HOUSE BILL: The Storm Surge, Coastal Flooding... (At Final Vote) (user search)
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
June 06, 2024, 02:14:43 PM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  Atlas Fantasy Elections
  Atlas Fantasy Government (Moderators: Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee, Lumine)
  HOUSE BILL: The Storm Surge, Coastal Flooding... (At Final Vote) (search mode)
Pages: [1]
Author Topic: HOUSE BILL: The Storm Surge, Coastal Flooding... (At Final Vote)  (Read 1550 times)
Clyde1998
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,936
United Kingdom


« on: May 18, 2017, 09:43:23 AM »

This is certainly a necessary bill and I thank the President for bringing it forward. While the maximum reserve for this is a lot of money, it's something that will be required. It will help protect our citizens from natural disasters, while ensuring that money is always available to assist people who have been affected by them. Protecting against natural disasters will severely reduce our costs in the future, not just in monetary terms, but in human terms too.
Logged
Clyde1998
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,936
United Kingdom


« Reply #1 on: May 22, 2017, 10:24:30 AM »

Cry
Logged
Clyde1998
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,936
United Kingdom


« Reply #2 on: May 22, 2017, 10:29:20 AM »

I'm, personally, happy with the $800bn fund. I feel that this wouldn't be provided straight away, so there's no need to reduce spending elsewhere - should we not wish to do so - to pass this bill and considering that Hurricane Katrina caused $108bn worth of damage (as an example), it's always good to money reserved for natural disasters while having additional money held back in case of multiple major disasters in a short space of time.
Logged
Clyde1998
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,936
United Kingdom


« Reply #3 on: May 24, 2017, 01:21:41 PM »

I'm, personally, happy with the $800bn fund. I feel that this wouldn't be provided straight away, so there's no need to reduce spending elsewhere - should we not wish to do so - to pass this bill and considering that Hurricane Katrina caused $108bn worth of damage (as an example), it's always good to money reserved for natural disasters while having additional money held back in case of multiple major disasters in a short space of time.

Actually that is not how the bill is written.

A lot of that money would be spent dredging rivers, replacing dams and restoring coastal barriers to hurricanes.

A lot of this is in serious need of immediate help. We have earthen dams in NC that are a mega disaster waiting to happen and there was one in Moore county that came really close to collapsing during Matthew. Several others were breached or severely weakened as a result.
That works even better then. Tongue

Protecting areas against damage would reduce the cost of the the impact of any disaster and, in a lot of cases, would prevent the disaster from happening.

Either way, I'm happy with the 'up to' $800bn fund. Smiley
Logged
Clyde1998
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,936
United Kingdom


« Reply #4 on: June 14, 2017, 01:23:39 PM »

Thirded.
Logged
Clyde1998
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,936
United Kingdom


« Reply #5 on: June 15, 2017, 01:25:07 PM »

Aye
Logged
Pages: [1]  
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.03 seconds with 12 queries.