Ron Paul: No Federal Financial Aid for Tornado Victims

reply to post by TsukiLunar

Let me let you in on a secret. Poor people exist in places that have potential for disasters(which is everywhere). Ya, who cares about those "poor" people? After all, its so easy to pick up and move to Purgatory where the weather never turns on you.

Why do you assume that the only way to care about poor people is with federal aide? Is their no alternative source for aide? Can it not be handled any other way? Problems don't have only one solution and their does not exist anywhere in the world a government program that doesn't deserve to be challenged to see if a better alternative could exist.

Dismissing a counter argument out of hand and saying that someone simply doesn't care is a copout.

Do you really think that government bureaucratic waste is the apex of society? Has Fema proved themselves countless times to not be perfect? Is it possible to help victims of natural disasters without central planning and waste? Do these questions not deserve to be asked?

Is everybody who challenges a system that is proven to be imperfect simply uncaring or is it possible that they care as well and because they care they would like to see the system work better or differently? Two people can have the same motivation and entirely different plans.

Oh yes lets give them a hand out from The Fed..........I don't think you see his point here. Lets give them a hand out so they can rebuild there city with he money we have already raped them for, then financially rape them again?? They should have insurance for situations like this. Hes not saying they shouldn't get aid because they haven't, More they don't need a hand out as they should have insurance? Either way My thoughts to the the people and family's effected

reply to post by hero_25

I live in Seattle and I just renewed my 'earthquake insurance' last week. You never know if you'll ever need it, but I always like to think that it is always wiser to have it and not need it, then to need it and not have it.

I pay $324 a year... that's about a dollar a day. That's pretty cheap and I sleep a lot better knowing that I have it.

Do you have fire insurance to go with your earthquake insurance?

If you don't you know might want check your policy.

I'm from California and more homes are destroyed by fire than earthquake even during an earthquake.

Oh better check your flood insurance too because suppose you get lucky and in an earthquake your house is fine and there is no fire. But the water pipes in the street break and flood your house.

Originally posted by ThirdRock69
reply to post by hero_25

 

You have heard of 'Renters Insurance' before right? That's what you get if you do NOT own a house and are wanting to protect the assists/belongings that you have.

If you don't have enough assists/belongings to justify paying for Renters Insurance, then don't. Obviously you wouldn't stand to lose much anyways.

Of course I have heard of renters insurance.

Have you ever run the numbers?

Yes, before I was a 'Home Owner' I was a 'Renter' (just like most people). When I first became a Renter, I was only 18 and didn't really own any 'assists/belongings'. So at that point in my life, it made NO SENSE to have Renters Insurance. After all, I didn't have much to lose anyways. Later on, I accumulated more 'assists/belongings' and I decided to buy 'Renters Insurance'. So yes, I have ran the numbers since I use to have it until 4 years ago when I purchased my house.

Do you know how much it costs and what it covers?

The costs will always very depending on 'exactly' what you want it to cover. You can get insurance for pretty much anything these days.

Do you know that, depending on your policy, not all items are covered by renters insurance?

Obviously... that's why you look carefully at ALL of the different 'policies' and choose the one that BEST suits you and your needs.

What insurance do you have sir?

Be so kind as to let us use you as an example, how much money do you spend on insurance?

What different policies do you carry? Can you afford to insure yourself for your local "act of nature" or natural disaster?

Do you have flood insurance or tornado, hurricane, earthquake, fire and does that cover all goods and damages?

For 2 cars I pay 'annually' $1,872.51 + $202 for Umbrella Insurance (which adds an additional $1,000,000 to my insurance policy leaving me with this coverage:

Auto Liability/Bodily Injury = $1,250,000 each person/$1,500,000 each occurrence.
Property Damage = $1,100,000 each occurrence
Home/Property Liability = $1,300,000 each occurrence
Watercraft Liability = $1,300,000 each occurrence
Personal Watercraft = $1,300,000 each occurrence
Motorcycle Liability/Bodily Injury = $1,250,000 each person/$1,500,000 each occurrence.
Property Damage = $1,000,000 or
Combined Single Limit = $1,300,000
Other = $1,300,000

For my Homeowners Insurance I Pay 'annually' $504.18
For my earthquake insurance (I live in Seattle) I pay 'annually' $324
Life Insurance 'annually' $193.20

Grand total 'annually' = $3,095.89

My dental/health coverage is covered through my wife since I am self employed (also since I pay the entire mortgage ). I don't know the exact amount that she pays for me but I know it is somewhere in the $400+ range each month. Not cheap, but can't live without it.

