House Republicans hold aid to tornado victims hostage to ideology

[MannyIsGod]

No, I do understand.

Riddle me this.

When only a dozen or so families lose their homes, why isn't there an advocacy like there is when it's thousands?

Individually, those in the small group suffered equal to the individuals in the larger numbered ones.

If the government isn't going to provide housing for the dozen, why should they for the thousand+?

This recent tornado that hit the Oklahoma City area was a more common sized one that destroyed homes too. Are you trying to tell me that only the rare 5's make people homeless?

No, it wasn't a more common sized one. It was an EF4 and in the end the damage assessment might be an EF5. Do only EF5s make people homeless? Of course not. An EF2 will destroy a mobile home and regular homes will suffer severe damage from an EF3 and EF4s. However, anything above an EF1 makes up the minority of tornadoes. The stronger they get the more rare they are. You didn't post a map of tornadoes above an EF1, you posted a map of all tornadoes. Don't move the goalposts.

When a dozen or so families lose their homes there are government agencies that can handle that. When a whole ing town is leveled for obvious reasons special actions need to be taken. If you think that people who lose their home suffer equally as people who have lost a whole town then you're even more of a moron than I've given you credit for.

[MannyIsGod]

No.

Show me where you think I'm wrong.

I never said it didn't. I'm acknowledging the reality of the republican response since we hit the debt ceiling.

No, it's irrelevant to try to discuss with you because of your lies.

Unless a home is paid for, getting a mortgage requires you have insurance too. ow many of these people won't get reimbursed when it's a required part to secure the loan, and rarely not part of the loan payments? If they aren't making the payments, ten they are in a foreclosure process already.

How many people have their home paid off, and don't have insurance? Very few I bet.

I guess if you drive without car insurance, get in a wreck, you want your Uncle Sam to buy you a new car. Seems like a proper analogy to me.

Of course it seems like a proper analogy to you. You're a complete ing moron. I don't know many people who equate a home and a car.

[ElNono]

No.
Show me where you think I'm wrong.

Why do you liberals think it's the job of the federal government to do everything for you?

You're answering to my post. I never asked the federal government to do anything for me (yet).

I never said it didn't. I'm acknowledging the reality of the republican response since we hit the debt ceiling.

The ceiling will be raised like plenty of times before. Should it? No. But that's the political class we have. Neither you or I can do jack about it.

No, it's irrelevant to try to discuss with you because of your lies.

and here you are...

Unless a home is paid for, getting a mortgage requires you have insurance too. ow many of these people won't get reimbursed when it's a required part to secure the loan, and rarely not part of the loan payments? If they aren't making the payments, ten they are in a foreclosure process already.

How many people have their home paid off, and don't have insurance? Very few I bet.

There's plenty of people that had a job and bought a simple house, and find themselves without a job now. No income = no means to pay the bills.
You know, people's fortune change all the time. Life isn't static. That you once did ok enough to buy a small house doesn't mean that's your reality now, especially as you get older and it's harder to find a job. Your oversimplification that "hey, if they have a house, I bet they have insurance" is really re ed.

I guess if you drive without car insurance, get in a wreck, you want your Uncle Sam to buy you a new car. Seems like a proper analogy to me.

It's a terrible analogy. First of all, these people didn't intentionally lose their homes. Second, you can buy a car for a couple hundred bucks if you're really desperate. We're talking losing potentially a life's savings on a natural disaster. I can't think you're being serious.

And no, I'm not looking for the government to buy them a new house. But at least assist them until they can get back on their feet. It's a tragedy what some of these people are going through, including some of them losing family members.

[RandomGuy]

""UPS and FedEx are doing just fine. It's the Post Office that's always having problems."

-Barack Hussein Obama, mmmmmm mmmmm mmmmmm

Don't you have some overly expensive lightbulbs to be hoarding or something?

[TeyshaBlue]

And no, I'm not looking for the government to buy them a new house. But at least assist them until they can get back on their feet. It's a tragedy what some of these people are going through, including some of them losing family members.

Services like disaster relief is and should continue to be, one of the core functions of the Federal Govt. It's every bit as legitimate as defense and infrastructure spending.