government should reduce its role in alot of things...

I think the Gov should reduces it's role on ME PERIOD!!!!

It certainly requires some examination. Like most government programs it has some holes in it!

Mother Nature can't read a FEMA map, so it's hard to determine a risky area beyond historical data. Take Las Vegas, for example. Areas considered to be in a 100 year flood plain that had multiple cataclysmic floods inside of one decade. I agree with those that say that government should be greatly reduced. And I'm probably one of the more conservative people that opines here. But I actually think that is the role of the Fed . . . to provide assistance when there is an act of God and no other avenues are available..

Let's discuss after the next hurricane hits Gulf Coast or East Coast. Just heard that Harvey is gathering strength in the Gulf & barreling toward Texas coast.

I will always support disaster relief as my heart & soul would break if I didn't care about others.  It could easily be your neighborhood or mine.  However, insurance should be provided by private companies, not the government.

There is nothing prohibiting the private sector from offering flood insurance.  In my opinion, just to take a knee jerk reaction that government is bad, it short sighted.

I'm sure some of you will disagree and have your pat responses to my next statement, but imagine the rate of home ownership and the mortgage industry in general if there weren't FANNIE, FREDDIE, FHA, VA, etc.  Goverment or quasi-governmental programs promote and support home ownership and I prefer to support most things that help my business.

That being said, I would like to see the private insurance industry get into the flood insurance business.  Premiums would be much higher, and that would most likely bring down the prices of properties in flood zones in the long run.  I guess that can be good or bad depending on whether you are buying or selling.

Thank you for your time, I will now step down from my soap box.

Yes, I do. We need to start discouraging people from rebuilding in disaster prone and flood prone areas. And I'm with Jennifer Mackay that government should reduce its role in our lives in general.

Yes, the thing is, how many times can you build in the same place that gets flooded to flood again without changing anything? Rates need to be based on risk and private business can handle anything better than the government 

I believe government should reduce it's role in pretty much, well, almost everything.  With that said, I believe NFIP was self funded until Katrina, so like everything else, it may have started off with a good premise, it has become unstainable under present circumstances. 

One of the big problems is the number of properties that do not have flood insurance and while it's all fine and good to say, well, if you don't have insurance, you are out of luck, you know we don't work that way and if people don't have insurance and don't pay premiums, then guess who ultimately gets stuck with the tab?  Yes, that's right, the taxpayer, because we never really ever let people be accountable for their own decisions. 

And what about people who live in areas prone to other natural disasters? Earthquakes, tornadoes, forest fires, etc.  While the government may not offer a subsidized insurance program, many go without the appropriate insurance and guess who bails them out?  Ding! Ding! Ding!  The taxpayer. Us.  

So it's a complicated question and more complicated answer...while I would LOVE to see individuals take on responsibility for their decisions and be held accountable, I no longer think it is possible in this country to expect that to be a workable solution.  We started down this path decades ago of bailing everybody out of everything and I am not sure we can turn back now due to too many years of bad public policy. 

Nathan,

If  government would be audited for its spending by a CPA, we would find so much to cut, that we would probably could come close to a balanced budget...A

It's wise to look at the unintended consequences of all actions.  

Absolutely not.

I'm with Barbara Todaro on this one.

Yes I do, Nathan!

I am on your side on this one.

The Government needs to ge t their nose out of a lot of things including Real Estate.

I do think that the government and insurance companies should not allow property destroyed by flood or natural disaster to be built on the same site year after year. So I guess my answer would be yes.

Flood insurance?  Yes.  Disaster relief?  No.

I don't consider hurricanes in areas prone to multiple hurricanes every year 'disasters', I consider them things that happen in those areas.  So I don't think people not living on the sand should be helping to pay for those who wish to.

Yes, and not. I think, a local gov. should still be in charge, and the Gov. should still  step in if there is a major disaster. 

I think that NAR sent out an alert on this yesterday, they seem to disagree or something, I suspect that they want the feds to subsidize this insurance.

I agree with Wayne Martin on this one.

Yes! I am all for getting the government out of all this business. We taxpayers are  footing the bill

Usually in a uninsurable or nearly uninsurable situation, the government can and does step in to provide programs to help fill in the gaps. I agree that further examination needs to be done to avoid needless waste in many government run programs.

Barbara Todaro nailed this one!!!

If the government would not continue to bail out risky behavior, then there would be no incentive to continue it. The more government is out of our lives, the better in my opinion.

They should get out of the flood insurance business.

Anything government means it will cost us more $$$ at the end of the day; YES!

In Florida it is happening.

Flood insurance rates, for the next 4 years are capped at 25% increase.

After that the sky is the limit. Those with big water views are not concerned. those across the street will find such expenses to be budget wreckers making their No Water SFH real estate un-sellable.

Be careful what you wish for. The only thing near water may turn out to be a KOA.

No

I think make work projects for unemployed building huge arks every ten miles could be an option. (smile)

I could not say it any better than Barbara Todaro ... government needs to butt out of a lot of things.  

Our taxes cover every expense to make this country not only fuucntion but at very high levels. We need to trim it, hone it and manage it better to serve us

Nathan Gesner If it were not for disaster relief, who would have helped the people after Hurricane Katrinia or Hurricane Rita? The city of New Orleans would be desolated.

You make a statement that your premiums are higher in Wyoming because you cover flooding in another State. This is untrue unless you are purchasing flood insurance. People who live in flood zones pay their own premiums.

Should a natural disaster hit your State, you will be glad there is disaster relief to help you rebuild with low interest loans.

Should the Federal Government reduce their costs, absolutely. However, I don't believe the taxpayers are bailing out these home owners in their time of need.

They do have their hands in a lot of things, that maybe should be handled more locally.

If they do, then flood insurance will not be available for those who live in flood zones.  Just like health insurance and those who have pre-existing conditions.

Nathan Gesner - Only in these two?

I do agree government is deep into too many issues and needs to back off.

If they cut all the programs will they give us back our tax dollars!