Ace of Spades HQ

March 04, 2014

GOP Finds A Hill To Die On: Protecting Federal Flood Insurance Subsidies
— DrewM

In 2012 the GOP actually managed to pass a bill to reform the outdated and heavily in debt flood insurance program. Less than two years later they are desperately trying to undo the market oriented reforms they've already passed.

Reforms to flood insurance approved by Congress in 2012 would be scaled back under a deal reached Monday by House Republicans and Democrats.
The rare bipartisan deal, which GOP leaders plan to bring to the floor for a vote on Tuesday, responds to complaints from flooded-out constituents who said the 2012 law would require them to pay much more for federal flood insurance.
...
Conservative groups have accused GOP leaders of backing away from reforms that were meant to slowly reduce the $24 billion in debt racked up by the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP).
Several conservative groups are calling on members of the House to vote down the bill, and say the 2012 reforms should stay in place to help reduce the NFIP's debt. Groups like the Heritage Foundation, the Club for Growth, the National Taxpayers Union and others have come out against the bill.

What kind of reforms are the GOP so desperate to repeal?

Congress took steps in 2012 to reduce the subsidies and require rates to be based on a propertyÂ’s degree of flood riskÂ—an essential element of viable insurance. The BiggertÂ–Waters Flood Insurance Reform Act established a multi-year phase-out of premium subsidies for commercial properties and vacation homes, and for primary residences after ownership changes.
Members of the Â“flood caucusÂ” and others are now attempting to renege on the reforms at the behest of local politicians and property owners who complain that their premiums are too costly. The $1.1 trillion omnibus spending bill approved in January prohibits the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) from implementing some rate changes for one year. Meanwhile, the Senate approved legislation this month to delay the subsidy phase-out for four years.
The anti-reform campaign is largely fueled by claims that legions of property owners are suffering calamitous premium shock. In fact, only 8 percent of the 5.5 million policyholders face an imminent increase, which will phase in over several years.

So the GOP manage to pass a bill that would require people to pay fair market value for insurance based on the actual risk the insured faces and phase out federal subsidies for premiums and they are feverishly working to undo that less than two years later?

It seems making it cheaper for people to live in flood prone areas is a core GOP value. Maybe even a constitutional right!

And you think they are actually going to do something about ObamaCare if you just leave them alone and stop supporting conservative challengers?

We keep hearing how the House can't do anything because it's just 1/2 of Congress. But this is a case where they DID something and could just sit back. But no, they are working hard to find away to hand back what they've already achieved. You know, like the sequester.

The best part of the big GOP wins this November will how shocked, SHOCKED some people are when electing the same old go along, get along Republicans doesn't lead to conservative action.

Sure it's cold comfort but it's better than nothing at all.

Posted by: DrewM at 07:28 AM | Comments (311)
Post contains 569 words, total size 4 kb.

1 I'll get the others.

Posted by: flounder at March 04, 2014 07:30 AM (Kkt/i)

2 Got to vote for them though. Just think what kind of reform the donkrats would have in store.

Posted by: GMB musings from a madman at March 04, 2014 07:31 AM (nkPV9)

3 John Stossel wrote about this program in one of his books. He thanked tax payers for rebuilding his beach front home after it was damaged in a hurricane or something. Grrrrrrrrrr!!!

Posted by: Rich at March 04, 2014 07:31 AM (vfjU7)

4 DREWM. troll on other thread needs a looksie. World is Insane at (Q4xrB)

Posted by: willow at March 04, 2014 07:32 AM (nqBYe)

5 Apologies for the early OT: From the old thread: 40 year record global warmening, er climate change, er weather.

http://preview.tinyurl.com/oqs8nwv

NASA imagery Moderate Resolution Imaging Spectroradiometer (MODIS) on NASAÂ’s Aqua satellite

http://preview.tinyurl.com/kbnrvhb

Posted by: flounder at March 04, 2014 07:32 AM (Kkt/i)

6 Remember, those flood plain maps that insurers base their rates on are generated by the US Geological Service. Top Government Men.

Posted by: garrett at March 04, 2014 07:32 AM (WrFAj)

7 DESPAIR ALL IS LOST. Listen, I don't trust the Republicans to do anything more than be corrupted by DC. It gets to everyone eventually. However, I need a group I can hold their feet to the fire, which is not the democrats. Winning in November is no excuse to stop trying to move the party rightward. It's only phase I.

Posted by: tsrblke, PhD(c) (No Really!) at March 04, 2014 07:33 AM (hq5sb)

8 Henceforth, the others have been summoned forthwith!

Posted by: rickb223 at March 04, 2014 07:33 AM (h1D+w)

9 Yeah, fresh meat, errr I mean thread.

Posted by: Misanthropic Humanitarian at March 04, 2014 07:34 AM (HVff2)

10 8 Henceforth, the others have been summoned forthwith!

Posted by: rickb223 at March 04, 2014 11:33 AM (h1D+w)

Verily?!

Posted by: Kinley Ardal at March 04, 2014 07:34 AM (9LuAk)

11 Which is why John Cornyn did not receive my vote today.

Posted by: SH at March 04, 2014 07:34 AM (gmeXX)

12 And you think they are actually going to do something about ObamaCare if you just leave them alone and stop supporting conservative challengers? well yes they will 'fix' the bad parts. uh hmm.

Posted by: willow at March 04, 2014 07:34 AM (nqBYe)

13 The best part of the big GOP wins this November will how shocked, SHOCKED some people are when electing the same old go along, get along Republicans doesn't lead to conservative action. The GOP deserves our support because they lie to us, and that's better than people who tell the truth about screwing you.

Posted by: Bevel Lemelisk at March 04, 2014 07:34 AM (d2QQ4)

14 Is this the valley to drown in?

Posted by: Bertram Cabot Jr. at March 04, 2014 07:35 AM (YgTB4)

15 k, back to cleaning.

Posted by: willow at March 04, 2014 07:35 AM (nqBYe)

16 I live "in a flood area" - its bullshit - anything that gets wet in florida when it rains is a fucking flood area

its one of those tautological thing - flood insurance in required if you live ANYWHERE almost in florida, and so it gets more expensive since its decided that you can never lose anything, and its required to why not keep driving up the cost so it has to be subsidized etc etc etc

Posted by: chelsea danger at March 04, 2014 07:35 AM (KfDDN)

17 Fiddles/Rome/Combustion.

Posted by: Idaho Spudboy at March 04, 2014 07:36 AM (JyNPg)

18 Winning in November is no excuse to stop trying to move the party rightward. It's only phase I. Posted by: tsrblke, PhD Actually its Phase 3, you lost count of 1994 and 2010.

Posted by: Misanthropic Humanitarian at March 04, 2014 07:36 AM (HVff2)

19 Brilliant.

Posted by: Andy at March 04, 2014 07:36 AM (aS4Rn)

20 In before the party excusing hacks.

Posted by: buzzion at March 04, 2014 07:36 AM (LI48c)

21 FREEDOM FOR THE SAND PEOPLE!

Posted by: GOP Bumpersticker Generator at March 04, 2014 07:36 AM (JQuNB)

22 17 Fiddles/Rome/Combustion. Posted by: Idaho Spudboy at March 04, 2014 11:36 AM (JyNPg) Go on...

Posted by: cajun caret at March 04, 2014 07:36 AM (UZQM8)

23 Henceforth, the others have been summoned forthwith! Posted by: rickb223 at March 04, 2014 11:33 AM (h1D+w) Verily?! Posted by: Kinley Ardal Indubitably!

Posted by: rickb223 at March 04, 2014 07:36 AM (h1D+w)

24 That weasel Cantor is behind gathering the votes for this. Does that rodent wearing imbecile even pretend to be "conservative" any more?

Posted by: Captain Hate at March 04, 2014 07:36 AM (xowO9)

25 4 DREWM.

troll on other thread needs a looksie.

World is Insane at (Q4xrB)

Posted by: willow at March 04, 2014 11:32 AM (nqBYe)

Might also want to check on these two.

bVHVL OpXhV

Posted by: flounder at March 04, 2014 07:37 AM (Kkt/i)

26 This sounds more indicative than anything of the Tea Party/wealthy donor split in the party.

Posted by: AmishDude at March 04, 2014 07:37 AM (T0NGe)

27 "Henceforth, the others have been summoned forthwith!

Posted by: rickb223 at March 04, 2014 11:33 AM (h1D+w)

Verily?!"

Gaze in yon direction...
Nood!

Posted by: Village Idiot's Apprentice at March 04, 2014 07:37 AM (DPkKe)

28 Everybody has at least one hand in the cookie jar. All DC wants to do is make it bigger so that we can all have two hands in the cookie jar.

Posted by: SH at March 04, 2014 07:37 AM (gmeXX)

29 This makes me feel SOOOOooo much better. I knew I should have gone to the liquor store last night.

Posted by: LoneStarHeeb at March 04, 2014 07:37 AM (BZAd3)

30 24 That weasel Cantor is behind gathering the votes for this. Does that rodent wearing imbecile even pretend to be "conservative" any more? Posted by: Captain Hate at March 04, 2014 11:36 AM (xowO9 Awfully hard on a RINO JOO aren't you?

Posted by: Misanthropic Humanitarian at March 04, 2014 07:37 AM (HVff2)

31 Early voting in Harris county Texas ( Houston) shows about three to one Republican to Demo. apropos of nothing

Posted by: Velvet Ambition at March 04, 2014 07:37 AM (R8hU8)

32 so who are the pubs that sponsored it name names

Posted by: thunderb at March 04, 2014 07:38 AM (zOTsN)

33 I eagerly await the arrival of the usual suspects who will expain to us or call us idiots for not realizing the genius behind this, how we have to bend a little to win elections, because once they've won, "mission accomplished" and all

Posted by: kbdabear at March 04, 2014 07:38 AM (aTXUx)

34 Madeth thou look.

*Oldest trick in the book strikes again*

Posted by: Village Idiot's Apprentice at March 04, 2014 07:38 AM (DPkKe)

35 Which is why John Cornyn did not receive my vote today.

Posted by: SH

Yup, I snubbed him, too. Felt good.

Posted by: Hobbitopoly at March 04, 2014 07:38 AM (fk1A8)

36 Actually its Phase 3, you lost count of 1994 and 2010. Posted by: Misanthropic Humanitarian at March 04, 2014 11:36 AM (HVff2) I'm young, this is really only my entrance into the fight. for that matter, 2010 was really just a roadblock, nothing more. And to that end it's served it's purpose. Imagine where we'd be if we hadn't shoved it in the way. I never expected the 2010 government to be "conservative" just "anti-progressive" they've done what I expected.

Posted by: tsrblke, PhD(c) (No Really!) at March 04, 2014 07:38 AM (hq5sb)

its one of those tautological thing - flood insurance in required if you live ANYWHERE almost in florida, and so it gets more expensive since its decided that you can never lose anything, and its required to why not keep driving up the cost so it has to be subsidized etc etc etc

Posted by: chelsea danger at March 04, 2014 11:35 AM (KfDDN)

Why, it sounds almost like Obamacare!

Posted by: MWR, Proud Tea(rrorist) Party Assault Hobbit [/s][/u][/b][/i] at March 04, 2014 07:38 AM (4df7R)

38 Won't someone think of the vacation homes?

Posted by: Beagle at March 04, 2014 07:38 AM (sOtz/)

39 Early voting in Harris county Texas ( Houston) shows about three to one Republican to Demo. apropos of nothing ----- My informal exit polling showed 5 GOP to none Dem.

Posted by: SH at March 04, 2014 07:38 AM (gmeXX)

40 Which is why John Cornyn did not receive my vote today. It would be nice if Corny went down in the primary. But I seriously doubt that will happen. I just hope enough people vote for one of his rivals that he's forced into a runoff or scared that he might not keep his cushy blow the elites job to at least nudge him in a more conservative direction... ...even though he's the fightin'est fighter whatever fightingly fought for us!!!!

Posted by: naturalfake at March 04, 2014 07:38 AM (0cMkb)

41 Posted by: Village Idiot's Apprentice at March 04, 2014 11:38 AM (DPkKe)

----

I love that commercial....

Posted by: Achilles at March 04, 2014 07:39 AM (nELVU)

42 Verily?!" Gaze in yon direction... Nood! Gaze upon yon lamp so lit....

Posted by: rickb223 at March 04, 2014 07:39 AM (h1D+w)

43 the big GOP wins this November

Drew, I'm pretty convinced that isn't going to happen. I believe the GOP will lose enough seats to lose the House, and will lose seats in the Senate as well, giving the Dems a super-majority.

No matter who is running, they are all pushing socialism and parasitism. Doesn't matter what letter they have slapped in between the parentheses.

Posted by: Null at March 04, 2014 07:39 AM (DuH+r)

44 But guys like super cereal. We need to get Republicans elected, cuz they're different. Or something.

Posted by: Minnfidel at March 04, 2014 07:39 AM (gLjvy)

45 Don't worry, the flood plains voting block is enough to cinch the 2012 elections for your conservative GOP-e.

Posted by: Karl Rover at March 04, 2014 07:40 AM (o3MSL)

46 Posted by: tsrblke, PhD(c) (No Really!) at March 04, 2014 11:38 AM (hq5sb) Glad there are some young people in it. I'm middle aged. My Don't-Give-A-Fuck is acting up again. We (GOP) Had all 3 branches in the 2000s and we fucked that up like a 3 dollar bill.

Posted by: Misanthropic Humanitarian at March 04, 2014 07:40 AM (HVff2)

47 It seems making it cheaper for people to live in flood-prone areas is a core GOP value.

I like to joke that for a bunch of alleged true believers in evolution, the Left really hates letting Darwin work his magic. But in actuality it's lawyers, not just the Left.

Posted by: Ian S. at March 04, 2014 07:40 AM (B/VB5)

48 Might also want to check on these two.
bVHVL OpXhV

Posted by: flounder at March 04, 2014 11:37 AM (Kkt/i)

----

Methinks thou art shitheads.

Posted by: fixerupper at March 04, 2014 07:40 AM (nELVU)

Subsidizing the lifestyle choices of others is a core conservative value.

And why do you all HATE ME!!!

*Sobs*

Posted by: John Boehner at March 04, 2014 07:40 AM (NF2Bf)

50 KATRINA! KATRINA! KATRINA! Say that word 3 times out loud and every black becomes republican and and in turn converts every hispanic they encounter into a republican. One of the incantation's side effects is making each white into a Tea Party conservative. And you though this flood insurance thing was just rino bullshite. It's magic, baby.

