Rob from the rich and give to...uh...um...

[shanek]

Okay, so I've mentioned in other threads about the damage Hurricane Isabel caused to areas of the North Carolina cost, as well as Virginia. I mentioned that private charities had funneled money into the area faster than government had.

About two weeks ago, FEMA started saying how it was going to send the money in, and in an unprecedented move said it would not be giving any money to restore private roads. We aren't taking about things like driveways here; we're talking about any road not paid for by the state, even if it provides a public right-of-way to school buses and postal carriers, or a public thru-way to another area. This will especially hurt the poorer, more rural areas, which most of the affected areas of the NC cost qualify as. On the other hand, Wilmington, a large city near the southern border of the NC coast, was barely affected by Isabel yet is receiving quite a bit of money for it.

This isn't what FEMA has done in the past. About 15 years ago, when Hurricane Hugo blew thorough SC and up to ransack Charlotte and upwards to Winston-Salem, FEMA made sure to include private roadways in its funding efforts, because much of Charlotte and Winston-Salem is comprised of these, especially richer and historical areas. So why is it that they all of a sudden don't get funding when they're in poorer areas?

The big justification everyone has for FEMA and other similar programs is so that money can be funneled from richer areas to poorer areas. But unfortunately, it always seems like exactly the opposite is the case.

[corplinx]

FEMA is funny. Its a poorly organized group with far reaching government power. However, its so poorly run that its benign. However, any conspiracy website will tell you about how FEMA is the government's key to installing marshal law.

[Malachi151]

Or maybe its from.. ahhh.. budget cuts??

Well, anyway, either way government spending is generally geared towards the wealthy as it is. In Little Rock, where I lived before they spent tons fo money helping wealthy areas of town and were not spending any on teh poor areas to the point that there were several protests on teh issue and it became a topic of big debate.

The government is generally geared towards protecting the interests of the wealthy, that's its purpose.

You don't think all these rich people run for office because they want to help poor people who have nothing to offer them do you?

[a_unique_person]

So, what you are saying is that the charities will rebuild the roads.

[Gem]

Solution? hire people who were in the disaster area, or survived a previous disaster. No strings attached, no pork barreling, as much money given to those who need it.

Gem

[Malachi151]

Private property is the domaine of insurance. If you own valuable private property you should have it insured if you expect to keep it around.

Funny that shanek is now complaining that the govt ISN'T helping :rolleyes:

[shanek]

Originally posted by a_unique_person
So, what you are saying is that the charities will rebuild the roads.

They already are...it's not like they're left with much choice. The state contributed some funds, but they're in a budget crisis as it is. It seems the only ones with any real money right now, at least going to the cleanup, are the charities.

[shanek]

Originally posted by Gem
Solution? hire people who were in the disaster area, or survived a previous disaster. No strings attached, no pork barreling, as much money given to those who need it.

That isn't the problem. They've got the volunteers. But the biggest undertaking with any such situation is the management and removal of the debris. There's only so much that warm bodies can do.

[shanek]

Originally posted by Malachi151
Private property is the domaine of insurance. If you own valuable private property you should have it insured if you expect to keep it around.

Except that the government gave itself a monopoly on flood and hurricane insurance.

Funny that shanek is now complaining that the govt ISN'T helping :rolleyes:

Please work on your reading comprehension skills. The point of all this is that the claim that we need government programs like FEMA to funnel money from rich areas to poor areas is clearly bogus, as that's not the way it's happening.

[Malachi151]

Originally posted by shanek
Except that the government gave itself a monopoly on flood and hurricane insurance.

Please work on your reading comprehension skills. The point of all this is that the claim that we need government programs like FEMA to funnel money from rich areas to poor areas is clearly bogus, as that's not the way it's happening.

The govt has subsadized insurance in disaster areas in order to keep it affordable. They just eliminated that here (Florida) and insurance rates have gone through the roof, as in over 10 times higher in some cases, people are having to sell their houses because they can no longer afford the insurance.

The state monopoly on insurance was to help people afford it easier, and I assume that nothing prevented these people from getting insurance on the roads, they choose not to.

