHT to flood their homes and properties. If they don't like it, they're free to build themselves a levee or protective barrier around their property.

If you look at the maps of areas that are projected to be flooded, you will see an interesting trend: the cities themselves that are in that flood zone are high and dry. This isn't by accident. People have been living in Louisiana longer than America has been a country. The locations of these cities are due to repeated floodings.

When it comes to situations like this, people have relatively short memories. After the 1973 flooding, people built hunting and fishing camps along the Atchafalaya, but they mostly weren't primary residences. Before too much longer, a few people began to make their camps their permanent residences (perhaps retirees and empty nesters). Then, more people buy property and build primary residences because the area hadn't been flooded in 25+ years so they feel reasonably safe to do so. But it's still a flood plain, and eventually it WILL flood.

Indeed, if you look at flooding maps, you will see that cities tend to appear in areas that DON'T flood. Even the French Quarter (oldest part of New Orleans) is located on ground that is typically higher than the surrounding areas.

I personally know a number of people with property in the affected area. Some are likely going to lose their house, but others (knowing that this is a flood plain) prepared for this by either building their homes on pilings or hauling in dirt and raising the level of their structures that way.

and sometimes LOTS of rain, we have mudslides etc. and yet there are people who build their homes on the side of a hill for the view and right next to (within 6 feet ) a river. With the right amount of rain your house can slide right off the hill. Now there are things you can do to prevent this,I believe, and yet the houses still keep sliding off every winter.

Should we go into our way-back machine and stop people from building next to rivers?

Jesus. Ron Paul's a douche. And his attitude of "the government shouldn't help anyone" is super douchey. Where exactly should those people have farmed? In Death Valley?

along with the ocean levels, you're now talking about every further inland coastal area in the U.S. As it is, you're talking about the entire eastern & southern coasts. Perhaps we should make it illegal to build in California -- they're prone to earthquakes and we're told the big one is coming. There are whole states prone to violent tornadoes -- can't live there. As a matter of fact, the safest area in the country (aside from snow and ice) would appear to be the northeastern states (except the coasts, of course). I think we should all move there.

the people followed for the jobs.

and it's the oil & chemical corps that the "govt" is protecting.

his property to mine.

Can I force my neighbor to build one? Paul would say "no".

Can I pay all my neighbors to build their own? Paul would say "yes", but who has that kind of money? And doesn't that encourage people not to build until someone pays them to do so?

Levees are the kind of larger civil engineering projects that are properly done at the government level.

and zoning regulations.

It isn't where he has to live due to economics. I haven't seen anyone bring this up as rebuttal to his nonsense.

People build industry along river because it gives access to transportation, and water. People live there because that's where the business is.

It's the invisible hand at work, Ron. You a-historical mendacious fuck.

Hey, the current victims are among next year's voters -- and among the voters in 2016, as well.

heavy earthmoving equipment to build levees... Why ain't they gittin' out there with their shovels and picks. :eyes:

Libertarians make me :puke:.

Because maybe if they did, they'd actually work properly. They'd be more invested in the process. Imagine if someone other than the Army Corp of Engineers had built and maintained the levees in New Orleans. Or maybe we should repeal the law that says the Army Corp of Engineers can't be held accountable for mistakes. They should be held accountable when they make mistakes that kill thousands of people.

If the public built the levees without coordination by the government, we would have the kind of flooding they used to have in China early last century where tens of thousands or even millions of people would end up dead from flooding and its aftermath.

If the Army Corps of Engineers hadn't tried to control the Mississippi and keep it from finding a new way to the Gulf of Mexico it may have shifted gradually, may inundating some land but a lot less than is now going under.

them out during a state crisis! What Ron Paul is telling you (for the slow lurking trolls) is to either fix it yourself or DIE.

EDIT - I know some of you trolls are okay with that, but others would be lying if they say it didn't make them feel a little uneasy hearing someone that works and gets paid by taxmoney - telling them to 'fuck off and die....or fix it yourself on your dime.'

Why didn't you lazy people take up where the army engineers stopped????

:sarcasm: libertarians are so funny...

A lot of people are sufficiently beleaguered enough to mistake cruelty for hard-won condor, bald honesty or uncomfortable truth telling. But it is still a mistake.

He said on Hartmann last Friday that he asked Randy-boy why he thought healthcare wasn't a basic human right. The asshole actually had the balls to tell a longtime US senator the following (paraphrased): "Well, there are plenty of doctors who'll treat you for free, so just go to them."

That's obviously a recurring theme with these pigs. Go to a free doctor or bring in some chickens to barter for medical services. Do the Pauls have no idea how hard they suck at the government teat they despise so much? Do they refuse their gold-plated insurance plans or ask for a reduction in their salaries? Would they walk it like they talk it? They wouldn't do the right thing with a fucking gun to their heads.

:mad:

from what I gather he doesn't accept clients using any sort of gov't payer.

I've never encountered any of these "free" physicians "Randroid" and "Randroid v. 2.0" are talking about. One can usually get treatment from an ER doc without having to pay in an emergency, but this is written off an indigent care and ends up costing the hospitals insurance companies and is a big part of why the system is so broken.

Rand Paul is a longtime asshole.