Posted by: Erowmero at March 04, 2014 07:41 AM (1gcFZ)

51 We live in a bloody swamp. We need all the insurance we can get.

Posted by: The Swamp King at March 04, 2014 07:41 AM (9Dzmb)

52 for that matter, 2010 was really just a roadblock, nothing more. And to that end it's served it's purpose. Imagine where we'd be if we hadn't shoved it in the way. Broke, a laughingstock on the world stage, with out of control debt increases and a broken healthcare system.

Posted by: Bevel Lemelisk at March 04, 2014 07:41 AM (d2QQ4)

53 Posted by: Misanthropic Humanitarian at March 04, 2014 11:40 AM (HVff2) Compassionate conservatism was a disaster, no doubt. Lessons learned. Hopefully I can carry forward those lessons.

Posted by: tsrblke, PhD(c) (No Really!) at March 04, 2014 07:41 AM (hq5sb)

54 Madeth thou look. *Oldest trick in the book strikes again* I am smelling a new olde english "nood up" meme.

Posted by: rickb223 at March 04, 2014 07:41 AM (h1D+w)

55 Cantor, Biggert, Cassidy of LA, Grimm NY they think it will help Cassidy in his run against Landrieu

Posted by: thunderb at March 04, 2014 07:42 AM (zOTsN)

56 Everyone said I was daft to build a castle on a swamp, but I built in all the same, just to show them.

Posted by: The Swamp King at March 04, 2014 07:42 AM (9Dzmb)

57 Everybody has at least one hand in the cookie jar. All DC wants to do is make it bigger so that we they can all have two hands in the cookie jar.

Posted by: SH at March 04, 2014 11:37 AM (gmeXX)

FIFY

Posted by: Hrothgar at March 04, 2014 07:42 AM (o3MSL)

58 When I was a newspaper reporter in the 1980s, every single person I interviewed who got flooded out said the same thing: "This is the (third, fourth, fifth, etc.) time we've been flooded out. We'll be back..." GOP knows how to pick 'em...

Posted by: M. Murcek at March 04, 2014 07:42 AM (GJUgF)

59 I don't care how much I like the property. If it requires flood insurance, I look elsewhere.

Posted by: 98ZJUSMC Rounding Error Extraordinaire at March 04, 2014 07:43 AM (Ybj/B)

60 I am smelling a new olde english "nood up" meme.

Posted by: rickb223 at March 04, 2014 11:41 AM (h1D+w)

----

Speaketh thou thoughts on ye matter.

Longbows.... or Crossbows.

Chooseth wisely.

Posted by: fixerupper at March 04, 2014 07:43 AM (nELVU)

61 Posted by: tsrblke, PhD(c) (No Really!) at March 04, 2014 11:33 AM (hq5sb) Lets see.... was it only like... seven years ago that the Repubs held the Presidency, House, and Senate?

Posted by: Romeo13 at March 04, 2014 07:43 AM (84gbM)

Totally OT ...

... I grow weary of all the "hang 'em from lamp posts bullshit". Why can't we all just peacefully work within the system, and be grateful for what we have ?

At least until we actually get lamp posts where I live. Do you have any idea how impossible it is to hang somebody from a mail box ?

Posted by: ScoggDog at March 04, 2014 07:43 AM (oDzWx)

63 If you like your flood insurance, you can keep your . . . . Oh, wait.

Posted by: GOP at March 04, 2014 07:43 AM (Kkt/i)

64 Would anyone like to see my informal pole?

Posted by: Anthony Weiner at March 04, 2014 07:44 AM (32Ze2)

65 Same old assholes=Same old shit.

Posted by: irright at March 04, 2014 07:44 AM (8GKDa)

66 Drew, don't you know that you're being a PURIST and that the GOP doesn't need you or those who oppose the Overbearing State anymore

Get with it man, the GOPe has a PLAN!

Posted by: kbdabear at March 04, 2014 07:44 AM (aTXUx)

67 Oh, but we must appeal to a LARGER audience doncha know.

It's all about electability and nothing says electability like pandering to voters in a flood plain.

Yeah. Farmers, moonshiners, barge owners, trailer parks.

Why am I not surprised?

And if I say anything about how disgusted I am to the point of not wanting to vote or maybe even vote Democrat just to rattle their cage, I'M THE BAD GUY!!!!!

Like it's my fault Boehner's a Boner and McConnell's a turtle face.

Or that they surrender faster than a Frenchman with an order of croissants coming and le Boche is up the street.

(Was Obama's mother part french? just asking.)

Posted by: Bitter Clinger and All That (Microaggressive SoCon) at March 04, 2014 07:44 AM (LSDdO)

68 Rubio, Isakson - IL

Posted by: thunderb at March 04, 2014 07:44 AM (zOTsN)

69 We survived Charlie, Frances, and Jeanne in 04 with no damage or flooding and then had our insurance jacked up anyway. Inland the real killer was oak trees and some wind damage. Limbs totaled houses. Wind lifted some screened porches.

Posted by: Beagle at March 04, 2014 07:44 AM (sOtz/)

70 We (GOP) Had all 3 branches in the 2000s and we fucked that up like a 3 dollar bill.

Posted by: Misanthropic Humanitarian at March 04, 2014 11:40 AM (HVff2)

And Rove is still around waiting to do it again.

Posted by: Captain Hate at March 04, 2014 07:44 AM (xowO9)

71 Un-fucking-believable.

Posted by: Chi-Town Jerry at March 04, 2014 07:45 AM (Z7PrM)

72
Definitely par for the course for the establishment GOP, but count your blessings....they would pass gun control if they could get away with it because the only principles they follow are bigger govt and bigger control.

Slightly less bigger vs. the dems isn't even cold comfort.

ps - can't wait to see Paul Ryan vote for this boondoggle.

Posted by: Guy Mohawk at March 04, 2014 07:45 AM (gorVZ)

73 Posted by: Romeo13 at March 04, 2014 11:43 AM (84gbM) We have a lot of work to undo what was done by FDR, which basically moved both parties fairly left. I don't measure this in "R seats vs. D seats." We "won" then sure, but it was compassionate conservatism that won, which really is just big government masked over with some talk of liberty. Drew can despair all he wants, I'm going to keep trying to shift the overton window.

Posted by: tsrblke, PhD(c) (No Really!) at March 04, 2014 07:45 AM (hq5sb)

74 The problem with the bill as passed was not Congress it was and remains the amazing incompetence and/or foot dragging of FEMA.

They may do careful surveys back East but what it boils down to here in TX is FEMA basically just takes a map and a compass, finds a stream, uses the compass to draw a large circle with the stream bed in the middle and announces that's a flood zone requiring insurance.

I know of one property where the nearest streambed is at the bottom of a thirty foot cut and the house is at the top of a thirty foot rise above the lip of the cut. That's not a flood, that's 2012: the Movie. The property has NEVER flooded but the homeowners are required to have flood insurance.

Posted by: Richard McEnroe at March 04, 2014 07:45 AM (XO6WW)

75 Posted by: ScoggDog at March 04, 2014 11:43 AM (oDzWx) no taller trees in the hood?

Posted by: Misanthropic Humanitarian at March 04, 2014 07:45 AM (HVff2)

76 Looketh over there....

Posted by: The First Jokester at March 04, 2014 07:46 AM (32Ze2)

77 At least until we actually get lamp posts where I live. Do you have any idea how impossible it is to hang somebody from a mail box ?

Posted by: ScoggDog at March 04, 2014 11:43 AM (oDzWx)

You just have to get creative with what you do with their legs.

Posted by: MWR, Proud Tea(rrorist) Party Assault Hobbit [/s][/u][/b][/i] at March 04, 2014 07:46 AM (4df7R)

78 Not said is how Boner crossed the aisle to "find" those votes with Maine Waters. The GOP is dead as a doornail.

Posted by: Vic[/i] at March 04, 2014 07:46 AM (T2V/1)

79 I expect a shirtless Putin to bust in on Kerry's press conference any moment and ass fuck him on camera. "In Russia, when you whine like a woman you are fucked like a woman."

Posted by: jwest at March 04, 2014 07:46 AM (u2a4R)

80 Something I know a little about! Yay, me! I'm not defending Grimm and the others, but the increases were from a hundred or two to 5 figures. Now, if you're at this much risk you should move, which is what they want you to do. But to jump like that in a year is pretty egregious. And not all these homes are second homes, many are primary residence. Granted, for those who live at the beach. So, fuck 'em.

Posted by: spongeworthy at March 04, 2014 07:47 AM (g3wv2)

81 The GOP make me look smart...Yaayyyyyyyyyy!

Posted by: Corky the Retard at March 04, 2014 07:47 AM (sbL9/)

82 Another woman we talked to had her home magically relocated on the FEMA map a mile away from where it actually sits... and by the damndest coinicidence, right in the "flood plain". She can NOT get them to acknowledge simple geographical reality... because no one has the authority to make them.

Posted by: Richard McEnroe at March 04, 2014 07:47 AM (XO6WW)

83 REPEAL OBAMCARE!

Posted by: GOP Bumpersticker Generator at March 04, 2014 07:47 AM (JQuNB)

I expect a shirtless Putin to bust in on Kerry's press conference any moment and ass fuck him on camera.

"In Russia, when you whine like a woman you are fucked like a woman."

Posted by: jwest at March 04, 2014 11:46 AM (u2a4R)

Slap that shit on Pay-Per-View. We'd pay off the national debt in a year.

Posted by: MWR, Proud Tea(rrorist) Party Assault Hobbit [/s][/u][/b][/i] at March 04, 2014 07:47 AM (4df7R)

85 Saw an Ace post, then "POOF", gone.

Posted by: Soona at March 04, 2014 07:47 AM (jT/qa)

43 -

Nah, it's virtually impossible for them to lose the House, and it's likely they will pick up Senate seats.

I'm not sold however, on the notion that a "big win" is coming. People need a reason to vote for Republicans, not just because they are disillusioned with the Dems at the moment.

Posted by: BurtTC at March 04, 2014 07:47 AM (TOk1P)

87 seems the GOP is doing this for the electorate in places like FL, LA and GA

Posted by: thunderb at March 04, 2014 07:48 AM (zOTsN)

Stories like this get the attention of lawmakers:

Offering perspective on the real estate market, Kim Skumanick, President of the Pennsylvania Association of Realtors said the law has hurt home sales. Â“For example, in my own office, we recently had a client who wanted to sell his property in Luzerne County and listed it for $90,000. The property experienced minor flooding in the basement in 1996 after a heavy snow which required the replacement of its hot water heater and furnace. His annual flood insurance premium was $788. He accepted a buyerÂ’s offer but when the homebuyer discovered the new flood insurance rate would be $7,015, the deal fell through. At that rate, the monthly escrowed flood insurance payment would be $175 more than the monthly mortgage payment.Â”

Posted by: CJ at March 04, 2014 07:48 AM (9KqcB)

89 OT but what was I thinking buying Taco Bell queso? It was all they had at the Walmart. I should have just said no. Is it Demolition Man yet?

Posted by: blaster at March 04, 2014 07:48 AM (4+AaH)

90 Problem with the flood insurance "reforms" is people who live in Florida can expect to pay more in premiums than they do for their mortgage. One estimate had people in pinellas county paying 3 times the value of their home in flood insurance premiums over the life of their 30 loan. But hey lets fuck people out of their houses over $24 billion, but the rest of the budget gets a pass?

Posted by: Vote Lord Humungus 2016 at March 04, 2014 07:48 AM (HEa5q)

91 41 Posted by: Village Idiot's Apprentice at March 04, 2014 11:38 AM (DPkKe)

----

I love that commercial....
Posted by: Achilles at March 04, 2014 11:39 AM

I like the Aflac commercial with Frank Vincent, especially when he tells the duck to go home and get his fuckin' shine box

Posted by: kbdabear at March 04, 2014 07:48 AM (aTXUx)

92 >>811 LMAO, thanks, needed that. Now its time to go to work, see you morons later. Be well.

Posted by: Misanthropic Humanitarian at March 04, 2014 07:48 AM (HVff2)

93 I expect a shirtless Putin to bust in on Kerry's press conference any moment and ass fuck him on camera.

"In Russia, when you whine like a woman you are fucked like a woman."

-------

It will take me all day to get that visual out of my head.

I hope.

Posted by: fixerupper at March 04, 2014 07:48 AM (nELVU)

94 Years ago people built modest houses on the beach; cottages. Today I've seen palaces right by the shore in high risk areas. I don't want to take away the right for people to live where they want, but I don't wish to subsidize stupidity.

Posted by: Jinx the Cat at March 04, 2014 07:48 AM (l3vZN)

95 The property has NEVER flooded but the homeowners are required to have flood insurance.

Posted by: Richard McEnroe at March 04, 2014 11:45 AM (XO6WW)

Probably 1%ers who balk at paying their fair share.

And racists too.

Posted by: CharlieBrown'sDildo at March 04, 2014 07:48 AM (QFxY5)

96 #70
And Rove is still around waiting to do it again.

Karl Rove, America's only PROVEN 1%-er.

Posted by: Richard McEnroe at March 04, 2014 07:48 AM (XO6WW)

97
Prezinet Mom Jeans making an ass of himself on television calling Vlad out as the bad guy, and claims he will uphold the rights of all Ukrainian citizens.

Just how will this be accomplished?

Posted by: Doctor Fish at March 04, 2014 07:49 AM (nQjHM)

98 Boehner passes most of his bills with Dem support nowadays. Because that's what Republicans need to do. And dammit we need to support them!

Posted by: Bevel Lemelisk at March 04, 2014 07:49 AM (d2QQ4)

99 Posted by: Richard McEnroe at March 04, 2014 11:45 AM (XO6WW) That's the flood insurance version of the individual mandate. If you're going to have a single payer flood insurance program, you're going to need to rope in the equivalent of the "young invincible". In this case, that's people who will never be flooded. Get rid of the single payer and the market will quickly sort how who really needs the insurance and who doesn't, all while pricing the product accordingly.

Posted by: DrewM. at March 04, 2014 07:49 AM (r5Qcm)

100 6 Remember, those flood plain maps that insurers base their rates on are generated by the US Geological Service.

Top Government Men.

Posted by: garrett at March 04, 2014 11:32 AM (WrFAj)

And they just redrew them here to include a shit pot more areas so people who have never been flooded can now pay into that system to bail it out.

