Political Sniping, you say?
2 Likes
The Matrix is glitched today.
Why does this grotesque shit goblin still have political power?
3 Likes
Let’s not forget he is 100% human, so he has that going for him.
6 Likes
I’m sorry - but it states clearly in the manufacturers warranty that you’ll
correct defects.
7 Likes
At the very least Canada should have issued a recall.
7 Likes
Why don’t you meet half way? Put him on a disputed island.
5 Likes
What do you expect from the Zodiac killer? (Sarcasm,duh)
1 Like
Drop him on the ice, like the original Blob.
2 Likes
Insurance has nothing to do with people drowning or ending up homeless. It pays to rebuild a home in a flood zone. Perfectly fine. There’s a risk to living in a flood zone and insurance is a perfectly valid way to spread the risk. Just like any other home owner insurance.
But if you subsidize the insurance, then you inadvertently encourage people to build, and rebuild, where the risk is higher than the insurance cost would indicate. You want to live in a flood zone? No problem. But the risk you choose, and the cost associated, should be your responsibility.
There is a ban on earmarks since 2011. I recognize that reasonable people may differ, but I’m not convinced that the ban has been all that positive.
People like to rail against pork, but it was a useful political lubricant.
The difficulty with saying “just don’t live in a flood zone, and if you do, that’s your problem” is that as a civilization we’re rather dependent upon waterways and oceans for things like commerce and food. There’s a need to populate places that would otherwise probably be seen as objectively dumb to live in, because those areas are the ones best suited to providing access to said waterways and oceans. Thus, there’s a national interest in ensuring that it’s affordable to live in those places, which comes with some degree of subsidization for flood insurance premiums.
I think the better discussion to have is over the way we’ve handled infrastructure, environmental degradation, and urban/suburban sprawl in hurricane-prone areas over the past 70 years, and learning some hard lessons about willfully ignoring the scientific data on climate change. If we’re going to have people living in places that are objectively super risky, we should at least do what we can to mitigate that risk on a pre-emptive basis, not just pay to rebuild people’s houses in the aftermath.
10 Likes
One large difference between those two parties over the last 50 years is that one party has a line that members toe, the other has a line that looks more like a scatter plot mean of positions held by it’s membership. The Democrats do try at a command and control approach, but you cannot herd cats. The Republicans do try at grassroots, but astroturf has no roots so it’s awkward outside of the many small areas (per capita) where they are a significant majority already.
3 Likes
Agreed. It’s the subsidized insurance that encourages overbuilding in those areas beyond what is necessary. Living in flood areas is ok. Insurance is a good way to make it reasonable. Subsidy feels good, but gradually makes things worse by masking the long term effect of bad decisions.
My only point is that insurance rates should reflect the risk. People won’t look at flood maps or make good decisions based on “100 year flood probabilities.” But saying “It’s going to cost you an average of $X more to live there” gives people a better way to make an informed decision.
I don’t think higher insurance rates are the thing that will convince people not to live in a flood plain. Most people don’t even have flood insurance when it’s being subsidized because it’s already so expensive.
As conditions worsen due to climate change, more and more areas will get hit harder and harder. The poorest people living in those areas are going to be the hardest hit, because they can’t afford to insure their home, nor can they necessarily afford to relocate. This situation is amplified by the fact that low-income housing is typically built in less desirable areas (like flood plains, it turns out) because the land itself is often relatively inexpensive, and people in more affluent neighborhoods don’t want The Poors living across the street from them.
5 Likes
It seems like Cruz’s eyebrows are always sloping down in that sad-sack way, even when he’s smiling. It’s like some kind of ‘tell’ that he’s being dishonest.
1 Like
The Texas Tribune has a really good article on infrastructure impacts on flooding, no zoning, and stupid city officials made Houston so vulnerable
4 Likes
Most of the people flooded out weren’t even in the flood plains. Not even the 500 year ones.
4 Likes
Depends. Is the Kraken a real thing?
1 Like
@Akimbo_NOT and @anon73430903 ,
Once the product is taken across the border there’s no way to validate the defects were inherent when he was born. There could be misuse or he may have been dropped on his head. The American healthcare system is too fragmented to check all possible records as is required for Canadian warranty claims. I hope you understand.
Putting Cruz on a disputed island raises the spectre of potentially being awarded the island and its inhabitants, sticking Canada with the problem of dealing with a new national liability. There is also the chance of Americans putting Ryan, McConnell, Trump and many other undesirables on the island and quickly ceding the territory to Canada so you don’t have to actually clean up your own mess. 
5 Likes
