[TheRealThing]

I respect your fiscal conservatism and your views on individual responsibility.

But what do you propose instead, given the gravity of the situation. The time for buying insurance is over. There's hundreds of thousands that are going to be catastrophically effected by this disaster. While I respect your fiscal constraint, you can't possibly be proposing that we just allow these people to fend for themselves and let survival of the fittest weed out the weak. We could bail these guys out, with a condition that they pay it back in some form or fashion. Perhaps keep the bailout on hold unless texas passes a state tax increase with the increase earmarked to the federal government. Or offer assistance in the form of interest free long term loans. Targeted tax cuts, etc.

But under your proposal, should a mega tsunami hit the entire east coast and leave tens of millions dead and homeless, we should just turn a blind eye to it because they weren't properly insured.

I think if you consider the cost analysis you will find it cheaper to fund a large scale rebuilding of Houston than allow them to be absorbed long-term into the current governement assistance programs. When you combine the costs of economic losses, and real asset losses, mixed with current government programs such as disaster relief, unemployment, welfare, foodstamps, hud, etc.... it'd be cheaper to spend 20 billion to rebuild it as quick as possible. Also, because of 10 refineries being down currently and some indefinitely... we're lookin at a disaster for gas prices in the near and long term. This will effect us all at the pocket level, macro and micro economies as well. Loss of a few points on GDP will increase deficits for a much longer period of time than just shelling out the 20 billion to rebuild.

I'd much rather just turn a blind eye and say they should have been prepared. But they weren't. And I can't. And I strongly believe the idea I laid out above --- because of the multitude of safety nets in place, and the strong probability of these people being absorbed into the programs for a very long period of time, it only makes sense to pass a bill funding a rebuilding program that begins immediately. It'll be cheaper, and will keep GDP up, and deficits down.

What are your thoughts on this post?

Like I said, if I drive a car without insurance and I have a wreck it is not right to expect those who do pay for insurance to bail me out. The only thing different here is the scale of loss. When I lived in Port Arthur, Texas, any meaningful rain resulted in the streets being flooded for hours. Insurance underwriters in the area strongly recommend flood insurance, though under the law it is not mandatory. As I said, MANY people choose not to buy flood insurance, and many more merely live in apartment complexes, meaning their losses are over time, replaceable.

People do suffer loss you know, that is just the way of things. I believe Government's responsibility is in the restoration of the environment such as dams, levies, bridges and highways, the clean up and containment of contaminants, interim pubic safety, as well as providing immediate relief in the form of food, water and shelter. Add to that after all the emergency actions are done, the condemning and removal of buildings and structures that are no longer fit for use. The utility companies will have by that time assumedly, restored their services and life goes on. All of these things represent incredible cost. But if the government can force me to foot the bill for ObamaCare, they can darn well force me to buy flood insurance in flood prone areas too. The replacement of personal belongings is not the purview of the federal government.

IMO, there will be massive charitable giving associated with Hurricane Harvey. and that will help towards the restoration of personal situations immensely. And, that's by no means turning a blind eye, but let's get real here. There is a decided echo to be heard inside the vaults of the federal treasury. And even in a hurricane 2+2 still equals 4.