Ron Paul: No Federal Financial Aid for Tornado Victims

In the eyes of Ron Paul voters

The logical thing to do is this

If you're living in a tornado area or a place where there is a high risk of natural disasters then you should move! You should leave your job behind, take your kids out of school and relocate to another state where there is no risk of any natural disaster happening, since you know...you're too poor to afford any kind of insurance. Then once when you're living in your new place and you can't find a job then that's too bad! You' won't be getting any help with food to feed your family.

Originally posted by liejunkie01
reply to post by DISINFORMANT

 

Your whole comment is moot because I never said I am purchasing a home.

I like millions of other americans are renting.

Also if the land lord pays the insurance, do they not get the check?

I believe that you have to have renter's insurance.

If you feel like "schooling" me more, could you provide links for your info next time.

edit on 4-3-2012 by liejunkie01 because: (no reason given)

You're right, the landlord would get the insurance check, with which to put the renter up in a hotel or another home until repairs are done, and to pay for (at least a portion of) said repairs. At least that's how it works here in Oregon.

And you don't "have to" have renter's insurance, but it's a good idea. Last time I checked it was one of the cheapest types of insurance you can buy versus what it can cover (compared to auto insurance, or health insurance, for example)

reply to post by DISINFORMANT

Landlords: Most landlord’s insurance policies cover only the landlord’s building and do not cover the tenant’s personal property. No Illinois law requires landlords to have insurance, (although any landlord without insurance is probably crazy). Illinois law does impose insurance disclosure requirements on certain landlords.

Tenants: Unless a landlord is somehow negligent or responsible for the casualty that resulted in damage to a tenant’s personal property, a landlord’s policy will usually not cover the damage. Many tenants do not think about getting insurance on their personal property until it is too late. A “renter’s insurance policy” is not that expensive and can provide a tenant with peace of mind and possibly protect the tenant from other liability (such as if their dog bites someone or someone gets inured in the unit, as most renter’s insurance policies have general liability coverage as well). Tenants would be well advised to contact an insurance agent to discuss renter’s insurance (here’s a little plug for my father’s insurance agency, AFC Insurance Agency Ltd.)

chicagoeviction.com/2011/04/illinois-landlord-tenant-insurance-requi rements/

The land owner does not have to do anything to help you.

reply to post by liejunkie01


Is that the only source you have? Seriously I could of wrote something similar with a good headline, and 4 paragraphs that really don't say much. That source you posted is straight garbage, and I can't believe people are thinking something this rudimentary is going to be a bad thing for RP. He does have a point, just like people here in Cali have Earthquake insurance, and flood/landslide insurance.

Originally posted by liejunkie01
reply to post by TheLieWeLive

 

I respect you views TheLieWe Live.

I enjoy reading your posts.

I do think that as citizens we should come first, above any other nation or people. Then what we have left at the end of the day can be used to help other countries.

I am not asking for a handout, but I do not see a problem with helping out our countryman.

By the way the $1.8 billion dollars for FEMA is hardly breaking the bank. I believe that more there are bigger fish to fry if you want to talk about budget (fiscal) responsibility.

edit on 4-3-2012 by liejunkie01 because: spelling

We should help our fellow countryman. We just need to learn to keep the Federal Government out of the middle while we do it though. I don't think it's wise depending on the Federal Government as much as we do. There is nothing the state can't take care of as long as the Federal Government steps back and allows them to.
The State Governor has the power of the President but rarely enough tax money to help it's own state in a disaster. Why is this?

I would be more comfortable seeing my wage deductions going more to my State than I would the Federal Government. I think this would allow us way more control on how our taxes are spent and what they are spent on.

We do have bigger fish to fry fiscally but we have to start somewhere. We can start by taking the credit card away from the Federal Government.

I come to ATS for different opinions and all opinions are welcome. Sometimes I overreact but I am overall just being human. I enjoy reading yours and others comments even if I don't fully agree all the time. This is why we are here right? To share our opinions and to learn from one another.

reply to post by KonquestAbySS

Is that the only source you have?

It is the source of this thread. Is that not good enough?

Seriously I could of wrote something similar with a good headline, and 4 paragraphs that really don't say much.

If you wanted to refute anything in said article you could have done a much better job in debunking the article such as links on information that contradicts what the article says.

That source you posted is straight garbage, and I can't believe people are thinking something this rudimentary is going to be a bad thing for RP.

While I do not necessarily like Yahoo's reporting, It is what I have to deal with because it is what the girlfriend likes.

The way I see it, is that RP is a politician, that is bad enough

He does have a point, just like people here in Cali have Earthquake insurance, and flood/landslide insurance.

And how is that going for all of you in Cali?

So,

Now everybody is jumpimg on the insurance bandwagon?

Are they not part of the problem?

Do you currently work for an insurance company, because all I read is propaganda.

No, I don't work for an insurance agency, and yes there's tons of corruption within that industry. I LOVE how advocating responsibility equates to being employed by an insurance agency.

