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/content/article/2005/09/11/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 $5,000; take it or leave it.' "
"Glenn Ashmore" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:kjqVe.25171$hp.8888@lakeread08...
>
>
> "Chris" <[email protected]> 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
Glen,
What is Federal flood insurance? I was not aware of that. I was always
under the impression that flood insurance was just a rider on your normal
homeowners insurance. Or could it be that the insurance company is buying
the Federal insurance for you and then making up the difference?
BTW when are you going to update the progress on the boat? I for one am
looking forward to it.
--
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.
<[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Mon, 12 Sep 2005 21:29:40 -0400, in misc.consumers.frugal-living
> "Chris"
> <[email protected]> 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.
On Tue, 13 Sep 2005 06:50:48 -0400, Shawn Hirn <[email protected]>
wrote:
>In article <120920052135083946%[email protected]>,
> Tim May <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> In article <[email protected]>, 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!
My but that saved you the effort in trying to refute him, now didnt
it?
Gunner
"Pax Americana is a philosophy. Hardly an empire.
Making sure other people play nice and dont kill each other (and us)
off in job lots is hardly empire building, particularly when you give
them self determination under "play nice" rules.
Think of it as having your older brother knock the shit out of you
for torturing the cat." Gunner
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
On 16 Sep 2005 15:20:08 GMT, Dave Hinz <[email protected]> wrote:
>On Thu, 15 Sep 2005 16:23:35 -0700, lgb <[email protected]> wrote:
>> In article <[email protected]>,
>> [email protected] says...
>>> Michael Moore, Susan Sarandon, Tim Robbins; Hollywood, the media, Liberal
>>> Congress Critters, people that wouldn't recognize the real America if it bit
>>> them in the a**.
>>>
>> If your "real America" is the bible-thumping, "love it or leave it", "my
>> country right or wrong", "nuke the A-rabs", "intelligent design" crowd,
>> I recognize it all right. I just wish they had a brain.
>
>You know, Larry, I _still_ haven't met anyone who thinks like that; the
>only signs of them are in posts and statements from people on the
>way-left.
And he still hasn't.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Retired Shop Rat: 14,647 days in a GM plant.
Now I can do what I enjoy: Large Format Photography
Web Site: www.destarr.com
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Glenn Ashmore wrote:
> "Chris" <[email protected]> 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
Speaking from personal experience.
During the Ice Storm that hit the Northeast in the late nineties, a
culvert was blocked by ice and caused water to rise and flood back
through my perimeter drain and into my basement. No, I did not have
flood insurance. Not only did the insurance company cover all damage
and personal belongings, they sent an adjuster and paid the claim in
less than 2 weeks. This while they were handling thousands of other
claims from the storm. I have had some unsatisfactory results from
insurance companies also, (Sorry, it wasn't covered) but find they tend
to be more lenient when large disasters are involved.
I think we should give the Insurance companies a chance to show how
they are going to respond before complaining. Also, only give first
hand information, not hearsay, friend of a friend, always 'friendly'
press or speculation.
"Just the facts, Ma'm"
Shawn Hirn wrote:
> In article <[email protected]>, "Chris" <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
> > "Nick Hull" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > news:[email protected]...
> > > In article <[email protected]>,
> > > Shawn Hirn <[email protected]> wrote:
> > >
> > >> In article <[email protected]>, "Chris" <[email protected]>
> > >> 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.
> > >
> > > This is the American Republic, not the american denocracy. Those of us
> > > who wish to restore the Republic will not move, but will wage civil war
> > > at the correct time. You are welcome to take the opposite side if you
> > > choose, voting will be by bullets. ;)
> > >
> > > --
> > > Free men own guns, slaves don't
> > > www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/5357/
> >
> > Too funny. :)
> >
> >
> > Do remember too that when this civil war breaks out, which side the veterans
> > will be on! They have a tendency not to want to leave this country. Go
> > figure.
> >
> > I think a better voter would be one that knows this is a Republic, knows the
> > true history, and has done something for this country. Of course this would
> > leave out all the liberals.
>
> What a crock! I am a liberal and I well understand this country's
> history. Although I was born at a time where I was either too young to
> serve in a war or too old, but most of the veterans I know are liberal
> and risked their lives serving in the military in Korea, Vietnam, or
> during WW II and have worked hard all their lives paying taxes and
> contributing in various ways toward society. Further, some of the
> wealthiest Americans are liberal.
>
> Your comments speak loudly to the fact that you have no clue what you're
> talking about. Your claim to be a font of knowledge of American history
> is at best, dubious, given your silly statements about liberals.
>
> We are a Representative Republic, but I have heard many people, both
> conservatives and liberals deny that fact.
You do know that you cannot refute the meatballs who classify everyone
either/or, as your taunter does? They have limited intelligence, very
limited. As a former Marine, I can state that not all the veterans are
going to be in the side of the meatballs. Unfortunately, some of those
I know will be, but not anything like even a simple majority.
Well, it looks like the bankruptcies are coming....ready to bail out
the banks and insurance companies?
Mortgages go unpaid in storm-hit areas
By John Waggoner, USA TODAY
Past-due commercial mortgage loans in the hurricane-plagued Gulf have
risen sharply, says Standard & Poor's, the Wall Street credit rater.
And that could mean problems for lenders.
Past-due loans in areas affected by Katrina have soared to $320.5
million in September, up from $53.7 million in August. "We expect that
quite a few of those will become delinquent," says Larry Kay, director
of structured finance ratings at S&P.
Lenders often package commercial loans into commercial mortgage-backed
securities, or CMBSs. S&P makes credit ratings on CMBSs, including the
likelihood of loan defaults. The effect of defaults on the overall CMBS
market should be minimal, Kay says. Of the $320 billion in CMBSs that
S&P rates, $2.25 billion is from Katrina-affected areas.
But the leap in past-due loans reflects problems lenders may have in
commercial mortgages there. For example, lenders typically demand that
borrowers in flood-prone areas have flood insurance. But federal flood
insurance covers up to $500,000 in damage. Some businesses may have far
more damage than that and may not have additional private flood
insurance.
S&P identified 260 commercial loans in CMBSs secured by property in
hurricane-stricken areas. Companies that service those loans hadn't
been able to reach 15% to 20% of the borrowers, S&P says. Another 20%
of borrowers reported significant damage, including a portion of the
roof blown off or no roof at all.
Normally, the companies that service the loans have to advance
delinquent payments to CMBS investors as long as they think the
advances will be recovered. Federal and state authorities have urged
lenders to use restraint with storm-stricken borrowers.
Securities backed by residential mortgages should suffer little effect
from Katrina, S&P says. These bundled pools of mortgages, a favorite of
pension funds and mutual funds, are widely diversified, and few have
much exposure to Katrina.
About a third of commercial mortgages examined by S&P are secured by
lodging properties, such as hotels. Some hotels will get business in
coming weeks from government agencies, contractors and emergency
workers. But the drop in tourist dollars could seriously hurt
commercial borrowers: Convention travel brought $4.9 billion to New
Orleans in 2004.
The Federal Deposit Insurance Corp., which regulates state-chartered
banks, says it has no current data suggesting problems with commercial
loans in hurricane areas. But bank analysts say it's a matter of time
before defaults start rising. "There will be increased default rates in
all types of loans," says Jefferson Harralson, bank analyst for Keefe
Bruyette & Woods.
Some commercial and industrial loans, for example, are secured by
inventories or ongoing business revenue, which may not be covered by
insurance. "The banking industry has never relied more on insurance to
fulfill loan commitments," Harralson says.
In article <[email protected]>,
AllEmailDeletedImmediately <[email protected]> wrote:
> "steve" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> > 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
In article <[email protected]>,
Too_Many_Tools <[email protected]> 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
In article <[email protected]>, Nick
Hull <[email protected]> wrote:
> In article <120920051826023131%[email protected]>,
> Tim May <[email protected]> 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
On Wed, 14 Sep 2005 12:49:09 -0400, Shawn Hirn <[email protected]>
wrote:
> but most of the veterans I know are liberal
>and risked their lives serving in the military in Korea, Vietnam, or
>during WW II and have worked hard all their lives paying taxes and
>contributing in various ways toward society.
Most of those I know are what are called Conservative in todays lingo.
Myself included.
> Further, some of the
>wealthiest Americans are liberal.
Oh dear God..you are saying there are some Rich Corporate Greedy Slave
owning rip off the public capitalists?
Oh please..say it aint so. Rich elitiests...liberals...oh my
God.....
Gunner
"Pax Americana is a philosophy. Hardly an empire.
Making sure other people play nice and dont kill each other (and us)
off in job lots is hardly empire building, particularly when you give
them self determination under "play nice" rules.
Think of it as having your older brother knock the shit out of you
for torturing the cat." Gunner
In article <[email protected]>, Koz
<kmiller@*dontspamme*metalbelt.com> wrote:
> Todd Fatheree wrote:
> Conservatives like to argue against "welfare" it appears, but you rarely
> hear one speak against corporate welfare of which the stadium thing is
> one of the clearest examples. Tax revenues from professional sports
> teams are generally used to justify spending on such stadiums but I
> haven't heard of a case yet where those revenues weren't GROSSLY
> inflated to justify the expendatures and the city/county/state didn't
> end up losing money in the long run. When confronted with the realities
> that the revenus aren't meeting the proposal, it's usually shifted to
> the notion that "it increases the status of the city to have these teams
> so the loss is worth it".
>
> In Seattle, the people voted AGAINST paying for a baseball stadium yet
> the govt ignred that vote and did it anyway, ripping off the public to
> support a private corporation. From what I've heard (and I can't say
> it's true at all...maybe someone from TX can shed more light on it), the
> Bush stadium deal was similar. The question should not be whether Bush
> wa a good manager but whether Bush was willing to rip the public for
> profit in this instance as it appears is continued in the current govt
> agenda.
