No, flood insurance is for property. There are lives at stake here from a natural disaster, that's entirely different from property.
Y'all sound like a couple of liberals. if you want to help, write a check. Why has the gubmint got to be involved in it? And if we really want to help, let's just get the gubmint to buy everyone flood insurance.
Sure, let's just let folks suffer with no help. Way to go, Scrooge.
No, flood insurance is for property. There are lives at stake here from a natural disaster, that's entirely different from property.
Well, if being comfortable with my tax dollars being spent on disaster relief (even though they could do a better job with it, but that's another post) makes me a liberal, then great. Call me one, too.
I'd rather sound like a bleeding heart liberal than a cold-hearted tight fisted jerk like you.
I believe the gubmint already runs their own flood insurance program..
I hear what you're saying, and I'll even stipulate that the Constitution does not authorize those types of expenditures.
That said, is this the issue we want to choose as a case in point? When there are so many other more egregious uses of taxpayer funds?
So you think that people who are too poor to evacuate should just be left without help from anyone in law enforcement or the government?
Because that is the post I was responding to.
And if that is your attitude, I think it's despicable.
I'd bet you didn't feel that way on 9-11, did you?
Should the government have stayed out of that, too?
You were right there at Ground Zero, Huck; how can you be so cruel to these people?