Many Recipients of Government Funds Don't Know they Receive Government Funds

[Quantum Windbag]

If you live near a flood zone, you probably buy flood insurance. Something I was surprised to hear was that a while back after a big flood the insurance companies said they could no longer finance flood insurance. Sooooooo...FEMA finances it, which means that we do. I wonder if people who buy flood insurance know this?

FEMA: The National Flood Insurance Program

I'm quite sure that many people actually get some kind of funding from the federal government and have no idea that they do.

Good point. Yes, flood insurance is underwritten by the Federal government. And it's a good program. I'd like to see it changed to catastrophic insurance so it would cover any devastating act of nature. Tornadoes, earthquakes, etc.

You think flood insurance is a good program? Why is a program that encourages people to build homes in flood plains a good idea?

 

[rightwinger]

‪The Obama Stash of Stimulus Cash -- Dolla Dolla Bills, Y'all!!‬‏ - YouTube

‪Obama Is Going To Pay For My Gas And Mortgage!!!‬‏ - YouTube

Not any worse than seeing all those dumb ass teabirthers walking around with signs that say, "Keep government hands off my Medicare".

Or dumbass Obamanationers who think he's gonna pay their mortgage and gas.

Phoniest YouTube video I ever saw

 

[Trajan]

If you live near a flood zone, you probably buy flood insurance. Something I was surprised to hear was that a while back after a big flood the insurance companies said they could no longer finance flood insurance. Sooooooo...FEMA finances it, which means that we do. I wonder if people who buy flood insurance know this?

FEMA: The National Flood Insurance Program

I'm quite sure that many people actually get some kind of funding from the federal government and have no idea that they do.

Good point. Yes, flood insurance is underwritten by the Federal government. And it's a good program. I'd like to see it changed to catastrophic insurance so it would cover any devastating act of nature. Tornadoes, earthquakes, etc.

You think flood insurance is a good program? Why is a program that encourages people to build homes in flood plains a good idea?

stossel did a whole thing on those kind of BS giveaways......its BS.

 

[Ravi]

Obviously, you thought it important to speak of someone's race on welfare
Why was that?



Truth is hard for the Left, in fact it is there worst enemy

I've read your posts before.

I answered your question but you purposely misunderstood my answer. Then again, maybe you're just stupid?

Perhaps, but maybe you are just being dishonest

But it still does not answer the question

Race had nothing to do with what we were discussing, why bring it up?
What would it matter if they are black, white or purple for that matter.

What point were you trying to make? Why even bring up race?

Because you brought it up.

But keep deflecting, I really expect nothing less.

 

[Ravi]

If you live near a flood zone, you probably buy flood insurance. Something I was surprised to hear was that a while back after a big flood the insurance companies said they could no longer finance flood insurance. Sooooooo...FEMA finances it, which means that we do. I wonder if people who buy flood insurance know this?

FEMA: The National Flood Insurance Program

I'm quite sure that many people actually get some kind of funding from the federal government and have no idea that they do.

Good point. Yes, flood insurance is underwritten by the Federal government. And it's a good program. I'd like to see it changed to catastrophic insurance so it would cover any devastating act of nature. Tornadoes, earthquakes, etc.

You think flood insurance is a good program? Why is a program that encourages people to build homes in flood plains a good idea?

Because most areas in the country are prone to natural disasters.

 

[Dot Com]

Not at all, you have the same ability to choose the same investment options.

You're missing the point.

Not at all. You are confusing the fact that you are subsiding the gov't- they create no wealth.

Let us just say we agree to disagree

Projects such as The Hoover Dam, Interstate highways, postal roads, & DARPA created no wealth beyond the initial investment? I doubt it. Then, the biggest wealth creator/innovator of all- the Def. Dept. What say you?

 

[Neotrotsky]

You're missing the point.

Not at all. You are confusing the fact that you are subsiding the gov't- they create no wealth.

Let us just say we agree to disagree

Projects such as The Hoover Dam, Interstate highways, postal roads, & DARPA created no wealth beyond the initial investment? I doubt it. Then, the biggest wealth creator/innovator of all- the Def. Dept. What say you?

