• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Should Taxpayers pay to rebuild homes after Hurricane Sandy?

Should Taxpayers pay to rebuild homes damages by Hurricane Sandy


  • Total voters
    47

joko104

Banned
Suspended
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 21, 2009
Messages
65,981
Reaction score
23,408
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
The damage is estimated at $20 BILLION plus. Insurance is estimated to only cover half, few homes have full coverage and many have no insurance coverage at all. Should taxpayers pay to rebuilt homes damaged or destroyed by hurricane Sandy?
 
No.

I wouldn't oppose low-interest loan offers (a la FHA 203B loans) for those who need new housing, but if you don't insure your home properly it isn't the responsibility of everybody else to cover it.

When we insured our home I made sure that we had coverage that corresponds to common issues in our area: tornadoes, internal damages related to foundation settling, and constriction/warping damaging related to excessive drought (i.e.: our roof decking had warped during the 2011 drought, causing severe leaking and damage...turns out, insurance covers those damages if you have the right policy).
 
No.

I wouldn't oppose low-interest loan offers (a la FHA 203B loans) for those who need new housing, but if you don't insure your home properly it isn't the responsibility of everybody else to cover it.

When we insured our home I made sure that we had coverage that corresponds to common issues in our area: tornadoes, internal damages related to foundation settling, and constriction/warping damaging related to excessive drought (i.e.: our roof decking had warped during the 2011 drought, causing severe leaking and damage...turns out, insurance covers those damages if you have the right policy).
And you think Hurrricane damage is a "common issue" in NJ/NY/NYC/CT? To name just a few of the 20+ states hit. NC, commonly hit, and a few more exceptional.

8' below sea level New Orleans or the rest of the Gulf Coast for that matter, shouldn't even have people returning, much less subsidizing it in any way.
 
Last edited:
How many hurricanes occur on our side of the Pacific?
Another deflection Attempt from Your Own "common issue".
Many states had unprecedented damage.

EDIT /over]
 
Last edited:
None hurricanes only happen in the Atlantic. Typhoons happen in the Pacific:2razz:

Same point, really.

MBig is trying to argue that eastern coastal state residents shouldn't be able to predict that they will need to invest in insurance coverage that includes damages caused by hurricane or sea-baring storm activity.

His premise is idiotic, to say the least.
 
Another deflection Attempt from Your Own "common issue".
Many states had unprecedented damage.

Yeah, and the 2011 drought in Texas was a once-in-150 years event. But people STILL had coverage prior to that drought to protect against issues that might be caused by such an environment.
 
Of course we should. We're a country. We strive together. We help our neighbors and our countrymen (and women, but countrypeople is a linguistic abomination). How can a person claim to love America yet harbor such disdain for so many Americans?
 
Hey, just a heads up:

I don't hold you in disdain just because I don't want to buy you a house.


I do, however, hold anyone in disdain who wants to make me buy them a house.
 
Of course we should. We're a country. We strive together. We help our neighbors and our countrymen (and women, but countrypeople is a linguistic abomination). How can a person claim to love America yet harbor such disdain for so many Americans?

It isn't disdain, it's practicality.

If you build your house in an area that is at risk of specific natural or man-made disasters, you insure your house against them. If you don't, it's a sad situation, but it isn't the responsibility of the rest of the country to rebuild for you in the exact same area with the exact same risks. There are ways we can help people who experience hardship that don't encourage them to repeat the same bad behavior. Rebuilding their house on the tax payers dime isn't one of them.
 
Same point, really.

MBig is trying to argue that eastern coastal state residents shouldn't be able to predict that they will need to invest in insurance coverage that includes damages caused by hurricane or sea-baring storm activity.

His premise is idiotic, to say the least.

I was just being a smart ass. But still should we have a recovery system for people in CA suffer earth quak damage?
 
I was just being a smart ass. But still should we have a recovery system for people in CA suffer earth quak damage?

I don't think we should have a system that allocates tax revenues for the rebuilding of homes. Assistance can come in many forms. Obviously people have to live and work in California to meet the needs of the U.S. economy. But it is more than feasible for somebody living in California to insure their home against earthquake damages, and to build their homes to meet specifications for earthquake safety and durability. If they fail to take those steps, they're SOL when their house comes tumbling down.

That doesn't mean we don't help in other ways...it just means we don't help them recover something they failed to protect on their own.

It would be like me expecting the residents of Texas to replace my car after a tree falls on it because I only had liability insurance.
 
I don't think we should have a system that allocates tax revenues for the rebuilding of homes. Assistance can come in many forms. Obviously people have to live and work in California to meet the needs of the U.S. economy. But it is more than feasible for somebody living in California to insure their home against earthquake damages, and to build their homes to meet specifications for earthquake safety and durability. If they fail to take those steps, they're SOL when their house comes tumbling down.

That doesn't mean we don't help in other ways...it just means we don't help them recover something they failed to protect on their own.

It would be like me expecting the residents of Texas to replace my car after a tree falls on it because I only had liability insurance.

