Sign In | Create an Account | Welcome, . My Account | Logout | Subscribe | Submit News | Newspaper contacts | All Access E-Edition | Home RSS
 
 
 

Three strikes rule

June 5, 2013

The heat in recent days has set my mind spinning .....

« Back to Article

 
 
sort: oldest | newest

Comments

(47)

rmiller

Jun-07-13 7:23 AM

Bobbie,

FEMA, sort of like IRS....lots of bureaucracy, nothing accomplished. I'm sorry, now they even track all electronic communication unless of course you are the WH, with secret emails.

1 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

rmiller

Jun-06-13 11:14 PM

O.K. Mr. all knowing,

"My point is that people here are saying that it's their opinion that whenever someone loses their house in a natural disaster, the federal gov't steps in and builds them a new home. That simply isn't true. "

Since you've told us what the govt. doesn't do (and please do elaborate) perhaps you can tell us what it does do.

2 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

rmiller

Jun-06-13 11:12 PM

Stanley,

You're more liberal than I. Speaking strictly for myself, first strike and we will build you a new home/business on solid ground and not shifting sand. One wants to live there? I understand the beauty of that area.....but it doesn't come without great risks and maybe I sound cold here, but the govt. shouldn't keep bailing again and again and again the know risk areas from weather catastrophes. This includes all avenues of weather.

2 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

CHayes

Jun-06-13 1:44 PM

"In the case of Hurricane Katrina storm damage, I can say with absolute certainty that your statement would be wrong, Chris. Look up "The Road Home Project" and see how the Federal Government gave away billions on dollars to entice displaced home owner to come back to New Orleans"

Sure Tedeaux, but that is a special program set up to address one specific concern. It isn't the way the federal govt and FEMA typically operate.

My point is that people here are saying that it's their opinion that whenever someone loses their house in a natural disaster, the federal gov't steps in and builds them a new home. That simply isn't true.

1 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

JohnZook

Jun-06-13 11:08 AM

Sham-Word of the day- "Cognitive" Meaning- Have you ever had a cognitive thought when responding to a post?

2 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

MrShaman

Jun-06-13 10:34 AM

"Insurance companies ought to be able to base their premiums upon the risk they incur by issuing a policy." - philunderwood

*

Instead, they DO so (presently) to keep their stockholders happy.

*

See:

How Insurance Companies Fight Recession: Jack Up Your Premiums

1 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

spike2

Jun-06-13 9:32 AM

I agree with Tedeaux in part. The only issue I have is that a replacement value is always greater than home value. If you have a 100 year old brick home valued a $239,000, rebuilding the same home will cost $450,000. I do agree that encouraging people, through a financial bribe, to rebuild in the same area is wrong. We do need FEMA to provide money. When the insurance companies we use to insure our properties in PA take a huge hit in New Orleans, New Jersey, Oklahoma, etc., rates increase across the board to cover the loss.

4 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Tedeaux

Jun-06-13 4:28 AM

In the case of Hurricane Katrina storm damage, I can say with absolute certainty that your statement would be wrong, Chris. Look up "The Road Home Project" and see how the Federal Government gave away billions on dollars to entice displaced home owner to come back to New Orleans by giving them $150,000 to rebuild their homes, homes that clearly were not worth $150,000 before the storm! Homes that had not been insured in years were given the money to get people to come back to New Orleans, for what, I can only guess so that they could vote for Ray Nagin, Mayor of Chocolate City! This was clearly an abuse of Federal law perpetrated by then Louisiana Governor Kathleen Babineaux Blanco and gone along with by then President George Walker Bush. Seems that it set a standard that the Federal government is here to fix all your ills, except we ain't got that kinda money anymore!

6 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

CHayes

Jun-05-13 10:44 PM

"I use that one for searching other items on SG"

Ah yes, we all know how it requires multiple user ID's to do a search on the SG site. I really wish they'd change that.

2 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

WKnapp

Jun-05-13 7:28 PM

Not meaning deception, using former ID for that post. I use that one for searching other items on SG, merely forgot to change it. My apologies.

5 Agrees | 3 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

valves

Jun-05-13 7:25 PM

CHayes

Jun-05-13 7:44 AM

"Republicans under Bush43 ran up the debt by spending too much."

And certainly the Bush tax cuts didn't have anything to do with it. First President in history to allow tax cuts to be extended during a time of war, and in this case TWO wars that cost over $3 Trillion.

Nope, they spent like drunken sailors fresh off a 3 year deployment on a submarine. As everyone with even HALF a brain knows, reducing tax rates INCREASES revenues (see Kennedy administration, 1962, and every other time rates were reduced). Revenues were coming in at record rates, but spending was increasing even faster. Your side never wants to admit these facts, but facts they are. Not because I say so, but because it's been proven time and again by history.

7 Agrees | 3 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

msgjsheets

Jun-05-13 6:16 PM

How about we just end private ownership of all lands and property and turn it over to the government and then the government will be responsible for all maintenance costs, utility bills, local taxes. Yeah, that would be work..... (Sarcasm for all of you libs out there!)

