Flooded in Debt: Rand Paul’s Fight To Fix Federal Flood Insurance
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 20 сен 2024
- Federal flood insurance is a disaster!
----
To get our new weekly video from Stossel TV, sign up here: www.johnstosse...
----
As I reported years ago, Federal Flood Insurance encourages idiots like me to do foolish things like building a house on the edge of the Atlantic Ocean.
It was a risky place to build, but I did it anyway because government guaranteed my investment.
Eventually, my whole house was destroyed, but I didn’t lose a penny. Thanks!
But it’s wrong that you paid for my risk-taking, and it’s good that finally, one senator, Rand Paul, wants to limit this handout.
He points out, that there’s no limit on how many times your government will give away your money.
“One house in Virginia, they've rebuilt the house 41 times,” explains Paul.
41 times! Federal flood insurance is like buying drunk drivers new cars.
It’s not government’s job to protect people from the risks we choose to take. We should get rid of federal flood insurance and all subsidies that encourage people like me to build in risky places.
It's quite commendable for Stossel to admit he benefited from a policy he disagrees on.
Someone in the news for the last 8 years pointed out tax laws and how he uses them to his advantage, and why they need changed. Yet they try try try to get his tax records to shame him for not paying taxes.
Agreed, and it would be even more commendable if he returned all that money.
No, screw that. If they offer it only a fool wouldn't take it.@@sidwhiting665 Fix the problem of giving handouts not penalizing the people who fully take advantage of them. Less government is needed overall.
He confessed because he would have gotten caught and called out for being a hypocrite. Confessing before doing this video would have been commendable; waiting until he does a video about it is nothing more than covering his ass.
@@bshingledecker and they are stopping at nothing to silence him.
Disappointed in Sen Kennedy’s position on subsidizing insurance on wealthy families second homes. Thank you John Stossel for keeping some common sense thought alive in our decaying society.
he's from an area that is built on land that is underwater normally! New Orleans should have been swept away long ago but taxes keep building the barriers!
Haha you know who his donors are, shouldn’t be surprising. One of the slimiest RINOs ever
I was also disappointed in Sen. Kennedy - and a bit surprised. Thanks to Stossel for reporting honestly and without fear of offending.
Kennedy is a lawyer first and foremost. Here he is representing his largest donors and advocating on their behalf. Louisiana is full of vacation homes and hunting lodges on the edge of waterfront.
Agree completely. Actually, his Foghorn Leghorn act is becoming a bit tiresome. He's beginning to remind me of Trey all-in-it-for-the-soundbite Gowdy. All talk but no discernible results....that I can see.
I can't believe they rebuilt a house 41 times. If the homeowner had to pay for it I don't think they would have rebuilt it once.
I bet that house got more expansive 41 times.
What's the carbon foot print on a home washed away and rebuilt 41 times? What pollution to the marine enviornment and food chain? But we are supposed to save every molecule of carbon and not waste a single electron. Now eat insects to reduce the enviornmental damage of cattle farming. What a friggin joke!
Homeowner was probably a builder.
Unfortunately, I can believe it. Ridiculous outcomes is the hallmark of government programs.
This house, like many others in US is made of wood. There's no problem to rebuild it 141 time or 1141. It's also costs next to nothing.
"Penalize success"
The mental gymnastics it takes to equate taking government subsidies away from rich people to a "penalty" is astounding.
And if you are truly "successful" you shouldn't need to rely on the government for your insurance. Gov't assistance is for the unsuccessful or those currently down on their luck.
Well he is a politician and he is a Republican.
So many people seem to forget that just because the Democrats are completely insane on most things, that the Republicans aren't much different on that front. Completely full of it and often just as looney as the squad. And sometimes even more.
While I greatly respect Senator Kennedy, he is on the wrong side of this issue and it undermines his credibility.
@@EDesigns_FL he's just pandering to his constiuents in Louisiana. Many of whom live in flood plains and consistently find themselves in the path of hurricanes. If it's so risky to kive there that no one will insure them, then they should either leave or take that risk upon themselves. We shouldn't be paying for it. I'm tired of paying for the consequences of other people's bad decisions.
@@EDesigns_FL Don't trust anyone with the name Kennedy.