Posted by: Vic[/i] at March 04, 2014 07:49 AM (T2V/1)

101 44 But guys like super cereal. We need to get Republicans elected, cuz they're different. Or something.

Posted by: Minnfidel at March 04, 2014 11:39 AM

Conservatives will get Kaboom, and they'll LIKE it

Posted by: John Boehner at March 04, 2014 07:49 AM (aTXUx)

102 79 I expect a shirtless Putin to bust in on Kerry's press conference any moment and ass fuck him on camera.

"In Russia, when you whine like a woman you are fucked like a woman."

Posted by: jwest at March 04, 2014 11:46 AM (u2a4R)

John Kerry press conference.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F3XTGiDyBXQ

Posted by: GOP at March 04, 2014 07:49 AM (Kkt/i)

103 I never expected the 2010 government to be "conservative" just "anti-progressive" they've done what I expected. Posted by: tsrblke, PhD(c) (No Really!) at March 04, 2014 11:38 AM (hq5sb) Agreed. The fix for this mess is to be measured in decades. It's going to be difficult, perhaps impossible, but it must be tried.

Posted by: 98ZJUSMC Rounding Error Extraordinaire at March 04, 2014 07:49 AM (Ybj/B)

104

Prezinet Mom Jeans making an ass of himself on television calling Vlad out as the bad guy, and claims he will uphold the rights of all Ukrainian citizens.

Just how will this be accomplished?

Posted by: Doctor Fish at March 04, 2014 11:49 AM (nQjHM)

And will that include their newly-minted right to bear arms?

Posted by: MWR, Proud Tea(rrorist) Party Assault Hobbit [/s][/u][/b][/i] at March 04, 2014 07:50 AM (4df7R)

105 It would be nice if Corny went down in the primary. But I seriously doubt that will happen. -- I doubt that too. So if he is going to win, I want him to barely win. Its not much, but you never want incumbents to get too comfortable.

Posted by: SH at March 04, 2014 07:50 AM (gmeXX)

106 I never expected the 2010 government to be "conservative" just "anti-progressive" they've done what I expected. I just love it when someone talks about the gridlock in DC. I just nod and say, "Yup, that's what they were elected to do, to stop the Great Leap Forward into Socialism."

Posted by: BackwardsBoy, who did not vote for this shit[/i][/u][/b][/s] at March 04, 2014 07:50 AM (0HooB)

107 There are no racists in my county. When you move in the realtor takes you around and personally introduces you to all three black folks who live here. J/K.

Posted by: Richard McEnroe at March 04, 2014 07:50 AM (XO6WW)

108

And not all these homes are second homes, many are primary residence.

Outside of coastal areas, as in PA, I think they are almost all primary residences.

Posted by: CJ at March 04, 2014 07:50 AM (9KqcB)

109

John Kerry press conference.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F3XTGiDyBXQ

I'm sorry, I can't see anything because there's a big horse in the way.

Posted by: MWR, Proud Tea(rrorist) Party Assault Hobbit [/s][/u][/b][/i] at March 04, 2014 07:51 AM (4df7R)

110 Or, y'know, you stop mandating flood insurance and let people make rational decisions.

Posted by: AMDG at March 04, 2014 07:51 AM (t7OO0)

111 obama on TV now making the same point as kerry: Russia berry berry berry bad

Posted by: Nevergiveup at March 04, 2014 07:51 AM (t3UFN)

112 International Law says Putin can't do this.

Posted by: Obama Now at March 04, 2014 07:51 AM (Aif/5)

113 Could just be me, but subsidizing beachfront property owners is amazingly stupid.

Posted by: Circa (Insert Year Here) at March 04, 2014 07:51 AM (659DL)

114 I guess some of our "true cons" haven't noticed that how much of our economic output requires transport of goods though river valleys and coastal areas. And that we're about to come off a 30 year record winter with a shit-ton of melting snow and ice running off into those watersheds.

Perhaps some of the "true cons" bitching about this would be willing to go on record advocating for no flood insurance program, rather than the cheap-ass, ticky-tack small-ball of bitching about adjustments to the funding formula for the program.

Ponder the economic implications of that argument before you make it, though.

Sincerely, the 70% of Americans who live and work in river valleys and coastal areas.

Posted by: trumpetdaddy at March 04, 2014 07:51 AM (YhH+L)

115 obama on TV now making the same point as kerry: Russia berry berry berry bad Posted by: Nevergiveup at March 04, 2014 11:51 AM (t3UFN) No apology to Gov Romney yet

Posted by: Nevergiveup at March 04, 2014 07:52 AM (t3UFN)

116 I'm sorry, I can't see anything because there's a big horse in the way.

Posted by: MWR, Proud Tea(rrorist) Party Assault Hobbit at March 04, 2014 11:51 AM (4df7R)

*gets excited*

Where?!?!?

Posted by: Horse Fucker at March 04, 2014 07:52 AM (GQ8sn)

117 Prezinet Mom Jeans making an ass of himself on television calling Vlad out as the bad guy, and claims he will uphold the rights of all Ukrainian citizens. Just how will this be accomplished? Posted by: Doctor Fish at March 04, 2014 11:49 AM (nQjHM) It will happen just because Obama sez so! When it doesn't happen just like everything else, Barry will blame teh Tea Party.

Posted by: Dack Thrombosis at March 04, 2014 07:52 AM (oFCZn)

118 Posted by: CJ at March 04, 2014 11:48 AM (9KqcB) Sooo... it sounds like someone screwed up the actuarial tables??? Isn't this just more proof that the Government can't seem to do ANYTHING right?

Posted by: Romeo13 at March 04, 2014 07:52 AM (84gbM)

119 in a lot of NJ they are primary residences, not all on the beach people in the mega mansions can afford to rebuild

Posted by: thunderb at March 04, 2014 07:52 AM (zOTsN)

120 obama on TV now making the same point as kerry: Russia berry berry berry bad

Posted by: Nevergiveup at March 04, 2014 11:51 AM (t3UFN)

GENIUS. That'll learn 'em!

International Law says Putin can't do this.

Posted by: Obama Now at March 04, 2014 11:51 AM (Aif/5)

*shakes Magic 8 Ball* "Putin Doesn't Care. FYNQ."

Posted by: MWR, Proud Tea(rrorist) Party Assault Hobbit [/s][/u][/b][/i] at March 04, 2014 07:52 AM (4df7R)

121 obama /kerry/rice/powers Liberal meme: Let it be written, Let it be so Damn the Facts, Full speed ahead

Posted by: Nevergiveup at March 04, 2014 07:53 AM (t3UFN)

122

I just love it when someone talks about the gridlock in DC.

ItÂ’s a real treat when it comes from the mouth of a media muppet. They canÂ’t fathom that roughly half of the electorate tend to vote Â“Leave Me the F-ck AloneÂ” every two years. Congress wasnÂ’t created to pass laws. It was created to represent the people. Those can overlap but they are not interchangeable.

Posted by: CJ at March 04, 2014 07:53 AM (9KqcB)

123
Sexretary Carry is in U-Crane stabilizing the situation with diplomacy and a big stick.

Posted by: Joe Biden at March 04, 2014 07:53 AM (nQjHM)

124 Disgraceful.

Posted by: Nip Sip at March 04, 2014 07:54 AM (0FSuD)

125 Prezinet Mom Jeans making an ass of himself on television calling Vlad out as the bad guy, and claims he will uphold the rights of all Ukrainian citizens. Just how will this be accomplished? Since we're not using it, Baeky will let them use our constitution.

Posted by: rickb223 at March 04, 2014 07:54 AM (h1D+w)

126 Heh. Barry believed me when I said not in his mouth.

Posted by: Putin at March 04, 2014 07:54 AM (Aif/5)

127

Direct quote from Kerry's presser today in Ukraine.

"Whinnnnnyyyy! *hoof stomp*"

Fuck this guy.

Posted by: MWR, Proud Tea(rrorist) Party Assault Hobbit [/s][/u][/b][/i] at March 04, 2014 07:55 AM (4df7R)

128 114 I guess some of our "true cons" haven't noticed that how much of our economic output requires transport of goods though river valleys and coastal areas. And that we're about to come off a 30 year record winter with a shit-ton of melting snow and ice running off into those watersheds.

Perhaps some of the "true cons" bitching about this would be willing to go on record advocating for no flood insurance program, rather than the cheap-ass, ticky-tack small-ball of bitching about adjustments to the funding formula for the program.

Ponder the economic implications of that argument before you make it, though.

Sincerely, the 70% of Americans who live and work in river valleys and coastal areas.

Posted by: trumpetdaddy at March 04, 2014 11:51 AM (YhH+L)

100% of Americans require healthcare. I guess you advocate Singlepayer government subsidized health insurance.

Posted by: buzzion at March 04, 2014 07:55 AM (LI48c)

129 Texans vote in state primaries today. Or, as Reuters/Yahoo News puts it:

"Texans vote in primaries shaken by Tea Party influence"

LOL

Posted by: mrp at March 04, 2014 07:55 AM (JBggj)

130 Stop building on the ckufing barrier islands! They are "barrier islands" for a reason. I have 0...ZERO...ZILCH sympathy for anyone who builds on a barrier island or, for that matter, anyone who builds 20' from the high tide water line on hurricane-prone coast. I have 0...ZERO...ZILCH sympathy for anyone who, as some here locally have done, builds their house on an island BENEATH the bridge which crosses the creek. The flash flood in Tennesee, that's a different story. Farmland that is overrun once a century by widescale flooding. That's different. I might be tolerant and, in some areas, allow that flood insurance cover the rebuilding of existing homes once, but not twice. About six months after Katrina I drove the Gulf Coast from Florida to past New Orleans and saw that the tv coverage didn't do justice to what transpired there. Even Shep's panty-wetting over alligators in the streets was lacking. Folks who lived a half mile inland, up a steep embankment, in Mississippi, were wiped out by the surge. Nobody who hasn't seen it can imagine what happened there. Covering those folks.... fine. BUT.... in the panhandle of Florida, immediately following Katrina, I crossed a coastal bridge where new construction had begun on condos on the sandbars between the bridge and the Gulf, practically beneath the bridge itself. Why the hell is this allowed? Why are we paying, repeatedly, for the stupidity of so many. Frankly, my patience, and my sense of compassion with this regard are shot.

Posted by: Niedermeyer's Dead Horse at March 04, 2014 07:56 AM (DmNpO)

131 Posted by: trumpetdaddy at March 04, 2014 11:51 AM (YhH+L) Why does this need to be government subsidized? Your argument is the equivalent of screaming 'think about the children!' Pay for your own insurance, you shifty Atlantean.

Posted by: Bevel Lemelisk at March 04, 2014 07:56 AM (QMRMM)

132

Progressives will literally shit their pants when people start practicing a little Irish Democracy around here.

I find their response to Putin quite instructive. And entertaining.

Posted by: ScoggDog at March 04, 2014 07:56 AM (oDzWx)

133 Trumpetdaddy should pay for my auto insurance. It's for the chirren.

Posted by: Harrison Bergeron at March 04, 2014 07:56 AM (JQuNB)

134 Texans vote in state primaries today. Or, as Reuters/Yahoo News puts it:

"Texans vote in primaries shaken by Tea Party influence"

LOL

Posted by: mrp at March 04, 2014 11:55 AM (JBggj)

*rolling eyes* But there's no leftwing bias in the media or anything.

Posted by: MWR, Proud Tea(rrorist) Party Assault Hobbit [/s][/u][/b][/i] at March 04, 2014 07:56 AM (4df7R)

135 So, flood insurance and reducing benefits for military retires. That is what the GOP can get done. Noted.

Posted by: blaster at March 04, 2014 07:56 AM (4+AaH)

136 Sincerely, the 70% of Americans who live and work in river valleys and coastal areas.

Posted by: trumpetdaddy at March 04, 2014 11:51 AM (YhH+L)

----

And 100% of the people are living in river watersheds controlled by the Army Corps of engineers..... which flooded the entire Missouri River Basin two years ago.

For a fucking bird. Because it needed "sand",

Posted by: fixerupper at March 04, 2014 07:56 AM (nELVU)

137 Posted by: rickb223 at March 04, 2014 11:54 AM (h1D+w) Yeah... funny how every other countries citizens get US Rights.... but we don't...

Posted by: Romeo13 at March 04, 2014 07:56 AM (84gbM)

138
I'll be all for this when the people on the beach subsidize my insurance at the same percentage discount. What?..... they don't want to do that, why its almost like we think the same.

This is no different than college loans, the govt interference distorts the rates way up and the subsidies spiral up too.

Posted by: Guy Mohawk at March 04, 2014 07:57 AM (gorVZ)

139 Perhaps some of the "true cons" bitching about this would be willing to go on record advocating for no flood insurance program, rather than the cheap-ass, ticky-tack small-ball of bitching about adjustments to the funding formula for the program. Posted by: trumpetdaddy at March 04, 2014 11:51 AM (YhH+L) Thanks for providing the basic argument of liberalism...if the state doesn't do it, it won't get done. If only there was another mechanism whereby people could purchase insurance and have it cost what it's worth. Nope, gotta be done by the federal government and everyone must be force to pay, "their fair share" for it.

Posted by: DrewM. at March 04, 2014 07:57 AM (r5Qcm)

140 Look, I've already had to rebuild my house in coastal Carolina twice. I'm on social security -- I can't afford to pay these higher premiums. And I have to have insurance cause I can guarantee you another hurricane will destroy my house again in the next 10-15 years. It's like clockwork, I tell you. If we don't have affordable flood insurance then most of us proud Hurricaners will be forced to move. Do you want us to just give up? Just ran away from these insanely destructive storms that routinely lay waste to any and all structures in its path? Or do you want to us to be proud Americans, proud Hurricaners, and rebuild whole towns whenever necessary -- once a decade if that's what it takes. Don't give up! Save my cheap flood insurance! God bless America! To hell with godless hurricanes! Thank you!

Posted by: Proud Hurricane Zone Lady at March 04, 2014 07:57 AM (ZPrif)

141 Posted by: CJ at March 04, 2014 11:48 AM (9KqcB) That points to reforming the mandatory requirements, not the payment structure. My basement gets some water in it every time it rains (I'm having the swale shored up but the ground is frozen so it'll wait a bit.) no one came out and told me to buy flood insurance. Plus why is the insurance 7k? Is it expected to totally be wiped out every 12 years? Something's fucked up with flood insurance. Round these parts hail or tornado is going to take out your roof (or worse) at least once every 10 years, yet our insurance on a 215k house is only $1500/year. ($1200 maybe? It's escrowed, I forget the exact value.)