8 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Bufftrev1

Jun-05-13 5:49 PM

Thanks for the kind words, born, Chris and Gavin..

2 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

CHayes

Jun-05-13 5:07 PM

So then you want to look at these on a case by case basis richardson? How? Should we spend tax dollars on an extensive study anytime someone wants to build anywhere there has ever been an earthquake (like the entire eastern seaboard), or anywhere it's ever rained? How/who exactly do you propose to determine who is eligible, and who is not?

And again, the govt does not pay to rebuild people's homes if they didn't have applicable insurance. What they will do is assist people to get loans, but again, those are loans, NOT grants. I know this because I had a boss that lives in Wilkes Barre that had his home wiped out in a flood a few years back. He didn't have flood insurance, and went the FEMA route. They helped him get loans.

0 Agrees | 6 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

richardson

Jun-05-13 4:26 PM

"I'll bite on that. What if the flood plane has been changed by the activities of others? Also, I don't think it's inherently risky to build near a coast. When was the last time anyone here heard of a catastrophic hurricane hitting NJ and CT?"

Let us have some fun: Malibou--houses falling into the ocean. Perhaps the Outer Banks. Maybe: Building on fault lines, like the San Andreas. Or: Like you say when it is someone else's fault: Like flood control dams which fill in and no longer protect the persons who build in former flood plains below the dams. Or govt channeling streams again encouraging persons to build where they should not. Or San Diego Cty where persons build on the edge, but are not allowed to construct firebreaks around their homes for some obscure rodent? Last I was a kid when a hurricane blew down half the Adirondacks. As low level properties on any coast: The less the risk the cheaper the cost for insurance. Bet against nature: Sometimes you lose.

9 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

CHayes

Jun-05-13 3:27 PM

"The taxpayer should not be taxed for others' risky behavior."

And I'll bite on that. What if the flood plane has been changed by the activities of others? Also, I don't think it's inherently risky to build near a coast. When was the last time anyone here heard of a catastrophic hurricane hitting NJ and CT?

1 Agrees | 9 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

richardson

Jun-05-13 1:58 PM

Me thinks that Gould is not affected by the heat and is merely toying for expected responses from regular commentors of LTE. I will bite: The taxpayer should not be taxed for others' risky behavior. Those costs should be born by the risk-takers: esp, when said risk-takers lack cya private insurance. I especially resent my taxes covering well to do folks for living in dangerous places such as on ocean fronts. Tough t.tt. Not my problem.

13 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

gavinf56

Jun-05-13 1:54 PM

Congrats on the house deal Buff.

6 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

BornHere

Jun-05-13 1:12 PM

Congratulations Buff, I hope you and your better half are happy in your new home.

6 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

CHayes

Jun-05-13 12:59 PM

"Chris, my better half and I put in an offer on a house in Montoursville and it was accepted. We close in august, we should get together sometime, play some hackey sack or grill some vegetables.."

You're on my soon to be neighbor.

5 Agrees | 3 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

CHayes

Jun-05-13 12:58 PM

"Libs- Tax cuts don't "cost"; it's the peoples money, not the governments"

Of course not John, it's just like going to a party and refusing to kick in. Doesn't cost you anything to refuse to pay your fair share, so it must not cost anyone.

In reality, someone would have to be virtually insane to not consider a 501 tax exemption not to be subsidization by the govt and thus taxpayers.

3 Agrees | 8 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

JohnZook

Jun-05-13 12:03 PM

Libs- Tax cuts don't "cost"; it's the peoples money, not the governments. Now, understand this..... "spending costs". I know that doesn't make sense to you, but I know what does......., "spending equals votes".

10 Agrees | 6 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

philunderwood

Jun-05-13 11:11 AM

Buff, you complain about Conservative politicians voting for funds for their pet projects, but complain when they vote to prevent new government expansion. I’ll posit that they are operating within the system to fund projects back home, while trying to change the system; there’s nothing wrong with that.

9 Agrees | 4 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Bufftrev1

Jun-05-13 10:28 AM

Chris, my better half and I put in an offer on a house in Montoursville and it was accepted. We close in august, we should get together sometime, play some hackey sack or grill some vegetables..

4 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Bufftrev1

Jun-05-13 10:26 AM

As usual, Erik's post is wrong.. recently elected republicans can claim all they want to be fiscally conservative but their actions prove otherwise. What they are doing is quietly voting for monies for their own pet projects and constituents.. ie, subsidizing rural airports in OK, AL and Ark... it seems it would be more appropriate to say they are fiscally conservative regarding others needs.. their own, that's somehow different. Spending on their own projects isn't wasteful, its spending on others peoples projects that's the problem. Rotten..

7 Agrees | 12 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Showing 25 of 47 comments Show More Comments
 
 

Post a Comment

You must first login before you can comment.

*Your email address:
*Password:
Remember my email address.
or
 
 

 

I am looking for:
in:
News, Blogs & Events Web