• 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
tessaesque said:
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.
Click to expand...
Again with the Fallacy. Now in what could only be politely described as Disgenuously.
Many Areas hit by the Hurricane This time were NOT in an area that could be classified as "the most common natural disasters in the area.."
Nag's Head NC, certainly Could, Alot of others Not so.
 
Last edited:
Kandahar said:
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.
Click to expand...

Home owner insurance is a patchwork of what is covered and what is not covered. You can have hurricane insurance but it won't cover flood damage (I know stupid right?). Apparently hurricane coverage covers a limb that fall on your home but not the flooding the water causes. If there was some magic policy that covered all damage it would make sense, unfortunately that's not how insurance works.
 
mbig said:
Again with the Fallacy. Now in what could only be politely described as Disgenuously.
Many Areas hit by the Hurricane This time were NOT in an area that could be classified as "the most common natural disasters in the area.."
Nag's Head NC, certainly Could, Alot of others Not so.
Click to expand...

I'd say it's more likely for a sea-baring storm to hit the east coast than an earthquake. It's more likely for a blizzard to hit the northern east coast than a dust storm. You see what I'm saying, right? If your area has been hit in the last 100 years with a major natural disaster, you insure against it. Haven't you heard about 100 year flood plains? It's the same premise. Your argument that people shouldn't have to insure against something that doesn't happen incredibly often is idiotic. Insurance is designed to protect against the unexpected, not the everyday events of life. That's the point of insurance. If you fail to utilize it correctly it isn't the tax payers' responsibility to replace your ****.
 
Last edited:
iliveonramen said:
Home owner insurance is a patchwork of what is covered and what is not covered. You can have hurricane insurance but it won't cover flood damage (I know stupid right?). Apparently hurricane coverage covers a limb that fall on your home but not the flooding the water causes. If there was some magic policy that covered all damage it would make sense, unfortunately that's not how insurance works.
Click to expand...

Never having owned a home myself, I'm not too familiar with the ins and outs of homeowner's insurance. But if that's a problem, it seems to me that the easier solution would be to fix the homeowner's insurance market, rather than have the government essentially insure the homes itself. I don't think it would be out of line to pass some new insurance regulations that mandate that insurance companies which cover hurricanes also cover flooding (since most consumers would associate the two, and wouldn't read the fine print). Consumer protection would seem to be the issue, not the lack of available insurance. I don't really see any reason for the government to be involved in the homeowner's insurance business itself, absent any reason to think it could do a better job than the private sector.
 
tessaesque said:
I'd say it's more likely for a sea-baring storm to high the east coast than an earthquake. It's more likely for a blizzard to hit the northern east coast than a dust storm. You see what I'm saying, right? If your area has been hit in the last 100 years with a major natural disaster, you insure against it. Haven't you heard about 100 year flood plains? It's the same premise. Your argument that people shouldn't have to insure against something that doesn't happen incredibly often is idiotic. Insurance is designed to protect against the unexpected, not the everyday events of life. That's the point of insurance. If you fail to utilize it correctly it isn't the tax payers' responsibility to replace your ****.
Click to expand...

I hope you have earthquake insurance...a 6.4 magnitude earthquake hit Texas in 1931. That was less than 100 years ago. If you don't your just being irresponsible.
 
iliveonramen said:
I hope you have earthquake insurance...a 6.4 magnitude earthquake hit Texas in 1931. That was less than 100 years ago. If you don't your just being irresponsible.
Click to expand...


We have actually had a few around here lately.
 
Kandahar said:
Never having owned a home myself, I'm not too familiar with the ins and outs of homeowner's insurance. But if that's a problem, it seems to me that the easier solution would be to fix the homeowner's insurance market, rather than have the government essentially insure the homes itself. I don't think it would be out of line to pass some new insurance regulations that mandate that insurance companies which cover hurricanes also cover flooding (since most consumers would associate the two, and wouldn't read the fine print). Consumer protection would seem to be the issue, not the lack of available insurance. I don't really see any reason for the government to be involved in the homeowner's insurance business itself, absent any reason to think it could do a better job than the private sector.
Click to expand...

Well I agree consumer protection is a large part. I think acting like idividuals are just being irresponsible though is incorrect. Growing up in Florida which is hurricane prone you kind of see how Floridians would be in big trouble without their state run insurance Co.
 
iliveonramen said:
I hope you have earthquake insurance...a 6.4 magnitude earthquake hit Texas in 1931. That was less than 100 years ago. If you don't your just being irresponsible.
Click to expand...

