Jump to content

FEMA aid

Big girl

By Big girl
in Political Forum

 Share

Recommended Posts

Big girl

Big girl

Posted
  • Author
Posted
4 minutes ago, BS Wildcats said:

I didn't see anybody post that.  After being awol for a few weeks, we all can see you are still an idoit.

Is that the best response you could think of?  Every Republican on this forum should've had flood insurance since you guys dislike government assistance programs.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
BS Wildcats

BS Wildcats

Posted
Posted
4 minutes ago, Big girl said:

Is that the best response you could think of?  Every Republican on this forum should've had flood insurance since you guys dislike government assistance programs.

Do not need insurance if you are not in a flood zone.  Government entities set those flood plains.  Why spend the money if you are not required to.  You are so stupid, as you like to claim others are.  To many people abuse these programs you think so highly of, sound familiar.  If you need assistance after this catastrophic event, I'm glad it's there.  No need for you to attempt to politicize it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Big girl

Big girl

Posted
  • Author
Posted
4 minutes ago, BS Wildcats said:

Do not need insurance if you are not in a flood zone.  Government entities set those flood plains.  Why spend the money if you are not required to.  You are so stupid, as you like to claim others are.  To many people abuse these programs you think so highly of, sound familiar.  If you need assistance after this catastrophic event, I'm glad it's there.  No need for you to attempt to politicize it.

15 minutes ago, BS Wildcats said:

I didn't see anybody post that.  After being awol for a few weeks, we all can see you are still an idoit.

Is that the best response you could think of?  Every Republican on this forum should've had flood insurance since you guys dislike government assistance programs.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Big girl

Big girl

Posted
  • Author
Posted
4 minutes ago, BS Wildcats said:

Do not need insurance if you are not in a flood zone.  Government entities set those flood plains.  Why spend the money if you are not required to.  You are so stupid, as you like to claim others are.  To many people abuse these programs you think so highly of, sound familiar.  If you need assistance after this catastrophic event, I'm glad it's there.  No need for you to attempt to politicize it.

Ap

4 minutes ago, BS Wildcats said:

Do not need insurance if you are not in a flood zone.  Government entities set those flood plains.  Why spend the money if you are not required to.  You are so stupid, as you like to claim others are.  To many people abuse these programs you think so highly of, sound familiar.  If you need assistance after this catastrophic event, I'm glad it's there.  No need for you to attempt to politicize it.

16 minutes ago, BS Wildcats said:

I didn't see anybody post that.  After being awol for a few weeks, we all can see you are still an idoit.

Is that the best response you could think of?  Every Republican on this forum should've had flood insurance since you guys dislike government assistance programs.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
BS Wildcats

BS Wildcats

Posted
Posted
16 minutes ago, Big girl said:

So.....it is not ok to receive unemployment benefits in a time of need, but it is ok to get FEMA assistance.  Am I correct?

Receiving unemployment benefits is ok, as long as while you are getting them you are still trying to find work.  But if one is a sorry arse that doesn't want to work or attempt to find employment, then they deserve nothing.  Usually when one needs FEMA assistance, it is not of their doing.  Sometimes needing unemployment benefits is of ones own doing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
baddog

baddog

Posted
Posted

FEMA assistance during a catastrophe doesn't even begin to compare to the lazy arse bums who need lifelong assistance. I needed bread and water just like everybody else. It also helped pay to fix the man's truck who got me back to my house. I didn't work for over a week. Actually, I look at it as getting some of MY money back since I have paid in all my life. And it was a one shot Johnny. Huge difference....HUGE!!! You are what is wrong with this country's thinking. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
BS Wildcats

BS Wildcats

Posted
Posted
5 hours ago, baddog said:

FEMA assistance during a catastrophe doesn't even begin to compare to the lazy arse bums who need lifelong assistance. I needed bread and water just like everybody else. It also helped pay to fix the man's truck who got me back to my house. I didn't work for over a week. Actually, I look at it as getting some of MY money back since I have paid in all my life. And it was a one shot Johnny. Huge difference....HUGE!!! You are what is wrong with this country's thinking. 

She claims she is not a liberal on one hand, but on the other she has no problem with a government(obama admin)that wants to stick their noses in everyone's business.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
bullets13

bullets13

Posted
Posted

This was a once in however many thousand year event.  Houses that should've never been in danger of flooding received considerable damage.  For those people, I'm glad FEMA is available.  That being said, I know many families who live in Pinewood, Northwest Forest, Countrywood, and Bevil Oaks who did not have flood insurance.  Many of those homes flooded before, and if not, many houses around them did.  I have a hard time listening to friends who chose not to buy insurance gripe about having to wait for, not receiving enough of, or being denied for FEMA benefits.  To be honest, in SOME cases, where people knew that flooding was a danger but chose to forego flood insurance, Big Girl has a point.  Those people did not want to spend money to protect their house, and now expect the government to pay for their mistake.  That being said, I disagree with her attempt to throw all republicans needing FEMA under the bus.  Many, many people were affected by this storm who had no reason to believe they'd ever be in danger of flooding.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
stevenash

stevenash

Posted
Posted
12 hours ago, Big girl said:

Apparently,  it is good to be prepared. Just in case. I have flood insurance, and I don't live in a flood zone. It is inexpensive.

