Why Federal Storm Coverage??

Discussion in 'Economy' started by PoliticalChic, Nov 1, 2012.

  1. PoliticalChic
    Online

    PoliticalChic Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Oct 6, 2008
    Messages:
    55,826
    Thanks Received:
    15,654
    Trophy Points:
    2,190
    Location:
    Brooklyn, NY
    Ratings:
    +24,971
    1. LONG BEACH TOWNSHIP, N.J. -Some environmentalists say New Jersey should consider not rebuilding everything lost to Superstorm Sandy.

    He and other shoreline advocates say officials should consider restricting development to reduce the harm storms can do. They suggest relocating homes and businesses farther from the ocean, building more seawalls and keeping sand dunes high."
    Battered NJ agonizes over whether to rebuild shore - DC Breaking Local News Weather Sports FOX 5 WTTG


    How much is the taxpayer on the hook for??

    And why??




    2. If you want to really make your blood boil, check out the transfer payments to owners of beachfront properties. Between 1979 and 2005, Alabama’s Dauphin Island was hammered six times by hurricanes, which destroyed some five hundred pricey vacation home and rental properties. Owners kept rebuilding, and the government paid more than $21 million in insurance.
    http://www.washingtonpost.com/wpdyn/content/article/2005/10/10/AR2005101001465.html

    a. The flood program pays every claim, doesn’t raise premiums after multiple claims, and promises to keep doing so.

    b. A USA TODAY review of FEMA records found that the owners of 19,600 homes and commercial buildings worth $25,000 or more have collected insurance payments that exceed the value of their property. The records exclude property addresses. In Fairhope, Ala., the owner of a $153,000 house has received $2.3 million in claims. A $116,000 Houston home has received $1.6 million. The payments are for damage to homes and what's inside….USA TODAY also found that the owners of 370,000 second homes and rental houses get huge insurance discounts. Wealthy resort areas such as Hilton Head Island, S.C., and Longboat Key, Naples and Sanibel, Fla., have some of the largest numbers of second homes and rentals getting the discounts. USATODAY.com






    3. 'In 1887,... several counties in Texas faced a long drought and some farmers lost their crops. Texas politicians helped cajole Congress into granting $10,000 worth of free seeds for these distressed farmers in Texas.

    After the bill passed the Senate and House, [President Grover] Cleveland vetoed it, saying, 'I can find no warrant for such an appropriating in the Constitution,' Cleveland said. Such aid would 'destroy the partitions between proper subjects of Federal and local care and regulation.'

    He added, 'Federal aid, in such cases, encourages the expectations of paternal care on the part of the Government and weakens the sturdiness of our national character.'" Cleveland believed the American people would not abandon its fellow citizens in the Lone Star state. ...Cleveland's response, "the friendliness and charity of our countrymen can always be relied upon to relieve their fellow citizens in misfortune."


    a. Cleveland could not be more accurate in his predictions. People not only gave, but did so at a level beyond the imagination of the Texas farmers and the politicians who represented them. Fellow Americans from all over the country gave gifts exceeding $100,000. That amount was more than ten times the amount Congress had tried to take from the taxpayers. The Founding Fathers never saw a "charity" role for government, that perspective was validated in both word and deed by Cleveland's courageous veto and his belief in the American people.
    Hurricane Sandy, presidential candidates, and Grover Cleveland
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
  2. Dreamy
    Offline

    Dreamy Silver Member

    Joined:
    Aug 2, 2009
    Messages:
    2,629
    Thanks Received:
    430
    Trophy Points:
    98
    Ratings:
    +430
    Insurance companies and the Feds/FEMA. Which one makes my blood boil more?
     
  3. rightwinger
    Online

    rightwinger Paid Messageboard Poster Gold Supporting Member Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Aug 4, 2009
    Messages:
    120,385
    Thanks Received:
    19,849
    Trophy Points:
    2,190
    Location:
    NJ & MD
    Ratings:
    +45,420
    They should not be allowed to rebuild so close to the high water mark.
     
  4. oldfart
    Offline

    oldfart Older than dirt

    Joined:
    Nov 5, 2009
    Messages:
    2,354
    Thanks Received:
    462
    Trophy Points:
    140
    Location:
    Redneck Riviera
    Ratings:
    +527
    I'm always amused by how conservatives and libertarians handle these issues. A few adopt a consistent position: property rights are absolute, you can build anywhere you want any way you want, and when a storm hits, you are SOL. Hurricanes are an uninsurable risk (along with wars, earthquakes, forest fires, and so forth). While this is an intellectually consistent and emotionally satisfying position when the disaster happens to someone else, just about everyone is subject to one or another of these risks and when it happens to you, most folks want help.

