Fema Demand that Katrina Victims pay money Back

[Cu Mhorrigan]

Get ready folks, June is going to be a Month of Stupid....WHEEEEEEEEEE!
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/0..._n_869584.html

[Pilgrim]

So you think it's improper that if someone fraudulently took aid that they should get a polite letter asking for it back?

[Cu Mhorrigan]

So you think it's improper that if someone fraudulently took aid that they should get a polite letter asking for it back?

As a new hurricane season begins Wednesday, FEMA is working to determine how much money it overpaid or mistakenly awarded to victims of the destructive 2005 hurricane season. The agency is reviewing more than $600 million given to roughly 154,000 victims of hurricanes Katrina, Rita and Wilma and is poised to demand that some return money.

Luisa Mejia, 28, was living in an apartment in Metairie, a New Orleans suburb, when Katrina drove her family out of town.

"We left with nothing but important papers and maybe two sets of clothes," she recalls. "We were in Atlanta with no money, living in a home with 40 people."

All they got from FEMA was a check for $1,200, which they used to buy clothes and food. Six years later, Mejia can't understand why FEMA would ask residents to pay for its employees' mistakes.

"I didn't get the type of money that would make me rich from Katrina," she said. "For people who were honest like me, it's crazy."

And

FEMA's attempts to collect Katrina and Rita overpayments already have sputtered once. Residents who lost homes filed a class-action lawsuit in 2007 challenging the denial of their housing aid and the recoupment process. The lawsuit argued that FEMA's debt collection efforts were full of errors, based on vague standards and without hearings that would ensure fair treatment.

[Pilgrim]

If you took money you knew you didn't deserve it's hard to make an argument that you were "honest." If the bank makes a mistake on my account and my bottom line looks inflated I don't pretend like I get to keep the money. It doesn't matter if you only got "1200" dollars. If it wasn't yours to have you should be gracious about giving it up. I don't want to sound cold, and I spent time and money helping rebuild homes after the flood through Presbyterian Disaster Assistance, but I also don't understand people who build or bu a house in a area below sea level and who don't also insure against a flood. It doesn't make sense to me.

As an example of real honesty how about the guy last week who went up in the attic of his new house, found 40 grand in squirlled away cash, tracked down the kids of the previous owner (who had died) and gave them all the cash back. He said, "he didn't save that money for me." What you're saying is that if had been 1200 instead of 40,000 he could have kept it in good conscience.

[Cu Mhorrigan]

No actually, And I would appreciate it if you did not put words in my mouth.

1) After completely failing to help people in a timely fashion, there were either little or no appropriate supervision, that was not the fault of the victims.

2)Asking for the money NOW after how many years, since Katrina, does that seem right to you especially since in most cases the money was already Spent and used?

3) Why hasn't the government asked for the Bailout money back from the wealthy CEO's who since used it for their bonuses and perks?

4) the fact of the matter is that the government has had this attitude of "Abuse the Poor" and "Love the rich" for quite sometime. Should we expect the poor to be honest when the Rich have proven themselves not to be? I am not saying it's right but you need to enforce the law evenly or not at all.

[Pilgrim]

No actually, And I would appreciate it if you did not put words in my mouth.

1) After completely failing to help people in a timely fashion, there were either little or no appropriate supervision, that was not the fault of the victims.

And has nothing to do with fraudulent claims. But feel free to serve red herring all you want.

2)Asking for the money NOW after how many years, since Katrina, does that seem right to you especially since in most cases the money was already Spent and used?

In cases where there was an honest mistake I think people should keep the money, in places where the people had an idea that they were getting money that wasn't theirs? That money should be returned or they should be held accountable for it.

3) Why hasn't the government asked for the Bailout money back from the wealthy CEO's who since used it for their bonuses and perks?

tu quo que fallacy. They're both wrong and two wrongs don't make a right. FWIW, GM has fully paid back it's bailout and with interest.

4) the fact of the matter is that the government has had this attitude of "Abuse the Poor" and "Love the rich" for quite sometime.

I totally agree with you. BUt are you really saying that the best course of action is for the agrieved to adopt the worst traits of the greedy?

Should we expect the poor to be honest when the Rich have proven themselves not to be?

Another tu quo que. The answer is yes we should and I do. Honesty doesn't fly out the door just because one side of the equation is behaving badly. The logic of "they started it" is only good until about the third grade. Seriously, ever try telling your mom, "but the jones' got one?" Your mom said, "But we aren't the Joneses." You see, if your standard only starts at the lowest level of the people you already say are behaving badly then you're not really starting from a place of much integrity to begin with.

I am not saying it's right but you need to enforce the law evenly or not at all.

And that's the kind of logic you get when you substitute the law for you conscience. Your conscience tells you that if you got money you didn't deserve, you should give it back. But in America we don't know much about that anymore. It's only about what the law will allow for us. And that's why things suck.

