Should taxpayers' money aid homeowners who are flood victims?

1. 68

   MonetteforJackposted 13 years ago

   I am in the impression that it shouldn't be the case because when a homeowner buys his house in a known flood area, he is given an option to purchase flood insurance and insurance for his personal belongings, too.  Then, why is it being an issue now in government funding?

   replyreport
   1. 89

      wildernessposted 13 years agoin reply to this

      Because, knowing that the rest of us will cover his losses, he didn't buy the insurance.
      
      Related question: why in the world are we rebuilding New Orleans, knowing that it will be destroyed again?  If we find it necessary to rebuild homes for those too stupid to buy insurance, why don't we move them all 50 miles upstream?  Rebuild the docks, sure, but move everything else?
      
      Is the whole country too stupid to know that hurricanes happen?

      replyreport
      1. 68

         MonetteforJackposted 13 years agoin reply to this

         You are right.  Perhaps we should rebuild New Orleans for a different purpose.  Like some agri-aquaculture farming to feed the nation.

         replyreport
   2. 75

      Barbara Kayposted 13 years agoin reply to this

      I don't understand why people keep building in the same spot over and over when they know they will get flooded out. We found some property that was to close to a river known to overflow and we just didn't buy it.
      
      I just can't see rebuilding for people over and over again.

      replyreport
      1. 89

         wildernessposted 13 years agoin reply to this

         Why not?  Uncle Sam will build you a new home every few years!

         replyreport
         1. 75

            Barbara Kayposted 13 years agoin reply to this

            I'd like a new house every year too.

            replyreport
            1. 89

               wildernessposted 13 years agoin reply to this

               Let's write FEMA and request one.  Who knows - maybe they'll feed us for a year or so while it's being built, too!

               replyreport
               1. 75

                  Mighty Momposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                  FEMA needs some major overhauling. We think the DOD wastes money?
                  Oy.
                  I have a good friend who did FEMA disaster communications team training last year.
                  She was shocked at how dysfunctional they are and the $$$ they just waste (not even for disaster victims).
                  She was so disillusioned she resigned and won't even deploy.
                  After the Katrina horror stories, "Brownie" etc. I can't say I'm too surprised.
                  And what is up with saying they are going to run out of money in days, but then recanting and saying oh well, we think we can manage on the money we have till the end of the year!!???

                  replyreport
                  1. 89

                     wildernessposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                     I expect that a good deal of money is wasted, taken fraudulently, and even "lost" under emergency conditions like those following Katrina.
                     
                     That doesn't, however, even begin to cover the truly massive misspending by FEMA.  It almost seems that they try to spend as much as possible for as little return as possible in an effort to convince the public they are helping out.

                     replyreport
                     1. 75

                        Mighty Momposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                        Right, wilderness. Sad to say.
                        
                        FEMA is like a giant double ATM machine, spewing money out of two holes.
                        One is the incredible waste and fraud of the money "supposedly" going to disaster victims (we've all heard the stories).
                        The other is the incredible waste and mismanagement of the agency itself.
                        Come to think of it, given how f-d up FEMA is, is it any surprise their disaster relief efforts are equally f-d up?
                        

                        replyreport
               2. 75

                  Mighty Momposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                  FEMA -- Feed Everyone, My A$$!!

                  replyreport
   3. 59

      Danny R Handposted 13 years agoin reply to this

      So we can also blame those in Virgina for not buying earthquake insurance? I agree that most government programs need to be reorganized because of wasteful spending. But that would involve over seeing of the monies spent, which could be construed as regulation. Lord knows, we can't have that. Yet those people in Va. who have structural damage to their homes to the extent that they can't even repair their home for what they owe on it, should just be beat. Right?
      We live in a country that if we stop giving billions to places like Pakistan, or Egypt every year, manage our money a little better, we could easily help out our own countrymen when these things happen. Why isn't anyone complaining about what we give to foreign nations every year? Yet God forbid we want to help our own countrymen. I don't get it!

      replyreport
      1. 89

         wildernessposted 13 years agoin reply to this

         The OP specifically addressed flood damage, and virtually the only time that happens is in flood plains; ie where you can reasonably expect to HAVE flood damage.
         