My insurance covers structural damage related to shifts or movements of the top soil caused by both natural seismic activity and also by man-made instability related to ongoing natural gas extraction and frakking.
 
winston53660 said:
None hurricanes only happen in the Atlantic. Typhoons happen in the Pacific:2razz:
Click to expand...

Semantics distract from the argument...
"Bad things" occur all over our nation...and the world.
Yes, people should have insurance, and the right insurance...which is costly, un-affordable for many.
I'd not write any insurance for any city 8 feet below sea level...this is insane !
I'd think that storm/flood coverage should be inexpensive in NYC, not so for NO.
The argument may be - should government displace the insurance companies ?
 
tessaesque said:
I'd say it's more likely for a sea-baring storm to high the east coast than an earthquake.
Click to expand...
Actually we had an earthquake summer before this one North of DC. swaying buildings here in NYC and damaging the Washington Monument etc.
Another point on the Richter scale would have been interesting.

tessaeasque said:
It's more likely for a blizzard to hit the northern east coast than a dust storm. You see what I'm saying, right? If your area has been hit in the last 100 years with a major natural disaster, you insure against it. Haven't you heard about 100 year flood plains? It's the same premise. Your argument that people shouldn't have to insure against something that doesn't happen incredibly often is idiotic. Insurance is designed to protect against the unexpected, not the everyday events of life. That's the point of insurance. If you fail to utilize it correctly it isn't the tax payers' responsibility to replace your ****.
Click to expand...
The last time water came near this high, but Not as high, was the Hurricane of 1821.
Other storms not close enough to do the flooding damages of this one - and No storm in recorded history (I don't think) this Wide in significant damage.

That 1821 Hurricane which was the closest to this in severity, if Not area, was 10 years after the New Madrid earthquake, which monumentally destroyed a good part of the Mississippi River valley. Should they be buying Earthquake insurance or screw em?

**Generally I am Not for Federal help in what are by your own correct (IMO) standards are common problems.**

As I said earlier, there are truly grievous cases, such as below-sea-level AND Hurricane prone New Orleans which get both FEMA and rebuild aid, when they should only get Relocation aid... once.
Not to mention the whole Gulf and Southern Atlantic coast where Hurricanes are common.. along with FEMA et al.

Helping the Uncommonly hit heavily populated corridor from Washington to NY to Boston get back on it's feet I think is not only proper but beneficial the country as a whole.
It is, after all, a significant percent of the country by population alone.

Bottom Line: I feel if we are going to have ANY Federal disaster aid.. this easily/necessarily qualifies.
 
Last edited:
tessaesque said:
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.
Click to expand...

No, I'm arguing that insisting that it must be private insurance is stupid. Do you know what the FEMA is? It's insurance. A collective insurance policy that we all pay for. This thread is about whining that people are paying for something that they don't directly benefit from as much as they'd like. It comes from a very small-minded perspective, where a functioning nation doesn't benefit everyone in it. Let's just take NYC as an example. It's a big financial hub for the whole country. How would you like to have a lot of that break down just because someone didn't have the right kind of insurance? No, that's stupid. Disaster response like this is a big national insurance policy that we all pay for that deals with the major problems that need to be fixed right away. Just because the storm doesn't happen in your back yard doesn't mean it's not important, or that it doesn't affect the whole country.
 
mbig said:
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.
Click to expand...

The thing is, can insurance companies be trusted ?
 
tessaesque said:
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).
Click to expand...

Do you have any idea how much flood insurance costs and the escape clauses in them. Thesee people have never had a need (except those right on the shore) for such insurance. A middle class family could not afford it and forget about the lower class they have to eat.

I believe the last storm of this size to reach NJ was 50 years ago and it was nothing like this one.

My answer would be as you said low cost loans and some kind of subsidized funding for homes that are certified as totalled so that these people have a chance at rebuilding. For those whose houses are totalled and the people want to move, the some kind of low cost mortgage.

Under ordinary circumstances like around the Mississippi where flooding is common or along the Florida coast I would agree completely with you. Buy what you need because these people choose to live in a hazardous area.

The people in question (again except along the shore) did not and so they should be given some type of a break.
 