Obviously I'm not in the same boat as everyone else. Everyone has a different level of needs (and affordability) when it comes to the different kinds of insurance that they may need.

You do know insurance is not a very nice business right?

Insurance companies are the most stingy and reluctant when it comes to paying out claims. They will find any clause they can to deny a claim.

Yes. This is the reality of the world we live in today. Nothing is guaranteed and there is corruption 'everywhere'. In an ideal world everything would be fair and work out just like it should. But we unfortunately don't live in this fairytale world that people here keep trying to describe in this thread. So regardless, you still in the end are a whole lot better off by having insurance then not.

reply to post by ThirdRock69


Thanks! I'll double check about the Fire coverage. I'm pretty sure I am covered, but you just made me realize I haven't double checked all of the details regarding this. I'm going to look very closely at it now and make sure I have enough coverage!

As far as "flood insurance" my neighborhood is elevated pretty high and I am on even higher ground then all of my neighbors. Also, everything slopes AWAY from my house. There is no chance for a flood... ever! If pipes break in my house, this is covered.

reply to post by hero_25

Grand total 'annually' = $3,095.89

Yes. This is the reality of the world we live in today. Nothing is guaranteed and there is corruption 'everywhere'. In an ideal world everything would be fair and work out just like it should. But we unfortunately don't live in this fairytale world that people here keep trying to describe in this thread. So regardless, you still in the end are a whole lot better off by having insurance then not.

You sound like an insurance salesman?

There is a minimum of $5.8 million in damages before a federal disaster can be declared.

Sounds low right?

Well that a good thing. That means that they are meant to be claimed. Anytime there is a national disaster we all hear about it. We all know it happened and thank god or lucky stars it didn't happen to us or someone we know.

This is not the area where abuse of money takes place compared to the health care system and military. There's less false claims in these disasters compared to auto injury scams and doctors prescribing bogus prescriptions. That's where the real money is being wasted.

Originally posted by ThirdRock69

You sound like an insurance salesman?

Nope, just someone who is aware of the importance of Insurance.

reply to post by liejunkie01

You people are duped..........Paul is a crony just like the rest of the rich............

Actually I have to agree with him. I lived on the Mississippi flood plain until two years ago. I had my first house on the lake - paid off - wiped out by a tree falling from a freak storm. I had been meaning to get insurance but hadn't.

The house next door was up for sale and I managed to buy it with a new mortgage. Two years ago I left the area for Washington State. This year my house was wiped out in a 100 year record flood, or at least that is what they are calling it. If I had been there for it and not had insurance I would have lost my investment. If I had had insurance I might have gotten paid, or I might have gotten part. (See Katrina aftermath)

You are reacting, and you are uninformed. The people who got FEMA money from this last flood received it in the form of low interest loans. There were no gifts involved. These low interest loans were so popular that 9 months later there are about half a dozen families remaining in the campground I lived in, and three of those homes are the owners houses. Everyone else finally figured that it was dumb to invest in that area.

Who said if the flood waters come up, or the twister comes through, or the hurricane hits the government bails you out? Because they don't. Whoever told you that this happened has lied to you.

The people of Katrina couldn't even get water, and the ones that really needed the money haven't even collected on their insurance. Many have had their homes and property seized and have not been able to return to this day.

Whatever you think Ron Paul is going to take from you has never ever been there to begin with. Ron Paul is just saying that we need to be personally responsible. If you cannot afford the house with the proper insurance get a smaller one that will allow you to fit insurance into your budget. While he is saying that we all need to quit putting our hands out to the Federal Government, I am telling you that you never really could.

The Federal Government responsible for damage from tornadoes, I have heard everything now.

reply to post by hero_25


Just factor in a few things.

Poverty line

en.wikipedia.org...

The government's definition of poverty is based on total income received. For example, the poverty level for 2011 was set at $22,350 (total yearly income) for a family of four.[6] Most Americans (58.5%) will spend at least one year below the poverty line at some point between ages 25 and 75.[7] There remains some controversy over whether the official poverty threshold over- or understates poverty.

Poor people or people who earn less than the minimum wage.

Using the federal minimum wage rate of $7.25 per hour (many states have a higher rate):

A general rule is to figure annual earnings based on 2000 hours per year, although others will use 2080 hours per year, which is calculated by multiplying 40 hours per week times 52 weeks per year.

If you use 2000 hours per year, then the answer would be $14,500. If you use 2080 hours per year, then the answer would be $15,080.

