E. g. - gambling establishments, bars, brothels, property controlled by felons(?)...
Felons are citizens too.Loren Booda said:property controlled by felons(?)...
What's left?Loren Booda said:E. g. - gambling establishments, bars, brothels, property controlled by felons(?)...
Wouldn't insurance companies be footing the bill for establishments like those and other private property?Loren Booda said:E. g. - gambling establishments, bars, brothels, property controlled by felons(?)...
Are you sure? I thought those funds were used for some other red cross operations in another country...oldunion said:some red cross funds from 9/11 were misappropriated for military usage.
http://www.usatoday.com/money/industries/insurance/2005-09-15-katrina-insurance-lawsuit_x.htmMississippi Attorney General Jim Hood sued five insurance companies Thursday to force them to pay for storm-surge damage related to Hurricane Katrina.
The complaint, filed in Hinds County Chancery Court, claims that Allstate, State Farm, Nationwide, USAA and Mississippi Farm Bureau policies "attempt to exclude coverage for storm-surge damage" caused by the hurricane.
This is "an unfair or deceptive trade practice" under state law, Hood says. Hood also asked for a temporary restraining order to prevent insurers from paying policyholders to get them to sign waivers saying they have flood damage.
http://www.southbendtribune.com/stories/2005/09/11/business.20050911-sbt-MICH-B4-Firms_received_9_11.sto [Broken]The government's $5 billion effort to help small businesses recover from the Sept. 11 attacks was so loosely managed that it gave low-interest loans to companies that didn't need terrorism relief -- or even know they were getting it, The Associated Press has found.
And while some at New York's Ground Zero couldn't get assistance they desperately sought, companies far removed from the devastation -- a South Dakota country radio station, a Virgin Islands perfume shop, a Utah dog boutique and more than 100 Dunkin' Donuts and Subway sandwich shops -- had no problem winning the government-guaranteed loans.
Insurance companies exist to make money. Overall, the insurance premiums collected has to exceed what they're paying out. The idea is that anyone who has a reasonable chance of their house burning down will buy fire insurance since they can't afford to replace a house on their own. Very few houses burn down, so the insurance is affordable and the insurance company makes a profit.Pengwuino said:The disputes will probably be minimal since I'd suspect everyone with insurance has insurance for a hurricane. Wouldn't make sense to just get flood insurance in a hurricane prone area or just an insurance that covers wind damage when you live under sea level.
And yes, I should have added that I didn't mean the criminal places. Their criminals, no money to them.
As far as the public money... why should it go to housing? Insurance is suppose ot be the one paying out for that that... i mean that IS what people are paying for when they pay their policy... and for those who are uninsured... they should have a lower priority in the public funding because hey, you should have insurance, its available to you, its a risk you take for not having it. Also, I suspect public housing (where I wonder if they are even required to have insurance) would fall under public projects (ie. low income housing) so that's not a worry I hope.
Federal funds should be used to help the homeless and jobless until they can find new housing and jobs (in a reasonable time and amount), to help cities with infrastructure, or loans to business (obviously not for criminal enterprise)--loans that are to be repaid as would any venture capital. We will collectively pay higher insurance premiums to cover the insurance claims.Loren Booda said:Penguino,
There will be many disputes with those who suffer, say, wind damage vs flood damage. As for the uninsured?
Any property operated as a criminal enterprise should be ineligible for any public funds or insurance, a consequence of the RICO Act, etc.
Is the $200,000,000,000 contributed by the federal government to the city and environs only for public projects, not housing in general for instance?
Totally agree with you....SOS2008 said:As for the uninsured, here is a question... If Americans can know that the government will bail them out when they don't have insurance, what is the incentive to have insurance, and how is this fair to those who were insured and probably paid premiums for year? Is this government responsibility toward citizens? I don't feel it is.
:rofl: :rofl: Send to the Daily Show.Echo 6 Sierra said:I'm just guessing here, but I'm thinking that a whole-whole BUNCH of the people displaced by the flooding were renting the places they lived in. When the residences are repaired/rebuilt can we honestly say that the rent will be affordable? Doubtful. I'm going to call this one early and say that the majority of the funds are going to go to businesses that provided relief. Oh, and don't forget the Superdome repairs and repairs to remaining roadways, and claims against Government officials that won't come out of THEIR pocket.
OH! I KNOW!!! Rebuild the Port OF N.O. and SUPER-SIZE it because that is where all the oil from Iraq will enter the US from. We can call it New Oileans! We will justify it by saying that it will bring a job or two and provide a tax thingy for the city.
...now...how to pay for the rebuilding of New Oileans AND fund a needless war without raising taxes...hmmm(taps toe)...hmmm(still tapping)...I remember someone saying "no new taxes" once and then changing their mind in JUST this situation and it worked. (ring-ring)Hello Dad? Yes George? Who was it that said...?
Darwin award?Pengwuino said:But then again if its such a guarantee that there is going to be a flood at some point, what the hell are you doing living there :tongue2:
Skyhunter said:Darwin award?
Just a theory.
Thats the ONE good thing about where i live. Aside from god's rather on mankind, no chance of a flood. Theres also never been an earthquake that actually caused any damage in my city... no real stormy weather... no tornados.. we rule :DSkyhunter said:Darwin award?
Just a theory.
Oh....you mean aside from the five tornados that came down in November of 1996...I was nearly killed!Pengwuino said:Thats the ONE good thing about where i live. Aside from god's rather on mankind, no chance of a flood. Theres also never been an earthquake that actually caused any damage in my city... no real stormy weather... no tornados.. we rule :D