15 Dec 12
Originally posted by moon1969No, you get a clue, and you might try reading a post of mine in context. FEMA can't possibly indemnify everyone. The most rabid pro-government advocates will acknowledge it can't fulfill that role.
A red herring. The FEMA oayout is miniscule. Also, learn a little bit about underwriting risk. This is spread out over millions of people, millions of taxpayers, and a huge geographic area. Get a clue.
Underwriting risk is also limited to people who share the same risk. For example asking people in the Rockies or Great Plains to share hurricane risk with those on the Gulf or Atlantic coast, would be tantamount to making Eskimos buy fire insurance for their igloos, or people on the coasts to have coverage for avalanches.
- Joined
- 29 Dec 08
- Moves
- 6788
15 Dec 12
Originally posted by whodeyPurely personal losses should be covered by personal insurance with suitable regulations to ensure wide availability. In some cases, having personal insurance can be a legal requirement, such as automobile insurance, and in some cases lenders require personal insurance for example real estate.
At what point should a personal loss be reimbursed by the American tax payer?
Put another way, how many homes/cars/etc should be lost before the government bails them out?
Coverage of massive widespread amounts of personal loss not covered by personal insurance should be decided by the political process on an ad hoc basis. in advance. Emergency and preventive or damage control services (fire department, etc.) should be publicly funded and managed. (Study the history of fire departments in London if you disagree.) In some cases private lenders will not provide coverage and the state has to get involved to some extent, for example earthquake and storm insurance in certain regions.
Often in cases of widespread damage, publicly owned infrastructure or public utility infrastructure is involved. Management of risks and losses should be covered by taxes and utility rates that anticipate such damage.
15 Dec 12
Originally posted by whodeyWhich is as I said, why we are in debt up to our ears. Best example is the entitlement twins, SS and Medicare. They were launched without a hint of underwriting. They go along blissfully ignorant of changing demographics or risks, such as radically increased longevity, or even inflation.
I'm simply describing the way it is now. The American government is there to insure corporate America, domestic America, and those abroad.
15 Dec 12
Originally posted by whodeyThe proposed 2013 budget for FEMA is $13 billion which is equal to the cost of six B2 bombers. Keep in mind this FEMA is much more than disaster relief but also disaster prep, and also having nothing to do with disasters but with security and other homeland issues. Of course, in any year, the President and Congress can vote to give additional money for natural disaster relief.
Lots of people obtain things from government, i.e. the taxpayer, that costs them little to nothing. So? I'm asking what is the cost of FEMA?
One thing to keep in mind in intense and widespread natural disasters, the devastation to the public infrastrucutre and the incredible amount of debris, can push the local entities such as the city and county into bankruptcy, and really the only entity that can adequately handle such is the federal government.
15 Dec 12
Originally posted by JS357"Coverage of massive widespread amounts of personal loss not covered by personal insurance should be decided by the political process on an ad hoc basis. in advance"
Purely personal losses should be covered by personal insurance with suitable regulations to ensure wide availability. In some cases, having personal insurance can be a legal requirement, such as automobile insurance, and in some cases lenders require personal insurance for example real estate.
Coverage of massive widespread amounts of personal loss not cov ...[text shortened]... nt of risks and losses should be covered by taxes and utility rates that anticipate such damage.
It looks as if the final two words "in advance" were added as an afterthought. Doesn't that conflict in reality with "by the political process on an ad hoc basis."?
Would not that make government aid, subject to political favor?
15 Dec 12
Originally posted by moon1969"Keep in mind this FEMA is much more than disaster relief but also disaster prep, and also having nothing to do with disasters but with security and other homeland issues."
The proposed 2013 budget for FEMA is $13 billion which is equal to the cost of six B2 bombers. Keep in mind this FEMA is much more than disaster relief but also disaster prep, and also having nothing to do with disasters but with security and other homeland issues. Of course, in any year, the President and Congress can vote to give additional money for na ...[text shortened]... ankruptcy, and really the only entity that can adequately handle such is the federal government.
Like maintaining camps with barbed wire to keep people in? Having mass burial sites at these camps?
15 Dec 12
2 edits
Originally posted by normbenignYour analogy does not make sense. FEMA gives coverage for avalanches to Eskimos, hurricane coverage for the Gulf and Atlatntic coast, tornado coverage for the Great Plains, and so on.
No, you get a clue, and you might try reading a post of mine in context. FEMA can't possibly indemnify everyone. The most rabid pro-government advocates will acknowledge it can't fulfill that role.
Underwriting risk is also limited to people who share the same risk. For example asking people in the Rockies or Great Plains to share hurricane risk with ...[text shortened]... buy fire insurance for their igloos, or people on the coasts to have coverage for avalanches.
It is a stated goal of the federal government to share the risks for the respective natural disasters in the various regions of the country. This is stated and done by our elected representatives and the duly-elected President, and by the appointees in the executive branch who implement the shared risk. We as a society in majority rule choose to do that. It is smart and efficient. And the federal government is the only entity who can do such.
Lastly, keep in mind, that natural disasters in any region affect all of us. It is beneficial for all of us to assist locally in natural disasters, whether or not we reside in that region the natural disaster occurs.
15 Dec 12
Originally posted by normbenignNorm, I am just so glad that you are in the freak minority, and your ideology and politics will never be in the majority. Thank goodness for our country and our families.
"Keep in mind this FEMA is much more than disaster relief but also disaster prep, and also having nothing to do with disasters but with security and other homeland issues."
Like maintaining camps with barbed wire to keep people in? Having mass burial sites at these camps?
15 Dec 12
Originally posted by JS357What should be considered "massive"? I block, a town, a city, etc.?
Purely personal losses should be covered by personal insurance with suitable regulations to ensure wide availability. In some cases, having personal insurance can be a legal requirement, such as automobile insurance, and in some cases lenders require personal insurance for example real estate.
Coverage of massive widespread amounts of personal loss not cov ...[text shortened]... nt of risks and losses should be covered by taxes and utility rates that anticipate such damage.
15 Dec 12
Originally posted by normbenignIt's not about paying for it, it is about our "right" to it.
Which is as I said, why we are in debt up to our ears. Best example is the entitlement twins, SS and Medicare. They were launched without a hint of underwriting. They go along blissfully ignorant of changing demographics or risks, such as radically increased longevity, or even inflation.
15 Dec 12
Originally posted by moon1969Has the federal government ever spent money that you did not agree with?
Your analogy does not make sense. FEMA gives coverage for avalanches to Eskimos, hurricane coverage for the Gulf and Atlatntic coast, tornado coverage for the Great Plains, and so on.
It is a stated goal of the federal government to share the risks for the respective natural disasters in the various regions of the country. This is stated and done b ...[text shortened]... cally in natural disasters, whether or not we reside in that region the natural disaster occurs.
15 Dec 12
Originally posted by moon1969I care nothing about being with the majority. Any majority that would elect both "W" and Obama for two terms is retarded.
Norm, I am just so glad that you are in the freak minority, and your ideology and politics will never be in the majority. Thank goodness for our country and our families.
15 Dec 12
3 edits
Originally posted by whodeyYour opinion is meaningless. Fortunately, our country is majority rule. And it is the majority who has the biggest impact on our lives and that of our families. Again, I am very glad that you and Norm are not in the majority. Freak fringe people like you and Norm have little effect on the country and our families, thank goodness.
I care nothing about being with the majority. Any majority that would elect both "W" and Obama for two terms is retarded.