Sigh. What part of “…no matter how noble the cause may be” did you have trouble comprehending?
How very nanny state. How very liberal. How revolting.
And mind you, I didn’t even touch on the fact that there is no Constitutional authority for the federal government to provide a penny of welfare to anyone. That’s a whole 'nother can of worms.
Go and read up on the Constitution and tell us all where it says that the U. S. Government has the legal authority to sell insurance, or to provide welfare. Big hint - it isn’t the General Welfare clause.
I’ll repeat - what part of the Constitution enables the U. S. Government to sell insurance?
But once you’ve agreed to sell it, don’t you have an obligation to pay it off?
Nanny state? Insurance premiums were paid for a reason. These people were going to be getting ripped-off by the government if the no vote succeeded. They paid in their money and now that they need to avail themselves of the thing they were paying for, you and your ilk say … fuck you welfare queens, we got ours!
How very neo-con. How very Clothahump.
Once the government has SOLD insurance, it seems a bit disingenuous to argue that they didn’'t have the right to do in the past so and THEREFORE, they don’t need to pay out the claims, even after they’ve collected the premiums! I mean, this simply flys in the face of common sense. In short, it is a really, really stupid argument.
Why is it that meeting financial obligations seems to be an anathema to certain conservatives?
In other news, certain tea-party politicians seem to think that it’s just fine and dandy to approve a budget, spend the money, and then when it comes time to pay the bill, simply reneg on it. What sort of reasoning goes into this? Why do conservatives (like Clothing-hump here) think that it is just dandy for the government to reneg on their business obligations?
Because it isn’t written that you can’t in the constitution, apparently.
Tough nuts. What’s done is done. The time to prevent the government from paying out insurance claims is before the insurance is sold, not after.
The concept of implied powers as applied to the Constitution is over 200 years old, dumbfuck. Take it up with Alexander Hamilton.
Now are you going to address the moral obligation of the government to pay up for claims for policies they have been receiving premiums for?
Cotton graduated from Harvard and he’s been around much of the world. I suspect avarice instead of incompetence. I believe he harbors ambitions for higher office, and I can only hope he’s already committed to too much crazy to ruin his chances at a run for anything bigger than Representative.
This is the Bill Gates (on the simpsons) method of financial success. “I didn’t get rich by writing a lot of checks.”
Oh, wow. You tried to make a funny on my user name. I guess you think that means you’re all brilliant and shit. It just means you’re a jackass.
Yes, I realize that the government has been illegally functioning as an insurance agency. However, insurance agencies have things called reserve funds that are used to pay out claims. If we’re going to close our eyes to the illegality of it being done in the first place, then we should question why wasn’t a reserve fund established?
That is not illegal, actually. It’s all part of promoting the general welfare.
You can’t trust that government to do anything. Next thing you know, they’ll be providing health insurance to old people. My word!
Hey, not doing that is the business model for his new company.
You know, I’m pretty sure I’ve typed these exact words before, but every time I don’t think Clothahump could get any more reprehensible, vile, and just flat out retarded, he manages to top himself. I can’t think of anyone else who has managed this.
Could you connect us to your first post warning of the illegality of Federal Flood Insurance? Obviously, it’s in a far older thread than this one.
Please note: Most of my area’s Republican congressmen voted YES. They are a pretty conservative bunch–but know what’s good for their constituents. All of them–home owners, conscientious renters & big-time developers; all of whom need flood insurance.
Two exceptions. One the idiot teabagger I mentioned before. And another from College Station, bless his heart…
And the solution to that is to instead illegally collect funds under false pretenses. Brilliant!
Interestingly enough, 6 months ago, only 14 Reps voted NO on the bill (introduced by a Republican) that extended the Flood Insurance program for another 5 years.
So, they pass legislation authorizing the existence of this insurance, then refuse to fund it. Republican Fiscal Responsibility at its finest.
Quite illegally, I might add.