>
> A true conservative should be screaming just as loudly about these
> corporate sweetheart deals as they do about "welfare mamas" and should
> be kicking the arse of politicians (like Bush in my opinion) that appear
> to further such deals.
A true conservative would argue that it is NEVER the role of
government, federal or state or local, to do things like build sports
stadiums, or build research parks, or do anything of this sort.
Doesn't matter whether the voters of Seattle, in your example, voted
FOR or AGAINST such a sports stadium.
(And if another people favor building such a thing, they can organize a
corporation to do just such a thing, purchase shares in the
corporation, purchase the land on the open market, etc.)
(This model was mostly followed in the case of San Francisco and the
recently-built SBC Park baseball stadium, aka PacBell Park--this is the
ballpark where home runs plop into the water and boaters snag them.
After years and years of votes on whether to build a new stadium for
the privately-owned Giants baseball team, with the votes failing, a
private group organized and got corporate involvement/status. And the
new park was built mostly on budget and is a roaring success. Part of
it being private is that it was built where it would be most
successful, as opposed to the usual pork-barrel process which so often
puts a park in a "blighted" neighborhood as part of some scam^H^H^H
scheme to do "urban renewal." SBC Park was instead put where it could
be close to upscale restaurants, and the whole area (South of Market,
SOMA) is booming.)
Of course, this "true conservative" point of view is really
libertarianism, the same idea the Founders had, that government is to
be limited and has no powers in a lot of areas.
Including using the treasury to disburse money to fire or flood
victims, to build ballparks, or to build circuses and distribute bread.
And, no, "provide for the general welfare" does not mean these things.
Cf. the Constitution, including the Ninth and Tenth Amendments.
--Tim May
On Tue, 13 Sep 2005 06:55:33 -0400, Shawn Hirn <[email protected]>
wrote:
>In article <[email protected]>, "Chris" <[email protected]>
>wrote:
>
>> "Tim May" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:120920051826023131%[email protected]...
>> > In article <[email protected]>,
>> > Too_Many_Tools <[email protected]> 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.
Speech before the House of Representatives
by David (Davy) Crockett
Not Yours to Give
One day in the House of Representatives, a bill was taken up
appropriating money for the benefit of a widow of a distinguished
naval officer. Several beautiful speeches had been made in its
support. The Speaker was just about to put the question when Mr.
Crockett arose:
"Mr. Speaker --- I have as much respect for the memory of the
deceased, and as much sympathy for the suffering of the living, if
suffering there be, as any man in this house, but we must not permit
our respect for the dead or our sympathy for a part of the living to
lead us into an act of injustice to the balance of the living. I will
not go into an argument to prove that Congress has no power to
appropriate this money as an act of charity. Every member upon this
floor knows it. We have the right, as individuals, to give away as
much of our own money as we please in charity; but as members of
Congress we have no right so to appropriate a dollar of the public
money. Some eloquent appeals have been made to us upon the ground that
it is a debt due the deceased. Mr. Speaker, the deceased lived long
after the close of the war; he was in office to the day of his death,
and I have never heard that the government was in arrears to him.
"Every man in this House knows it is not a debt. We cannot, without
the grossest corruption, appropriate this money as the payment of a
debt. We have not the semblance of authority to appropriate it as a
charity. Mr. Speaker, I have said we have the right to give as much
money of our own as we please. I am the poorest man on this floor. I
cannot vote for this bill, but I will give one week's pay to the
object, and, if every member of Congress will do the same, it will
amount to more than the bill asks.
"He took his seat. Nobody replied. The bill was put upon its passage,
and, instead of passing unanimously, as was generally supposed, and
as, no doubt, it would, but for that speech, it received but few
votes, and of course, was lost.
"Later, when asked by a friend why he had opposed the appropriation,
Crockett gave this explanation:
"Several years ago I was one evening standing on the steps of the
Capitol with some other members of Congress, when our attention was
attracted by a great light over in Georgetown. It was evidently a
large fire. We jumped into a hack and drove over as fast as we could.
In spite of all that could be done, many houses were burned and many
families made homeless, and, besides, some of them had lost all but
the clothes they had on. The weather was very cold, and when I saw so
many women and children suffering, I felt that something ought to be
one for them. The next morning a bill was introduced appropriating
$20,000 for their relief. We put aside all other business and rushed
it through as soon as it could be done.
"The next summer, when it began to be time to think about the
election, I concluded I would take a scout around among the boys of my
district. I had no opposition there, but, as the election was some
time off, I did not know what might turn up. When riding one day in a
part of my district in which I was more a stranger than any other, I
saw a man in a field plowing and coming toward the road. I gauged my
gait so that we should meet as he came to the fence. As he came up, I
spoke to the man. He replied politely, but, as I thought, rather
coldly.
"I began: 'Well, friend, I am one of those unfortunate beings called
candidates, and--'
" 'Yes, I know you; you are Colonel Crockett. I have seen you once
before, and voted for you the last time you were elected. I suppose
you are out electioneering now, but you had better not waste your time
or mine. I shall not vote for you again.'
"This was a sockdolager... I begged him to tell me what was the
matter.
" 'Well, Colonel, it is hardly worth-while to waste time or words upon
it. I do not see how it can be mended, but you gave a vote last winter
which shows that either you have not capacity to understand the
Constitution, or that you are wanting in the honesty and firmness to
be guided by it. In either case you are not the man to represent me.
But I beg your pardon for expressing it in that way. I did not intend
to avail myself of the privilege of the constituent to speak plainly
to a candidate for the purpose of insulting or wounding you. I
intended by it only to say that your understanding of the Constitution
is very different from mine; and I will say to you what, but for my
rudeness, I should not have said, that I believe you to be
honest....But an understanding of the Constitution different from mine
I cannot overlook, because the Constitution, to be worth anything,
must be held sacred, and rigidly observed in all its provisions. The
man who wields power and misinterprets it is the more dangerous the
more honest he is.'
"I admit the truth of all you say, but there must be some mistake
about it, for I do not remember that I gave any vote last winter upon
any Constitutional question.
" 'No, Colonel, there's no mistake. Though I live here in the
backwoods and seldom go from home, I take the papers from Washington
and read very carefully all the proceedings in Congress. My papers say
that last winter you voted for a bill to appropriate $20,000 to some
suffers by a fire in Georgetown. Is that true?'
"Well, my friend, I may as well own up. You have got me there. But
certainly nobody will complain that a great and rich country like ours
should give the insignificant sum of $20,000 to relieve its suffering
women and children, particularly with a full and overflowing Treasury,
and I am sure, if you had been there, you would have done just as I
did.'
" 'It is not the amount, Colonel, that I complain of; it is the
principle. In the first place, the government ought to have in the
Treasury no more than enough for its legitimate purposes. But that has
nothing to do with the question. The power of collecting and
disbursing money at pleasure is the most dangerous power that can be
intrusted to man, particularly under our system of collecting revenue
by tariff, which reaches every man in the country, no matter how poor
he may be, and the poorer he is the more he pays in proportion to his
means. What is worse, it presses upon him without his knowledge where
the weight centers, for there is not a man in the United States who
can ever guess how much he pays to the government. So you see, that
while you are contributing to relieve one, you are drawing it from
thousands who are even worse off than he. If you had the right to give
anything, the amount was simply a matter of discretion with you, and
you had as much right to give $20,000,000 as $20,000. If you have the
right to give to one, you have the right to give to all; and, as the
Constitution neither defines charity nor stipulates the amount, you
are at liberty to give to any thing and everything which you may
believe, or profess to believe, is a charity, and to any amount you
may think proper. You will very easily perceive what a wide door this
would open for fraud and corruption and favoritism, on the one hand,
and for robbing the people on the other. No, Colonel, Congress has no
right to give charity. Individual members may give as much of their
own money as they please, but they have no right to touch a dollar of
the public money for that purpose. If twice as many houses had been
burned in this county as in Georgetown, neither you nor any other
member of Congress would have thought of appropriating a dollar for
our relief. There are about two hundred and forty members of Congress.
If they had shown their sympathy for the suffers by contributing each
one week's pay, it would have made over $13,000. There are plenty of
men in and around Washington who could have given $20,000 without
depriving themselves of even a luxury of life. The congressmen chose
to keep their own money, which, if reports be true, some of them spend
not very creditable; and the people about Washington, no doubt,
applauded you for relieving them from the necessity of giving by
giving what was not yours to give. The people have delegated to
Congress, by the Constitu- tion, the power to do certain things. To do
these, it is authorized to collect and pay moneys, and for nothing
else. Everything beyond this is usurpation, and a violation of the
Constitution. So you see, Colonel, you have violated the Constitution
in what I consider a vital point. It is a precedent fraught with
danger to the country, for when Congress once begins to stretch it's
power beyond the limits of the Constitution, there is no limit to it,
and no security for the people. I have no doubt you acted honestly,
but that does not make it any better, except as far as you are
personally concerned, and you see that I cannot vote for you..'
"I tell you I felt streaked. I saw if I should have opposition, and
this man should go to talking, he would set others to talking, and in
that district I was a gone fawn-skin. I could not answer him, for the
fact is, I was so fully convinced that he was right, I did not want
to. But I must satisfy him, and I said to him: Well, my friend, you
hit the nail upon the head when you said I did not have sense enough
to understand the Constitution. I intended to be guided by it, and
thought I had studied it fully. I have heard many speeches in Congress
about the powers of Congress, but what you have said here at your plow
has got more hard, sound sense in it than all the fine speeches I ever
heard. If I had ever taken the view of it that you have, I would have
put my head into the fire before I would have given that vote; and if
I ever vote for another unconstitutional law I wish I may be shot.