However, having said that I do have enough sense to a) not live in a disaster prone area b) insure my assets (making sure to READ IN FULL what is including and what is not included, and if need be get additional coverage). If I do not have enough money to insure my stuff, then guess what, it's my risk. It's the same reason why I insure my car. I could just drive around without insurance hoping nothing happened, but if I crash my car the Federal government isn't going to come help me out... Why is there any difference? Oh because it's a home or business? Shouldn't that be more of a reason to insure?

When you live in a part of the country, called Tornado Alley, why wouldn't you want to cover all assets? If not, then you are basically banking on Federal Aid to kick in the event that something should happen. Why even live there? Why risk your life?

If the Federal Government can forcefully mandate health insurance and fine you for not having it (Obama Care, Romney Care) then shouldn't the same be said about home insurance in disaster prone areas? I'm asking the Obama supporters this one. If you support Obama care, then how could you not support mandated home insurance in disaster prone areas?

It's a rhetorical question really. I disagree with Obama Care, and I disagree with any forced insurance; If you want to live a risky lifestyle, OTHERS SHOULD NOT HAVE TO PAY THE BILL. If you can't afford insurance for your house, then why own a home? Rent an apartment.

Here's the real question:

What ever happened to Americans helping out Americans through charity?

Why does everything have to be forced by our Government? I'm willing to bet there are millions of Americans that want to help out in any way they can for those affected by the disaster. But no, everyone calls for the government to handle it and scorns anyone who questions this mentality.

I wonder, what "private contractors" are going to benefit from this....

Again, though. Seems everyone missed my point in my original post. I support helping out those in need in our country more so then spending money on wars, foreign aid, so on. If there was a check off box on my tax returns where I would prefer my money to be spent, it would be on domestic aid. People should have a choice on where there tax dollars are spent.

Originally posted by liejunkie01The land owner does not have to do anything to help you.

The landlord doesn't have to replace your property but should the dwelling be destroyed or rendered uninhabitable he must in most cases provide you with reimbursement for any unexecuted portion of the contract already paid and suspend all/all future rent payments until such time the dwelling is repaired and made inhabitable. That is the minimum remedy.

However, as a Soldier I rented many homes and a renter policy grouped with my Auto on USAA was about 5.00 a month and covered not only the replacement value of all property but any temporary lodging expenses that were incurred to the rental dwelling becoming uninhabitable even covered loss of food should electric go out and a hotel should required services (water electric etc) were interrupted for like 72 hours or more.

Not having a rental policy is stupid and lazy.

Now as a property owner and having been a landlord as well a comprehensive rider to your homeowners for an additional 5.00 or so covered my tenants expenses as well should for reasons not related to negligence they had to be rehoused for a period of time pending repairs.

So either way I was covered...

If you don't have 5.00 to spend for insurance and you have the internet I'd say it's all about priorities then.

ETA: Yep here it is for you all in black and white...

Disaster Legal Services Manual Housing Issues

Question #2: If the premises are totally uninhabitable because of the disaster, do
I have to permanently move out even though I want to stay?

You must move out if the dwelling is totally destroyed, and it is unlawful to remain in the home. However, the landlord may agree to keep the lease in force while the dwelling is being repaired. Most landlords should be willing to keep the lease in force and suspend all rent payments if the tenant does not stay in the dwelling while the landlord is trying to repairor restore the damage from the disaster. In major repair situations, the landlord usually wants the premises empty for efficient repair and avoidance of personal injury liability.If you would like to keep the lease in force and suspend all rent payments until the dwelling is repaired, you should discuss this with your landlord.


NOTE: Most leases have specific provisions that apply if the dwelling is totally or partially destroyed, and these provisions dictate the rights of the tenant and landlord. In addition, whether the dwelling is totally or partially destroyed is a question of fact that must be decided on a case-by-case basis.

Originally posted by liejunkie01
reply to post by NightGypsy

 

I agree, but this is the system we have.

Obvously it is not going to drastically change, so it is what we have to deal with.

For all of the people saying that we can make a difference, what happened to Occupy?

Well, I cannot argue that point.

As far as Occupy Movement goes, I'm afraid it's going to take more than people camping out on the streets for things to change in this country.

reply to post by TheLieWeLive

While I do not necessarily like Yahoo's reporting, It is what I have to deal with because it is what the girlfriend likes.

So your using a source that your girlfriend like? That doesn't say much about your research dependency. I would be irritated if my girl had to tell me what source of NEWS I had to like. I would of left her long time ago for making me believe what the MSM says.

The way I see it, is that RP is a politician, that is bad enough

Well that is the way you see it, is through the eyes of an MSM follower. People who independently do their own research, and don't buy into the poison see it differently.

And Cali? Well, for one thing the insurance isn't required, however; if you live in a hazard area like where floods or landslides are common then it would be a who of someone to buy insurance. Earthquakes are common but the houses here are pretty well built, unless we were to get hit by a Mag 7 which we haven't had in almost 20 years...

reply to post by Golf66

If you don't have 5.00 to spend for insurance and you have the internet I'd say it's all about priorities then.

