If you were wondering how claims are handled in these situations, here
is an insight into the process. From experiences that I have been seen,

the insurance company will try anything to wriggle out paying a claim.


TMT


http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...05/09/11/AR200...



Claims Mark Recovery's Beginning
But Deciding How Much Damage Is Attributable to Floods May Get Tricky


By Justin Gillis and Amy Joyce
Washington Post Staff Writers
Monday, September 12, 2005


HATTIESBURG, Miss. -- As the immediate humanitarian crisis eases in the

Gulf Coast states, people are turning their attention to recovery, and
for the vast majority, the key to recovery is an insurance claim.


Insurance adjusters are flooding the region to cope with claims
expected to number in the millions. Homeowners across a huge swath of
the country now confront the most important financial moment of their
lives -- getting an insurer to keep its promise to make them whole
after a disaster. Some are likely to be caught up in a contentious
debate over how much of the hurricane's damage should be attributed to
flooding.


As an insurance man crawled around a roof the other day in the broiling

Mississippi sun, Eddie A. Holloway stood below in the kitchen, pointing

to strips of paint and plaster hanging from a giant hole in the ceiling

of a rental house he owns in Hattiesburg.


The house, in a poor section of town, was rendered uninhabitable by the

storm, and the tenants fled. "They're gone," he said, and so is his
income on the property, perhaps for weeks or months.


State Farm adjuster Curtis Rasmussen, fresh in town from Utah to handle

claims, crawled down a trembling stepladder toting a digital camera to
show Holloway the damage. Hurricane Katrina had stripped the roof bare,

and a new one would be required. On this modest house alone, 70 miles
from the Gulf of Mexico, State Farm will be writing a check for
thousands of dollars.


The scene will replay again and again across the region. Everywhere but

New Orleans, insurance adjusters are thick on the ground already --
stuffing hotels, grabbing anything that resembles office space, firing
up generators and pointing satellite dishes skyward in a desperate
attempt to get Internet access in a region where many people still lack

electricity. They are buoying spirits across three states with
immediate $2,500 and $5,000 checks to cover living expenses.


But the process of adjudicating several million claims has barely
begun, and Hurricane Katrina is already posing a vexing set of
insurance problems that will reach all the way to Washington. For
starters, much of the damage along the Gulf Coast was caused by a surge

of water that rose as high as 30 feet, the biggest storm surge ever
recorded in North America. That surge was technically a flood, even
though it was produced by a hurricane, and it is not covered by
standard homeowners' insurance.


Flood insurance has to be bought separately from the federal
government. Many people in New Orleans had it, and they are likely to
be made whole, though the payments are expected to send the
government's flood-insurance program into the red.


In Alabama and Mississippi, by contrast, many people did not have flood

coverage, and that is sowing the seeds of a potentially vast conflict
involving angry consumers, insurance companies, banks that write
mortgages, state regulators and lawmakers in Washington.


A huge fight may yet be averted if insurers succumb to political
pressure to attribute most of the region's damage to wind instead of
flooding -- a policy that regulators say could put some insurers at
risk of bankruptcy.


If the insurers enforce their policies as written, politicians are
going to find themselves coping with unhappy constituents throughout
the Gulf Coast who did not realize their damage would not be covered.
There is already talk of massive lawsuits and the need for wholesale
changes in the way federal flood insurance works.


"I had $60,000 worth of contents, and I thought I had it made," said
Dorice Mitchell, a 40-year resident of Pascagoula, Miss., who lost many

of his belongings when his house flooded. He walked away from a State
Farm catastrophe center empty-handed last week after learning his
policy won't help him. "They said it ain't worth a dime. No flood
insurance. I'm going to be living in apple crates."


Because the task of assessing damage has barely begun, nobody has a
clear idea how large insurance payouts will be. Preliminary forecasts
run as high as $60 billion, which would make Katrina far costlier than
Hurricane Andrew, the monster 1992 storm that walloped southern
Florida, Louisiana and Mississippi and led to insurance payments of
more than $20 billion in today's dollars. Andrew was a "dry hurricane"
that did not produce anything like the flooding associated with
Katrina.


Insurance companies will not offer estimates of their exposure, saying
it is simply too early to tell. But in this college town in
southeastern Mississippi, it is possible to get a preliminary sense of
the financial scope of the disaster.


Katrina did not fall below hurricane strength until the eye was near
Laurel, Miss., 30 miles northeast of Hattiesburg and 100 miles from the

Gulf of Mexico. The storm caused damage in a dozen states and reached
Canada before it weakened into insignificance. Katrina cut a
devastating path deep into central Mississippi, paralyzing the state
government in Jackson for days.


In regions so far inland they rarely see damage from tropical storms,
Katrina killed dozens of people, snapped electrical poles off at the
ground, drove tree limbs deep into houses, ripped open roofs, knocked
down barns and traumatized tens of thousands of people. As of Saturday,

more than 427,000 households in Louisiana and more than 162,000 in
Mississippi remained without power, according to the U.S. Department of

Energy.


Throughout the region, governments were struggling over the weekend to
restore basic services. Hundreds of thousands of people were still
living in shelters. Frenzied utility crews sweated in the hot sun,
swatting away bugs, to rebuild the region's electric grid.


State Farm, the nation's largest insurance carrier and also the largest

in the afflicted states, grabbed an old furniture store in Hattiesburg
right after the storm to set up a catastrophe center, and more than 100

adjusters are already operating out of it. State Farm, Allstate and
other insurers have also stuck vans with claims processors in the
parking lots of malls and Home Depot stores across the region.


The companies, whose policies generally reimburse people for temporary
living expenses caused by a disaster, are writing instantaneous checks
for policyholders forced out of their homes. "For some of them it's a
total surprise," said Daniel McNamara, who lives in Connecticut and
heads a Metropolitan Life Insurance Co. catastrophe team operating at
the Home Depot parking lot in Hattiesburg. "They're tickled pink."


Under a tent in a parking lot in Pascagoula last week, policyholders
waited to see State Farm representatives. Shondra Jefferson,
traumatized from watching people drown in the storm, left her 15-minute

meeting with State Farm clutching a $2,500 check. "My funds are
depleted," she said. She plans to use the money to patch her roof and
clear debris.


Consumer advocates who monitor insurance issues say this initial phase
of disaster response usually goes well.