Unless you have proof that they tried to get insurance and were denied, and it was because of state involvement, then you have no case.

I never assumed that anything in the govt is used to help the poor, the govt is a tool of the wealthy and always has been. Why would people want to actually help the poor, what profit is there in that? The govt is all about paybacks and pay offs and the poor can't pay anyone anything so they always get screwed, its the rich people that take advantage of govt.

The poor get helped as minimally as possible to still hold society together and satisfy some of the major organizations that lobby for them.

[Gem]

That isn't the problem. They've got the volunteers. But the biggest undertaking with any such situation is the management and removal of the debris. There's only so much that warm bodies can do.

No, I meant making the survivors in CHARGE of giving government money to the places it needs. In order to prevent special interest, there would have to be people from everyplace that is hit.

Gem

[shanek]

Originally posted by Malachi151
The govt has subsadized insurance in disaster areas in order to keep it affordable. They just eliminated that here (Florida) and insurance rates have gone through the roof, as in over 10 times higher in some cases, people are having to sell their houses because they can no longer afford the insurance.

Which is probably very sensible when you think about it; it discourages people from living in places where their houses could be more easily destroyed.

[Gem]

Which is probably very sensible when you think about it; it discourages people from living in places where their houses could be more easily destroyed.

So it's a good thing people can no longer afford to live where they want?

Gem

[shanek]

Originally posted by Gem
So it's a good thing people can no longer afford to live where they want?

It's a good thing people are held responsible for the choices they make. I'm sorry, but if you build your house where a flood can wash it away, and a flood washes it away, that should be considered a life lesson: don't build in the flood plane!

Or, at the very least, don't expect me to pay for it when you do.

[Gem]

It's a good thing people are held responsible for the choices they make. I'm sorry, but if you build your house where a flood can wash it away, and a flood washes it away, that should be considered a life lesson: don't build in the flood plane!

Or, at the very least, don't expect me to pay for it when you do.

Oh come on, there are PLENTY of people living in various danger zones. If you had a choice, would you live in a safe place or a potential flood zone? But the fact is that we can't all move away from danger zones. Can you move the entire population from the San Andreas fault with their consent? The fact is that many humans live in places with natural disasters which they cannot control. They're here for various reasons: job, family, etc. It doesn't matter how much is destroy by the flood, they'll probably rebuild again.

Why shouldn't we help those who have been victims of natural disasters?

Gem

[Luke T.]

Originally posted by Malachi151

Why would people want to actually help the poor, what profit is there in that?

You are kidding, right? Even looking at it from a cynical viewpoint, I am sure you can figure out why politicians help the poor.

[Luke T.]

Private property is private property. If you want them to rebuild privately owned roads, someone will argue the government should rebuild private houses, replace privately owned vehicles, etc.

[shanek]

Originally posted by Gem
But the fact is that we can't all move away from danger zones.

Of course we all can't. But we all don't have to. This would just reduce, not eliminate, the number of people living there.

Can you move the entire population from the San Andreas fault with their consent?

Not necessary. Again, we aren't talking about the entirety of the population. And it still wouldn't be necessary for me or anyone else to move them. They would move on their own.

Why shouldn't we help those who have been victims of natural disasters?

When did I say we shouldn't?

[shanek]

Originally posted by Luke T.
Private property is private property. If you want them to rebuild privately owned roads, someone will argue the government should rebuild private houses, replace privately owned vehicles, etc.

They are, in the richer areas. That's the point. Reread my initial post.

[CFLarsen]

shanek,

Are you by any chance thinking of going into politics? You seem to be regarding this forum as a platform for your upcoming candidacy.

Only question is, for what?

Justice of peace?
Town constable?
Mayor?
Governor?
President?
Class President?

:rolleyes:

[jayrev]

Originally posted by Malachi151
Private property is the domaine of insurance. If you own valuable private property you should have it insured if you expect to keep it around.

Funny that shanek is now complaining that the govt ISN'T helping :rolleyes:

Is my irony meter the only one going off? Should I have it recalibrated?

