Matt Welch Talks About Subsidized Homeowner Insurance on Freedom Watch
Reason Editor in Chief Matt Welch appeared on Freedom Watch to discuss why the government actually subsidized many risky homes by giving cheaper insurance to beachfront houses. Airdate: August 30, 2011.
Approximately 5 minutes
Go to reason.tv for downloadable versions and subscribe to Reason.tv's YouTube channel to receive automatic notification when new material goes live.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
Keep yer handz off mi free stuf!
"So, why is the Federal Government encouraging these homes to be built in the first place...?"
The feds love housing at any cost.
"If you're gonna build in a risky zone, in a hurricane path, in a floodplain, anywhere like that, you should be able to bear the responsibility of the risks yourself by paying for the insurance."
Cold, heartless libertarians sticking it to Malibu residents.
Matt Welch talking about shaming people, but yet he refuses to knot that tie up to a respectable tautness. That's the real shame of it all.
Fist of Etiquette|8.31.11 @ 4:54PM|#
Matt Welch talking about shaming people, but yet he refuses to knot that tie up to a respectable tautness. That's the real shame of it all
Your missing the forest for the trees...
or rather, missing the surprisingly appropriate-color shirt with the (near ubiquitous) blue tie. Which - given that this is now 2 appearances in a row without some kind of ghastly clashing-effect? - is a sign that the Summer of Welch's Wacky Suit-Ensembles may finally have come to an end.
Sure, maybe the next step in recovery is to convince the guy to do a decent half-Windsor instead of the 'slacker's four-in-hand'-knot, but I think you're asking for a bit much given the depths from which he's risen.
I for one am proud. Be glad he didn't go stripes on stripes.
The real question is, If Margaret Thatcher was alive today, wouldn't you want to just be her sex slave for at least one night? I would.
I can't stand the giant windsor knot that was the rage in the early 2000s. Why do dudes want to wear a knot the size of a grapefruit?
Which is precisely why the half-windsor (aka 'the schoolboy knot') is the preferred suit-complement
http://www.google.com/imgres?q.....,r:5,s:100
http://www.google.com/imgres?q.....,r:0,s:115
Privation property land entitlement is the original Big Government Subsidized redistribution program.
[The rights of the Indians had been] assailed by the rapacity of the white man....The border white man's connection with the Indians [was] a sickening record of murder, outrage, robbery, and wrongs committed by the former as the rule.
1869 Board of Indian Commissioners Annual Report 10
it's something about responsibility, responsibility to cherish their own lives...so if had chosen to live beside some risky beach, do need to take the responsibility to care youselves..
it's something conected with responsibility~~~
http://www.clonesbar.com
Typical government. Insurance companies, who must lay off risk after computing probability of losses, won't insure property in flood planes for ANY money.
Government answer? Off such insurance, at a bargain, with the taxpayer laying off the risk.
Hurricane losses (mostly water damage) are the ultimate illustration of too much government.
When libertarians are accused of not caring for the environment because they want to cut the EPA, they need to go on the offensive and let folks know how much of their money is going towards subsidizing construction in environmentally sensitive areas. Insurance schemes like the ones Matt is talking about are just one example.
As another example, Consider all the logging roads that are being built that cost more than the the total value of the timber being harvested (Bill Bryson talks about it in "A Walk in the Woods".
"There's nothing that does so much harm as good intentions."
Thank you