Posted on 01/29/2006 2:17:44 PM PST by Uncle Sham
I have stood on the levee several times during the spring floods and observed the water level differences on each side. It is quite dramatic at times, and scary, going up the levee and when reaching the high peak to see that massive river only about 10' from the top while the city is 30' - 50' below you.
I've got a small issue with the 'we' in your questions CB. Why should 'we' pay for them at all? Why should 'we' do anything with them? It's a frigging flood plain in the middle of hurrican alley for cripes sake. How about we just leave it to nature to reclaim that which was hers to begin with?
What really pisses me off is this asshat UncleSham crying to the US Taxpayer yet again for another NO bailout. Why should we give them another frigging dime of government money? They've pissed away nearly every nickel they've been given on graft, corruption, and outright incompetence already. What reason is there to believe things will be any different this time?
He says it won't cost the taxpayer a nickel, but if that's true why do they need the Feds (read you and me) involved at all? If it's such a great idea private banks and real estate companies should be chomping at the bit to get their hands on this valuable submersible real estate. There's no need for Uncle Sugar to put one single dime of American taxpayer money at risk yet again in the corrupt sewer that is NO and LA government.
But, that idea makes me a greedy and heartless SOB according to him. Never mind the hours we donated packing up goods. Never mind the hundreds of dollars my family spent on relief supplies. Never mind the hours my brother ES workers and I spent working on fire equipment to ship to the disaster zone to replace gear destroyed.
I live in a small town of about 20,000 people. The town next to ours is about the same size. In less than a month these two towns had donated, collected, sorted, packed, and shipped entirely at private expense 4 full semi loads of relief supplies to a small county in Mississippi. My family and a bunch of people we don't even know spent days over there working to get this stuff down there in an orderly manner. Not one dime of Federal money was involved. The only 'government' money spent was a few thousand dollars in the Mayors discretionary fund, which is now totally depleted by the way.
Everything else was either donated by corporate sponsors or individuals. Most of it can't even be written off because it isn't a recognized charitable organization. But, that didn't stop anyone that I know of. We had only planned on a couple of loads going down there, but we ended up being able to ship 4. Not bad for a bunch of greedy, heartless nogoodniks IMO.
Now this selfish no good asshat Uncle Sham wanders through and tells me that I'm ugly. Well coming from someone like that I guess I should take it as a compliment. If he thinks that what me and my family did is ugly, then hell I guess we're ugly. Give me the T-shirt and I'll wear it every where I go for a week.
This is a serious disaster, but to say it's unprecedented is simply not true CB. There are a lot of natural disasters in American history which were just as bad if not worse. The Dust Bowl in the 20s and 30s, the Ohio River Valley flooding, and the San Francisco earthquake of 1906 to name just a few.
The difference between then and now is that the survivors weren't standing around with their god damned hands out demanding billions from the US taxpayer and calling us heartless, cold, cruel, uncaring, and ugly if we didn't fall for every scheme thought up by some corrupt local politician.
You seem like a reasonable person CB unlike the jerkweed who thinks I'm ugly. Why should we trust anything coming from a politician of either party in LA? Where's the track record that says that this money, this time, won't be poured down the same rathole as all the other money that's been shovelled their way?
Like I said, if it's such a great deal and there's literally no risk why aren't banks, S & Ls, real estate investment firms, and private investors lining up with their checkbooks? Hell, if it's such a sweet deal the coffers should be overflowing with money just waiting to be invested.
I'm done talking to this UncleSham fool after this. If folks like him think I'm ugly then I guess I'll just have to live with that. Somehow I think I'll continue to muddle through.
But what I am going to do is sit down and write a nice letter to my Congresscritter Hyde and ask that he vote no on this 'plan' submitted. I'm going to encourage everyone else I know to do the same.
Nice chatting with you sir or ma'am.
This is old, ugly, heartless, uncaring, greedy, selfish Lurker signing off for now.
L
Well, I hope you read this message before you send that letter to Mr. Hyde (lucky you, to have such a great Congressman).
OK, here's the way I see it.
The reason that "we" have to bail them out is that the mortgages on the properties which have FHA or VA mortgages are guaranteed by HUD, which means that you and I will have to pick up the tab, just as we did for the Savings and Loan fiasco -- which caused a nasty recession.
Now, you may not like the idea of federally guaranteed mortgages, but the fact is that they exist, and the consequences of massive defaults may be dire (I will let the economists and accountants give you the projections, I am neither).
But with 200,000 homes destroyed, and another 35,000 severely damaged, that suggests to me that perhaps 235,000 mortgages are going to go into default. What are we talking about here? $235,000,000,000?
In fact, many mortgages are already in default.
Now, one of the facts that most people don't realize is that banks *don't* like to foreclose on properties, especially ones that are in poor condition. They have to advance legal fees and costs out of their own pocket, and then they're stuck with these dogs, with liabilities for taxes, maintenance, insurance. They are not in the business of selling or managing real estate.
Tough? Well, no, because HUD, Fannie Mae, and Freddie Mac (all federal agencies) will have to foot the bill, and pass it on to you.
That's why it just might make sense to buy these worthless properties now.
What makes Hurrican Katrina and NO so special that other victims can't qualify for?
You're off by a factor of at least 100 here. I seriously doubt that 235,000 homes have a mortgage value of 235 billion dollars. I seriously doubt they have a mortgage value of 235 million dollars.
As far as what banks 'like' to do, I couldn't care less. They're insured, granted it's Federally, but they are insured. So what we're talking about is a hit of maybe 100 million or so. That's a drop in the bucket. Take the hit and move on. I don't want to throw good money after bad.
Pay the property holders off, and tell them to move. Problem solved.
