zibazinski
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 24, 2010 16:12:50 GMT -5
Posts: 47,865
|
Post by zibazinski on Sept 3, 2017 16:08:14 GMT -5
So for decades. Until obama returned it. I can see the issue. With interest accruing the whole time. And with the likelihood that the World Court would soon rule in Iran's favor in their lawsuit against the United States, which would have made things even worse. So we could effectively give them their money back, that we had held for almost forty years, or continue to hold onto it and watch the price tag go higher. The world court? 😂😂😂 is that something like the un?
|
|
tskeeter
Junior Associate
Joined: Mar 20, 2011 19:37:45 GMT -5
Posts: 6,831
|
Post by tskeeter on Sept 3, 2017 16:32:07 GMT -5
I don't know much about Houston. I do think they people are responsible for foreseen perils and the government should not bail them out. But if this is truly an 800 year flood to me, that is an unforeseen peril. A bank will not mortgage a property in a flood zone if you do not carry flood insurance. And if you try to drop it, the bank is notified and they pay the premiums and add it to the mortgage. That tells me that a lot of these people were not in your typical flood zones. I can be considered a heartless person because I believe in personal responsibility. But at the same time, if your area is hit by something that never would have been expected I don't know how you protect yourself from that. So I am ok with the taxpayers helping out. My concern with Houston is that many of the areas that flooded were reported by a very long time resident of the area to have been marshland. To me, marshland is a foreseeable flooding peril. The simple fact that many areas were identified as flood plain, and flood insurance was available, means that flooding was a foreseeable risk. Even infrequent events are foreseeable. It's very similar to part of my town. Thirty years ago, the south end of town was pasture land. Because it was too wet to plow. Now and again, the cattle grazed while standing in a few inches of water. Today, those pastures are covered with homes. Developers dug a few drainage ditches to help carry the water away. But the water table is still closer to the surface than normal. We didn't buy in the south part of town due to the high water table and the risk of flooding. Since we bought elsewhere, some south end of town homeowners have experienced moisture wicking through concrete floors during wet years. I did my due diligence before buying a home. Apparently others did not. Others lack of due diligence doesn't make moisture problems in homes in the south end of town unforeseeable.
|
|
tallguy
Senior Associate
Joined: Apr 2, 2011 19:21:59 GMT -5
Posts: 14,155
|
Post by tallguy on Sept 3, 2017 16:32:15 GMT -5
My understanding is that it is the judicial branch of the U.N.
|
|
zibazinski
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 24, 2010 16:12:50 GMT -5
Posts: 47,865
|
Post by zibazinski on Sept 3, 2017 17:06:53 GMT -5
Oh well that explains it.
|
|
tallguy
Senior Associate
Joined: Apr 2, 2011 19:21:59 GMT -5
Posts: 14,155
|
Post by tallguy on Sept 3, 2017 17:27:22 GMT -5
And your premise is what? That the United States should abandon any pretense of respect for the rule of law? That we should abdicate our role as leader of the free world and any claim to moral high ground? That we tell our allies, not to mention the rest of the world, that the only thing that really matters is our own interests, legitimate or not? Yeah, that should go well. A bit off-topic for here though.
|
|
zibazinski
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 24, 2010 16:12:50 GMT -5
Posts: 47,865
|
Post by zibazinski on Sept 3, 2017 18:02:36 GMT -5
First get that fucking UN out of this country. What a useless waste it is. Let some other country bear the burden of those leeches or let it die a natural death. Long overdue.
|
|
zibazinski
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 24, 2010 16:12:50 GMT -5
Posts: 47,865
|
Post by zibazinski on Sept 3, 2017 18:03:36 GMT -5
We're the leader of the free world with a moral compass ?
|
|
tallguy
Senior Associate
Joined: Apr 2, 2011 19:21:59 GMT -5
Posts: 14,155
|
Post by tallguy on Sept 3, 2017 18:47:40 GMT -5
We used to have one. It used to be considered important. Didn't you know?