Paschendale said:
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?
Click to expand...

Its easier to love a thing, an inanimate object, than its people.
That we have trouble with.....do we ever !

Coverage :
Its either government taxes - more of course
or
better insurance .
Both would be too expensive..
BTW "country persons" would be worse yet !
 
wolfman24 said:
Do you have any idea how much flood insurance costs and the escape clauses in them. Thesee people have never had a need (except those right on the shore) for such insurance. A middle class family could not afford it and forget about the lower class they have to eat.

I believe the last storm of this size to reach NJ was 50 years ago and it was nothing like this one.

My answer would be as you said low cost loans and some kind of subsidized funding for homes that are certified as totalled so that these people have a chance at rebuilding. For those whose houses are totalled and the people want to move, the some kind of low cost mortgage.

Under ordinary circumstances like around the Mississippi where flooding is common or along the Florida coast I would agree completely with you. Buy what you need because these people choose to live in a hazardous area.

The people in question (again except along the shore) did not and so they should be given some type of a break.
Click to expand...

Our government would be better off buying insurance policies (with taxpayer funds) that cover disaster areas rather than paying out of taxpayers' pockets after the fact, in my opinion. With all the bureaucracy that's in FEMA and other disaster-relief programs, an insurer would underwrite risks much better and more efficiently than our government can self-insure.

FEMA's budget (alone) is upwards of $13 billion a year. My mom having had experience with FEMA shows me there is so much fraud and waste involved in claims management that taxpayers are not getting half-enough bang for their buck.

FEMA tells us that they have adequate funds to cover this disaster -- they're planning on $3.6 billion. What did they do with the other $10 billion this year? Well, at least part of it went to pay their 7,400 employees. Government cannot do things as efficiently as the private sector.

Edit: Having the private sector insure these losses would entail people being forced to insure their own risks to a greater extent than they do now -- flood zones/hurricane alleys/forest fires/etc.

Re-edit: FEMA said it has a total inventory of more than 5 million liters of water, 3 million meals, 900,000 blankets and 100,000 cots at its distribution centers throughout the nation. This reserve is chicken feed.
 
Last edited:
Not to sound cold hearted and soulless, but I AM a ginger, but it's the responsibility of home owners to have insurance, not the responsibility of the government to pay for the lack of responsibility of its citizens.
 
mbig said:
Another deflection Attempt from Your Own "common issue".
Many states had unprecedented damage.

EDIT /over]
Click to expand...

I expect many more "unprecedented" weather events in the future. NYC has been hit 2 years in a row. That seems "uncommon" to you?
 
iguanaman said:
I Expect many more "unprecedented" weather events in the future. NYC has been hit 2 years in a row. That seems "uncommon" to you?
Click to expand...
As a matter of fact yes, and I had just remarked so in the Main string on this!
http://www.debatepolitics.com/breaking-news-mainstream-media/140620-frankenstorm-headed-region.html
The OP.
me said:
Two years in a Row now Midlantic/NY/NE region is preparing for a late October Hurricane-like Storm.
After living a Lifetime here with virtually No such events, it's Amazing to be prepping again...
Click to expand...
IOW, Being a good twice the age of most posters here I can say 2 in a row after 60 without, IS Uncommon.

If you are expecting changing weather patterns or more freakish weather due to Warming/AGW I think many, including myself, agree.
But that does't make any event more predictable, but less so.

Again:
Bottom Line: I feel if we are going to have ANY Federal disaster aid, this easily/necessarily qualifies.
 
Last edited:
Paschendale said:
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?
Click to expand...

Disdain for so many Americans? Easy, a very large number of them are liberal/progressive/socialist scumbags that refuse to take responsibility for themselves and their actions and constantly harp that we should steal money from others to pay for them instead of them earning something themselves.

Too stupid, lazy or ignorant to have good insurance on your home, a major, major dollar investment, then too bad, to sad, live with the results of your own choices.

If you live on a coast and don't have storm insurance, your stupid. This was a hurricane, but damaging storms hit all coastal areas at one time or another.

It is not disdain to not want to carry around the weight of deadbeats. It is not disdain to want people to take responsibility for their own actions/choices and want them to live with the results, good or bad.

Give them a means to make it back on their own labor/money, sure. Pay for it or do it for them, **** No.
 
