E. g. - gambling establishments, bars, brothels, property controlled by felons(?)...
Felons are citizens too.
some red cross funds from 9/11 were misappropriated for military usage.
Wouldn't insurance companies be footing the bill for establishments like those and other private property?
Are you sure? I thought those funds were used for some other red cross operations in another country...
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?
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.
Most Gulf coast residents had coverage for wind damage. Much of the damage resulted from the wind blown storm surge. The insurance comapanies are denying these claims.
And that's what lawsuits are for!
The $5 billion in 9/11 funds didn't exactly go where they were supposed to.
Oh, I thought we were talking about the red cross funds that people were complaining about. They wanted the money to go directly to 9/11 things and to the victims only. Was the US government giving money to the Red Cross in your case?
Lessons in etiquette for Penqwino.
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...?
Wow that was rather pathetic.
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.
People who live on high ground in a dry climate aren't going to buy flood insurance just to lower the cost for folks who live in a flood plain. That means the insurance rates charged for people who are at risk for flooding are so high that no one could afford insurance - if insurance companies even sold flood insurance.
The federal government sells flood insurance, at a loss (in other words, taxpayers in desert high country are still paying for flood insurance), but caps the amount of money a person can collect. The cap would cover smaller, cheaper homes, but fall short of the replacement cost for your middle class homes. For most businesses that have flood insurance, the cap is far below what they lost.
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.
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.
Totally agree with you....
Yah that does make sense. Started to think about it and was wondering exactly where an insurance company could make money on flood insurance. Theres very little "maybe" with floods. Either there's no chance in hell you could have a flood... or its almost guaranteed. The middle ground is where insurance companies make money. Here in CA is probably a great place ot sell insurance from earthquakes. People probably think its a decent enough danger to get it but it doesn't happen enough to make many payouts necessary.
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:
:rofl: :rofl: Send to the Daily Show.
Separate names with a comma.