"The insurance industry has learned that while the TV cameras are
rolling, it's good to put on your nice shirt and write some additional
living-expense checks for people," said J. Robert Hunter, former Texas
insurance commissioner and director of insurance at the Consumer
Federation of America in Washington. "It's nice theater. And in fact,
they owe the money. The trouble comes months later."


State Farm's temporary center in Hattiesburg will be ground zero for
handling claims from 13 Mississippi counties, not including the six
closest to the Gulf of Mexico. Randy May, who arrived from Denver after

the storm to head the operation, said his territory includes 24,000
homeowners with State Farm policies. By Friday afternoon, 8,505 of
those policyholders had already called to report claims, and 12 percent

of the cases were classified as having severe damage.


The insurers pride themselves on rapid response to catastrophes. When
Holloway, dean of students at the University of Southern Mississippi in

Hattiesburg, called State Farm to report damage to several of his
rental properties, he heard back from Rasmussen, the adjuster assigned
to two of his houses, within two hours. "I was totally surprised,"
Holloway said. "I'm most grateful for the immediate response."


Still, settling claims is often a laborious process that can involve
haggling over contractor estimates and over the value of a home's
contents, assuming they were destroyed. Particularly near the coast,
many people lost the very records that would let them document the
value of their contents. And demand for contractors will be sky high in

the disaster zone, slowing work.


The biggest debates are likely to come over whether homes near the
coast were destroyed by wind or flood.


Of the estimated 400,000 flooded properties in three coastal counties
of Mississippi -- Hancock, Harrison and Jackson -- just 21,600 had
flood-insurance policies, said George Dale, the Mississippi insurance
commissioner.


Though some flooded residents of Louisiana also lacked flood coverage,
that state is in better shape, according to figures from the Federal
Emergency Management Agency. As of September 2004, 376,681 flood
policies were in force in Louisiana, compared with 41,946 in
Mississippi and 41,336 in Alabama.


"All these people pay high insurance to live on the coast," Dale said.
"They think, 'Well it has never flooded before. I'm paying enough
already -- I don't need it.' "


Hunter, of the consumer group, said most coastal homes probably
suffered some wind damage before floodwaters destroyed them. But he
said insurers have a financial incentive to attribute as much of the
damage as possible to flooding, since they do not have to pay flood
claims.


Hunter called on state insurance departments to pressure the companies
to use windstorm modeling or other techniques to try to calculate how
badly homes in a given neighborhood were damaged by wind before the
water hit.


"What I'm afraid you'll see is, the policyholder has a $100,000 house
and the insurance companies will say, 'It's 5 percent wind damage,' "
Hunter said. " 'Here's $5,000; take it or leave it.' "

"Too_Many_Tools" wrote in message
oups.com...


If you were wondering how claims are handled in these situations, here
is an insight into the process. From experiences that I have been seen,

the insurance company will try anything to wriggle out paying a claim.


Where did it say that? What I read is that they are already paying living
expenses tokeep people going.


"What I'm afraid you'll see is, the policyholder has a $100,000 house
and the insurance companies will say, 'It's 5 percent wind damage,' "
Hunter said. " 'Here's $5,000; take it or leave it.' "


This is an assumption made by someone, not a fact of what has happened yet.
I see no FACTS to base a decision or form an opinion.

"Edwin Pawlowski" wrote

If you were wondering how claims are handled in these situations, here
is an insight into the process. From experiences that I have been seen,
the insurance company will try anything to wriggle out paying a claim.

Where did it say that? What I read is that they are already paying living
expenses tokeep people going.

"What I'm afraid you'll see is, the policyholder has a $100,000 house
and the insurance companies will say, 'It's 5 percent wind damage,' "
Hunter said. " 'Here's $5,000; take it or leave it.' "

This is an assumption made by someone, not a fact of what has happened
yet. I see no FACTS to base a decision or form an opinion.

That is not only fact, it is long held policy and one of the first things
you learn in insurance schools.. An axiom of the insurance business is that
if the water comes DOWN you are covered. If the water comes UP you are not.

--
Glenn Ashmore

I'm building a 45' cutter in strip/composite. Watch my progress (or lack
there of) at: http://www.rutuonline.com
Shameless Commercial Division: http://www.spade-anchor-us.com

Glenn Ashmore wrote:
"Edwin Pawlowski" wrote

If you were wondering how claims are handled in these situations, here
is an insight into the process. From experiences that I have been seen,
the insurance company will try anything to wriggle out paying a claim.

Where did it say that? What I read is that they are already paying living
expenses tokeep people going.

Actually, they were shooting an Allstate commercial.
Those guys are already back home

"Glenn Ashmore" wrote in message
newsHlVe.25135$hp.8124@lakeread08...


"Edwin Pawlowski" wrote

If you were wondering how claims are handled in these situations, here
is an insight into the process. From experiences that I have been seen,
the insurance company will try anything to wriggle out paying a claim.

Where did it say that? What I read is that they are already paying
living expenses tokeep people going.

"What I'm afraid you'll see is, the policyholder has a $100,000 house
and the insurance companies will say, 'It's 5 percent wind damage,' "
Hunter said. " 'Here's $5,000; take it or leave it.' "

This is an assumption made by someone, not a fact of what has happened
yet. I see no FACTS to base a decision or form an opinion.

That is not only fact, it is long held policy and one of the first things
you learn in insurance schools.. An axiom of the insurance business is
that if the water comes DOWN you are covered. If the water comes UP you
are not.

--
Sideways?

"Chris" wrote in message
...

--
Sideways?


In the case of a Hurricane sideways is not unusual. In 1970 our house
filled with water, not from a hole in the roof and not from rising water in
the street. It blew through the brick veneer and around the windows. The
weep holes at the bottom of the brick could not drain fast enough and the
water came in from the bottom of the soaked walls. The top of the walls
were dry. Pretty freaky.

"Chris" wrote

That is not only fact, it is long held policy and one of the first things
you learn in insurance schools.. An axiom of the insurance business is
that if the water comes DOWN you are covered. If the water comes UP you
are not.

--
Sideways?

Sideways is good if it started out higher than the damage.

I have seen some real nits picked on this subject. One example: a water
supply line broke where it enters a house at basement floor level. The
water rose and flooded out the HVAC and everything in the basement.
Coverage denied because it was rising water. OTOH, supply line breaks in
the basement ceiling and floods the HVAC and everything in the basement.
THEN you are covered because the water came from above the damage.

