The Instigator
HappilyMarried
Pro (for)
Winning
18 Points
The Contender
Harboggles
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points

People w/Houses in areas prone to natural disaster, give up their right to government bailouts!

Do you like this debate?NoYes-1
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 3 votes the winner is...
HappilyMarried
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 9/8/2008 Category: Politics
Updated: 8 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 8,079 times Debate No: 5322
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (7)
Votes (3)

 

HappilyMarried

Pro

Position: If a person builds a house in an area prone to natural disasters (after waiver) they should have to give up any chance for govt assistance AKA FEMA etc.. and rely on self purchased insurances only.

Case in point: People that build a house on the side of a mountain, in an area where the past has taken houses due to mudslides, who then lose the house to a mud slide.

Case #2: People who build their house in a flood plan, or below sea level, then a hurricane comes and floods the house or washes it away. They then look to the govt to assist in repairs or give them place to live while repairs are effected.

I will concede that it must be a known and documented risk area, and there must be an 'awareness' clause added to real estate dealings acknowledging this to the buyer, but once this is waived, they should not be able to ask for govt assistance when the natural disaster occurs.

While these people have the right to take the risk, I believe they do not have the right to expose me to that risk. Let them get private insurances, if they can not afford the insurances they should not be allowed to purchase the houses. Not only that make insurances pay for the emergency services used due to the obscene risk they exposed the 1st responder to.
Harboggles

Con

Quite simply...this is a rather easy argument.

People live near these places because it is a requirement for society. New Orleans is a port town....people in the Mississippi river valley needed the water for farms...

People live near the water by necessity. We can't predict where and when the disasters will strike. The USA has an obligation to protect it's people from enemies foreign and domestic, including hurricanes and natural disaster.

Instead, let the free market roam free. Let's examine Tokyo, one of the most earthquake prone places in the world. Consumers demanded safety. So all buildings in Cities were retrofitted to make them more resistant. Cost a lot of government money to do that, but it created jobs and it reduced future death tolls in Japan to much lower numbers.
Debate Round No. 1
HappilyMarried

Pro

Thank you for taking up this debate.. I hope you enjoy it..

The initial debate was framed, by example, for the people who exercise free choice to move into an area prone to these disasters. This is simply a matter of risk/rewards. These people are putting themselves at risk for the reward of having an ocean/mountain/Vally/waterfront home. I should not be made (by way of my tax monies being spent in the event of a disaster) to share in that risk. While all areas of the country have 'known risks', aka mid-west USA tornado's, western USA - fire and mud slides, northeast USA - ice storms, southeast USA Hurricanes you should have the appropriate coverage in the event of disaster and not rely on the govt to bail you out. That is not to say freak things do not happen AKA USA_NH got hit with a tornado damaging over 50 homes, and 5 towns, to that again general insurance coverage should be made available.

My opponent states "The USA has an obligation to protect it's people from enemies foreign and domestic, including hurricanes and natural disaster." who can refute this, I agree whole heartedly; however I disagree that it extends to FEMA / Federal assistance for personal homes when disaster strike. Yes emergency services (Police/Fire/EMS) but once the immediate nature of the problem is passed, it should be the personal responsibility of the individual to start over again. The govt responsibility is in the streets (transportation) , sewer (Health), schools (Education), and fire/police (Public Safety) for these I say Federal funds could be made available. But housing re-construction no.

By building in the same area, without additional safeguards by the individual we are putting ourselves in a repeated cycle.

What is the definition of crazy? Doing the same thing over and over expecting a different result."

People must be made to take personal responsibility for their choices, in this case where they choose to build their home.

As a side note in reaction to a comment: I am speaking to identifiable risks (aka the house on stilts built on the side of a mountain known for it's mud slides, or the house build at 15feet below sea level, with an ocean 8 block s away, or the house built out of 2x4's on the ocean, which is an empty lot because the last house got wiped out by a hurricane.) These people who purchase these types of homes/land due so knowing hte risks they are are incurring. They should be solely responsible for them.

Personal note: I love this place.. I am so happy I found it.. I really don't care about the side I choose, only the discussion that ensues.
Harboggles

Con

It's easy for you to say that from the comfort of your arm chair. I don't like the idea of spending public monies...but when one actually looks at the scale. a few billion for one natural disaster is a drop in the bucket of our debt.

