If you were wondering how claims are handled in these situations, here
is an insight into the process. From experiences that I have been seen,

the insurance company will try anything to wriggle out paying a claim.


TMT


http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...05/09/11/AR200...



Claims Mark Recovery's Beginning
But Deciding How Much Damage Is Attributable to Floods May Get Tricky


By Justin Gillis and Amy Joyce
Washington Post Staff Writers
Monday, September 12, 2005


HATTIESBURG, Miss. -- As the immediate humanitarian crisis eases in the

Gulf Coast states, people are turning their attention to recovery, and
for the vast majority, the key to recovery is an insurance claim.


Insurance adjusters are flooding the region to cope with claims
expected to number in the millions. Homeowners across a huge swath of
the country now confront the most important financial moment of their
lives -- getting an insurer to keep its promise to make them whole
after a disaster. Some are likely to be caught up in a contentious
debate over how much of the hurricane's damage should be attributed to
flooding.


As an insurance man crawled around a roof the other day in the broiling

Mississippi sun, Eddie A. Holloway stood below in the kitchen, pointing

to strips of paint and plaster hanging from a giant hole in the ceiling

of a rental house he owns in Hattiesburg.


The house, in a poor section of town, was rendered uninhabitable by the

storm, and the tenants fled. "They're gone," he said, and so is his
income on the property, perhaps for weeks or months.


State Farm adjuster Curtis Rasmussen, fresh in town from Utah to handle

claims, crawled down a trembling stepladder toting a digital camera to
show Holloway the damage. Hurricane Katrina had stripped the roof bare,

and a new one would be required. On this modest house alone, 70 miles
from the Gulf of Mexico, State Farm will be writing a check for
thousands of dollars.


The scene will replay again and again across the region. Everywhere but

New Orleans, insurance adjusters are thick on the ground already --
stuffing hotels, grabbing anything that resembles office space, firing
up generators and pointing satellite dishes skyward in a desperate
attempt to get Internet access in a region where many people still lack

electricity. They are buoying spirits across three states with
immediate $2,500 and $5,000 checks to cover living expenses.


But the process of adjudicating several million claims has barely
begun, and Hurricane Katrina is already posing a vexing set of
insurance problems that will reach all the way to Washington. For
starters, much of the damage along the Gulf Coast was caused by a surge

of water that rose as high as 30 feet, the biggest storm surge ever
recorded in North America. That surge was technically a flood, even
though it was produced by a hurricane, and it is not covered by
standard homeowners' insurance.


Flood insurance has to be bought separately from the federal
government. Many people in New Orleans had it, and they are likely to
be made whole, though the payments are expected to send the
government's flood-insurance program into the red.


In Alabama and Mississippi, by contrast, many people did not have flood

coverage, and that is sowing the seeds of a potentially vast conflict
involving angry consumers, insurance companies, banks that write
mortgages, state regulators and lawmakers in Washington.


A huge fight may yet be averted if insurers succumb to political
pressure to attribute most of the region's damage to wind instead of
flooding -- a policy that regulators say could put some insurers at
risk of bankruptcy.


If the insurers enforce their policies as written, politicians are
going to find themselves coping with unhappy constituents throughout
the Gulf Coast who did not realize their damage would not be covered.
There is already talk of massive lawsuits and the need for wholesale
changes in the way federal flood insurance works.


"I had $60,000 worth of contents, and I thought I had it made," said
Dorice Mitchell, a 40-year resident of Pascagoula, Miss., who lost many

of his belongings when his house flooded. He walked away from a State
Farm catastrophe center empty-handed last week after learning his
policy won't help him. "They said it ain't worth a dime. No flood
insurance. I'm going to be living in apple crates."


Because the task of assessing damage has barely begun, nobody has a
clear idea how large insurance payouts will be. Preliminary forecasts
run as high as $60 billion, which would make Katrina far costlier than
Hurricane Andrew, the monster 1992 storm that walloped southern
Florida, Louisiana and Mississippi and led to insurance payments of
more than $20 billion in today's dollars. Andrew was a "dry hurricane"
that did not produce anything like the flooding associated with
Katrina.


Insurance companies will not offer estimates of their exposure, saying
it is simply too early to tell. But in this college town in
southeastern Mississippi, it is possible to get a preliminary sense of
the financial scope of the disaster.


Katrina did not fall below hurricane strength until the eye was near
Laurel, Miss., 30 miles northeast of Hattiesburg and 100 miles from the

Gulf of Mexico. The storm caused damage in a dozen states and reached
Canada before it weakened into insignificance. Katrina cut a
devastating path deep into central Mississippi, paralyzing the state
government in Jackson for days.


In regions so far inland they rarely see damage from tropical storms,
Katrina killed dozens of people, snapped electrical poles off at the
ground, drove tree limbs deep into houses, ripped open roofs, knocked
down barns and traumatized tens of thousands of people. As of Saturday,

more than 427,000 households in Louisiana and more than 162,000 in
Mississippi remained without power, according to the U.S. Department of

Energy.


Throughout the region, governments were struggling over the weekend to
restore basic services. Hundreds of thousands of people were still
living in shelters. Frenzied utility crews sweated in the hot sun,
swatting away bugs, to rebuild the region's electric grid.


State Farm, the nation's largest insurance carrier and also the largest

in the afflicted states, grabbed an old furniture store in Hattiesburg
right after the storm to set up a catastrophe center, and more than 100

adjusters are already operating out of it. State Farm, Allstate and
other insurers have also stuck vans with claims processors in the
parking lots of malls and Home Depot stores across the region.