If I buy a scratch off and it doesn't win, should taxpayers give me my money back?
that scratch card is infringing your right to pursue happiness 😡
some would argue that each ticket should win some large amount, just because.
some people are functionally incompetent.
Of course. The government shouldn't penalize your attempts to make money.
That's actually a very apt metaphor
insurance and lotteries analogize suspiciously well
Keep in mind some of the richest people and climate creeps own beach front property today.
Why wouldn’t they when the government will pay for any damage or loss, at no cost to them.
They're also the one's claiming "climate change" and rising sea levels. And they still build on oceanfront property......
Which is why the program will stay
I’m surprised Kennedy is that strong behind it. It’s a ridiculous program, and a ridiculous proposition, and that’s why it’ll never go away.
I suspect it's because Lousiana is one of those highly flooded areas. If insurance goes away, so does half the investment into that state
Cause his state is a flood plain!
Kennedy is a top 13 family. Right up there with the Rothschilds and Rockerfellers.
New Orleans should have been left underwater
Senator Paul isn't even talking about taking it away, just limiting it to primary residences. I'm sorta okay with the government helping working class families with homes in flood prone areas. I don't like it but I accept that government is a safety net. It's insane that we're paying to subsidize multimillion dollar waterfront mansions. Let rich people pay top dollar for private insurance if they want beach mansions.
Thanks to John Stossel for covering these issues.
Cena
@@dariusthurman8835
Are you sure about that?
Looks like Xina to me.
😅
Wow, the AI bots are just everyone in the comments section. Thank you, Doctor. Your comments are awesome.
If you earn enough to buy a second home you should be able to afford insuring it yourself.
Funny thing is though many people are just that deep in debt my wife and I had two homes for about two years tried to rent one out but got hosed on that deal. Finally sold it and still because of inflation and the ridiculous money being sent overseas and funding the government programs were still essentially broke.
It's more to it than that though.
Some places should NOT even be insured privately. They shouldn't be built period.
Even if the private insurance does offer them insurance. And they charge them more than they do you.
What do you think happens when their homes get wiped out? When entire low lying areas in hurricane prone areas get devastated over and over? Everybody else pays for it.
The government wants people to build there and people want to live there, no matter how much of a risk it is. They love "prime" real estate and all the tax revenue it brings in.
Who cares if it's falls into the sea? Who cares when typical hurricane storm surge comes in puts everything underwater? Who cares when there's extensive wind damage as well!
Either the regular citizen with insurance in a more sensible location will be pay for it. Or the government will pay for it.
But the actual people building things in stupid locations? Nah. They can't take the loss, everybody else has to pay for it!
One way or another. You are ultimately paying for all this.
@@albundy06Private insurance will cover people who are high risk, they're just going to charge a hefty premium. Lots of people with terrible driving records & DUIs still have car insurance, they just pay a much higher rate than everyone else.
Every time a sound fiscal policy is proposed it is met with screeching.
I remember Susan Collins wouldn't remove 40 billion in spending that wasn't even supposed to be spent anymore....
Because it's how politicians make money. By taking yours and pretending it's for your sake.
@@mrow7598 Collins, like Kennedy, a 13 Illuminati family at the top.
Bingo. Everyone agrees in principle that spending needs to be cut, but when someone gets specific nearly everyone screams bloody murder. The politicians are mostly just a symptom. The real problem is the voters.
I've been paying for flood insurance for 20 years on a home that is very not likely to flood but that is (barely) in the flood maps because of the way they calculated them back in the 1970s. Meanwhile, people keep building houses in areas guaranteed to flood. Insane.
So pay it off, drop the insurance and take your chances
I started paying for flood insurance many years ago, just in case my primary residence flooded. My home is not in a flood zone and has never flooded in its 40 years of existence. Homes in the area flood periodically and are in a flood zone. My flood insurance premium started at a reasonable rate and has increased to be 3 times more than what it started because now they take the homes that do flood into consideration in that calculated premium. The area that has historically flooded is now subdivision on top of subdivision. Sometimes the displacement of low lying areas and changes in drainage patterns by this over construction has caused homes that have not historically flooded before, to flood. Neglected maintenance to drainage by corrupt government has contributed also. And as long as the government subsidizes the flood insurance to cover homes that are built in areas that have historically flooded, the construction will continue. Flood insurance coverage has changed much and hopefully continues to change what and where it will cover damage until it discourages construction in flood prone areas.
keep exposing the corruption & waste!! this is *REAL* journalism!