To carry it to extremes, if you could prove that the water came in as a big
wave that crested in the front yard and fell on your house you would be
covered but storm surges and tsunamis don't work like that. They flow
along rising and pushing everything over.

In this case there will have to be some determination of how much damage was
done by wind and how much by the surge. If you have seen aerial pictures of
Gulf Port, that yellow line of framing timber marks the boundary. Everybody
shore side of that line will probably be covered. Those within the debris
field will have to be split between wind and flood damage. Those on the
Gulf side will probably have to file for bankruptcy just as the laws change
to screw them.

--
Glenn Ashmore

I'm building a 45' cutter in strip/composite. Watch my progress (or lack
there of) at: http://www.rutuonline.com
Shameless Commercial Division: http://www.spade-anchor-us.com

In article oVmVe.25137$hp.558@lakeread08, Glenn Ashmore says...

I have seen some real nits picked on this subject. One example: a water
supply line broke where it enters a house at basement floor level. The
water rose and flooded out the HVAC and everything in the basement.
Coverage denied because it was rising water. OTOH, supply line breaks in
the basement ceiling and floods the HVAC and everything in the basement.
THEN you are covered because the water came from above the damage.

Hmm. So basically if your basement floods, take a garden hose and
soak the house interior from roof to basement, and they'd cover it?

Jim


--
==================================================
please reply to:
JRR(zero) at pkmfgvm4 (dot) vnet (dot) ibm (dot) com
==================================================

Glenn Ashmore wrote:
"Chris" wrote

That is not only fact, it is long held policy and one of the first things
you learn in insurance schools.. An axiom of the insurance business is
that if the water comes DOWN you are covered. If the water comes UP you
are not.

--
Sideways?

Sideways is good if it started out higher than the damage.

I have seen some real nits picked on this subject. One example: a water
supply line broke where it enters a house at basement floor level. The
water rose and flooded out the HVAC and everything in the basement.
Coverage denied because it was rising water. OTOH, supply line breaks in
the basement ceiling and floods the HVAC and everything in the basement.
THEN you are covered because the water came from above the damage.

To carry it to extremes, if you could prove that the water came in as a big
wave that crested in the front yard and fell on your house you would be
covered but storm surges and tsunamis don't work like that. They flow
along rising and pushing everything over.

In this case there will have to be some determination of how much damage was
done by wind and how much by the surge. If you have seen aerial pictures of
Gulf Port, that yellow line of framing timber marks the boundary. Everybody
shore side of that line will probably be covered. Those within the debris
field will have to be split between wind and flood damage. Those on the
Gulf side will probably have to file for bankruptcy just as the laws change
to screw them.

--
Glenn Ashmore

I'm building a 45' cutter in strip/composite. Watch my progress (or lack
there of) at: http://www.rutuonline.com
Shameless Commercial Division: http://www.spade-anchor-us.com


Speaking from personal experience.
During the Ice Storm that hit the Northeast in the late nineties, a
culvert was blocked by ice and caused water to rise and flood back
through my perimeter drain and into my basement. No, I did not have
flood insurance. Not only did the insurance company cover all damage
and personal belongings, they sent an adjuster and paid the claim in
less than 2 weeks. This while they were handling thousands of other
claims from the storm. I have had some unsatisfactory results from
insurance companies also, (Sorry, it wasn't covered) but find they tend
to be more lenient when large disasters are involved.
I think we should give the Insurance companies a chance to show how
they are going to respond before complaining. Also, only give first
hand information, not hearsay, friend of a friend, always 'friendly'
press or speculation.
"Just the facts, Ma'm"

Well, it looks like the bankruptcies are coming....ready to bail out
the banks and insurance companies?

Mortgages go unpaid in storm-hit areas
By John Waggoner, USA TODAY

Past-due commercial mortgage loans in the hurricane-plagued Gulf have
risen sharply, says Standard & Poor's, the Wall Street credit rater.
And that could mean problems for lenders.

Past-due loans in areas affected by Katrina have soared to $320.5
million in September, up from $53.7 million in August. "We expect that
quite a few of those will become delinquent," says Larry Kay, director
of structured finance ratings at S&P.

Lenders often package commercial loans into commercial mortgage-backed
securities, or CMBSs. S&P makes credit ratings on CMBSs, including the
likelihood of loan defaults. The effect of defaults on the overall CMBS
market should be minimal, Kay says. Of the $320 billion in CMBSs that
S&P rates, $2.25 billion is from Katrina-affected areas.

But the leap in past-due loans reflects problems lenders may have in
commercial mortgages there. For example, lenders typically demand that
borrowers in flood-prone areas have flood insurance. But federal flood
insurance covers up to $500,000 in damage. Some businesses may have far
more damage than that and may not have additional private flood
insurance.

S&P identified 260 commercial loans in CMBSs secured by property in
hurricane-stricken areas. Companies that service those loans hadn't
been able to reach 15% to 20% of the borrowers, S&P says. Another 20%
of borrowers reported significant damage, including a portion of the
roof blown off or no roof at all.

Normally, the companies that service the loans have to advance
delinquent payments to CMBS investors as long as they think the
advances will be recovered. Federal and state authorities have urged
lenders to use restraint with storm-stricken borrowers.

Securities backed by residential mortgages should suffer little effect
from Katrina, S&P says. These bundled pools of mortgages, a favorite of
pension funds and mutual funds, are widely diversified, and few have
much exposure to Katrina.

About a third of commercial mortgages examined by S&P are secured by
lodging properties, such as hotels. Some hotels will get business in
coming weeks from government agencies, contractors and emergency
workers. But the drop in tourist dollars could seriously hurt
commercial borrowers: Convention travel brought $4.9 billion to New
Orleans in 2004.

The Federal Deposit Insurance Corp., which regulates state-chartered
banks, says it has no current data suggesting problems with commercial
loans in hurricane areas. But bank analysts say it's a matter of time
before defaults start rising. "There will be increased default rates in
all types of loans," says Jefferson Harralson, bank analyst for Keefe
Bruyette & Woods.

Some commercial and industrial loans, for example, are secured by
inventories or ongoing business revenue, which may not be covered by
insurance. "The banking industry has never relied more on insurance to
fulfill loan commitments," Harralson says.

"Glenn Ashmore" wrote in message

If you were wondering how claims are handled in these situations, here
is an insight into the process. From experiences that I have been seen,
the insurance company will try anything to wriggle out paying a claim.