You added a qualifier that was not there.
Where did the gov't get the wealth to build the dam- the taxpayer.
No one said that the gov't can not redirect resources. But,
that redirection of resources is only taking it from something else in the economy.
The gov't redistributes it to achieve outcomes that it determines to be more desirable.


Also, no one said there should be no gov't for things like public goods, natural monopolies etc.
Furthermore, the gov't can create an ambiance that is conducive for individuals to create wealth is not
denied. In fact, I would say that one major role of the gov't should be to create an atmosphere that
promotes competition in the market place, not hinder it.

So the point still stands

 

[dblack]

Subsidies are the government paying you out of someone else's money. Adjusted gross income is figured by deducting allowed expenses before figuring taxes.

To simplify it to the point of being ridiculous, deductions happen before taxes are applied, credits are after taxes are applied. One results in less taxes owed the government, and the other results in the government owing you money.

Yeah. I get the point you're making, but I guess I'm just not that worried about it. The whole nature of government is such that some people will get more out of it than others. What bothers me is when that fact is used as a means of manipulating people - as you point out in a subsequent post.

Why should someone who pays 90% on income at a local level have to cough up another 35% to the federal government? How are they supposed to pay 125% in taxes in the first place?

That would be a ripoff, to be sure, but I think my point still stands. Allowing people to write off state taxes is essentially giving them a bonus for living in a high tax state. And it's penalizing people who don't. Why should I have to pay more federal taxes than someone else simply because they want to live in state that taxes them through the nose?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Good point. Yes, flood insurance is underwritten by the Federal government. And it's a good program. I'd like to see it changed to catastrophic insurance so it would cover any devastating act of nature. Tornadoes, earthquakes, etc.

You think flood insurance is a good program? Why is a program that encourages people to build homes in flood plains a good idea?

Because most areas in the country are prone to natural disasters.

Unintended consequences. The National Flood Insurance Program actually makes floods worse by not encouraging people to build in places where there is less risk of floods. It would actually be less expensive to simply move anyone whose home is flooded to another area than to constantly rebuild.

The NFIP was created in 1968 to lower the costs of federal disaster assistance. Politicians at that time claimed that selling federal insurance for flood damage would help cover the cost of repairing and rebuilding after floods.2 Instead, Uncle Sam’s subsidized insurance provided a green light for far more building in river flood plains and coastal areas long favored by hurricanes. FEMA ran a national ad telling viewers: “We can’t replace your memories, but we can help you build new ones.” Unfortunately, FEMA and the NFIP have long been inducing people to build homes in areas where their memories get swept away.
A 1997 Idaho Statesman report on a Boise river flood concluded that the NFIP “has backfired—bringing more people into harm’s way” and has made risky development “look not only possible, but attractive.”3 Doug Hardman, Boise-Ada County emergency services coordinator, observed that subsidized flood insurance “did exactly the opposite of what it was designed to do. It has encouraged people to move there and encouraged developers to develop there.”4 The NFIP amounts to a type of anti-environmental socialism. Scott Faber of American Rivers, a conservation organization, observed, “Prior to the 1960s, you didn’t have much development in flood-prone areas because you couldn’t find any insurer crazy enough to underwrite it. But the federal government came along and said it is okay—we are going to make it financially possible for you to live in a flood plain. The effect of this has been much more dramatic in coastal areas, where we have seen a huge boom in coastal development in the last 30 years.”5
The primary effect of federal flood insurance is that far more property is now damaged by floods than would have occurred if the insurance had not made it possible to build in flood-prone areas.The Long Island Regional Planning Board in 1989 complained that federal flood insurance “in effect encourages a cycle of repeated flood losses and policy claims.”6 And, especially in places like Long Island, the program underwrites the vacation homes of the wealthy.

Uncle Sam’s Flood Machine | The Freeman | Ideas On Liberty

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Subsidies are the government paying you out of someone else's money. Adjusted gross income is figured by deducting allowed expenses before figuring taxes.

To simplify it to the point of being ridiculous, deductions happen before taxes are applied, credits are after taxes are applied. One results in less taxes owed the government, and the other results in the government owing you money.