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Apr 29, 2024 0:23:37 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 3, 2017 20:38:23 GMT -5
Reduced salinity levels The water that was dumped on Houston came from the Gulf of Mexico, and will return to the Gulf of Mexico. Not all of it. Much came as rain (almost 50" in some areas if I remember correctly) and more of it came as rain being released from reservoirs further north and coming down the rivers and creeks. There's a whole bunch of water with no salinity that just got dumped into the Gulf for the past week and for weeks to come. Buystoys is correct. Houston was not impacted by storm surge which would be saline;the massive freshwater rainfall that eventually will make its way downstream to the Gulf reduces the level of salinity in the Gulf and will damage the shrimp and oyster industry. I guess it's 6 of 1 and 1/2 dozen of the other - storm surge destroys structures and rainfall destroys structures and sea-based industries too.
|
|
zibazinski
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 24, 2010 16:12:50 GMT -5
Posts: 47,865
|
Post by zibazinski on Sept 3, 2017 21:16:46 GMT -5
We used to have one. It used to be considered important. Didn't you know? . Thought that ended decades ago.
|
|
tallguy
Senior Associate
Joined: Apr 2, 2011 19:21:59 GMT -5
Posts: 14,155
|
Post by tallguy on Sept 3, 2017 21:27:14 GMT -5
Only for conservatives.
|
|
alabamagal
Junior Associate
Joined: Dec 23, 2010 11:30:29 GMT -5
Posts: 8,118
|
Post by alabamagal on Sept 3, 2017 21:27:41 GMT -5
Reduced salinity levels The water that was dumped on Houston came from the Gulf of Mexico, and will return to the Gulf of Mexico. Not all of it. Much came as rain (almost 50" in some areas if I remember correctly) and more of it came as rain being released from reservoirs further north and coming down the rivers and creeks. There's a whole bunch of water with no salinity that just got dumped into the Gulf for the past week and for weeks to come. Sorry but I am a chemical engineer. The water evaporates from the Gulf of Mexico as "fresh water" feeds into the clouds. The salinity in the Gulf is increased when the water evaporates leaving the salt behind. The water is then dumped on the land and then drains back into the Gulf. If you remember all the talks about the storms in the Gulf " feeding" the storms. It is the water from the Gulf falling on land. It is the water cycle on earth.
|
|
zibazinski
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 24, 2010 16:12:50 GMT -5
Posts: 47,865
|
Post by zibazinski on Sept 4, 2017 6:24:02 GMT -5
Only for conservatives. Now if only those conservatives could get something good done, like rid this country of the UN
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Apr 29, 2024 0:23:37 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 4, 2017 9:02:11 GMT -5
what you're talking about would address flood losses. But, what you are talking about is forcing everyone to participate in paying for the relatively higher risk decisions of just a small portion of the population. When I choose to skydive or scuba dive or drive race cars, I pay higher life insurance premiums to reflect the risks that I choose to assume. When someone chooses to buy a house built on marsh land or a flood plain or the sea shore, why should I be forced to absorb risk that is the consequence of that other person's decision? All that indemnification from the consequences of risky decisions does is encourage people to make risky decisions. No, requiring a universal set of coverage for the consumer doesn't mean everyone has to pay for that insurance. Those in the higher risk area can simply be charged more. Here is my gripe with the insurance industry. It is terrible for the consumer. Now that doesn't mean we need to "force" coverage on people that don't want it either (like ACA for healthcare), but why can't our stupid government figure out that regulation can be simple. The federal government can create a standard "all included" insurance policy that the insurers then price as they see fit. As a consumer I can remove the items I don't want if the cost is to high, but that would also highlight to me the risk I might be taking (also make it easy for me to realize I have chosen to decline coverage). Currently, I want policies like my umbrella, it covers everything for liability as long as my act is non-criminal. So simple, basically a 1 page policy. The problem with my homeowners, is I have to "know" to ask for the special rider since the fine print, in complex legalese doesn't cover the storm water back-up is different that the sewer back-up event because one is an act of god, but I bought sewer back-up which as a consumer seemed like anything back-up via that pipe should be covered.