[Cu Mhorrigan]

first of all you missed the point once again, and you started insulting me which means that you are not really up for this discussion.

In no way did I state that we should substitute Law for conscience, HOWEVER, Going by the article, FEMA was addressing Honest people after the money had already been spent because FEMA made an error. Sorry, but demanding that poor people pay back money owed to you by the rich is exploitation in really bad taste. The fact of the matter is you are holding the poor to a higher standard than you would a rich person. Yes GM paid it's Loan with Interest, but NONE of the other companies have. and the Only reason that GM paid it back is because OBAMA MADE THEM agree to do so before handing out any money.

I am pointing out that the American Government is now attempting to rob Katrina Victims blind, and I am finding the conservative mind set at work here. "If they are rich cut them slack, If their poor, make them give it back". This is not a matter of enforcing the law, because conservative have NEVER enforced the laws evenly just as liberals haven't either. Both parties are guilty of injustice, especially in this case.

[Pilgrim]

first of all you missed the point once again, and you started insulting me which means that you are not really up for this discussion.

In no way did I state that we should substitute Law for conscience, HOWEVER, Going by the article, FEMA was addressing Honest people after the money had already been spent because FEMA made an error. Sorry, but demanding that poor people pay back money owed to you by the rich is exploitation in really bad taste. The fact of the matter is you are holding the poor to a higher standard than you would a rich person. Yes GM paid it's Loan with Interest, but NONE of the other companies have. and the Only reason that GM paid it back is because OBAMA MADE THEM agree to do so before handing out any money.

I am pointing out that the American Government is now attempting to rob Katrina Victims blind, and I am finding the conservative mind set at work here. "If they are rich cut them slack, If their poor, make them give it back". This is not a matter of enforcing the law, because conservative have NEVER enforced the laws evenly just as liberals haven't either. Both parties are guilty of injustice, especially in this case.

No, I went over my last post and I did not level an insult at you. Maybe you were reading another post somewhere and confused the two? And FWIW, ask anyone here, I'm a liberal. And a Democrat. As I stated, if the money was gained through an honest mistake the government should back off, if it was gained through fraud, they have every right to ask for it back. It's not like they're busting down doors, they're just asking for it back. And no, I'm not holding the poor to a different standard. Technically you are the one doing that. I want to hold both the rich and the poor to the same standard of honesty. That's likely not going to happen though.

[Cu Mhorrigan]

How am I holding two different standards of behavior? I am saying that FEMA should not demand money back that was already spent from people who are unable to pay it back.

[Pilgrim]

Yeah, as I read it again, I don't see either of us demanding a different standard. You want to level the playing field by getting the poor to act in the same way the rich do. I want to level the playing field by not only demanding honesty from the poor, but the rich as well. If you got money you don't deserve, even if the fault was in someone else's accounting, give it back.

[Cu Mhorrigan]

And if the cash was already spent?

[Pilgrim]

That's no excuse. If you knew the money wasn't really yours to begin with, you should still be held accountable for it. That's basic juris prudence. What you're suggesting is akin to if I rob a bank it's ok as long as I spend all the money before the cops track me down. Of course, on the other hand, there is the idea of a statute of limitations and it's a good one. I don't know what the rules about that are in cases like with FEMA and the flood victims.

Still, that's just law. If it was me, I'd want to give the money back. Then again, if it was me, I wouldn't build a house below sea level, not insure it, and then hope everyone else would take care of it for me. But that's just me.

[Cu Mhorrigan]

Unfortunately, This was basically due to Clerical error, not fraud on the part of the katrina victims. (This is going strictly by the article and the statements made.) Most folks in that situation will take what ever is given to them especially if I had to deal with the incompetence of government officials. remember, it took over 14 days for help to arrive (Compared to the 3 days when Florida was hit) and Homes were destroyed due to government incompetence. Those people should keep the money rather than pay for a bureaucrat's mistake.

[Raphael]

Unfortunately, This was basically due to Clerical error, not fraud on the part of the katrina victims. (This is going strictly by the article and the statements made.) Most folks in that situation will take what ever is given to them especially if I had to deal with the incompetence of government officials. remember, it took over 14 days for help to arrive (Compared to the 3 days when Florida was hit) and Homes were destroyed due to government incompetence. Those people should keep the money rather than pay for a bureaucrat's mistake.

Since when, outside of the game of Monopoly, has a clerical error meant that you can spend money that isn't yours?

If my bank accidentally gives me more money than it should through a clerical error, then I am liable for any of the money I spend once the error is discovered.

[Cu Mhorrigan]

Again totally different situation, this was money given to rebuild their lives after a combination Natural disaster/ Government FUBAR. Fema began demanding the money back YEARS after the disaster, after the money was spent and the rebuilding has begun.