House Scraps Vote on Hurricane Sandy Aid

[PlumberKhan]

Originally Posted by Warfish

You're so kind PK.

Don't hate on me because it's true (well, not the put it out part, that was the local Volunteer Fire dept.). I assure you, if I could have gotten all my costs paid by the taxpayer, I would have accepted it gladly.

I won't feel bad because I have worked for what I have, and paid my own way all the way, despite every effort of the State to get in my way or give others advantages I did not get. Nor will I allow your lecture make me feel bad in any way for having done so.

I guess since you have "story" in quotes, you're calling me a liar now as well? Just think, we used to be friendly.

That's great for you.

But get off your soapbox before some unexpected floodwaters in NOVA sweeps it out from under you.

It's called Emergency Funds for a reason.

Quantum is better off as a taxpayer with his home repaired and his town functioning again. FEMA in this case isn't so he can get off scot free and remodel his kitchen.


Don't agree with it? Fine. Lobby your congressman that at anytime this country is hit with a disaster we just leave the affected area a mess. F*ck fixing it. That's welfare.




Sent from a phone using an app

[Warfish]

Originally Posted by PlumberKhan

That's great for you.

I don't expect you to understand PK. You never have, I don't expect that'll change. You've always maintained that guys like me are saps....or liars now apparently.

You're just not the type to understand why someone whose gotten piss all and paid in quite alot might be displeased about it when their own **** goes up in flames and they still get piss all. No one would have bailed me out if I hadn't had insurence.

Give Betsy and the little one my best wishes.

[PlumberKhan]

Originally Posted by Warfish

No one would have bailed me out if I hadn't had insurence.

That's where you're wrong.

If NOVA was hit with massive flooding and a full scale natural disaster, no one here would object with you using emergency funds to fix your house and your town.

Quantum I'm sure has paid quite a bit during his life in taxes. To begrudge him for using something that was specifically put in place for situations like this is pretty cold hearted.

To pool resources together to help people stricken by a disaster isn't impending communism and/or socialism. Quite the opposite.


Sent from a phone using an app

[Warfish]

Originally Posted by PlumberKhan

To begrudge him...

You've missed the point PK.

I don't begrudge Quantum.

Agree to disagree, and move on. You'll never understand where I come from PK and how I feel or think.

Have a good evening.

[quantum]

Originally Posted by PlumberKhan

That's great for you.

But get off your soapbox before some unexpected floodwaters in NOVA sweeps it out from under you.

It's called Emergency Funds for a reason.

Quantum is better off as a taxpayer with his home repaired and his town functioning again. FEMA in this case isn't so he can get off scot free and remodel his kitchen.


Don't agree with it? Fine. Lobby your congressman that at anytime this country is hit with a disaster we just leave the affected area a mess. F*ck fixing it. That's welfare.




Sent from a phone using an app

Well said. And in the grand scheme of things, I'd much rather tax dollars be spent like this instead of ...oh I don't know... foreign aid to people who want to kill us?

For the record: no remodeling of my kitchen. Between insurance and FEMA, I have just enough to make my house "whole" again, but the personal belongings we lost are just gone.

[Warfish]

Originally Posted by quantum

I'd much rather tax dollars be spent like this instead of ...oh I don't know... foreign aid to people who want to kill us?

I don't disagree, and I'm glad you'll be made whole quantum. But I think you've both missed my point entirely. Next time I'll have to simply make my point in a better way, so it's not so easily misunderstood and misrepresented.

I have just enough to make my house "whole" again, but the personal belongings we lost are just gone.

Insurance can replace them, it cannot replicate them. I know exactly how that feels.

[acepepe]

I'm supposed to pay for someones home on a million dollar coastal lot because they NEGLECTED to buy flood insurance. 2 months emergency housing and food, fine. Rebuild your own friggin house with YOUR MONEY or SELL THE LOT!!!!!!!!!

[palmetto defender]

Originally Posted by quantum

I never thought we needed flood insurance. TBH, not sure I still do. This was a freak storm that combined with a nor'easter, high altitude jetstreams, and high tide.

Maybe I should get asteroid insurance also, cuz, ya never know, right? Is that a good way to spend money?

Sarcasm aside, NY is one of those states that sends more money to DC than it gets back. I never begrudged federal aid to midwest states hit by tornadoes, or New Orleans because of Katrina. **** happens.

Not trying to bust on you here. You made a mistake, we all do. I have flood insurance and I bet I am around the same elevation as you. Last bad flood here was in 89. I rememeber several floods on LI as a kid - 50s, 60s.
My agent tried to add a rider for earthquake as well. I passed since the last quake here was in 1879. My risk.
My home also has an automatic cost replacement feature. Costs more. My call.