I don't agree with your analogy. It was not an act of god that put you in that ditch. A hurricane, tornado, earthquake are acts of god beyond humans ability to control.
 
I don't agree with your analogy. It was not an act of god that put you in that ditch. A hurricane, tornado, earthquake are acts of god beyond humans ability to control.

I changed the analogy probably while you were reading....
 
I can't imagine losing everything and right now I think the important thing is to ensure these people have shelter, food, clothing, and other essential needs met.....there is a lot more involved besides building them a new house (I do not believe anyone should be given a free house) but as a nation we should be able to ensure their basic needs are met and offer low interest loans for home construction and provide emergency and cleanup assistance....it's not like they can put a new house up tomorrow and get on with their lives.
 
The damage is estimated at $20 BILLION plus. Insurance is estimated to only cover half, few homes have full coverage and many have no insurance coverage at all. Should taxpayers pay to rebuilt homes damaged or destroyed by hurricane Sandy?
Only if taxpayers get a benefit out of it that more or less outweighs the cost to them for doing so. Leaving hundreds of thousands of people without homes (I don't know what the numbers are, exactly), businesses ruined, etc., has a cost, both socially and economically. I have no idea exactly what that cost is, or how it compares to the addition tax burden. But if it is about equal or less costly, people having homes would seem to be the better option.
 
Get insurance, it's not that expensive compared to your mortgage. Why do you think lenders requrie it, because they don't want to lose their investment. Hint hint. If you can't afford it, you can't afford to own a home, rent. And then get renters insurance, it's even cheaper. If you can't afford that, you're sharing a home/apartment and splitting it, and can still afford it. If you can't afford that, as long as you have your health, you didn't lose that much most likely and will need assistance no matter what...but surely not assistance for buying you a home...

I love the "we are in this together" posters. No, you don't pay most of the tax burden, you are not really getting the "together" part.
 
It isn't disdain, it's practicality.

If you build your house in an area that is at risk of specific natural or man-made disasters, you insure your house against them. If you don't, it's a sad situation, but it isn't the responsibility of the rest of the country to rebuild for you in the exact same area with the exact same risks. There are ways we can help people who experience hardship that don't encourage them to repeat the same bad behavior. Rebuilding their house on the tax payers dime isn't one of them.

And how much of the country would that stance disallow people to live in? The entirety of California is out from the earthquakes. A lot of the northeast suffers substantial damage from blizzards. Tornado alley would be emptied. A large amount of the southeast coast is out from hurricanes and flooding. NYC and Long Island are out... most of the east coast, really. A lot of the midwest is subject to damage from droughts. So, by your logic, living in about half of the continental US is "bad behavior".

Probably more than half, actually. That's not practical at all. Practical is to realize that there is no magical safe place to live. There are dangers. And we must have the good sense not to throw a hissy fit when the world doesn't cater to us. Disasters happen. And they happen EVERYWHERE. This is nothing more than a selfish refusal to help others in need. I have no doubt that if you were the one in trouble, you'd want their help. I'm also pretty sure you'll deny that here, but it's purely speculative until it actually happens.
 
More than likely, my post will be echoing what many have already stated, but here goes regardless;

While questions like this come up from time to time, the fact is that the charity organizations are more concerned about getting people food, water, and temporary shelter. Not building them a new house.
Second, the responsibility stops when the community does. The government is not the person you want picking up the community torch......

https://community.elca.org/page.aspx?pid=784
LCMS prepares for Hurricane Sandy - The Lutheran Church
Catholic Community Mobilizes to Help Those Affected by Hurricane Sandy | Daily News | NCRegister.com
International Orthodox Christian Charities
 
And how much of the country would that stance disallow people to live in? The entirety of California is out from the earthquakes. A lot of the northeast suffers substantial damage from blizzards. Tornado alley would be emptied. A large amount of the southeast coast is out from hurricanes and flooding. NYC and Long Island are out... most of the east coast, really. A lot of the midwest is subject to damage from droughts. So, by your logic, living in about half of the continental US is "bad behavior".

Probably more than half, actually. That's not practical at all. Practical is to realize that there is no magical safe place to live. There are dangers. And we must have the good sense not to throw a hissy fit when the world doesn't cater to us. Disasters happen. And they happen EVERYWHERE. This is nothing more than a selfish refusal to help others in need. I have no doubt that if you were the one in trouble, you'd want their help. I'm also pretty sure you'll deny that here, but it's purely speculative until it actually happens.

It isn't practical to insure your house against the most common natural disasters known to affect your area? That's what you're arguing against, in case you weren't aware.
 
The damage is estimated at $20 BILLION plus. Insurance is estimated to only cover half, few homes have full coverage and many have no insurance coverage at all. Should taxpayers pay to rebuilt homes damaged or destroyed by hurricane Sandy?

Generally I say no. The government should pay for the cleanup, the search & rescue missions, and to restore functioning city services. I'm also not opposed to the government providing those rendered homeless with some temporary housing assistance. But it should not pay for the damage to the homes themselves...that's what homeowner's insurance is for.
 
Back
Top Bottom