LOGIN | REGISTER

Page 5 of 14 FirstFirst ... 34567 ... LastLast
Results 41 to 50 of 138
  1. #41
    Quote Originally Posted by shark-hunter View Post
    You're also paying for someone to be saved by the police. Should only people who carry police insurance be saved? What about a fire? Should the fireman just stand outside and watch while you burn to death if you didn't pay your insurance. We take care of convicted felons and give them health care. Basic healthcare is something that should be a right as a citizen and paid for with taxes just like medicare. That's what evey other modern nation has. Hope Obama wins. We pay for it anyway when they go to the emergency room. The whole argument by the right is idiotic. Hell Nixon loved the idea of universal healthcare and mitt romney designed it in Mass! It was the basis for obamacare. Healthcare is basic public safety Anyway, that's off topic.
    What point are you trying to make? I was stating that AndrewK is misinformed if he thinks that he won't pay for someone's lung cancer. What are you saying about the police and firemen? I think your point got lost somewhere in your rambling. Universal healthcare is a great idea, but obamacare is no where near perfect, just a step in the right direction.

  2. #42
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    MD - VA
    Posts
    2,347
    Quote Originally Posted by seldom seen View Post
    We're so f**ked it's not even funny. People, or at least the masses of, will never wake up.
    What The Seen said.

    Again, as noted in my previous post in the Sandy Storm thread, the huge over-development of coastal America, east & west & Gulf, is due in huge part to the 1968 flood insurance subsidies that Congress passed at the behest of the developers & the builders.

    Was it sound financial policy? No.
    Was it sound policy in any way shape or form? Heck no.
    Was it designed to generate more profits for the building industries at taxpayer expense? Heck yes, to the tune of $ 200 million per year in losses to American taxpayers who pay for the claims on these coastal structures.

    If taxpayers would grow a set & make Congress end federal govt subsidized property insurance for coastal areas & let the market find its own true level, you'd see a lot of empty coastline where structures once perched. How nice would that (open space) be, for all Americans...?

    Never happen, tho. If you want to know where the true answers are located in our great nation, just follow the money boyz.

    Love my country, fear my govt.

  3. #43
    Quote Originally Posted by dreadhead View Post
    What point are you trying to make? I was stating that AndrewK is misinformed if he thinks that he won't pay for someone's lung cancer. What are you saying about the police and firemen? I think your point got lost somewhere in your rambling. Universal healthcare is a great idea, but obamacare is no where near perfect, just a step in the right direction.
    I was talking about the other guy. I thought he was knocking obamacare saying he shouldn't have to pay for someone ele'se lung cancer. Or at least you said that. SO i just quoted you. I totally agree it's not perfect. It was a compromise vs. NOTHING. There should be a public option obviously. You don't see the analogy I was making about police/fireman being publicly/government run entities for public safety? Anyway, totally off topic.
    Last edited by shark-hunter; Nov 6, 2012 at 02:56 AM.

  4. #44
    Quote Originally Posted by yankee View Post
    What The Seen said.

    Again, as noted in my previous post in the Sandy Storm thread, the huge over-development of coastal America, east & west & Gulf, is due in huge part to the 1968 flood insurance subsidies that Congress passed at the behest of the developers & the builders.

    Was it sound financial policy? No.
    Was it sound policy in any way shape or form? Heck no.
    Was it designed to generate more profits for the building industries at taxpayer expense? Heck yes, to the tune of $ 200 million per year in losses to American taxpayers who pay for the claims on these coastal structures.

    If taxpayers would grow a set & make Congress end federal govt subsidized property insurance for coastal areas & let the market find its own true level, you'd see a lot of empty coastline where structures once perched. How nice would that (open space) be, for all Americans...?

    Never happen, tho. If you want to know where the true answers are located in our great nation, just follow the money boyz.

    Love my country, fear my govt.
    Good points. DIdn't even know about.