MaggieD said:
Our government would be better off buying insurance policies (with taxpayer funds) that cover disaster areas rather than paying out of taxpayers' pockets after the fact, in my opinion. With all the bureaucracy that's in FEMA and other disaster-relief programs, an insurer would underwrite risks much better and more efficiently than our government can self-insure.

FEMA's budget (alone) is upwards of $13 billion a year. My mom having had experience with FEMA shows me there is so much fraud and waste involved in claims management that taxpayers are not getting half-enough bang for their buck.

FEMA tells us that they have adequate funds to cover this disaster -- they're planning on $3.6 billion. What did they do with the other $10 billion this year? Well, at least part of it went to pay their 7,400 employees. Government cannot do things as efficiently as the private sector.

Edit: Having the private sector insure these losses would entail people being forced to insure their own risks to a greater extent than they do now -- flood zones/hurricane alleys/forest fires/etc.

Re-edit: FEMA said it has a total inventory of more than 5 million liters of water, 3 million meals, 900,000 blankets and 100,000 cots at its distribution centers throughout the nation. This reserve is chicken feed.
Click to expand...

As to your first para I think this may be the answer but I do not know that much about it. As to the rest, these supplies are supplemented by the DOD and other agencies.
As to the fraud and waste. Well I think the revamped FEMA is doing alot better job than that group of clowns that screwed up Katrina
 
wolfman24 said:
Do you have any idea how much flood insurance costs and the escape clauses in them. Thesee people have never had a need (except those right on the shore) for such insurance. A middle class family could not afford it and forget about the lower class they have to eat.

I believe the last storm of this size to reach NJ was 50 years ago and it was nothing like this one.

My answer would be as you said low cost loans and some kind of subsidized funding for homes that are certified as totalled so that these people have a chance at rebuilding. For those whose houses are totalled and the people want to move, the some kind of low cost mortgage.

Under ordinary circumstances like around the Mississippi where flooding is common or along the Florida coast I would agree completely with you. Buy what you need because these people choose to live in a hazardous area.

The people in question (again except along the shore) did not and so they should be given some type of a break.
Click to expand...


....I specifically said early in the thread that I supported low-interest loans for those who lose their homes. I also said I support other forms of aid. I simply don't support funding the rebuilding or restructuring of homes that should have had private insurance coverage on them.
 
Paschendale said:
Disasters happen.
Click to expand...

Therefore get insurance. Selfish would be admitting the above, and then NOT getting insurance. The opposite of what you claim.
 
tessaesque said:
My insurance covers structural damage related to shifts or movements of the top soil caused by both natural seismic activity and also by man-made instability related to ongoing natural gas extraction and frakking.
Click to expand...

You need that in Plano.
 
MaggieD said:
Our government would be better off buying insurance policies (with taxpayer funds) that cover disaster areas rather than paying out of taxpayers' pockets after the fact, in my opinion. With all the bureaucracy that's in FEMA and other disaster-relief programs, an insurer would underwrite risks much better and more efficiently than our government can self-insure.

FEMA's budget (alone) is upwards of $13 billion a year. My mom having had experience with FEMA shows me there is so much fraud and waste involved in claims management that taxpayers are not getting half-enough bang for their buck.

FEMA tells us that they have adequate funds to cover this disaster -- they're planning on $3.6 billion. What did they do with the other $10 billion this year? Well, at least part of it went to pay their 7,400 employees. Government cannot do things as efficiently as the private sector.

Edit: Having the private sector insure these losses would entail people being forced to insure their own risks to a greater extent than they do now -- flood zones/hurricane alleys/forest fires/etc.

Re-edit: FEMA said it has a total inventory of more than 5 million liters of water, 3 million meals, 900,000 blankets and 100,000 cots at its distribution centers throughout the nation. This reserve is chicken feed.
Click to expand...

Sorry Maggs, I cannot agree with your first paragraph. It is never the governments job or role to protect people from themselves and to eliminate/reduce the consequences of an individuals choices/stupidity. There is absolutely no way to stop stupid people from being stupid and the government should never even try to. While it may sound cruel, it is often better to let people suffer from their choices so they learn not to do the same thing again than it is to take away that suffering and teach them that the government is always there to protect them if they make bad choices.
 
Well, FEMA still has all those unused trailers from Katrina they are still working on the paperwork to distribute to those displaced by the Katrina hurricane. How long ago was that anyway?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom