Why are we spending $60 billion to aid the schmucks that didn't purchase insurance? And why should the "less fortunate" people in the upper Midwest or Rocky Mountains have to pay to rebuild the million-dollar, uninsured beachfront homes in NY/NJ?

Actually, the schmucks are the ones who bought insurance. Everyone knows the federal government will bail out any "victim" in today's America.

FEMA isn't going to be wholesale just giving new houses to people without insurance. A large majority of that money will be going to local governments to fix infrastructure or finance cleanup, not building new homes

(12-07-2012 10:44 PM)mixduptransistor Wrote:  FEMA isn't going to be wholesale just giving new houses to people without insurance. A large majority of that money will be going to local governments to fix infrastructure or finance cleanup, not building new homes

On the news today (NPR?), they mentioned at least a big chunk of it was for the uninsured.

I don't know that specific program, and I won't say it doesn't exist, but the large majority of it isn't for that purpose, and it certainly isn't going to make everyone who didn't have insurance whole. We've had a lot of FEMA involvement around here for Katrina and the tornado outbreak last year, and I would say over 3/4 of the money that was applied for by the state and counties went to the state and counties to reimburse their direct costs, or to build things like schools and put up traffic lights, not buy houses.

Many insured people do not have flood insurance surely to goodness you don't begrudge helping fellow Americans get back on their feet in this time of need. Now THAT'S pro-life

This is normal for FEMA. Nothing to see here...keep moving.

(12-07-2012 11:32 PM)Mr. Peanut Wrote:  Many insured people do not have flood insurance surely to goodness you don't begrudge helping fellow Americans get back on their feet in this time of need. Now THAT'S pro-life

If you have some people that bought flood insurance and some people that did not buy flood insurance, it would just be wrong if they were all made equally "whole" after an event like that. That's not fair at all.

And these people chose to live within 50 feet of the ocean without insurance. Why should someone in Nebraska have to pay for someone else's risky decision?

(12-08-2012 12:18 AM)UConn-SMU Wrote:  

(12-07-2012 11:32 PM)Mr. Peanut Wrote:  Many insured people do not have flood insurance surely to goodness you don't begrudge helping fellow Americans get back on their feet in this time of need. Now THAT'S pro-life

If you have some people that bought flood insurance and some people that did not buy flood insurance, it would just be wrong if they were all made equally "whole" after an event like that. That's not fair at all.

And these people chose to live with 50 feet of the ocean without insurance. Why should someone in Nebraska have to pay for someone else's risky decision?

personal responsibility

(12-08-2012 12:33 AM)RaiderATO Wrote:  

(12-08-2012 12:18 AM)UConn-SMU Wrote:  

(12-07-2012 11:32 PM)Mr. Peanut Wrote:  Many insured people do not have flood insurance surely to goodness you don't begrudge helping fellow Americans get back on their feet in this time of need. Now THAT'S pro-life

If you have some people that bought flood insurance and some people that did not buy flood insurance, it would just be wrong if they were all made equally "whole" after an event like that. That's not fair at all.

And these people chose to live with 50 feet of the ocean without insurance. Why should someone in Nebraska have to pay for someone else's risky decision?

personal responsibility

Who would be irresponsible enough to build a home in a "no mans land" like New York City.

(12-08-2012 06:09 AM)Mr. Peanut Wrote:  

(12-08-2012 12:33 AM)RaiderATO Wrote:  

(12-08-2012 12:18 AM)UConn-SMU Wrote:  

(12-07-2012 11:32 PM)Mr. Peanut Wrote:  Many insured people do not have flood insurance surely to goodness you don't begrudge helping fellow Americans get back on their feet in this time of need. Now THAT'S pro-life

If you have some people that bought flood insurance and some people that did not buy flood insurance, it would just be wrong if they were all made equally "whole" after an event like that. That's not fair at all.

And these people chose to live with 50 feet of the ocean without insurance. Why should someone in Nebraska have to pay for someone else's risky decision?

personal responsibility

Who would be irresponsible enough to build a home in a "no mans land" like New York City.

I ask myself that question every day

Most of the FEMA money will be in the form of low interest loans, or at least it used to be. I don't have a problem with them helping. In 96 two hurricanes destroyed over 2500 acres of crops on my family farm. Crop insurance wasn't enough to even pay the loans on seed and fertilizer. It took a FEMA loan to cover equipment that went underwater and repairs to most structures. Even with the crop insurance and FEMA loan the farms is still nowhere near the size it was in 96. Instances like that, and like what happened to some people as a result of this storm are why FEMA exists. FEMA may be wasteful and corrupt, but it still serves a need.

(12-08-2012 06:09 AM)Mr. Peanut Wrote:  

(12-08-2012 12:33 AM)RaiderATO Wrote:  

(12-08-2012 12:18 AM)UConn-SMU Wrote:  

(12-07-2012 11:32 PM)Mr. Peanut Wrote:  Many insured people do not have flood insurance surely to goodness you don't begrudge helping fellow Americans get back on their feet in this time of need. Now THAT'S pro-life

If you have some people that bought flood insurance and some people that did not buy flood insurance, it would just be wrong if they were all made equally "whole" after an event like that. That's not fair at all.

And these people chose to live with 50 feet of the ocean without insurance. Why should someone in Nebraska have to pay for someone else's risky decision?

personal responsibility

Who would be irresponsible enough to build a home in a "no mans land" like New York City.

And not insure it? Then expect someone to come along and make them whole again for free when others paid good money to make sure they were safe against something like this.

gonna make this a condensed version:

--Flood in Memphis
--Illegal alien in a trailer park in a sketchy part of town gets a check from FEMA due to flooding
--Aunt owns an old family home in sketchy part of town and trying to sell
--Illegal alien buys home with said FEMA check

(12-08-2012 12:36 PM)maximus Wrote:  gonna make this a condensed version:

--Flood in Memphis
--Illegal alien in a trailer park in a sketchy part of town gets a check from FEMA due to flooding
--Aunt owns an old family in home in sketchy part of town and trying to sell
--Illegal alien buys home with said FEMA check

IDK, this sounds a bit sketchy............

(12-08-2012 07:04 PM)Kyle0614 Wrote:  

(12-08-2012 12:36 PM)maximus Wrote:  gonna make this a condensed version:

--Flood in Memphis
--Illegal alien in a trailer park in a sketchy part of town gets a check from FEMA due to flooding
--Aunt owns an old family in home in sketchy part of town and trying to sell
--Illegal alien buys home with said FEMA check

IDK, this sounds a bit sketchy............

Nope, it happened, an illegal alien can receive money from FEMA

I fixed the part of her owning a family, it's should have read owned a family home