The companies, whose policies generally reimburse people for temporary
living expenses caused by a disaster, are writing instantaneous checks
for policyholders forced out of their homes. "For some of them it's a
total surprise," said Daniel McNamara, who lives in Connecticut and
heads a Metropolitan Life Insurance Co. catastrophe team operating at
the Home Depot parking lot in Hattiesburg. "They're tickled pink."


Under a tent in a parking lot in Pascagoula last week, policyholders
waited to see State Farm representatives. Shondra Jefferson,
traumatized from watching people drown in the storm, left her 15-minute

meeting with State Farm clutching a $2,500 check. "My funds are
depleted," she said. She plans to use the money to patch her roof and
clear debris.


Consumer advocates who monitor insurance issues say this initial phase
of disaster response usually goes well.


"The insurance industry has learned that while the TV cameras are
rolling, it's good to put on your nice shirt and write some additional
living-expense checks for people," said J. Robert Hunter, former Texas
insurance commissioner and director of insurance at the Consumer
Federation of America in Washington. "It's nice theater. And in fact,
they owe the money. The trouble comes months later."


State Farm's temporary center in Hattiesburg will be ground zero for
handling claims from 13 Mississippi counties, not including the six
closest to the Gulf of Mexico. Randy May, who arrived from Denver after

the storm to head the operation, said his territory includes 24,000
homeowners with State Farm policies. By Friday afternoon, 8,505 of
those policyholders had already called to report claims, and 12 percent

of the cases were classified as having severe damage.


The insurers pride themselves on rapid response to catastrophes. When
Holloway, dean of students at the University of Southern Mississippi in

Hattiesburg, called State Farm to report damage to several of his
rental properties, he heard back from Rasmussen, the adjuster assigned
to two of his houses, within two hours. "I was totally surprised,"
Holloway said. "I'm most grateful for the immediate response."


Still, settling claims is often a laborious process that can involve
haggling over contractor estimates and over the value of a home's
contents, assuming they were destroyed. Particularly near the coast,
many people lost the very records that would let them document the
value of their contents. And demand for contractors will be sky high in

the disaster zone, slowing work.


The biggest debates are likely to come over whether homes near the
coast were destroyed by wind or flood.


Of the estimated 400,000 flooded properties in three coastal counties
of Mississippi -- Hancock, Harrison and Jackson -- just 21,600 had
flood-insurance policies, said George Dale, the Mississippi insurance
commissioner.


Though some flooded residents of Louisiana also lacked flood coverage,
that state is in better shape, according to figures from the Federal
Emergency Management Agency. As of September 2004, 376,681 flood
policies were in force in Louisiana, compared with 41,946 in
Mississippi and 41,336 in Alabama.


"All these people pay high insurance to live on the coast," Dale said.
"They think, 'Well it has never flooded before. I'm paying enough
already -- I don't need it.' "


Hunter, of the consumer group, said most coastal homes probably
suffered some wind damage before floodwaters destroyed them. But he
said insurers have a financial incentive to attribute as much of the
damage as possible to flooding, since they do not have to pay flood
claims.


Hunter called on state insurance departments to pressure the companies
to use windstorm modeling or other techniques to try to calculate how
badly homes in a given neighborhood were damaged by wind before the
water hit.


"What I'm afraid you'll see is, the policyholder has a $100,000 house
and the insurance companies will say, 'It's 5 percent wind damage,' "
Hunter said. " 'Here's $5,000; take it or leave it.' "

"Too_Many_Tools" wrote in message
oups.com...


If you were wondering how claims are handled in these situations, here
is an insight into the process. From experiences that I have been seen,

the insurance company will try anything to wriggle out paying a claim.


Where did it say that? What I read is that they are already paying living
expenses tokeep people going.


"What I'm afraid you'll see is, the policyholder has a $100,000 house
and the insurance companies will say, 'It's 5 percent wind damage,' "
Hunter said. " 'Here's $5,000; take it or leave it.' "


This is an assumption made by someone, not a fact of what has happened yet.
I see no FACTS to base a decision or form an opinion.

sounds like people who had flood insurance will be compensated for
flood damage and people who don't won't

"Edwin Pawlowski" wrote

If you were wondering how claims are handled in these situations, here
is an insight into the process. From experiences that I have been seen,
the insurance company will try anything to wriggle out paying a claim.

Where did it say that? What I read is that they are already paying living
expenses tokeep people going.

"What I'm afraid you'll see is, the policyholder has a $100,000 house
and the insurance companies will say, 'It's 5 percent wind damage,' "
Hunter said. " 'Here's $5,000; take it or leave it.' "

This is an assumption made by someone, not a fact of what has happened
yet. I see no FACTS to base a decision or form an opinion.

That is not only fact, it is long held policy and one of the first things
you learn in insurance schools.. An axiom of the insurance business is that
if the water comes DOWN you are covered. If the water comes UP you are not.

--
Glenn Ashmore

I'm building a 45' cutter in strip/composite. Watch my progress (or lack
there of) at: http://www.rutuonline.com
Shameless Commercial Division: http://www.spade-anchor-us.com

"Glenn Ashmore" wrote in message
newsHlVe.25135$hp.8124@lakeread08...


"Edwin Pawlowski" wrote

If you were wondering how claims are handled in these situations, here
is an insight into the process. From experiences that I have been seen,
the insurance company will try anything to wriggle out paying a claim.

Where did it say that? What I read is that they are already paying
living expenses tokeep people going.