[Gem]

Of course we all can't. But we all don't have to. This would just reduce, not eliminate, the number of people living there.

Not necessary. Again, we aren't talking about the entirety of the population. And it still wouldn't be necessary for me or anyone else to move them. They would move on their own.

When did I say we shouldn't?

When you oppose them getting insured with government help.

And I'd like to know how reducing the number of people in potential disaster area is going to help anything.

Gem

[shanek]

Originally posted by Gem
When you oppose them getting insured with government help.

And there we go again...If I'm against government boondoggles, then I don't care about the poor...Oh, I'm such a hateful, uncaring person! :rolleyes:

And I'd like to know how reducing the number of people in potential disaster area is going to help anything.

You are kidding, right? You don't see it as obvious that fewer people in a disaster area will mean fewer lives lost and in upheaval due to said disaster?

[fishbob]

So it's a good thing people can no longer afford to live where they want?

Gem - It is dumb to build homes in flood plains or on barrier islands or along active fault zones. Just like it would be dumb to build a home on the railroad tracks. One of the things that Government can do is to encourage people to build homes and communities out of harm's way.

Now, if developers could be encouraged to build out of harm's way, your insurance rates might just go down ( or at least not increase as quickly ).

[shanek]

Originally posted by fishbob
Now, if developers could be encouraged to build out of harm's way, your insurance rates might just go down ( or at least not increase as quickly ).

Very true. The insurance companies have to make back the total amount they spent fixing the damage. If there are a lot of homes there, the total amount they have to put out will be expensive and this will encourage people to move away. If too many people move away, the amount they have to spend fixing a disaster won't be as great and insurance becomes cheap, which encourages people to move back or at least stops discouraging them to move away. So, once again, the market seeks an equilibrium.

[Dorian Gray]

I never trust a person whose signature is longer than his posts.

But here is the solution: have local authorities suddenly "find" lots of terrorist cells, and call for National Guard backup. Once the National Guard is there and a few citizens have been shot, BAM Halliburton moves in, and problem solved.

[MoeFaux]

I saw the title of the thread and was going to bust in. But then I saw it was started by Shane.

So, whatever he said.

[shanek]

Originally posted by MoeFaux
I saw the title of the thread and was going to bust in. But then I saw it was started by Shane.

So, whatever he said.

Hey, my first Dittohead! :D :p

[Luke T.]

Originally posted by fishbob


Gem - It is dumb to build homes in flood plains or on barrier islands or along active fault zones.

Or in tornado zones or hurricane zones or in the shadow of dormant volcanos or in forest fire zones or in falling space debris zones or severe snow zones or UFO crop circle zones or terrorist potential target zones or anywhere the scenery might be nice or ...

[Luke T.]

Originally posted by shanek


They are, in the richer areas. That's the point. Reread my initial post.

I reread it. I don't see where it says FEMA is paying for rich people's private property in Wilmington.

[roger]

My, I'm really, really sorry to all the taxpayers that I had the stupidity to live in Alexandria, VA, and get my home and many of my belongings destroyed by a once in a hundred year flood. Sure, it could have happened to anyone on the East Coast, but the storm just happened to head this way. I'm so ashamed. You'll no doubt feel some satisfaction in knowing that we only had full power restored yesterday, and who knows when hot water will be restored? Because as we all know, Alexandria VA is always, always in the news for catastrophic flood damage.

[/end sarcasm]

sigh. sometimes this forum is really depressing.

[Pvt. Stash]

I live in Toledo, Ohio, Flood capital of the Nation...

No, your right , its not, but part of my property touches a Flood Plain and so I am assessed about 60 Dollars/month for Federally Mandated Flood Insurance.

This I feel is Big Government BS. Not only am I taxed of some 35% of my Income I am assessed with this OTHER tax, And it IS a tax. If your assessed to make a payment by the government and you Cannot opt out of it/sign a waiver whatever then call it what you will its nothing but Another social welfare program.

I should be able to decide for myself if the Risk of flooding is great enough to warrant me purchasing Flood Insurance.




