It makes no sense to spend taxpayer money on subsidizing flood insurance, which just subsidizes people to live in places that are likely to flood. Why is it a

It makes no sense to spend taxpayer money on subsidizing flood insurance, which just subsidizes people to live in places that are likely to flood. Why is it a public good to pay for people to rebuild buildings in areas over and over again, when it is known they'll just be destroyed by flood again and again? If the practice was not heavily subsidized, there would be no billion doller grifter industry to complain about.