"What I'm afraid you'll see is, the policyholder has a $100,000 house
and the insurance companies will say, 'It's 5 percent wind damage,' "
Hunter said. " 'Here's $5,000; take it or leave it.' "

This is an assumption made by someone, not a fact of what has happened
yet. I see no FACTS to base a decision or form an opinion.

That is not only fact, it is long held policy and one of the first things
you learn in insurance schools.. An axiom of the insurance business is
that if the water comes DOWN you are covered. If the water comes UP you
are not.

--
Sideways?

"steve" wrote in message
ups.com...
sounds like people who had flood insurance will be compensated for
flood damage and people who don't won't

as it should be. damn well better not pay out for coverage that
wasn't bought just to look good. we'll all pay for that.

"Chris" wrote in message
...

--
Sideways?


In the case of a Hurricane sideways is not unusual. In 1970 our house
filled with water, not from a hole in the roof and not from rising water in
the street. It blew through the brick veneer and around the windows. The
weep holes at the bottom of the brick could not drain fast enough and the
water came in from the bottom of the soaked walls. The top of the walls
were dry. Pretty freaky.

"Chris" wrote

That is not only fact, it is long held policy and one of the first things
you learn in insurance schools.. An axiom of the insurance business is
that if the water comes DOWN you are covered. If the water comes UP you
are not.

--
Sideways?

Sideways is good if it started out higher than the damage.

I have seen some real nits picked on this subject. One example: a water
supply line broke where it enters a house at basement floor level. The
water rose and flooded out the HVAC and everything in the basement.
Coverage denied because it was rising water. OTOH, supply line breaks in
the basement ceiling and floods the HVAC and everything in the basement.
THEN you are covered because the water came from above the damage.

To carry it to extremes, if you could prove that the water came in as a big
wave that crested in the front yard and fell on your house you would be
covered but storm surges and tsunamis don't work like that. They flow
along rising and pushing everything over.

In this case there will have to be some determination of how much damage was
done by wind and how much by the surge. If you have seen aerial pictures of
Gulf Port, that yellow line of framing timber marks the boundary. Everybody
shore side of that line will probably be covered. Those within the debris
field will have to be split between wind and flood damage. Those on the
Gulf side will probably have to file for bankruptcy just as the laws change
to screw them.

--
Glenn Ashmore

I'm building a 45' cutter in strip/composite. Watch my progress (or lack
there of) at: http://www.rutuonline.com
Shameless Commercial Division: http://www.spade-anchor-us.com

"Glenn Ashmore" wrote in message

If you were wondering how claims are handled in these situations, here
is an insight into the process. From experiences that I have been seen,
the insurance company will try anything to wriggle out paying a claim.

That is not only fact, it is long held policy and one of the first things
you learn in insurance schools.. An axiom of the insurance business is
that if the water comes DOWN you are covered. If the water comes UP you
are not.

--
Glenn Ashmore

But the article posted did not mention that. The OP drew that conclusion
from it somehow and that is what I questioned. If the insurance company is
not liable, they have no obligation to pay. If you live 6' below sea level
and have no flood insurance, don't cry on my shoulder.

In article ,
AllEmailDeletedImmediately wrote:

"steve" wrote in message
ups.com...
sounds like people who had flood insurance will be compensated for
flood damage and people who don't won't

as it should be. damn well better not pay out for coverage that
wasn't bought just to look good. we'll all pay for that.


And the politicians who do that will pay for it, one way or another.


--Tim May

On Tue, 13 Sep 2005 00:05:45 GMT, in misc.consumers.frugal-living "Edwin
Pawlowski" wrote:


"Glenn Ashmore" wrote in message

If you were wondering how claims are handled in these situations, here
is an insight into the process. From experiences that I have been seen,
the insurance company will try anything to wriggle out paying a claim.

That is not only fact, it is long held policy and one of the first things
you learn in insurance schools.. An axiom of the insurance business is
that if the water comes DOWN you are covered. If the water comes UP you
are not.

--
Glenn Ashmore

But the article posted did not mention that. The OP drew that conclusion
from it somehow and that is what I questioned. If the insurance company is
not liable, they have no obligation to pay. If you live 6' below sea level
and have no flood insurance, don't cry on my shoulder.



My lender will not finance homes that are on a flood plain.

I agree with the general discussion but...

I have seen it mentioned several places that only 40% of the population
had flood insurance.

Now if you have 60% of the population that can't afford to rebuild
because of losses, what do you think the politicians will do?

Also remember that over one million people are homeless at this time.

That is a significant number of votes.

TMT

wrote in message
...
On Tue, 13 Sep 2005 00:05:45 GMT, in misc.consumers.frugal-living "Edwin
Pawlowski" wrote:


"Glenn Ashmore" wrote in message

If you were wondering how claims are handled in these situations, here
is an insight into the process. From experiences that I have been
seen,
the insurance company will try anything to wriggle out paying a claim.

That is not only fact, it is long held policy and one of the first
things
you learn in insurance schools.. An axiom of the insurance business is
that if the water comes DOWN you are covered. If the water comes UP you
are not.

--
Glenn Ashmore

But the article posted did not mention that. The OP drew that conclusion
from it somehow and that is what I questioned. If the insurance company
is
not liable, they have no obligation to pay. If you live 6' below sea
level
and have no flood insurance, don't cry on my shoulder.



My lender will not finance homes that are on a flood plain.

Are we talking a real lender (only a couple of handfuls) or a broker? Most
lenders will lend in a flood zone. They use the 100year flood plan that is
given to them when the property is appraised. If the property is in
question, all that is normally required is the property owner to carry flood
insurance on the property. More common sense than anything. I think your
broker might be handing you some.