People who rely on minimum wage pay often have wide fluctuations in the number of hours worked. This often depends on the economy, especially the current demand for the products or services of the employer's specific business. This is often cyclical in nature, with the same workers at some times being forced to work fewer than 40 hours per week while other weeks working overtime. This fluctuation will affect the annual pay of these workers.

Most minimum wage jobs come with no, or few, benefits. If an employee has to miss work due to sickness, family emergency, or other reason, the time off from work is generally unpaid. This is stark contrast to many higher paid jobs, which provide benefits to protect income while off work (paid vacations, paid personal leave, disability insurance, etc).

Not to mention the higher out of pocket expenses that these people usually pay for medical bills (many employers in this category are not required to provide medical insurance, and the ones that do provide medical insurance often cannot negotiate a group policy that has benefits as good as larger employers' insurance).
1 year ago

Now factor in Taxes, rent, food, gas, auto insurance and we're maybe starting to get closer to reality.

Many people don't even have jobs.

reply to post by ThirdRock69


I understand this... and it is only going to get worse. I think the person who commented right before you (Ittabena) said it pretty well.

Originally posted by Ittabena
reply to post by liejunkie01

 

Actually I have to agree with him. I lived on the Mississippi flood plain until two years ago. I had my first house on the lake - paid off - wiped out by a tree falling from a freak storm. I had been meaning to get insurance but hadn't.

The house next door was up for sale and I managed to buy it with a new mortgage. Two years ago I left the area for Washington State. This year my house was wiped out in a 100 year record flood, or at least that is what they are calling it. If I had been there for it and not had insurance I would have lost my investment. If I had had insurance I might have gotten paid, or I might have gotten part. (See Katrina aftermath)

You are reacting, and you are uninformed. The people who got FEMA money from this last flood received it in the form of low interest loans. There were no gifts involved. These low interest loans were so popular that 9 months later there are about half a dozen families remaining in the campground I lived in, and three of those homes are the owners houses. Everyone else finally figured that it was dumb to invest in that area.

Who said if the flood waters come up, or the twister comes through, or the hurricane hits the government bails you out? Because they don't. Whoever told you that this happened has lied to you.

The people of Katrina couldn't even get water, and the ones that really needed the money haven't even collected on their insurance. Many have had their homes and property seized and have not been able to return to this day.

Whatever you think Ron Paul is going to take from you has never ever been there to begin with. Ron Paul is just saying that we need to be personally responsible. If you cannot afford the house with the proper insurance get a smaller one that will allow you to fit insurance into your budget. While he is saying that we all need to quit putting our hands out to the Federal Government, I am telling you that you never really could.

The Federal Government responsible for damage from tornadoes, I have heard everything now.

reply to post by liejunkie01


he's right...

He's just using this to speak to his ideals. Ones that are correct, it doesn't mean he isn't sympathetic to the families, it just means he used this scenario to point out what's wrong with the system.

We need to be personally responsible. Not depend on hand outs. A ton of people "get" this on ATS. It shouldn't the governments job to take care of us.

He's right.

reply to post by liejunkie01


They call Ron Paul's anti-Federal aid--- libertarian? I call it --- Right-wing snobbery ---- coming from a right-wing kook, that should never be allowed near the hall's of power; by a longshot.

Originally posted by Ittabena
reply to post by liejunkie01

 

You people are duped..........Paul is a crony just like the rest of the rich............

Actually I have to agree with him. I lived on the Mississippi flood plain until two years ago. I had my first house on the lake - paid off - wiped out by a tree falling from a freak storm. I had been meaning to get insurance but hadn't.

The house next door was up for sale and I managed to buy it with a new mortgage. Two years ago I left the area for Washington State. This year my house was wiped out in a 100 year record flood, or at least that is what they are calling it. If I had been there for it and not had insurance I would have lost my investment. If I had had insurance I might have gotten paid, or I might have gotten part. (See Katrina aftermath)

You are reacting, and you are uninformed. The people who got FEMA money from this last flood received it in the form of low interest loans. There were no gifts involved. These low interest loans were so popular that 9 months later there are about half a dozen families remaining in the campground I lived in, and three of those homes are the owners houses. Everyone else finally figured that it was dumb to invest in that area.

Who said if the flood waters come up, or the twister comes through, or the hurricane hits the government bails you out? Because they don't. Whoever told you that this happened has lied to you.

The people of Katrina couldn't even get water, and the ones that really needed the money haven't even collected on their insurance. Many have had their homes and property seized and have not been able to return to this day.

