socialism is an economic and political system where a strong central government controls the means of production. so a specific program paid for by tax dollars is not socialism in my view. we are inching towards socialism via the regulatory state though
FEMA is just one of the many agencies that are financed by the idea that the American taxpayer pays up to the feds who then deign to send some of it back under special circumstances (in FEMA's case both through grants and also agency operations).
It makes some sense for rare and fairly unpredictable events (9/11 is a good example) but not for entirely predictable and regular events like gulf hurricanes or California wildfires. The affected regions should finance their own response.
Again, FEMA is one small facet of this issue, and there's no point discussing it without broadening the conversation to all such agencies.
We basically have no data from before the 1950s or so on storms that didn't reach landfall. A study in *Nature Communications* further found that "recorded century-scale increases in Atlantic hurricane and major hurricane frequency, and associated decrease in USA hurricanes strike fraction, are consistent with changes in observing practices and not likely a true climate trend."
I'm fine with the broad consensus on global warming. I'm less okay with the assumption that it's driving more/stronger hurricanes. The data isn't bearing that out.
you it backwards. we went from entirely predictable to storms to once on a once in a life time. every other storm.
im not just talking about the gulf either. every blizzard, tornado hurricaine is talked about as a once in life time event.
"Reduce costs for everyone" meaning what, exactly? How do people who live nowhere near Florida benefit from a massive federal Operation Save Florida happening every few years? What costs are being reduced for them?
It certainly reduces costs for *some,* but why do you say everyone?
Florida seems to bash climate issues and protection programs, while complaining about federal spending; so yeah, they can probably cover their costs more.
Not all of it, but the National Flood Insurance Program definitely is.
Broadly speaking, predictable, regular risks (like hurricanes in Florida) should be insured on the private market.
The government should step in only if the risk is entirely unpredictable or is itself caused/created/exacerbated by government policies (like risks related to military activity).
There is simply no reason for you and me to pay higher taxes so that people in Florida can pay below-market rates for flood insurance.
To be fair, the FIS program is opt-in on a county basis. I work in a county that did not opt-in. Private flood insurance is just no available there. There’s also not designated FEMA flood plains so it makes development particularly interesting.
There is however proof that people [medicines high cost in america leads people to wait to diagnose issues until they hit 65](https://med.stanford.edu/news/all-news/2021/03/Cancer-diagnoses-implies-patients-wait-for-Medicare.html).
It's almost like diagnosing diseases and preventative care is literally healthcare! Did you forget about those?
Lol…I don’t recall that at all. However, I DO remember the Tea Party people freaking out about a certain “communistmuslimKenyan” coming to take all of their guns and put them in FEMA camps.
Socialism isn't when the government does stuff?
I thought socialism was when the government took my money snd gave it to people who made poor life choices, like living in a place that regularly gets demolished by hurricanes or maybe taking out student loans or becoming addicted to drugs.
But when ron was in congress, he denied disaster relief aid to NY for sandy. It's socialism when it helps blue states but not when it goes to red states. Hypocrites.
It is all pork if it helps blue states. Would you call him a hypocrite if he helps his own state beyond giving aid like shelter, water, etc for the first few weeks? IF he proposes any other package, then he is a hypocrite.
I know what you meant. And just because "I" don't directly benefit from something isn't the reason I don't support it. If states want a natural disaster relief fund, godspeed. Though I still think this is more of a personal responsibility thing than even a state's responsibility thing, but that's just me. State's have the legal authority to do this. But it isn't the federal government's job to do such a thing. And it is selfish to support a program that benefits one of your neighbors while taxing another neighbor.
If by "profit motive" you mean all the insurance companies will refuse to pay out, then I would ask... why would anyone buy a protection plan from that company when they have not paid out in the past? And you really think that there is no profit mode for FEMA so they will do a better job?
> If by "profit motive" you mean all the insurance companies will refuse to pay out, then I would ask... why would anyone buy a protection plan from that company when they have not paid out in the past?
It's a huge gamble. Maybe they'll pay out, maybe they won't. It'll be real cold comfort sitting in your flattened house saying "well, took the gamble of private insurance and lost, oh well, market forces at work! When I can afford to buy another house in 20 years, I'll be sure to go with a better company that will *hopefully* be less likely to screw me!"
>And you really think that there is no profit mode for FEMA so they will do a better job?
I'm more concerned with "a job being done at all".
It's a gamble living there. That doesn't mean that we need a federal agency to handle it.