Yeah. I get the point you're making, but I guess I'm just not that worried about it. The whole nature of government is such that some people will get more out of it than others. What bothers me is when that fact is used as a means of manipulating people - as you point out in a subsequent post.

Why should someone who pays 90% on income at a local level have to cough up another 35% to the federal government? How are they supposed to pay 125% in taxes in the first place?

That would be a ripoff, to be sure, but I think my point still stands. Allowing people to write off state taxes is essentially giving them a bonus for living in a high tax state. And it's penalizing people who don't. Why should I have to pay more federal taxes than someone else simply because they want to live in state that taxes them through the nose?

Which is why they had to amend the Constitution in order to make it possible to have a federal income tax in the first place, it is inherently unfair.

 

[Dot Com]

Not at all. You are confusing the fact that you are subsiding the gov't- they create no wealth.

Let us just say we agree to disagree

Projects such as The Hoover Dam, Interstate highways, postal roads, & DARPA created no wealth beyond the initial investment? I doubt it. Then, the biggest wealth creator/innovator of all- the Def. Dept. What say you?

You added a qualifier that was not there.
Where did the gov't get the wealth to build the dam- the taxpayer.
No one said that the gov't can not redirect resources. But,
that redirection of resources is only taking it from something else in the economy.
The gov't redistributes it to achieve outcomes that it determines to be more desirable.


Also, no one said there should be no gov't for things like public goods, natural monopolies etc.
Furthermore, the gov't can create an ambiance that is conducive for individuals to create wealth is not
denied. In fact, I would say that one major role of the gov't should be to create an atmosphere that
promotes competition in the market place, not hinder it.

So the point still stands

You overlooked "beyond the initial investment" that means those gov't projects created wealth beyond their cost and some exponentially so such as DARPA & the interstate highway system. Your wholly private enterprise utopia doesn't exist. The Defense (Offense) Department alone swallows up > 1/2 of the discretionary budget to the Republicans glee I might add.

 

[Neotrotsky]

Projects such as The Hoover Dam, Interstate highways, postal roads, & DARPA created no wealth beyond the initial investment? I doubt it. Then, the biggest wealth creator/innovator of all- the Def. Dept. What say you?

You added a qualifier that was not there.
Where did the gov't get the wealth to build the dam- the taxpayer.
No one said that the gov't can not redirect resources. But,
that redirection of resources is only taking it from something else in the economy.
The gov't redistributes it to achieve outcomes that it determines to be more desirable.


Also, no one said there should be no gov't for things like public goods, natural monopolies etc.
Furthermore, the gov't can create an ambiance that is conducive for individuals to create wealth is not
denied. In fact, I would say that one major role of the gov't should be to create an atmosphere that
promotes competition in the market place, not hinder it.

So the point still stands

You overlooked "beyond the initial investment" that means those gov't projects created wealth beyond their cost and some exponentially so such as DARPA & the interstate highway system. Your wholly private enterprise utopia doesn't. The Defense (Offense) Department alone swallows up > 1/2 of the discretionary budget to the Republicans glee I might add.

I didn't overlook it
Fist sentence was you added a qualifier

There is a reason why public goods and natural monopolies exist
They tend to be bad investments
Again, the gov't creating an atmosphere for others to create wealth is NOT the gov't creating wealth

If gov't could create true wealth then Cuba and the former Soviet Union should have been the richest countries in the world

 

[Ravi]

You think flood insurance is a good program? Why is a program that encourages people to build homes in flood plains a good idea?

Because most areas in the country are prone to natural disasters.

Unintended consequences. The National Flood Insurance Program actually makes floods worse by not encouraging people to build in places where there is less risk of floods. It would actually be less expensive to simply move anyone whose home is flooded to another area than to constantly rebuild.