If a home is built on land that is known to flood time and time again and insurance is available for that home, it should not be subsidized by the government and the insurance pool should not be shared among those not living in such flood prone regions. There should be some forgiveness for people living in such homes as their primary residence, but not much. This whole thing is all about wealthy people taking advantage of a system which they have helped build through lobbying the government.
Rebuilding a home on land that has been washed away dozens of times is absolutely absurd.
If the taxpayers paid a claim that property should be taken (with just compensation) and declared uninsurable forever under the program. This is literally the definition of insanity. Living in a known flood plain and getting flooded isn't my fault, it's yours
@@mattgayda2840what if your third generation & climate change is effecting you, & your working class & raising a family & taking care of elders ?
@@peterpan8263I think that's his point, once your house is destroyed and a claim put in, it's a wrap. The amount of money to rebuild should be used to purchase and relocate to a home in an area that is not at risk rather than just popping up a new house in the same spot that is doomed to flood again. It's kind of like the wild fires in California - it's a gamble you take when you choose to live there. People lost homes in the dixie fire, got their money and some are choosing to stay and rebuild, sans insurance. If they choose to stay they do so with no help from insurance if it burns again. (granted I do feel there's a little more nuance to that since many of the fires aren't natural but caused by the power company but, I digress).
That’s not really fair. Hurricane Harvey destroyed thousands of homes that had never flooded before and have not flooded since. There is no reason for those homes to be taken by the Fed.
@@peterpan8263 "what if your working class & . . .?" and own a 5 million dollar beach front property?
no working class people own a 5 million dollar beach front property. that simply does not exist period.
the amendment rand paul was proposing would only have applied to rich mansions and such. working class homes were exempt.
I respect that. John admits that something he took advantage of is unfair for everyone else and encourages everybody to support getting rid of it. anyone else simply wouldn't cover it.
A lot of us take advantage of tax loopholes and we call for taxes to be changed to be more simple and less complicated and do away with the loopholes to make it easier for ALL. But the politicians don't listen as they like the loopholes so much they rather keep them.
@@Meekerextreme true.
My Senator, the only honest person in DC...
I mean he went against his principles and supported Trump, who significantly increased government size and spending. Not sure I would call that honest.
@@hyperrealfound the globalist MSM slave
Your analysis of what went down is truly disturbing and mostly Democratic psychobabble try again@@hyperreal
@@hyperrealyou must be Rand Paul's neighbor another Looney left Democrat that's violent
Why did you take down two of my post RUclips I will put them up again now😂😂😂
Welfare and cronyism are two sides of the same coin.
I had a dramatic increase in my home owner premium one year. The agent told me it was due to coastal flooding in Florida. I live in Washington state. I am aware of the federal flood insurance, no insurer looses money, tax payers do. I called out the lie on insurance and changed insurance companies. They raised my premium on a lie.
The next stage is the politicians limit the insurance increases (California) and insurers pull out of the state because they can’t properly charge for people living in risky areas.
It is my understanding, although some are nationwide, all insurance companies are regulated by state. They can only assess the risk at the state level. It is very unlikely that premiums were raised in Washington due to a disaster in Florida. I suspect that it was a local agent using it as an excuse to make more money. Just like I do when I hear that inflation is up. My rates go up!
Now I know why so many build second, third and rental properties on the Outer Banks on North Carolina. I remember houses falling in the ocean from my childhood in the 70s. Surfed there for many years and would always wonder how people afford to build a house over and over in the same place.
And not all homes are prone to the same flooding on the outer banks. Some are built with flooding in mind and are higher up. Some are on the Bayside and don't see as much flooding. Others are in more protected areas away from heavy erosion.
There needs to be an actual assessment of properties that is fair to well built and well placed homes for insurance. Versus those that are in highly susceptible areas to damage. And classify those different
@@TheoriginalBMT They mentioned that. I don't think anyone wants to prevent those that live and work in these places but those that have huge houses, rental properties, etc should pay for private insurance instead of taxpayers paying for VA doctors third beach house in Rodanthe.
There's one here in SoCal where the grandma suite fell off the cliff and slid into the ocean. A couple million dollars of house, along with a half million dollar littering fine and a 1.5 million dollar fine for polluting a nature reserve (the bay there is protected). Hilarious.