"He laughingly replied: 'Yes Colonel, you have sworn to that once
before, but I will trust you again upon one condition. You say that
you are convinced that your vote was wrong. Your acknowledgment of it
will do more good than beating you for it. If, as you go around this
district, you will tell people about this vote, and that you are
satisfied that it was wrong, I will not only vote for you, but will do
what I can to keep down opposition, and perhaps, I may exert a little
influence in that way.'
"If I don't [said I] I wish I may be shot; and to convince you that I
am earnest in what I say I will come back this way in a week or ten
days, and if you will get up a gathering of the people, I will make a
speech to them. Get up a barbecue, and I will pay for it.
" 'No, Colonel, we are not rich people in this section, but we have
plenty of provisions to contribute to a barbecue, and some to spare
for those who have none. The push of crops will be over in a few days,
and we can then afford a day for a barbecue. This is Thursday; I will
see to getting up on Saturday week.. Come to my house on Friday, and
we will go together, and I promise you a very respectable crowd to see
and hear you.'
"Well, I will be here. but one thing more before I say good-bye. I
must know your name.
" 'My name is Bunce.'
"Not Horatio Bunce?
" 'Yes.'
"Well, Mr. Bunce, I never saw you before though you say you have seen
me, but I know you very well. I am glad I have met you, and very proud
that I may hope to have you for my friend.
"It was one of the luckiest hits of my life that I met him. He mingled
but little with the public, but was widely known for his remarkable
intelligence and incorruptible integrity, and for a heart brimful and
running over with kindness and benevolence, which showed themselves
not only in words but in acts. He was the oracle of the whole country
around him, and his fame had extended far beyond the circle of his
immediate acquaintance. Though I had never met him before, I had heard
much of him, and but for this meeting it is very likely I should have
had opposition, and had been beaten. One thing is very certain, no man
could now stand up in that district under such a vote.
"At the appointed time I was at his house, having told our
conversation to every crowd I had met, and to every man I stayed all
night with, and I found that it gave the people an interest and a
confidence in me stronger than I had ever seen manifested before.
Though I was considerably fatigued when I reached his house, and,
under ordinary circumstances, should have gone early to bed, I kept up
until midnight, talking about the principles and affairs of
government, and got more real, true knowledge of them than I had got
all my life before. I have known and seen much of him since, for I
respect him --- no, that is not the word --- I reverence and love him
more than any living man, and I go to see him two or three times a
year; and I will tell you sir, if everyone who professes to be a
Christian, lived and acted and enjoyed it as he does, the religion of
Christ would take the world by storm.
"But to return to my story. The next morning we went to the barbecue,
and, to my surprise, found about a thousand men there. I met a good
many whom I had not known before, and they and my friend introduced me
around until I had got pretty well acquainted --- at least, they all
knew me. In due time notice was given that I would speak to them. They
gathered up around a stand that had been erected. I opened my speech
by saying:
"Fellow-citizens --- I present myself before you today feeling like a
new man. My eyes have lately been opened to truths which ignorance or
prejudice, or both, had heretofore hidden from my view. I feel that I
can today offer you the ability to render you more valuable service
than I have ever been able to render before. I am here today more for
the purpose of acknowledging my error than to seek your votes. That I
should make this acknowledgment is due to myself as well as to you.
Whether you will vote for me is a matter for your consideration only.
"I went on to tell them about the fire and my vote for the
appropriation and then told them why I was satisfied it was wrong. I
closed by saying:
"And now, fellow-citizens, it remains only for me to tell you that the
most of the speech you have listened to with so much interest was
simply a repetition of the arguments by which your neighbor, Mr.
Bunce, convinced me of my error.
"It is the best speech I ever made in my life, but he is entitled to
the credit for it. And now I hope he is satisfied with his convert and
that he will get up here and tell you so.
"He came upon the stand and said: " 'Fellow-citizens --- It affords me
great pleasure to comply with the request of Colonel Crockett. I have
always considered him a thoroughly honest man, and I am satisfied that
he will faithfully perform all that he has promised you today.'
"He went down, and there went up from that crowd such a shout for Davy
Crockett as his name never called forth before.
"I am not much given to tears, but I was taken with a choking then and
felt some big drops rolling down my cheeks. And I tell you now that
the remembrance of those few words spoken by such a man, and the
honest, hearty shout they produced, is worth more to me than all the
reputation I have ever made, or shall ever make, as a member of
Congress.
"Now, sir," concluded Crockett, "you know why I made that speech
yesterday. There is one thing now to which I wish to call to your
attention. You remember that I proposed to give a week's pay. There
are in that House many very wealthy men --- men who think nothing of
spending a week's pay, or a dozen of them, for a dinner or a wine
party when they have something to accomplish by it. Some of those same
men made beautiful speeches upon the great debt of gratitude which the
country owed the deceased --- a debt which could not be paid by money
--- and the insignificance and worthlessness of money, particularly so
insignificance a sum as $10,000, when weighed against the honor of the
nation. Yet not one of them responded to my proposition. Money with
them is nothing but trash when it is come out of the people. But it is
the one great thing for which most of them are striving, and many of
them sacrifice honor, integrity, and justice to obtain it." David
Crockett was born August 17, 1786 at Limestone (Greene County),
Tennessee. He died March 06, 1836 as one of the brave Southerners
defending the Alamo.
Crockett had settled in Franklin County, Tennessee in 1811. He served
in the Creek War under Andrew Jackson. In 1821 and 1823 he was elected
to the Tennessee legislature. In 1826 and 1828 he was elected to
Congress. He was defeated in 1830 for his outspoken opposition to
President Jackson's Indian Bill - but was elected again in 1832.
In Washington, although his eccentricities of dress and manner excited
comment, he was always popular on account of his shrewd common sense
and homely wit; although generally favoring Jackson's policy, he was
entirely independent and refused to vote to please any party leader.
At the end of the congressional term, he joined the Texans in the war
against Mexico, and in 1836 was one of the roughly 180 men who died
defending the Alamo. Tradition has it that Crockett was one of only
six survivors after the Mexicans took the fort, and that he and the
others were taken out and executed by firing squad.
"Pax Americana is a philosophy. Hardly an empire.
Making sure other people play nice and dont kill each other (and us)
off in job lots is hardly empire building, particularly when you give
them self determination under "play nice" rules.
Think of it as having your older brother knock the shit out of you
for torturing the cat." Gunner
On Thu, 15 Sep 2005 16:23:35 -0700, lgb <[email protected]> wrote:
> In article <[email protected]>,
> [email protected] says...
>> Michael Moore, Susan Sarandon, Tim Robbins; Hollywood, the media, Liberal
>> Congress Critters, people that wouldn't recognize the real America if it bit
>> them in the a**.
>>
> If your "real America" is the bible-thumping, "love it or leave it", "my
> country right or wrong", "nuke the A-rabs", "intelligent design" crowd,
> I recognize it all right. I just wish they had a brain.
You know, Larry, I _still_ haven't met anyone who thinks like that; the
only signs of them are in posts and statements from people on the
way-left.
On Fri, 16 Sep 2005 14:51:25 -0700, lgb <[email protected]> wrote:
> In article <[email protected]>, [email protected]
> says...
>> > If your "real America" is the bible-thumping, "love it or leave it", "my
>> > country right or wrong", "nuke the A-rabs", "intelligent design" crowd,
>> > I recognize it all right. I just wish they had a brain.
>>
>> You know, Larry, I _still_ haven't met anyone who thinks like that; the
>> only signs of them are in posts and statements from people on the
>> way-left.
>>
> You obviously don't live in Spokane :-). Just reading the letters to
> the editor in the local paper is an education :-).
I'm not actually convinced that real humans write those, and/or that
they're not trolling in a different medium. Cliff and his friends must
have another hobby, after all.
> I've got a friend whose business requires him to do business with some
> of these folks. Not only do they fit the dexcription I gave to a T,
> they also swear the universe is 6000 years old - the Bible says so! If
> he mantions anything at all about geology, fossils, or evolution, they
> go through the ceiling. And they are successful businessmen.
Hm. I've had the pleasure to only encounter that type in descriptions,
rather than in person.
> I won't identify him or them any further, because I don't want to get
> him in trouble with his customers. So you are free to believe me or
> not, whichever you prefer.
Oh, I believe you, I just haven't ever met the stereotypical example I
see described. Oh wait, there was that one kid in high school. He got
beat up alot, come to think of it. Hm.
> There's also a local preacher who has a column in the paper and swears
> that all the Jews, Muslims, Hindus, etc. are going straight to Hell
> because they don't believe in Jesus - even if they never heard of Jesus!
When the Pope died, I had a nice chat with my kid (7 years old) about
it. She wanted to know what the deal was and how it all fits in. I
explained it like this - "Well, he's like the king of his church, sort
of. And like the king of a country, even if he's not _our_ King, we
give him respect because he is _a_ king. It's kind of like that."
Seemed to get the point across adequately.
> If you haven't run into these types Dave, I can only say I'm envious.
Well, I've met the real world on the other side, in droves. Maybe it's
location.
> P.S. The paper is the Spokesman-Review if you'd like to peruse it
> yourself. They have an online edition.
Oh, I believe you.
"SoCalMike" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> 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.
"John Emmons" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> People took Mr. Reagan seriously, he was an actor, not a very good actor
but
> an actor none the less.
And a great president.
> People take Mr. Bush seriously, he's a failed oil company exec., failed
> baseball team exec. perhaps the worst president in the history of the
United
> States and he seems to think that god directs him personally.
Let's see. He and a group of investors bought the Rangers in 1989 for $86
million. In 1998, they sold it for $250 million. Sounds successful to me.
> Some people take Fred Thompson seriously, a former senator turned actor,
> turned advisor to a Supreme Court nominee.