--
Chris

If you can read this, thank a teacher. If it is in English, thank a
soldier. If it is in ebonics, thank your Congressman.

"Too_Many_Tools" wrote in message
oups.com...
I agree with the general discussion but...

I have seen it mentioned several places that only 40% of the population
had flood insurance.

That would mean that 60% of the properties (assuming we're talking about
homes in flood plain, which I appears to include all of coastal LA and MS)
are free and clear of any mortgage or other lien (home equity loan, home
equity line of credit). No lender would have a lien on a home in flood
plain without requiring flood insurance. Maybe that number is correct, but
it sounds high to me.

Now if you have 60% of the population that can't afford to rebuild
because of losses, what do you think the politicians will do?

Also remember that over one million people are homeless at this time.

That is a significant number of votes.

Sure it is. For people in LA and MS. I don't know how much pressure those
homeless can exert on our fine senators here in Illinois.

todd

On Mon, 12 Sep 2005 20:52:53 -0400, in misc.consumers.frugal-living "Chris"
wrote:


wrote in message
.. .
On Tue, 13 Sep 2005 00:05:45 GMT, in misc.consumers.frugal-living "Edwin
Pawlowski" wrote:


"Glenn Ashmore" wrote in message

If you were wondering how claims are handled in these situations, here
is an insight into the process. From experiences that I have been
seen,
the insurance company will try anything to wriggle out paying a claim.

That is not only fact, it is long held policy and one of the first
things
you learn in insurance schools.. An axiom of the insurance business is
that if the water comes DOWN you are covered. If the water comes UP you
are not.

--
Glenn Ashmore

But the article posted did not mention that. The OP drew that conclusion
from it somehow and that is what I questioned. If the insurance company
is
not liable, they have no obligation to pay. If you live 6' below sea
level
and have no flood insurance, don't cry on my shoulder.



My lender will not finance homes that are on a flood plain.

Are we talking a real lender (only a couple of handfuls) or a broker? Most
lenders will lend in a flood zone. They use the 100year flood plan that is
given to them when the property is appraised. If the property is in
question, all that is normally required is the property owner to carry flood
insurance on the property. More common sense than anything. I think your
broker might be handing you some.

My lender is the US Government.

In article .com,
Too_Many_Tools wrote:

I agree with the general discussion but...

I have seen it mentioned several places that only 40% of the population
had flood insurance.

Now if you have 60% of the population that can't afford to rebuild
because of losses, what do you think the politicians will do?

Also remember that over one million people are homeless at this time.

That is a significant number of votes.


And that is precisely why we are a nation of laws, not of pimping for
votes.

Any politician who votes to give money freely to those who do not have
a legal claim to it should be assassinated.

--Tim May

"Todd Fatheree" wrote in message
...
"Too_Many_Tools" wrote in message
oups.com...
I agree with the general discussion but...

I have seen it mentioned several places that only 40% of the population
had flood insurance.

That would mean that 60% of the properties (assuming we're talking about
homes in flood plain, which I appears to include all of coastal LA and MS)
are free and clear of any mortgage or other lien (home equity loan, home
equity line of credit). No lender would have a lien on a home in flood
plain without requiring flood insurance. Maybe that number is correct, but
it sounds high to me.

Now if you have 60% of the population that can't afford to rebuild
because of losses, what do you think the politicians will do?

Also remember that over one million people are homeless at this time.

That is a significant number of votes.

Sure it is. For people in LA and MS. I don't know how much pressure
those
homeless can exert on our fine senators here in Illinois.

todd

Most of the people homeless now, and asking for hand-outs would of probably
been homeless before the mess, had it not been for our government. As a
law, it should be imposed that people on welfare should not be allowed to
vote.


--
Chris

If you can read this, thank a teacher. If it is in English, thank a
soldier. If it is in ebonics, thank your Congressman.

wrote in message
news
On Mon, 12 Sep 2005 20:52:53 -0400, in misc.consumers.frugal-living
"Chris"
wrote:


wrote in message
. ..
On Tue, 13 Sep 2005 00:05:45 GMT, in misc.consumers.frugal-living "Edwin
Pawlowski" wrote:


"Glenn Ashmore" wrote in message

If you were wondering how claims are handled in these situations,
here
is an insight into the process. From experiences that I have been
seen,
the insurance company will try anything to wriggle out paying a
claim.

That is not only fact, it is long held policy and one of the first
things
you learn in insurance schools.. An axiom of the insurance business
is
that if the water comes DOWN you are covered. If the water comes UP
you
are not.

--
Glenn Ashmore

But the article posted did not mention that. The OP drew that conclusion
from it somehow and that is what I questioned. If the insurance company
is
not liable, they have no obligation to pay. If you live 6' below sea
level
and have no flood insurance, don't cry on my shoulder.



My lender will not finance homes that are on a flood plain.

Are we talking a real lender (only a couple of handfuls) or a broker?
Most
lenders will lend in a flood zone. They use the 100year flood plan that
is
given to them when the property is appraised. If the property is in
question, all that is normally required is the property owner to carry
flood
insurance on the property. More common sense than anything. I think your
broker might be handing you some.

My lender is the US Government.

Since when is the government handing out loans? Or is this some new welfare
thing I am not aware of?


--
Chris

If you can read this, thank a teacher. If it is in English, thank a
soldier. If it is in ebonics, thank your Congressman.

"Tim May" wrote in message
...
In article .com,
Too_Many_Tools wrote:

I agree with the general discussion but...

I have seen it mentioned several places that only 40% of the population
had flood insurance.

Now if you have 60% of the population that can't afford to rebuild
because of losses, what do you think the politicians will do?