Whatever you think Ron Paul is going to take from you has never ever been there to begin with. Ron Paul is just saying that we need to be personally responsible. If you cannot afford the house with the proper insurance get a smaller one that will allow you to fit insurance into your budget. While he is saying that we all need to quit putting our hands out to the Federal Government, I am telling you that you never really could.

The Federal Government responsible for damage from tornadoes, I have heard everything now.

edit on 5-3-2012 by Ittabena because: (no reason given)

GREAT reply.

At times I find myself not really knowing much about whatever the thread i'm reading is talking about. And most of the time i won't post, instead of spewing ignorant garbage.

If you don't know what you're talking about, don't talk! ( or atleast offer up your opinion in a way that says you aren't afraid of constructive criticism... maybe even ASK for someones expertise)

But you my good sir, seem very knowledgeable. Hopefully more people will read your reply.

Originally posted by dannotz
reply to post by liejunkie01

 

he's right...

He's just using this to speak to his ideals. Ones that are correct, it doesn't mean he isn't sympathetic to the families, it just means he used this scenario to point out what's wrong with the system.

We need to be personally responsible. Not depend on hand outs. A ton of people "get" this on ATS. It shouldn't the governments job to take care of us.

He's right.

edit on 5-3-2012 by dannotz because: add

now is not the time for that though. it just shows he is more interested in touting his campaign crap than actually being a leader for the people.

no president should be so unsympathetically inflexible just because he sees it as an opportunity to tout his policies.

those are not POLICIES experiencing hardship. those are PEOPLE. just proof that presidents and wannabe presidents aren't real people. they are just programmed robots pushing their agenda. The actual PEOPLE are left unrepresented. it is "we, the policies of the united states of america"... there is no we the people.

and how does anyone refer to this man as a constitutionalists if that crap about the catholic church handling healthcare is true about his "policies" he is not a constitutionalists. He is a European interest sell out.

nothing against actual Europeans and their interests... just their old world government crap and how we let them buy out America and sell it down the river long long ago just like they do their own.

Jesus freaking christ can we at least send trucks of food to that area if they are not good enough for the money that i guess is better spent analyzing cow farts?

Holy christ!

this crap about insurance.... i lived in Florida and know for a FACT that in a hurricane and flood zone it is often damn near IMPOSSIBLE to get insurance for those things specifically. they don't want to touch you unless you practically bribe them with everything you own.

This idea that people in flood zones can just go out and get flood insurance makes me think i just woke up in an alternate universe.

FURTHERMORE.... we are not just talking about home insurance. What about those who lost their lives in an act of god? what about those who are injured?
are we going to have to wait for sympathy from the catholic church to intervene if that is his POLICY?

these people need help NOW.

Originally posted by BellaSabre
I saw and heard him on "Candy Crowlely, State of the Union" on CNN this morning.

This is *exactly* what he said. There should be no funds for states who have had a catastrophe. Even.. "They have their own National Guards".
I disagree strongly with that position. Good lord, what would have happened during Katrina if it hadn't been for federal intervention?

You guys go ahead, just don't move to California, Florida, Texas, Louisiana or anywhere else prone to disasters, and the way things have been going lately, good luck with that.

edit on 3/4/2012 by BellaSabre because: (no reason given)

if it hadnt been for federal intervention , maybe some people would still be alive after katrina !

So Ron Paul was consistent with his beliefs even when people don't like what he said?

Why is this a problem and not a good thing again?

Originally posted by khimbar
So Ron Paul was consistent with his beliefs even when people don't like what he said?

Why is this a problem and not a good thing again?

... because like you said, people don't like it.

one could say that serial killers are at least consistent.

how is that not a bad thing again?

reply to post by liejunkie01


yea i bet you will have a problem with FEMA when they load everyone up on trains and take them to concentration camps. Honestly we are run by the same people that ran the 3rd Reich, be careful they only look harmless...
RON PAUL 2012

Originally posted by BlackSatinDancer

Originally posted by khimbar
So Ron Paul was consistent with his beliefs even when people don't like what he said?

Why is this a problem and not a good thing again?

... because like you said, people don't like it.

one could say that serial killers are at least consistent.

how is that not a bad thing again?

What a lovely straw man argument. However since you asked...

It's a bad thing because they kill people. Really, I'd have thought you'd seen the clue in the name. The 'killer' bit. There it is, see it now?

Ron Paul saying 'people should be responsible for themselves' isn't killing people.

I hope that wasn't too complicated for you to understand.

I await your next fallacious straw man analogy with interest.