|
|
billisonboard
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 22:45:44 GMT -5
Posts: 37,468
|
Post by billisonboard on Sept 4, 2017 9:18:02 GMT -5
Only for conservatives. Now if only those conservatives could get something good done, like rid this country of the UN I read this and thought, "Now what does this remind me of? Oh yeah the signs I saw growing up." Went to my friend Google and what did I find? The John Birch Society Is Back
|
|
buystoys
Junior Associate
Joined: Mar 30, 2012 4:58:12 GMT -5
Posts: 5,650
|
Post by buystoys on Sept 4, 2017 9:19:22 GMT -5
Not all of it. Much came as rain (almost 50" in some areas if I remember correctly) and more of it came as rain being released from reservoirs further north and coming down the rivers and creeks. There's a whole bunch of water with no salinity that just got dumped into the Gulf for the past week and for weeks to come. Sorry but I am a chemical engineer. The water evaporates from the Gulf of Mexico as "fresh water" feeds into the clouds. The salinity in the Gulf is increased when the water evaporates leaving the salt behind. The water is then dumped on the land and then drains back into the Gulf. If you remember all the talks about the storms in the Gulf " feeding" the storms. It is the water from the Gulf falling on land. It is the water cycle on earth. OK. So you're a chemical engineer. There have been articles about flushing fresh water into the Gulf, which is pretty much what is happening now with Harvey. Here's one from last year in Florida: link. All the water rushing out into the Gulf is carrying sediment. I wish I could find the picture I saw the other day. You see a big brown cloud pushing out from the rivers.
|
|
swamp
Community Leader
Don't be a fool. Call me!
Joined: Dec 19, 2010 16:03:22 GMT -5
Posts: 45,310
|
Post by swamp on Sept 4, 2017 9:29:09 GMT -5
Gee the $150billion that Obama put on a plane to Iran would have been nice. We should stop all foreign aid except and take care of ourselves. What part of, "it was their money to begin with and "do you not understand?
|
|
tallguy
Senior Associate
Joined: Apr 2, 2011 19:21:59 GMT -5
Posts: 14,155
|
Post by tallguy on Sept 4, 2017 9:40:44 GMT -5
Now if only those conservatives could get something good done, like rid this country of the UN I read this and thought, "Now what does this remind me of? Oh yeah the signs I saw growing up." Went to my friend Google and what did I find? The John Birch Society Is Back
|
|
zibazinski
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 24, 2010 16:12:50 GMT -5
Posts: 47,865
|
Post by zibazinski on Sept 4, 2017 10:05:32 GMT -5
Now if only those conservatives could get something good done, like rid this country of the UN I read this and thought, "Now what does this remind me of? Oh yeah the signs I saw growing up." Went to my friend Google and what did I find? The John Birch Society Is BackI'm sure you mean that as an insult, too bad for you.
|
|
billisonboard
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 22:45:44 GMT -5
Posts: 37,468
|
Post by billisonboard on Sept 4, 2017 10:38:10 GMT -5
I read this and thought, "Now what does this remind me of? Oh yeah the signs I saw growing up." Went to my friend Google and what did I find? The John Birch Society Is BackI'm sure you mean that as an insult, too bad for you. You should be proud of the heritage of your political stances.
|
|
zibazinski
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 24, 2010 16:12:50 GMT -5
Posts: 47,865
|
Post by zibazinski on Sept 4, 2017 10:39:57 GMT -5
I am. Since being conservative means racist and whatever the latest insult du jour is, okay by me.
|
|
tallguy
Senior Associate
Joined: Apr 2, 2011 19:21:59 GMT -5
Posts: 14,155
|
Post by tallguy on Sept 4, 2017 10:45:00 GMT -5
I am. Since being conservative means racist and whatever the latest insult du jour is, okay by me. No. Racist means racist. There just happens to be a large overlap with social and right-wing conservatives.
|
|
zibazinski
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 24, 2010 16:12:50 GMT -5
Posts: 47,865
|
Post by zibazinski on Sept 4, 2017 10:48:12 GMT -5
Uh huh. Using it so freely means it's lost its sting. The new buzz word is nazi because it's apparent to those who try to insult anyone not thinking their way that racist doesn't cut it anymore.