Not surprisingly, you have it backwards. Fred Thompson was an actor first
and then was elected to the Senate in 1994 and 1996. You are correct that
his is advising the new Chief Justice, however.
todd
On Fri, 16 Sep 2005 12:52:05 -0700, "Blondie" <[email protected]>
wrote:
>>>
>>>A call for the murder of our democratically elected leaders for carrying
>>>out their mandate is "well said" is it?
>>
>> Hey..the Left calls for this every day, and they dont consider any
>> Republican politician to be carrying out any mandate.
>
>Pat Robertson is on the "left" huh?
>
>we live and learn.
>
>http://mediamatters.org/brief/pat+robertson
>Robertson has a lengthy history of controversial remarks. He recently called
>for the assassination of Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez.
Chavez is your elected leader????
http://www.captainsquartersblog.com/mt/archives/001364.php
The ad, appearing in last Thursday's edition of the Gabber, a weekly
paper covering the Pinellas County community of Gulfport, included a
lengthy criticism of the Bush administration's handling of the war in
Iraq and then singled out Rumsfeld.
"And then there's Rumsfeld who said of Iraq 'We have our good days and
our bad days.' We should put this S.O.B. up against a wall and say
'This is one of our bad days,' and pull the trigger," the ad read
under a banner "St. Petersburg Democratic Club."
http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2002/1/2/155438.shtml
Totenberg Wants Helms to Catch AIDS
He leads off with this gutter remark by PBS's ultra-left-wing Nina
Totenberg: "[I]f there is retributive justice [Sen. Jesse Helms] will
get AIDS from a transfusion, or one of his grandchildren will get it."
(As if Jesse Helms is one of those spreading AIDS!)
USA Today's Julianne Malveaux, whose leftist sympathies makes Karl
Marx look like a right-wing kook, spat out this crudity about Justice
Clarence Thomas, a fellow black: "I hope his wife feeds him lots of
eggs and butter and he dies early like many black men do, of heart
disease."
Actor Alec Baldwin on The Conan OBrien Show, condemning the
Republicans on the House Judiciary Committee, If we were in other
countries, we would all right now, all of us together all of us
together would go down to Washington and we would stone Henry Hyde to
death! We would stone him to death! Wait!
Im not finished. We would
stone Henry Hyde to death and we would go to their homes and wed kill
their wives and their children! We would kill their families!
Fantasies of murder likewise animated British pundit Charlie Brooker,
who ended his Oct. 24 column in the Guardian with a plea for Bush's
death: "John Wilkes Booth, Lee Harvey Oswald, John Hinckley Jr. --
where are you now that we need you?"
Hey...your buddy doesnt think too highly of you....
Film-maker Michael Moore says Americans, are possibly the dumbest
people on the planet
in thrall to conniving, thieving, smug pricks.
Our stupidity is embarrassing.
Liberals are the poster children for hate speech.
Gunner
"Pax Americana is a philosophy. Hardly an empire.
Making sure other people play nice and dont kill each other (and us)
off in job lots is hardly empire building, particularly when you give
them self determination under "play nice" rules.
Think of it as having your older brother knock the shit out of you
for torturing the cat." Gunner
On Mon, 12 Sep 2005 21:29:40 -0400, in misc.consumers.frugal-living "Chris"
<[email protected]> 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.
"Too_Many_Tools" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> 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 Thu, 15 Sep 2005 14:49:35 GMT, Gunner <[email protected]> wrote:
>Oh please..say it aint so. Rich elitiests...liberals...oh my
>God.....
Michael Moore, Susan Sarandon, Tim Robbins; Hollywood, the media, Liberal
Congress Critters, people that wouldn't recognize the real America if it bit
them in the a**.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Retired Shop Rat: 14,647 days in a GM plant.
Now I can do what I enjoy: Large Format Photography
Web Site: www.destarr.com
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
> "Shawn Hirn" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> > In article <[email protected]>,
> > Gunner Asch <[email protected]> wrote:
> > >
> > > Liberals are the poster children for hate speech.
> >
> > Nonsense! We didn't invade another country under false pretenses. Going
> > to war under false pretenses is the ultimate act of hate.
> >
All the contemporary histories I've read show that LBJ lied to congress
about the Gulf of Tonkin (I think it was) incident as an excuse to escalate
our involvement in Vietnam. The "ultimate act of hate"?
"Archangel" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> "Chris" <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>><[email protected]> wrote in message
>>news:[email protected]...
>>> On Mon, 12 Sep 2005 21:29:40 -0400, in misc.consumers.frugal-living
>>> "Chris"
>>> <[email protected]> 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.
People took Mr. Reagan seriously, he was an actor, not a very good actor but
an actor none the less.
People take Mr. Bush seriously, he's a failed oil company exec., failed
baseball team exec. perhaps the worst president in the history of the United
States and he seems to think that god directs him personally.
People in California take Mr. Schwarznegger seriously, a former drug abusing
body builder and actor of minimal talents.He makes Gray Davis look like a
piker when it comes to corruption and failed policies.
Some people take Fred Thompson seriously, a former senator turned actor,
turned advisor to a Supreme Court nominee.
I'll take anyone seriously who can formulate a clear policy what the U.S.'s
place in the world should be without relying on divine intervention or help
from their father's friends.
John
"Shawn Hirn" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> In article <[email protected]>,
> Gunner Asch <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> > Liberals are the poster children for hate speech.
>
> Nonsense! We didn't invade another country under false pretenses. Going
> to war under false pretenses is the ultimate act of hate.
>
> What really amazes me is that anyone takes what some actor or religious
> kook says in front of a TV camera seriously.
Todd Fatheree wrote:
>"NotMe" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
>
>
>>"Todd Fatheree" <> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>>>People took Mr. Reagan seriously, he was an actor, not a very good
>>>>
>>>>
>actor
>
>
>>>but an actor none the less.
>>>
>>>And a great president.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>People take Mr. Bush seriously, he's a failed oil company exec.,
>>>>
>>>>
>failed
>
>
>>>>baseball team exec. perhaps the worst president in the history of the
>>>>
>>>>
>>>United States and he seems to think that god directs him personally.
>>>
>>>Let's see. He and a group of investors bought the Rangers in 1989 for
>>>
>>>
>$86
>
>
>>>million. In 1998, they sold it for $250 million. Sounds successful to
>>>
>>>
>>me.
>>
>>Yea he nailed a 5% (very) minority interest in the team as part of a deal
>>for his daddy's political connections. Without that 'success' he's
>>
>>
>batting
>
>
>>zero on every other business deal he has had his hands on.
>>
>>
>
>I realize it isn't quite as good as turning $1000 into $100,000 in 10 months
>investing in cattle futures, but I guess his investors with have to settle
>for only tripling their investment over 8 years.
>
>todd
>
>
>
>
Damn..I hate to further the OT post but gotta get my 2 cents in cuz I'm
pissed off at the local stadium deals (rant mode on)
Yea, Hillary's deal was obviously "crooked" in some way. As many of
these deals, including many of Bush's, it most likely skirted the edges
of the law..maybe even bent laws (which tend to be bent in the favor of
these kind of money deals anyway). What does Hillary getting away with
such a deal have to do with Bush? 2 wrongs don't make a right.
With regards to The Bush profits in the baseball business....Most of
those profits came via the Govt paying for and essentially giving away a
brand new stadium to the team (as happens in most major cities). The
Bush part appears to have been political clout to push this through more
easily. Bush's "success" in this area was more related to getting a huge
government windfall handout than actual managerial success. Of course
one could argue that going for the brass ring of a government handout IS
good management. All it tells me is that the notion of corporate
welfare being a good thing has been part of the Bush policy as long as
there have been Bush's with money to invest.
Conservatives like to argue against "welfare" it appears, but you rarely
hear one speak against corporate welfare of which the stadium thing is
one of the clearest examples. Tax revenues from professional sports
teams are generally used to justify spending on such stadiums but I
haven't heard of a case yet where those revenues weren't GROSSLY
inflated to justify the expendatures and the city/county/state didn't
end up losing money in the long run. When confronted with the realities
that the revenus aren't meeting the proposal, it's usually shifted to
the notion that "it increases the status of the city to have these teams
so the loss is worth it".
In Seattle, the people voted AGAINST paying for a baseball stadium yet
the govt ignred that vote and did it anyway, ripping off the public to
support a private corporation. From what I've heard (and I can't say
it's true at all...maybe someone from TX can shed more light on it), the
Bush stadium deal was similar. The question should not be whether Bush
wa a good manager but whether Bush was willing to rip the public for
profit in this instance as it appears is continued in the current govt
agenda.
A true conservative should be screaming just as loudly about these
corporate sweetheart deals as they do about "welfare mamas" and should
be kicking the arse of politicians (like Bush in my opinion) that appear
to further such deals.
Koz
"Richard Johnson" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> "Nick Hull" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> In article <[email protected]>,
>> Shawn Hirn <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>> In article <[email protected]>,
>>> Nick Hull <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>
>>> > In article <[email protected]>, "Chris" <[email protected]>
>>> > 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?........
>>
>> I don't see those troops supporting or defending OUR Constitution or our
>> Bill of Rights. They are supporting politicians and big government.
>>
> Would you care to personnaly deny their right to vote? (I think you would
> find yourself in deeeeep sh*t.)
>
I think this has been done a number of times.
I do remember being stationed overseas and twice the absentee ballots
arrived in the mail after the formal voting was done. Not just a single
event but across the post. Of course your vote still counted, but did not
really seem to matter all that much after the fact.
--
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.
"steve" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> 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.
Pope Secola VI wrote:
> Actually it's not the government employees voting that I object to but
> the formation of Public Employee Unions that extorts, (You have to pay
> the union even if you aren't a member), billions of dollars from public
> employees and funds the crack pots (Democrats).
theyd fund the republicans, too... if the republicans would support em.
no different than all the oil money going to bush and his friends, and
bush giving them sweet subsidies.