Posted by: tsrblke, PhD(c) (No Really!) at March 04, 2014 07:57 AM (hq5sb)

142 Or, y'know, you stop mandating flood insurance and let people make rational decisions. Posted by: AMDG at March 04, 2014 11:51 AM I'm fine with that. But do we bail people out when they get flooded?

Posted by: Minnfidel at March 04, 2014 07:57 AM (gLjvy)

143 Sincerely, the 70% of Americans who live and work in river valleys and coastal areas.
Posted by: trumpetdaddy at March 04, 2014 11:51 AM (YhH+L)

Fair enough.

How about you all either MOVE or PAY for a fair premium that depends on risk and not ask US who don't live there to pay for YOUR folly?
Sincerely, the folks who don't live in a FLOOD PLAIN because it's a FLOOD PLAIN.

Posted by: Bitter Clinger and All That (Microaggressive SoCon) at March 04, 2014 07:58 AM (LSDdO)

144 What we need now is an issue that we can all agree on and that brings us all together. Amnesty for Illegals!

Posted by: GOP/e [/i] [/b] at March 04, 2014 07:58 AM (SwHqo)

145 Ponder the economic implications of that argument before you make it, though.

Sincerely, the 70% of Americans who live and work in river valleys and coastal areas.
Posted by: trumpetdaddy at March 04, 2014 11:51 AM

Yes, Steven Speilberg and other rich Dems with homes in the Hamptons might not have as much money to donate to the DNC if he has to spend thousands fixing his summer home

That's the economic implications they're thinking of

Posted by: kbdabear at March 04, 2014 07:58 AM (aTXUx)

146 There is more to this than you guys understand. I'm a realtor in an area where much of the properties require flood insurance. Part of the changes require homeowners to procure an elevation certificate prior to getting a flood insurance quote from FEMA. These range from $750 an up. So that sucks. Then, once you have an elevation certificate in hand you might find that your flood insurance has gone from $1500 a year up to $6000. Not too bad if you have a 2 million dollar home. However we are seeing increases like this on $200,000 homes. This essentially makes a home unsaleable. What was once a persons main source of wealth now becomes essentially worthless. The repercussions for the economy on the macro scale are serious. My point here is it isn't as cut and dry as you all would like to think it is.\

Posted by: Vizinni at March 04, 2014 07:58 AM (3qp+W)

147 John Kerry press conference.
====
First question: "Why the long face, John?"

Not really, but you know someone was thinking it.

Posted by: mrp at March 04, 2014 07:58 AM (JBggj)

148 There's an area in Ohio called Hocking Hills. It's very hilly. Most of the houses/cabins/trailers etc. are up on the hilsides, tucked away, here and there. Then there's one place down there where somebody apparently tried to start a housing development in a flat area. Big open, flat area down there. About 30ft. from a river. Shockingly ehough, there weren't many plots sold. There's maybe 3 houses in an area with streets and lights built for about 50.

Posted by: nnptcgrad at March 04, 2014 07:58 AM (y4/vE)

149 it isn't true this is for beach front second homes of millionaires. Its for small businessmen and women in their primary residences. Sometimes the 1 percent talk here isn't much different from what you get on prog sites Millionaires will rebuild regardless, if they want. This is for the others. Be against this bill if you want, but stop with the class warfare assumptions based on nothing. There were a lot of people on the flood plain in ND in the Red River Valley. For years, they have encouraged people not to rebuild on the flood plain. Many did. They are not in beach homes, second homes, or in the one per cent. when this record snow melts in the spring, if it doesn't melt slowly, there may be epic flooding argue against the bill if you want, but stop with the false narrative

Posted by: thunderb at March 04, 2014 07:58 AM (zOTsN)

150

Sooo... it sounds like someone screwed up the actuarial tables???

I think most people would say we shouldnÂ’t be underwriting mansions in flood areas. Or vacation homes. Or, maybe even rebuilding a primary residence again and again in a flood zone. Taxpayers and ratepayers donÂ’t want to subsidize that. But to have a primary residence be priced out of the market over occasional flooding? ThatÂ’s different.

Congress folk are hearing it not just from homeowners, but from state legislators who are getting beat up by homeowners yet had nothing to do with the legislation.

Posted by: CJ at March 04, 2014 07:58 AM (9KqcB)

151 Sincerely, the 70% of Americans who live and work in river valleys and coastal areas.

People living in areas prone to hurricanes, tornadoes, sinkholes, earthquakes, and Democrats all pay market rates for insurance. Why's flooding different?

Posted by: Ian S. at March 04, 2014 07:59 AM (B/VB5)

152 135 So, flood insurance and reducing benefits for military retires. That is what the GOP can get done. Noted. Posted by: blaster at March 04, 2014 11:56 AM (4+AaH) and then? Roll back BOTH of them... Its like Viet Nam... Iraq... and soon Afghanistan... We chose our battle... defeated the enemy on this Hill... now... here, you can have it anyway...

Posted by: Romeo13 at March 04, 2014 07:59 AM (84gbM)

153 In a back handed explanation. Flood zones are usually made much bigger than the actual threat to give local governments the right to zone out building, aka save the whale theory. They are used by the anti build anything crowd. That and folks that don't want to buy it are forced to by their banks for little or no risk. Also, see rich vacation homes at the beach, where most owners are Republicans. They see this as a small payback for free buses, etc that the democrats give the LIV's.

Posted by: Nip Sip at March 04, 2014 07:59 AM (0FSuD)

154 I'm a real estate agent and admit I haven't followed this that closely but I do know that part of the problem is what is designated as flood zone. It has recently been dramatically expanded to include areas that have never seen a flood. It can decrease property values for current owners who were not considered in a flood zone when they purchased the property. I can understand not wanting to subsidize multimillion dollar homeowners on the beach, but this is impacting the little guy way more. There is more to this story and I suspect it has to do with the insurance companies who are setting hte rates and getting the subsidies.

Posted by: Sharon at March 04, 2014 08:00 AM (4OHj3)

155 Do you really want me to move 30 miles inland just cause hurricanes strike like clockwork at my old place? I live two blocks from the beach. That's quality of life is what that is. And 99% of the time everything is fine. It's just that 1% of the time when everything gets destroyed because of the predictable, clockwork-like Hurricane strikes that I'll need the federal government to rebuild my house and reimburse me for all of my life's belongings. But, trust me, it's worth it to live two blocks from the beach. It's awesome 99% of the time.

Posted by: Proud Hurricane Zone Lady at March 04, 2014 08:00 AM (ZPrif)

156 Posted by: Null at March 04, 2014 11:39 AM (DuH+r) Your(and other's) conflation of GOP/Republican and Conservative is what's wrong. GOP has a tenuous alliance with conservatives for now. Don't conflate them into one entity.

Posted by: HoboJerky, now with 56% more DOOM! at March 04, 2014 08:00 AM (09o/X)

157 Posted by: buzzion at March 04, 2014 11:55 AM (LI48c) Fuck that noise. I live in the river valley. Last night I went shopping what used to be Gumbo Flatts. The land is overvalued in part because of the subsidized flood insurance. We'll see what happens when it floods again (in theory, those stores are supposed to be able to be stripped down to the concrete walls in little to know time to survive the flood, we shall see.) Fact is, if risk management mattered people would simply build less expensive things on floodplains.

Posted by: tsrblke, PhD(c) (No Really!) at March 04, 2014 08:00 AM (hq5sb)

158 Wasn't the GOP avoiding things so they could focus on Obamacare? How's that going?

Posted by: blaster at March 04, 2014 08:00 AM (4+AaH)

159 @128 Considering interstate commerce and dealing with rivers, lakes, and the coast are actually Constitutional functions of the federal government, and health care isn't, why don't you take your non sequitur to another argument.

Posted by: trumpetdaddy at March 04, 2014 08:00 AM (YhH+L)

160 Here's a crazy idea--if we're going to do subsidized flood insurance, then...wait for it... MEANS TEST IT.

Posted by: Circa (Insert Year Here) at March 04, 2014 08:01 AM (659DL)

161 I live in a condo on a Florida barrier island about 150 yards from the ocean and don't have National Flood Insurance because it's tax payer funded. If it gets destroyed from the ocean then I'm wiped out and will have to find another home. But that's my choice and I refuse to ask, or demand others to pay for it. Fuck the GOP. There are far more important issues they should be concerned with.

Posted by: ExSnipe at March 04, 2014 08:01 AM (LKJt3)

162 >><responds to complaints from flooded-out constituents who said the 2012 law would require them to pay much more for federal flood insurance.<

You mean as opposed to those of us who deliberately choose to live outside of flood zones and currently subsidize this nonsense with our tax dollars?

We are still constituents- right?

Maybe the states who let them live there should pay for it?

And I thought the hill to die on was the Farm Bill? OR was it the Budget?

Posted by: Marcus T., Who has just about had enough. at March 04, 2014 08:01 AM (GGCsk)

163 I'm smarter than you! Na Na Na Na Boo Boo, Stick Your Head In Doo Doo.

Posted by: Trumpeting Jackie Holly at March 04, 2014 08:01 AM (Aif/5)

164 Anyone wanna bet that many (more than likely more than half, since we are including vacation homes and businesses) of those phone calls doing the complaining about skyrocketing rates are coming from GOP voters (who are also very likely donors).

I hate to say it, but hypocrisy is not limited to politicians.

Posted by: Jeffrey at March 04, 2014 08:01 AM (mXv3y)

165 Ponder the economic implications of that argument before you make it, though.

Sincerely, the 70% of Americans who live and work in river valleys and coastal areas.
Posted by: trumpetdaddy at March 04, 2014 11:51 AM

Actually you've given a great example of what Monty means when he says the Doom is inevitable

No one really wants to cut spending, they want the government to cut spending on people other than themselves

Math is a universal language, but somehow Washington can't translate it

Posted by: kbdabear at March 04, 2014 08:02 AM (aTXUx)

166 I'm a realtor in an area where much of the properties require flood insurance. ---- No property requires flood insurance. The bank may require it or a potential buyer may require it. Its no different from a bank or buyer requiring that a roof be fixed. In economic terms, I believe it is called ... "the cost of doing business."

Posted by: SH at March 04, 2014 08:02 AM (gmeXX)

167 Considering interstate commerce and dealing with rivers, lakes, and the coast are actually Constitutional functions of the federal government Giving Donald Trump cheap flood insurance for his Fort Lauderdale residences are not included in those functions, sparky.

Posted by: Circa (Insert Year Here) at March 04, 2014 08:02 AM (659DL)

168 Posted by: Vizinni at March 04, 2014 11:58 AM (3qp+W) The cost is substantial because the likelihood if the house being destroyed is high. That should tell us something.

Posted by: Bevel Lemelisk at March 04, 2014 08:02 AM (sv/s3)

169 Congress wasnÂ’t created to pass laws. It was created to represent the people. Those can overlap but they are not interchangeable. Part of my mission in life is to inform the American public of the true nature of freedom: we're free to be you and me unless and until there is a law passed preventing something. Forthwith (and fifthwith, even) each new law reduces our freedom. What we do not need is a busy Congress. In fact, we'd be far better served by a Congress that was busy repealing laws and reducing the size of most federal agencies.

Posted by: BackwardsBoy, who did not vote for this shit[/i][/u][/b][/s] at March 04, 2014 08:02 AM (0HooB)

170 When this BS flood insurance program first started Myrtle Beach had about 2,000 permanent residents. The "metro" area now has 500,000 and the realestate gons who got this crapfest passed are all rich because they went around buying up "options" before the deal went through.

Posted by: Vic[/i] at March 04, 2014 08:02 AM (T2V/1)

171 Posted by: Vizinni at March 04, 2014 11:58 AM (3qp+W) Sooo... it looks like the ROLL OUT failed? That cost to rebuild is not really factored into how much they pay for the insurance? Is this written into the Bill? or is this something the Obama admin created with how it runs the insurance side of this?

Posted by: Romeo13 at March 04, 2014 08:03 AM (84gbM)

172 159 @128 Considering interstate commerce and dealing with rivers, lakes, and the coast are actually Constitutional functions of the federal government, and health care isn't, why don't you take your non sequitur to another argument.

Posted by: trumpetdaddy at March 04, 2014 12:00 PM (YhH+L)

I must have missed where you included "subsidizing flood insurance" in your Constitutional functions. Because I sure don't fucking see it.

Posted by: buzzion at March 04, 2014 08:03 AM (LI48c)

173 But, trust me, it's worth it to live two blocks from the beach. It's awesome 99% of the time.

Posted by: Proud Hurricane Zone Lady at March 04, 2014 12:00 PM (ZPrif)

-----

Not to sound like a dick..... but why should I subsidize your lifestyle choice any more than "its worth it to have an Obama phone" or "its worth it to get my birth control covered" or "its worth it as long as my SNAP card keeps coming"

Posted by: fixerupper at March 04, 2014 08:03 AM (nELVU)

174 This reads like it is the Obamacare of Flood Insurance.

We can call it GOP Floundercare.

Posted by: Marcus T., Who has just about had enough. at March 04, 2014 08:03 AM (GGCsk)

175

Oh Vizinni ... It sounds super simple to me ...

... I'm expected to help pay somebody else's insurance so you can make a profit selling their home. Have I got that about right ?

Posted by: ScoggDog at March 04, 2014 08:03 AM (oDzWx)

176 How's that going? Posted by: blaster at March 04, 2014 12:00 PM (4+AaH) It's going to hand-deliver a majority in the senate to them. Why would they try and fix stuff now?

Posted by: HoboJerky, now with 56% more DOOM! at March 04, 2014 08:03 AM (09o/X)

177 I live in a condo on a Florida barrier island about 150 yards from the ocean and don't have National Flood Insurance because it's tax payer funded. If it gets destroyed from the ocean then I'm wiped out and will have to find another home. But that's my choice and I refuse to ask, or demand others to pay for it. Fuck the GOP. There are far more important issues they should be concerned with. *** You, my dear, are a rarity.

Posted by: Niedermeyer's Dead Horse at March 04, 2014 08:04 AM (DmNpO)

178 Wait a minute,
I thought being underwater and demanding someone else pay for it is
"the story of Obama"

Posted by: DaveA[/i][/b][/s] at March 04, 2014 08:04 AM (DL2i+)

179 OT - We are going to send economic expertise to Ukraine along with a 1 billion " loan". And we're 17 trillion in debt.