I live in extreme north Louisiana, almost to the Arkansas state line. When Katrina came ashore hundreds of miles from me, the power company raised my rate and even attached a surcharge to my bill to cover the cost of cleanup for the people that live in million dollar homes on the coast, hundreds of miles from me. How on earth is that fair?
That's a complicated situation but it's still fundamentally how insurance works.
@@shawnsg Yeah, but private insurance has fierce competition demanding it be cheap for most people, and involves identifying risky behavior, charging more for it, and advising the individuals in risk how to reduce risk. There's a delicate balancing act to have sufficient reserves at any given time, but also enough profit to make the efforts worthwhile and not lose customers to some other insurance company.
The government should NOT be in the insurance business. That includes disability insurance, deposit insurance, flood insurance, crop insurance, and every other type of insurance. If people want insurance, they should buy it on the open market. Then they will stop making so many dumb decisions.
The government isn't supposed to be in any business but the law writing and enforcing business, plus the protecting our borders business.
Same with loans like student loans. There is no reason the taxpayers should be loaning money to anyone, let alone those with no chance of getting a degree that will allow them to pay it back.
@@gscurd75 Nor should the government run "retirement plans." The government should not be involved in ANY scheme in which they disburse money for anything except goods and services supplied to the government. But it's going to take the utter collapse of our government to get the government back on track.
The problem is that politicians seeking re-election will get lobbied for mandatory insurance of "x" o"y" high-risk thing, a bill will get passed and the private sector will be forced to take high-risk policies via government overregulation, thus forcing skyrocketing premium costs on everyone else. Then there'll be another bill limiting how much carriers can raise premiums, followed by carriers becoming insolvent or pulling out of unfavorable States (like what is happening this very moment in FL, LA and CA)
@@maidenminnesota1 And they shouldn't be writing and enforcing MOST of the laws they have written. The US Constitution does not authorize them to pass most of the laws they have passed.
Government needs to GET OUT OF FLOOD INSURANCE and STUDENT LOAN guarantees.
I find it funny the people that want student loan guarantees are often the ones who bitch that the college football coach at the state university is often that state's highest paid public employee. If we weren't throwing so much of our tax dollars at subsidizing college education, universities wouldn't feel the need to overpay for a college football coach.
Thanks for opening my eyes to Kennedy’s blatant disregard for conservatism! He wins the most outrageous political stance award for this one. He could barely keep a straight face toward the end.
I knew about this from Stossel's original reporting on it, but I am shocked to see Senator Kennedy against Rand Paul's proposal. I lost a bit of respect for Kennedy today..
That is one of many programs that need to be shut down. It can still exist for the current policy holders because those people made buying decisions based on those policies being available before but no more new policies. Yes, this will crater the value of homes in flood areas and that is a good thing. We shouldn't be building there in the first place.
$34 Trillion is the current national debt. I am less sympathetic to people that have other options.
Your reasoning doesn't hold water. People's insurance rates go up all the time, despite the fact that we bought our properties at "those rates." Their premiums can be jacked up proportionally as much as ours.
@spankynater4242 Where did I mention anything about the price staying the same?
@@gscurd75 The part where you said they bought their properties with insurance at a certain rate. It would help if you understood the topic, then we'll work on you understanding what you're saying.
The additional pain to homeowners also comes to those who live somewhat near to a creek or other non flooding water source and the government expands flood areas to force those with extremely low to no risk to help prop up the system with additional revenue. Just happened to a family member and they had to have a professional come in and survey to contest it.
In florida if the house sustained 50% value of the home in damage from a flood you cannot repair it, you must demo and rebuild to the new code, including elevation requirements.
Exactly correct. Flood insurance certainly has its “place” but there are many places that are simply and obviously unfit to build “permanent structures”.
It boggles my mind to see people sobbing over tge loss of their home which was built on an obvious flood plain.
If you want to build in these places you should be allowed to but … YOU should accept Total Liability for the structure AND the clean up.
If Private Insurance Companies are willing to take that liability that’s on them and should be priced accordingly.
I appreciate that John can call out politicians, and himself. We could learn a lot from this type of humility. Thank you!
How does this channel not have millions of subscribers? John says everything out loud that most people are afraid to.
