TO RESCUE or NOT TO RESCUE?

None of the above. One of the main functions of government is security and defense, whether it be against and invader or a natural disaster.

When the local infrastructure is destroyed, it follows that the Federal Government would have the resources to bring aid, whether the threat is a hurricane or an invading army.

That is definitely a take on it that I wasn't thinking of, Chrissee, and it definitely merits discussion. What kind of aid would you see as appropriate for the Federal government to provide in the case of a hurricane or an earthquake?

Whatever aid is available to save lives and rebuild the infrastructure. My philosphy is that the aid should be equal whether the catastrophe is man made or natural. The role of local government should be more in preparation, evacuation, educating the citizenry as to what to do in advance of a disaster. That said, I think the Feds over-delivered what was needed for Ophelia. It was barely a Cat 1 and here they are with FEMA and all kinds of reliefe efforts in place, a waste of the taxpayer's dollar.

Of course, with Rove in charge of FEMA now, it's all PR.

BTW the closest answer is Number 4, but it is way too broad. I don't think even the most liberal here would agree with that. In some cases, the government should provide for people's needs, but only in cases where they cannot help themselves.

That is patently false. Where did you come up with this?

I am not sure about the meaning of the last mudled clause but, more or less, it is the same today.

I would like an answer. Just curious. Sounds like something Limbaugh would say.

What disaster relief did the Federal government provide prior to the 1930's?

The government should take care of the peoples immediate needs. However the rebuilding of communities is not the responsibility of the national government. i.e. the rebuilding of New Orleans should be the responsibility of the state of La. and the city of New Orleans.

At last a reasonable response.

So Au, what do you consider to be people's 'immediate needs' and how long are such needs deemed 'immediate'?

Help in getting people resettled and support for a limited period of time. Rebuilding as I said is the responsibility of the community.

But see? The problem with that is there is no guideline for what constitutes 'resettling' or what constitutes 'limited time'. Some would think resettling isn't complete until the people are back in a home of their own, earning the same level of income, and have recouped all their savings. Others say, we'll shelter you during the storm and for X number of days until you can make other living arrangements and then you're on your own. Still others would say there is a compromise in there somewhere.

I can see assisting but only on a limited basis. There has to be some involvement from local government as well which often does not happen.

As you know, Los Alamos NM is the birthplace of the atomic bomb and at one time was a 100% government town. The houses built there for employees were typical government issue with few frills or amenities and not that much to look at. The town is now like any other town with everything local government or privately owned except for the Los Alamos National Labs that employ a lot of high salaries scientists and other high tech people. A lot of those folks bought a lot of the old government houses that were sitting on very attractive property that was backed up to a national forest.

A few years ago, a massive forest fire burned up that part of the national forest and took out a couple of hundred of those old houses and President Clinton declared Los Alamos a disaster area.

Well all those scientists and high tech types were well insured, and with their insurance money plus the disaster relief, they replaced that old government housing with nice, big, modern, beautiful homes.

Needless to say those who didn't get burned out and are still stuck with their old, outdated, not-that-good-to-look out government built housing, are feeling a bit cheated.

What's wrong with this picture?

You said there was no disaster relief before the 1930s. I guess you misspoke.

Where did you hear there was no Federal disaster relief before 1930, tha ti s not true either. I want to know what your source is.

Obviously, the Federal Government didn't send helicopters in to save people in the 1900 Galveston hurricane but they did provide relief in helping to recover and rebuild.

BTW the year is 2005. Over 100 years since the Galveston hurricane. A lot has changed in 105 years.

Chrissee, you have not, however, answered foxfyre's question. What disaster relief did the Federal government provide prior to the 1930s? Everything I've read about the Galveston hurricane (1900), the San Francisco earth quake (1906) or the 1920 flooding in New Orleans indicates that it was the Red Cross providing most of the relief, not government agencies. There was no such thing as FEMA, of course. Even NPR -- surely not a bastion of conversatism -- made a point of mentioning that on one broadcast of background material to the New Orleans tragedy.