1. Welcome to SportsJournalists.com, a friendly forum for discussing all things sports and journalism.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register for a free account to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Access to private conversations with other members.
    • Fewer ads.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

President Trump: The NEW one and only politics thread

Discussion in 'Sports and News' started by Moderator1, Nov 12, 2016.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. poindexter

    poindexter Well-Known Member

    I am ready for "I expect the ratings for this flood to be the highest in years..."
     
  2. Starman

    Starman Well-Known Member

    Where's Obama?
     
  3. Dyno

    Dyno Well-Known Member

    Or, "Obama didn't get flood numbers like this, believe me."
     
    melock and playthrough like this.
  4. HanSenSE

    HanSenSE Well-Known Member

    It's going to be the greatest recovery.
     
  5. Neutral Corner

    Neutral Corner Well-Known Member

    How Washington Made Harvey Worse

    "Nearly two decades before the storm's historic assault on homes and businesses along the Gulf Coast of Texas this week, the National Wildlife Federation released a groundbreaking report about the United States government’s dysfunctional flood insurance program, demonstrating how it was making catastrophes worse by encouraging Americans to build and rebuild in flood-prone areas. The report, titled “Higher Ground,” crunched federal data to show that just 2 percent of the program’s insured properties were receiving 40 percent of its damage claims. The most egregious example was a home that had flooded 16 times in 18 years, netting its owners more than $800,000 even though it was valued at less than $115,000.


    That home was located in Houston, along with more than half of America’s worst “repetitive loss properties” identified in the report."

    “The floods have gotten worse, but the politics haven’t gotten better,” says Larry Larson, a senior policy director for the association of floodplain managers."
     
  6. Riptide

    Riptide Well-Known Member

    [​IMG]
     
    HanSenSE likes this.
  7. cranberry

    cranberry Well-Known Member

  8. Neutral Corner

    Neutral Corner Well-Known Member

    Trump’s Biggest North Korea Mistake Is Coming

    "To put it as bluntly as possible, North Korea will never surrender its nuclear arsenal willingly, under any conditions. For decades, the Kims have been offered everything possible to induce them to do so, and they have cheated on every agreement they have made while steadily building their capability. Now that Kim the younger sees the reality of putting the American homeland at nuclear risk, thereby almost ensuring the permanent safety of his regime, why would he give that up? It simply makes no sense to do so."

    "What the president should do is simple, if radical. He should admit the failure of America’s North Korea policy since the 1990s and abandon the fantasy of “complete, verifiable and irreversible denuclearization.” Instead, he should acknowledge that North Korea is a nuclear weapons-capable state, and that the United States will treat it as such. That means revamping U.S. policy toward explicit containment and deterrence of a nuclear North Korea. That is the only realistic policy toward a problem that has no good solution."
     
  9. Hermes

    Hermes Well-Known Member

    Yeah, but Todd just challenged the Ochs Sulzbergers to a family snowmobile race, so this isn't over yet.
     
    UPChip likes this.
  10. The Big Ragu

    The Big Ragu Moderator Staff Member

    This is moral hazard in a nutshell. It's also America in a nutshell in the era of creeping socialism and subsidization schemes that make it so that people don't feel the brunt financially for their own decisions.

    When you sell subsidized insurance (because of government meddling in everything from health care to this) whose premiums don't come close to covering the risks, you 1) end up with billions of dollars of debt (obviously), and worse 2) you create a mess by encouraging people to take on way more risk than they would if they were responsible for the costs of the risk they have decided to take. ... rather than taxpayers.

    A really small percentage (less than 5 percent) of flood insurance policyholders have filed repetively for losses that account for about a third of the claims and payments since the late 1970s. The National Flood Insurance Program stupidly isn't permitted to refuse them insurance or charge them rates based on the actual risks they represent. It's mind boggling.

    People who live in flood prone areas should bear the costs of the risks they face -- they make the choice to live there. And if cities like Houston and Galveston need better flood defenses, their citizens should pay for them -- not "the Federal government," which means everyone else bearing the cost. If you live in a risky place and you refuse to tax yourself enough to protect yourself and your property that means it doesn't make economic sense to live there. And if they need verification that they are doing what they need to do to protect where they live, get the government out, and see if private insurers are willing to offer flood policies to residents. If they are not, it means you need to reevaluate.

    What that nationalized program and the subsidies actually did, was create more property losses and put more lives at risk. It's typical of government meddling.
     
    cyclingwriter2 and playthrough like this.
  11. MisterCreosote

    MisterCreosote Well-Known Member

    The English language disagrees with you.
     
    YankeeFan likes this.
  12. Inky_Wretch

    Inky_Wretch Well-Known Member

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page