Posted by: bergerbilder at March 04, 2014 08:04 AM (8MjqI)

180

The BiggertÂ–Waters Flood Insurance Reform Act established a multi-year phase-out of premium subsidies for commercial properties and vacation homes, and for primary residences after ownership changes.

The problem in that sentence is the "primary residences after ownership changes." That's where the pain is going to be felt, and in commercial properties held by small businesses. Figure out what exactly is causing them the most pain -- those two groups -- and fix THAT. If that means looking at the flood plains and saying, "This is bullshit. Who the hell has Death Valley in a flood plain?" then do it. But federally subsidized insurance is a bad idea all around.

Posted by: MWR, Proud Tea(rrorist) Party Assault Hobbit [/s][/u][/b][/i] at March 04, 2014 08:04 AM (4df7R)

181 Not to sound like a dick..... but why should I subsidize your lifestyle choice any more than "its worth it to have an Obama phone" or "its worth it to get my birth control covered" or "its worth it as long as my SNAP card keeps coming" *** I get the feeling we're being socked.

Posted by: Niedermeyer's Dead Horse at March 04, 2014 08:04 AM (DmNpO)

182 Here's a crazy idea--if we're going to do subsidized flood insurance, then...wait for it... MEANS TEST IT. ----- I don't know if I agree with the concept of means testing. It just fosters class warfare. But I wonder if means testing for social security would actually be good. It may hasten its demise. One reason for its broad support is everyone benefits. The more people you take that benefit away from the less support it will have.

Posted by: SH at March 04, 2014 08:05 AM (gmeXX)

183 people wiped out by floods live in poor neighborhoods in Plainfield NJ, or rural ND stop with the millionaire bullshit they can pay higher premiums and do. What the federal flood insurance provides would not cover their costs and they get supplemental insurance, as they should

Posted by: thunderb at March 04, 2014 08:06 AM (zOTsN)

184 tsrblke, PhD(c) (No Really!)

8 years of study and can't learn the meaning of the word ENABLER.

Posted by: DaveA[/i][/b][/s] at March 04, 2014 08:07 AM (DL2i+)

185 I get the feeling we're being socked.

Posted by: Niedermeyer's Dead Horse at March 04, 2014 12:04 PM (DmNpO)

-----

Fuckin Average Joe.....

Posted by: fixerupper at March 04, 2014 08:08 AM (nELVU)

186 in ND when people houses were wiped out by flooding, they had to rebuild elsewhere. Not on the flood plain. If they rebuilt on the flood plain, they could not get insurance

Posted by: thunderb at March 04, 2014 08:08 AM (zOTsN)

187 I don't know if I agree with the concept of means testing. It just fosters class warfare. But I wonder if means testing for social security would actually be good. It may hasten its demise. One reason for its broad support is everyone benefits. The more people you take that benefit away from the less support it will have. *** I have no problem with looking at SS as an insurance program for old age.

Posted by: Niedermeyer's Dead Horse at March 04, 2014 08:08 AM (DmNpO)

188 Proud Hurricane Zone Lady won't have her integrity questioned, or her understanding of economics. Proud Hurricane Zone Lady will question other's ability to detect sarcasm. Look, I -- Proud Hurricane Zone Lady -- am not asking *you* to rebuild my kick-ass beach home once a decade -- I'm asking the federal government to do it. So don't get all sass-talky with me, it's not like it's your money. Sheesh.

Posted by: Proud Hurricane Zone Lady at March 04, 2014 08:08 AM (ZPrif)

189 Yes, because US Government forays into insurance are demonstrably economically sound, fiscally sustainable ideas.

I am a little unclear how the GOP will now make the case for an Obamacare repeal without being a wee bit hypocritical.

Posted by: Marcus T., Who has just about had enough. at March 04, 2014 08:08 AM (GGCsk)

190 Fact is, if risk management mattered people would simply build less expensive things on floodplains. Posted by: tsrblke, PhD(c) (No Really!) at March 04, 2014 12:00 PM (hq5sb) Best comment. That is why for years most "beach houses" were dumps. Pawley's Island in SC became famous for "elegantly shabby" beach houses that could wash away and no one gave a shit. After Hugo the feds came in and GAVE homeowners with or without insurance money to rebuild. Now shabby wood homes are three story multi million dollar brick homes on the beach.

Posted by: Nip Sip at March 04, 2014 08:08 AM (0FSuD)

191

PSST! Hurricane Zone Lady is Flatbush Joe. Pass it along.

Posted by: MWR, Proud Tea(rrorist) Party Assault Hobbit [/s][/u][/b][/i] at March 04, 2014 08:09 AM (4df7R)

192 Posted by: Vizinni at March 04, 2014 11:58 AM (3qp+W)

And there you have it in a nutshell.

Where is it written that your house has to be in some state of potential liquidity or else "The terrorists have won"?

That was the main problem with the housing bubble; people were buying and selling houses like a commodity and once you do that you subject yourself to speculators and . . . bubble and the concomitant bursting of said bubble.

A house may be a source of stable VALUE for the purposes of other financial activities but they should'nt be a stepping stone as that leads to speculation and instability.

Plus we are not responsible for someone else's loss of value or to help them make it good. Frankly, I've come to realize I'm stuck where I am. That the only way for me to leave the area would be to rent the property (and all the headaches that entails) so here I am. And I don't even have stuff like flood insurance to blame for this.

Do you hear me whining about getting some kind of subsidy? Or a rebate paid for by my fellow citizens? NO. So too shouldn't you.

Posted by: Bitter Clinger and All That (Microaggressive SoCon) at March 04, 2014 08:09 AM (LSDdO)

193 This is not quite as bad as it sounds. The NFIP is a mess, but a little context:

The gov't established the NFIP and and established base flood elevations, below which buildings are considered high flood risks, above which are supposedly manageable risks. They offered grandfathered, subsidized rates to people that built before the BFE were established (probably a bad idea), and then offered supposedly actuarily sound rates to people at or above BFE. The gov't subsequently changed the determination of BFE to where many houses built at an elevation the gov't told them was safe are now below teh revised BFE. The gov't again offered grandfathered rates, this time to people that built as high or higher than the gov't told them to build when they built the house (not as terrible of an idea, for the reasons below). If you have a loss of more than 50% of the value of your home, you lose the grandfathered rate and basically have to elevate your home or relocate. You won't be able to pull permits to repair stuff below the existing BFE.

Biggert Waters basically said no more subsidies. If you buy a new house, you get no subsidies, if you owned the house before Biggert Waters, you phase out the subsidies over 5 years. So people that built higher than the gov't told them and had had one or even zero flood events in 30 or 40 years suddenly saw their flood rates were going to increase $5k to $12k per year for $250k of coverage (phased in over 5 years if they owned their house prior to Biggert Waters). Obviously most people would just self insure at that point, but you can't do that if you carry a mortgage backed by a federal agency. Banks will just force place coverage for you. So many people affected would simply stop paying payments and wait to be evicted. The banks would ultimately eat the loss as most houses. Had they timed the increase starting five years from now and phased it in over 20 to 25 years, it wouldn't have been an issue.

THe reasons I say backing away from Biggert Waters is not terrible are:
(1) The gov't is the one that destroyed the private flood insurance market in the first place. Outside of the people building waterfront homes (who often are not affected by this because they obviously knew to build high), these are not people knowingly taking advantage of the gov't subsidy. It's hard as hell to determine what locations are susceptible to a flood once every thirty or 60 years. These places often look high and dry and if the gov't tells you you're building high enough, it seems reasonable. The private markets would have given people a better idea of risk, often preventing development of areas in teh 100 year flood risk.
(2) The gov't requires flood insruance coverage on mortgages insured or purchased by gov't agencies. Once you destroy the private market, you should gradually withdraw public support if possible.
(3) We're talking $25B over 30 years. Most of these losses were with Sandy and Katrina so maybe these losses will accelerate (or maybe they won't), but we give $25B per year to rich farmers. It's not helpful to REpublicans to essentially say, sorry you're losing your house, you should have always assumed that we'd quickly end the NFIP after ensuring no private market developed. I believe conservatives will be much more successful creating change if they don't scare people with the thought that they might lose their house because they don't realize what gov't support they are receiving. Right now we can still afford to phase in these reductions in gov't spending, and we shoudl do it in order to increase the likelihood of the reductions actually taking place. What good did we get out of overreachign with the Biggert Waters Act? INstead of gradually reducing subsidies, we managed to create a bipartisan coalition to ensure that spending reductions will never happen.

Posted by: Johnson85 at March 04, 2014 08:10 AM (3lc4J)

194 @177 I am not buying your story. The condo association has flood insurance. The only way you could get out of buying it was to pay cash for your unit. That can be done, but you are paying your HOA dues and they have flood insurance.

Posted by: Nip Sip at March 04, 2014 08:11 AM (0FSuD)

195 176 How's that going? Posted by: blaster at March 04, 2014 12:00 PM (4+AaH) It's going to hand-deliver a majority in the senate to them. Why would they try and fix stuff now? Posted by: HoboJerky, now with 56% more DOOM! at March 04, 2014 12:03 PM (09o/X) Are you missing a sarc tag? If they want Obamacare to deliver votes they need to prep for it. They need to do the battlespae preparation, they need to get their hard cases and sad stories TV ready, they need to remind people that Obamacare is a tremendous cockup and then tie it to every other Obama failure. See, this Ukraine bullshit is more of the same. The Democrats brought you this world where women dying of cancer lose their doctor and the Evil Empire returns.

Posted by: blaster at March 04, 2014 08:11 AM (4+AaH)

196 What's $24 billion in debt compared to $17 trillion in debt??? Why potential hurt my caucus, when I just gave a blank check to Juggears?

Posted by: ohn Boehner at March 04, 2014 08:11 AM (Q6pxP)

197 "Which is why John Cornyn did not receive my vote today.

Posted by: SH

Yup, I snubbed him, too. Felt good.

Posted by: Hobbitopoly at March 04, 2014 11:38 AM (fk1A "

I'm waiting to snub him until this evening. Savoring the feeling all day as it were. B)

Posted by: Bayou City at March 04, 2014 08:12 AM (8yWf/)

198 Here is an idea; any state with people residing in a flood plain put all taxes collected in an escrow. They can not be used or manipulated in any way and should be managed by an independent fiduciary.

Let's see how long they keep building.

Posted by: Marcus T., Who has just about had enough. at March 04, 2014 08:12 AM (GGCsk)

199 And every thing should be an opportunity to make the Dems look bad. If this program screwed up tons of people's home values, etc., blame it on Obama and say we are fixing it for you. Jeebus, if you are going to buy votes, buy them.

Posted by: blaster at March 04, 2014 08:13 AM (4+AaH)

200 Definitely stop with the millionaire bullshit. Rich people can afford to relocate. The normal people who live in the Ohio River valley because it's close to where the jobs are, i.e., on the Ohio River, have a little more difficulty when their 125k house gets flooded out in a record snow-melt runoff.

Or, I suppose you "true con" geniuses are suggesting that half the population of the mid-west move.

Maybe you'd like to see all the coal-fired power plants be moved off the Ohio River, too. Too bad barge transport is the cheapest way to get billions of tons of coal to the plants. Because some "true cons" don't want there to be flood insurance programs, I guess we'll just have to put up solar panels from Illinois to Maryland.

Posted by: trumpetdaddy at March 04, 2014 08:13 AM (YhH+L)

201 Posted by: DaveA at March 04, 2014 12:07 PM (DL2i+) Dude I'm in a philosophy derived field. We don't use single word descriptions. Posted by: Nip Sip at March 04, 2014 12:08 PM (0FSuD) Yep. Pretty much.

Posted by: tsrblke, PhD(c) (No Really!) at March 04, 2014 08:13 AM (hq5sb)

202

The solution is simple ... no Federal Insurance policy gets re-issued on a previously claimed property.

And Proud Hurricane Zone Lady sock was brilliant. Weapons Grade sarcasm.

Posted by: ScoggDog at March 04, 2014 08:14 AM (FhFZl)

203 Jeebus, if you are going to buy votes, buy them ---- We only rent votes. /GOP

Posted by: SH at March 04, 2014 08:14 AM (gmeXX)

204 If this program screwed up tons of people's home values, etc., blame it on Obama and say we are fixing it for you.

Jeebus, if you are going to buy votes, buy them.

Yeah. The GOP can't even pander correctly.

Posted by: Ian S. at March 04, 2014 08:14 AM (B/VB5)

205 All of Houston is a flood plain. No beach. Quite a few mega mansions. 50 times more ordinary homes.

Posted by: thunderb at March 04, 2014 08:15 AM (zOTsN)

206 I'm getting something, the next post will be.

Obama's Happy Hour: All I'm Trying to Do is "Fix Things" Through Unconstitutional, Lawless Executive Power Grab.

Posted by: Shawn Spencer at March 04, 2014 08:15 AM (IV4od)

207 Proud Hurricane Zone Lady pays her own way. Except for the very rare times -- once a decade max -- when all of my possessions and my home are destroyed by the predictable, clock-work like Hurricanes that devastate my coastal barrier island home. Which is why I need cheap insurance -- I damn sure can't afford to rebuild everything once every 10-15 years. I'm really not asking much.

Posted by: Proud Hurricane Zone Lady at March 04, 2014 08:15 AM (ZPrif)

208 My Flood Ins went from $1200 to $2000 in a year.
Then Sandy hit.
Water got under the house in crawlspace right up to the floor and that floor warped.
Flood Ins says they don't pay for anything caused by water under the house.
Yet I pay $2000 a year for Flood ins.

Posted by: trainer's looking for a Militia to join... at March 04, 2014 08:15 AM (n4ArD)

209 Posted by: trumpetdaddy at March 04, 2014 12:13 PM (YhH+L) Niether. I'm saying the value of their property was inflated by government subsidies. Otherwise it'd have been less expensive property and so they'd be less concerned about it being wiped out. (or at least more able to weather it.)

Posted by: tsrblke, PhD(c) (No Really!) at March 04, 2014 08:15 AM (hq5sb)

210 Posted by: Johnson85 at March 04, 2014 12:10 PM (3lc4J) Sooo.... essentially this is a government created problem... because they changed the standard. One thing our overlords in Washington don't seem to understand, is that you cannot have economic growth if the RULES under which everyone has to work, are in constant flux. If you cannot make a reasonable risk / reward calculation, because the RULES are changing... you won't gamble... (at least, not if you have any choice at all).