Let's enter your world.

100,000 people are displaced from their homes due to flood damage.

I ask you, what should we do? Many of these people don't have flood insurance or insurance at all. They are officially broke and homeless. They have lost all that they have invested in. I don't like bailing out stupid people, but it's not exactly moral to just say, "youre on your own".

So you can have an extra .00001% tax on your return, or you can have 100,000 new members of the homeless community. Which is REALLY more degrading to a society?
Debate Round No. 2
HappilyMarried

Pro

as my opponent states. " It's easy for you to say that from the comfort of your arm chair. I don't like the idea of spending public monies...but when one actually looks at the scale. a few billion for one natural disaster is a drop in the bucket of our debt."

By this argument where do we stop? A few billion here, and a few billion there.. As it exists now in the USA, we generally work until MAY each year, before the money we EARN becomes our own; Until then we are just working for the federal/state and local government taxes. Each year is adding a week or 2 to this date because of increased govt spending. It is because of the fuzzy thinking like this that makes this occur. A billion here, a billion there, it's only a .00001 impact on the tax payer.. no biggie. We will end up becoming a socialist state at this rate.

I am not a heartless person, I understand everyone has times in their lives where we need help, whether from family, friends, church's or the govt; but I think that should be the order, not GOVT 1st. People should take responsibility for their decisions in life, including on where they live, otherwise we will just keep spending billions bailing them out.

We are talking about people who made a CHOICE on where to live, ignoring the dangers. No one forced them to live there.

Now you will argue next about social/economic realities, some people can not move due to the economic/social realities. Tell that the the immigrants who come here each year with nothing, and make a great go of it. Think of out founding fathers who moved here from England, with nothing. Tell that to the people who settled the west, all moved w/ next to nothing looking for a better life. But they were willing to suffer and work hard for a better life. They did not look for govt handouts. We need people to take more personal responsibility in their lives not less.

the short version is still the same, If I choose to put myself in harms way, I should take the responsibility for my choice and not look to the govt to absorb this risk.
Harboggles

Con

Honestly, I can't follow your logic anymore. People live where they need to live to work and thrive. Disasters are random. Instead of arguing over who we should help out, why don't we concentrate on technologies to aid people who are going to be in flood/earthquake trouble so that the death tolls and the damages are less (Like, waterproofing new orleans homes...)
Debate Round No. 3
7 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 7 records.
Posted by bthr004 8 years ago
bthr004
In most of Iowa,.. flood insurance is not offered,.. if it is, its impossible to afford.

However,... for every average farm, approx. 500 acres, will feed 3 average sized families for a year. If no body lived there,... who would farm? FEMA also aids schools rebuilding, as well as agriculture damage such as fence repair, new electrical, debri and brush removal expenses,... etc etc. Because of FEMA this year helping in the Iowa flood relief, those farms that flooded this year, will bounce back to production next year. Farms=food,... farmers=farms
Posted by LandonWalsh 8 years ago
LandonWalsh
What right to government bailouts....
Posted by kykrebs 8 years ago
kykrebs
what many people don't realize is that the reason why people live in some of those areas is because of their money situation. new orleans for example, is where many of those people were raised and simply don't have the money to pick up all of their stuff, find a new job, house, etc. and go to a city where not as many disasters happen.
Posted by Ragnar_Rahl 8 years ago
Ragnar_Rahl
"
Instead, let the free market roam free."

Do you have any idea what the words "Free" and or "market" entail? They do not entail "Government" and or "bailout." :D
Posted by HappilyMarried 8 years ago
HappilyMarried
yes no body should get a govt bailout....
Posted by Rezzealaux 8 years ago
Rezzealaux
all areas are prone to natural disaster.

are you suggesting nobody should get a government bailout.
Posted by Ragnar_Rahl 8 years ago
Ragnar_Rahl
If no one takes this up... ooh I'm gonna mess with him :D.
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by Jamesothy 8 years ago
Jamesothy
HappilyMarriedHarbogglesTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Vote Placed by knick-knack 8 years ago
knick-knack
HappilyMarriedHarbogglesTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:40 
Vote Placed by Sweatingjojo 8 years ago
Sweatingjojo
HappilyMarriedHarbogglesTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70