PS

[fishbob]

Or in tornado zones or hurricane zones or in the shadow of dormant volcanos or in forest fire zones or in falling space debris zones or severe snow zones or UFO crop circle zones or terrorist potential target zones or anywhere the scenery might be nice or ... You know guys, you get to choose how much risk you are willing to live with. Flood plains flood, barrier islands wash away, fault zones break - these are kind of obvious if you do a little background checking before you move in. These are calculated risks and you can bet that your insurance companies have calculated the odds. Heck, I live within 100 miles of the epicenter of the strongest earthquake ever recorded in a populated area. My house insurance policy "lets" me pay extra for earthquake coverage. This does not mean that FEMA will not come around to help my neighbor dig out of the rubble, it just means that I should get my house rebuilt first. It is a good thing that FEMA is there with disaster relief. I do not mind paying a share of this.

I doubt that Alexandria is an obvious high risk area, sorry you got hit, and glad you got your power back. But I bet your insurance premiums would be much lower if you lived in a UFO crop circle zone.

[Jaggy Bunnet]

Originally posted by shanek


Very true. The insurance companies have to make back the total amount they spent fixing the damage. If there are a lot of homes there, the total amount they have to put out will be expensive and this will encourage people to move away. If too many people move away, the amount they have to spend fixing a disaster won't be as great and insurance becomes cheap, which encourages people to move back or at least stops discouraging them to move away. So, once again, the market seeks an equilibrium.

Not sure I get this?

Surely the premium charged is effectively a bet against how often they need to pay out. If they think there is a 10% chance of paying out each year, then the premium would be, say 15% (costs & profit margin included) of the insured amount.

Why would the premiums be different whether you have 100,000 neighbours or no neighbours?

In the UK, following the end of an agreement between the Gov't and the insurance industry at the start of the year, some properties build on flood plains are unable to obtain insurance. This means the property is essentially unsaleable as lenders will always require insurance. No government run schemes here.

[Chaos]

Originally posted by Jaggy Bunnet


Not sure I get this?

Surely the premium charged is effectively a bet against how often they need to pay out. If they think there is a 10% chance of paying out each year, then the premium would be, say 15% (costs & profit margin included) of the insured amount.

Why would the premiums be different whether you have 100,000 neighbours or no neighbours?



I´m from the insurance industry, so maybe I can shed some light on that (okay, I know, argument from authority, but I´ll do it anyway).

Your example is not good.

Imagine a country with 4,000 houses in an area with 26% risk of a disaster each year, and 96,000 houses in an area with a 1% risk.
So, statistically, each year about 2,000 (2%) of all houses are destroyed - 1,040 of the high risk and 960 of the low risk houses. The so-called "risk premium" (not sure about the exact term in English) would be 2% of the insured sum.

If all houses were in the 1% risk area, the risk premium would only be 1%.

So, im everybody should pay the same insurance premium, the people in the low risk area actually pay twice as much as they would have to from their risk alone. They effectively subsidize they cost of insurance for high risk areas - that is, people in low risk area pay lots of money so those stubborn people in high risk areas enjoy the privilege of living where they want without bearing the risks of that. This would be against the very core of the principles by which insurance works - "equal premium for equal risks, different premiums for different risks".

[Skeptic]

It's a good thing people are held responsible for the choices they make. I'm sorry, but if you build your house where a flood can wash it away, and a flood washes it away, that should be considered a life lesson: don't build in the flood plane!

I don't get it, Shanek. Here you say that people shouldn't expect government help to replace private property that was build in harm's way. Fine. But this is PRECISELY what FEMA is doing: it only replaces damaged public roads, and not private ones. Apparently, you hate government so much that you will blame it for ANYTHING it does--including when it does precisely what you think it should...

[Occasional Chemist]

Originally posted by CFLarsen
shanek,

Are you by any chance thinking of going into politics? You seem to be regarding this forum as a platform for your upcoming candidacy.


I think he did already, didn't he?

