If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Think Progress)   Not News: Bootstrappy libertarian John Stossel blasts the government for providing flood insurance. News: He is collecting a flood insurance check. Facepalm: For the third time   (thinkprogress.org) divider line 187
    More: Dumbass, John Stossel, flood insurance, news, money back guarantee, National Flood Insurance Program, floods, Steve Doocy, federal government  
•       •       •

2360 clicks; posted to Politics » on 01 Nov 2012 at 3:10 PM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



187 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-11-01 02:08:13 PM  
John you ignorant slut!
 
2012-11-01 02:18:30 PM  
Gee, you know why the government provides flood insurance? Because the private insurance market refuses to accept that risk, you ignorant twatwaffle.

The insurance industry is happy to sell insurance when they can make a lot of money and earn a healthy underwriting surplus on it--health insurance, life insurance, auto insurance, etc. But when it comes to disaster insurance that they might have to pay big bucks out on some day--for example, wind coverage in Florida, earthquake coverage in California, and flood coverage nationwide--they throw up their hands and say it's "uninsurable." Which means that either people can't insure their homes at all, or there has to be some sort of non-profit government-backed insurance pool to provide that coverage.

The only other option is nobody has flood insurance at all. Meaning that people's life savings are wiped out, people walk away from their mortgages and the banks are left holding the bag with a worthless pile of rubble in their place, the local economy crashes, and undoubtedly, the feds have to organize and pay (with tax dollars, rather than with insurance premiums) for all disaster recovery. Is that what these wankers would prefer?
 
2012-11-01 02:41:02 PM  
If "fark you, I got mine" is literally just the libertarian position on everything, then it's not really hypocrisy is it? I think you owe someone an apology, Subby
 
2012-11-01 02:49:04 PM  
Stossel has been on record about this for decades... I remember in the 1990's watching him on 20/20 standing in front of his beach house and thanking America for paying to rebuild it....

Calling him a hypocrite is missing the much larger point. But I guess that's about what I've come to expect.
 
2012-11-01 02:53:37 PM  
Eh, I'm ok with this. I liken it to obeying an unjust law. If you don't agree with some aspect of the government, it's ok to go with it while trying to promote change imo.
 
2012-11-01 03:01:03 PM  
Isn't the reason we have government flood insurance because

Cyberluddite: Because the private insurance market refuses to accept that risk, you ignorant twatwaffle.


Ah, cool.

Once again, a libertarian completely and utterly forgets about the whole "demand" side of supply and demand, and how risks and costs make flood insurance unfeasible for private insurers to do because when it happens, it almost always costs more than the paid money would cover on a larger, broader area. Homes get robbed. Neighborhoods and towns get flooded. It's not households getting payouts from an insurance company from a poop collected from a large group, it's about a big chunk of the large group getting a payout because everyone got farked by it.
 
2012-11-01 03:12:33 PM  
If a location is truly "uninsurable" that would be a big clue to not build a house there... in a free market system, people would either not build, build and assume the risk themselves, or build and pay very high premiums to a private insurer.


Somehow it's supposed to be better I guess if people build and then have society at large subsidize these costs.
 
2012-11-01 03:12:48 PM  
a.abcnews.go.com
 
2012-11-01 03:13:53 PM  
David Shultz should have slapped him harder.
 
2012-11-01 03:16:35 PM  
The program should only be available to primary residences and secondary residences under a certain value and not within flood-prone areas.

Simple enough. Fark Stossel's beach house. It's an important program, but why should we ensure personal indulgences with public funds?

That said, incredible asshole that he is notwithstanding, he bought into the program that was available to him, why the fark shouldn't he benefit under the rules he agreed to? Rules are rules and they don't stop being rules just because a hypocritical dickcheese who doesn't understand how private insurance works (or, in the case of flood insurance, doesn't) is whining about them.
 
2012-11-01 03:16:51 PM  
John Stossel is a butt weasel
 
2012-11-01 03:17:55 PM  
I don't blame him for collecting a check anymore than I blame Warren Buffet for not volunatrily paying more taxes. If you're trying to change an entire system, the actions a single person aren't going to make a difference.
 
2012-11-01 03:19:48 PM  
And this is why I facepalm whenever I hear a Libertarian comment on anything to do with economics:

They have no real understanding of it.

"GOVERNMENT BAD, BUSINESS GOOD"

Except that from what I've seen, whenever a government entity privatizes some service, IT GOES TO farkING shiat. Costs skyrocket while services get cut and those that remain decline in quality, and people still blame the government for running it into the ground!