Posted by: Romeo13 at March 04, 2014 08:15 AM (84gbM)

211 Ask me how much sympathy I have for this guy. http://t.co/rWy0aE4hcH BTW, I took that photo during TS Beryl. That "lot" is a small dune.

Posted by: Niedermeyer's Dead Horse at March 04, 2014 08:17 AM (DmNpO)

212 Maybe you'd like to see all the coal-fired power plants be moved off the Ohio River, too.

Maybe you need to find better ways to make arguments because you're not making a bit of sense with this non-starter.

Posted by: Captain Hate at March 04, 2014 08:17 AM (xowO9)

213 Barrier islands are there to take the brunt of storm surges, create calm water harbors in bays, and naturally erode and shift

They are not meant to provide awesome summer homes for the well heeled, boardwalk roller coasters, or party houses for guidos

River flood plains are not meant to build towns and homes on. There's a good reason they're called flood plains

Posted by: kbdabear at March 04, 2014 08:17 AM (aTXUx)

214 Untrue! Erroneous! Flim-flammery! Falsitacious!

Posted by: Proud Hurricane Zone Lady at March 04, 2014 08:18 AM (ZPrif)

215 YOU CAN HAVE YOUR CAKE AND EAT IT, TOO!

Posted by: GOP Bumpersticker Generator at March 04, 2014 08:18 AM (JQuNB)

216 191 PSST! Hurricane Zone Lady is Flatbush Joe. Pass it along. Posted by: MWR, Proud Tea(rrorist) Party Assault Hobbit at March 04, 2014 12:09 PM (4df7R) Wait, Flatbush lives at the beach? What was that address again?

Posted by: Nip Sip at March 04, 2014 08:19 AM (0FSuD)

217 Since we are bitching about tax money funding other non constitutional functions that I my family does not participate, can I get a refund on my school property taxes?

Posted by: Monroe Doctrine at March 04, 2014 08:19 AM (Kz9dH)

218 My Flood Ins went from $1200 to $2000 in a year. Then Sandy hit. Water got under the house in crawlspace right up to the floor and that floor warped. Flood Ins says they don't pay for anything caused by water under the house. Yet I pay $2000 a year for Flood ins. *** What?! In 2005 we had a TS pass through and my lot, which had never flooded before, flooded. The entire crawlspace filled up and destroyed the ductwork for the ac. Flood insurance covered all of it. I wasn't even required to have flood insurance, but I sure was glad I had purchased it.

Posted by: Niedermeyer's Dead Horse at March 04, 2014 08:19 AM (DmNpO)

219

I can fix this

Posted by: Ted Cruz at March 04, 2014 08:19 AM (B5y+v)

220 I used to live in a house that was near a slough where a river ran. The river never flooded because its level was controlled at the lake. For the river to flood it would have to be a Biblical event. For the flood to reach my house it would have to have moved beyond catastrophic to cataclysmic. But, on some map the area was marked as a flood plain. So I had to have flood insurance and re-certify every year with my mortgage company that I had it. This contrasted with when I actually lived on the lake, which did rise and flood the houses on its shore 3-4 times a decade. But, it wasn't marked as a flood plain so no flood insurance needed.

Posted by: ParanoidGirlinSeattle at March 04, 2014 08:19 AM (RZ8pf)

221 @193 Don't start introducing facts and common sense into this argument. That'll mark you as a RINO, for sure.

Don't you know, this is all about millionaires in Malibu. /sarc

Posted by: trumpetdaddy at March 04, 2014 08:19 AM (YhH+L)

222 Since we are bitching about tax money funding other non constitutional functions that I my family does not participate, can I get a refund on my school property taxes? *** No. Because it takes a village.

Posted by: Niedermeyer's Dead Horse at March 04, 2014 08:19 AM (DmNpO)

223

Still not sure how the flood program works.

There are 5.5 million NFIP policies. But only 20% are "subsidized." So 80% in the program we're talking about do not have their premiums subsidized by taxpayers? Or is everyone in NFIP subsidized?

Posted by: CJ at March 04, 2014 08:20 AM (9KqcB)

224 And lets not forgot the other cost associated with barrier island living ... beach renourishment! $700,000,000 for an Army Corp project in New York is going to be spent on putting sand on the beach.

Posted by: lobsterlen at March 04, 2014 08:21 AM (7Nabg)

225 $700,000,000 for an Army Corp project in New York is going to be spent on putting sand on the beach.

*blink* *blink*

Posted by: Ian S. at March 04, 2014 08:22 AM (B/VB5)

226 River flood plains are not meant to build towns and homes on. There's a good reason they're called flood plains Posted by: kbdabear you seem to think flood plains are small discreet areas they are not in facts, most of any nations population lives near water, river or ocean. Its where the jobs are

Posted by: thunderb at March 04, 2014 08:22 AM (zOTsN)

227 Look, you Ukrainians, we can't do anything about Putin, but how about some nice flood insurance?

Posted by: Meremortal at March 04, 2014 08:22 AM (1Y+hH)

228

So ... according to the resident expert trumpetdaddy ... forcing me to pay part of somebody else's insurance is good ONLY IF THEY'RE POOR OR MIDDLE CLASS.

I got that right, sport ?

Posted by: ScoggDog at March 04, 2014 08:22 AM (FhFZl)

229 Posted by: trumpetdaddy at March 04, 2014 12:13 PM (YhH+L)

Barges aren't much affected by floods the way housing is.

I'm guessing those coal plants have better flood protection than you think they do.

And yes. In the areas that flood more frequently, they should move or face the results and pay for their rebuild.

We're not really saying to move just that we don't want to subsidize your rebuild with our tax money.

Other wise we're just Democrats.

Posted by: Bitter Clinger and All That (Microaggressive SoCon) at March 04, 2014 08:22 AM (LSDdO)

230 97 Prezinet Mom Jeans making an ass of himself on television calling Vlad out as the bad guy, and claims he will uphold the rights of all Ukrainian citizens. Posted by: Doctor Fish at March 04, 2014 11:49 AM (nQjHM) Why doesn't he start out by upholding the rights of all American citizens first, and then branch out to the rest of the world?

Posted by: rickl at March 04, 2014 08:22 AM (zoehZ)

231 Why doesn't he start out by upholding the rights of all American citizens first, and then branch out to the rest of the world? *** DING! DING! DING!

Posted by: Niedermeyer's Dead Horse at March 04, 2014 08:24 AM (DmNpO)

232 Look, you Ukrainians, we can't do anything about Putin, but how about some nice flood insurance?

Posted by: Meremortal at March 04, 2014 12:22 PM (1Y+hH)

Is the website to sign up working?

Posted by: LoneStarHeeb at March 04, 2014 08:24 AM (BZAd3)

233 Flood Ins says they don't pay for anything caused by water under the house. Yet I pay $2000 a year for Flood ins. Posted by: trainer's looking for a Militia to join... at March 04, 2014 12:15 PM (n4ArD) My advice to you? Get the fuck out of NJ. That is all.

Posted by: Nip Sip at March 04, 2014 08:24 AM (0FSuD)

234 Why doesn't he start out by upholding the rights of all American citizens first, and then branch out to the rest of the world?

He just succeeded in deporting those troublemaking homeschooling Germans, you know.

Posted by: Ian S. at March 04, 2014 08:24 AM (B/VB5)

235 Fine example of political Mudfarming -- Create a flawed program, people get stuck in it, your cronies to pay into your campaign coffers in exchange for you pulling them out of the muck you created; tough poo for those remaining stuck in the muck...

Mudfarming is the essence of what contemporary GOP establishment types are all about. It's also why they are weak articulating any conservative principles, because principles don't matter to Mudfarmers -- collecting crony donations into their re-election campaigns is pretty much all Mudfarmers care about. Any principles they may have had before becoming a Mudfarmer are addled by the rationalizations they make while engaging in their special interest mudfarming.

Mudfarming is not exclusive to the GOP -- it's also heavily practiced by Democrats of all sorts with similar crony interests, plus unions, green's and more...

Mudfarming also explains why the GOP establishment is fine with many Ocrat laws and burrOcratic regulations, plus it explains the general lack of leadership to fix anything -- with the Ocrats in charge, the GOP Mudfarmers have ample opportunities to engage in Mudfarming.

The last thing the GOP Mudfarming establishment wants to see happen are common sense laws and regulations that pave over the mudpits so there would be no more Mudfarming to engage in... No worry there, the GOP establishment have no common sense leadership skills to fix anything and it's not like the Ocrats will ever fix anything with common sense reforms.

----
The term Mudfarming comes from a Faulkner book (Reivers). There's a dirt road leading between two cities. In the middle of the night, Mudfarmers flood sections of the road creating muddy pits that people using the road get stuck in. After their morning coffee, the Mudfarmers arrive and offer to pull those out of the road who are willing to pay the Mudfarmers for their help.

Posted by: Seipherd at March 04, 2014 08:24 AM (1etLu)

236 Posted by: Bitter Clinger and All That (Microaggressive SoCon) at March 04, 2014 12:22 PM (LSDdO)

Welp, he's totally ignoring that power plants are located on bodies of water for the cooling requirements. BUT OTHER THAN THAT THEY'RE JUST LIKE YOU AND ME!!!!11!!

Posted by: Captain Hate at March 04, 2014 08:24 AM (xowO9)

237 We're knifing each other over repealing part of a law written by Maxine Waters? Not only does that woman possess weapons grade stupidity but has anyone ever looked into how much her husband probably stands to make from the new insurance rates?

Posted by: Vote Lord Humungus 2016 at March 04, 2014 08:25 AM (HEa5q)

238 97
Prezinet Mom Jeans making an ass of himself on television calling Vlad out as the bad guy, and claims he will uphold the rights of all Ukrainian citizens.

Posted by: Doctor Fish at March 04, 2014 11:49 AM (nQjHM)

I bet that crow tastes a lot worse coming out than it did going in. And this asshat has been eating it by the bulk freighter full lately.

Posted by: LoneStarHeeb at March 04, 2014 08:25 AM (BZAd3)

239 The term Mudfarming comes from a Faulkner book (Reivers). There's a dirt road leading between two cities. In the middle of the night, Mudfarmers flood sections of the road creating muddy pits that people using the road get stuck in. After their morning coffee, the Mudfarmers arrive and offer to pull those out of the road who are willing to pay the Mudfarmers for their help. ---- You should have written this statement in Faulkner's pithy style.

Posted by: SH at March 04, 2014 08:26 AM (gmeXX)

240 Flood zones, earthquake zones, tornado zones, hurricane zones, blizzard zones, ice storm zones, drought zones, everybody's got a zone.

Posted by: Lincolntf at March 04, 2014 08:26 AM (ZshNr)

241 Some of us were living in Charleston when Hugo hit (That would be me)

Had an opportunity to visit Isle Of Palms right after the storm.
Virtually nothing withstood the hit.

Good friends small (low to the ground) home on the waterway side survived, but nothing on the ocean side was intact.

Google, or Bing Isle of Palms real estate today.

Posted by: Village Idiot's Apprentice at March 04, 2014 08:26 AM (DPkKe)

242 I am not advocating for or against this bill but this 1 per cent class warfare crap being used to attack it is bullshit

Posted by: thunderb at March 04, 2014 08:26 AM (zOTsN)

243 There are 5.5 million NFIP policies. But only 20% are "subsidized." So 80% in the program we're talking about do not have their premiums subsidized by taxpayers? Or is everyone in NFIP subsidized? Posted by: CJ at March 04, 2014 12:20 PM (9KqcB) I am pretty sure it is like car insurance. If you have a good record, or live in a low risk area it is not subsidized. If you have a DUI you are put in an assigned risk pool, same story if you house faces the beach. No one wants to insure you, so the feds subsidize the policy. I am totally guessing here.

Posted by: Nip Sip at March 04, 2014 08:27 AM (0FSuD)

244 My house is barely (like an inch) inside a 100 year flood plain. But my county hasn't joined FEMA plan, whatever that means, so I don't have to have flood insurance. Being an old surveyor I have looked the situation over. It would be difficult to flood my house. We had a five hundred year runoff in the river 3 years ago. It was 6 vertical feet from flooding us at the peak. I'll take the risk, love living near the river.

Posted by: Meremortal at March 04, 2014 08:27 AM (1Y+hH)

245

You know ...

... Southern Indiana is on a fault line, and prone to tornados. Where's my subsidy ?

Posted by: ScoggDog at March 04, 2014 08:28 AM (FhFZl)

246 @242 Amen.

Posted by: trumpetdaddy at March 04, 2014 08:28 AM (YhH+L)

247 "I have 0...ZERO...ZILCH sympathy for anyone who builds on a barrier island or, for that matter, anyone who builds 20' from the high tide water line on hurricane-prone coast. "

This is not a huge part of the problem. NFIP runs up to $250k for residential, I think $500k for commercial. The cost of the NFIP is not for the rich people building million plus houses on the beach, although some of the costs do go to insure the first $250k of residences like that. But agreed, we should not be subsidizing beach front living.

"I might be tolerant and, in some areas, allow that flood insurance cover the rebuilding of existing homes once, but not twice. "

That's the way the NFIP is set up now.

"About six months after Katrina I drove the Gulf Coast from Florida to past New Orleans and saw that the tv coverage didn't do justice to what transpired there. Even Shep's panty-wetting over alligators in the streets was lacking. Folks who lived a half mile inland, up a steep embankment, in Mississippi, were wiped out by the surge. Nobody who hasn't seen it can imagine what happened there. Covering those folks.... fine."

These are the people getting hammered. One flood event and people are seeing their rates go up $7k a year. Properties that made it through Camille 50 years ago and got 3 ft of water in Katrina are now being told their insurance is priced as if they will have a total loss to flood every 20 years.

Posted by: Johnson85 at March 04, 2014 08:28 AM (3lc4J)

248
Fellow Texans, vote Stovall for R Senator in today's primary if you haven't already. Let's oust Cornyn or give him a run for his (backers') money.

Posted by: Sphynx at March 04, 2014 08:28 AM (OZmbA)

249

I guess someone finally told Obammy he looked like a dick for blowing off his National Security Meetings on Ukraine.

TWITCHY: http://tinyurl.com/kts239y

Now will someone please explain to me why the NSC is apparently squashed into a room that wouldn't fit a JV volleyball team?