The reason it is inexpensive is because you dont live in a flood zone.  HOwever, when you compare it to the cost of Obamacare, you are right, it is very inexpensive.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Big girl

Big girl

Posted
  • Author
Posted
19 hours ago, BS Wildcats said:

Receiving unemployment benefits is ok, as long as while you are getting them you are still trying to find work.  But if one is a sorry arse that doesn't want to work or attempt to find employment, then they deserve nothing.  Usually when one needs FEMA assistance, it is not of their doing.  Sometimes needing unemployment benefits is of ones own doing.

One wouldnt need FEMA assistance if they were responsible and purchased insurance. Republicans, pull yourselves up by your bootstraps.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Big girl

Big girl

Posted
  • Author
Posted
8 hours ago, stevenash said:

The reason it is inexpensive is because you dont live in a flood zone.  HOwever, when you compare it to the cost of Obamacare, you are right, it is very inexpensive.

Exactly, so there is not any excuse not to have any. Health care expenses cost a lot. Thank God that people, especially those with pre-existing conditions can obtain coverage.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Big girl

Big girl

Posted
  • Author
Posted
11 hours ago, bullets13 said:

This was a once in however many thousand year event.  Houses that should've never been in danger of flooding received considerable damage.  For those people, I'm glad FEMA is available.  That being said, I know many families who live in Pinewood, Northwest Forest, Countrywood, and Bevil Oaks who did not have flood insurance.  Many of those homes flooded before, and if not, many houses around them did.  I have a hard time listening to friends who chose not to buy insurance gripe about having to wait for, not receiving enough of, or being denied for FEMA benefits.  To be honest, in SOME cases, where people knew that flooding was a danger but chose to forego flood insurance, Big Girl has a point.  Those people did not want to spend money to protect their house, and now expect the government to pay for their mistake.  That being said, I disagree with her attempt to throw all republicans needing FEMA under the bus.  Many, many people were affected by this storm who had no reason to believe they'd ever be in danger of flooding.

I don't have a problem with people receiving FEMA assistance, except for those Republicans who abhor federal Aid, (unless they need it). They are being hypocritical.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Big girl

Big girl

Posted
  • Author
Posted
14 hours ago, BS Wildcats said:

She claims she is not a liberal on one hand, but on the other she has no problem with a government(obama admin)that wants to stick their noses in everyone's business.

You don't mind them sticking their nose in your business, at this time, because you need that FEMA check. I am sure the reps asked a lot of questions.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Big girl

Big girl

Posted
  • Author
Posted
19 hours ago, baddog said:

FEMA assistance during a catastrophe doesn't even begin to compare to the lazy arse bums who need lifelong assistance. I needed bread and water just like everybody else. It also helped pay to fix the man's truck who got me back to my house. I didn't work for over a week. Actually, I look at it as getting some of MY money back since I have paid in all my life. And it was a one shot Johnny. Huge difference....HUGE!!! You are what is wrong with this country's thinking. 

You can only get TANF for 5 years. So, what were you saying about lifetime aid? Pull yourself up by your own boot strap, dude.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
 Share
Go to topic listing

  • Member Statistics

    46,201
    Total Members
    1,837
    Most Online
    JBarry68
    Newest Member
    JBarry68
    Joined


  • Posts

    • TxHoops
      Susan Smith

      By TxHoops · Posted

      I don’t benefit from it, that’s not my area.  But the average cost to imprison someone is around $15k per year (on average in the US) and capital cases cost somewhere between $1.5-$3M with over half being overturned or reduced to life in prison anyway.  These numbers may be inflated since the last report I read but I’m sure it would be on both sides and higher on the DP side if anything. So what’s the point?  We feel better because we got to return the favor on someone (hopefully) who committed a heinous crime?  And I don’t know I can say we have “complicated” it. Which appeal should we cut out?  Our justice system has a pecking order and we have higher courts for a reason. When we are about to impose the ultimate judgment, should we cut steps that other cases have to save a buck?  Or do we not pay for an indigent person’s experts at the trial court level because it’s too expensive? Or do we just lock them up and throw away the key (unless we later find out they weren’t actually guilty, in which case we have a key and a life we haven’t unjustly ended) and save a ton of money?  Seems to me to be an easy and obvious solution but I’m more of a pragmatist.
    • setxathlete14
      2024 WOS Mustangs

      By setxathlete14 · Posted

      1 thing for certain. Coach Earned 3 more years to figure it out lol
    • Reagan
      Trump Wins

      By Reagan · Posted

      AMEN!
    • Reagan
      JoeBama Administration Gives NGOs Millions To Facilitate Immigration Invasion!

      By Reagan · Posted

      @CIS_org National Security Senior Fellow @BensmanTodd tells Steve Bannon how the U.S. State Department and USAID have been sending American taxpayer funds to religious nonprofits to facilitate mass immigration to our southern border. Bensman says 248 nonprofits are participating in the United Nations’ 2024 agenda to distribute $1.6 billion in cash, transportation, food, and shelter to U.S.-bound immigrants across Mexico and Latin America.
    • SmashMouth
      2024 WOS Mustangs

      By SmashMouth · Posted

      👍 Oh. I was thinking most thought Wrong Place Wrong Time. Lol. 

  • Topics

×
×
  • Create New...