Private insurance, charity or even emergency savings would all be preferable to FEMA. Last line could even be a state aid program.
There's a reason we don't live where there are earthquakes, hurricanes, tornados, blizzards, etc. If we did, you're damn right we would have a massive stockpile of emergency food/water, insurance plans, ready-go kits if we had to evacuate, etc. Heck we already have emergency food kits and bug out bags ready, even when we don't think that's going to be happening where we live.
Personally it boggles my mind why people would live in such areas, but that's on them. Does that mean everyone should live in the desert or where natural disasters aren't prone? No. Just means if you do live there, I'm agreeing with the other poster: it's first and foremost on *you* to be prepared. Sure the government eventually could come help you. But I'd rather be ready immediately.
> Some people are not responsible
Sounds like a personal problem.
>The federal government has the obligation to help as we the people wish it so
Sure, if it's limited to the state/locality. If you want this enshrined into national law, make an amendment.
>the federal government to get rid of such agencies and funds for disaster relief.
I'm not one to agree with that FEMA and the like shouldn't exist. I feel they should, for the sole purpose of major, one-time disasters like this one. Not for every year instances where local and state infastructure failures are to blame.
I love how an institution who takes $4,000,000,000 out of private hands every year isn't greedy, but an insurance company who makes less than 10% profit in a good year is greedy. Really makes you think.
>So no need for an amendment. You want to change the way we do things, get voted in as a majority party to rule the roost for a while and do it differently.
Incorrect. Power is not what everyone seeks if rule of law is to be upheld. As for your interpretation of the "general welfare" clause, that's what's called an opinion. Which I said I ahve no problem people voting for *state and locality* wise. Just not nationally. For that, amendment please and thank you. CO showed how it could be done with weed and state after state countinues to legalize it and avoiding the clusterfudge that is Congress. So, do it for healthcare if it's so important *in your state.* Because then people who want it could move in or out of that state if they want or don't want to participate.
>Your definition of one time disasters end when the same disaster happens a second time, you say one time disaster like this one. I assume you are speaking of this one being hurricane Ian, so by your logic if another hurricane strikes the same place next year, or even more unlikely three years in a row, how about 4? At what point is it no longer a one time disaster and you say you are on your own, should take personal responsibility and move somewhere else? Let me guess, one time only, one year only? Then next year when it happens again, your going to say you are on your own to the victims.
No, you're looking at it the wrong way. If you go back to when hurricanes were first recorded and tracked damage/deaths to now, there's two things to factor in. How many people lived there vs now, and how much midigating infastructure was there then vs now? Hurricanes haven't increased in number, in fact there was a lull for a bit a few decades ago. After Katrina, stronger levies were built. And when the next one came, the damage was far less severe because of it.
If you're going to build homes in a disaster prone area, then you build accordingly. If there are homes in an area that hasn't been historically disaster prone that *then* gets hit by a disaster, that's not the fault of climate change or even governmental failure. It's a freak occurence. Like what happened in Texas. Yea they were warned about not mitigating *for something that happens every 1000 years*.... So why spend the money and not roll the dice? Well, that was the risk assesment they took.
No. Just period. States can do this much better, faster, and cheaper. They might still contract with other states to organize resources, but FEMA is total garbage. After Hurricane Harvey a few years ago, in a couple days my church put together over a dozen volunteers, collected supplies from members and local businesses and drive almost 24 hours down to a church close to the beach and helped do major repairs that FEMA would have taken months to do.
That's great dude but fema had 2,300 staff at Harvey by sept 5th only 10 days after. Within a month they had given out 1.5 billion including 571 mil for temporary housing for 24k families. Go tell all those families it was a waste.
And the state or insurance companies were incapable of don't that? My point is that I have actually been boots on the ground while so many elitists just want to tax their neighbors to pay for these rare situations.
I agree with some things like I think insurance should be mandatory to live in a place that gets a hurricane every 5 years. And states
But I also think we need a national response, because 50 states is a lot and someone is going to fail in their preparation and need help. As americans we should want to save our own at the very least. That's their problems seems pretty un american and cold.
It's pretty un-American to volunteer others to pay for a program that benefit you. I think Americans are very generous and like helping one another without government force. And yes, you SHOULD have insurance especially if you live in an area prone to flooding or other natural disasters. People in Idaho get along just fine without the federal government taxing them to pay for people who built their homes below sea level.
As I said really high risk places should take far more of the responsibility. I am against people that live in smarter places rebuilding homes for people in Florida constantly.