Also remember that over one million people are homeless at this time.

That is a significant number of votes.


And that is precisely why we are a nation of laws, not of pimping for
votes.

Any politician who votes to give money freely to those who do not have
a legal claim to it should be assassinated.

--Tim May

Tim,

Well said!!!

If I remember correctly when we had a Constitution, the federal government
was set up to protect the US from foreign interests. Not to provide a roof
over our head and food to those who did not feel like providing ourselves.

--
Chris

If you can read this, thank a teacher. If it is in English, thank a
soldier. If it is in ebonics, thank your Congressman.

On Mon, 12 Sep 2005 21:29:40 -0400, in misc.consumers.frugal-living "Chris"
wrote:


My lender will not finance homes that are on a flood plain.

Are we talking a real lender (only a couple of handfuls) or a broker?
Most
lenders will lend in a flood zone. They use the 100year flood plan that
is
given to them when the property is appraised. If the property is in
question, all that is normally required is the property owner to carry
flood
insurance on the property. More common sense than anything. I think your
broker might be handing you some.

My lender is the US Government.

Since when is the government handing out loans? Or is this some new welfare
thing I am not aware of?

It's not welfare, it's a loan with a low interest rate. Funny how only in this
country "welfare" is a bad word. We are so brainwashed in this country.

"Chris" wrote

Are we talking a real lender (only a couple of handfuls) or a broker?
Most lenders will lend in a flood zone. They use the 100year flood plan
that is given to them when the property is appraised. If the property is
in question, all that is normally required is the property owner to carry
flood insurance on the property. More common sense than anything. I think
your broker might be handing you some.

Most lenders will require that you get Federal Flood insurance if you build
in a flood plane. Either that or you have to put up some other collateral.
Federal Flood Insurance will cover up to $200K in flood damage which usually
means that is the limit of what they will loan.

In southern Louisiana almost 80% of the homes and businesses have Federal
Flood insurance but in Alabama and Mississippi the rate is closer to 15%.

--
Glenn Ashmore

I'm building a 45' cutter in strip/composite. Watch my progress (or lack
there of) at: http://www.rutuonline.com
Shameless Commercial Division: http://www.spade-anchor-us.com

wrote in message
...
On Mon, 12 Sep 2005 21:29:40 -0400, in misc.consumers.frugal-living
"Chris"
wrote:


My lender will not finance homes that are on a flood plain.

Are we talking a real lender (only a couple of handfuls) or a broker?
Most
lenders will lend in a flood zone. They use the 100year flood plan that
is
given to them when the property is appraised. If the property is in
question, all that is normally required is the property owner to carry
flood
insurance on the property. More common sense than anything. I think
your
broker might be handing you some.

My lender is the US Government.

Since when is the government handing out loans? Or is this some new
welfare
thing I am not aware of?

It's not welfare, it's a loan with a low interest rate. Funny how only in
this
country "welfare" is a bad word. We are so brainwashed in this country.


I am open ears as to what program this is? Better yet what are the
qualifications?
Please do tell!

--
Chris

If you can read this, thank a teacher. If it is in English, thank a
soldier. If it is in ebonics, thank your Congressman.

Chris wrote:
It's not welfare, it's a loan with a low interest rate. Funny how only in
this
country "welfare" is a bad word. We are so brainwashed in this country.


I am open ears as to what program this is? Better yet what are the
qualifications?
Please do tell!


doesnt HUD give loans?

In article , "Chris"
wrote:

Most of the people homeless now, and asking for hand-outs would of probably
been homeless before the mess, had it not been for our government. As a
law, it should be imposed that people on welfare should not be allowed to
vote.

Likewise government 'workers' should not be allowed to vote.

--
Free men own guns, slaves don't
www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/5357/

In article ,
Tim May wrote:

Any politician who votes to give money freely to those who do not have
a legal claim to it should be assassinated.

--Tim May

Sounds like you are advocating assassinating ALL politicians

--
Free men own guns, slaves don't
www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/5357/

"SoCalMike" wrote in message
...
Chris wrote:
It's not welfare, it's a loan with a low interest rate. Funny how only
in this
country "welfare" is a bad word. We are so brainwashed in this country.


I am open ears as to what program this is? Better yet what are the
qualifications?
Please do tell!


doesnt HUD give loans?


HUD guarantees loans to the original loaner or mortgagee. Much like PMI
that us working stiffs pay for, if needed. In other words, another source
of welfare provided by our government.

This is, given his comments, as our disillusioned friend has, another
handout from our government. Although the welfare poster may be correct,
many government programs barley trust them to pay the mortgage they insure,
yet alone the associated flood insurance. Nor do they trust the homeowner's
intelligence to select a safe home, thus the strict guidance on their
insurance. More or less when you are getting mortgage insurance from the
government, they will assume your are an idiot and provide strict guidelines
on the home you purchase. At less some savings for us working stiffs.



--
Chris

If you can read this, thank a teacher. If it is in English, thank a
soldier. If it is in ebonics, thank your Congressman.

On Mon, 12 Sep 2005 23:45:00 -0400, in misc.consumers.frugal-living "Chris"
wrote:


"SoCalMike" wrote in message
...
Chris wrote:
It's not welfare, it's a loan with a low interest rate. Funny how only
in this
country "welfare" is a bad word. We are so brainwashed in this country.


I am open ears as to what program this is? Better yet what are the
qualifications?
Please do tell!


doesnt HUD give loans?


HUD guarantees loans to the original loaner or mortgagee. Much like PMI
that us working stiffs pay for, if needed. In other words, another source
of welfare provided by our government.

