home owners insurance

If you actually look at what Jackson said he was not trying to make them all millionaires. He said that a compensation fund based on the same formula as the 9-11 fund should be set up. Do you know anything at all about that formula? If you did, you would see that the compensation was based mainly on the future income of those that died in the towers, not just pain and suffering. I'm just taking a wild guess, but the twin towers were in NYC's financial district, so naturally the compensation would equal more money.

 

Does this, if enacted, set a precedent by which all future victims of disasters should have entitlement to be "made whole" by the federal government?

Would it be retroactive to still living survivors of other disasters?

What, other than numbers, makes an individual's loss form a natural disaster – a house fire caused by lightning, for example - any more or less significant than thousands of individual's losses by this hurricane?

Is it the federal government’s Constitutional role to “insure” us against personal losses by requiring us all to pay taxes into a “compensation fund”?

Would the “formula” for “compensation” be adjusted according to the victim’s “means” in order to be “fair”?

Will this become an issue of race? Will this become an issue of wealth?

Will this become a “benefits for votes” scheme played out by opportunities?

 

Jesse Jackson is a goofball who has lined his own pockets, and those of his family, at the expense of the black community and so-called race issues.

If you are a homeowner who has a mortgage, all lenders require you to have homeowner's insurance. If you own your home outright, then chances are, you have homeowner's insurance anyway. If you live in public housing or rent, then the loss of dwelling is the landlord's or public housing authority's issue. If you are accustomed to living on the public dole, you will still get public assistance in one form or another, so loss of wages is not an issue. If you are a wage earner and are displaced, there are programs in place to help you find employment, career fairs, and active recruitment going on in the private sector to help displaced workers from Katrina.

09/11 compensation was set up to compensate the victims, but they had to agree not to sue the airlines if they chose to participate.

To compare the Katrina victims to 09/11 is absurd unless they sign a waiver not to sue God.

 

"the compensation was based mainly on the future income of those that died in the towers"

The rich get richer and the poor get poorer. The poor get taxed to pay the rich.

 

The average income earners, as a group, pay the largest portion of taxes in our nation.

Many higher income earners pay considerably more than lower income earners. Many very low income earners and non workers pay little or no taxes.

Some, at all levels, find ways to avoiding paying what they owe.

Lower income earners and non workers have access to many direct assistance programs that average and higher income persons do not qualify to receive.

The disparity between total life time taxes paid and direct benefits received highly favors lower income and non workers.

It is not the role of our government to make the poor become rich nor make the rich become poor. Socialism and communism advocate this approach.

 

This, unfortunately, is a true statement!

 

This, unfortunately, is a true statement! </font>[/QUOTE]I’m starting to believe this as well.

Let’s see: My fuel for my car has shot through the roof, I hear my heating bill will double this winter, my electric bill has already went up, since fuel prices are rising so is my grocery bill, my home mortgage is now a whopping 70 bucks more a month, because of property taxes, I’ve noticed my car insurance has went up in the past month.

It’s unfortunate, I have a wife and three kids and my wife is a stay at home mom who home schools (yes, we still pay taxes that support public education and we still have to front the bill for our home school supplies) and she’s been contemplating working in the evenings, but I’m looking for some part-time work in the evenings, which will take me away from home even more now.

I’ve been looking for a job with better pay because my company for the past 4 years has given out no raises and we’ve already had to take two furloughs (that’s a week without pay). I searched our company’s stock symbol on yahoo a few months ago and noticed that our CEO had a nice raise and bonus, which equaled about 1.2 million.

Looks like someone’s living the “American dream.” Makes me wanna puke!

 

Enriching the families of the 911 victims beyond any pretense of need was a mistake and a dangerous precedent.

With the welfare mentality of many of the citizens of NOLA, I would imagine they will have their hands out quickly and repeatedly, regardless of actual "need".

 

In most parts of this country waterfront property is owned by rich people. They don't care if a storm takes out their summer place because the taxpayers will rebuild it for them.

 

Do you know of any rich people whom taxpayers paid to rebuild their homes?

 

I think the issues of race are real. The problem is that Jackson and his ilk typically apply them where they don't exist, or inflate them to the point where they don't resemble the actual circumstances of the situation.

I don't have homeowner's insurance. But I also live in a condo, so that may make a difference. I believe that PMI is required if a person's loan amount is more then a certain percentage of the value of the home. In my case, my mortgage is 2/3 of the value of the home (the other 1/3 was the down payment), so I am not required to have PMI.

 

Johnv, PMI is different than homeowners insurance, I believe. PMI covers the actual mortgage note, homeowner's policies cover Acts of God and replacement.

If you are in a condo situation, you probably have a homeowner's association that has a policy to cover the building and that would satisfy the bank or mortgage company's lien against the building damage from Acts of God. (I used to be on a Homeowner's Association Board and we were required by State Law to have that insurance in place. We had several controversies arise when water heaters burst and damaged units below, who was liable? Our HA policy or the unit owner whose tank broke? etc.)

Homeowner's insurance is usually required by banks and other lenders to cover acts of God such as flood, fire, wind, etc. In fact, on all the mortgages we've had, if we didn't have a HO policy, the bank issues one automatically (at a much higher rate) just to protect their investment.

On our present homeowner policy, we also cover our contents and have liability insurance in case someone is injured on our property. We also have several attachments for other items, specifically, flood - even though we don't live in a flood plain - just to be on the safe side. It's worth it for the couple of bucks it costs per annum.

 

Thanks, LE, I'm feeling much more enlightened now

 

If I understand correctly, the Attorney General of Mississippi intends to sue homeowner insurance companies to make them pay the cost of rebuilding homes there. The problem is many of the policyholders elected to not have flood insurance in order to lower the cost of their homeowners insurance. The Attorney General is in effect rewriting a contract after the fact to gain coverage. If he is sucessful this is going to be an immense problem.

 

As I, a mere past consumer of home mortgages, understand it, PMI is private mortgage insurance. It's for the benefit of the lender - not the borrower. It gives the lender insurance that will pay them if the borrow does not. That greatly reduces the lender's risk. It is usually required when a mortgage amount is for more than 80% of the value of the property. Lender's figure borrower's are more likely not to default if they have more that 20% of the property's value tied up. It doesn't do anything to protect the homeowner from loss of or liability on their property - that's what homeowner's insurance should provide depending on the type policy and the state regulations that apply to it. PMI only helps people borrow money from a lender that might not otherwise want to lend it to them.

 

Do you know of any rich people whom taxpayers paid to rebuild their homes?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Isn't that the purpose of federal flood insurance????

 

According to my layman's understanding, the national flood insurance program was designed to provide federally backed insurance through private insurance companies for homeowner's, renters, and businesses which would otherwise be cost prohibitive. The program has been around since the late 1960's and it's managed by FEMA. Flood insurance is required to obtain mortgage financing for properties located in defined flood zones. Local government jurisdictions are required to manage and mitigate the probable causes of flooding. A person's wealth doesn't fit into the formula of determining whether or not a property is in a flood zone nor in the cost of the required insurance if they wish to secure mortgage financing.

Without this program people might have to rethink the economics of the areas in which they lived. Does that make you think? Could it be that this well intentioned government program actually encourages people to build or stay in areas subject to high risk of flooding? Rumor has it that more than one person has rebuilt their beach front property using the program knowing the loss will be covered again if necessary. Private insurers would jack up the rates so high people would have to do something different. Will we rebuild New Orleans in high risk flood zones with tax payer money and then give the residents susidized insurance to protect "thier" investments?