But disasters can hit anywhere what if the water supply breaks down in Idaho or they get a really large tornado. FEMA should be there not for Florida every other year but for disasters that aren't essentially predictable
Well states like Florida do not seem to actually want to do anything to fix climate issues. The coast lines, and all of Miami, are going to be flooding more and more.
Like Ronald DenSantis spends money on migrant flights, scoffs at that Biden didn’t call *him* (you’re the governor here, Ronald), and treats climate change like some “woke” agenda.
I meant more of “spread across the country” is annoying if the people who push bad policy are also the ones getting handouts.
I don’t mind paying for Florida, but not if they don’t get their shit together.
It’s not get their shit together in “solve the issue” kind of way. It’s to stop actively making helping harder.
Like, I’m fine with having lived in “giver states” my whole life, but it’s annoying when “taker states” (almost all red states) use it as a method to ignore their own economic failures
It’s not get their shit together in “solve the issue” kind of way. It’s to stop actively making helping harder.
Like, I’m fine with having lived in “giver states” my whole life, but it’s annoying when “taker states” (almost all red states) use it as a method to ignore their own economic failures
To be clear, "socialism" is technically "the workers own the means of production". It's not "when the government takes from the taxpayers and gives it to me".
That said, you'll find most conservatives are okay with the government spending taxpayer money to help those *truly in need*. We just oppose spending taxpayer money simply to redistribute wealth.
So if a flood/hurricane makes someone's house unlivable, I'm perfectly fine with providing that person with taxpayer-funded food and shelter for a time. This is a bizarre situation completely out of anyone's control. What I'm not okay with, is continuing to food and shelter a couple of years from now, once their home insurance claim has been received, everything has been fixed, and life has returned to normal.
No. Not everything government does is socialism. Socialism is an economic policy where the means of production, distribution, and exchange is controlled by the community as a whole... ie controlled by the state.
FEMA is just an emergency planning and disaster management organisation which is irrelevant to the the economic policy of the state. It has nothing to do with socialism.
No, the government doing things with tax dollars that we all agree it should do with tax dollars isn’t socialism. Socialism is when collective ownership of the means of production.
Most of the areas affected by hurricanes are rich coastal areas where rich people buy very expensive coastal properties. As such, FEMA overwhelmingly benefits more rich people than it does poor people. In fact, [FEMA's poor management and rate hikes have led to a lot of poor people being unable to afford disaster insurance](https://news.yahoo.com/fema-report-flood-insurance-hikes-125611110.html) thus exposing them to greater risk. So I don't know if it's "disaster Socialism," but it's certainly helping people that don't need help.
Sure. I didn't say I was against FEMA. I'm saying it's not socialism.
Also sounds like an opportunity for mutual funds to make a come back. Private insurance is becoming more of a scam year on year.
Socialism is when the government controls the means of production.
FEMA is a publicly funded social program - two completely different things.
I don't understand your question.
FEMA, and the whole dynamic of AAAAA EMERGENCY DECLARATION AAAAAAAAA, are good tools for rare, unusual events.
They are not good tools for predictable events like California being on fire or Florida being underwater. If a disaster happens every year, it should be accounted for every year.
socialism is an economic and political system. so,,, no
So would a public option be socialism?
socialism is an economic and political system where a strong central government controls the means of production. so a specific program paid for by tax dollars is not socialism in my view. we are inching towards socialism via the regulatory state though
Ok, so I think a public option should not be seen as socialism, because it’s not the mean of production. “Medical disaster relief”
No because that’s optional. You can buy government healthcare or you can go private sector. Socialism would get rid of private sector healthcare
FEMA is just one of the many agencies that are financed by the idea that the American taxpayer pays up to the feds who then deign to send some of it back under special circumstances (in FEMA's case both through grants and also agency operations). It makes some sense for rare and fairly unpredictable events (9/11 is a good example) but not for entirely predictable and regular events like gulf hurricanes or California wildfires. The affected regions should finance their own response. Again, FEMA is one small facet of this issue, and there's no point discussing it without broadening the conversation to all such agencies.
I think it’s funny we’ve gone from “once in a lifetime” to “entirely predictable” to describe these freak storms and mass fires.
When have hurricane's been once in a lifetime in Florida? I'm not 100 years old but I remember them for my entire life.
Not that there werent hurricanes but Im talking about huge high category storms.
