14 Dec 12
There should be no limit, because that's the point of having a government, and paying taxes to it. Of course, there should be a definition of what qualifies as a disaster. Common occurances like fires shouldn't count; for that, there should be homeowners insurance. The same should apply, if you own a home near an area where hurricanes, tornados or floods are a legitimate threat.
In other words, any place that has an unexpected natural disaster, like NYC, or a disaster that's due to the fault of the local government (like with Katrina, and the failed levees [sp?]) should be helped by the government, without limit; and by "without limit", I mean to the extent that the government can reasonably help victims of disasters, without forsaking other aspects of the country that need government resources.
14 Dec 12
Originally posted by vivifyVivi - baby. You're adorable. But I'm glad you're not running the country.
There should be no limit, because that's the point of having a government, and paying taxes to it. Of course, there should be a definition of what qualifies as a disaster. Common occurances like fires shouldn't count; for that, there should be homeowners insurance. The same should apply, if you own a home near an area where hurricanes, tornados or floods ar ...[text shortened]... f disasters, without forsaking other aspects of the country that need government resources.
14 Dec 12
Originally posted by whodeyWe shouldn't help anyone ever. Let them rot. We have enough to worry about just taking care of ourselves.
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?
14 Dec 12
Originally posted by vivifyYour position is still incoherent.
There should be no limit, because that's the point of having a government, and paying taxes to it. Of course, there should be a definition of what qualifies as a disaster. Common occurances like fires shouldn't count; for that, there should be homeowners insurance. The same should apply, if you own a home near an area where hurricanes, tornados or floods ar ...[text shortened]... f disasters, without forsaking other aspects of the country that need government resources.
If the role of government is to reimburse me for expenses, whether it be retirement, health care, home, auto, etc., then why have evil private insurance at all?
It seems to me that if I total my car, the capitalist bureaucrat does not care. However, if my entire neighborhood has the same thing happen, all of a sudden they start to care more. But if the entire region looses their car, then we must pay them taxpayer money.
The only difference appears to be size and scope of loss in relation to government funds being given to "victims". This is because size and scope equal votes. So essentially they care nothing about Whodey, just votes.
14 Dec 12
Originally posted by KingDavid403WOW" that's harsh.
We shouldn't help anyone ever. Let them rot. We have enough to worry about just taking care of ourselves.
I thought you were a Democrat and a Christian.
You sound in that post like a rabid Republican.
Screw them I'm alright Jack.
In some parts of Ireland People were badly affected by floods.
They found that despite taking their money...the Insurance companies
kept finding legal loopholes in order not to pay out any money on these claims.
The Government had to step in and help.
But the Insurance companies are still unrepentant and until new legislation
is brought in they will continue to be parasites living off and making lots of
money from your impending disasters.
Show a little compassion man, one day your property may be destroyed
and the Insurance people will just flip you the finger.
What will you do then?
14 Dec 12
Originally posted by johnnylongwoodylol I was just playing my republican role. Looks like I did pretty well. 😉
WOW" that's harsh.
I thought you were a Democrat and a Christian.
You sound in that post like a rabid Republican.
Screw them I'm alright Jack.
In some parts of Ireland People were badly affected by floods.
They found that despite taking their money...the Insurance companies
kept finding legal loopholes in order not to pay out any money ...[text shortened]... destroyed
and the Insurance people will just flip you the finger.
What will you do then?
14 Dec 12
Originally posted by KingDavid403You did well then,
lol I was just playing my republican role. Looks like I did pretty well. 😉
they should have run you instead of Romney.
I always laugh at the Simpsons when they have the meeting of the GOP
with Montgomery Burns in the chair.
Reminds me of Charlton Heston.......
"FROM MY COLD DEAD HANDS!"
14 Dec 12
You have the other side of the coin too, where one talks of overseas aid.
There is a diplomatic row going on at the moment where millions of Euro
has gone missing from the Irish aid package given to Uganda.
The paper trail leads to the office of the Prime Minister of Uganda.
Donations have now been suspended.
But yet the EU expects every member state to donate at least 3%
of their GDP to overseas aid.
I know that morally we should and do help one another
but when you come across scams like this what should you do?
The ordinary population then suffers when aid is stopped.
14 Dec 12
Originally posted by whodeyI didn't say the role of government is to "reimburse" for "expenses". The role of government to help in a crisis. Some types of crisis can be covered with private insurance; in those cases, it should be the responsibility of the homeowner. Others, like with Sandy or Katrina, are much more dire; this is where the government should step in.
Your position is still incoherent.
If the role of government is to reimburse me for expenses, whether it be retirement, health care, home, auto, etc., then why have evil private insurance at all?
It seems to me that if I total my car, the capitalist bureaucrat does not care. However, if my entire neighborhood has the same thing happen, all of a sudden they start to care more. But if the entire region looses their car, then we must pay them taxpayer money.
You're playing a word game, something rather disgusting to do when discussing politics. There's a difference between when you total your car, and when when millions of people lose their homes.
The only difference appears to be size and scope of loss in relation to government funds being given to "victims". This is because size and scope equal votes. So essentially they care nothing about Whodey, just votes
That's because there are local organizations that can help with the problems of just one household. However, only the government can help with a crisis the size of Sandy. That's not a matter of "votes", that's just common sense.
