Forum Thread

FEMA's Budget Doesn't Reflect Disaster Realities

Reply to ThreadDisplaying 2 Posts
  • Are you sure you want to delete this post?
    J.K.Logic Wrote: Having a pure reactionary department scrambling to fund disaster relief after the fact is a terrible idea. If we are already going to be spending the money at some point regardless, and we just don't know when or where it will be, we should be over prepared, not under.

    Being over prepared (funded) could do 2 very good things: 1) It could save lives and property. All the lives lost and property damaged that could have been averted had we have acted sooner. 2) We can already have the funds allocated appropriately, and we won't have to take money from some other department, hurting another sector of the economy, just to cover the disaster relief deficit. And if the full yearly budget is not spent, then we will have a surplus, meaning the next year we won't have to put in as much.
    I agree. Having a purely reactionary stance with natural disasters winds up having drastic consequences, especially with lost lives that could have been saved had the proper investments been provided. And the financial cost of being reactive instead of proactive is there for all to see. The main problem is that we (our government) are currently incapable of planning for things that may or may not happen. I hope that changes soon.
  • Are you sure you want to delete this post?
    Post Removed by Moderators
    The decision was made to remove this post (but not delete it) from this thread by a moderator -- but we still allow members to see it if they wish. Please note that some members may have replied to this post later in this discussion thread before moderators decided to remove it. You can choose to see what was removed here: View Removed Post