"Nick Hull" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> In article <[email protected]>,
> Shawn Hirn <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> In article <[email protected]>, "Chris" <[email protected]>
>> 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.
>
> This is the American Republic, not the american denocracy. Those of us
> who wish to restore the Republic will not move, but will wage civil war
> at the correct time. You are welcome to take the opposite side if you
> choose, voting will be by bullets. ;)
>
> --
> Free men own guns, slaves don't
> www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/5357/
Too funny. :)
Do remember too that when this civil war breaks out, which side the veterans
will be on! They have a tendency not to want to leave this country. Go
figure.
I think a better voter would be one that knows this is a Republic, knows the
true history, and has done something for this country. Of course this would
leave out all the liberals.
--
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.
"Glenn Ashmore" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:oHlVe.25135$hp.8124@lakeread08...
>
>
> "Edwin Pawlowski" <[email protected]> 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?
"Todd Fatheree"
| > > Let's see. He and a group of investors bought the Rangers in 1989 for
| $86 million. In 1998, they sold it for $250 million. Sounds successful
to
| > me.
| >
| > Yea he nailed a 5% (very) minority interest in the team as part of a
deal
| > for his daddy's political connections. Without that 'success' he's
| batting zero on every other business deal he has had his hands on.
|
| I realize it isn't quite as good as turning $1000 into $100,000 in 10
months
| investing in cattle futures, but I guess his investors with have to settle
| for only tripling their investment over 8 years.
If you're talking about the Rangers deal those were not *his* investors.
Bush was along for the ride on a good old boy deal for his daddy's
connections.
As to the rest might ask some of the folk that invested in Bush's deals just
how well they 'really' did. Most, if not all, lost but he OTOH came out
like a rose.
Me/mine were in the oil patch when he was busy in Midland. Me/mine made
money by selling his projects short. Basically if he was involved we either
avoided the deals or took the other side. Nothing personal just wise
watching.
In article <[email protected]>,
[email protected] says...
> Michael Moore, Susan Sarandon, Tim Robbins; Hollywood, the media, Liberal
> Congress Critters, people that wouldn't recognize the real America if it bit
> them in the a**.
>
If your "real America" is the bible-thumping, "love it or leave it", "my
country right or wrong", "nuke the A-rabs", "intelligent design" crowd,
I recognize it all right. I just wish they had a brain.
--
It's turtles, all the way down.
In article <[email protected]>, [email protected]
says...
> > If your "real America" is the bible-thumping, "love it or leave it", "my
> > country right or wrong", "nuke the A-rabs", "intelligent design" crowd,
> > I recognize it all right. I just wish they had a brain.
>
> You know, Larry, I _still_ haven't met anyone who thinks like that; the
> only signs of them are in posts and statements from people on the
> way-left.
>
You obviously don't live in Spokane :-). Just reading the letters to
the editor in the local paper is an education :-).
I've got a friend whose business requires him to do business with some
of these folks. Not only do they fit the dexcription I gave to a T,
they also swear the universe is 6000 years old - the Bible says so! If
he mantions anything at all about geology, fossils, or evolution, they
go through the ceiling. And they are successful businessmen.
I won't identify him or them any further, because I don't want to get
him in trouble with his customers. So you are free to believe me or
not, whichever you prefer.
There's also a local preacher who has a column in the paper and swears
that all the Jews, Muslims, Hindus, etc. are going straight to Hell
because they don't believe in Jesus - even if they never heard of Jesus!
If you haven't run into these types Dave, I can only say I'm envious.
P.S. The paper is the Spokesman-Review if you'd like to peruse it
yourself. They have an online edition.
--
BNSF = Build Now, Seep Forever
"Chris" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
><[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>> On Mon, 12 Sep 2005 21:29:40 -0400, in misc.consumers.frugal-living
>> "Chris"
>> <[email protected]> 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)
"Tim May" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:120920051826023131%[email protected]...
> In article <[email protected]>,
> Too_Many_Tools <[email protected]> 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.
"Todd Fatheree" <> wrote:
> > People took Mr. Reagan seriously, he was an actor, not a very good actor
> but an actor none the less.
>
> And a great president.
>
> > People take Mr. Bush seriously, he's a failed oil company exec., failed
> > baseball team exec. perhaps the worst president in the history of the
> United States and he seems to think that god directs him personally.
>
> Let's see. He and a group of investors bought the Rangers in 1989 for $86
> million. In 1998, they sold it for $250 million. Sounds successful to
me.
Yea he nailed a 5% (very) minority interest in the team as part of a deal
for his daddy's political connections. Without that 'success' he's batting
zero on every other business deal he has had his hands on.
"Todd Fatheree"
<snip>
. If we eliminated anyone who ever failed at an undertaking from
| serving in office, we'd have a lot of people who never did much of
anything.
| I guess in your view, Bill Gates would be the best candidate for
president,
| as few people could argue that he has been an extraordinarily successful
| businessman.
How about we eliminate anyone who has failed at EVERYTHING?
"Chris" <[email protected]> wrote >
> I will have to check to see if I did sign the form. Yet again another
> mystery of the "closing" pile of paperwork solved. :)
Has anyone noticed that every single piece of paper that you have to sign
when you buy a piece of real estate or take out a lone has the words
"Complies with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995"?
Before that law was passed you only had to sign the note, the mortgage and a
guarantee. My brother and I just sold a warehouse. At the closing I had to
sign 28 different papers and the buyers had to sign more than 30. More
trees cut for the closing papers than there were to build the building.
Everybody form the EPA to FEMA has to get a piece of paper these days.
--
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
"Too_Many_Tools" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
|
|
| 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/content/article/2005/09/11/AR200...
Anyone who believes 'you can't cheat an honest man' has never had to deal
with an insurance company.
"Jedd Haas" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> In article <[email protected]>,
> "Todd Fatheree" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > "John Emmons" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > news:[email protected]...
> > > People took Mr. Reagan seriously, he was an actor, not a very good
actor
> > but
> > > an actor none the less.
> >
> > And a great president.
> >
> > > People take Mr. Bush seriously, he's a failed oil company exec.,
failed
> > > baseball team exec. perhaps the worst president in the history of the
> > United
> > > States and he seems to think that god directs him personally.
> >
> > Let's see. He and a group of investors bought the Rangers in 1989 for
$86
> > million. In 1998, they sold it for $250 million. Sounds successful to
me.
>
> Oh gee. You seem to have missed the part about using government
> connections to seize a bunch of land for their new stadium from private
> owners through eminent domain. This cronyism-enabled theft certainly had
> something to do with the increased value of the the team.
*Gasp*. You mean to tell me that a multimillion dollar construction project
was built by people with government connections and acquired land through
eminent domain? I tell you what, let's tear down all the stadiums built in
the last 20 years across the country that were constructed in a similar
manner and I think you'd have a lot of teams looking for places to play.
Oh, and you seem to have missed the part where the voters in Arlington, TX
voted 2:1 to approve the deal to build the stadum. Not that that is even
relevant. The statement I took issue with was the one that said that GWB
was a failed baseball exec, which is clearly wrong considering the financial
gain the team made, whether or not you approve of how it was done.
todd
Todd Fatheree wrote:
> "Jedd Haas" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>>Oh gee. You seem to have missed the part about using government
>>connections to seize a bunch of land for their new stadium from private
>>owners through eminent domain. This cronyism-enabled theft certainly had
>>something to do with the increased value of the the team.
> *Gasp*. You mean to tell me that a multimillion dollar construction project
> was built by people with government connections and acquired land through
> eminent domain? I tell you what, let's tear down all the stadiums built in
> the last 20 years across the country that were constructed in a similar
> manner and I think you'd have a lot of teams looking for places to play.
> Oh, and you seem to have missed the part where the voters in Arlington, TX
> voted 2:1 to approve the deal to build the stadum.
They did, but then voters in the city of Oakland, CA voted to construct
a stadium so they could have the Raiders back from LA, and the city got
seriously shafted in the process and had trouble balancing its budget in
the years after the stadium was built because the expense was so huge.
What happened in this case is that the residents were highly emotional
about having "their" team back. They were willing to vote "yes" to just
about anything that said it would bring the Raiders back. The vote was
a landslide in favor of the stadium, but after the costs became apparent
(which nobody seemed to care about during the election), public opinion
changed a bit. Naturally, it didn't help that seats were extremely
expensive even for residents of the city that had agreed to chip in
literally hundreds of millions for the stadium.
The point is, just because voters have approved something doesn't mean
people aren't getting shafted.
- Logan
"Chris" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:%[email protected]...
> Glen,
> What is Federal flood insurance? I was not aware of that. I was always
> under the impression that flood insurance was just a rider on your normal
> homeowners insurance. Or could it be that the insurance company is buying
> the Federal insurance for you and then making up the difference?
http://www.floodsmart.gov/floodsmart/pages/index.jsp
todd
<[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Mon, 12 Sep 2005 20:52:53 -0400, in misc.consumers.frugal-living
> "Chris"
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>
>><[email protected]> wrote in message
>>news:[email protected]...
>>> On Tue, 13 Sep 2005 00:05:45 GMT, in misc.consumers.frugal-living "Edwin
>>> Pawlowski" <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>>"Glenn Ashmore" <[email protected]> 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.
On Thu, 15 Sep 2005 02:54:31 -0700, "Blondie" <[email protected]>
wrote:
>>Well said!!!
>
>A call for the murder of our democratically elected leaders for carrying
>out their mandate is "well said" is it?
Hey..the Left calls for this every day, and they dont consider any
Republican politician to be carrying out any mandate.
Is it only the Left pols that do mandates? (unfunded of course)?
Gunner
"Pax Americana is a philosophy. Hardly an empire.
