Ron Paul is correct to say that people in dangerous areas ought to have better insurance and Obama is correct to say that trading in fuel-guzzlers in favour of more efficient cars would be a good way to offest rising fuel prices. One of these statements is much worse from a political standpoint though. Whether or not you agree with Paul that people who have no insurance only have themselves to blame when their house gets destroyed by a tornado, you can't deny that it sounds remarkably callous and uncaring towards people who have just suffered a major disaster. That's political poison.

archduke

He isn't criticizing the location in which they live but the lack of insurance

I think what he's doing is offering a seemingly simple solution for what is actually a complex problem. (Typically Libertarian.)
To say that either moving or having insurance is a solution assumes a lot of things that may not be in evidence.
And with most simple solutions that havn't considered all the ramifications it will fail with audiences who know more about the problem.
Based on what I think I know, Arch, (and I'm open to being corrected) there are places in the US where flood, hurricane or tornado insurance is no longer widely available. And where it is extremelly expensive. And yet, doesn't the economy need people to live and work in those regions? Aren't there vital agricultural or industrial sectors in many of these regions?
If all the people in those regions just moved what would happen to those industries?

Obama may be doing something similar. But not the same. The replacement of a gas guzzler for a gas thrifty car is a reasonable solution for many individuals, and can be undertaken . The presence of a vehicle shows that a purchase decision was made. And therefore a different decision could be made. More importantly, the gas cost is an ongoing problem that hits at pocket books weekly.
A tornadoe is a one time disaster . People who didn't have insurance may have balanced the ability to feed the family over the chance of disaster. OR they may have had no real choice if insurance was simply out of reach.
Obama can get away with the offer of the simple solution as its reasonable within the context of consumer choices. Paul can't because it presupposes that conditions existed for all to have insurance. And because, after its happened, telling someone what they should have done is rather heartless. Whereas Obama is simply telling a consumer that he continues to have a choice of transportation.

Sorry ricky but your are trying to rationalize. The people Ron Paul were talking about live in an area that is well known for tornadoes/hurricanes. It isn't a situation were a tornado comes along once or twice every few years but rather a once or twice a month. Similar to Hurricaines. These people made a decision to purchase a house they couldn't afford to insure. Buy a smaller house or rent (renters insurance is much cheaper).

Then to top it off, you are making assumptions about the Obama car comment. What did the questioner do for a living. Is he a tradesman that is required to transport tools or how big of a family does he have. Perhaps a smaller car would not be a fit for his family. In the specific instance I am referring to, Obama was speaking in front of a group of people who work in a factory that makes wind turbines. When one man asked about what the Gov't was going to do about high gas prices, Obama blamed them for having the 8mpg gas guzzling SUV that he doesn't need. The guys response was he needs the bigger car because of his kids. Obama said you don't need it, how many kids to you have. When the guy responded 10, Obama said, with a snort and a smirk, you should by a new car with better gas mileage.

I don't really see how that is any different then what Ron Paul is doing.

And perhaps insurance that would cover them is prohibitively expensive? If it's even available (do your insurance companies like to have an 'Act of God' exemption to get out of extreme events?)

Ok, question for Dan. Remember a couple of years back when we had the major floods and thousands of people who were living on a floodplain got their homes ruined ? Should they have been entitled to compensation from the government above and beyond the normal assistance to get back on their feet that anybody would get who'd just been made homeless through natural disaster ? I seem to recall quite a lot of comment in the Guardian and various other left-leaning media outlets to the effect that these people had it coming and should never have been living on the floodplain in the first place in defiance of nature. I'd be interested to know where you stood at the time.

Not sure of your accuracy in recall, but my view is that some assistance should be forthcoming. Mind you, that shouldn't be 100% of the financial losses, but I wasn't arguing for that in the thread so much as against the view that any compensation would be wrong

arch

don't really see how that is any different then what Ron Paul is doing.

I suppose its similar enough. If either had simply answered with a question
"Why aren't you operating a more fuel efficient car?"
"Why haven't these people bought tornado insurance"
They would have acknowledged the complexity of the problem that their intial pat answers couldn't anticipate.

By the way, I looked for answers on the availability and costs of tornado or hurricane insurance. There are areas you can't be insured for floods. There are areas that hurricane insurance is no longer sold. And building a structure to withstand F4 or F5 tornadoes is considered cost prohibitive. WInd damage is usually covered, but only for the cost of rebuilding. Which means that poeople who have insurance pretty much have to rebuild on the same land. (Or move and lose the value of the land).

My guess is that federal help is not for rebuilding individual homes/ businesses but rather for clean-up costs and temporary assistance to the displaced. Wouldn't most homes (or at least mortgaged homes) be required by the lenders to have insurance? Isn't the probability of getting hit by a tornado directly correlated with trailer park density (this may have nothing to do with the topic but...)?

Speaking of which, I should probably check my policy. We get the occassional tornado in Virginia.