I had renters insurance about 13 years ago. It was a $10,000 policy. I had to pay $25 a month an it did not cover tornadoes. That is extra around here.

Lazy, no.....Broke, yes...

The lazy remark was way out of line and it is obvious that since you served you are getting those perks, because obviously you are better than everyone else

Originally posted by muse7
In the eyes of Ron Paul voters

The logical thing to do is this

If you're living in a tornado area or a place where there is a high risk of natural disasters then you should move! You should leave your job behind, take your kids out of school and relocate to another state where there is no risk of any natural disaster happening, since you know...you're too poor to afford any kind of insurance. Then once when you're living in your new place and you can't find a job then that's too bad! You' won't be getting any help with food to feed your family.

Help with food? Food Kitchens, homeless shelters, churches are your best bet. Also, I bet if a family was starving and went door to door asking for a can good, they'd leave with a can good. Seems people forget about the charity of their neighbors these days...

If a person knocked on my door asking for a canned good, they'd leave with a bag filled with groceries. The problem is having Uncle Sam hold me at gun point telling me to give that family a canned good...

People have too little faith in their neighbors and too much faith in the Government these days.

reply to post by TheLieWeLive



reply to post by TheLieWeLive

I would be more comfortable seeing my wage deductions going more to my State than I would the Federal Government.

Hey, over here in Cali, we would be glad to take your money. While residing here, you will enjoy the whopping 9% sales tax that, strangely enough, never seems to be adequate.

reply to post by KonquestAbySS

So your using a source that your girlfriend like? That doesn't say much about your research dependency. I would be irritated if my girl had to tell me what source of NEWS I had to like. I would of left her long time ago for making me believe what the MSM says.

If you take the time to look at some of the threads I am interested in (including this one). It is kjnown that I do my research.....If you notice I have researched out many facts for this thread....

It is Yahoo home page......Not "Before it is News".

Nobody is making me believe anything.

As a matter of fact why are you replying to my thread without any links or facts refuting the story?

So I should believe your rhetoric over Yahoo

Well that is the way you see it, is through the eyes of an MSM follower. People who independently do their own research, and don't buy into the poison see it differently.

Again, your link states what?

Oh I forgot you did'nt post anything but opinions.

Also I believe I have stated several times on this thread that I think all politicians are crap.....every last one....

Please quit talking about research when you bring none in for the discussion.

reply to post by squidboy


Why should you have to be at the mercy of your neighbors when the government takes its taxes from your paycheck no matter how much you make! Why can't they provide a safety to at least help you feed your family?

reply to post by liejunkie01


You can honestly believe what you like, but dont think your going to spread the poison that easily. I honestly careless, because the way I see it the only purpose of this thread is for all the anti-paul people to blow off steam. Can I ask you something? Do you live in the areas where these Tornadoes are of abundance?

Originally posted by liejunkie01The lazy remark was way out of line and it is obvious that since you served you are getting those perks, because obviously you are better than everyone else

Many factors go into determining insurance premiums...

My ability to get low cost insurance is due to credit rating, age, marital status and other factors one of which was the percived dependability, impled trustworthyness and reliability of being a military officer.

However, many other professions get the same rating like police, firemen, even teachers...

I did not recieve any insurance through the military - lol!

I will stick with my original statements - I didn't say you were lazy ot stupid BTW.

I said In general not having insurance is lazy and stupid.

Originally posted by KonquestAbySS
reply to post by liejunkie01

 

You can honestly believe what you like, but dont think your going to spread the poison that easily. I honestly careless, because the way I see it the only purpose of this thread is for all the anti-paul people to blow off steam. Can I ask you something? Do you live in the areas where these Tornadoes are of abundance?

edit on 4-3-2012 by KonquestAbySS because: (no reason given)

To anwer your question.

Read the thread.

How many times have I stated where I live at... and also that I have personally lived through a life changing tornado.

This prooves that you are just out for stars.

You are obviously not paying attention and quite frankly I am through with this discussion. Unless you have something useful to add....

I could care less about RP. If you would have read the thread you would have noticed it by now. I believe that in the opening tread comment I said

Politicians of every make and model suck

So twist everything around so you can get some more shiny little stars from all of the cronies that are clueless.
I do not like to use the "troll" word, but damn man you have'nt even read the thread.

reply to post by liejunkie01


This disheartening and I was a proponent for Ron Paul.

If were going to go this route where your on your own, then I also don't want one red cent going to the Federal Government either for their empire adventures overseas.

I don't want one red cent drawn out of my paycheck either nor property taxes taking out, since it is not helping me either.

If were own our own, then the federal government should be on their own as well with not one red cent going to a politician, neither from me, nor from corporations or investment banks that buy them out.

Buying a politician or putting your propaganda on TV for the masses should warrant the death penalty.