PLEASE NOTE: The Reality TV World Message Boards are filled with desperate
attention-seekers pretending to be one big happy PG/PG13-rated family. Don't
be fooled. Trying to get everyone to agree with you is like herding cats,
but intolerance for other viewpoints is NOT welcome and respect for other
posters IS required at all times. Jump in and play, and you'll soon find out
how easy it is to fit in, but save your drama for your mama. All members are
encouraged to read the
complete guidelines.
As entertainment critic Roger
Ebert once said, "If you disagree with something I write, tell me so, argue
with me, correct me--but don't tell me to shut up. That's not the American way."
AyaK 10426 desperate attention whore postings DAW Level: "Playboy Centerfold"
01-04-13, 07:45 PM (EST)
233. "RE: House declines to vote o..."
LAST EDITED ON 01-04-13 AT 07:46 PM (EST)
Haven't been around much, but I want to weigh in on this.
I'm completely against Congress offering flood insurance.
COMPLETELY.
Flood insurance isn't insurance. It's a subsidy to help people live in areas where catastrophic events are likely. Basically, it's a wealth transfer from people who live in safe places to people who live in unsafe places like ocean shorelines and river banks, places where no one would choose to live in a country that didn't subsidize their imprudent decisions with other people's money.
HOWEVER, it's counterproductive to cut off the subsidy program when there are people who were depending on it and who have made claims against it. Instead, the right way to cut the program off is prospectively -- that is: after <fixed date>, the U.S. government will no longer subsidize your living choices.
It would have helped if the White House hadn't insisted that the fiscal cliff deal include the entire Baucus "extenders" bill, which is full of corporate lard for both parties' preferred constituencies. Without the extenders bill, voting prospectively to delete flood insurance looks principled. With the extenders bill, though, no Congressional vote to cut a single program looks principled. I'm presuming that's what Obama wanted.
p l a c e h o l d e r t e x t g o e s h e r e - p l a c e h o l d e r t e x t g o e s h e r e - p l a c e h o l d e r t e x t g o e s h e r e -
p l a c e h o l d e r t e x t g o e s h e r e - p l a c e h o l d e r t e x t g o e s h e r e - p l a c e h o l d e r t e x t g o e s h e r e -
p l a c e h o l d e r t e x t g o e s h e r e - p l a c e h o l d e r t e x t g o e s h e r e - p l a c e h o l d e r t e x t g o e s h e r e -
p l a c e h o l d e r t e x t g o e s h e r e - p l a c e h o l d e r t e x t g o e s h e r e - p l a c e h o l d e r t e x t g o e s h e r e -