That is not only fact, it is long held policy and one of the first things
you learn in insurance schools.. An axiom of the insurance business is
that if the water comes DOWN you are covered. If the water comes UP you
are not.

--
Glenn Ashmore

But the article posted did not mention that. The OP drew that conclusion
from it somehow and that is what I questioned. If the insurance company is
not liable, they have no obligation to pay. If you live 6' below sea level
and have no flood insurance, don't cry on my shoulder.

On Tue, 13 Sep 2005 00:05:45 GMT, in misc.consumers.frugal-living "Edwin
Pawlowski" wrote:


"Glenn Ashmore" wrote in message

If you were wondering how claims are handled in these situations, here
is an insight into the process. From experiences that I have been seen,
the insurance company will try anything to wriggle out paying a claim.

That is not only fact, it is long held policy and one of the first things
you learn in insurance schools.. An axiom of the insurance business is
that if the water comes DOWN you are covered. If the water comes UP you
are not.

--
Glenn Ashmore

But the article posted did not mention that. The OP drew that conclusion
from it somehow and that is what I questioned. If the insurance company is
not liable, they have no obligation to pay. If you live 6' below sea level
and have no flood insurance, don't cry on my shoulder.



My lender will not finance homes that are on a flood plain.

wrote in message
...
On Tue, 13 Sep 2005 00:05:45 GMT, in misc.consumers.frugal-living "Edwin
Pawlowski" wrote:


"Glenn Ashmore" wrote in message

If you were wondering how claims are handled in these situations, here
is an insight into the process. From experiences that I have been
seen,
the insurance company will try anything to wriggle out paying a claim.

That is not only fact, it is long held policy and one of the first
things
you learn in insurance schools.. An axiom of the insurance business is
that if the water comes DOWN you are covered. If the water comes UP you
are not.

--
Glenn Ashmore

But the article posted did not mention that. The OP drew that conclusion
from it somehow and that is what I questioned. If the insurance company
is
not liable, they have no obligation to pay. If you live 6' below sea
level
and have no flood insurance, don't cry on my shoulder.



My lender will not finance homes that are on a flood plain.

Are we talking a real lender (only a couple of handfuls) or a broker? Most
lenders will lend in a flood zone. They use the 100year flood plan that is
given to them when the property is appraised. If the property is in
question, all that is normally required is the property owner to carry flood
insurance on the property. More common sense than anything. I think your
broker might be handing you some.


--
Chris

If you can read this, thank a teacher. If it is in English, thank a
soldier. If it is in ebonics, thank your Congressman.

sounds like people who had flood insurance will be compensated for
flood damage and people who don't won't

"steve" wrote in message
ups.com...
sounds like people who had flood insurance will be compensated for
flood damage and people who don't won't

as it should be. damn well better not pay out for coverage that
wasn't bought just to look good. we'll all pay for that.

In article ,
AllEmailDeletedImmediately wrote:

"steve" wrote in message
ups.com...
sounds like people who had flood insurance will be compensated for
flood damage and people who don't won't

as it should be. damn well better not pay out for coverage that
wasn't bought just to look good. we'll all pay for that.


And the politicians who do that will pay for it, one way or another.


--Tim May

In article ,
"AllEmailDeletedImmediately" wrote:

"steve" wrote in message
ups.com...
sounds like people who had flood insurance will be compensated for
flood damage and people who don't won't

as it should be. damn well better not pay out for coverage that
wasn't bought just to look good. we'll all pay for that.

In all likelihood, someone will pay. What I suspect will happen is the
uninsured will be given the option of taking on a low interest loan
that's sponsored by FEMA. A lot of people will go bankrupt. Property
will go abandoned and decline. Then for the property that goes
untouched, but needs repair, eventually local residents will get upset
when those properties become problems, so they'll pressure government to
come in and fix the problem, so eventually, taxpayers will foot the
bill. Its just a question of how long the unrepaired properties will be
allowed to fall into further disrepair before government takes over
those properties and rehabs them or demolishes them.

I agree with the general discussion but...

I have seen it mentioned several places that only 40% of the population
had flood insurance.

Now if you have 60% of the population that can't afford to rebuild
because of losses, what do you think the politicians will do?

Also remember that over one million people are homeless at this time.

That is a significant number of votes.

TMT

"Too_Many_Tools" wrote in message
oups.com...
I agree with the general discussion but...

I have seen it mentioned several places that only 40% of the population
had flood insurance.

That would mean that 60% of the properties (assuming we're talking about
homes in flood plain, which I appears to include all of coastal LA and MS)
are free and clear of any mortgage or other lien (home equity loan, home
equity line of credit). No lender would have a lien on a home in flood
plain without requiring flood insurance. Maybe that number is correct, but
it sounds high to me.

Now if you have 60% of the population that can't afford to rebuild
because of losses, what do you think the politicians will do?

Also remember that over one million people are homeless at this time.

That is a significant number of votes.

Sure it is. For people in LA and MS. I don't know how much pressure those
homeless can exert on our fine senators here in Illinois.

todd

"Todd Fatheree" wrote in message
...
"Too_Many_Tools" wrote in message
oups.com...
I agree with the general discussion but...

I have seen it mentioned several places that only 40% of the population
had flood insurance.

That would mean that 60% of the properties (assuming we're talking about
homes in flood plain, which I appears to include all of coastal LA and MS)
are free and clear of any mortgage or other lien (home equity loan, home
equity line of credit). No lender would have a lien on a home in flood
plain without requiring flood insurance. Maybe that number is correct, but
it sounds high to me.

Now if you have 60% of the population that can't afford to rebuild
because of losses, what do you think the politicians will do?

Also remember that over one million people are homeless at this time.

That is a significant number of votes.

Sure it is. For people in LA and MS. I don't know how much pressure
those
homeless can exert on our fine senators here in Illinois.

todd

Most of the people homeless now, and asking for hand-outs would of probably
been homeless before the mess, had it not been for our government. As a
law, it should be imposed that people on welfare should not be allowed to
vote.


--
Chris

If you can read this, thank a teacher. If it is in English, thank a
soldier. If it is in ebonics, thank your Congressman.

In article , "Chris"
wrote:

Most of the people homeless now, and asking for hand-outs would of probably
been homeless before the mess, had it not been for our government. As a
law, it should be imposed that people on welfare should not be allowed to
vote.