15 Dec 12
Originally posted by vivifyWho decides which crisis is more dire?
I didn't say the role of government is to "reimburse" for "expenses". The role of government to help in a crisis. Some types of crisis can be covered with private insurance; in those cases, it should be the responsibility of the homeowner. Others, like with Sandy or Katrina, are much more dire; this is where the government should step in.
[quote]It ...[text shortened]... isis the size of Sandy. That's not a matter of "votes", that's just common sense.
Let me guess, when it happens on a large scale then its considered dire, but if not then screw the other guy.
I propose that the reason government cares about the mob and not the individual is twofold. They wish to secure votes, and they wish to curb any economic down turn so that more money keeps flowing into the system. It has nothing to do with a concern for the individual, especially if private insurance is of no or little use to the person in question.
15 Dec 12
Originally posted by johnnylongwoody3%? No EU member gets even close to that figure. Personally I think development aid is a bit outdated. In principle I would be fine with it if it was effective, but it usually just ends up in the hands of corrupt officials, or at least a large part of it. Instead, a better approach would be to invest in businesses in developing nations so their economies can develop.
You have the other side of the coin too, where one talks of overseas aid.
There is a diplomatic row going on at the moment where millions of Euro
has gone missing from the Irish aid package given to Uganda.
The paper trail leads to the office of the Prime Minister of Uganda.
Donations have now been suspended.
But yet the EU expects every ...[text shortened]... s scams like this what should you do?
The ordinary population then suffers when aid is stopped.
Concerning natural disasters: people should get insurance for that if they want it, though I don't have any problem with governments assisting in the case of major disasters.
15 Dec 12
2 edits
Originally posted by whodeyYou give a weird and distorted characterization. As someone who has been through mutliple natural disaster rebuilds, I can tell you that private insurance is incredibly inadequate. As a common example, the last hurricane to demolish Houston did $30,000 damage to my secretary's house and Allstate estimated the damage at $5,000. I reviewed the estimate and it was so disingenuous. Fortunately, FEMA gave her a low interest loan. An additional route to her was legal action against Allstate which would cost her and could drag on for years against sophisticated Allstate attorneys. I saw so many conservative people and who had insurance, became big supporters of FEMA and government assistance, and recognized the sham of private insurance in regional disasters.
Your position is still incoherent.
If the role of government is to reimburse me for expenses, whether it be retirement, health care, home, auto, etc., then why have evil private insurance at all?
It seems to me that if I total my car, the capitalist bureaucrat does not care. However, if my entire neighborhood has the same thing happen, all of a sudden ecause size and scope equal votes. So essentially they care nothing about Whodey, just votes.
For an isolated individual "disaster," such as a car wreck or a house fire, the insurance company quite often pays reasonably. But in regional disasters such as with a natural disaster, the insurance companies clamp down on payouts to survive.
We as citizens in the individual States pay federal taxes. Thus, the citizens in each state or region each contribute a little to have FEMA and government assistance in natural disasters. It is like insurance. We pay a little every year, and we know that if we have a flood, hurricane, tornado, etc.. in our town -- and the town and our property are subjected to massive devastation and destroyed, that the government including FEMA will assist. And it is incredibly beneficial how it helps people and families including those with private insurance when no private entity exists that can adequately help. I have witnessed it.
15 Dec 12
3 edits
Originally posted by whodeyYou clearly have no understanding. Insurance companies generally pay close to adequate for a typical individual claim in normal circumstances. Quite the opposite, in natural disasters affecting hundreds or thousands or millions of people in a region, the private insurance companies revise their payouts and only pay pennies on the dollar. I have reviewed many estimates from major insurance companies such as Allstate (who generally pay well in the individual case), and they are utterly ridiculously low in natural disasters.
Who decides which crisis is more dire?
Let me guess, when it happens on a large scale then its considered dire, but if not then screw the other guy.
I propose that the reason government cares about the mob and not the individual is twofold. They wish to secure votes, and they wish to curb any economic down turn so that more money keeps flowing into the ...[text shortened]... he individual, especially if private insurance is of no or little use to the person in question.
Plus, in natural disasters, there are issues of restoring and rebuilding public infrastructure, clearing of debris (which is a major deal), and other common shared issues not covered by private insurance, and that could bankrupt a local community or county. Citizens in all States pay a little to the federal government to have FEMA as insurance.
15 Dec 12
Originally posted by moon1969I have personally been "screwed" as well by private insurance. Your point is? Is this a compelling argument to simply do away with private insurance altogether?
You give a weird and distorted characterization. As someone who has been through mutliple natural disaster rebuilds, I can tell you that private insurance is incredibly inadequate. As a common example, the last hurricane to demolish Houston did $30,000 damage to my secretary's house and Allstate estimated the damage at $5,000. I reviewed the estimate an ...[text shortened]... ivate insurance when no private entity exists that can adequately help. I have witnessed it.
So I guess FEMA would rather have the tax payer pay for what the insurance company should have payed for by loaning her money, but I disagree. In fact, the only response government has toward such things as rising tuition is to make loans more affodable. You call that compassion? LOL.