Election Results (http://www.lp.org/campaigns/results/index.php?rstate=NC&ohid=5131)

At least, if it's the same Libertarian Shane Killian from North Carolina ...

[Ian Osborne]

Put together, the two Libertarian candidates get a quarter of the votes enjoyed by the next-biggest loser. Sounds about right...

[Jaggy Bunnet]

Originally posted by Chaos


I´m from the insurance industry, so maybe I can shed some light on that (okay, I know, argument from authority, but I´ll do it anyway).

Your example is not good.

Imagine a country with 4,000 houses in an area with 26% risk of a disaster each year, and 96,000 houses in an area with a 1% risk.
So, statistically, each year about 2,000 (2%) of all houses are destroyed - 1,040 of the high risk and 960 of the low risk houses. The so-called "risk premium" (not sure about the exact term in English) would be 2% of the insured sum.

If all houses were in the 1% risk area, the risk premium would only be 1%.

So, im everybody should pay the same insurance premium, the people in the low risk area actually pay twice as much as they would have to from their risk alone. They effectively subsidize they cost of insurance for high risk areas - that is, people in low risk area pay lots of money so those stubborn people in high risk areas enjoy the privilege of living where they want without bearing the risks of that. This would be against the very core of the principles by which insurance works - "equal premium for equal risks, different premiums for different risks".

I understand this example, but it assumes a flat rate premium which takes no account of the risk of the individual property. That is certainly not what happens in the UK where the price varies between areas depending on risk. Is it really a flat rate in the US?

Why would an insurance company not simply insure the 96,000 low risk houses (at say a 2% premium) and only offer insurance on the high risk houses at, say, 35% premium?

[Chaos]

Originally posted by Jaggy Bunnet


I understand this example, but it assumes a flat rate premium which takes no account of the risk of the individual property. That is certainly not what happens in the UK where the price varies between areas depending on risk. Is it really a flat rate in the US?


I have no personal knowledge of insurance premiums in the U.S., but I would be surprised if an insurance company would offer such a flat rate. (If you want to see an example for insurance companies demanding higher premium for every fart (figuratively speaking), look at motor insurance; it´s really bizzare there)

I was arguing against the "insurance" against such disasters that is mandatory and has a flat rate for any risks. If you look behind it, it is really just a subsidy for those that like taking risks.


Why would an insurance company not simply insure the 96,000 low risk houses (at say a 2% premium) and only offer insurance on the high risk houses at, say, 35% premium?

That is exactly what private insurance does - if they insure those high risk area at all. For example, along the Rhine, Mosel, Elbe and Oder rivers in Germany, in the riverbank areas that regularly get flooded at least every few years, it is practically impossible to get Elemental Coverage, as it is called (it covers any damage "from the elements", except storms and hail, which are included in standard coverage). It would hardly be affordable at reasonable premiums, anyway - imagine paying 20,000 Pounds per year for your building insurance...

However, if someone who is insured any loses his house gets compensation from his insurance, and someone who is not insured and loses his house gets compensation from the state, then why pay for an insurance? If that where me, I would feel cheated. After all, everyone has to pay for that government compensation by way of taxes. Everybody should face the choice either to take out insurance or take the risk alone, without government compensation. If they don´t like paying insurance premiums that reflect the risks of a disaster happening, they should either move to a safer place or bear the financial losses on their own.

[shanek]

Originally posted by Luke T.
I reread it. I don't see where it says FEMA is paying for rich people's private property in Wilmington.

And if that point were by any stretch of the imagination relevant to the topic, you actually might have some kind of point.

[shanek]

Originally posted by roger
My, I'm really, really sorry to all the taxpayers that I had the stupidity to live in Alexandria, VA, and get my home and many of my belongings destroyed by a once in a hundred year flood. Sure, it could have happened to anyone on the East Coast, but the storm just happened to head this way. I'm so ashamed. You'll no doubt feel some satisfaction in knowing that we only had full power restored yesterday, and who knows when hot water will be restored? Because as we all know, Alexandria VA is always, always in the news for catastrophic flood damage.

[/end sarcasm]

sigh. sometimes this forum is really depressing.