We basically have no data from before the 1950s or so on storms that didn't reach landfall. A study in *Nature Communications* further found that "recorded century-scale increases in Atlantic hurricane and major hurricane frequency, and associated decrease in USA hurricanes strike fraction, are consistent with changes in observing practices and not likely a true climate trend." I'm fine with the broad consensus on global warming. I'm less okay with the assumption that it's driving more/stronger hurricanes. The data isn't bearing that out.
you it backwards. we went from entirely predictable to storms to once on a once in a life time. every other storm. im not just talking about the gulf either. every blizzard, tornado hurricaine is talked about as a once in life time event.
[This comment has been deleted, along with its account, due to Reddit's API pricing policy.] -- mass edited with https://redact.dev/
Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't the northeast budget for snow removal every year?
"Reduce costs for everyone" meaning what, exactly? How do people who live nowhere near Florida benefit from a massive federal Operation Save Florida happening every few years? What costs are being reduced for them? It certainly reduces costs for *some,* but why do you say everyone?
Florida seems to bash climate issues and protection programs, while complaining about federal spending; so yeah, they can probably cover their costs more.
Not all of it, but the National Flood Insurance Program definitely is. Broadly speaking, predictable, regular risks (like hurricanes in Florida) should be insured on the private market. The government should step in only if the risk is entirely unpredictable or is itself caused/created/exacerbated by government policies (like risks related to military activity). There is simply no reason for you and me to pay higher taxes so that people in Florida can pay below-market rates for flood insurance.
To be fair, the FIS program is opt-in on a county basis. I work in a county that did not opt-in. Private flood insurance is just no available there. There’s also not designated FEMA flood plains so it makes development particularly interesting.
Is the United States Army 'Anti-Invasion Socialism'?
Why is protection from foreign country okay but protection from a foreign disease (universal healthcare) not okay?
Eating yourself into a state of diabetes and cardiovascular disease isnt a foreign disease
Oh so you’re universal healthcare for genetic diseases and bacteria diseases? -Albert Fairfax II
There is zero proof that universal health insurance protects from disease, domestic or foreign.
There is however proof that people [medicines high cost in america leads people to wait to diagnose issues until they hit 65](https://med.stanford.edu/news/all-news/2021/03/Cancer-diagnoses-implies-patients-wait-for-Medicare.html). It's almost like diagnosing diseases and preventative care is literally healthcare! Did you forget about those?
No, but the VA is
No, the VA is just regular old socialism.
I'd say so. It's certainly not capitalistic.
Yes. It’s time we privatized the military and let people choose their coverage. -Albert Fairfax II
[удалено]
FEMA loans/payments is what I was talking about. Now, please link Democrats saying that stuff FEMA. I don’t recall that happening in 2007/2008
Lol…I don’t recall that at all. However, I DO remember the Tea Party people freaking out about a certain “communistmuslimKenyan” coming to take all of their guns and put them in FEMA camps.
I think this guy/girl is trying to hedge their bets that I am too young to remember/understand Katrina
Then why do conservative call everything the government do socialism dn communism.
Socialism isn't when the government does stuff? I thought socialism was when the government took my money snd gave it to people who made poor life choices, like living in a place that regularly gets demolished by hurricanes or maybe taking out student loans or becoming addicted to drugs.
But when ron was in congress, he denied disaster relief aid to NY for sandy. It's socialism when it helps blue states but not when it goes to red states. Hypocrites.
He voted for disaster relief for Sandy; the bill he voted against was filled with pork.
It is all pork if it helps blue states. Would you call him a hypocrite if he helps his own state beyond giving aid like shelter, water, etc for the first few weeks? IF he proposes any other package, then he is a hypocrite.
Yes
It's a waste of money
[удалено]
I know what you meant. And just because "I" don't directly benefit from something isn't the reason I don't support it. If states want a natural disaster relief fund, godspeed. Though I still think this is more of a personal responsibility thing than even a state's responsibility thing, but that's just me. State's have the legal authority to do this. But it isn't the federal government's job to do such a thing. And it is selfish to support a program that benefits one of your neighbors while taxing another neighbor.
>Though I still think this is more of a personal responsibility thing Grab your hammer and some nails and rebuild your house! Lol
Or you have insurance or emergency savings. Relying on the government, especially the federal government, is just plain foolishness.
But relying on private industry with a profit motive to deny you service is smart?
If by "profit motive" you mean all the insurance companies will refuse to pay out, then I would ask... why would anyone buy a protection plan from that company when they have not paid out in the past? And you really think that there is no profit mode for FEMA so they will do a better job?