This is, given his comments, as our disillusioned friend has, another
handout from our government. Although the welfare poster may be correct,
many government programs barley trust them to pay the mortgage they insure,
yet alone the associated flood insurance. Nor do they trust the homeowner's
intelligence to select a safe home, thus the strict guidance on their
insurance. More or less when you are getting mortgage insurance from the
government, they will assume your are an idiot and provide strict guidelines
on the home you purchase. At less some savings for us working stiffs.


Yep it's welfare alright... CORPORATE WELFARE

You're just a racist, if you were worried about Welfare dollars and where they
go you would focus on corporate welfare. Racism is ugly in any color.


Business and Industry Guaranteed Loans

The Business and Industry (B&I) Guaranteed Loan Program helps create jobs and
stimulates rural economies by providing financial backing for rural businesses.
This program provides guarantees up to 80 percent of a loan made by a commercial
lender. Loan proceeds may be used for working capital, machinery and equipment,
buildings and real estate, and certain types of debt refinancing. The primary
purpose is to create and maintain employment and improve the economic climate in
rural communities. This is achieved by expanding the lending capability of
private lenders in rural areas, helping them make and service quality loans that
provide lasting community benefits. This program represents a true private-
public partnership.

B&I loan guarantees can be extended to loans made by recognized commercial or
other authorized lenders in rural areas (this includes all areas other than
cities of more than 50,000 people and the contiguous and urbanized area of such
cities or towns). Generally, authorized lenders include Federal or State
chartered banks, credit unions, insurance companies, savings and loan
associations, Farm Credit Banks or other Farm Credit System institutions with
direct lending authority, a mortgage company that is part of a bank holding
company, and the National Rural Utilities Finance Corporation. Other loan
sources include eligible Rural Utilities Service electric and telecommunications
borrowers and other lenders approved by RBS who have met the designated
criteria.

Assistance under the B&I Guaranteed Loan Program is available to virtually any
legally organized entity, including a cooperative, corporation, partnership,
trust or other profit or nonprofit entity, Indian tribe or Federally recognized
tribal group, municipality, county, or other political subdivision of a State.
Applicants need not have been denied credit elsewhere to apply for this program.

The maximum aggregate B&I Guaranteed Loan(s) amount that can be offered to any
one borrower under this program is $25 million. A maximum of 10 percent of
program funding is available to value-added cooperative organizations for loans
above $25 million to a maximum aggregate of $40 million.



The following financial data is as of September 30, 2004:
Obligations by State for 2000 through 2004




Memorandum of Agreement with Colson Services Corporation, a subsidiary of JP
Morgan Chase Bank The agreement will provide greater opportunity for rural
lenders to participate in Rural Development's Business and Industry (B&I)
guaranteed loan program.

Program Administration

The program is administered at the State level by Rural Development State
Offices. To obtain the addresses and telephone numbers of State Offices, visit
the Rural Development Field Office locator. For further information on this
program, please call the State Office servicing your State.

Available online forms can be found at www.sc.egov.usda.gov

In article , Nick
Hull wrote:

In article ,
Tim May wrote:

Any politician who votes to give money freely to those who do not have
a legal claim to it should be assassinated.

--Tim May

Sounds like you are advocating assassinating ALL politicians

This is why I cheered when Al Qaeda sent planes toward Washington. I
was hoping for the "Sato Solution," a decapitation of Congress. Most
would have gotten away, it seems likely, but our estimates are that 190
or so actual Congresscriminals, plus vast numbers of staffer parasites,
would have been given justice.

Alas, one plane fell short. Another chose a completely unimportant
target.

I still hope that the AN-59K nukes sold in Samarkand in 1999 will
decapitate the head of the snake...and remove 450,000 negro welfare
recipients in Washington, too.


--Tim May

"Archangel" wrote in message
.. .
"Chris" wrote:

wrote in message
. ..
On Mon, 12 Sep 2005 21:29:40 -0400, in misc.consumers.frugal-living
"Chris"
wrote:


My lender will not finance homes that are on a flood plain.

Are we talking a real lender (only a couple of handfuls) or a broker?
Most
lenders will lend in a flood zone. They use the 100year flood plan
that
is
given to them when the property is appraised. If the property is in
question, all that is normally required is the property owner to carry
flood
insurance on the property. More common sense than anything. I think
your
broker might be handing you some.

My lender is the US Government.

Since when is the government handing out loans? Or is this some new
welfare
thing I am not aware of?

It's not welfare, it's a loan with a low interest rate. Funny how only
in
this
country "welfare" is a bad word. We are so brainwashed in this country.


I am open ears as to what program this is? Better yet what are the
qualifications?
Please do tell!

--
Chris

There are two programs I can think of. One is the FHA loan for first time
home buyers, the other is the VHA loan for veterans.

--
Archangel - Jack of all trades, mastering some...

Archangel & RavenSky's personal pages:
http://www.REMhastenslowly.com/

remove the REM... (sleep is over rated)


Again these are not loans but insurance for the lenders as provided by our
government. Once again they are not loans but insurance to the lender.


--
Chris

If you can read this, thank a teacher. If it is in English, thank a
soldier. If it is in ebonics, thank your Congressman.

"Nick Hull" wrote in message
...
In article , "Chris"
wrote:

Most of the people homeless now, and asking for hand-outs would of
probably
been homeless before the mess, had it not been for our government. As a
law, it should be imposed that people on welfare should not be allowed to
vote.

Likewise government 'workers' should not be allowed to vote.