I saw that on 60 minutes .GLAD ur still around a Very Good Man..ALOHA
"Thanks. I never invited you there, but you paid for my new first floor." Oof
Actually refreshing to see a newsman/reporter/media icon speaking the truth on social media - great work John!
The problem with federal flood insurance is how often the pay out on a home that's flooded more than once.
If a home is built in a area that is not a flood plain but becomes prone to flooding due to years of construction of new homes and businesses as well as new roads and freeways then the Feds should pay the home informing the owner that should his home flood a second time he will be paid but will have to move because the home now belongs to the gov't.
Near where I live FEMA owns several vacant lots of homes that were continually flooded due to the storm sewers low capacity to move water. The storm sewers worked as designed in the mid-70s but as the area grew, more homes and roads built the additional runoff overwhelms the storm sewers and the area floods. So the Feds, after paying out to homes that have repeatedly flooded they made one last payment and the owners moved somewhere else.
What stands now is a neighborhood that has very few homes remaining and is mostly vacant lots.
Costal subsidence is a real thing. The ocean waves constantly eat away at the shore and its a force of nature you cannot stop.
If you're thinking about building/buying near a river, stream, bay, ocean, gulf then don't. You'll cry like a baby to the media each time your home is flooded or washed away and cry again when you were told not to build and cry again when the feds or your homeowners flood insurance won't pay and you still owe on the house.
Good luck.
Here in Arizona lots of people move from out of state and buy land for cheap in the middle of the flood plains. They don’t understand that even though there is no river that an entire geographical region floods every single year, sometimes a little sometimes several feet deep.
Anyway every year we get to hear these dorks crying on the news about their massive house washed away and how they’re now working with federal flood insurance to get it fixed and put right back in the same spot.
It blows my mind that we keep doing the same thing over and over. If changes aren’t made in this country soon we are done for
You are totally right Senator Paul! We shouldn’t subsidize a rich persons 2nd or 3rd home!
The need for Federal Insurance is because Federal regulations make it impossible for private insurance companies to do it. The government creates one problem then compounds it with more government programs.
No no insurance company would cover such great risk without super high premiums.
I personally knew a guy who very intentionally bought a very large, two-story house that not only was in a flood-risk area, but it had been built closer to the water than all the other houses in the area.
Consequently, to no one's surprise, the lower floor of the house was ruined at least four times in 18 years, and federal flood insurance remodeled it, complete with new drywall, marble floors, and kitchen and bath fixtures, every single time.
He used localcontractors he knew and pocketed cash every time.
Congratulations John. Great insight now picked by a great congressman.
They did the same thing with Obama care, high risk and low cost subsidized insurance for those with preexisting conditions who are a giant net negative and tried to force hundreds of millions of healthier people to cover the loss with threats of fines and prison.
Yes. My solo ins went from $250/mo before Obamacare to $700/mo today. Meanwhile my brother gets his insurance for $100/mo.
It was ultimately just threats of fines, not prison. The fines were taken out of your tax refund hence why SCOTUS called it a tax.
@@Monsuco you know what happens to the average citizen who doesn't pay taxes and fines? Prison, and the feds sued nuns and other religious orgs over it, the penalties included prison.
It was probably deemed fair for people lucky enough to be healthy to assist those who are unlucky enough to suffer various medical ailments. Sure, some ailments can be caused by lifestyle choices, but others are more down to bad luck or genetic predisposition.
@@takatamiyagawa5688 it's not "fair" for my vehicle insurance rates to get increased to subsidize you because you have totaled 7 cars and have three DUI's. It's also not "fair" to force us to subsidize anyone else for anything whatsoever. Forcibly taking the money of a person for the benifit of another is theft, they taught you this in kindergarten
Wealthy people are the biggest takers of government handouts.
True, which is why Govt must be limited. Dems want more Govt programs. Reps want more Govt programs. Those of us who truly believe in freedom should demand FEWER Govt programs across the board.
In fairness the wealthy also pay the most in tax to the government, allowing the poorest to pay less than their fair share.
Keep dreaming. The top 1% funds almost half of our income taxes, advances every single industry, and employs the majority of us. Meanwhile: "The welfare budget of the United States totaled $1.215 trillion in fiscal year 2022, or 19% of all federal outlays. Eight different federal agencies run welfare." If you really must point fingers, aim squarely at Uncle Sam. He's the one that allows ALL of it to happen in the first place.
