Insurance? We don’t need no stinking flood insurance!
Now the question that rises out of this largess is: why would anyone buy flood insurance when the Federal government is willing, nay eager to pay citizens for loss of this type? Since our government seems prone to declare disasters much more readily than in times past, I would suggest that private flood insurance has been usurped by taxpayer-funded vote buying. I surmise that, in the first instance mentioned above, the insurance company was reluctant to pay anything out to our neighbors since it knew that a federal disaster had been declared and therefore FEMA could step in its stead.
While we are not now ready to give this $2,000 FEMA settlement back, I do suffer from a guilt pang for helping, in our small way, to push our federal debt load into the multi-multi-trillion dollars. I rationalize this angst by mimicking Rush Limbaugh (“exhibiting absurdity by being absurd”) in that, “I decry greed by being greedy.”
6 comments:
Well, aren't you just becoming a nanny-state-teat-sucker! Or maybe just the biggest hypocrite on the Internets.
DEN,
I am very curious as to why you ask such a question. Are you concerned about my natural and just reaction to such a poltroon? Or perhaps you are chagrined about something else and trying to change the subject?
Capt. Hargreaves (Ret),
I am thinking about voting for Obama next time around ... but I need more pelf first. How about you?
I have an even better answer for that cynic, DEN: "I am exhibiting irony by being ironic."
Going back to my question, it was intended to demonstrate the foolish irrationality of a statement that goes "I decry x by being x".
How about -- "I fix flats by being flatulent ..."?
Post a Comment