KIT, Riiiiiigt, NONE of these laws existed under Republican administrations. Sure, I believe that. Are you freakin' nuts Keith? As a matter of fact I'm just positive that all the laws we are discussing came into effect since Jan. 20th 2009. Want to buy some ocean-front property in Nevada?
On Jul 26, 10:33 am, Keith In Tampa <[email protected]> wrote: > The irony of this thread, is that Holly supports the politicians who > advocate these kinds of laws, (e.g.; the Democrat Party!!) yet bitches about > it when it effects his own brood. > > Irony? Or Ignorance? > > You be the judge!!! > > On Sun, Jul 26, 2009 at 11:30 AM, Keith In Tampa > <[email protected]>wrote: > > > > > You are exactly correct Perp, at least here in Florida. The SR-22, as well > > as the insurance penalty, is required only if you don't turn in your tags > > after being uninsured. This had to have been the case with Holly's son, and > > I wasn't going to berate the point. > > > I actually agree with Holly on this issue, the law, even though well > > intentioned, is a bad law, and benefits the insurance companies, thereby > > hurting those individuals of lower socio-economic status. > > > Kind of like the bankruptcy laws now.....I think it is a bit over $1000.00 > > in filing fees now in federal court to file for protection..... > > > The family law cases that I see frequently, have those who are dealing with > > Florida's Department of Children, literally jumping through hoops, that no > > middle class individual could accomplish, much less an individual without a > > vehicle. By example, some of these individuals are required to take a bus, > > (of course the State furnishes them bus passes) across town, that would > > entail a day's travel, to attend some class at night that is thirty miles > > from their home. I posed this question to a Court not too long ago, that > > of all the individuals sitting in the courtroom, all with juris-doctorates, > > none of the individuals could accomplish the case plan that had been laid > > out by the Department of Children and Families for a black woman with no > > vehicle and who worked approximately 30 hours a week in a fast food > > restaurant with three kids to support. > > > Like I said last night, there are countless examples of bad laws that prey > > upon the poor and downtrodden. These insurance laws are but one example. > > > On Sun, Jul 26, 2009 at 11:22 AM, Perplexed > > <[email protected]>wrote: > > >> What difference does that make? > >> ------------ > >> Umm...a huge one. Read your state's law. Only drivers and those who > >> own cars are required to have insurance. If someone doesn't own a car > >> and doesn't have insurance, they can't be penalized for going without > >> it for a time period. > > >>http://dor.mo.gov/mvdl/drivers/insurinfo.htm > > >> I would check into it. It doesn't appear that it's legal for them to > >> punish him if he wasn't driving during that time period and didn't own > >> a car. They can stiff him for 3 years with those SR22 rates on this > >> if he doesn't fight it. > > >> On Jul 26, 9:45 am, Hollywood <[email protected]> wrote: > >> > Perp, > > >> > What difference does that make? He is not being punished for not > >> > driving, he is being "punished" for not buying car insurance for 6 > >> > consequetive months. In fact he was NOT driving for most of those 6 > >> > months as he had been in a bad accident and was in a wheelchair for > >> > much of the time. > > >> > On Jul 25, 11:34 pm, Perplexed <[email protected]> wrote: > > >> > > How did his insurance company know he was driving for the months he > >> > > was driving your car? Can he not just say "I wasn't driving"? > > >> > > On Jul 26, 12:15 am, Hollywood <[email protected]> wrote: > > >> > > > Perp, > > >> > > > Nope, his driving record is perfectly clean. Only thing he did > >> "wrong" > >> > > > is to not have car insurance for 6 consecutive months as he was > >> > > > driving a car owned, registered and insured by me. I could be wrong > >> > > > about him actually having to file an SR-22 but the RATES he will > >> have > >> > > > to pay are the same as a driver that has had to. That was my point, > >> > > > having to pay the same rates as one who did have a bad driving > >> record. > > >> > > > On Jul 25, 10:46 pm, Perplexed <[email protected]> wrote: > > >> > > > > That's weird. Here you have to do something wrong to have to file > >> an > >> > > > > SR22 (like a DUI or uninsured accident). I'd check with your BMV. > > >> > > > > On Jul 24, 2:41 pm, Hollywood <[email protected]> > >> wrote: > > >> > > > > > Little incident happened today that makes me furious and I'll be > >> > > > > > damned if I can think of any excuse/justification other than > >> plain old > >> > > > > > fashioned greed on the part of insurance companies. > >> > > > > > My oldest son is just now recovering from an extended period of > >> > > > > > unemployment bad enough that he had to return a new Jag that he > >> could > >> > > > > > no longer afford. I loaned him an old 4-wheel drive I kept for > >> fishing > >> > > > > > trips. I, of course ,had it licensed and insured in my own name. > >> > > > > > He recently started a decent job and was going to buy a used > >> Malibu I > >> > > > > > loaned him the money to buy. He called the insurance agent he'd > >> had > >> > > > > > for years to check on the insurance rate for it and was told he > >> would > >> > > > > > have to file what is called an SR-22 and would have to pay high > >> risk > >> > > > > > rates, the same as if he'd had multiple chargeable accidents, > >> moving > >> > > > > > violations and/or even a DUI! Why, he quite reasonably asked. He > >> was > >> > > > > > told it was because he had not had auto insurance for more than > >> 6 > >> > > > > > consecutive months. That's it! > >> > > > > > He had been driving with the same driver's license, had received > >> no > >> > > > > > tickets, no accidents, no nothing. So far as his actions as a > >> safe > >> > > > > > driver were concerned nothing whatsoever had changed. Why would > >> > > > > > someone who did not own a car have auto insurance? > >> > > > > > Conveniently, for the insurance companies, it is state law in > >> Missouri > >> > > > > > than one MUST have auto insurance. You can't even get your car > >> > > > > > licensed w/o showing proof of insurance and getting caught > >> driving w/o > >> > > > > > adequate insurance is a minimum of a $500.00 fine and the threat > >> of > >> > > > > > having your driver's license suspended. > > >> > > > > > Looks to me like a simple case of the insurance industry saying > >> "well, > >> > > > > > we are fucking you just because we can and there's not a damned > >> thing > >> > > > > > you can do about it". How many people in today's economy are > >> getting > >> > > > > > royally screwed like this I have to wonder?- Hide quoted text - > > >> > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > >> > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups. For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum * Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/ * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. * Read the latest breaking news, and more. -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
