2/13 Rather than paying hotels and other expensive social programs
that people always need, why doesn't the government simply give
raw materials to the Katrina victims to build their own homes?
Doing so will promote self-reliance, free-market, small
government, and fiscal rectitude. I'm sick and tired of
giving my tax dollars to lazy bums and immigrants.
\_ That is what I don't understand neither. We are dumping
billions of dollars into this, can't we just divide those
billions of dollars to the number of victims and ask them to
relocate to somewhere else and prohibits flood zone to be developed?
Each of the victims will have close to a million dollars for it,
and I think that is good enough for most of them to get back on their
feet!
and I think that is good enough for most of them to get back on
their feet!
\_ Your fucking "Do everything yourself" cowboy gunho Republican
ideology doesn't work well for population that is either too
sick, too old, and too young. Go fuck yourself.
\_ It was a troll. YHBT. Go take a pill and relax.
\- how about we given them weapons and transport to conquor
another country.
\_ how about they give supplies and a no-bid emergency reconstruction
contract to Bechtel and Halliburton, and other politically
connected contractors?
\_ That will bypass the labor unions, good. But then most residents
don't have the skills to build a house that can survive a hurricane,
let alone following all the local codes and regulations, bad.
\_ Hell, I don't have the skills to build a house.
\_ Why are we still building houses from scratch in NOLA? Given the
scale of the rebuilding and the government funding, they should
just put up pre-fab houses that are pre-approved for hurricane
conditions. Pre-fab houses are cheaper and quicker to assemble,
more environment friendly, and I am guessing less prone to cost
inflation from corruption.
\_ There's no such thing as a broken-dam safe house when you're
down stream. Anyway, why would we put any houses up in an
area that is just going to get wiped out again anyway?
\_ Agreed. But given that we're putting up houses anyway,
why not do it in an efficient manner? -pp
\_ Because this isn't a command economy?
\_ Of course people can build whatever they wish. But
the government can have separate application processes
for pre-fab and bespoke houses, and the process for
pre-approved, pre-inspected, pre-negotiated, pre-fab
houses can quite reasonably be simpler.
\_ Are you kidding me? Your solution is *more*
government 'processes'?
\_ Do you get whiplash when your knee jerks that
hard?
\_ Think about your 'solution' realistically.
\_ Oh, I do. It's clear I'm too subtle for
you.
\_ It's ok. I understand you don't understand.
\_ Bureaucracy never solved anything. Are
you Chinese by any chance?
\_ Again the knee jerk. Now consider
your previous question
"why would we put any houses up?".
Perhaps my solution is one that
yields a favorable outcome whether
it achieves its stated goal or not.
\_ My last comment was "why would we".
Anyway, to your question: because
a solution that doesn't achieve
its stated goal is a failure? How
about restating your goal to be,
"create more government jobs and
raise taxes"? Then your solution
and outcome would match. |