Why? We aren't talking about places that get a destructive force in once a century. We're talking about a place that gets it about once every year or two.

[shanek]

Originally posted by Jaggy Bunnet
Not sure I get this?

Surely the premium charged is effectively a bet against how often they need to pay out. If they think there is a 10% chance of paying out each year, then the premium would be, say 15% (costs & profit margin included) of the insured amount.

Why would the premiums be different whether you have 100,000 neighbours or no neighbours?

It doesn't really work that way. The insurance companies are not solely insuring people in that area. They will charge more for people in that area, but the funds used to pay out damages come from premiums collected from everyone. That means that people in areas unlikely to be hit by a disaster are paying just a tad more than they would if there were no such disasters. So the cost of fixing the damage does not have to be focused on that area.

That's why the attacks on us, that say we want to "punish" these people or make the bear the brunt of the costs themselves, are just not true. It doesn't work that way.

[shanek]

Originally posted by Skeptic
I don't get it, Shanek. Here you say that people shouldn't expect government help to replace private property that was build in harm's way. Fine. But this is PRECISELY what FEMA is doing: it only replaces damaged public roads, and not private ones.

And here you go, refusing to read again. As I said, FEMA has NEVER BEFORE refused to fix private roads, at least when they provide right-of-way for school buses and postal carriers or a thru-way for general traffic. In many of these areas, these roads are the only way in, out, and through.

Apparently, you hate government so much that you will blame it for ANYTHING it does--including when it does precisely what you think it should...

Apaprently you have ME so much that you refuse to read my posts and understand my points. This has been a perpetual problem with you in almost every thread.

[shanek]

Originally posted by Occasional Chemist


I think he did already, didn't he?

Election Results (http://www.lp.org/campaigns/results/index.php?rstate=NC&ohid=5131)

At least, if it's the same Libertarian Shane Killian from North Carolina ...

Yep, that was me.

[Luke T.]

Originally posted by shanek


And if that point were by any stretch of the imagination relevant to the topic, you actually might have some kind of point.

Huh?

You start the topic saying FEMA is not going to repair private roads, which hurts the poor, but is pouring money into Wilmington, which is a wealthy area.

You say FEMA funded private road repairs 15 years ago.

I say private property is private property and if you pay for private roads, someone will want private houses and such paid for, too.

You say that is what they are doing for the rich and to reread it.

So I reread it, and nowhere did you say they are fixing private property in Wilmington. Present tense. Nobody is getting private property repairs paid for by the government, are they?

So how is my point not relevant to your point about FEMA not fixing private roads?

Are you sore the government isn't paying for the repairs of private property or are you sore they once did (taking your word for it) and aren't any more? How does this fit into the Libertarian philosophy?

[edited to add] First, shanek, you are asking us to accept at face value that FEMA paid for the repairs of private property 15 years ago. Okay. That's hard to back up something from so long ago. But you are also implying that FEMA is paying for the repairs of rich people's private property today and not poor people's. This should be simple to back up. So can you?

[Skeptic]

And here you go, refusing to read again. As I said, FEMA has NEVER BEFORE refused to fix private roads,

Indeed so. But now, of course, they have SEEN THE LIGHT: if it's private, the government shouldn't fix it. Somebody there must have become a libertarian lately, I presume.

at least when they provide right-of-way for school buses and postal carriers or a thru-way for general traffic. In many of these ares, these roads are the only way in, out, and through.

Many government programs provide many useful things to many needy people, Shanek, but that never stopped you before from arguing that just about every government program should be abolished--including social security. Why should this case be an exception to the rule?

Apaprently you have ME so much that you refuse to read my posts and understand my points. This has been a perpetual problem with you in almost every thread.

TRASNLATION: Damn! He's got me good this time!

[shanek]

Originally posted by Luke T.
You start the topic saying FEMA is not going to repair private roads, which hurts the poor,

They're not going to repair private roads in this case, where the private roads are in poor areas, but they have in the past when the private roads have been in richer areas.

So how is my point not relevant to your point about FEMA not fixing private roads?