Likewise government 'workers' should not be allowed to vote.

--
Free men own guns, slaves don't
www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/5357/

"Nick Hull" wrote in message
...
In article , "Chris"
wrote:

Most of the people homeless now, and asking for hand-outs would of
probably
been homeless before the mess, had it not been for our government. As a
law, it should be imposed that people on welfare should not be allowed to
vote.

Likewise government 'workers' should not be allowed to vote.

--
Free men own guns, slaves don't
www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/5357/

That too!!!!

--
Chris

If you can read this, thank a teacher. If it is in English, thank a
soldier. If it is in ebonics, thank your Congressman.

In article ,
Nick Hull wrote:

In article , "Chris"
wrote:

Most of the people homeless now, and asking for hand-outs would of probably
been homeless before the mess, had it not been for our government. As a
law, it should be imposed that people on welfare should not be allowed to
vote.

Likewise government 'workers' should not be allowed to vote.

You mean, like all those people who're supposedly fighting for our
freedom in Iraq and Afgahnistan? What about government contractors too?
Teachers? Librarians? Nah! I saw, just have an IQ test to vote. Anyone
over 120 gets to vote, which would probably leave out most of the people
who are commenting in this thread, including possibly me, and also most
of congress, and the guy in the White House. I am joking.

In article , "Chris"
wrote:

Most of the people homeless now, and asking for hand-outs would of probably
been homeless before the mess, had it not been for our government. As a
law, it should be imposed that people on welfare should not be allowed to
vote.

Fortunately, you are not in charge. Our government got rid of that
draconian policy ages ago. If democracy bothers you, there are plenty of
countries where you can happily live under a dictatorship. Perhaps we
could limit voting on to those who know this country's history, but that
would clearly let you out.

Shawn Hirn wrote:
In article , "Chris"
wrote:

Most of the people homeless now, and asking for hand-outs would of probably
been homeless before the mess, had it not been for our government. As a
law, it should be imposed that people on welfare should not be allowed to
vote.

Fortunately, you are not in charge. Our government got rid of that
draconian policy ages ago. If democracy bothers you, there are plenty of
countries where you can happily live under a dictatorship. Perhaps we
could limit voting on to those who know this country's history, but that
would clearly let you out.

There is a difference between a dictatorship and a republic where
only the rich get a vote. Poor people wouldn't see much difference
but rich people would.

I'm coming to the opinion that everyone in the country (including
those born here) should pass the same kind of citizenship tests
and swear the same kind of oaths that immigrants must in order to
obtain the rights of citizenship. It seems odd to have two standards.

Anthony

In article ,
Shawn Hirn wrote:

In article , "Chris"
wrote:

Most of the people homeless now, and asking for hand-outs would of probably
been homeless before the mess, had it not been for our government. As a
law, it should be imposed that people on welfare should not be allowed to
vote.

Fortunately, you are not in charge. Our government got rid of that
draconian policy ages ago. If democracy bothers you, there are plenty of
countries where you can happily live under a dictatorship. Perhaps we
could limit voting on to those who know this country's history, but that
would clearly let you out.

This is the American Republic, not the american denocracy. Those of us
who wish to restore the Republic will not move, but will wage civil war
at the correct time. You are welcome to take the opposite side if you
choose, voting will be by bullets.

--
Free men own guns, slaves don't
www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/5357/

In article .com,
Too_Many_Tools wrote:

I agree with the general discussion but...

I have seen it mentioned several places that only 40% of the population
had flood insurance.

Now if you have 60% of the population that can't afford to rebuild
because of losses, what do you think the politicians will do?

Also remember that over one million people are homeless at this time.

That is a significant number of votes.


And that is precisely why we are a nation of laws, not of pimping for
votes.

Any politician who votes to give money freely to those who do not have
a legal claim to it should be assassinated.

--Tim May

"Tim May" wrote in message
...
In article .com,
Too_Many_Tools wrote:

I agree with the general discussion but...

I have seen it mentioned several places that only 40% of the population
had flood insurance.

Now if you have 60% of the population that can't afford to rebuild
because of losses, what do you think the politicians will do?

Also remember that over one million people are homeless at this time.

That is a significant number of votes.


And that is precisely why we are a nation of laws, not of pimping for
votes.

Any politician who votes to give money freely to those who do not have
a legal claim to it should be assassinated.

--Tim May

Tim,

Well said!!!

If I remember correctly when we had a Constitution, the federal government
was set up to protect the US from foreign interests. Not to provide a roof
over our head and food to those who did not feel like providing ourselves.

--
Chris

If you can read this, thank a teacher. If it is in English, thank a
soldier. If it is in ebonics, thank your Congressman.

In article , "Chris"
wrote:

"Tim May" wrote in message
...
In article .com,
Too_Many_Tools wrote:

I agree with the general discussion but...

I have seen it mentioned several places that only 40% of the population
had flood insurance.

Now if you have 60% of the population that can't afford to rebuild
because of losses, what do you think the politicians will do?

Also remember that over one million people are homeless at this time.

That is a significant number of votes.


And that is precisely why we are a nation of laws, not of pimping for
votes.

Any politician who votes to give money freely to those who do not have
a legal claim to it should be assassinated.

--Tim May

Tim,

Well said!!!

If I remember correctly when we had a Constitution, the federal government
was set up to protect the US from foreign interests. Not to provide a roof
over our head and food to those who did not feel like providing ourselves.

Your memory is a bit incomplete. The major goal by ratifying the
Constitution was to keep government out of the private lives of
individuals. Protection from foreign governments was part of it.
If the founding fathers were opposed to welfare type assistance, I
presume they would have said so in the Constitution and put some limits
on government there, but they didn't as far as I can tell, nor has any
congress since than or president put forth an amendment to do that.

On Tue, 13 Sep 2005 06:55:33 -0400, Shawn Hirn
wrote:

In article , "Chris"
wrote:

"Tim May" wrote in message
...
In article .com,
Too_Many_Tools wrote:

I agree with the general discussion but...

I have seen it mentioned several places that only 40% of the population
had flood insurance.

Now if you have 60% of the population that can't afford to rebuild
because of losses, what do you think the politicians will do?

Also remember that over one million people are homeless at this time.

That is a significant number of votes.


And that is precisely why we are a nation of laws, not of pimping for
votes.

