Reply With Quote
SCHIP is too popular to be vetoed much longer.
You gotta have car insurance -- why not flood insurance that's already federally subsidized?
Doesn't congress have anything better to do than make another bill that will get veted?
SCHIP bill
and requiring everyone buy flood insurance
Flood Insurance Requirement
will people who cannot buy it be forced to sell?
SCHIP is too popular to be vetoed much longer.
You gotta have car insurance -- why not flood insurance that's already federally subsidized?
Congress should just cower to the image of President Bush wielding a pen to veto a bill that will might go some distance to protecting children and stop making noise about enacting such a popular bill.
If Congress keeps this up, some Republicans will have to explain their opposition to SCHIP on the campaign trail.
Uh, the additional 15 Billion the Democrats are unwilling to compromise on is to provide insurance to non-children and to families who make over $80,000 per year.
It's real hard to make a president, already willing to bump the program by $20 billion, out to be a villain without lying your ass off.
There, I explained it to you and I'm not even on the campaign trail.
You do, of course, understand the "C" in "SCHIP" stands for Children, right? And, that SCHIP is intended to be for poor people. Right?
Flood insurance will only be required for homes in a designated flood area. This is good legislation for insurance companies and their policyholders. Katrina's storm surge reached up to 6 miles inland. I'm sure those people never thought they would need flood insurance. Numerous homeowners were denied coverage on their homeowners policies and they have since taken insurers to court.
"over $80,000 per year."
... was a lie when dubya used it as a pretext for the first veto (NY state was DENIED its request to go up $84K).
"assistance ... whose family income equals or exceeds 133 percent of the poverty line but does not exceed the Medicaid applicable income level.’’.
$80K/1.33 = $60K, where $60K is way over the poverty line.
Yet another Yoni lie?
yoni knows the 80,000 figure is specifically for New York but he misrepresents ths issue anyway. Of course Yoni wil explain how easy it is for a family of 4 to live on 80,000 in New York.. something about plasma tvs and 100.00 tennis shoes..
Did you even think that one out?
A car can kill and hurt people, therefore it is mandatory to insure against such claims. It's called liability insurance.
Houses are a completely different thing. If people choose not to insure, it's their fault if they have no res ution later.
Not sure I've ever seen Chump caught with his pants down like that before.
Yeah, it's a bad analogy. Medicare is a better one. Costs get so high only the federal government can really do it.
Flood victims will have res ution. The federal government always comes in and bails out the big flood victims.
Always. That's the kind of thing most people think government should do.
Why not make people pay into the system that will eventually bail them out?
Actually a valid question?
If the govt. can't restrain itself from helping them? Won't make the people pay the piper, as it were.
Quick story:
In '03, after the HUGE rains, I had a place in the hill country; driveway washed out. I called FEMA. They couldn't help with my driveway; cause I could still access my house. The FEMA girl asked me a bunch of questions, however.
One of those was, "How is your water?"
I wasn't even thinking about getting any money at this point - by my reckoning, that was a non-starter. But, since I had a well drilled 830 ft. into the Cal Creek aquifer, I honestly stated, "My water is crappy". (She didn't ask how my water was before the rains).
Anyway, a week goes by a $650 magically shows up in my bank account. I call my bank, and ask where it is from. They say, "FEMA, and the note on it is: Water Decontamination".
The scary part? I never told her ANYTHING about my banking ins ution/account number.
did you return the money?
If that is the philosophy, then flood insurance shouldn't exist at all -- but that's a nonstarter.If the govt. can't restrain itself from helping them?
come to think of it, getting money from the govt. for water that was already crappy in my little place that i use to around in and don't really need is much more important than healthcare for the poor.
No, I didn't return the money; would have cost the govt. FAR more than $650 just to manage the funds again.
My house was there; not some place I " ed around in", but all the water out Hwy. 16 is crappy; no matter what kind of place it is supplying.
AND, this just in: The Government WASTES money! It's why I don't want to give them any more of it.
Why don't you respond in the "MOA Tax Increase" Threads?
I was agreeing with you: trying to rephrase what you had already stated, apparently I failed.
you're right about the waste. i just find it interesting what consevatives consider to be govt. waste, what they choose to be acceptable. i've read your opinions in other threads, so thats why i asked if you returned the money.
do you have a breakdown of how much more money it will require to manage the return of 650 dollars?
Nah, you did a fine job of making your viewpoint clear. Just a different way of looking at the same thing.
Nope, but don't worry, the government is way on the plus side of the leger with me.
In '98 I got a letter from the IRS stating that I owed an additional $289 on my tax return. My return was done by an accountant who ASSURED me it was correct, and the IRS was in error. I mailed them the check; as would any sane person.
i know what you mean. i think everybody needs an agressive, creative, take no prisoners type of CPA. my guy is worth his weight in gold.
Let me make myself clear as to my belief: ALL government spending is wasteful. Some is necessary.
Limiting government spending to the necessary limits the wastefulness.
Wastefulness grows exponentially with the size of government.
i agree. it's what some people find necessary that i find interesting.
If you got one of them; better have a "conservative" one check him every now and then: it's your a$$ he's being aggressive with!
I-10 = Necessary
$650 for my Crappy Water = Not so Much
he doesn't have any control over my funds. no one should take that chance. but i do pay him generously. that's what keeps him creative. he takes care of everybody in our circle of friends, but i don't know their relationship with him regarding powers of attorney, it's none of my business, and i don't discuss these matters with my friends.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