|
|
alabamagal
Junior Associate
Joined: Dec 23, 2010 11:30:29 GMT -5
Posts: 8,118
|
Post by alabamagal on Sept 4, 2017 11:14:41 GMT -5
Sorry but I am a chemical engineer. The water evaporates from the Gulf of Mexico as "fresh water" feeds into the clouds. The salinity in the Gulf is increased when the water evaporates leaving the salt behind. The water is then dumped on the land and then drains back into the Gulf. If you remember all the talks about the storms in the Gulf " feeding" the storms. It is the water from the Gulf falling on land. It is the water cycle on earth. OK. So you're a chemical engineer. There have been articles about flushing fresh water into the Gulf, which is pretty much what is happening now with Harvey. Here's one from last year in Florida: link. All the water rushing out into the Gulf is carrying sediment. I wish I could find the picture I saw the other day. You see a big brown cloud pushing out from the rivers. Ok your article is about Florida. That area is totally messed up. And that is because they are dumping water into the ocean on the east coast instead of letting the water flow through the Everglades which is where it used to go. The Gulf of Mexico normally receives large amounts of water draining from the entire middle portion of the US a lot via the Mississippi River which includes silt and sediment. It is different than what is happening in FL.
|
|
tskeeter
Junior Associate
Joined: Mar 20, 2011 19:37:45 GMT -5
Posts: 6,831
|
Post by tskeeter on Sept 4, 2017 12:17:43 GMT -5
what you're talking about would address flood losses. But, what you are talking about is forcing everyone to participate in paying for the relatively higher risk decisions of just a small portion of the population. When I choose to skydive or scuba dive or drive race cars, I pay higher life insurance premiums to reflect the risks that I choose to assume. When someone chooses to buy a house built on marsh land or a flood plain or the sea shore, why should I be forced to absorb risk that is the consequence of that other person's decision? All that indemnification from the consequences of risky decisions does is encourage people to make risky decisions. No, requiring a universal set of coverage for the consumer doesn't mean everyone has to pay for that insurance. Those in the higher risk area can simply be charged more. Here is my gripe with the insurance industry. It is terrible for the consumer. Now that doesn't mean we need to "force" coverage on people that don't want it either (like ACA for healthcare), but why can't our stupid government figure out that regulation can be simple. The federal government can create a standard "all included" insurance policy that the insurers then price as they see fit. As a consumer I can remove the items I don't want if the cost is to high, but that would also highlight to me the risk I might be taking (also make it easy for me to realize I have chosen to decline coverage). Currently, I want policies like my umbrella, it covers everything for liability as long as my act is non-criminal. So simple, basically a 1 page policy. The problem with my homeowners, is I have to "know" to ask for the special rider since the fine print, in complex legalese doesn't cover the storm water back-up is different that the sewer back-up event because one is an act of god, but I bought sewer back-up which as a consumer seemed like anything back-up via that pipe should be covered. Gee, what you describe sounds pretty much like what we have today. Voluntary purchase of insurance. Cost based on risk. Options based on your needs or desires (the fine print). In Houston, many, many homeowners opted not to purchase flood insurance, even though they were aware it was available. The homeowners chose to assume the risk associated with flooding, rather than shift that risk to an insurance company. It sounds like the fine print that you complain about is a function of two things. Insurance buyers who do not ask the basic question "What options/riders are available and what risk does each option/rider insure against?". Not a difficult question to ask. And a question that doesn't require much knowledge about insurance products in order to ask it. The second element of your fine print complaint seems to be lack of adequate information and coaching from insurance sales people. Shopping multiple providers is a simple way to combat gaps in agent provided information. All-in-all, I suspect that many consumers spend more time and energy researching the purchase of an $800 TV or a $25K car than they do researching the insurance that protects the hundreds of thousands of dollars they have invested in their home.
