Here’s a radical idea – Sen. Bunning can stand up in the Senate, give a speech, try and persuade 50 other senators to not vote for a bill that isn’t funded, and see what happens.
He didn’t “grow a set” like one of the earlier postings said – he’s using an obscure procedural rule to block a vote instead of letting all senators weigh in and then defend their record at re-election time.
That isn’t courage, ethics, integrity or whatever. It’s called extortion.
I just have to say there are several problems…banks require flood to give loans specifically because their lawyers say to…so it can’t be waived when you’re trying to close on a house you just bought or sold…and hope this all gets straight so those that bought or sold can close in time to still get their $6500 or $8000…this could cause even more major issues for people…
Linda – If you are sick of not helping those less fortunate, than what’s stopping you from doing something yourself? I do my fair share and feel no guilt about the government’s failure to act. If we all did our fair share voluntarily, the government wouldn’t have to act.
Point well taken. I do as much as I can to volunteer. But I’m sure I could do more. I just hate to see people trying to find jobs and can’t. I feel fortunate to have a job. Most of these people don’t want a free ride they just want to survive until things get better.
Quote”I just have to say there are several problems…banks require flood to give loans specifically because their lawyers say to…”
Kind of. The lender is requiring flood insurance on houses in special flood hazard areas because …guess what…the government requires it! If the gov finds out a bank has a loan on a house in a SFHA and there isn’t insurance the bank gets fined $$$. During this time how does the gov require something that isn’t available?
I think the government should be helping people out with extended unemployment and Cobra benefits, so we don’t make a big problem worse when the market resources are scarce.
Exactly! It doesn’t make sense! Why do we have to “renew” the funding of a flood insurance program? We either have one or we don’t, and if we don’t, we need to ensure there is a market place substitute product. But you can’t undo one end and not the other. It makes no sense!
We have updated our privacy policy to be more clear and meet the new requirements of the GDPR. By continuing to use our site, you accept our revised Privacy Policy.
Here’s a radical idea – Sen. Bunning can stand up in the Senate, give a speech, try and persuade 50 other senators to not vote for a bill that isn’t funded, and see what happens.
He didn’t “grow a set” like one of the earlier postings said – he’s using an obscure procedural rule to block a vote instead of letting all senators weigh in and then defend their record at re-election time.
That isn’t courage, ethics, integrity or whatever. It’s called extortion.
I just have to say there are several problems…banks require flood to give loans specifically because their lawyers say to…so it can’t be waived when you’re trying to close on a house you just bought or sold…and hope this all gets straight so those that bought or sold can close in time to still get their $6500 or $8000…this could cause even more major issues for people…
Vote out incumbents, They will tell you what you want to hear to get elected.The candidate that tells the truth is to painful to elect.
Obscure? It’s the law. Senators should know the law. Just because you’re clueless doesn’t mean senators are.
Imagine, a lawmaker enforcing the law!!!
Linda – If you are sick of not helping those less fortunate, than what’s stopping you from doing something yourself? I do my fair share and feel no guilt about the government’s failure to act. If we all did our fair share voluntarily, the government wouldn’t have to act.
Point well taken. I do as much as I can to volunteer. But I’m sure I could do more. I just hate to see people trying to find jobs and can’t. I feel fortunate to have a job. Most of these people don’t want a free ride they just want to survive until things get better.
Quote”I just have to say there are several problems…banks require flood to give loans specifically because their lawyers say to…”
Kind of. The lender is requiring flood insurance on houses in special flood hazard areas because …guess what…the government requires it! If the gov finds out a bank has a loan on a house in a SFHA and there isn’t insurance the bank gets fined $$$. During this time how does the gov require something that isn’t available?
If you don’t pull your own weight, then we’ll have to.
I think the government should be helping people out with extended unemployment and Cobra benefits, so we don’t make a big problem worse when the market resources are scarce.
Exactly! It doesn’t make sense! Why do we have to “renew” the funding of a flood insurance program? We either have one or we don’t, and if we don’t, we need to ensure there is a market place substitute product. But you can’t undo one end and not the other. It makes no sense!