Making sure other people play nice and dont kill each other (and us)
off in job lots is hardly empire building, particularly when you give
them self determination under "play nice" rules.
Think of it as having your older brother knock the shit out of you
for torturing the cat." Gunner
"Shawn Hirn" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> In article <[email protected]>,
> "Todd Fatheree" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > "John Emmons" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > news:[email protected]...
> > > People took Mr. Reagan seriously, he was an actor, not a very good
actor
> > but
> > > an actor none the less.
> >
> > And a great president.
> >
> > > People take Mr. Bush seriously, he's a failed oil company exec.,
failed
> > > baseball team exec. perhaps the worst president in the history of the
> > United
> > > States and he seems to think that god directs him personally.
> >
> > Let's see. He and a group of investors bought the Rangers in 1989 for
$86
> > million. In 1998, they sold it for $250 million. Sounds successful to
me.
>
> Look at Bush's dealings in the oil business.
I tell you what...you detail GWB's failings as it relates to the oil
business first. I've had no reason to look into it myself as I'm not sure
what relevance it (or the baseball stuff) has to how he performs as
president. If we eliminated anyone who ever failed at an undertaking from
serving in office, we'd have a lot of people who never did much of anything.
I guess in your view, Bill Gates would be the best candidate for president,
as few people could argue that he has been an extraordinarily successful
businessman.
todd
"Nick Hull" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> In article <[email protected]>,
> Shawn Hirn <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> In article <[email protected]>,
>> Nick Hull <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>> > In article <[email protected]>, "Chris" <[email protected]>
>> > wrote:
>> >
>> > > Most of the people homeless now, and asking for hand-outs would of
>> > > probably
>> > > been homeless before the mess, had it not been for our government.
>> > > As a
>> > > law, it should be imposed that people on welfare should not be
>> > > allowed to
>> > > vote.
>> >
>> > Likewise government 'workers' should not be allowed to vote.
>>
>> You mean, like all those people who're supposedly fighting for our
>> freedom in Iraq and Afgahnistan?........
>
> I don't see those troops supporting or defending OUR Constitution or our
> Bill of Rights. They are supporting politicians and big government.
>
Would you care to personnaly deny their right to vote? (I think you would
find yourself in deeeeep sh*t.)
"Chris" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> "Glenn Ashmore" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:vmRVe.25337$hp.6180@lakeread08...
>>
>> "Chris" <[email protected]> wrote
>>
>>> What is Federal flood insurance? I was not aware of that.
There seems to be so many things you are unaware of, including the nature of
our Constitution
and what it means to be an American.
"Chris" <[email protected]> wrote:
>"Tim May" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:120920051826023131%[email protected]...
>> 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!!!
A call for the murder of our democratically elected leaders for carrying
out their mandate is "well said" is it?
You are totally UNAMERICAN and shame our great country with the treasonous
filth
you spew globally in these forums.
>If I remember correctly when we had a Constitution,
You do not remember correctly, and we still have a constitution which
traitors like you wish to destroy
>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.
Unsuprising that an ignoramus is ignorant.
promoting the general Welfare lies at the root of the Constitution
you spit on.
THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION
http://www.house.gov/Constitution/Constitution.html
We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union,
establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common
defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to
ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for
the United States of America
Section. 8.
Clause 1: The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties,
Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and
general Welfare of the United States...
Your era was washed away in the flood and you may yet be called to account
for the aid and succour you give enemies of the USA worldwide.
Now THAT is addressed in the Constitution, calling for the murder of
democratically elected leaders is treason and you should be in Guatamo Bay
alongside your fellow terrorists.
Section. 3.
Clause 1: Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying
War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and
Comfort.
Can you think of any good reason why you should not be in Guantamo Bay along
with your fellow terrorists?
"Gunner" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Thu, 15 Sep 2005 02:54:31 -0700, "Blondie" <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
>>>Well said!!!
>>
>>A call for the murder of our democratically elected leaders for carrying
>>out their mandate is "well said" is it?
>
> Hey..the Left calls for this every day, and they dont consider any
> Republican politician to be carrying out any mandate.
Pat Robertson is on the "left" huh?
we live and learn.
http://mediamatters.org/brief/pat+robertson
Robertson has a lengthy history of controversial remarks. He recently called
for the assassination of Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez. After the
terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, in a conversation with fellow
evangelical preacher Jerry Falwell on The 700 Club, Robertson agreed that
feminists and gays were to blame for the attacks (Falwell apologized
quickly). In 2002, Robertson angered many when he said that Islam is not a
peaceful religion (he has since made other similar statements about Islam).
After the 2004 election, Robertson proclaimed that "George Bush has the
favor of heaven." Robertson recently reaffirmed his belief that judges
appointed by Democrats are a greater threat to the United States than Al
Qaeda, Nazi Germany, or the Civil War. He is noted for his particularly
hateful rhetoric toward gays and lesbians.
Quotes from Pat Robertson
"I don't know about this doctrine of assassination, but if he [Chavez]
thinks we're trying to assassinate him, I think that we really ought to go
ahead and do it." [8/22/05]
"Islam, at least at its core, teaches violence. It's there in the Quran in
clear, bold statements." [7/14/05]
God "will remove judges from the Supreme Court quickly." [1/3/05]
Gays and lesbians are "self-absorbed hedonists ... that want to impose their
particular sexuality on the rest of America." [11/30/04]
Gays and lesbians are "self-absorbed narcissists who are willing to destroy
any institution so long as they can have affirmation of their lifestyle."
[8/16/05]
"Kwanzaa is an absolute fraud." [12/6/04]
Media Matters for America coverage of Robertson
Robertson affirmed his belief that Democratic judges are a greater threat to
the U.S. than Al Qaeda, Nazi Germany or Civil War [5/2/05]
Pat Robertson's contradictory theology: God won't stop a tsunami -- but
might respond to Gay Days with an earthquake [5/2/05]
Robertson wrongly attributed declining number of teen girls having sex to
"welfare reform" [12/17/04]
Robertson continued conservatives' distortion of facts in Schiavo case
[4/1/05]
Robertson "absolutely appalled" by comments Boxer never made [8/16/05]
Robertson continued to put words in Boxer's mouth -- and now Leahy's, too
[8/19/05]
Robertson used misleading crisis rhetoric and rosy predictions to tout Bush
Social Security plan [1/6/05]
"Todd Fatheree" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> "Too_Many_Tools" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> 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.
Shawn Hirn wrote:
> In article <[email protected]>,
> Nick Hull <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>>In article <[email protected]>, "Chris" <[email protected]>
>>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.
Actually it's not the government employees voting that I object to but
the formation of Public Employee Unions that extorts, (You have to pay
the union even if you aren't a member), billions of dollars from public
employees and funds the crack pots (Democrats).
--
There are in fact two things, Science and opinion,
the former begets knowledge, the latter ignorance.
Hippocrates
467-377 B.C.
"Shawn Hirn" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> In article <[email protected]>, "Chris" <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
>> "Tim May" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:120920051826023131%[email protected]...
>> > In article <[email protected]>,
>> > Too_Many_Tools <[email protected]> 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.
Too funny!
The problem is that it was unthinkable at the time to Constitution was drawn
up, that people would want handouts from the Government for their general
welfare. People who did not care for themselves or just did not feel like
providing for themselves, were very few and far in-between at that time.
You fail to read "general welfare". By no stretch of the means does that
mean the government will enable all the people who just do not feel like
providing for themselves!
By your reasoning Congress could pile up all the gold and dollars in the US
and bury it out in the sea. For had our founding fathers not wanted that,
it would of been in the Constitution . LOL
Why do I always get the feeling that welfare supports are always benefiting
from it somehow?
The rest of your post seems to be nothing more than childish insults sorry
to say.
--
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"
<[email protected]> wrote:
>
>"SoCalMike" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>> 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
<[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Mon, 12 Sep 2005 21:29:40 -0400, in misc.consumers.frugal-living
> "Chris"
> <[email protected]> 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.
On Tue, 13 Sep 2005 00:05:45 GMT, in misc.consumers.frugal-living "Edwin
Pawlowski" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>"Glenn Ashmore" <[email protected]> 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.
On Sun, 18 Sep 2005 18:41:08 GMT, "John Emmons"
<[email protected]> wrote:
>
>People take Mr. Bush seriously, he's a failed oil company exec., failed
>baseball team exec. perhaps the worst president in the history of the United
>States and he seems to think that god directs him personally.
So, what do you think of Truman..the failed clothing store owner, and
Abe Lincoln, the failed lawyer?
Gunner
"Pax Americana is a philosophy. Hardly an empire.
Making sure other people play nice and dont kill each other (and us)
off in job lots is hardly empire building, particularly when you give
them self determination under "play nice" rules.
Think of it as having your older brother knock the shit out of you
for torturing the cat." Gunner
"Chris" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>>
>> --
> 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.
<[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Mon, 12 Sep 2005 23:45:00 -0400, in misc.consumers.frugal-living
> "Chris"
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>
>>"SoCalMike" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>news:[email protected]...
>>> 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.
In article <[email protected]>,
"Todd Fatheree" <[email protected]> wrote:
> "John Emmons" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> > People took Mr. Reagan seriously, he was an actor, not a very good actor
> but
> > an actor none the less.
>
> And a great president.
>
> > People take Mr. Bush seriously, he's a failed oil company exec., failed
> > baseball team exec. perhaps the worst president in the history of the
> United
> > States and he seems to think that god directs him personally.
>
> Let's see. He and a group of investors bought the Rangers in 1989 for $86
> million. In 1998, they sold it for $250 million. Sounds successful to me.
Oh gee. You seem to have missed the part about using government
connections to seize a bunch of land for their new stadium from private
owners through eminent domain. This cronyism-enabled theft certainly had
something to do with the increased value of the the team.