|
|
zibazinski
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 24, 2010 16:12:50 GMT -5
Posts: 47,865
|
Post by zibazinski on Sept 4, 2017 12:46:32 GMT -5
No, requiring a universal set of coverage for the consumer doesn't mean everyone has to pay for that insurance. Those in the higher risk area can simply be charged more. Here is my gripe with the insurance industry. It is terrible for the consumer. Now that doesn't mean we need to "force" coverage on people that don't want it either (like ACA for healthcare), but why can't our stupid government figure out that regulation can be simple. The federal government can create a standard "all included" insurance policy that the insurers then price as they see fit. As a consumer I can remove the items I don't want if the cost is to high, but that would also highlight to me the risk I might be taking (also make it easy for me to realize I have chosen to decline coverage). Currently, I want policies like my umbrella, it covers everything for liability as long as my act is non-criminal. So simple, basically a 1 page policy. The problem with my homeowners, is I have to "know" to ask for the special rider since the fine print, in complex legalese doesn't cover the storm water back-up is different that the sewer back-up event because one is an act of god, but I bought sewer back-up which as a consumer seemed like anything back-up via that pipe should be covered. Gee, what you describe sounds pretty much like what we have today. Voluntary purchase of insurance. Cost based on risk. Options based on your needs or desires (the fine print). In Houston, many, many homeowners opted not to purchase flood insurance, even though they were aware it was available. The homeowners chose to assume the risk associated with flooding, rather than shift that risk to an insurance company. It sounds like the fine print that you complain about is a function of two things. Insurance buyers who do not ask the basic question "What options/riders are available and what risk does each option/rider insure against?". Not a difficult question to ask. And a question that doesn't require much knowledge about insurance products in order to ask it. The second element of your fine print complaint seems to be lack of adequate information and coaching from insurance sales people. Shopping multiple providers is a simple way to combat gaps in agent provided information. All-in-all, I suspect that many consumers spend more time and energy researching the purchase of an $800 TV or a $25K car than they do researching the insurance that protects the hundreds of thousands of dollars they have invested in their home. Guilty! I was in such a dither to get any kind of insurance that I didn't read either. I'll be smarter next year.
|
|
vetswife
Established Member
Joined: Jun 21, 2016 10:59:25 GMT -5
Posts: 310
|
Post by vetswife on Sept 4, 2017 13:13:09 GMT -5
There are some areas of Houston that should not have homes built in it. On the other hand, we are not in a flood zone and did not flood, came pretty close though if the river had gotten more rain, and we are a good ways from the river. The size of this storm was unbelievable. We do have flood insurance; always have after we were flooded in a non-flood zone of the Dallas area. In a metro area, new building, a new mall or strip center can completely change the way the drainage goes; you don't know about it until there is a big storm.
|
|
alabamagal
Junior Associate
Joined: Dec 23, 2010 11:30:29 GMT -5
Posts: 8,118
|
Post by alabamagal on Sept 4, 2017 13:58:43 GMT -5
There are some areas of Houston that should not have homes built in it. On the other hand, we are not in a flood zone and did not flood, came pretty close though if the river had gotten more rain, and we are a good ways from the river. The size of this storm was unbelievable. We do have flood insurance; always have after we were flooded in a non-flood zone of the Dallas area. In a metro area, new building, a new mall or strip center can completely change the way the drainage goes; you don't know about it until there is a big storm. How much of Houston was flooded? When I read that 80% don't have flood insurance, but if those were in places that didn't flood they are fine.
|
|
zibazinski
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 24, 2010 16:12:50 GMT -5
Posts: 47,865
|
Post by zibazinski on Sept 4, 2017 14:01:21 GMT -5
If you've never flooded before I have sympathy. If you have and choose to stay or rebuild then I don't.
|
|
spartan7886
Familiar Member
Joined: Jan 7, 2011 14:04:22 GMT -5
Posts: 788
|
Post by spartan7886 on Sept 4, 2017 14:23:09 GMT -5
There are some areas of Houston that should not have homes built in it. On the other hand, we are not in a flood zone and did not flood, came pretty close though if the river had gotten more rain, and we are a good ways from the river. The size of this storm was unbelievable. We do have flood insurance; always have after we were flooded in a non-flood zone of the Dallas area. In a metro area, new building, a new mall or strip center can completely change the way the drainage goes; you don't know about it until there is a big storm. How much of Houston was flooded? When I read that 80% don't have flood insurance, but if those were in places that didn't flood they are fine. The estimates I've seen are around 10% of structures (30% of landmass).
|
|