The NFIP was created in 1968 to lower the costs of federal disaster assistance. Politicians at that time claimed that selling federal insurance for flood damage would help cover the cost of repairing and rebuilding after floods.2 Instead, Uncle Sam’s subsidized insurance provided a green light for far more building in river flood plains and coastal areas long favored by hurricanes. FEMA ran a national ad telling viewers: “We can’t replace your memories, but we can help you build new ones.” Unfortunately, FEMA and the NFIP have long been inducing people to build homes in areas where their memories get swept away.
A 1997 Idaho Statesman report on a Boise river flood concluded that the NFIP “has backfired—bringing more people into harm’s way” and has made risky development “look not only possible, but attractive.”3 Doug Hardman, Boise-Ada County emergency services coordinator, observed that subsidized flood insurance “did exactly the opposite of what it was designed to do. It has encouraged people to move there and encouraged developers to develop there.”4 The NFIP amounts to a type of anti-environmental socialism. Scott Faber of American Rivers, a conservation organization, observed, “Prior to the 1960s, you didn’t have much development in flood-prone areas because you couldn’t find any insurer crazy enough to underwrite it. But the federal government came along and said it is okay—we are going to make it financially possible for you to live in a flood plain. The effect of this has been much more dramatic in coastal areas, where we have seen a huge boom in coastal development in the last 30 years.”5
The primary effect of federal flood insurance is that far more property is now damaged by floods than would have occurred if the insurance had not made it possible to build in flood-prone areas.The Long Island Regional Planning Board in 1989 complained that federal flood insurance “in effect encourages a cycle of repeated flood losses and policy claims.”6 And, especially in places like Long Island, the program underwrites the vacation homes of the wealthy.

Uncle Sam’s Flood Machine | The Freeman | Ideas On Liberty

Developers build in those areas. Big business.

Let me say this again. Make an insurance program like the flood program that covers not just floods but any natural disaster.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Because most areas in the country are prone to natural disasters.

Unintended consequences. The National Flood Insurance Program actually makes floods worse by not encouraging people to build in places where there is less risk of floods. It would actually be less expensive to simply move anyone whose home is flooded to another area than to constantly rebuild.

The NFIP was created in 1968 to lower the costs of federal disaster assistance. Politicians at that time claimed that selling federal insurance for flood damage would help cover the cost of repairing and rebuilding after floods.2 Instead, Uncle Sam’s subsidized insurance provided a green light for far more building in river flood plains and coastal areas long favored by hurricanes. FEMA ran a national ad telling viewers: “We can’t replace your memories, but we can help you build new ones.” Unfortunately, FEMA and the NFIP have long been inducing people to build homes in areas where their memories get swept away.
A 1997 Idaho Statesman report on a Boise river flood concluded that the NFIP “has backfired—bringing more people into harm’s way” and has made risky development “look not only possible, but attractive.”3 Doug Hardman, Boise-Ada County emergency services coordinator, observed that subsidized flood insurance “did exactly the opposite of what it was designed to do. It has encouraged people to move there and encouraged developers to develop there.”4 The NFIP amounts to a type of anti-environmental socialism. Scott Faber of American Rivers, a conservation organization, observed, “Prior to the 1960s, you didn’t have much development in flood-prone areas because you couldn’t find any insurer crazy enough to underwrite it. But the federal government came along and said it is okay—we are going to make it financially possible for you to live in a flood plain. The effect of this has been much more dramatic in coastal areas, where we have seen a huge boom in coastal development in the last 30 years.”5
The primary effect of federal flood insurance is that far more property is now damaged by floods than would have occurred if the insurance had not made it possible to build in flood-prone areas.The Long Island Regional Planning Board in 1989 complained that federal flood insurance “in effect encourages a cycle of repeated flood losses and policy claims.”6 And, especially in places like Long Island, the program underwrites the vacation homes of the wealthy.

Uncle Sam’s Flood Machine | The Freeman | Ideas On Liberty

Developers build in those areas. Big business.

Let me say this again. Make an insurance program like the flood program that covers not just floods but any natural disaster.

We already have that through private insurance. We would even have flood insurance through private carriers if the government had not stepped in, and that would have price widespread development in flood zones out of the reach of most people. The government stepped in and picked it up, and we now have middle class people building homes in flood plains, and we just keep shelling out more money every year.

I hereby make a prediction. If we do set up a government run disaster insurance program we will see an increase in the numbers of deaths related to natural disasters that will be directly caused by the fact that the government will make it less expensive to over build in areas subject to said disasters.