--
Free men own guns, slaves don't
www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/5357/

That too!!!!

--
Chris

If you can read this, thank a teacher. If it is in English, thank a
soldier. If it is in ebonics, thank your Congressman.

wrote in message
...
On Mon, 12 Sep 2005 23:45:00 -0400, in misc.consumers.frugal-living
"Chris"
wrote:


"SoCalMike" wrote in message
...
Chris wrote:
It's not welfare, it's a loan with a low interest rate. Funny how
only
in this
country "welfare" is a bad word. We are so brainwashed in this
country.


I am open ears as to what program this is? Better yet what are the
qualifications?
Please do tell!


doesnt HUD give loans?


HUD guarantees loans to the original loaner or mortgagee. Much like PMI
that us working stiffs pay for, if needed. In other words, another source
of welfare provided by our government.

This is, given his comments, as our disillusioned friend has, another
handout from our government. Although the welfare poster may be correct,
many government programs barley trust them to pay the mortgage they
insure,
yet alone the associated flood insurance. Nor do they trust the
homeowner's
intelligence to select a safe home, thus the strict guidance on their
insurance. More or less when you are getting mortgage insurance from the
government, they will assume your are an idiot and provide strict
guidelines
on the home you purchase. At less some savings for us working stiffs.


Yep it's welfare alright... CORPORATE WELFARE

You're just a racist, if you were worried about Welfare dollars and where
they
go you would focus on corporate welfare. Racism is ugly in any color.


Business and Industry Guaranteed Loans

The Business and Industry (B&I) Guaranteed Loan Program helps create jobs
and
stimulates rural economies by providing financial backing for rural
businesses.
This program provides guarantees up to 80 percent of a loan made by a
commercial
lender. Loan proceeds may be used for working capital, machinery and
equipment,
buildings and real estate, and certain types of debt refinancing. The
primary
purpose is to create and maintain employment and improve the economic
climate in
rural communities. This is achieved by expanding the lending capability of
private lenders in rural areas, helping them make and service quality
loans that
provide lasting community benefits. This program represents a true
private-
public partnership.

B&I loan guarantees can be extended to loans made by recognized commercial
or
other authorized lenders in rural areas (this includes all areas other
than
cities of more than 50,000 people and the contiguous and urbanized area of
such
cities or towns). Generally, authorized lenders include Federal or State
chartered banks, credit unions, insurance companies, savings and loan
associations, Farm Credit Banks or other Farm Credit System institutions
with
direct lending authority, a mortgage company that is part of a bank
holding
company, and the National Rural Utilities Finance Corporation. Other loan
sources include eligible Rural Utilities Service electric and
telecommunications
borrowers and other lenders approved by RBS who have met the designated
criteria.

Assistance under the B&I Guaranteed Loan Program is available to virtually
any
legally organized entity, including a cooperative, corporation,
partnership,
trust or other profit or nonprofit entity, Indian tribe or Federally
recognized
tribal group, municipality, county, or other political subdivision of a
State.
Applicants need not have been denied credit elsewhere to apply for this
program.

The maximum aggregate B&I Guaranteed Loan(s) amount that can be offered to
any
one borrower under this program is $25 million. A maximum of 10 percent of
program funding is available to value-added cooperative organizations for
loans
above $25 million to a maximum aggregate of $40 million.



The following financial data is as of September 30, 2004:
Obligations by State for 2000 through 2004




Memorandum of Agreement with Colson Services Corporation, a subsidiary of
JP
Morgan Chase Bank The agreement will provide greater opportunity for rural
lenders to participate in Rural Development's Business and Industry (B&I)
guaranteed loan program.

Program Administration

The program is administered at the State level by Rural Development State
Offices. To obtain the addresses and telephone numbers of State Offices,
visit
the Rural Development Field Office locator. For further information on
this
program, please call the State Office servicing your State.

Available online forms can be found at www.sc.egov.usda.gov



Do you know me? Must be. What race am I? Might I not be the same race as
you?

You do know what they say about people who assume?

You did fail to mention which PROGRAM of welfare you qualified for as
welfare from our government. Again, please do! It can only be assumed that
if you are that stupid to think that the government gave you the loan,
versus insuring the loan, you are truly a hindrance on the US.

Your quote of government help to small companies is admirable. What you
fail to realize is that this is a system of grants and guarantees from our
US government, to assist companies to hire people who would otherwise be on
welfare. Or in your case, receiving welfare on a mortgage.

Or are you saying that people who provide for themselves and discredit
others who do not, as racists?


--
Chris

If you can read this, thank a teacher. If it is in English, thank a
soldier. If it is in ebonics, thank your Congressman.

On Tue, 13 Sep 2005 01:08:27 -0400, in misc.consumers.frugal-living "Chris"
wrote:

You did fail to mention which PROGRAM of welfare you qualified for as
welfare from our government. Again, please do! It can only be assumed that
if you are that stupid to think that the government gave you the loan,
versus insuring the loan, you are truly a hindrance on the US.


You're a boring neocon. Conversation over.

wrote in message
news
On Tue, 13 Sep 2005 01:08:27 -0400, in misc.consumers.frugal-living
"Chris"
wrote:

You did fail to mention which PROGRAM of welfare you qualified for as
welfare from our government. Again, please do! It can only be assumed
that
if you are that stupid to think that the government gave you the loan,
versus insuring the loan, you are truly a hindrance on the US.


You're a boring neocon. Conversation over.

With that said it can be assumed (from your previous posts), that you are a
foreigner, whom has contributed nothing to this once great country, yet only
want from this country.

