I think the point Jamie is making is that as the government has already (foolishly in my opinion but let that bide) gotten itself into the flood insurance business it must (at least for now) pay out to those people who have signed contracts.
If we want to get the government out of the flood insurance business (which I do) we can do that but we must abide by the contracts of yesterday until such time as we can get out from under them. -Curt Date: Tue, 29 Jan 2013 23:15:50 -0600 From: Dieselhead <126die...@gmail.com> To: Mercedes Discussion List <mercedes@okiebenz.com> Subject: Re: [MBZ] OT Cold weather issues Message-ID: <a0624084bcd2e5cc2c402@[192.168.0.104]> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed" >The federal government should not be in the business of flood insurance. > If State Farm, etc wants to offer flood insurance they can be my guest. > > >On Tue, Jan 29, 2013 at 11:47 AM, Jaime Kopchinski <jaime...@gmail.com>wrote: > >> So you don't think the people who paid their flood insurance premiums > > should be paid for their loss? > > Exactly which of the enumerated powers in the US Constitution says "congress shall offer flood insurance?" _______________________________________ http://www.okiebenz.com For new and used parts go to www.okiebenz.com To search list archives http://www.okiebenz.com/archive/ To Unsubscribe or change delivery options go to: http://mail.okiebenz.com/mailman/listinfo/mercedes_okiebenz.com