@@crazyjack2019 This. He "allows" it because it's the scam that enables politicians to get rich. In fairness to Uncle Sam though, he's been infected with corrupt politicians disease.
Naw, it's still the unemployed poor with multiple children.
To remove it fairly (since they were built with the expectation of gov insurance being present,) add the rule once 75% of the home value has been paid out, end it for that property. That will limit the gov't loss without totally screwing the homeowner.
Nonsense
@@whousa642 thanks for explaining your point. Very constructive.
I get the whole plan is inherently unfair. Heck, I think adult life is so complex the word "fair" is too simple to apply with any constructive value.
But it's going to be a hard pill to swallow if that insurance suddenly goes away & someone is stuck with a mortgage for a pile of rubble.
By that, I mean law makers will get a lot less pushback from rich people if they at least don't lose much money vs a ton of pushback. I'd rather lose another $1billion & that's it than another $50 billion from it never ending.
Last time I was this early for a Stossel video the federal government only had 4 departments
And under a trillion dollar deficit.
I live in FL, in one of the few areas that doesn't usually flood. just to bring some perspective--last year Progressive canceled my home insurance, along with 90,000+ other FL policies. Whenever a hurricane hits ANYWHERE in the state, private insurers drop homeowners like a hot potato. The government does NOT bail out my home, but when my insurance was canceled, there were only a few C/D rated insurers who would provide insurance at all. My premium more than doubled, while my deductibles increased dramatically. and i've only had one minor claim in a decade. So we aren't all being bailed out. Unfortunately, Citizens (government insurance) is the only home insurance some ppl can get. And for many of us, it's NOT a vacation home but our ONLY home.
This really hits the spot! I am fortunate enough to own a beachfront vacation home in Maine. When I bought it I was offered Federal flood insurance but I passed on it out of principle. Working class tax payers shouldn’t subsidize luxuries of a rich guy like me.However, if I had needed a mortgage I would have needed that flood insurance. That is the problem, if federal flood insurance went away these water front homes would tank in value so most politicians are afraid to talk about it. It should be fully abolished or at least limited to primary residences below reasonable value thresholds.
Sir, I have watched you for over 40 years.
I respect you & thank you for what you’ve done all these past years.
I didn't necessarily NEED small business bailouts during COVID, but as Stossel said, it would have been crazy not to take money the government foolishly handed out.
Like I told my leftist/socialist co-worker when she asked if I was keeping the covid "relief" checks ... why wouldn't I take it, it's MY money. Certainly a better use of tax dollars than 99% of government spending.
I did not realize this. (big sigh). I am totally in line with Rand Paul. Thank you for pointing all this out John!
if you build below the sea/water table, on a beach you take your chances.
If you can afford the house on the beach, you need to afford to buy insurance on the open market. Why is the government in the insurance industry?!?
From Australia , I've never heard of Government insurance , until now 🤔
you should see how much the farmers make off of crop insurance
@@dennytuma Our Gov will give families # $3000 disaster relief for housing until insurance or other accommodation come's through , for massive crop lose the same plus interest free loan's
@@dennytuma Would you call that GOV insurance ?
@@dennytuma I don't know about you, but I'd rather not starve to death. Crop insurance enables farmers to produce the food we need without fear of going bankrupt. That's a big difference from somebody wanting a view and prestige.
@@JIMDEZWAV i should have said government crop insurance
I've always wondered how people were able to build in places like this is the USA. Our local authorities in Australia wouldn't allow anything like it and the insurance companies wouldn't touch it.
The Federal Government shouldn't give any money to California, it's a risky place to live too.
If Kennedy truly believes that the first rule of government is to protect people and property, then change tack and push to eliminate eminent domain.
If you earn enough to buy a second home then you can pay to insure it.
They even try to downplay the risky behavior aspect in their commercials, which proclaim that everyone needs flood insurance, because a flood can hit anyone.
I don't think so. Personally, I live in a second-floor apartment, inland and on relatively high ground. Even in the unlikely scenario where this area were to be flooded, a lot of my neighbors would be completely underwater before my carpet would get wet.
Thank John Stossel for admitting it. ❤
I remember Stossel doing this show years ago. Can’t believe they are still doing this
Now think about all the people that had their homes destroyed by law enforcement that chased criminals into or they had the wrong house.