Any politician who votes to give money freely to those who do not have
a legal claim to it should be assassinated.

--Tim May

Tim,

Well said!!!

If I remember correctly when we had a Constitution, the federal government
was set up to protect the US from foreign interests. Not to provide a roof
over our head and food to those who did not feel like providing ourselves.

Your memory is a bit incomplete. The major goal by ratifying the
Constitution was to keep government out of the private lives of
individuals. Protection from foreign governments was part of it.
If the founding fathers were opposed to welfare type assistance, I
presume they would have said so in the Constitution and put some limits
on government there, but they didn't as far as I can tell, nor has any
congress since than or president put forth an amendment to do that.


Speech before the House of Representatives
by David (Davy) Crockett

Not Yours to Give

One day in the House of Representatives, a bill was taken up
appropriating money for the benefit of a widow of a distinguished
naval officer. Several beautiful speeches had been made in its
support. The Speaker was just about to put the question when Mr.
Crockett arose:

"Mr. Speaker --- I have as much respect for the memory of the
deceased, and as much sympathy for the suffering of the living, if
suffering there be, as any man in this house, but we must not permit
our respect for the dead or our sympathy for a part of the living to
lead us into an act of injustice to the balance of the living. I will
not go into an argument to prove that Congress has no power to
appropriate this money as an act of charity. Every member upon this
floor knows it. We have the right, as individuals, to give away as
much of our own money as we please in charity; but as members of
Congress we have no right so to appropriate a dollar of the public
money. Some eloquent appeals have been made to us upon the ground that
it is a debt due the deceased. Mr. Speaker, the deceased lived long
after the close of the war; he was in office to the day of his death,
and I have never heard that the government was in arrears to him.

"Every man in this House knows it is not a debt. We cannot, without
the grossest corruption, appropriate this money as the payment of a
debt. We have not the semblance of authority to appropriate it as a
charity. Mr. Speaker, I have said we have the right to give as much
money of our own as we please. I am the poorest man on this floor. I
cannot vote for this bill, but I will give one week's pay to the
object, and, if every member of Congress will do the same, it will
amount to more than the bill asks.

"He took his seat. Nobody replied. The bill was put upon its passage,
and, instead of passing unanimously, as was generally supposed, and
as, no doubt, it would, but for that speech, it received but few
votes, and of course, was lost.

"Later, when asked by a friend why he had opposed the appropriation,
Crockett gave this explanation:

"Several years ago I was one evening standing on the steps of the
Capitol with some other members of Congress, when our attention was
attracted by a great light over in Georgetown. It was evidently a
large fire. We jumped into a hack and drove over as fast as we could.
In spite of all that could be done, many houses were burned and many
families made homeless, and, besides, some of them had lost all but
the clothes they had on. The weather was very cold, and when I saw so
many women and children suffering, I felt that something ought to be
one for them. The next morning a bill was introduced appropriating
$20,000 for their relief. We put aside all other business and rushed
it through as soon as it could be done.

"The next summer, when it began to be time to think about the
election, I concluded I would take a scout around among the boys of my
district. I had no opposition there, but, as the election was some
time off, I did not know what might turn up. When riding one day in a
part of my district in which I was more a stranger than any other, I
saw a man in a field plowing and coming toward the road. I gauged my
gait so that we should meet as he came to the fence. As he came up, I
spoke to the man. He replied politely, but, as I thought, rather
coldly.

"I began: 'Well, friend, I am one of those unfortunate beings called
candidates, and--'

" 'Yes, I know you; you are Colonel Crockett. I have seen you once
before, and voted for you the last time you were elected. I suppose
you are out electioneering now, but you had better not waste your time
or mine. I shall not vote for you again.'

"This was a sockdolager... I begged him to tell me what was the
matter.

" 'Well, Colonel, it is hardly worth-while to waste time or words upon
it. I do not see how it can be mended, but you gave a vote last winter
which shows that either you have not capacity to understand the
Constitution, or that you are wanting in the honesty and firmness to
be guided by it. In either case you are not the man to represent me.
But I beg your pardon for expressing it in that way. I did not intend
to avail myself of the privilege of the constituent to speak plainly
to a candidate for the purpose of insulting or wounding you. I
intended by it only to say that your understanding of the Constitution
is very different from mine; and I will say to you what, but for my
rudeness, I should not have said, that I believe you to be
honest....But an understanding of the Constitution different from mine
I cannot overlook, because the Constitution, to be worth anything,
must be held sacred, and rigidly observed in all its provisions. The
man who wields power and misinterprets it is the more dangerous the
more honest he is.'

"I admit the truth of all you say, but there must be some mistake
about it, for I do not remember that I gave any vote last winter upon
any Constitutional question.

" 'No, Colonel, there's no mistake. Though I live here in the
backwoods and seldom go from home, I take the papers from Washington
and read very carefully all the proceedings in Congress. My papers say
that last winter you voted for a bill to appropriate $20,000 to some
suffers by a fire in Georgetown. Is that true?'

"Well, my friend, I may as well own up. You have got me there. But
certainly nobody will complain that a great and rich country like ours
should give the insignificant sum of $20,000 to relieve its suffering
women and children, particularly with a full and overflowing Treasury,
and I am sure, if you had been there, you would have done just as I
did.'