 

[bripat9643]

You overlooked "beyond the initial investment" that means those gov't projects created wealth beyond their cost and some exponentially so such as DARPA & the interstate highway system. Your wholly private enterprise utopia doesn't. The Defense (Offense) Department alone swallows up > 1/2 of the discretionary budget to the Republicans glee I might add.

Where is the evidence that DARPA or the Interstate highway system created any net wealth whatsoever? In the first place, you're ignoring all the wealth they destroyed. For instance, the interstate highways put the railroads out of business in the passenger business and a large part of the freight business, and the railroads don't cost the taxpayers a friggin dime.

What has DARPA produced that created any wealth?

Are you actually claiming that private enterprise doesn't produce wealth? Take a look around at the stuff in your house. That is real wealth. private enterprise produces virtually all of it.

Government is a black hole for wealth.

 

[Polk]

You overlooked "beyond the initial investment" that means those gov't projects created wealth beyond their cost and some exponentially so such as DARPA & the interstate highway system. Your wholly private enterprise utopia doesn't. The Defense (Offense) Department alone swallows up > 1/2 of the discretionary budget to the Republicans glee I might add.

Where is the evidence that DARPA or the Interstate highway system created any net wealth whatsoever? In the first place, you're ignoring all the wealth they destroyed. For instance, the interstate highways put the railroads out of business in the passenger business and a large part of the freight business, and the railroads don't cost the taxpayers a friggin dime.

What has DARPA produced that created any wealth?

Are you actually claiming that private enterprise doesn't produce wealth? Take a look around at the stuff in your house. That is real wealth. private enterprise produces virtually all of it.

Government is a black hole for wealth.

To start with the highway system, the railroads "don't cost the taxpayers a friggin dime" until you realize a large portion of their development came from government land preferences and in the case of the South, public construction of track. Beyond that, the interstate system was definitely helped boost economic growth. During the first two decades after construction, studies estimate the system caused a 25-30% growth in productivity. It also significantly lowered production and distribution costs.

As for DARPA, I think it would be pretty hard to argue the internet hasn't been a source of wealth.

 

[Synthaholic]

We are definitely seeing that here in Florida, where current Governor Rick Scott is polling at all time lows of 29%. Yet Scott is doing exactly what he said he'd do and nothing more.

But that is not all he is doing to earn those low approval ratings. There is also the proposal to make women have an ultrasound before having an abortion - and pay for it!!!

How is that not a government mandate to pay for a health service?

 

[Synthaholic]

Many Recipients of Government Funds Don't Know they Receive Government Funds

That's because Americans are stupid - just the way the Rightwing powers want them to be.

 

[Neotrotsky]

Public education is a leftist run institution

From our poor schools results, it appears the left has no
interest in keeping the people educated

Funny how that works

 

[bripat9643]

To start with the highway system, the railroads "don't cost the taxpayers a friggin dime" until you realize a large portion of their development came from government land preferences and in the case of the South, public construction of track.

All the government subsidized railroads went bankrupt. That's why states got out of the business of building railroads long before the Civil war. The two transcontinental railroads the Lincoln gang robbed the public to pay for both went bankrupt because they were so corrupt and so mismanaged. Government involvement in railroads retarded the industry. The private railroads the grew and prospered didn't cost the taxpayers a dime. On the other hand, the government subsidized railroads that wallowed in corruption and went bankrupt cost the taxpayers plenty, but that is only another indictment of government "investment."

Beyond that, the interstate system was definitely helped boost economic growth. During the first two decades after construction, studies estimate the system caused a 25-30% growth in productivity. It also significantly lowered production and distribution costs.

Government studies determined that government spending was beneficial to the economy? What are the odds of their determination being unbiased, do you supposed? I'd say about zero. I suppose if you ignore all the investments that could have been made with the hundreds of billions the government spent on highways, you could claim they were a net plus. However, that ignores what would have developed if the railroads weren't put out of business.

Ignoring what goes on behind the curtain is what government economists specialize in.

As for DARPA, I think it would be pretty hard to argue the internet hasn't been a source of wealth.

DARPA invented one small piece of the internet that a private firm would have invented anyway. The idea that private companies would never have conceived of the idea of hooking up various local networks together doesn't pass the laugh test.