Krispy Kreme blasts Boehner and GOP House do-nothings

I was only criticizing Timpage's idiotic headline. He needs to think this stuff out. Originally Posted by JD Barleycorn

Christie is pissed that the Speaker is scared of the Tea Nuts. For good reason, the longer they wait on passing this bill the better the chances Christie will get less and less of what he wants.

The OP made a good point, IMHO.

No different than you wanting to cut government spending and then not wanting to cut Defense spending! You and Christie have hypocrisy in common!

You guys from Texas really hate the rest of us, particularly those of us from the East. Even a nitwit understands that Sandy devastated one of the most densely populated areas of the country, and that Ike hit a significantly less populated region, so you have to attribute the bile and selfishness to something more basic, like regional bias.

There has, and always will be, a tension between doing what is right for the country and doing what is right for your region. As long as federal relief funds are available every governor, senator and congressman has a duty to seek and secure that aid, aid that his or her constituents have paid taxes to fund. To criticize Christie or the NY R's who railed at Boehner's fecklessness is criticizing them for supporting their own people who have lost every thing.

And what this shows you about the Tea Party, and a lot of Texans, is that they are not your friends. They would have the people of North Jersey and New York rot because of a selfish, anti-republic philosophy.

I heard a Rush Limbaugh piece that proved how empty and foolish he is. He criticized Obama for going to New Jersey after Sandy, calling it pure politics and arguing that he should have stayed in Washington. I immediately thought of that poor sad sack of a Texan, George Bush, who was excoriated for not showing up in Louisiana after Katrina and sending Brownie as his missive. Obama learns a lesson on what not to do following a disaster and Rush denigrates it as politics and vote seeking. You just can't win even when you do the correct (not right) thing.

The Senate is afraid of the (Tea Party)? Where do you come up with that? The democratic Senate passed a bill laden with pork. Billions of pork! They either did not want the GOP to accept this and vote it down which they did or they are so corrupt that they use every opportunity to rip off the people. So which is it? The democrats are playing politics with people's lives or they are just crooked.

got a link so we can see all the pork?

The Senate is afraid of the (Tea Party)? Where do you come up with that? The democratic Senate passed a bill laden with pork. Billions of pork! They either did not want the GOP to accept this and vote it down which they did or they are so corrupt that they use every opportunity to rip off the people. So which is it? The democrats are playing politics with people's lives or they are just crooked. Originally Posted by JD Barleycorn

The Speaker of the House did not bring it up for vote. Read exactly wtf Christie said. Follow the bouncing ball JD. It isn't that hard.

got a link so we can see all the pork? Originally Posted by i'va biggen

Guess who's showcase some might recommed.

I was only criticizing Timpage's idiotic headline. He needs to think this stuff out. Originally Posted by JD Barleycorn

It says exactly what I intended it to say and you seem to be the only dumbass having a problem comprehending it. Why am I not surprised?

A good example of why the federal government should get out of the flood insurance business. Most of the financial cost of this should have been handled by private insurance and the feds should not need to pass billions of dollars in aid package.

I have read that the senate package was loaded with pork. I hope that the house would not consider bills like that anymore. The problems we have are because of business as usual. It sickens me every time I hear Obama talk about old policies that were what drove us into the ditch and he is as bad as or worse than any of his predecessors in continuing those policies. The republicans and democrats in Congress for the most part are just as guilty. Originally Posted by Laz

Private insurance carriers don't offer flood insurance because the risk pool is too small to make a profit on it. Not that many people need flood insurance and if the private carriers offered it, the premiums would be so outrageous, very few would be able to afford it. Do you seriously think that the predatory insurance companies wouldn't be all over flood insurance coverage if they could make the millions in profits on it as they do in other risk coverage services?

Private insurance carriers don't offer flood insurance because the risk pool is too small to make a profit on it. Not that many people need flood insurance and if the private carriers offered it, the premiums would be so outrageous, very few would be able to afford it. Do you seriously think that the predatory insurance companies wouldn't be all over flood insurance coverage if they could make the millions in profits on it as they do in other risk coverage services? Originally Posted by timpage

That is the whole point. If you want to live in a flood zone either accept the risk that you can lose everything or be able to afford the insurance. The government subsidizing it simply makes everyone else pay for those that choose to live in a risky area. Why should anyone else have to pay for those bad decisions.

While I agree that the insurance would be more expensive it would be available. Insurance companies insure all kinds of things not just high volume items and the market for flood insurance is plenty big enough for them to take the business.

That is the whole point. If you want to live in a flood zone either accept the risk that you can lose everything or be able to afford the insurance. The government subsidizing it simply makes everyone else pay for those that choose to live in a risky area. Why should anyone else have to pay for those bad decisions.

While I agree that the insurance would be more expensive it would be available. Insurance companies insure all kinds of things not just high volume items and the market for flood insurance is plenty big enough for them to take the business. Originally Posted by Laz

The point is there is no private insurance available and you indicated in your post that is who should be taking care of the flood damage rather than the government. If you want to change the equation and just say, well, nobody should live near the ocean or a river, we can do that I suppose.

We could evacuate the US coastlines, the Mississippi River delta and all other locations at risk for a flood. Of course, by doing that, we'll decrease the private insurance risk pool to the point that it will increase any private insurance premiums to the point that virtually nobody can afford to live in those locations. Good plan!

And, if the market for flood insurance is plenty big enough, then why isn't there one? Again, do you think the insurance companies would not be jumping on this market for flood insurance that you say exists if, in fact, it did exist? Carriers won't write the risk, they can't make any money on it.

sure wish you wouldnt have titled the thread Krispy Kreme ... my doughnut gland goes off everytime I see it.

And, if the market for flood insurance is plenty big enough, then why isn't there one? Again, do you think the insurance companies would not be jumping on this market for flood insurance that you say exists if, in fact, it did exist? Carriers won't write the risk, they can't make any money on it. Originally Posted by timpage

The reason there is not a private market for insurance is because the government does not allow it. If the government was not in that business the private sector would take over. Yes it would be more expensive without government subsidies but that is the price you pay if you want a beach front house. If you can't afford that then you can just live close to the beach where premiums are more affordable. The same thing applies to living close to a river.

snick

The reason there is not a private market for insurance is because the government does not allow it. If the government was not in that business the private sector would take over. Yes it would be more expensive without government subsidies but that is the price you pay if you want a beach front house. If you can't afford that then you can just live close to the beach where premiums are more affordable. The same thing applies to living close to a river. Originally Posted by Laz

What would happen is that the price of land in those regions would drop. People would build much more structurally sound homes and the housing market would probably tank in high risk regions like San Fran, the gulf coast and tornado alley.

Now there is an argument to be made that the tax revenue generated by the building on these sites more than offsets the Fed disaster relief. Not sure I would buy that argument but that is the one folks make.

I actually for the Feds getting out of the Insurance business. Why do you think we had the banking bubble if not for the banks knowing the government would bail them out.

Get the government out and let the market decide. Hmmm . . . That crazy idea

JUST MIGHT WORK!!