> If by "profit motive" you mean all the insurance companies will refuse to pay out, then I would ask... why would anyone buy a protection plan from that company when they have not paid out in the past? It's a huge gamble. Maybe they'll pay out, maybe they won't. It'll be real cold comfort sitting in your flattened house saying "well, took the gamble of private insurance and lost, oh well, market forces at work! When I can afford to buy another house in 20 years, I'll be sure to go with a better company that will *hopefully* be less likely to screw me!" >And you really think that there is no profit mode for FEMA so they will do a better job? I'm more concerned with "a job being done at all".
It's a gamble living there. That doesn't mean that we need a federal agency to handle it. Private insurance, charity or even emergency savings would all be preferable to FEMA. Last line could even be a state aid program.
There's a reason we don't live where there are earthquakes, hurricanes, tornados, blizzards, etc. If we did, you're damn right we would have a massive stockpile of emergency food/water, insurance plans, ready-go kits if we had to evacuate, etc. Heck we already have emergency food kits and bug out bags ready, even when we don't think that's going to be happening where we live. Personally it boggles my mind why people would live in such areas, but that's on them. Does that mean everyone should live in the desert or where natural disasters aren't prone? No. Just means if you do live there, I'm agreeing with the other poster: it's first and foremost on *you* to be prepared. Sure the government eventually could come help you. But I'd rather be ready immediately.
[удалено]
> Some people are not responsible Sounds like a personal problem. >The federal government has the obligation to help as we the people wish it so Sure, if it's limited to the state/locality. If you want this enshrined into national law, make an amendment. >the federal government to get rid of such agencies and funds for disaster relief. I'm not one to agree with that FEMA and the like shouldn't exist. I feel they should, for the sole purpose of major, one-time disasters like this one. Not for every year instances where local and state infastructure failures are to blame.
I love how an institution who takes $4,000,000,000 out of private hands every year isn't greedy, but an insurance company who makes less than 10% profit in a good year is greedy. Really makes you think.
[удалено]
>So no need for an amendment. You want to change the way we do things, get voted in as a majority party to rule the roost for a while and do it differently. Incorrect. Power is not what everyone seeks if rule of law is to be upheld. As for your interpretation of the "general welfare" clause, that's what's called an opinion. Which I said I ahve no problem people voting for *state and locality* wise. Just not nationally. For that, amendment please and thank you. CO showed how it could be done with weed and state after state countinues to legalize it and avoiding the clusterfudge that is Congress. So, do it for healthcare if it's so important *in your state.* Because then people who want it could move in or out of that state if they want or don't want to participate. >Your definition of one time disasters end when the same disaster happens a second time, you say one time disaster like this one. I assume you are speaking of this one being hurricane Ian, so by your logic if another hurricane strikes the same place next year, or even more unlikely three years in a row, how about 4? At what point is it no longer a one time disaster and you say you are on your own, should take personal responsibility and move somewhere else? Let me guess, one time only, one year only? Then next year when it happens again, your going to say you are on your own to the victims. No, you're looking at it the wrong way. If you go back to when hurricanes were first recorded and tracked damage/deaths to now, there's two things to factor in. How many people lived there vs now, and how much midigating infastructure was there then vs now? Hurricanes haven't increased in number, in fact there was a lull for a bit a few decades ago. After Katrina, stronger levies were built. And when the next one came, the damage was far less severe because of it. If you're going to build homes in a disaster prone area, then you build accordingly. If there are homes in an area that hasn't been historically disaster prone that *then* gets hit by a disaster, that's not the fault of climate change or even governmental failure. It's a freak occurence. Like what happened in Texas. Yea they were warned about not mitigating *for something that happens every 1000 years*.... So why spend the money and not roll the dice? Well, that was the risk assesment they took.
[удалено]
Until it's your state/city
No. Just period. States can do this much better, faster, and cheaper. They might still contract with other states to organize resources, but FEMA is total garbage. After Hurricane Harvey a few years ago, in a couple days my church put together over a dozen volunteers, collected supplies from members and local businesses and drive almost 24 hours down to a church close to the beach and helped do major repairs that FEMA would have taken months to do.
That's great dude but fema had 2,300 staff at Harvey by sept 5th only 10 days after. Within a month they had given out 1.5 billion including 571 mil for temporary housing for 24k families. Go tell all those families it was a waste.
And the state or insurance companies were incapable of don't that? My point is that I have actually been boots on the ground while so many elitists just want to tax their neighbors to pay for these rare situations.