Because their policy in the past has been to repair private roads when they provide right-of-way to school buses and postal carriers or provide a thru-war when those roads have been in richer areas.

The ONLY difference between these roads and public roads is who paid for them.

[shanek]

By the way, after the 1994 California earthquake FEMA sent homeowners in the affected area $3,450 each for repairs of their PRIVATE property. Remember that?

[shanek]

Originally posted by Skeptic
Many government programs provide many useful things to many needy people, Shanek, but that never stopped you before from arguing that just about every government program should be abolished--including social security. Why should this case be an exception to the rule?

You're not READING again! Yet again, I point out, as I have at least TWICE before, that the point here is to rebut the claims that we need government programs like FEMA so that money can be taken from richer areas to help poorer areas...AND THAT ISN'T WHAT'S HAPPENING!!!

Geez...People wonder why I resort to all caps sometimes!

[EvilYeti]

Originally posted by shanek

Geez...People wonder why I resort to all caps sometimes!

I think its pretty obvious why you resort to all caps.

You're an idiot.

[Reager]

Originally posted by shanek


You're not READING again! Yet again, I point out, as I have at least TWICE before, that the point here is to rebut the claims that we need government programs like FEMA so that money can be taken from richer areas to help poorer areas...AND THAT ISN'T WHAT'S HAPPENING!!!

Geez...People wonder why I resort to all caps sometimes!

I'm sorry, I may have missed something. Who is making the claim that FEMA exists "so that money can be taken from richer areas to help poorer areas?"

Mike

[shanek]

Originally posted by mfeldman
I'm sorry, I may have missed something. Who is making the claim that FEMA exists "so that money can be taken from richer areas to help poorer areas?"

Pretty much every time we discuss government programs like this, someone makes that argument.

[MoeFaux]

Originally posted by mfeldman


I'm sorry, I may have missed something. Who is making the claim that FEMA exists "so that money can be taken from richer areas to help poorer areas?"

Mike

How about that it's a government agency, and because of that it exists of taxpayers funds, and rich people pay more taxes to "help" the poor?

[jj]

Originally posted by shanek


It's a good thing people are held responsible for the choices they make. I'm sorry, but if you build your house where a flood can wash it away, and a flood washes it away, that should be considered a life lesson: don't build in the flood plane!

Or, at the very least, don't expect me to pay for it when you do.

It's worse than that, you know. At least about 10 years ago in NJ when we had a flood along one of the rivers prone to flooding, the flood insurance specified that unless they rebuilt IN THE SAME PLACE they couldn't collect the insurance.

Perhaps less than surprisingly, a number of people wanted to rebuild somewhere else, and they couldn't, if they were going to collect the insurance they paid for.

Great, huh?

[jj]

Originally posted by jayrev


Is my irony meter the only one going off? Should I have it recalibrated?

No, mine is currently boiling a vat of liquid N2, it's the only way I can keep it from burning up.

[jj]

Originally posted by Pvt. Stash
I live in Toledo, Ohio, Flood capital of the Nation...

No, your right , its not, but part of my property touches a Flood Plain and so I am assessed about 60 Dollars/month for Federally Mandated Flood Insurance.

This I feel is Big Government BS. Not only am I taxed of some 35% of my Income I am assessed with this OTHER tax, And it IS a tax. If your assessed to make a payment by the government and you Cannot opt out of it/sign a waiver whatever then call it what you will its nothing but Another social welfare program.

I should be able to decide for myself if the Risk of flooding is great enough to warrant me purchasing Flood Insurance.




PS

We were in the same situation in NJ, except that we could show that "There are no buildings in the 100 year flood plain" and we didn't have to buy flood insurance.

EVERY time the bank saw that box checked "is any part of this property in a flood plain" they would start to harrass us to "GET FLOOD INSURANCE OR ELSE" even with the (*&(*& survey and certification on file.

Every time, we had to send them a new copy of the certification.

FYI, the lot was 465 feet deep. We lived 100' from the road, about 10' lower than the road. The flood plain was at the back of the property, about 55 feet lower than the house. Yes, 55 '.