         In such circumstances either protect yourself (via insurance) or don't build.  Don't expect someone else to do it for you.

         replyreport
         1. 59

            Danny R Handposted 13 years agoin reply to this

            Most Insurance companies require a separate policy for things like floods, earthquakes, tornado's, or most any natural disaster. An extra policy costs more money. So 45 million Americans who can't afford an extra policy because they only make $22,000 a year or less, shouldn't live in the west, because of earthquakes, nor in the east because of hurricanes, or in the mid-west because of tornado's. I understand your point, but everything is not black or white. My point is if we managed our country better, and stopped sending it overseas, for whatever reason, this would be a non-topic.

            replyreport
            1. 89

               wildernessposted 13 years agoin reply to this

               I don't know, Danny.  If I lived in Kansas and owned a home it would have tornado insurance.  If I couldn't afford it I would rent instead; it just doesn't make sense to put your whole financial future on the line when you know a particular disaster is likely to strike.  It's gambling in the extreme and I know that many do it anyway but it doesn't seem right that they take the gamble and then expect someone else to pay for it when it goes bad.  There are alternatives such as renting.
               
               If a tornado hit Portland, Oregon and tore the city up I would expect and want to help.  The chances of such a thing are so slight that no one could be expected to consider it.  When a hurricane hits New Orleans for the umpteenth time it isn't unexpected; it is the norm there.  If you want to live where a particular disaster happens every few years, then be prepared to cover the cost yourself and don't expect the rest of the country to pay for your own poor choices.

               replyreport
               1. 59

                  Danny R Handposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                  I do agree with you. All I'm saying is that isn't a realistic situation for a lot of people. And be it a flood, tornado, or anything else, when something like that happens, even if your renting, there's more displaced people than housing to accmodate them. I don't think FEMA is bankrupting our country, and I have no problem with my tax dollars being used as a safety net, (in a responsible manner).

                  replyreport
                  1. 89

                     wildernessposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                     And I agree here.  FEMA wastes an awful lot of money, but they provide a safety net to help displaced people survive. 
                     
                     At that point their work should be done.  They don't need to house anyone for years afterward, they don't need to rebuild individual homes and stores that had no insurance, they don't need to set people up once more to have the same thing happen again and again.
                     
                     We have people screaming that FEMA should have provided more than mobile homes for shelter (I guess a mobile home isn't good enough) and that they should have been able to live in those homes indefinitely after the disaster.  They don't want help to survive a disaster; free housing, food, clothing, blankets and medical care isn't enough.  They want total support forever and I'm not prepared to offer that.

                     replyreport
                     1. 59

                        Danny R Handposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                        I agree completely with you. Shelter, food and water for a limited time is sufficient. I think 6 mo. would be good. And if that's not good enough, THEN the alternative is up to them.

                        replyreport
                     2. 68

                        MonetteforJackposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                        Great point, wilderness!  I think the private sector can give more help than FEMA does.  I am amazed by the outpouring of support in Haiti by the private sector -- Americans. I mean, it is ongoing.   
                        
                        With so many regulations, the fear of possilbe lawuits, and greedy lawyers (even lawmakers), I think it makes it hard for private individuals and businesses to voluntarily help our own fellowmen in time of need and sustain the aid.

                        replyreport
2. 60

   tirelesstravelerposted 13 years ago

   When do people take responsibility for themselves?  Does the nation pay for flooding determined by where you are politically.  Sure looks like it.  If you are in the midwest and get flooded out you don't even make the news.  If you live in Boston, New York or Washington and get flooded the nation should pay for your losses. Irene was the first major hurricane since Katrina. Hello! People you have been told to expect worse storms.

   replyreport
   1. 68

      MonetteforJackposted 13 years agoin reply to this

      It seems that way  and it is very sad and frustrating.  I still believe most Americans are responsible.  The mainstream media is just hyping up these political stuff.  It's time for the real Americans to voice out what shouldn't be and what should be.

      replyreport