--
Jedd Haas - Artist - New Orleans, LA (Currently exiled on the NJ shore)
http://www.gallerytungsten.com
http://www.epsno.com
"Chris" <[email protected]> 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
In Re: OT - Katrina and Insurance Claims on Thu, 22 Sep 2005
23:22:59 -0400, by Shawn Hirn, we read:
>In article <[email protected]>,
> "Pete" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> > "Shawn Hirn" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> > news:[email protected]...
>> > > In article <[email protected]>,
>> > > Gunner Asch <[email protected]> wrote:
>> > > >
>> > > > Liberals are the poster children for hate speech.
>> > >
>> > > Nonsense! We didn't invade another country under false pretenses. Going
>> > > to war under false pretenses is the ultimate act of hate.
>> > >
>>
>> All the contemporary histories I've read show that LBJ lied to congress
>> about the Gulf of Tonkin (I think it was) incident as an excuse to escalate
>> our involvement in Vietnam. The "ultimate act of hate"?
>
>Yes, that too, but I was a bit too young to worry about it at the time
>and LBJ is dead now. Sad that we learned NOTHING from that horrible
>episode in our history.
Actually, "we" learned a lot, however, the federal system
has evolved to preclude effective control of politicians
by the voting public.
I give you the illegal alien invasion as an example. 80%
of the public is for closing the border with Mexico but
Bush and politicians will not.
In article <[email protected]>,
Strabo <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> Actually, "we" learned a lot, however, the federal system
> has evolved to preclude effective control of politicians
> by the voting public.
>
> I give you the illegal alien invasion as an example. 80%
> of the public is for closing the border with Mexico but
> Bush and politicians will not.
We have the government we deserve. Sad, but true.
On Mon, 19 Sep 2005 20:14:58 -0400, Jedd Haas <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>> Let's see. He and a group of investors bought the Rangers in 1989 for $86
>> million. In 1998, they sold it for $250 million. Sounds successful to me.
>
>Oh gee. You seem to have missed the part about using government
>connections to seize a bunch of land for their new stadium from private
>owners through eminent domain. This cronyism-enabled theft certainly had
>something to do with the increased value of the the team.
You mean like the Dems have done for the last 60 yrs? Shall we
discuss Public Lands, and go from there?
Gunner
"Pax Americana is a philosophy. Hardly an empire.
Making sure other people play nice and dont kill each other (and us)
off in job lots is hardly empire building, particularly when you give
them self determination under "play nice" rules.
Think of it as having your older brother knock the shit out of you
for torturing the cat." Gunner
Shawn Hirn wrote:
> In article <[email protected]>, "Chris" <[email protected]>
> 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.
There is a difference between a dictatorship and a republic where
only the rich get a vote. Poor people wouldn't see much difference
but rich people would.
I'm coming to the opinion that everyone in the country (including
those born here) should pass the same kind of citizenship tests
and swear the same kind of oaths that immigrants must in order to
obtain the rights of citizenship. It seems odd to have two standards.
Anthony
In article <[email protected]>, "Blondie" <[email protected]>
wrote:
>........ Robertson recently reaffirmed his belief that judges
> appointed by Democrats are a greater threat to the United States than Al
> Qaeda, Nazi Germany, or the Civil War. He is noted for his particularly
> hateful rhetoric toward gays and lesbians.
I might agree with him on that one issue, adding judges appointed by
Republicans as well.
--
Free men own guns, slaves don't
www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/5357/
In article <120920051826023131%[email protected]>,
Tim May <[email protected]> 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/
In article <[email protected]>, "Chris" <[email protected]>
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 <[email protected]>,
Shawn Hirn <[email protected]> wrote:
> In article <[email protected]>,
> Nick Hull <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > In article <[email protected]>, "Chris" <[email protected]>
> > 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?........
I don't see those troops supporting or defending OUR Constitution or our
Bill of Rights. They are supporting politicians and big government.
--
Free men own guns, slaves don't
www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/5357/
In article <[email protected]>,
Shawn Hirn <[email protected]> wrote:
> In article <[email protected]>, "Chris" <[email protected]>
> 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.
This is the American Republic, not the american denocracy. Those of us
who wish to restore the Republic will not move, but will wage civil war
at the correct time. You are welcome to take the opposite side if you
choose, voting will be by bullets. ;)
--
Free men own guns, slaves don't
www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/5357/
"Edwin Pawlowski" <[email protected]> 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
On Sun, 18 Sep 2005 07:35:40 -0400, Shawn Hirn <[email protected]>
wrote:
>In article <[email protected]>,
> Gunner Asch <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>> Liberals are the poster children for hate speech.
>
>Nonsense! We didn't invade another country under false pretenses. Going
>to war under false pretenses is the ultimate act of hate.
>
>What really amazes me is that anyone takes what some actor or religious
>kook says in front of a TV camera seriously.
Thank you for demonstrating my claim, so ably.
Gunner
"Pax Americana is a philosophy. Hardly an empire.
Making sure other people play nice and dont kill each other (and us)
off in job lots is hardly empire building, particularly when you give
them self determination under "play nice" rules.
Think of it as having your older brother knock the shit out of you
for torturing the cat." Gunner
<[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Tue, 13 Sep 2005 01:08:27 -0400, in misc.consumers.frugal-living
> "Chris"
> <[email protected]> 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.
On Tue, 13 Sep 2005 01:08:27 -0400, in misc.consumers.frugal-living "Chris"
<[email protected]> 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.
"Chris" <[email protected]> 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
On Mon, 12 Sep 2005 20:52:53 -0400, in misc.consumers.frugal-living "Chris"
<[email protected]> wrote:
>
><[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>> On Tue, 13 Sep 2005 00:05:45 GMT, in misc.consumers.frugal-living "Edwin
>> Pawlowski" <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>"Glenn Ashmore" <[email protected]> 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.
On Thu, 15 Sep 2005 01:12:23 -0400, Shawn Hirn <[email protected]>
wrote:
>In article <[email protected]>,
> Gunner Asch <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> On Tue, 13 Sep 2005 06:50:48 -0400, Shawn Hirn <[email protected]>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >In article <120920052135083946%[email protected]>,
>> > Tim May <[email protected]> wrote:
>> >
>> >> In article <[email protected]>, 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!
>>
>>
>> My but that saved you the effort in trying to refute him, now didnt
>> it?
>
>I see no reason to waste my time refuting hate and bigotry. If you want
>to undertake that challenge, more power to you.
Snicker....
Gunner
"Pax Americana is a philosophy. Hardly an empire.
Making sure other people play nice and dont kill each other (and us)
off in job lots is hardly empire building, particularly when you give
them self determination under "play nice" rules.
Think of it as having your older brother knock the shit out of you
for torturing the cat." Gunner
"Glenn Ashmore" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:vmRVe.25337$hp.6180@lakeread08...
>
> "Chris" <[email protected]> wrote
>
>> What is Federal flood insurance? I was not aware of that. I was always
>> under the impression that flood insurance was just a rider on your normal
>> homeowners insurance. Or could it be that the insurance company is
>> buying the Federal insurance for you and then making up the difference?
>>
>> BTW when are you going to update the progress on the boat? I for one am
>> looking forward to it.
>
> The normal insurance carriers avoid flood coverage like the plague. To
> much risk of large numbers of 100% losses for them to worry about. At one
> time you could get a very expensive rider but that ended in 1968 when
> Congress passed the National Flood Insurance Program. The NFIP is a
> government agency (under FEMA) that issues the policies separate from your
> homeowner's policy. FEMA designates flood risk areas and most lenders
> require a statement about the flood risk included in the title search. It
> is one of that pile of forms you have to sign when you buy a house. If
> the risk is high enough the lender will require that you purchase a NFIP
> policy.
>
> Like the Federal Pension Insurance program, NFIP is under funded and will
> probably be insolvent after it settles the Katrina damage.
>
> --
> Glenn Ashmore
Glenn and Todd,
Thanks for the info. Obviously you helped me understand an area that I am
obviously ignorant in. I did know that lenders do require the insurance if
you were in a flood plane, now at least I know where it comes from.
I will have to check to see if I did sign the form. Yet again another
mystery of the "closing" pile of paperwork solved. :)
Thanks again,
--
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.
>
> 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
>
>
"Nick Hull" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> In article <[email protected]>, "Chris" <[email protected]>
> 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.
In article <[email protected]>,
"Todd Fatheree" <[email protected]> wrote:
> "John Emmons" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> > People took Mr. Reagan seriously, he was an actor, not a very good actor
> but
> > an actor none the less.
>
> And a great president.
>
> > People take Mr. Bush seriously, he's a failed oil company exec., failed
> > baseball team exec. perhaps the worst president in the history of the
> United
> > States and he seems to think that god directs him personally.
>
> Let's see. He and a group of investors bought the Rangers in 1989 for $86
> million. In 1998, they sold it for $250 million. Sounds successful to me.
Look at Bush's dealings in the oil business.
In article <[email protected]>, "Chris" <[email protected]>
wrote:
> "Tim May" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:120920051826023131%[email protected]...
> > In article <[email protected]>,
> > Too_Many_Tools <[email protected]> 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 <120920052135083946%[email protected]>,
Tim May <[email protected]> wrote:
> In article <[email protected]>, 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 <[email protected]>,
Nick Hull <[email protected]> wrote:
> In article <[email protected]>, "Blondie" <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
> >........ Robertson recently reaffirmed his belief that judges
> > appointed by Democrats are a greater threat to the United States than Al
> > Qaeda, Nazi Germany, or the Civil War. He is noted for his particularly
> > hateful rhetoric toward gays and lesbians.
>
> I might agree with him on that one issue, adding judges appointed by
> Republicans as well.
