Should We Give Up On Helping Parts Of America?

How many times have you seen someone on the news say "we'll this is this isn't the first time we've been flooded" or something to that effect and you've shouted to the t.v. "MOVE!".  Seriously, how many times does your stuff have to float away before you realize your putting your stuff in the wrong place? This leads to the question at hand, "how many times should the government help you rebuild in what is obviously a disaster zone"?

I found this article from Bloomberg that was trending really kind of fascinating. The title was a bit misleading but the thought behind it was a lot like the thought we discussed early. The article talked about what could happen if FEMA cut off support and assistance to areas the filed the most disaster claims.

The article starts off slightly political, but I think you can put that aside, because I tend to fall on the conservative side of this argument, even though I guess most people would call me a (social) liberal. It's simple, how long should the U.S. government keep supporting areas that are or may be becoming unlivable?  Seriously, if someone builds a house on a swamp, don't you think after a few tries it's on them when it gets swallowed up?

The biggest offenders and claimants are those living in the Gulf Coast region from Texas all the way to the eastern portion of Florida.  I've got to kind of go with conservatives on this one; you can live where you want, but we shouldn't keep paying you to rebuild in an area that's very likely to get torn up all over again.

The opinions expressed in this article belong solely to the author and are not representative of the opinions of Townsquare Media Lubbock, its advertisers or affiliates.