" 'It is not the amount, Colonel, that I complain of; it is the
principle. In the first place, the government ought to have in the
Treasury no more than enough for its legitimate purposes. But that has
nothing to do with the question. The power of collecting and
disbursing money at pleasure is the most dangerous power that can be
intrusted to man, particularly under our system of collecting revenue
by tariff, which reaches every man in the country, no matter how poor
he may be, and the poorer he is the more he pays in proportion to his
means. What is worse, it presses upon him without his knowledge where
the weight centers, for there is not a man in the United States who
can ever guess how much he pays to the government. So you see, that
while you are contributing to relieve one, you are drawing it from
thousands who are even worse off than he. If you had the right to give
anything, the amount was simply a matter of discretion with you, and
you had as much right to give $20,000,000 as $20,000. If you have the
right to give to one, you have the right to give to all; and, as the
Constitution neither defines charity nor stipulates the amount, you
are at liberty to give to any thing and everything which you may
believe, or profess to believe, is a charity, and to any amount you
may think proper. You will very easily perceive what a wide door this
would open for fraud and corruption and favoritism, on the one hand,
and for robbing the people on the other. No, Colonel, Congress has no
right to give charity. Individual members may give as much of their
own money as they please, but they have no right to touch a dollar of
the public money for that purpose. If twice as many houses had been
burned in this county as in Georgetown, neither you nor any other
member of Congress would have thought of appropriating a dollar for
our relief. There are about two hundred and forty members of Congress.
If they had shown their sympathy for the suffers by contributing each
one week's pay, it would have made over $13,000. There are plenty of
men in and around Washington who could have given $20,000 without
depriving themselves of even a luxury of life. The congressmen chose
to keep their own money, which, if reports be true, some of them spend
not very creditable; and the people about Washington, no doubt,
applauded you for relieving them from the necessity of giving by
giving what was not yours to give. The people have delegated to
Congress, by the Constitu- tion, the power to do certain things. To do
these, it is authorized to collect and pay moneys, and for nothing
else. Everything beyond this is usurpation, and a violation of the
Constitution. So you see, Colonel, you have violated the Constitution
in what I consider a vital point. It is a precedent fraught with
danger to the country, for when Congress once begins to stretch it's
power beyond the limits of the Constitution, there is no limit to it,
and no security for the people. I have no doubt you acted honestly,
but that does not make it any better, except as far as you are
personally concerned, and you see that I cannot vote for you..'

"I tell you I felt streaked. I saw if I should have opposition, and
this man should go to talking, he would set others to talking, and in
that district I was a gone fawn-skin. I could not answer him, for the
fact is, I was so fully convinced that he was right, I did not want
to. But I must satisfy him, and I said to him: Well, my friend, you
hit the nail upon the head when you said I did not have sense enough
to understand the Constitution. I intended to be guided by it, and
thought I had studied it fully. I have heard many speeches in Congress
about the powers of Congress, but what you have said here at your plow
has got more hard, sound sense in it than all the fine speeches I ever
heard. If I had ever taken the view of it that you have, I would have
put my head into the fire before I would have given that vote; and if
I ever vote for another unconstitutional law I wish I may be shot.

"He laughingly replied: 'Yes Colonel, you have sworn to that once
before, but I will trust you again upon one condition. You say that
you are convinced that your vote was wrong. Your acknowledgment of it
will do more good than beating you for it. If, as you go around this
district, you will tell people about this vote, and that you are
satisfied that it was wrong, I will not only vote for you, but will do
what I can to keep down opposition, and perhaps, I may exert a little
influence in that way.'

"If I don't [said I] I wish I may be shot; and to convince you that I
am earnest in what I say I will come back this way in a week or ten
days, and if you will get up a gathering of the people, I will make a
speech to them. Get up a barbecue, and I will pay for it.

" 'No, Colonel, we are not rich people in this section, but we have
plenty of provisions to contribute to a barbecue, and some to spare
for those who have none. The push of crops will be over in a few days,
and we can then afford a day for a barbecue. This is Thursday; I will
see to getting up on Saturday week.. Come to my house on Friday, and
we will go together, and I promise you a very respectable crowd to see
and hear you.'

"Well, I will be here. but one thing more before I say good-bye. I
must know your name.

" 'My name is Bunce.'

"Not Horatio Bunce?

" 'Yes.'

"Well, Mr. Bunce, I never saw you before though you say you have seen
me, but I know you very well. I am glad I have met you, and very proud
that I may hope to have you for my friend.

"It was one of the luckiest hits of my life that I met him. He mingled
but little with the public, but was widely known for his remarkable
intelligence and incorruptible integrity, and for a heart brimful and
running over with kindness and benevolence, which showed themselves
not only in words but in acts. He was the oracle of the whole country
around him, and his fame had extended far beyond the circle of his
immediate acquaintance. Though I had never met him before, I had heard
much of him, and but for this meeting it is very likely I should have
had opposition, and had been beaten. One thing is very certain, no man
could now stand up in that district under such a vote.

"At the appointed time I was at his house, having told our
conversation to every crowd I had met, and to every man I stayed all
night with, and I found that it gave the people an interest and a
confidence in me stronger than I had ever seen manifested before.
Though I was considerably fatigued when I reached his house, and,
under ordinary circumstances, should have gone early to bed, I kept up
until midnight, talking about the principles and affairs of
government, and got more real, true knowledge of them than I had got
all my life before. I have known and seen much of him since, for I
respect him --- no, that is not the word --- I reverence and love him
more than any living man, and I go to see him two or three times a
year; and I will tell you sir, if everyone who professes to be a
Christian, lived and acted and enjoyed it as he does, the religion of
Christ would take the world by storm.

"But to return to my story. The next morning we went to the barbecue,
and, to my surprise, found about a thousand men there. I met a good
many whom I had not known before, and they and my friend introduced me
around until I had got pretty well acquainted --- at least, they all
knew me. In due time notice was given that I would speak to them. They
gathered up around a stand that had been erected. I opened my speech
by saying:

"Fellow-citizens --- I present myself before you today feeling like a
new man. My eyes have lately been opened to truths which ignorance or
prejudice, or both, had heretofore hidden from my view. I feel that I
can today offer you the ability to render you more valuable service
than I have ever been able to render before. I am here today more for
the purpose of acknowledging my error than to seek your votes. That I
should make this acknowledgment is due to myself as well as to you.
Whether you will vote for me is a matter for your consideration only.

"I went on to tell them about the fire and my vote for the
appropriation and then told them why I was satisfied it was wrong. I
closed by saying:

"And now, fellow-citizens, it remains only for me to tell you that the
most of the speech you have listened to with so much interest was
simply a repetition of the arguments by which your neighbor, Mr.
Bunce, convinced me of my error.

"It is the best speech I ever made in my life, but he is entitled to
the credit for it. And now I hope he is satisfied with his convert and
that he will get up here and tell you so.

"He came upon the stand and said: " 'Fellow-citizens --- It affords me
great pleasure to comply with the request of Colonel Crockett. I have
always considered him a thoroughly honest man, and I am satisfied that
he will faithfully perform all that he has promised you today.'

"He went down, and there went up from that crowd such a shout for Davy
Crockett as his name never called forth before.

"I am not much given to tears, but I was taken with a choking then and
felt some big drops rolling down my cheeks. And I tell you now that
the remembrance of those few words spoken by such a man, and the
honest, hearty shout they produced, is worth more to me than all the
reputation I have ever made, or shall ever make, as a member of
Congress.