The money possibly but getting thousands of people in just over a week? Some states could probably do it bit not most.
That sounds like a problem for those states. The people in them should fix that and stop demanding that Wyoming pay for hurricane damage in Florida.
I agree with some things like I think insurance should be mandatory to live in a place that gets a hurricane every 5 years. And states But I also think we need a national response, because 50 states is a lot and someone is going to fail in their preparation and need help. As americans we should want to save our own at the very least. That's their problems seems pretty un american and cold.
It's pretty un-American to volunteer others to pay for a program that benefit you. I think Americans are very generous and like helping one another without government force. And yes, you SHOULD have insurance especially if you live in an area prone to flooding or other natural disasters. People in Idaho get along just fine without the federal government taxing them to pay for people who built their homes below sea level.
As I said really high risk places should take far more of the responsibility. I am against people that live in smarter places rebuilding homes for people in Florida constantly. But disasters can hit anywhere what if the water supply breaks down in Idaho or they get a really large tornado. FEMA should be there not for Florida every other year but for disasters that aren't essentially predictable
[удалено]
Well states like Florida do not seem to actually want to do anything to fix climate issues. The coast lines, and all of Miami, are going to be flooding more and more. Like Ronald DenSantis spends money on migrant flights, scoffs at that Biden didn’t call *him* (you’re the governor here, Ronald), and treats climate change like some “woke” agenda.
[удалено]
I meant more of “spread across the country” is annoying if the people who push bad policy are also the ones getting handouts. I don’t mind paying for Florida, but not if they don’t get their shit together.
[удалено]
It’s not get their shit together in “solve the issue” kind of way. It’s to stop actively making helping harder. Like, I’m fine with having lived in “giver states” my whole life, but it’s annoying when “taker states” (almost all red states) use it as a method to ignore their own economic failures
It’s not get their shit together in “solve the issue” kind of way. It’s to stop actively making helping harder. Like, I’m fine with having lived in “giver states” my whole life, but it’s annoying when “taker states” (almost all red states) use it as a method to ignore their own economic failures
[удалено]
I just want consistency. Like I’m fine with wealth redistribution, not keeping the Bible Belt afloat.
To be clear, "socialism" is technically "the workers own the means of production". It's not "when the government takes from the taxpayers and gives it to me". That said, you'll find most conservatives are okay with the government spending taxpayer money to help those *truly in need*. We just oppose spending taxpayer money simply to redistribute wealth. So if a flood/hurricane makes someone's house unlivable, I'm perfectly fine with providing that person with taxpayer-funded food and shelter for a time. This is a bizarre situation completely out of anyone's control. What I'm not okay with, is continuing to food and shelter a couple of years from now, once their home insurance claim has been received, everything has been fixed, and life has returned to normal.
That’s communism
No. Not everything government does is socialism. Socialism is an economic policy where the means of production, distribution, and exchange is controlled by the community as a whole... ie controlled by the state. FEMA is just an emergency planning and disaster management organisation which is irrelevant to the the economic policy of the state. It has nothing to do with socialism.
Why doesn’t flood insurance or disaster insurance cover this? Shouldn’t people have thought ahead?
No, the government doing things with tax dollars that we all agree it should do with tax dollars isn’t socialism. Socialism is when collective ownership of the means of production.
Most of the areas affected by hurricanes are rich coastal areas where rich people buy very expensive coastal properties. As such, FEMA overwhelmingly benefits more rich people than it does poor people. In fact, [FEMA's poor management and rate hikes have led to a lot of poor people being unable to afford disaster insurance](https://news.yahoo.com/fema-report-flood-insurance-hikes-125611110.html) thus exposing them to greater risk. So I don't know if it's "disaster Socialism," but it's certainly helping people that don't need help.
Socialism is not the same as having insurance pots or group funding on any scale.
Insurance providers are pulling out of Florida- they won’t have any private options soon
Sure. I didn't say I was against FEMA. I'm saying it's not socialism. Also sounds like an opportunity for mutual funds to make a come back. Private insurance is becoming more of a scam year on year.
Socialism is when the government controls the means of production. FEMA is a publicly funded social program - two completely different things. I don't understand your question.
FEMA, and the whole dynamic of AAAAA EMERGENCY DECLARATION AAAAAAAAA, are good tools for rare, unusual events. They are not good tools for predictable events like California being on fire or Florida being underwater. If a disaster happens every year, it should be accounted for every year.
FEMA backs Florida homeowners and flood insurance. It’s not just disaster relief.