I got into an arguement about the USPS, which would be wonderful if it didn't have to prepay 75 years of pensions. All the other side of the arguement had were anecdotes and general anti-union rhetoric. *sigh*
 
2012-11-01 03:21:30 PM  

Vegan Meat Popsicle: The program should only be available to primary residences and secondary residences under a certain value and not within flood-prone areas.

Simple enough. Fark Stossel's beach house. It's an important program, but why should we ensure personal indulgences with public funds?

That said, incredible asshole that he is notwithstanding, he bought into the program that was available to him, why the fark shouldn't he benefit under the rules he agreed to? Rules are rules and they don't stop being rules just because a hypocritical dickcheese who doesn't understand how private insurance works (or, in the case of flood insurance, doesn't) is whining about them.


the issue is that he voluntarily joined a program he opposes. It's not like collecting social security or driving on public roads if one opposes those things. He willingly participated in a program that he considers unfair. You don't have a choice whether you contribute to SS or drive on roads (practically speaking)
 
2012-11-01 03:23:50 PM  

fiver5: If a location is truly "uninsurable" that would be a big clue to not build a house there... in a free market system, people would either not build, build and assume the risk themselves, or build and pay very high premiums to a private insurer.


Somehow it's supposed to be better I guess if people build and then have society at large subsidize these costs.


Better for mortgage lenders. Bad for society, bad for homeowners.
 
2012-11-01 03:24:14 PM  
"Paging Dr. D, Dr. D, we have a smarmy douchebag who needs re-application of whoop-ass medicine, code blue."
 
2012-11-01 03:24:39 PM  

Cyberluddite: Gee, you know why the government provides flood insurance? Because the private insurance market refuses to accept that risk, you ignorant twatwaffle.


Spoken like someone who doesn't have flood insurance, or, in the inestimable words of someone whose shoes I am surely not worthy to spitshine, an ignorant twatwaffle. The government doesn't write flood insurance policies. It simply mandates that people purchase such policies. My flood carrier, I assure you, would not be mistaken for the government.

Anyway, my word's no good around here, so here's everybody's favorite agency du jour, FEMA, on the subject:

Who do I contact if I want to purchase a flood insurance policy?

The National Flood Insurance Program has an arrangement with private insurance companies to sell and service flood insurance policies. A list of private insurance companies that sell and service NFIP flood insurance policies is available to you.

You may also contact your insurance agent or company to find out more about federal flood insurance or find an agent serving your area by filling out the Flood Risk Profile.

Back to Frequently Asked Questions: Considering Purchasing a Policy
 

By the way, if you follow their links, you'll find that there are quite a number of private companies in the flood insurance business. The government has created a market through regulation; the private sector has, as would be expected, filled the demand.
 
2012-11-01 03:26:37 PM  
He's on medicare too? What a moocher.
 
2012-11-01 03:26:48 PM  
What an ignorant sack of shiat.
 
2012-11-01 03:26:57 PM  
www.mediaite.com
 
2012-11-01 03:27:25 PM  

Vegan Meat Popsicle: That said, incredible asshole that he is notwithstanding, he bought into the program that was available to him, why the fark shouldn't he benefit under the rules he agreed to?


So, instead of being principled and not owning a beach house because he couldn't afford to rebuild it. he should just IGNORE his principles, because there is a way out.

Libertarian logic, indeed. fark my principles! I can take advantage of a system I abhor!
 
2012-11-01 03:27:37 PM  

fiver5: If a location is truly "uninsurable" that would be a big clue to not build a house there... in a free market system, people would either not build, build and assume the risk themselves, or build and pay very high premiums to a private insurer.


Well, a bank isn't going to give a mortgage for a home that doesn't have insurance. So I guess we'll stop building or buying houses that lie within 20 miles of the Atlantic or the Gulf of Mexico - too many hurricanes. While we're at it, we'll also rope off a mile or two along the banks of the Mississippi (flooding), southern California (wildfires) - hell the entire west coast (earthquakes). While we're at it, lets rope off Oklahoma, Arkansas, Kansas, and the rest of Tornado Alley - we just can't afford to spend money on federal disaster aid like we did in Joplin.

I just hope you're ready to take on a few new roommates since your plan demands that a sizeable percentage of the US population relocate.
 