And there's been plenty of times where they've taken someone's home next door to a criminal as a lookout or sniper spot and destroyed it and never paid the home owner. I remember one time the home owner refused, they took it anyway, ransacked the home and wouldn't pay the home owner for damages because it was a police action and it went to the courts as a 3rd amendment issue. No clue what happened though.
Maui fire already memoryholed?
@@mrow7598Likely nothing. That's the outcome any time they do that.
Mitchell v. City of Henderson
That sounds like something a woke person would say.
I watch a lot of Senator Kennedy's speeches and question periods and he does fantastic work. I saw this exchange and it was good. Rand Paul does an excellent job providing the reasons for the amendment, and can defend that reasoning at length. Two high standard reps arguing what both think is the right path. It was a good exchange, and I agree with Senator Paul.
I like Kennedy on many cases when he points out ridicukous corruotion, but he's definitely an old style "moderate" Relublican willing to pay for idiocy.
John Stossel has always been great with his reporting. THE FLEECING of AMERICA!!
And still the majority of people are gullible enough to believe John Kennedy over Rand Paul 😂😂😂 Rich-oriented democracy! 😅
If an insurance company won't insure a property because of the risks involved then why should the government step in and do it instead? And if the idiots in Congress are going to insist on offering flood insurance then it needs to be priced as much as what private insurers would charge. Maybe that might make these people stop repeating the process of replacing or repairing their homes over and over again and costing the taxpayers billions of dollars.
As long as your rich you can get away with just about anything. Abuse the system fk it.
Been saying this for years...100% agree with this.
Rand Paul usually does a reasonable job in his efforts - and I'm surprised by Kennedy's response here. He is usually more centered and it makes me think he's under pressure from money influence aka those with multimilliondollarpockets.
I own an ocean-front house in FL. John and Rand are absolutely correct. Any losses should be on me and/or a private insurer.
Thanks for calling yourself out Mr Stossel
Very sad that Kennedy takes the stance that government should help rich people.
Rand Paul is quickly becoming one of the last remaining honest senators in DC.
Want to protect people and property? Don't let them build in dangerous areas.
Let them build. Just do t encourage it
Years ago, I was forced to pay for flood insurance on my house because a four square foot section on my back yard could possibly flood every 100 years. And, for any payment of damages, my house would have had to moved off of the foundation. Total "donation" to the program and a waste of my money.
I no longer live there. If my current home floods, I hope you have a big boat.
Respect on not being hypocritical here!
It’s my understanding that in Florida (where I live) federal flood insurance carries an upper limit of $250,000. So effectively it benefits the less well off homeowners more than the wealthy.
A foolish man built his house on the sand.
From someone who lost 2 homes to floods I agree with Rand Paul! End taxation ENTIRELY!
Amen. Senator Kennedy twisted logic like a Democrat.
As always, Thanks John! You are a true Journalist and a Patriot!
"The first role of government is to protect people and property. I thought this was what Republicans and Libertarians thought."
Interesting take, tbh. I think the role of the government is to write and enforce the Law. Then the question is : is the role of the Law to protect people and property? I don't think so. Its role is to establish Justice, which is about resolving interpersonal conflicts, not about repairing damages caused by natural disasters.
^THIS!!!
Thanks for the honesty.
I don't think beach houses should be insurable. Flux yo beach house, rich man. You can afford it. We can't.
Why not insurable? If someone is willing to shell out 10% of his beach house's construction cost to a private insurance company every year, who are we to stop him/her? As for government insurance for those houses, I totally agree that those should be ineligible. Government insurance is a bad idea anyway.
If you live in a flood plain there should be no insurance. The point being no one should live on a flood plain.
Not none, but not government-subsidized insurance. If State Farm wants to sell you insurance (at a high premium), that's their business.
I'm so happy I made productive decisions about my finances that changed my life forever,hoping to retire next year... Investment should always be on any creative man's heart for success in life..
That's awesome!!! I know nothing about investment and I'm keen on getting started. What are the strategies?.
I'll advise you to work with a financial advisor.....Building a good investment portfolio is more complex so I would recommend you seek an expertise like Fergus Waylen's support with his top notch experience and insights to secure and minimize the possibilities of losses
Wow I'm amazed You mention expert Fergus waylen I thought I'm the only one that benefit from his services
Well, you are saying the fact. I invested $4,000 with fergus Waylen. and earned $12,000 .