Yes, that's steep.

If that house flooded at 440' ASL, all of Manhattan, Newark, Elizebeth, Byway, Perth Amboy, South Jersey (ALL OF IT) would have to be under water, the outlet of the local river to the ocean had one barrier at 90 feet. Any flood would have had to come IN from the ocean.

[jj]

Originally posted by shanek


Yep, that was me.

How, then, are you near the East Australian Current?

[Reager]

Originally posted by shanek


Pretty much every time we discuss government programs like this, someone makes that argument.

Interesting. I guess I'll have to pay more attention.

Mike

[Reager]

Originally posted by MoeFaux


How about that it's a government agency, and because of that it exists of taxpayers funds, and rich people pay more taxes to "help" the poor?

That was not Shanek's claim. FEMA was not created to - and does not in practice - "take from the rich and give to the poor." SHanek claims that (totally absurd) rationale is put forth "pretty much every time" government agencies are discussed...a highly dubious claim (strawman, anyone?).

WRT your point...unless we enact a flat (absolute) tax rate the rich will always pay more in taxes than the poor (let's forget about loopholes for the moment). The question then becomes whether that is an equitable way of collecting revenue.

Mike

Edited to add "pretty much" to "every time."

[shanek]

Originally posted by jj
It's worse than that, you know. At least about 10 years ago in NJ when we had a flood along one of the rivers prone to flooding, the flood insurance specified that unless they rebuilt IN THE SAME PLACE they couldn't collect the insurance.

Perhaps less than surprisingly, a number of people wanted to rebuild somewhere else, and they couldn't, if they were going to collect the insurance they paid for.

Great, huh?

Somehow, it doesn't surprise me...

[shanek]

Originally posted by jj
EVERY time the bank saw that box checked "is any part of this property in a flood plain" they would start to harrass us to "GET FLOOD INSURANCE OR ELSE" even with the (*&(*& survey and certification on file.

Out of curiosity: "Or else" what? What's the penalty for not having flood insurance?

[shanek]

Originally posted by jj
How, then, are you near the East Australian Current?

My avatar is. Watch Finding Nemo.

[shanek]

Originally posted by mfeldman
That was not Shanek's claim. FEMA was not created to - and does not in practice - "take from the rich and give to the poor."

That is most certainly the justification for FEMA. Without FEMA, they say, there's no way poor areas could afford to raise their own emergency management funds. But it is clear that FEMA is nothing more than government buying votes. More disasters are declared in and disaster relief money goes to states with higher numbers of electoral votes. For all the harking about how FEMA doesn't give money to restore private property, they have given money to restore PRIVATE GOLF COURSES. And as in the example I've given here, money is withheld from poorer areas to go to richer areas with more influence, even when the richer area wasn't even caught in the disaster.

Despite attempts by several people to try and shift this thread in a way where this is no longer obvious, it is still an unescapable conclusion that FEMA is nothing more than yet another worthless government program.

[Reager]

Originally posted by shanek

Despite attempts by several people to try and shift this thread in a way where this is no longer obvious,

Shanek's right, folks! Let's stop exposing his True Believer fanaticism and pentiant for fallacious argumentation. Stick to commending him for presenting yet another strawma...err...obvious example of yet another worthless government program.


Mike

[jj]

Originally posted by shanek


Out of curiosity: "Or else" what? What's the penalty for not having flood insurance?

Forclosure, or so they would try to tell you. What they really do is obtain it for you and make you pay for it by adding to the loan principle.

They tried that once.

[jj]

Originally posted by shanek


My avatar is. Watch Finding Nemo.

What's that?

[EvilYeti]

Originally posted by jj


Forclosure, or so they would try to tell you. What they really do is obtain it for you and make you pay for it by adding to the loan principle.

They tried that once.

That's what you get for using a Government bank jj. If you had gotten your home loan from a private lending institution none of that would have happened!

[shanek]

Originally posted by jj
What's that?

It's a movie, made by the same studio that made Toy Story and [/i]Monsters, Inc.[/i]