That's one of the ironies with the Supreme Court. The Republicans refer
to the Supreme Court as an activist court, yet 7 of the 9 justices on
the Supreme Court were nominated by conservative Republican presidents.
The Democrats only have two appointees on the Supreme Court, yet we
Democrats are accused of padding the court with radicals!
The Republicans are such slow learners, and it seems like they still
have not figured out that the Constitution simply doesn't agree with
them. In deference to New York City's mayor, I suspect the Republicans
may well be headed toward confirming another person who they will find
will not bring the Supreme Court around to their narrow view of the
world.
In article <[email protected]>,
"Pete" <[email protected]> wrote:
> > "Shawn Hirn" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > news:[email protected]...
> > > In article <[email protected]>,
> > > Gunner Asch <[email protected]> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Liberals are the poster children for hate speech.
> > >
> > > Nonsense! We didn't invade another country under false pretenses. Going
> > > to war under false pretenses is the ultimate act of hate.
> > >
>
> All the contemporary histories I've read show that LBJ lied to congress
> about the Gulf of Tonkin (I think it was) incident as an excuse to escalate
> our involvement in Vietnam. The "ultimate act of hate"?
Yes, that too, but I was a bit too young to worry about it at the time
and LBJ is dead now. Sad that we learned NOTHING from that horrible
episode in our history.
In article <[email protected]>,
"AllEmailDeletedImmediately" <[email protected]> wrote:
> "steve" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> > 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.
In article <[email protected]>,
Gunner Asch <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Tue, 13 Sep 2005 06:50:48 -0400, Shawn Hirn <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
> >In article <120920052135083946%[email protected]>,
> > Tim May <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> >> In article <[email protected]>, 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!
>
>
> My but that saved you the effort in trying to refute him, now didnt
> it?
I see no reason to waste my time refuting hate and bigotry. If you want
to undertake that challenge, more power to you.
In article <[email protected]>, "Chris" <[email protected]>
wrote:
> "Nick Hull" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> > In article <[email protected]>,
> > Shawn Hirn <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> >> In article <[email protected]>, "Chris" <[email protected]>
> >> 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.
> >
> > This is the American Republic, not the american denocracy. Those of us
> > who wish to restore the Republic will not move, but will wage civil war
> > at the correct time. You are welcome to take the opposite side if you
> > choose, voting will be by bullets. ;)
> >
> > --
> > Free men own guns, slaves don't
> > www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/5357/
>
> Too funny. :)
>
>
> Do remember too that when this civil war breaks out, which side the veterans
> will be on! They have a tendency not to want to leave this country. Go
> figure.
>
> I think a better voter would be one that knows this is a Republic, knows the
> true history, and has done something for this country. Of course this would
> leave out all the liberals.
What a crock! I am a liberal and I well understand this country's
history. Although I was born at a time where I was either too young to
serve in a war or too old, but most of the veterans I know are liberal
and risked their lives serving in the military in Korea, Vietnam, or
during WW II and have worked hard all their lives paying taxes and
contributing in various ways toward society. Further, some of the
wealthiest Americans are liberal.
Your comments speak loudly to the fact that you have no clue what you're
talking about. Your claim to be a font of knowledge of American history
is at best, dubious, given your silly statements about liberals.
We are a Representative Republic, but I have heard many people, both
conservatives and liberals deny that fact.
In article <[email protected]>, "Chris" <[email protected]>
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 <[email protected]>,
Gunner Asch <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> Liberals are the poster children for hate speech.
Nonsense! We didn't invade another country under false pretenses. Going
to war under false pretenses is the ultimate act of hate.
What really amazes me is that anyone takes what some actor or religious
kook says in front of a TV camera seriously.
In article <120920051826023131%[email protected]>,
Tim May <[email protected]> wrote:
> In article <[email protected]>,
> Too_Many_Tools <[email protected]> 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 pissing off the majority of people who lack flood
insurance or the minority who have it. Guess which group any politician
will seek to piss 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 <[email protected]>,
Nick Hull <[email protected]> wrote:
> In article <[email protected]>, "Chris" <[email protected]>
> 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.
"Glenn Ashmore" <[email protected]> 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.
Gunner Asch wrote:
> On Sun, 18 Sep 2005 07:32:13 -0400, Shawn Hirn <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
> >That's one of the ironies with the Supreme Court. The Republicans refer
> >to the Supreme Court as an activist court, yet 7 of the 9 justices on
> >the Supreme Court were nominated by conservative Republican presidents.
>
> And their being picked by Republicans means what exactly? That the
> judges are not activists? Or the Republicans picked judges that that
> Left would accept?
>
I love it. No matter how much the Republicans screw up, it's still the
fault of the Left.
That is pitiful.
On Sun, 18 Sep 2005 07:32:13 -0400, Shawn Hirn <[email protected]>
wrote:
>That's one of the ironies with the Supreme Court. The Republicans refer
>to the Supreme Court as an activist court, yet 7 of the 9 justices on
>the Supreme Court were nominated by conservative Republican presidents.
And their being picked by Republicans means what exactly? That the
judges are not activists? Or the Republicans picked judges that that
Left would accept?
Gunner
"Pax Americana is a philosophy. Hardly an empire.
Making sure other people play nice and dont kill each other (and us)
off in job lots is hardly empire building, particularly when you give
them self determination under "play nice" rules.
Think of it as having your older brother knock the shit out of you
for torturing the cat." Gunner
<[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Tue, 13 Sep 2005 00:05:45 GMT, in misc.consumers.frugal-living "Edwin
> Pawlowski" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>
>>"Glenn Ashmore" <[email protected]> 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.
Gunner Asch wrote:
> On 18 Sep 2005 13:33:42 -0700, "Charlie Self" <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
> >
> >Gunner Asch wrote:
> >> On Sun, 18 Sep 2005 07:32:13 -0400, Shawn Hirn <[email protected]>
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >> >That's one of the ironies with the Supreme Court. The Republicans refer
> >> >to the Supreme Court as an activist court, yet 7 of the 9 justices on
> >> >the Supreme Court were nominated by conservative Republican presidents.
> >>
> >> And their being picked by Republicans means what exactly? That the
> >> judges are not activists? Or the Republicans picked judges that that
> >> Left would accept?
> >>
> >
> >I love it. No matter how much the Republicans screw up, it's still the
> >fault of the Left.
> >
> >That is pitiful.
>
>
> The pitiful part is you being unable to answer the question.
>
> Gunner
I thought for a moment you signed yourself "Gunny", but I see not.
Good.
No, really, one doesn't answer rhetorical questions. You really should
know that by now.
What is pitiful is that today's crop of Republicans refuse to accept
the blame for anything they do. My first years as an adult under a
Republican Administration were when Ike was President. It is
unfortunate that the Repbulican Party has drifted far to the right,
into the arms of Karl Rove and George Bush, since Eisenhower's time.
On 18 Sep 2005 13:33:42 -0700, "Charlie Self" <[email protected]>
wrote:
>
>Gunner Asch wrote:
>> On Sun, 18 Sep 2005 07:32:13 -0400, Shawn Hirn <[email protected]>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >That's one of the ironies with the Supreme Court. The Republicans refer
>> >to the Supreme Court as an activist court, yet 7 of the 9 justices on
>> >the Supreme Court were nominated by conservative Republican presidents.
>>
>> And their being picked by Republicans means what exactly? That the
>> judges are not activists? Or the Republicans picked judges that that
>> Left would accept?
>>
>
>I love it. No matter how much the Republicans screw up, it's still the
>fault of the Left.
>
>That is pitiful.
The pitiful part is you being unable to answer the question.
Gunner
"Pax Americana is a philosophy. Hardly an empire.
Making sure other people play nice and dont kill each other (and us)
off in job lots is hardly empire building, particularly when you give
them self determination under "play nice" rules.
Think of it as having your older brother knock the shit out of you
for torturing the cat." Gunner
"Chris" <[email protected]> wrote
> What is Federal flood insurance? I was not aware of that. I was always
> under the impression that flood insurance was just a rider on your normal
> homeowners insurance. Or could it be that the insurance company is buying
> the Federal insurance for you and then making up the difference?
>
> BTW when are you going to update the progress on the boat? I for one am
> looking forward to it.
The normal insurance carriers avoid flood coverage like the plague. To much
risk of large numbers of 100% losses for them to worry about. At one time
you could get a very expensive rider but that ended in 1968 when Congress
passed the National Flood Insurance Program. The NFIP is a government
agency (under FEMA) that issues the policies separate from your homeowner's
policy. FEMA designates flood risk areas and most lenders require a
statement about the flood risk included in the title search. It is one of
that pile of forms you have to sign when you buy a house. If the risk is
high enough the lender will require that you purchase a NFIP policy.
Like the Federal Pension Insurance program, NFIP is under funded and will
probably be insolvent after it settles the Katrina damage.
--
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
"Too_Many_Tools" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
>
> 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.
"NotMe" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
> "Todd Fatheree" <> wrote:
>
> > > People took Mr. Reagan seriously, he was an actor, not a very good
actor
> > but an actor none the less.
> >
> > And a great president.
> >
> > > People take Mr. Bush seriously, he's a failed oil company exec.,
failed
> > > baseball team exec. perhaps the worst president in the history of the
> > United States and he seems to think that god directs him personally.
> >
> > Let's see. He and a group of investors bought the Rangers in 1989 for
$86
> > million. In 1998, they sold it for $250 million. Sounds successful to
> me.
>
> Yea he nailed a 5% (very) minority interest in the team as part of a deal
> for his daddy's political connections. Without that 'success' he's
batting
> zero on every other business deal he has had his hands on.
I realize it isn't quite as good as turning $1000 into $100,000 in 10 months
investing in cattle futures, but I guess his investors with have to settle
for only tripling their investment over 8 years.
todd