It's been a good year since I found ways to improve my finances and by working with a renowned professional Fergus waylen, I was able to attain financial freedom.
Of course the senator of Louisiana would say that, half of his state is sinking and eroding away due to the reckless oil and gas extraction of the past few years as well as the destruction of local ecosystems. It still doesn't mean the policy makes sense on a national level or the people should be encouraged to keep living in those dangerous areas as opposed to higher ground at all.
Placing yourself at the center of this story is perfect, Mr Stossel. It really distills the issue to its essence. Thank you for this sharp essay.
I have a condominium on the beach in Grand Cayman and there is no US or other government flood insurance available and things work out fine there despite hurricanes. We pay for our own insurance and if we can’t afford it, we don’t buy the property. If senator Kennedy wants to protect people in trailers in Louisiana, I suggest there be a limit on the value that can be insured. Senator Rand Paul is correct in limiting this subsidized insurance to primary residences. If a poor person in Louisiana can afford a second residence, even a trailer, they can certainly afford to pay for the insurance to protect it. Obviously, people who are already in the program should be protected until their next loss. After any future insurance payout under the program they should assume responsibility going forward. No rebuilding homes multiple times.
I saw your original report 30 years ago when it was broadcast on TV. I agreed at the time. Now I own a home, my primary home, that is a few hundred yards from the Atlantic Ocean. Guess what I have? Flood insurance!
I saw that decades ago, Ty John. You ok dude.
I have been writing my Congress person for years about this. PRIMARY RESIDENCE ONLY. And, THAT should be limited up to a certain amount.
The point is to not penalize success and penalize people who have enough money to buy beach houses.
The point is, Hey, if you have enough money to buy nice luxury beach houses, maybe you should have the least amount of fiscal responsibility to set aside money for your own insurance instead of asking for that money from people who cannot afford beach houses, and also, maybe you should not build your beach houses on a spot of land where flooding is such a significant possibility.
I remember many years ago about 40/45 years ago a news reporter out of Philly said the same think he thanked the people for rebuilding his summer home time after time after the hurricanes destroyed it let them get private insurance
I'd love to see more of you talking with Rand Paul. Love both of you!
An area of the city I live in had flooded 4 times over 3 decades. Feds came in, Zoned a larger area than the flooded area. Then the city got awarded a federal grant to help clean the creek that flooded and enlarge the storm sewers. Now the federal government won't recheck the area. Fifteen years since the cleanup and no flooding, with more rainfall than the flooded times. Mortgage companies insist on the flood insurance thanks to the feds who need it to pay for the smart rich peoples houses.
I lived on a farm in Canada that was over 20km away from the Ottawa River, on high ground over 100 meters elevation higher than the River, absolutely impossible for me to suffer a flood. Well back about 5 years ago there was a big flood on the river and huge insurance claims, the following year my insurance went up over 30% and I couldn't even opt out of the flood insurance option which I absolutely would never need.
Right now it's 70 mph wind on the Atlantic side and in cape Cod Bay side 20 mph
Big spenders think it's no problem to just print more money but we are approaching a point where governments have historically gone out of business!
I am in Louisiana. Same house for 33 years. Never flooded. Flooded once. They helped me rebuild, then say I have to raise it or tear it down. I FLOOD ONCE! I have now been on the list to get help to raise it for five years. Still Haven’t hear anything. So dumb. They should have offer to buy out before rebuilding, not after. Also want to pay a portion of what it was worth 7 years ago when we flooded. Nope. Could not afford the same size house and land they would offer
Kennedy is completely wrong. The main purpose of gov't is to ensure our rights. Taking from one group to give to another is not "ensuring our rights".
Crazy, I wasn’t aware of this program, so much government waste of tax payer money in so many different programs it’s out of control
Thanks for tattling on yourself! Humility is a strength
I 1000% percent agree with Sen Paul! If you can afford a second beach front property, you can afford to pay for your own insurance!! I think making it for those whose beach front property is their primary home is a good compromise!
Over here in CA people are building houses near or in..."wild fire zones". Maybe John should look into that?
Good on Stossel for having the self awarness to criticise himself