About spending Federal money to build storm shelters etc.

[Little-Acorn]

I keep hearing rumors that the Fed Govt will start spending money to prepare states for the next weather disaster, using the horrific disaster over the last few days in Oklahoma as a prod.

I've already given money to the Red Cross to help with the Oklahoma tonado disaster. If a disaster ever happens to California (earthquake etc.) I'm sure Oklahomans will be just as generous - they've seen their share of such things, even beyond this present ones.

But about spending Federal money to prepare for the next one, whether in Oklahoma, California,or anywhere else in the country....

...sorry, Oklahoma, we can't. There isn't any more money.

We've already spend ourselves into a half-trillion-plus deficit for just this year alone. And we've been doing it for so long, that we've spent every penny we could hope to earn in the next YEAR. Including food, shelter, all therest, for every citizen in the U.S. We've spent everything we had, and then we've borrowed more than sixteen TRILLION, and spent all of that, too.

Every man, woman, and child in the country owes $54,000. Adn that's just the debt for what we've already spent. For what we've promised to spend in the future (Social Security, Medicare etc.), the bill is something like three or four times that. And we CAN'T get out of it. We must pay, and pretty soon. BTW, not every man, woman, and child works and earns money here. So a family of four that has one (or maybe two) breadwinners, owes more than $200,000 already. And that's BEFORE the Fed spends even more tomorrow. And the next day. And when you throw in the stuff we've promised to pay in the future (within our lifetimes)... well, you're talking a cool million or more. That EVERY family must pay. And if you feel that "the poor" shouldn't have to pay it, that means YOU have to pay your entire share PLUS THEIRS.

Sorry, folks. There isn't any more money. Even if we were attacked by some aggressive nation in a full-blown World War, about all we could do is surrender, because we'd run out of fuel, ammo, and even food and uniforms for the troops, to say nothing of warships, planes, jeeps, tanks and everything else we'd need to fight. Maybe we could throw rocks at the enemy, we still have lots of those.

Well, we aren't QUITE at that stage. But we're awfully close. And we'd have to be insane to move any closer.

So for anything short of a clear and present threat to our national existence.... sorry, tornado victims. There isn't any more money.

You Oklahomans will have to build your own storm shelters. And Californians will have to reinforce your buildings against quakes, on your own dime. And folks along the Mississippi, Missoouri, and those other rivers that usually flood if they haven't done so already... better start filling your own sandbags (after paying for them yourselves)... or learn to swim. The Fed govt can't help any more... because they've already spent all the money on other things. There isn't any more.

Get the message? It doesn't matter how much others might want to help, or how much you deserve to be helped.

There isn't any more money. And all the deserving or suffering in the world, won't change that fact.

We're tapped out, and can't help any more, no matter how much we want to. Period.

Sorry.

 

[Cruella]

California has building laws requiring earthquake reinforcements and older structures being retrofitted. I'm wondering why states/cities in tornado ally don't have building codes for storm cellars, especially in schools and public buildings. Just seems like the logical thing to do.

 

[Dr.Who]

California has building laws requiring earthquake reinforcements and older structures being retrofitted. I'm wondering why states/cities in tornado ally don't have building codes for storm cellars, especially in schools and public buildings. Just seems like the logical thing to do.

It is logical that public buildings like schools would be required to have tornado shelters. And while it is logical that private homes have them it is immoral to force people to build them.

Also, it is impractical to have state run shelters. Even if every city of any relatively large size built one there would just not be enough time for all the people to respond to the alarm and go there during a tornado. Only on-site shelters make any sense. They are not horribly expensive or hard to make; every family would have the time to build one within a few days.

I should also add that not only is it impractical for towns to build them, and agree with you that the gov does not have the money, but the constitution does not grant the fed the power to build them no matter how needed they would be.

 

[Cruella]

I should also add that not only is it impractical for towns to build them, and agree with you that the gov does not have the money, but the constitution does not grant the fed the power to build them no matter how needed they would be.

Why can't states put them into their building codes?

 

[dogtowner]

Why can't states put them into their building codes?

lotta pressure to not do that. makes building cost more, hurts jobs. it may or may not but thats the pitch.