[doggin94it]

Originally Posted by Warfish

Question borne out of my own ignorence:

Homeowners and businesses affected by Sandy assumedly had homeowner/business insurance, right? Covers the cost of damages and repairs, generally?

If so, what is the aid for, exactly?

I've never been in a mass-natural-disaster myself, only personal disasters like house fires and the like, and I've never gotten aid of any kind. So I'm just curious what the aid is intended for specificly, what the purpose of it is, and how/who qualifies.

1) Insurance often has flood exclusions, high deductibles, maximum benefit caps, and pays out at levels that may not actually cover necessary repairs;
2) Insurance doesn't cover loss of income from the fact that your place of employment has been shut down

[doggin94it]

Originally Posted by palmetto defender

I live in an "alleged" flood area in Charleston SC. Hasn't been a serious hurricane since 1989. Moved here in 06.
I have insurance which covers wind, flood and someone drowning in the neighborhhood pond (HOA- has some too).
I own a home. I take measures to protect it. MY RESPONSIBILITY. We need to spend less on fun and games and more on necessities. Insurance is a necessity. Health, home (several levels), auto, life, casualty, long term care, etc.
Your taxes should go for protection via police, fire dept., ambulance and infrastructure. Sorry - what YOU own is YOUR business, not mine.

Not having flood insurance when you are on the flood maps is irresponsible. Not having flood insurance when you aren't on the flood maps is reasonable. It's like suggesting folks in NY ought to have earthquake insurance, or in Iowa ought to have a hurricane rider. Asking people to pay to guard themselves from risks they ought not rationally anticipate is bad fiscal policy, because it removes money from the economy that could and would be put to more efficient use.

That's exactly the purpose of a Federal Disaster Relief agency - to backstop where rational, normal precautions are not enough

[doggin94it]

Originally Posted by Warfish

The lesson appears to be to be killed or demaged only in large-scale events, 9-11, Sandy, Katrina, etc.

In that spot, you're great, Govt. takes care of you.

Just have your House burn down or a Storm destroy just your house or the like, best of luck, you're on your own.



What is it about size that suddenly makes an event a public responsabillity?

The public damage of massive destruction. Take NYC (or NO) out of the economy (or some percentage thereof) and it's bad for everyone.

The system is flexible enough to absorb individual tragedies without noticeable impact. A mass disaster like this, though . . .

[Warfish]

Originally Posted by doggin94it

The system is . . .

I'm not a system, I'm a person. The losses I've experienced at times in life are no less than those of a Sandy victim, and I no less blameless in being the victim of them.

Doesn't matter, it's a lost debate. Clearly when you experience loss due to a big storm, you're just a better person more worthy of being subsidized than people who simply experience loss individually. And I'm a greedy selfish dick for even questioning it.

[palmetto defender]

Originally Posted by doggin94it

Not having flood insurance when you are on the flood maps is irresponsible. Not having flood insurance when you aren't on the flood maps is reasonable. It's like suggesting folks in NY ought to have earthquake insurance, or in Iowa ought to have a hurricane rider. Asking people to pay to guard themselves from risks they ought not rationally anticipate is bad fiscal policy, because it removes money from the economy that could and would be put to more efficient use.

That's exactly the purpose of a Federal Disaster Relief agency - to backstop where rational, normal precautions are not enough

My point. I do not have earthquake insurance. Would not expect NYers to have tornado insurance.
BUT, on LI and the Jersey Shore YOU HAVE flood insurance. Same with the coastal areas of Queens, Brooklyn and Staten Island. Not in the Bronx or Sussex County NJ.
LI has had many hurricanes.

[PlumberKhan]

Originally Posted by palmetto defender

My point. I do not have earthquake insurance. Would not expect NYers to have tornado insurance.
BUT, on LI and the Jersey Shore YOU HAVE flood insurance. Same with the coastal areas of Queens, Brooklyn and Staten Island. Not in the Bronx or Sussex County NJ.
LI has had many hurricanes.

Makes total sense.

Someone with some entrepreneurial skills could make something that would help people determine whether or not purchasing flood insurance would be a good financial decision.

Maybe some sort of handbook. Or iPhone app.

Or maybe something as simple as a map.


THAT'S IT!!!

A MAP!!

You could use historical weather data to predict the likelihood of a geographical location being affected by floods.

A flood plain map.

That would be really handy.

[DDNYjets]

I hope they rework the bill. It was full of earmarks.

