Sign In | Create an Account | Welcome, . My Account | Logout | Subscribe | Submit News | Newspaper contacts | All Access E-Edition | Home RSS
 
 
 

Government doing good

February 1, 2014

All across the nation, self-described Tea Party members are calling out, demanding that "the government" get out of their lives....

« Back to Article

 
 
sort: oldest | newest

Comments

(46)

mikekerstetter

Feb-02-14 4:30 AM

Nobody-"..tell me what is untrue about any of the following statements from Stanley Gould?'

The part where Stanley says, or implies, that the TP wants all government out of their lives. It's a straw-man argument. All of us realize Government has a legitimate function. We'd like to see Government operated within the scope it was set up to operate in.

6 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

MECURY2

Feb-01-14 9:43 PM

Stanley, You can't say I didn't warn you! Here they come!

1 Agrees | 3 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

eriklatranyi

Feb-01-14 8:48 PM

Jerry:

Biggert-Watters is a bipartisan, compromise bill that everyone tells us we need more of today.

It is not bad legislation.

It was not implemented, as written, by Obama's FEMA.

I wish liberals would see and be outraged by this type of lawlessness coming from any White House.

3 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

eriklatranyi

Feb-01-14 8:41 PM

Rick:

You can be sick all you want. The,problem you have,is separating the good intentions from the actual government failure....something most liberals cannot reconcile.

Obamacare is exactly the same.....sounds great to insure the uninsured. Unfortunately, the result is the gov't is creating more uninsured.

Until liberals, like you, can see the disconnect between the very good intentions and the actual consequences, you will be blind to the failure of government at nearly,every level.

4 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Nobody

Feb-01-14 2:57 PM

Regardless of anyone's political affiliation, could someone please tell me what is untrue about any of the following statements from Stanley Gould?

Except for Medicare, the most-successful and least-costly health insurance plan in history (and, I might add, a very popular government program).

Except for the Farm Bill, which keeps the price of milk and other staples low while making sure that farmers get paid a "living wage" for their efforts. Except for military pensions, paid to veterans who have served the government of this country.

Except for the Interstate Highway System, which makes travel easier for everyone.

Except for the Flood Insurance Program, which, until passage of the Biggert-Waters Bill, provided exceptionally-deep discounts on flood insurance for communities all across the nation, including right here in our neck of the woods.

3 Agrees | 6 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

gavinf56

Feb-01-14 2:18 PM

"...hate agenda." - MERCURY2

Drink! Heck that's a double shot. Drink!

6 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

MECURY2

Feb-01-14 1:58 PM

Outstanding and to the point article,thank you! Now, Get ready for the attack coming at you from the group of nut's called the TEA PARTY! The SUN is their vehicle to put out their crap and hate agenda.

1 Agrees | 9 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

JerryfromRI

Feb-01-14 1:10 PM

Erik, why didn't 109th repeal the liberal scourge that was FEMA government flood insurance?

4 Agrees | 3 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Capricorn1

Feb-01-14 12:25 PM

Mike, thanks for the info, I am already in the process of doing the research to try and have it changed. I don't think I'll have a problem because I checked the houses surrounding me and they are all low risk. Not sure if the age of the home has anything to do with it because this is the oldest home in the neighborhood. But I would recommend everyone visit the FEMA website and verify their risk because for those that don't have a mortgage and have lived in the home for a long time, they may be high risk and not even know it. And they won't until they go to sell their home.

3 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

rick424

Feb-01-14 12:14 PM

I thought the subsidized flood insurance was started because private industry stopped including it on their standard policies. It became too expensive for the average homeowner and not profitable for private insurance. You know Erik I get tired of your liberal bashing BS all the time. There clearly was a problem in the 60s when this was started. The government stepped in and helped. People were happy for the most part. Anyway this was a very good letter. Very good and very true.

4 Agrees | 7 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

gavinf56

Feb-01-14 11:34 AM

...and btw, that's a very week argument for me to subsidize your rental properties, while in the mean time you dramatically raise your rents because you can get the money for it from the gas industry workers.

4 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

gavinf56

Feb-01-14 11:29 AM

I ought to just quit working the 50+ hours a week I have been working the past 10 years, just hand my whole check over to the Government so that they can give it to whoever thinks they deserve it and then let the Government give me back whatever is left.

You bought the property in the flood zone, live with it.

4 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

eriklatranyi

Feb-01-14 11:21 AM

Jerry:

Liberals created flood insurance, then a bipartisan plan was put together to lessen the load on FEMA(Biggert-Watters).

That law ordered FEMA to conduct at least a one-year study to determine the impact of such changes on homeowners.