Posted by: MWR, Proud Tea(rrorist) Party Assault Hobbit [/s][/u][/b][/i] at March 04, 2014 08:29 AM (4df7R)

250 Actually you've given a great example of what Monty means when he says the Doom is inevitable

No one really wants to cut spending, they want the government to cut spending on people other than themselves

Math is a universal language, but somehow Washington can't translate it

Posted by: kbdabear at March 04, 2014 12:02 PM (aTXUx)

----------------------------------------------------

And this is also why we haven't seen any civil disobedience or demonstrations (armed or otherwise). Too many people comfortable in their security that if anything bad happens, the govenment will make it all better.

I think we'd all be surprised on how many people are sucking on the government teat one way or the other. And that includes so-called conservatives who would rather have a few freedoms taken away than to give up that precious government subsidy. Sucks to be an independent American nowdays.

Posted by: Soona at March 04, 2014 08:29 AM (jT/qa)

251 but this 1 per cent class warfare crap being used to attack it is bullshit ---- Whether flood insurance benefits the rich, middle class or poor the most is not the issue. The perception is it is a benefit for the rich living on the coast. Perception is realty. Juxtapose that with the GOP desiring (in theory anyway) to repeal/replace Obamacare. The argument will be the GOP likes insurance when it benefits the rich, not so much when it benefits the poor. Why allow the Dems to steal a base like this.

Posted by: SH at March 04, 2014 08:29 AM (gmeXX)

252 GOP adamantly opposed to price discrimination for pre-existing conditions!

Posted by: canoedad at March 04, 2014 08:30 AM (fqXPm)

253 Prezinet Mom Jeans making an ass of himself on television calling Vlad out as the bad guy, and claims he will uphold the rights of all Ukrainian citizens. Yeah, that's a great idea. Rub salt in his face when you can't do anything. What a fucking idiot. Didn't he read the reason Putin got the Parliament to pass the bill was to say fuck you to Barry? Does this guy read ANY of his intelligence briefings?

Posted by: Nip Sip at March 04, 2014 08:30 AM (0FSuD)

254 I am not advocating for or against this bill but this 1 per cent class warfare crap being used to attack it is bullshit *** I agree with the attacks on the 1% but, as I listed above, there are very legitimate reasons to have issues with the FIP. Not only should some properties not be insurable, they shouldn't even be allowed to be built.

Posted by: Niedermeyer's Dead Horse at March 04, 2014 08:30 AM (DmNpO)

255 Look, you Ukrainians, we can't do anything about Putin, but how about some nice flood insurance? Posted by: Meremortal at March 04, 2014 12:22 PM (1Y+hH) "Is the website to sign up working?" No, but we have navigators!

Posted by: Meremortal at March 04, 2014 08:30 AM (1Y+hH)

256 Fellow Texans, vote Stovall for R Senator in today's primary if you haven't already. --- Too bad he couldn't mount a more formidable challenge.

Posted by: SH at March 04, 2014 08:31 AM (gmeXX)

257 Maybe you'd like to see all the coal-fired power plants be moved off the Ohio River, too. Too bad barge transport is the cheapest way to get billions of tons of coal to the plants. Because some "true cons" don't want there to be flood insurance programs, I guess we'll just have to put up solar panels from Illinois to Maryland.

Posted by: trumpetdaddy at March 04, 2014 12:13 PM

There won't be any coal plants to move once Obama and the EPA get done bankrupting them

When I lived in CA, I got a kick out of people in other parts of the country saying "fuck them, that's what they get for building on fault lines or in a desert", then scream for money when that bitch Mother Nature knocked on their doors

Posted by: kbdabear at March 04, 2014 08:31 AM (aTXUx)

258 Call me crazy, but if you decide to live in a flood plain, you should pay the consequences. Which includes higher insurance rates so smart people like me who choose not to live in a flood zone don't have to continually bail your ass out. Taking responsibility for your choices? Never heard of it.

Posted by: DangerGirl and her Sanity Prod (tm) at March 04, 2014 08:31 AM (L2I78)

259 after Katrina and Sandy the flood zone maps have exploded. It is not about beach front living

Posted by: thunderb at March 04, 2014 08:31 AM (zOTsN)

260 @247 There you go introducing facts again.

This "sellout by the RINO ruling class" is all about beachfront millionaires, don't you know? That's what Drew wanted us to believe or he wouldn't have told us about it, right?

Posted by: trumpetdaddy at March 04, 2014 08:31 AM (YhH+L)

261 Fellow Texans, vote Stovall for R Senator in today's primary if you haven't already.
Posted by: Sphynx

Well, I voted Stockman. Hope that wasn't a mistake...at least it wasn't Cornyn.

Posted by: Hobbitopoly at March 04, 2014 08:32 AM (fk1A8)

262 These are the people getting hammered. One flood event and people are seeing their rates go up $7k a year. Properties that made it through Camille 50 years ago and got 3 ft of water in Katrina are now being told their insurance is priced as if they will have a total loss to flood every 20 years.

Posted by: Johnson85 at March 04, 2014 12:28 PM (3lc4J)

Yes, THAT'S the problem, and federal subsidies are not the answer.

Posted by: MWR, Proud Tea(rrorist) Party Assault Hobbit [/s][/u][/b][/i] at March 04, 2014 08:33 AM (4df7R)

263 As I recall it's required if the government determines there's a 1% chance of a flood on your property 1 year out of a hundred. So the federal government requires you to buy something to spare the cost of federal pork to rebuild communities after federal flood control fails. But it costs so much the federal government subsidizes the purchase. I think I see a way out of that, but I'll save it until Congress buys it from me.

Posted by: Chris_Balsz at March 04, 2014 08:33 AM (XyIi7)

264 >>Well, I voted Stockman.

Supposedly Karl Rove's plant to draw off votes from Tea Party candidates, but I don't really know about that.

Posted by: Sphynx at March 04, 2014 08:33 AM (OZmbA)

265 The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) has placed more than 20,000 communities in the United States into a category of flood zones. Each community is able to participate in the agency's National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP), with premium rates determined by the risks of flooding. To indicate the risks in different parts of the country, FEMA has assigned a character from the alphabet to each zone. The most hazardous flood zones are V (usually first-row, beach-front properties) and A (usually, but not always, properties near water).

Posted by: thunderb at March 04, 2014 08:34 AM (zOTsN)

266 This is just the latest example of how "bipartisanship" endeavors to bankrupt us all.

Posted by: steve walsh at March 04, 2014 08:34 AM (9TS9J)

267 Now will someone please explain to me why the NSC is apparently squashed into a room that wouldn't fit a JV volleyball team? Posted by: MWR, Proud Tea(rrorist) Party Assault Hobbit at March 04, 2014 12:29 PM If it was at the WH there's allot of little rooms crammed into a small area.

Posted by: Minnfidel at March 04, 2014 08:34 AM (gLjvy)

268 it isn't true this is for beach front second homes of millionaires. Its for small businessmen and women in their primary residences. Sometimes the 1 percent talk here isn't much different from what you get on prog sites Millionaires will rebuild regardless, if they want. This is for the others. Be against this bill if you want, but stop with the class warfare assumptions based on nothing. There were a lot of people on the flood plain in ND in the Red River Valley. For years, they have encouraged people not to rebuild on the flood plain. Many did. They are not in beach homes, second homes, or in the one per cent. when this record snow melts in the spring, if it doesn't melt slowly, there may be epic flooding argue against the bill if you want, but stop with the false narrative Posted by: thunderb at March 04, 2014 11:58 AM (zOTsN) Okay. Fine. So these are working class people who live in a flood plain. Why am I paying to subsidize their insurance? If you want to live in a flood plain, an actual flood plain, mind you, not some bullshit definition thereof, then you are taking that risk. If you lose that gamble, that's on you, not on me. Is that heartless? No more than someone sticking their hand into my pocket and making me pay for their bad decision. The same thing happened all the time in NEPA when the mines would cave in and the person hadn't purchased a separate mine insurance policy and boo hoo hoo now my house is in the bottom of that hole and the insurance company won't pay for it. Too bad. So sad. There was one guy for whom I did feel sorry though. He lost his house in a mine collapse and the Army Corps of Engineers came in and filled in the mine. When that was done, he asked for assurances that the mine was completely filled in. The Army Corps of Engineer assured him it was and it would never collapse again so he rebuilt with his own money and didn't buy mine insurance because there was no more mine. You see where this is going. Yup, some 20 odd years later, there goes his house down to the bottom of the mine collapse. I will admit that until post-Katrina, if the Army Corps of Engineers told me something, I would believe it was true. It's the Army Corps of Engineers for pity's sake! They know what they're doing.

Posted by: alexthechick - SMOD. Mmmm. Blondies with whipped cream. at March 04, 2014 08:34 AM (VtjlW)

269 These are the people getting hammered. One flood event and people are seeing their rates go up $7k a year. Properties that made it through Camille 50 years ago and got 3 ft of water in Katrina are now being told their insurance is priced as if they will have a total loss to flood every 20 years. *** I saw the Camille monument in Gulfport, at the high water line. Katrina's surge blew right past it. I will never, ever forget what I saw during that trip. The power and destruction that was unleashed made me feel like the tiniest speck of dust on this planet.

Posted by: Niedermeyer's Dead Horse at March 04, 2014 08:34 AM (DmNpO)

270 There may actually be more to this than the usual GOP cave. I recall reading an article about several enviro lawsuits in Fla and Wa challenging the Corp of Engineers location of dikes, etc and re-certification of same, alleging violations of the Endangered Species Act. The purpose/result is putting more structures in the newly re-drawn flood plains and substantially de-value them. Even if a dike exists, but is not recertified, for purposes of one of the damn laws, it does not exist and the structure is in the flood zone. But they probably just caved.

Posted by: The Poster Formerly Known as Mr. Barky at March 04, 2014 08:34 AM (OPzNA)

271 Supposedly Karl Rove's plant to draw off votes from Tea Party candidates, but I don't really know about that.

Posted by: Sphynx

Ah, crap. Must do more research for the general election...

Posted by: Hobbitopoly at March 04, 2014 08:34 AM (fk1A8)

272

Pennsylvania has 73,000 NFIP policyholders, but only 34,000 are *subsidized*. Are the unsubsidized getting screwed under this too?

Posted by: CJ at March 04, 2014 08:35 AM (9KqcB)

273 Hey, where's my fuckin' Sandy money?

Debt ceiling breached? Fuck you, pay me!!

Posted by: Rep Peter King at March 04, 2014 08:35 AM (aTXUx)

274 after Katrina and Sandy the flood zone maps have exploded --- No conflict there. Government enlarges the flood plain requiring more people to buy flood insurance which is subsidized which gets more people on the federal dole.

Posted by: SH at March 04, 2014 08:35 AM (gmeXX)

275 Gaze thine eyes on yonder pane.... Nood up, bitchez!

Posted by: rickb223 at March 04, 2014 08:35 AM (h1D+w)

276

Then damn it thunderb ... tell those fuckers to go raise hell with whomever redrew the map ... and get the Hell out of my pocket !!!

Now, out with it. How is your ox getting gored ? We've heard from the poor realtors who can't sell as many houses without screwing me. What, exactly, is your justification for screwing me ?

Posted by: ScoggDog at March 04, 2014 08:35 AM (FhFZl)

277 249 I guess someone finally told Obammy he looked like a dick for blowing off his National Security Meetings on Ukraine.

TWITCHY: http://tinyurl.com/kts239y

Now will someone please explain to me why the NSC is apparently squashed into a room that wouldn't fit a JV volleyball team?

Posted by: MWR, Proud Tea(rrorist) Party Assault Hobbit at March 04, 2014 12:29 PM (4df7R)

Looks like a lot of tongue biting going on in there.

Posted by: flounder at March 04, 2014 08:35 AM (Kkt/i)

278 It's long but Davy Crockett gave a speech* to the House of reps on basically this subject.

"Not Yours To Give"

http://www.fee.org/library/detail/not-your-to-give-2#axzz2v14NHCqW

* some question if that ever happened I don't care since it clearly lays out an important point.

Posted by: Buzzsaw at March 04, 2014 08:35 AM (wrS2o)

279 Good think those Tea Party stooges elected a Dem Senator in Delaware, huh?!

Posted by: Jay in PA at March 04, 2014 08:36 AM (3LaGb)

280 Nood, bitchez!

Posted by: flounder at March 04, 2014 08:36 AM (Kkt/i)

281 Federal flood insurance is simply a market distorter. People usually act rationally. If you reduce the risk for something, people will do that more often. AKA, build shit that they really don't want to lose, but understand they will be made whole at a reduced cost to themselves. This isn't rocket science. It's fucking economics.

Posted by: Nip Sip at March 04, 2014 08:36 AM (0FSuD)

282 I thought that the problem was that the new flood zone maps that were drawn as part of the bill went from a 100 year flood to a 500 year flood Ã essentially redrawing an extended boundary that now includes thousands of more homes in the "flood" zone Ã meaning more people forced into carrying insurance Ã meaning more money to collect. Some areas that are now swept into this new boundary have retired engineers looking at the data used to draw the new maps and a calling them BS. They want the gov to provide the data they used but so far are getting the big F.U.

That doesn't sound like something our representatives would do does it? Fake maps derived from manipulated data to generate redistribution of wealth?

Posted by: tgr at March 04, 2014 08:38 AM (CUo5I)

283 Here's an idea. Why don't we just break the federal monopoly and get the federal government out of the whole flood business altogether.

Posted by: SH at March 04, 2014 08:38 AM (gmeXX)

284

Now will someone please explain to me why the NSC is apparently squashed into a room that wouldn't fit a JV volleyball team?

The White House isnÂ’t very big. Certainly hasnÂ’t kept up with the growth in government in general.

Posted by: CJ at March 04, 2014 08:40 AM (9KqcB)

285 I got no dog in this fight. I have to have flood insurance for my mortgage. I pay it, plus supplemental insurance. I get no subsidy. I don't want one I am the one per cent. I subsidize other people.

Posted by: thunderb at March 04, 2014 08:40 AM (zOTsN)

286

I have to have flood insurance for my mortgage. I pay it, plus supplemental insurance. I get no subsidy.

81% of NFIP policies are not subsidized. Seems to be a key point.

Posted by: CJ at March 04, 2014 08:43 AM (9KqcB)

287 Supposedly Karl Rove's plant to draw off votes from Tea Party candidates, but I don't really know about that. Posted by: Sphynx Fucking hilarious. When a Tea Party candidate turns out to be a shitty candidate, it can only be because he was secretly planted by Karl Rove under some Vast Establishment Conspiracy.