L
I agree with this solution. There just does not appear to be any other way.
Well, well, well, now look who actually agrees with ole' selfish, no good, jerkweed, asshat Uncle Sham. It's none other than old "thick skin" himself!
Lurker, had you bothered to read the article, you would have realized that the Baker proposal does EXACTLY what you've stated.
Your math is a little off, like by about 30 Billion off but that's ok. The point is that you finally "get it". Multiply 235,000 homes x $150,000 avg. pre-Katrina value x .6 and you end up with 21.15 billion dollars on the purchase side. They project that it's gonna cost in the neighborhood of 30 billion to do this when you throw in improvements after the fact in an effort to entice developers to purchase the properties.
Now, I have a point to make about insults. I don't know you personally, yet you almost had a heart attack right here on this thread over what you perceived to be insults from me to you. Remember the way you felt when you read what I had posted and think about those feelings of yours when posting comments about others whom you know nothing personal about. Lots of posters on this forum have taken one pot shot after another at the good folks of Louisiana who are still going through hell down here. They are hurting big-time from what mother nature has brought to their lives. Many of them read these threads and are deeply hurt when they see others like you calling them "stupid", "greedy", "low-life", etc. etc. etc. Review some of these threads and the list goes on and on with one insult and unkind remark after another. They don't deserve this. They are dealing with enough pain right now.
If you want to debate an issue concerning them and the problems they are dealing with, refrain from blanket insults. You know how it stings. You really want to help them? Plan on joining them at Mardis Gras and spend a little money down there. It would be an eye-opener for you and that young man of yours. I might even drive down and spring for a meal.
Your remarks towards me are forgiven, they were made in anger. My wife says my skull is thicker but I've got really thick skin. BTW, I'll send you that T-shirt if you send me one of those "ass-hats". Deal?
Thank you for being such wonderful representative!
How much? Where the hell is it? Most of it hasn't even left D.C and what has is stuck in governmental red-tape. How are homeowners with destroyed property that they can't live in and mortgage notes without the jobs they once had and no insurance settlements they can accept make it work out? You are asking these folks to put their entire existence on hold for how long? It's been five months. Try doing that. Try doing that to your entire state. Your patience would be tested big time. If we're getting such a great deal down here why don't you move down and get some of the goodies? You'd turn around in a second when you see first hand what it's all about. Sending the wrong type of help is not helping. None of this is for me. It comes out of my taxes just as it comes out of yours. They need to tell FEMA to get out of the way.
No one is saying that they are "special". There is a problem that needs solving and we are just trying to solve the problem in the most rational way possible. Whether you like it or not, this destruction along the gulf coast is going to cost American taxpayers. This is about trying to minimize the cost while at the same time doing what is needed to properly restart the economies down here and help insure that future cost are less likely. Isn't that in your interest as well? Not doing anything would be more expensive to this nation in the long run.
When the US gov't starts paying for all hurricane victim's foreclosures then I'm with you. Otherwise, it is discriminating and that's not what the US is all about.
...or in mudslide zones, or on cliffs that are there due to seismic activity, or on the edge of volcanoes, or on beaches where Hurricanes routinely come through...
Novel, eh! ; )
OK, how are you going to deal with the problem of hundreds of thousands of homeowners defaulting on their mortgages? I hope you don't think it matters to your pocketbook whether they do so or not because it does. Who do you think is going to pay the welfare and federal assistance money to these new impoverished families? We would be better off trying to allow them to remain financially whole as they will become hard-working tax payers again much quicker. You either want them to live in poverty at your expense or you want them to be back to normal as soon as possible helping you pay the taxes. There is a lot of it that is in your interest to decide.
BTW, we have a problem to solve. It has nothing at all to do with any other problem no matter how you wish to categorize it.
It is a hard truth...
It is indeed. I just wish those that shoot themselves in the foot A, wouldn't expect those that don't to pick up the tab, and B, would quit crying about it when it actually happens. : ]
You act like the victims of Hurricane Katrina are the first to lose their homes, etc. as a result of a natural disaster. They aren't.
Hey, sign me up for that program! My flood insurance payment is due March 1st. Why should I pay it if the Fed's will cover me free of charge?
Where does it end? How can the U.S. taxpayers be the guarantor of the status quo in the face of any disaster?
A lot of people start with nothing and build a good life. I've done it, so did my parents and grand parents. It's the American way, and also one of the primary lessons of the school of hard knocks.
If you live in a flood zone, and can't scrape up a few hundred dollars a year for insurance, chances are that you're priorities are going to deliver a lesson from the SoHK one way or another. From personal experience, I can tell you that bail outs tend to blunt the value of the lesson.
Not sure whether you are being sarcastic but either way I would like to clarify my post #247.
Impossible to pay everybody off and move them all away. I meant just the ones in wetlands as defined by EPA, where nobody should have built to begin with, and whatever constitutes "flood plain", which isn't the entire region. I tried to create a Mapquest image of the devastated region and then realized, doh!, I don't have a server, so gave up.
At any rate, each area needs to be considered on its individual merits.
I've never said anything of the sort. I've said we are facing an enormous problem and must deal with it no matter which direction you choose. Other storms you might want to compare Katrina to simply did not provide as much of an economic threat to the nation that it would affect you. This one does and will. One reason is the magnitude. The other reason is the location. This nation needs that location up and running at full throttle as soon as possible. It is a primary supplier of the fuel this nation runs on. It is a primary exchanger of the goods we buy and sell. The ability of this area to function properly has a considerable affect on the economy of the entire nation. Had Houston been leveled by Hurrican Rita, the same would apply there as well. Some areas can take a hit from a storm with little impact on you. Not these.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.