2012-11-01 03:28:30 PM  
Fun Fact: John Stossel's mustache is insured with Lloyd's of London for $1,000,000
 
2012-11-01 03:30:17 PM  

mediablitz: Libertarian logic, indeed. fark my principles! I can take advantage of a system I abhor!


How much you wanna bet you can find footage of Stossel doing the classic "WELL IF WARREN BUFFIT WANTS TO PAY MOR TAXIZ NOBUDDEEZ STOPPIN HIM, SNERT!!!" song-and-dance? What a walking, talking cesspool.
 
2012-11-01 03:30:35 PM  

skullkrusher: the issue is that he voluntarily joined a program he opposes.


Meh. Why not take advantage of benefits available to you as long as they're available? It's a lot like Warren Buffet. He opposes the federal tax system that lets him get away with unjustifiably low rates and wants to see it changed, but until that happens, why not take advantage? It really only makes sense to hurt yourself intentionally in situations like this if you want to be a martyr for your cause.

I guess I only really see this as being an issue for people who weren't already keenly aware of the fact that John Stossel is an incredibly hypocritical and vacuous bag of douchenecks.
 
2012-11-01 03:30:54 PM  

Cyberluddite: Gee, you know why the government provides flood insurance? Because the private insurance market refuses to accept that risk, you ignorant twatwaffle.

The insurance industry is happy to sell insurance when they can make a lot of money and earn a healthy underwriting surplus on it--health insurance, life insurance, auto insurance, etc. But when it comes to disaster insurance that they might have to pay big bucks out on some day--for example, wind coverage in Florida, earthquake coverage in California, and flood coverage nationwide--they throw up their hands and say it's "uninsurable." Which means that either people can't insure their homes at all, or there has to be some sort of non-profit government-backed insurance pool to provide that coverage.

The only other option is nobody has flood insurance at all. Meaning that people's life savings are wiped out, people walk away from their mortgages and the banks are left holding the bag with a worthless pile of rubble in their place, the local economy crashes, and undoubtedly, the feds have to organize and pay (with tax dollars, rather than with insurance premiums) for all disaster recovery. Is that what these wankers would prefer?


Stossel is absolutely 100% correct here. The reason you can't buy flood insurance at affordable rates is because it's too risky.

If its too risky, you shouldn't build and rebuild houses in flood plains.

flood insurance is a horrible program for the nation as a whole, but I don't blame people for participating. If the government offered everyone life insurance at 25-year old non-smoker rates, I wouldn't blame 75 year old smokers for signing up for it even if they realize it's a disasterous policy nationally. They'd be stupid not to, as would owners of risky flood prone property who didn't sign up for below market subsidized flood insurance.
 
2012-11-01 03:31:28 PM  
If the government sets up a situation where someone can profit, it will be exploited.
 
2012-11-01 03:31:30 PM  
Stossel is everything that drives me crazy about Libertarians. First of all, if you get 500 of them in a room and ask them what Libertarians stand for, you'll get 500 different definitions. Second of all, and as shown here, they love to talk about Libertarian law of the jungle princples in an antiseptic textbook environment, but when it comes for them to actually take on the risk in the real world without a government safety net none of them have the balls.
 
2012-11-01 03:32:11 PM  

mediablitz: So, instead of being principled


Pfft. John Stossel's only principle is that John Stossel will do whatever is best for John Stossel. This guy was being Fair and Balanced before Rupert Murdoch made it vogue.
 
2012-11-01 03:32:18 PM  
John, I f*cked your mom but actively oppose momf*cking as an act. Sorry!
 
2012-11-01 03:33:21 PM  

Karac: fiver5: If a location is truly "uninsurable" that would be a big clue to not build a house there... in a free market system, people would either not build, build and assume the risk themselves, or build and pay very high premiums to a private insurer.

Well, a bank isn't going to give a mortgage for a home that doesn't have insurance. So I guess we'll stop building or buying houses that lie within 20 miles of the Atlantic or the Gulf of Mexico - too many hurricanes. While we're at it, we'll also rope off a mile or two along the banks of the Mississippi (flooding), southern California (wildfires) - hell the entire west coast (earthquakes). While we're at it, lets rope off Oklahoma, Arkansas, Kansas, and the rest of Tornado Alley - we just can't afford to spend money on federal disaster aid like we did in Joplin.

I just hope you're ready to take on a few new roommates since your plan demands that a sizeable percentage of the US population relocate.