It can also be assumed that you are uneducated as you are under the
assumption that your "government loan" actually came from the US government.
You are in fact a pimple on this once great country. Obviously an
uneducated pimple, who relies on others in this country to provide for their
own well being.

BTW please tell us all here in the US which society deems welfare as
acceptable?


--
Chris

If you can read this, thank a teacher. If it is in English, thank a
soldier. If it is in ebonics, thank your Congressman.

wrote in message
...
On Mon, 12 Sep 2005 21:29:40 -0400, in misc.consumers.frugal-living
"Chris"
wrote:


My lender will not finance homes that are on a flood plain.

Are we talking a real lender (only a couple of handfuls) or a broker?
Most
lenders will lend in a flood zone. They use the 100year flood plan that
is
given to them when the property is appraised. If the property is in
question, all that is normally required is the property owner to carry
flood
insurance on the property. More common sense than anything. I think
your
broker might be handing you some.

My lender is the US Government.

Since when is the government handing out loans? Or is this some new
welfare
thing I am not aware of?

It's not welfare, it's a loan with a low interest rate. Funny how only in
this
country "welfare" is a bad word. We are so brainwashed in this country.

Yep it is said how people who work for a living are paying for people who do
not feel like working. I think us working people should work harder to
provide for those who do not to work.

You are free to head off to any country that is not "brainwashed" as we are
on welfare. Before you leave, please let us know what country provides
better welfare, and is not brainwashed.

--
Chris

If you can read this, thank a teacher. If it is in English, thank a
soldier. If it is in ebonics, thank your Congressman.

In article ,
Tim May wrote:

In article .com,
Too_Many_Tools wrote:

I agree with the general discussion but...

I have seen it mentioned several places that only 40% of the population
had flood insurance.

Now if you have 60% of the population that can't afford to rebuild
because of losses, what do you think the politicians will do?

Also remember that over one million people are homeless at this time.

That is a significant number of votes.


And that is precisely why we are a nation of laws, not of pimping for
votes.

Any politician who votes to give money freely to those who do not have
a legal claim to it should be assassinated.

Ah! A choice of ****ing off the majority of people who lack flood
insurance or the minority who have it. Guess which group any politician
will seek to **** off first? Yup, the group with flood insurance. Laws
are made by politicians, you know. There are plenty of laws on the books
that were born out of political whim rather than a sense of justice.

In article ,
Tim May wrote:

In article , Nick


I still hope that the AN-59K nukes sold in Samarkand in 1999 will
decapitate the head of the snake...and remove 450,000 negro welfare
recipients in Washington, too.

BIGOT! PLONK!

In article , "Chris"
wrote:

"Tim May" wrote in message
...
In article .com,
Too_Many_Tools wrote:

I agree with the general discussion but...

I have seen it mentioned several places that only 40% of the population
had flood insurance.

Now if you have 60% of the population that can't afford to rebuild
because of losses, what do you think the politicians will do?

Also remember that over one million people are homeless at this time.

That is a significant number of votes.


And that is precisely why we are a nation of laws, not of pimping for
votes.

Any politician who votes to give money freely to those who do not have
a legal claim to it should be assassinated.

--Tim May

Tim,

Well said!!!

If I remember correctly when we had a Constitution, the federal government
was set up to protect the US from foreign interests. Not to provide a roof
over our head and food to those who did not feel like providing ourselves.

Your memory is a bit incomplete. The major goal by ratifying the
Constitution was to keep government out of the private lives of
individuals. Protection from foreign governments was part of it.
If the founding fathers were opposed to welfare type assistance, I
presume they would have said so in the Constitution and put some limits
on government there, but they didn't as far as I can tell, nor has any
congress since than or president put forth an amendment to do that.

In article , "Chris"
wrote:

Most of the people homeless now, and asking for hand-outs would of probably
been homeless before the mess, had it not been for our government. As a
law, it should be imposed that people on welfare should not be allowed to
vote.

Fortunately, you are not in charge. Our government got rid of that
draconian policy ages ago. If democracy bothers you, there are plenty of
countries where you can happily live under a dictatorship. Perhaps we
could limit voting on to those who know this country's history, but that
would clearly let you out.

In article ,
Nick Hull wrote:

In article , "Chris"
wrote:

Most of the people homeless now, and asking for hand-outs would of probably
been homeless before the mess, had it not been for our government. As a
law, it should be imposed that people on welfare should not be allowed to
vote.

Likewise government 'workers' should not be allowed to vote.

You mean, like all those people who're supposedly fighting for our
freedom in Iraq and Afgahnistan? What about government contractors too?
Teachers? Librarians? Nah! I saw, just have an IQ test to vote. Anyone
over 120 gets to vote, which would probably leave out most of the people
who are commenting in this thread, including possibly me, and also most
of congress, and the guy in the White House. I am joking.

In article ,
"AllEmailDeletedImmediately" wrote:

"steve" wrote in message
ups.com...
sounds like people who had flood insurance will be compensated for
flood damage and people who don't won't

as it should be. damn well better not pay out for coverage that
wasn't bought just to look good. we'll all pay for that.

In all likelihood, someone will pay. What I suspect will happen is the
uninsured will be given the option of taking on a low interest loan
that's sponsored by FEMA. A lot of people will go bankrupt. Property
will go abandoned and decline. Then for the property that goes
untouched, but needs repair, eventually local residents will get upset
when those properties become problems, so they'll pressure government to
come in and fix the problem, so eventually, taxpayers will foot the
bill. Its just a question of how long the unrepaired properties will be
allowed to fall into further disrepair before government takes over
those properties and rehabs them or demolishes them.