  5. #45
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    MAINE
    Posts
    123
    A lot of people going off on this topic.Well I think it should be as simple as all our shores having a good distance of parking lots from the shoreline to the richer's that have their homes close to the beach. Everyone has access and no harm done if parking lots flood. Some concrete work at best. Im not kidding as I have seen first hand how places like Malibu and Santa Monica have been ruined even without a hurricane. If we treated our national parks like we do our beaches you would hear people crying about how our national resources are more important that money being made. I cant build a house in Yosemite so why the jersey shore ? The shoreline is just another prize especially in the east coast. It passes away like everything we attach value to. And the rest of us hoards battle it out to enjoy it. All of the unhappiness for a transient prize we grip so tightly. A big shout out to all people that make housing right on the shore possible.Thank you.

  6. #46
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    In a state of flux
    Posts
    2,964
    so, if i read this right, people are saying that we should stop building on barrier islands based on a once in a hundred year storm?? So by that logic, these same people would advocate building bans in tornado alley, near any Pacific coastline (tsunamis), or any stream, creek or river.

  7. #47
    let's all move here...

    from another thread:

    "I recall driving to from St Louis to Decatur Illinois to play ball. And crossing the Mississippi R was eye-opening, 'cause there were literally miles & miles of land going east & west from that river with zero inhabitants, just barren land.

    I had no idea that the flood plain was that vast. I don't know the laws & regs there, but it seemed like building anything in those regions was totally forbidden."

    could it be that no one wants to live there?

  8. #48
    Quote Originally Posted by aka pumpmaster View Post
    so, if i read this right, people are saying that we should stop building on barrier islands based on a once in a hundred year storm?? So by that logic, these same people would advocate building bans in tornado alley, near any Pacific coastline (tsunamis), or any stream, creek or river.
    No that's extreme. Again, not talking about just barrier islands, but all open oceanfront on the mid atlantic to norteast coast. I just said back it in a few blocks because of rising ocean on the east coast. Not simply because of a 1 in a 100 year storm. This would also mean less nourishment projects would need to be done and the natural cycle could occur. The ocean is rising on the east coast.

    Also, I'm saying we shouldn't be building huge sea walls and spending billions on a sea wall to live right near the coast. People should absolutely have the right to live near the coast, but at the same time be comfortable with that risk and not expect a "sea wall for every town".

  9. #49
    Quote Originally Posted by shark-hunter View Post
    No that's extreme. Again, not talking about just barrier islands, but all open oceanfront on the mid atlantic to norteast coast. I just said back it in a few blocks because of rising ocean on the east coast. Not simply because of a 1 in a 100 year storm. This would also mean less nourishment projects would need to be done and the natural cycle could occur. The ocean is rising on the east coast.

    Also, I'm saying we shouldn't be building huge sea walls and spending billions on a sea wall to live right near the coast. People should absolutely have the right to live near the coast, but at the same time be comfortable with that risk and not expect a "sea wall for every town".
    Agreed. It's just common sense...or of course gov could invest in 'sea walls' so nice beach houses are protected yet still spitting distance. Build a house on a barrier island and get it washed off and expect sympathy...? Same goes bellow sea level New Orleans style. There will be another Katrina and politicians will do lots of chest thumping and 'nation (re)building'. Those 100 year storms will be coming in much closer intervals, all empirical data points that way. So, you know, maybe we should have a bunch of trailers there, but build a mansion and then get it pounded? Well, no surprise there.
    F-ing 'sea wall in every town'...really, man. I am glad that guy doesn't have a job in planning and development.

  10. #50
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    In a state of flux
    Posts
    2,964
    Quote Originally Posted by shark-hunter View Post
    No that's extreme. Again, not talking about just barrier islands, but all open oceanfront on the mid atlantic to norteast coast. I just said back it in a few blocks because of rising ocean on the east coast. Not simply because of a 1 in a 100 year storm. This would also mean less nourishment projects would need to be done and the natural cycle could occur. The ocean is rising on the east coast.

    Also, I'm saying we shouldn't be building huge sea walls and spending billions on a sea wall to live right near the coast. People should absolutely have the right to live near the coast, but at the same time be comfortable with that risk and not expect a "sea wall for every town".
    sounds reasonable. my preference would be to inform people of the risks then let them do what they want but have no bailout for stupid decisions.