"Now, sir," concluded Crockett, "you know why I made that speech
yesterday. There is one thing now to which I wish to call to your
attention. You remember that I proposed to give a week's pay. There
are in that House many very wealthy men --- men who think nothing of
spending a week's pay, or a dozen of them, for a dinner or a wine
party when they have something to accomplish by it. Some of those same
men made beautiful speeches upon the great debt of gratitude which the
country owed the deceased --- a debt which could not be paid by money
--- and the insignificance and worthlessness of money, particularly so
insignificance a sum as $10,000, when weighed against the honor of the
nation. Yet not one of them responded to my proposition. Money with
them is nothing but trash when it is come out of the people. But it is
the one great thing for which most of them are striving, and many of
them sacrifice honor, integrity, and justice to obtain it." David
Crockett was born August 17, 1786 at Limestone (Greene County),
Tennessee. He died March 06, 1836 as one of the brave Southerners
defending the Alamo.

Crockett had settled in Franklin County, Tennessee in 1811. He served
in the Creek War under Andrew Jackson. In 1821 and 1823 he was elected
to the Tennessee legislature. In 1826 and 1828 he was elected to
Congress. He was defeated in 1830 for his outspoken opposition to
President Jackson's Indian Bill - but was elected again in 1832.

In Washington, although his eccentricities of dress and manner excited
comment, he was always popular on account of his shrewd common sense
and homely wit; although generally favoring Jackson's policy, he was
entirely independent and refused to vote to please any party leader.

At the end of the congressional term, he joined the Texans in the war
against Mexico, and in 1836 was one of the roughly 180 men who died
defending the Alamo. Tradition has it that Crockett was one of only
six survivors after the Mexicans took the fort, and that he and the
others were taken out and executed by firing squad.
"Pax Americana is a philosophy. Hardly an empire.
Making sure other people play nice and dont kill each other (and us)
off in job lots is hardly empire building, particularly when you give
them self determination under "play nice" rules.

Think of it as having your older brother knock the **** out of you
for torturing the cat." Gunner

"Shawn Hirn" wrote in message
...
In article , "Chris"
wrote:

"Tim May" wrote in message
...
In article .com,
Too_Many_Tools wrote:

I agree with the general discussion but...

I have seen it mentioned several places that only 40% of the
population
had flood insurance.

Now if you have 60% of the population that can't afford to rebuild
because of losses, what do you think the politicians will do?

Also remember that over one million people are homeless at this time.

That is a significant number of votes.


And that is precisely why we are a nation of laws, not of pimping for
votes.

Any politician who votes to give money freely to those who do not have
a legal claim to it should be assassinated.

--Tim May

Tim,

Well said!!!

If I remember correctly when we had a Constitution, the federal
government
was set up to protect the US from foreign interests. Not to provide a
roof
over our head and food to those who did not feel like providing
ourselves.

Your memory is a bit incomplete. The major goal by ratifying the
Constitution was to keep government out of the private lives of
individuals. Protection from foreign governments was part of it.
If the founding fathers were opposed to welfare type assistance, I
presume they would have said so in the Constitution and put some limits
on government there, but they didn't as far as I can tell, nor has any
congress since than or president put forth an amendment to do that.

Too funny!
The problem is that it was unthinkable at the time to Constitution was drawn
up, that people would want handouts from the Government for their general
welfare. People who did not care for themselves or just did not feel like
providing for themselves, were very few and far in-between at that time.
You fail to read "general welfare". By no stretch of the means does that
mean the government will enable all the people who just do not feel like
providing for themselves!

By your reasoning Congress could pile up all the gold and dollars in the US
and bury it out in the sea. For had our founding fathers not wanted that,
it would of been in the Constitution . LOL

Why do I always get the feeling that welfare supports are always benefiting
from it somehow?

The rest of your post seems to be nothing more than childish insults sorry
to say.


--
Chris

If you can read this, thank a teacher. If it is in English, thank a
soldier. If it is in ebonics, thank your Congressman.

In article ,
Tim May wrote:

Any politician who votes to give money freely to those who do not have
a legal claim to it should be assassinated.

--Tim May

Sounds like you are advocating assassinating ALL politicians

--
Free men own guns, slaves don't
www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/5357/

In article , Nick
Hull wrote:

In article ,
Tim May wrote:

Any politician who votes to give money freely to those who do not have
a legal claim to it should be assassinated.

--Tim May

Sounds like you are advocating assassinating ALL politicians

This is why I cheered when Al Qaeda sent planes toward Washington. I
was hoping for the "Sato Solution," a decapitation of Congress. Most
would have gotten away, it seems likely, but our estimates are that 190
or so actual Congresscriminals, plus vast numbers of staffer parasites,
would have been given justice.

Alas, one plane fell short. Another chose a completely unimportant
target.

I still hope that the AN-59K nukes sold in Samarkand in 1999 will
decapitate the head of the snake...and remove 450,000 negro welfare
recipients in Washington, too.


--Tim May

In article ,
Tim May wrote:

In article , Nick


I still hope that the AN-59K nukes sold in Samarkand in 1999 will
decapitate the head of the snake...and remove 450,000 negro welfare
recipients in Washington, too.

BIGOT! PLONK!

In article ,
Tim May wrote:

In article .com,
Too_Many_Tools wrote:

I agree with the general discussion but...

I have seen it mentioned several places that only 40% of the population
had flood insurance.

Now if you have 60% of the population that can't afford to rebuild
because of losses, what do you think the politicians will do?

Also remember that over one million people are homeless at this time.

That is a significant number of votes.


And that is precisely why we are a nation of laws, not of pimping for
votes.

Any politician who votes to give money freely to those who do not have
a legal claim to it should be assassinated.

Ah! A choice of ****ing off the majority of people who lack flood
insurance or the minority who have it. Guess which group any politician
will seek to **** off first? Yup, the group with flood insurance. Laws
are made by politicians, you know. There are plenty of laws on the books
that were born out of political whim rather than a sense of justice.

"Too_Many_Tools" wrote in message
oups.com...
|
|
| If you were wondering how claims are handled in these situations, here
| is an insight into the process. From experiences that I have been seen,
|
| the insurance company will try anything to wriggle out paying a claim.
|
|
| TMT
|
|
| http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...05/09/11/AR200...

Anyone who believes 'you can't cheat an honest man' has never had to deal
with an insurance company.