All those areas aren't uninsurable. People in oklahoma, Kansas, Missouri, and southern California can buy market rate insurance policies. So can I, and I live withing 20 miles of the Atlantic.
 
2012-11-01 03:33:26 PM  

Karac: Well, a bank isn't going to give a mortgage for a home that doesn't have insurance.


My God ... that sounds a lot like a ... mandate.
 
2012-11-01 03:36:30 PM  

EyeballKid: "Paging Dr. D, Dr. D, we have a smarmy douchebag who needs re-application of whoop-ass medicine, code blue."


You rang?

Is this where I say that in order for a home to be eligible for an NFIP policy, it has to be moved out of a 100-year floodplain? That many mortgages require an NFIP policy - this is a rule the BANKS want?
 
2012-11-01 03:37:42 PM  
Libertarians are like unicorns, except people take them less seriously.

Modern libertarians are just like the idiot tea-partiers who continue their nonsense claims that they're a real, separate party. Oh, sure, we vote for republicans, we run in Republican primaries, we caucus with Republicans, but we're totally independent. We're not Republicans at all.

Just more Republicans ashamed to be called Republicans.

/please, someone say Gary Johnson
 
2012-11-01 03:38:52 PM  

Debeo Summa Credo: Stossel is absolutely 100% correct here. The reason you can't buy flood insurance at affordable rates is because it's too risky.

If its too risky, you shouldn't build and rebuild houses in flood plains.

flood insurance is a horrible program for the nation as a whole, but I don't blame people for participating. If the government offered everyone life insurance at 25-year old non-smoker rates, I wouldn't blame 75 year old smokers for signing up for it even if they realize it's a disasterous policy nationally. They'd be stupid not to, as would owners of risky flood prone property who didn't sign up for below market subsidized flood insurance.


That is stupid on a historical level. There's a reason most great cities have been built at the mouths of rivers. Some vulnerability to flooding has been seen as a valid risk compared to the commerce you can conduct and resources you can access from that location. It's not easy to just pull up big chunks of cities because they're not longer "insurable." That's why flood insurance is offered by the government.

This is more than flood plains and occasional seasonal flooding with snow melt and some storms. This is about huge areas getting wrecked by weather and suffering massive flood damage. Massive in the sense of quantity. Like I said before:

Bloody William: omes get robbed. Neighborhoods and towns get flooded. It's not households getting payouts from an insurance company from a pool collected from a large group, it's about a big chunk of the large group getting a payout because everyone got farked by it.


When things like this happens, it ceases being individuals getting affected and an industry able to respond economically. When the insurance is needed, it's usually needed en masse, and in a way that won't be reasonably absorbed by private insurance.
 
2012-11-01 03:39:35 PM  

Bloody William: Isn't the reason we have government flood insurance because

Cyberluddite: Because the private insurance market refuses to accept that risk, you ignorant twatwaffle.

Ah, cool.

Once again, a libertarian completely and utterly forgets about the whole "demand" side of supply and demand, and how risks and costs make flood insurance unfeasible for private insurers to do because when it happens, it almost always costs more than the paid money would cover on a larger, broader area. Homes get robbed. Neighborhoods and towns get flooded. It's not households getting payouts from an insurance company from a poop collected from a large group, it's about a big chunk of the large group getting a payout because everyone got farked by it.


You said poop collected from a large group.

And then you said chunk.

And then everyone got farked
 
2012-11-01 03:39:36 PM  

TheOnion: Eh, I'm ok with this. I liken it to obeying an unjust law. If you don't agree with some aspect of the government, it's ok to go with it while trying to promote change imo.


I know you're a troll account, but I also know there's a lot of people who feel this way.

Under that logic, why aren't right wingers also going out and getting abortions every weekend just for fun? I mean it's LEGAL so you may as well do it.

And if there was a legal loophole that you could rape nuns for two days a year, why, it's just common sense to go out and rape nuns there. It's the governments fault, not yours.
 
2012-11-01 03:40:21 PM  

bmongar: John you ignorant slut!


Oh, and this thread was over right out of the gate.

/boobies
 
2012-11-01 03:41:02 PM  

TheMysticS: You said poop collected from a large group.

And then you said chunk.

And then everyone got farked


POOL! I MEANT POOL!
 
2012-11-01 03:41:06 PM  

Vegan Meat Popsicle: skullkrusher: the issue is that he voluntarily joined a program he opposes.