    The damage caused by many of these disasters can be greatly reduced by collective action, such as evacuation plans, levee systems, zoning to limit water impoundment, fire breaks, etc. The problem is that if everyone is free to opt out, most of these measures are ineffective. I imagine most people in urban areas live on streets with storm drains. If the drains get clogged, water backs up into homes and yards when it rains. Occasionally you see Boy Scouts clearing culverts as a service project, but mostly we pay public works to do it. Most places this is funded through water/sewer fees. Disaster mitigation is the same principle on a bigger scale.

    I live on the gulf coast and have been through several hurricanes, not to mention flash flooding and tornadoes. Personally I favor converting the flood insurance program into an all-risks coverage for all natural disasters (volcanoes, earthquakes, tidal waves, forest fires, meteor strikes, coal mine fires, etc). I don't see how parsing the causes losing a house make much difference to the person who lost a house. While not all risks are equal, just about everyone would have some exposure. And a condition of this coverage could be adherence at the property owner level and community level with reasonable mitigation measures. I agree that the general public should not be subsidizing excessively risky development on floodplains, shorelines, waterways, forested areas, earthquake zones, or Mt. St. Helens.

    I am shocked, I say shocked, that the yeoman farmers of America, the bastions of conservative values, have been so seduced by crop insurance and drought relief. I would be happy to see most agricultural price support programs eliminated and crop insurance restructured to pay its own way. At the same time we might rethink disaster provision for ALL business. I image the pinko representatives in Chicago, New York, and Los Angeles would by happy to vote for such measures, if the representatives from Utah, Wyoming, the Dakotas, and Nebraska (those bastions of liberal thought) were to propose such measures.
     
  5. PoliticalChic
    Online

    PoliticalChic Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Oct 6, 2008
    Messages:
    55,826
    Thanks Received:
    15,654
    Trophy Points:
    2,190
    Location:
    Brooklyn, NY
    Ratings:
    +24,971


    "They should not be allowed..."


    Seems every Liberal opinion begins as such.



    I'm copacetic with folks building on their own land......but not clear as to why the taxpayer is on the hook for restoring any damages that result.
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 2
  6. CrusaderFrank
    Online

    CrusaderFrank Diamond Member

    Joined:
    May 20, 2009
    Messages:
    81,248
    Thanks Received:
    14,915
    Trophy Points:
    2,210
    Ratings:
    +37,031
    I shouldn't have to subsidize stupid, if you want to live in a hurricane alley be my guest but don't make me subsidize your insurance
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
  7. TakeAStepBack
    Offline

    TakeAStepBack Gold Member

    Joined:
    Mar 29, 2011
    Messages:
    13,935
    Thanks Received:
    1,723
    Trophy Points:
    245
    Ratings:
    +2,012
    it's a common theme. I tend to side with conservatives on this subject because they have a rational, liberty oriented approach to it. Go ahead, build your house on that land that could lead to severe coastal damage, etc...but dont ask me to pay for it.

    LOLberals on the other hand have an emotional response rather than a logical one to such types of fiscal and economic problems. They want everything in this cruel world to be perfect and everyone to be saved. It's an irrational and eocnomically unviable way of seeing things. If they don't have that particular stance, they would like to curtail someones liberty by saying such authoritarian bits as "They should be restricted, or not allowed to rebuild or build in such an area."

    Which of course, when you couple with the idea that a central authority should also provide tons of aid, you have no liberty for anyone. Which is why these types can not get the Liberal label from me. That isn't liberal, it's irrational to the point of laughter. LOLberalism.
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
  8. PoliticalChic
    Online

    PoliticalChic Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Oct 6, 2008
    Messages:
    55,826
    Thanks Received:
    15,654
    Trophy Points:
    2,190
    Location:
    Brooklyn, NY
    Ratings:
    +24,971
    The mind of the Liberal: Whatever they imagine, they believe must be imposed.
     
  9. Grandma
    Offline

    Grandma Geezer Chick Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Dec 30, 2011
    Messages:
    8,632
    Thanks Received:
    2,652
    Trophy Points:
    360
    Location:
    Under The Sky
    Ratings:
    +6,683
    You're wrong.

    Beach homes seem to be the main point of your argument. With each hurricane, easily 100 yards of ground goes into the oacean. A nor'easter takes less, maybe as little as 10 feet. So the home that used to be three blocks away from the beach in 1912 is now oceanfront property.

    Floodwalls or high barriers are ugly, but they can save thousands of miles of useable shoreline.

    Even though you guys feel that you can take responsibilty for homes you build in danger zones, the fact is that the government sends out the heavy equipment to remove and dispose the remains of your house.
     
  10. Oddball
    Offline

    Oddball BANNED Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2009
    Messages:
    41,428
    Thanks Received:
    8,397
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    Drinking wine, eating cheese, catching rays
    Ratings:
    +8,409

Share This Page