Sorry for your struggles Quantum. You should look into if your insurance provider has something called comprehensive insurance. Pretty much includes everything. You want to make sure you have "windstorm" coverage as well as "hurricane" coverage. There is a difference. Comprehensive insurance pretty much covers all the technicalities that insurance companies love to deny claims under.

[Axil]

Originally Posted by doggin94it

The public damage of massive destruction. Take NYC (or NO) out of the economy (or some percentage thereof) and it's bad for everyone.

The system is flexible enough to absorb individual tragedies without noticeable impact. A mass disaster like this, though . . .

I just don't buy this. Especially in the case of cities like New York. NYC was not going to go bankrupt and cease to be the largest economic center in the nation. It could've rebuilt and continued on it's own. Instead Bloomberg managed to secure a free ride from FEMA. FEMA is paying a greater percentage of NYC's bill than it did for NO after Katrina, or Joplin after it got leveled by a tornado. Where is the sense in that?

Also as to your previous post about covering the homeowner where reasonable precautions failed. Look at New Orleans. How could you possibly think it was reasonable to put a city in a hole in the ground next to an ocean? Similarly, Warfish's point about individuals getting the shaft stands. If three homes are destroyed in a freak blizzard in Arizona, the government isn't going to step in. It's about politics and voters, not need or fairness, or anything of that nature.

I don't have a problem with disaster relief. I think in times like Katrina or Sandy the federal government should deploy their government to attempt to mitigate the disaster. Help sand bag levies. Save people trapped in their homes. Distribute food, water and shelter to whose driven from their homes by disaster. That is disaster relief. Paying out for damages is not.

[palmetto defender]

Originally Posted by PlumberKhan

Makes total sense.

Someone with some entrepreneurial skills could make something that would help people determine whether or not purchasing flood insurance would be a good financial decision.

Maybe some sort of handbook. Or iPhone app.

Or maybe something as simple as a map.


THAT'S IT!!!

A MAP!!

You could use historical weather data to predict the likelihood of a geographical location being affected by floods.

A flood plain map.

That would be really handy.

Assume you being facetious as usual since ALL the above exist.
Each year our newspaper publishes a thorough guide prior to the hurricane season advising EVERYTHING needed to know and prepare. Including topographical maps, probable flood zones etc. Useful for insurance also. And it's FREE.
Perhaps papers like the NY Times or Newsday could spare some ink from their lib agenda and do something of a public service for a change?

[PlumberKhan]

Originally Posted by palmetto defender

Assume you being facetious as usual since ALL the above exist.
Each year our newspaper publishes a thorough guide prior to the hurricane season advising EVERYTHING needed to know and prepare. Including topographical maps, probable flood zones etc. Useful for insurance also. And it's FREE.
Perhaps papers like the NY Times or Newsday could spare some ink from their lib agenda and do something of a public service for a change?

http://www.riskmeter.com/Resources/n...comparison.pdf

http://www2.sunysuffolk.edu/mandias/...urge_zones.pdf

[palmetto defender]

Originally Posted by PlumberKhan

http://www.riskmeter.com/Resources/n...comparison.pdf

http://www2.sunysuffolk.edu/mandias/...urge_zones.pdf

So it exists!! As I noted. And yet the brilliant people in the NY Metro ignore it. And the "world class" newpapers fail to inform.
So odd that the Southern redneck folks get this information and the sophisticated people of the world's capital do not.
Again, personal responsibility. Know you area and its pitfalls. Be aware of the potential needs - insurance, evacuation routes and shelter, safety and preventitive measures.

[doggin94it]

Originally Posted by Warfish

I'm not a system, I'm a person. The losses I've experienced at times in life are no less than those of a Sandy victim, and I no less blameless in being the victim of them.

Damn straight. But it's your first sentence that's precisely my point. Federal disaster relief isn't there to address the problems of individuals, it's there to address a systemic problem. That systemic problem is addressed by addressing the individual problems that comprise it, but damage relief only becomes a "public responsibility" (to use your phrase) when it's addressing a systemic disaster, not a personal/individual one.

Doesn't matter, it's a lost debate. Clearly when you experience loss due to a big storm, you're just a better person more worthy of being subsidized than people who simply experience loss individually. And I'm a greedy selfish dick for even questioning it.

Actually, I'm lucky enough to have escaped with relatively little loss for which I'm getting no FEMA funds at all, and I don't think you're a selfish dick. I just think you're wrong as a matter of policy, for the reasons I stated.

But apparently, anyone who disagrees with you must be doing so for emotional/selfish reasons, not policy reasons.