Meh. Why not take advantage of benefits available to you as long as they're available? It's a lot like Warren Buffet. He opposes the federal tax system that lets him get away with unjustifiably low rates and wants to see it changed, but until that happens, why not take advantage? It really only makes sense to hurt yourself intentionally in situations like this if you want to be a martyr for your cause.

I guess I only really see this as being an issue for people who weren't already keenly aware of the fact that John Stossel is an incredibly hypocritical and vacuous bag of douchenecks.


it is like Warren Buffett in that regard. Stossel thinks it is unfair that others be burdened with his federally subsidized insurance yet he continues to take advantage of it. WB thinks it is unfair he pays less in taxes than his secretary yet continues to do so. Stossel refusing to take such coverage or Buffett willingly paying more would speak to their principles but neither would make a dent in the notion they claim to support (or oppose)
 
2012-11-01 03:43:16 PM  

fiver5: If a location is truly "uninsurable" that would be a big clue to not build a house there... in a free market system, people would either not build, build and assume the risk themselves, or build and pay very high premiums to a private insurer.


Yeah, why do we need populations built near oceans? It's not like shipping ports have historically served any purpose to commerce and wealth or anything.
 
2012-11-01 03:46:30 PM  

InmanRoshi: fiver5: If a location is truly "uninsurable" that would be a big clue to not build a house there... in a free market system, people would either not build, build and assume the risk themselves, or build and pay very high premiums to a private insurer.

Yeah, why do we need populations built near oceans? It's not like shipping ports have historically served any purpose to commerce and wealth or anything.


seriously. Living 2 miles away from your dockworker job would take forever to commute on your Honda Mule
 
2012-11-01 03:46:54 PM  

Fark Dupp: David Shultz should have slapped him harder.


Came to say this. Kinda. Was thinking he didn't hit him hard enough because he's still speaking.
 
2012-11-01 03:49:52 PM  

skullkrusher: InmanRoshi: fiver5: If a location is truly "uninsurable" that would be a big clue to not build a house there... in a free market system, people would either not build, build and assume the risk themselves, or build and pay very high premiums to a private insurer.

Yeah, why do we need populations built near oceans? It's not like shipping ports have historically served any purpose to commerce and wealth or anything.

seriously. Living 2 miles away from your dockworker job would take forever to commute on your Honda Mule


Sorry, I was unware that it's only residential property that carries insurance.
 
2012-11-01 03:52:15 PM  

InmanRoshi: skullkrusher: InmanRoshi: fiver5: If a location is truly "uninsurable" that would be a big clue to not build a house there... in a free market system, people would either not build, build and assume the risk themselves, or build and pay very high premiums to a private insurer.

Yeah, why do we need populations built near oceans? It's not like shipping ports have historically served any purpose to commerce and wealth or anything.

seriously. Living 2 miles away from your dockworker job would take forever to commute on your Honda Mule

Sorry, I was unware that it's only residential property that carries insurance.


we're talking about houses
 
2012-11-01 03:52:23 PM  
If they stop the program like he wants them to, he will stop collecting the checks.

See? Now, wasn't that easy?
 
2012-11-01 03:53:04 PM  

Cyberluddite: Gee, you know why the government provides flood insurance? Because the private insurance market refuses to accept that risk, you ignorant twatwaffle.


Actually, no. The private insurance market is happy to accept the risk. The problem is, that when there's a huge disaster, the private insurance company can't pay for it and goes tits up. When that happens, the government usually ends up paying out.

When I was a kid, this happened a lot. Some major disaster would happen, the people would try to get the money from the insurance company, and the insurance company would go bankrupt. The U.S. government got into the insurance business because they were left on the hook so many times. Sure, they could have just let the people who bought insurance suffer, but that doesn't seem like a good idea, does it?

Corporations are designed so that if something big and bad goes down, they can dissolve, without the investors, officers, or directors being liable. I would say more than anything else that's the purpose of a corporation. However, there are numerous cases where the company vanishing hurts an enormous number of people. At that point, we have to decide whether we'd rather have those people suffer or have the government step in. In every case I can think of, the consensus was to have the government help those people.
 
2012-11-01 03:54:18 PM  
You know how I know subby's never financed a home and dealt with a mortgage company?
 
2012-11-01 03:56:12 PM  

fawlty: You know how I know subby's never financed a home and dealt with a mortgage company?


how?
 
2012-11-01 03:57:22 PM  
"This twat looks way too much like me. Trade in your mustache, douchebag."

www.myfacewhen.net
 
Displayed 50 of 187 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter





In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report