FEMA did not do that study. Instead, it violated the law and just started changing flood insurance rates.

FEMA is run by the liberal Obama Administration.

Liberals started this, bi-partisan cooperation tried to solve it, then liberals screwed it up.

5 Agrees | 4 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

mikekerstetter

Feb-01-14 11:08 AM

Unfortunately, there are a lot of people, like susquehannaretreiver, who (as we found out in another article), had the Elevation Certificate done and found they were still in the high risk area.

2 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

mikekerstetter

Feb-01-14 11:04 AM

Cap, have you had an Elevation Certificate done?

As I said in previous posts, my house in Montgomery was on the edge of the 100 year flood plain. The border was an alley that ran just along my house, and my House set a few feet higher than the alley. FHA was going to make me buy flood insurance, but I got a letter from the borough EMA Coordinator stating my home never flooded. They dropped the requirement. If you believe your home is listed as high risk, it is incumbent and prudent on your part to get eh Elevation Certificate.

1 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

TunedIn

Feb-01-14 11:00 AM

Sorry, Senator Toomey, please come to Central Pa and let us share our concerns in a Town Meeting. More importantly, there is an abundance of accurate (outside the Washington beltway) information which may be of value as you represent us. You are still our Senator correct?

2 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

TunedIn

Feb-01-14 10:55 AM

The recent SENATE bill that was passed Thursday and sent to the House for consideration remains to be flawed. Of particular significance are "second" homes will continue to pay high premiums. The problem with this is there is no real definition of "second" home. Therefore, individuals who have investment properties may all be considered "second" homes, whether it is 1 or 31, doesn't matter. The fact is many of these investment properties are often "first and only homes" for renters. There should be no differentiation whether it is your first home or fifth home. What makes the difference? Gavin, mortgage companies require it. If the property is not mortgaged, it is not required. Thus, the problem arises when a property is sold, to avoid these high premiums, it must be a cash sale. Thereby, reducing the marketability. I don't believe there are an abundance of cash buyers out there. Senator Toomey, come to a town meeting and tell us how yo

2 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Capricorn1

Feb-01-14 10:20 AM

OK Cap, so were you always rated as a high risk flood risk or was it changed to a high risk with the passage of Biggert-Waters? -Gavin,

To be honest, I have no idea. My grandparents built this house over 100 years ago so it hasn't had a mortgage in years so there was no requirement for flood insurance. I only found out recently by checking the FEMA website, just as many others are that don't have mortgages. The problem is, this house's value will plummet because of the high risk rating. As far as those houses in Montoursville, they should be paying a high premium because of the risk and past flooding history.

1 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

gavinf56

Feb-01-14 10:08 AM

"I do not disagree with this," should read "I do agree with this,"

0 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

gavinf56

Feb-01-14 10:00 AM

I asked this a couple of weeks ago and only got 1 answer so I will ask it again.

The houses along Broad Street in Montoursville, between Loyalsock Ave and the 'sock, have flooded no less than 3 times in the past 20 years, 2 of those being in the past 10 years. What should the flood insurance premiums be for people who own those homes?

2 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

gavinf56

Feb-01-14 9:58 AM

"I agree with tunedin in that this entire program needs to be turned back over to the private sector where they are better equipped to perform risk analysis on a case by case basis, resulting in more accurate data and fairer premiums for everyone." - Capricorn1

I do not disagree with this, but the Gov't took over this program exactly because the insurance companies were charging by risk.

1 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

gavinf56

Feb-01-14 9:46 AM

OK Cap, so were you always rated as a high risk flood risk or was it changed to a high risk with the passage of Biggert-Waters?

0 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

USABorn

Feb-01-14 9:38 AM

MrShaman - 8:56 AM "Absolutely!!! How quickly everyone forgets about those "poor"-folks, at Big Oil, when we're "wasting" $ub$idy-buck$ everywhere-ELSE!!"

As usual, Sham is running his mouth without knowing the facts.

To learn about OIL SUBSIDIES, go to:

forbesDOTcom/sites/energysource/2012/04/25/the-surprising-reason-that-oil-subsidies-persist-even-liberals-love-them/ Change DOT to . Copy/paste to address box

2 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

JerryfromRI

Feb-01-14 9:35 AM

Dig a little deeper Ida. Bipartisan? Why did they enact it?

1 Agrees | 3 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

USABorn

Feb-01-14 9:28 AM

The main thrust of the Tea Party is to fight for SMALLER government and less intrusion in people's lives.

6 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Showing 25 of 46 comments Show More Comments
 
 

Post a Comment

You must first login before you can comment.

*Your email address:
*Password:
Remember my email address.
or
 
 

 

I am looking for:
in:
News, Blogs & Events Web