Posted by: Vlad at March 04, 2014 08:43 AM (SY2Kh)

288 There have been lots of good points made here about why flood insurance is necessary, and why it's necessary to be subsidized.

But they've all made the point that government spending cannot be cut because anyone who faces the knife has loads of human interest stories about why their own cow is sacred

In the End, Math Doesn't Give a Shit

Posted by: kbdabear at March 04, 2014 08:45 AM (aTXUx)

289

CJ ... that is simply an impossibility. Who pays for the staffing used to admin those policies ? Who pays the overhead ? John Q Taxpayer.

If people wanted flood insurance ... the market would provide it. If people don't like the price ... too damn bad.

Posted by: ScoggDog at March 04, 2014 08:47 AM (FhFZl)

290

Posted by: ScoggDog at March 04, 2014 12:47 PM (FhFZl)

I mean that 81% of the NFIB policyholders to not get direct subsidies.

Posted by: CJ at March 04, 2014 08:56 AM (9KqcB)

291 *do* not get...

Posted by: CJ at March 04, 2014 08:56 AM (9KqcB)

292 people had flood insurance. cheap flood insurance. or no flood insurance. after Katrina "something had to be done!!" about uninsured or poorly insured homeowners. Flood zone designations were exploded. After Sandy, they exploded yet again. And here we are. Love it or hate it, don't blame it on the one percent. And simply demanding that people stop living in flood plains is not realistic. As I said previously, huge populations live in flood zones.

Posted by: thunderb at March 04, 2014 09:02 AM (zOTsN)

293 287 Supposedly Karl Rove's plant to draw off votes from Tea Party candidates, but I don't really know about that.

Posted by: Sphynx

Fucking hilarious.

When a Tea Party candidate turns out to be a shitty candidate, it can only be because he was secretly planted by Karl Rove under some Vast Establishment Conspiracy.

Posted by: Vlad at March 04, 2014 12:43 PM (SY2Kh)

Hey, dingbat,

We were discussing Stockman, who's running second in the polls and in campaign dollars spent vs. Stovall who is endorsed by Ted Cruz and who is (in polls) running a distant third. I'm saying vote for Stovall, dumb ass.

Stovall is not the supposed 'plant,' moron (in a bad way). The supposed plant is Stockman, who's sucking up the alternative votes.

MMmmmKay?? Vlad, the McConnnell fellater?

Posted by: Sphynx at March 04, 2014 09:04 AM (OZmbA)

294 Then damn it thunderb ... tell those fuckers to go raise hell with whomever redrew the map ... and get the Hell out of my pocket !!!
Posted by: ScoggDog at March 04, 2014 12:35 PM (FhFZl)

Many of the people getting 'subsidies' are not costing you anything. If the map is redrawn to increase premiums on properties that have never had a flood event by thousands of dollars, charging them prices based on more reasonable flood estimates does not require any money. You just charge them rates based on expected losses, like private insurance would do and then cover any losses that do occur out of the premiums that were paid.

The problem is that NFIP risks were being grossly underestimated for some properties (if basically <$1B a year in losses is 'gross', which it may or may not be considering the size of the program), and now they are trying to make up for it by grossly estimating risks for properties that have had one or zero flood events since people have been paying attention.

Posted by: Johnson85 at March 04, 2014 09:06 AM (3lc4J)

295 Hi Drew, would you like a fainting couch to go with this? Or maybe a urine absorbent pad for all your bed wetting?

You could have written a reasonable complaint, but this hyperventilating BS is so overdone you've just left me laughing at you, rather than pissed at teh Republicans.

Note: this ISN"T a "hill to die on", that's why they're voting that way. Now, if you'd written something like:

Republicans betray conservatives, you could have had a reasonable headline.

Pro tip: 99.999% of politicians are not interested in dying on any hills, for anyone. If you think they will be, you're an idiot. And every time you climb up on your high chair and bang your spoon, demanding that they do that, you just marginalize yourself (no biggie), and harm the conservative movement (which sucks).

You want success? Find ways to fight and WIN, not fight and lose. Smart people don't look for hills to die on, they look for hills to kill the other side on.

But I guess thinking and strategizing isn't nearly as much fun as emoting and banging your spoon on your tray.

Posted by: Greg Q at March 04, 2014 09:20 AM (4Pleu)

296 So .. vote for the Dems because we'll get to the revolution faster, then? Mew

Posted by: acat at March 04, 2014 09:40 AM (4UkCP)

297 "Congress took steps in 2012 to reduce the subsidies and require rates to be based on a propertyÂ’s degree of flood riskÂ—an essential element of viable insurance. The BiggertÂ–Waters Flood Insurance Reform Act established a multi-year phase-out of premium subsidies for commercial properties and vacation homes, and for primary residences after ownership changes." Well, howdy-do! The flood subsidies are for commercial flood insurance. People who build in flood-prone areas should shoulder the commercial cost of flood insurance without government subsidies. Here in Colorado, there are no government subsidies for fire insurance. The insurance industry has a HUGE penalty for those in fire-prone areas that are outside of a four mile road distance from the nearest fire station. Given that there are thousands of homes in fire-prone areas, the penalties are justified. The penalties from insurance companies are partially mitigated if the homes institute fire protection, normally removing trees and brush within a specified radius from the homes. THERE ARE NO GOVERNMENT SUBSIDIES FOR FIRE-PRONE AREAS. This is the way it should be for flood plains.

Posted by: Quaoar at March 04, 2014 09:55 AM (huV3N)

298 Clowns. Yes, really....

Posted by: backhoe at March 04, 2014 10:01 AM (ULH4o)

299

Drew,

If they donÂ’t make these changes it will destroy property values across the board. IÂ’m one of the effected. I own a $130k primary home where my current flood policy costs $1500/year. I bought the home two years ago knowing as much but was comfortable with the cost compared to the location (densely populated neighborhood, close to good school, close to ball fields, etc.). If I could find a buyer for my home (which I canÂ’t), the flood policy for the new owner would be $8000/year. My current mortgage is $5000/year. I live 200 yards from a small creek. I live 400 miles away from the closest beach. Do you see the problem with this now?

My home is a dead asset if nothing changes. No one will ever buy my house. I have a 835 credit rating but my only option is to walk away from the property, lose my $25k deposit, and suffer 7 years of bad credit. There many people who are getting hurt with this: people who own the property, people who own adjacent property, neighborhoods, lending institutions, local and county tax bases, etc., etc.

Posted by: bad policy at March 04, 2014 10:02 AM (YcXTT)

300 The cost overage for the flood insurance program is associated with property owners in coastal areas hit by hurricans. Not people who own a home next to a creek in the middle of nowhere.

Posted by: bad policy at March 04, 2014 10:05 AM (YcXTT)

301

And lastly, since 1976 when the flood insurance program was instituted their records show my home has never been flooded. Never, yet my rate goes from $1500/year to $8000/year if the property changes hands. It's bad policy

Posted by: bad policy at March 04, 2014 10:07 AM (YcXTT)

302 All I hear is bitch bitch bitch in Florida about how this will make things "unaffordable". I mean, if the increase is too drastic, and the phase out too short, then we can discuss that. For the record, I live in Florida. I do NOT live in a flood zone, and my lender did not insist I pick up flood insurance. Therefore I'm particularly pleased that my tax money is going to support people who gain the benefits of living near the water when I do not get to share those benefits.

Posted by: I R A Darth Aggie © at March 04, 2014 10:14 AM (1hM1d)

303 Therefore I'm NOTparticularly pleased that my tax money is going to support people who gain the benefits of living near the water when I do not get to share those benefits. Damn, not a not in sight...

Posted by: I R A Darth Aggie © at March 04, 2014 10:15 AM (1hM1d)

304 Wrong on this one Ace. NOAA redrew the flood maps at the same time. So pretty much if you live within a mile of water you are required to have full flood coverage. Basically no one but giant corporations will ever own "waterfront" property. My home and business and only source of income is in a new flood zone. Not only can I not afford the new insurance rate wich rose from 400$ to 4,000$ a year but no one would ever buy my house because of this . So essentially my entire life's work spent on purchasing this home for my daughter and I is gone so is my business I spent all my savings on building. Poof. Bye bye. Bank owned. I don't know what fucking subsidies you're talking about ain't none of that around here. Oh and my house is 120 years old. Never been flooded not even in 78' so yay.

Posted by: Blabkburnsghost at March 04, 2014 10:25 AM (spmwV)

305 Wrong on this one Ace. NOAA redrew the flood maps at the same time. So pretty much if you live within a mile of water you are required to have full flood coverage. Basically no one but giant corporations will ever own "waterfront" property. My home and business and only source of income is in a new flood zone. Not only can I not afford the new insurance rate wich rose from 400$ to 4,000$ a year but no one would ever buy my house because of this . So essentially my entire life's work spent on purchasing this home for my daughter and I is gone so is my business I spent all my savings on building. Poof. Bye bye. Bank owned. I don't know what fucking subsidies you're talking about ain't none of that around here. Oh and my house is 120 years old. Never been flooded not even in 78' so yay.

Posted by: Blabkburnsghost at March 04, 2014 10:25 AM (spmwV)

306 Bladkburnsghost, read a couple comments ahead. I'm right there with you. Dead assets that no one in their right mind would buy.

Posted by: bad policy at March 04, 2014 10:31 AM (YcXTT)

307 Blabkburnsghost: I'm in much the same boat. The sort of callousness I'm seeing here is not going to do much to improve the GOP's standing in Florida. I hear these other folks talking about "subsidizing" me as if I'm some filthy-rich retiree with a mansion on the beach. I'm a lower-middle-class person in a lower-middle-class neighborhood without any water in sight. My area hasn't been flooded in 100 years. I only moved to Florida for a job, not because I was dreaming of taxpayers footing the bill for me to live in Margaritaville. Now I'm established in my home and career, and I'm told I'm some sort of freeloading parasite because the government has redrawn some flood maps. I can't figure out how I'm supposedly getting all these sweet, sweet government subsidies, because it's sure as heck not showing up in my paycheck. When I mention my concerns, they're dismissed, as if it's my fault for not anticipating this. Or I'm told to that if I'm a true-blue, self-sufficient conservative, the responsible thing would be to abandon the roots I've set down here, and go get a new house and a new job or even move to a different state Â— in Obama's economy to boot. It's not clear to me how forcing folks to abandon their homes and livelihoods because the government redrew a map constitutes a conservative value. I don't understand how trying to scratch out a living while minding my own business has suddenly turned me into the equivalent of a welfare bum using their EBT card to buy cartons of cigarettes. It would be one thing if I were some rich guy being forced to sell his fancy beach house to buy a less-fancy house a little farther from the beach, or some snowbird being forced to sell his vacation home, but neither of those apply to me. I can't think of a single decision I've made in my life where I was like, "this is an irresponsible choice and it will force others to pay for me to live a more comfortable lifestyle, so I'm gonna go for it. Sorry, suckers!" If I'd known or believed that other people were "subsidizing" me, I would have made different choices. But don't try to switch definitions on me in a way that suddenly redefines me as a "taker," and suddenly asks me to make huge changes in my lifestyle, and expect me not to protest.

Posted by: Floridaguy at March 04, 2014 12:49 PM (R1mDg)

308 Who's suing over the redrawing of the flood maps? Can't they get an injunction over the change regardless of what Congress does?

Posted by: Chris_Balsz at March 04, 2014 02:38 PM (U0KKz)

309 I hear ya Floridaguy. Where I live the haves live up above. The have-nots live down below. I am now the proud owner of a dead asset as well. Oregon's urban growth boundaries and zoning laws prevent construction and new developments ironically on the high ground (forest land). The simple idea of easily pulling up stakes and finding a home out of a flood zone is not possible. Not sure of how much my rates will go up either.

Posted by: Forest Nomad at March 04, 2014 06:05 PM (iG753)

310 In fact, I'd say it's somewhat tendentious to describe this in terms of "subsidies." That makes it sound like us Florida folks went and said, "hey, if I buy a house in this location, those suckers out in the Midwest will be footing the bill for my flood insurance! KA-CHING!!!!!" Maybe there are some folks who intentionally bought beachfront or lakefront property knowing this, but most of us didn't buy our properties believing there was a strong chance we would get regularly flooded Â— or knowing ahead of time that the rules would be changed so that now we supposedly live in a high-risk flood zone and the rest of the country is now "subsidizing" our "artificially low rates." I repeat Â— I can see no water from where I live, and the place I live hasn't seen an inch of floodwater in at least 100 years. From our perspective, this is more like one of those cases where you're minding your own business and the EPA suddenly announces a new regulation that will cost your business thousands of dollars a year in compliance costs Â— and then you get branded as a "polluter" or an "environmental criminal" when you say "hey, wait just one minute here." The rules get switched on us, and overnight we go from productive citizens to freeloaders stealing money from everybody else. WTF? I thought conservatives were supposed to *protect* me from stuff like that. Look, man, I don't expect nothing from nobody. I have no desire to go dipping into your pocket to support my life. But if you go and redesign "your pocket" to encompass an area where my hand happens to be, well yeah, I'm going to take exception to that.

Posted by: Floridaguy at March 04, 2014 06:13 PM (R1mDg)

311 I live in a "flood zone" that has not flooded for at least a century. When I bought the home I checked the flood maps and had a flood elevation certificate prepared by a surveyor. I , and everyone else in this situation, followed the rules and conditions that existed at the time we purchased the property. Now, the rules are being changed and in the area that I live (coastal Georgia), some properties are seeing flood insurance rates as high as $30,000 per year. If I don't sell, or let the flood policy lapse, I may be only losing the investment that I made in this property. But because the flood maps are being redrawn and base flood elevations are being revised this may not be true for long. If the rates go up to a level that I cannot afford, my mortgage company will obtain a new policy for me and add the cost to my mortgage payment. When I can't pay that, they will foreclose. How in the hell anyone can think that this is fair is beyond me. If these new rules are needed, they should apply to new construction (even though this alone will destroy the real estate market along the coast), not to existing properties. If my republican representatives are not willing to die on this hill, somebody else damn sure will.

Posted by: Chris at March 04, 2014 06:30 PM (3L11f)

Hide Comments | Add Comment | Refresh | Top

Comments are disabled. Post is locked.

272kb generated in CPU 0.1795, elapsed 0.3291 seconds.
64 queries taking 0.2756 seconds, 439 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.