 

[Cruella]

lotta pressure to not do that. makes building cost more, hurts jobs. it may or may not but thats the pitch.

When I visited my aunt in OK I saw her storm cellar. It's not a big deal. Basically a hole in the ground with a door, but it worked. She was in a tornado. Had some damage to her house, and her barn was completely gone. She was as snug as a bug in a rug in her hole in the ground.

 

[steveox]

Some storms can be calmed. Scientist has found a way to weaken an hurricane but the EPA is totally against it
http://news.softpedia.com/news/How-to-Kill-a-Hurricane-99032.shtml

 

[dogtowner]

When I visited my aunt in OK I saw her storm cellar. It's not a big deal. Basically a hole in the ground with a door, but it worked. She was in a tornado. Had some damage to her house, and her barn was completely gone. She was as snug as a bug in a rug in her hole in the ground.

if there were biildind codes for it hers would not qualify. even moreso for a more comercial sort of property.

 

[Dr.Who]

Why can't states put them into their building codes?

The very nature of a building code is that the state has the right to tell the owner of a piece of property what the best way to use it is. Suppose a person feels that earthquaking the property is more important than tornado proofing it but can't afford both? Maybe he wants to put up a cheap metal tornado shelter in the yard and not have the one that meets the building code?

It is either his property or it is not. If it is his then he should be the one to decide. If it is not then lets just declare ourselves to be communists and be done with it. On the other hand the fed has the power to regulate interstate commerce. So as soon as he sells his house across state lines the feds can regulate what must be included.

So do individual states have the power to tell people what must be included in homes? I guess that depends on the state constitution. But imo this much control over the details of a persons life is immoral. If the state can tell you what natural disasters you must prepare for then it should have every right to tell you what to eat and once you go down that road eventually it will tell you what religious decisions to make.

 

[Cruella]

I was talking about public buildings, like schools.

 

[Gipper]

I was talking about public buildings, like schools.

Even with the vast sums spent on education in this country, there is no money to protect the kids from tornadoes or even crazy gunmen....the money is needed elsewhere...like for the teachers union, multiple superintendents and their well paid staff, huge top of the line constructed buildings...., teacher's big salaries, great benes, and those wonderful lucrative pensions that few Americans in the private sector enjoy....sorry.

So in conclusion...government school kiddies are not protected from Mother Nature or crazy lunatics, all while they are getting indoctrinated into the wonderful ways of the State...and essentially learning nothing, but how to be good little socialists...

 

[dogtowner]

I was talking about public buildings, like schools.

while I understand doc's point I believe the nsture of public buildings does allow for some minimum requirements (restrooms railings archetextural standards of soundness) because the govt will be involved should failures occur.

that being said, I do think the state has far exceeded its mandate.

 

[Texas_tea]

The Obama regime has already shown a prejudice towards allocating federal funds for disasters in "red" states. For instance the Texas wildfires, the Tennessee floods, etc.

But, even if there was funding allocated for "storm shelters" the money would only go to the unions and kick backs to Obama's cronie supporters, just like the stimulus moneys did. How many "shovel ready jobs" were created with all that stimulus money? How many roads and bridges were repaired?

Better yet, where did all that stimulus money go?

What makes you think it would be any different this time?

 

[dogtowner]

The Obama regime has already shown a prejudice towards allocating federal funds for disasters in "red" states. For instance the Texas wildfires, the Tennessee floods, etc.

But, even if there was funding allocated for "storm shelters" the money would only go to the unions and kick backs to Obama's cronie supporters, just like the stimulus moneys did. How many "shovel ready jobs" were created with all that stimulus money? How many roads and bridges were repaired?

Better yet, where did all that stimulus money go?

What makes you think it would be any different this time?

horrible destruction in Virginia from tornados and an earthquake. Take that Gov Bob Mcdonnell(R-VA)

 

[Dr.Who]

I was talking about public buildings, like schools.

By all means the state or local building codes should require state buildings to comply with whatever needs they think are needed.

I do not think the fed should tell state or local governments what should be in the building codes.