Things that annoy me (4 Viewers)

The initial estimate of the damage in LA is $150 billion. How much would it have cost to bury the power lines which start many of these fires? They always claim it is too expensive. How about having the Army or someone do that? It is not sustainable to just pay for these reoccurring natural disasters. The insurance companies can't and won't do it. There needs to be some type of Marshall Plan to address these disasters like after WWII. We just sent another $500 million to Ukraine. How about redirecting that to address the water and fire issues in California? If some person intentionally started these fires, they should be subject to the death penalty. It's an act of terrorism.
Agree with what you say, but hopefully any federal money (i.e. taxpayer dollars) sent to CA would come with guaranties of much needed changes in water management, forestry and brush removal and D.E.I. hiring policy changes.

B.
 
The news coverage of celebrities who have been affected by the LA fires. They have the insurance and means to rebuild.

Maybe do a story about the dishwasher or line cook at their favorite restaurant who has no insurance and lost everything.
While I agree it's equally tragic regarding the loss of the home of a fast food cook and movie celebrity, the story of the celebrity brings more interest. The celebrities can certainly afford to rebuild but the losses of Anthony Hopkins, Billy Crystal, Mel Gibson, etc highlight the catastrophe. Gibson mentioned the loss of rare books, one dating to the 1600's, that's a loss of historical importance. I imagine Crystal's loss of the Yankees jersey and ball cap he wore in the lineup for a pre-season exhibition game unique. Also, the Will Rogers ranch and home were destroyed. He was an American icon.
 
The Speaker of the House stating that he wants conditions placed on any federal aid to California fire victims.

It is a terrible humanitarian and political move.

The game you are playing involves people, and the majority of those people voted for republicans, even if they didn’t win.

This is cowardly and ignorant, you can’t prey on victims for votes that are already on your “side”. But you can lose them.
 
The Speaker of the House stating that he wants conditions placed on any federal aid to California fire victims.

It is a terrible humanitarian and political move.

The game you are playing involves people, and the majority of those people voted for republicans, even if they didn’t win.

This is cowardly and ignorant, you can’t prey on victims for votes that are already on your “side”. But you can lose them.
That seems like a reasonable request. There is no point in rebuilding if there are no changes made. This will just happen over and over again absent some correction. Just sending billions of dollars after every disaster is not a sustainable situation. The politicians of California have proven themselves incompetent. In fact, it appears to be their position that climate change has created a situation in which it is impossible to put these fires out. In which case, the only solution is to prohibit rebuilding in these areas. Maybe the state should buy out the properties in fire zones and turn the whole area into a park.
 
The Speaker of the House stating that he wants conditions placed on any federal aid to California fire victims.

It is a terrible humanitarian and political move.

The game you are playing involves people, and the majority of those people voted for republicans, even if they didn’t win.

This is cowardly and ignorant, you can’t prey on victims for votes that are already on your “side”. But you can lose them.
Jason
There is always more context than how it is reported. That said, I would simply have said - Yes we are going to assist affected folks and we are 100% behind you. However, when the money transfers, there has got to be accountability by the State receiving the money. Look at the debacle (still) from Louisiana and their handling of Katrina money (under a terrible Governor) or Baltimore and their handling of federal education dollars (The State tried to comply, Baltimore rebuffed them and lost $100M ($50M twice) and finally, look at the STate of Maryland (2.5B surplus mainly from federal funding, 2 years later $3B deficit.........................no accountability.).

SO of course, the money needs to get to the victims ASAP, but it comes with accountability. Look at North Carolina and the floods, Biden demanded accountability and he got it. Not sure why the same doesn't apply here.

Again, I think press blows words out of context for political gain. We all know they lean left and therefore slander the right on a daily basis. It is sad and unnecessary, but seems to happen without consequence and it is downright disgusting.

If anything should annoy all Americans regardless of viewpoints, it is our "BULLSHOT FREE PRESS".
TD
 
They won't even try to do forestry like people has been advising them for years. They are too busy passing bills to block Trump, wasting another 50 million.
Mark
 
They won't even try to do forestry like people has been advising them for years. They are too busy passing bills to block Trump, wasting another 50 million.
Mark
Sad but true. Just like the Army Corp told New Orleans for about 35 years and funded the flood issue in the city. City redirected the money, no accountability , then Katrina, so oh guess what, it is Bush's fault. Just ridiculous.
TD
 
The bottom line is that states have allowed overbuilding in known fire, flood, and hurricane zones. It is not a question of if but when these properties are going to be damaged by natural disasters. At the same time, they have refused to take commonsense solutions that might at least mitigate the harms. Like burying the power lines, finding innovative sources of water (like the Pacific Ocean!), and being more proactive at high-risk times when the winds are blowing. Simply paying hundreds of billions to rebuild in these areas without any such measures is the definition of insanity. This is a centuries old problem in California for which they have done little to address and much to exacerbate.

This also can't only be a government driven solution. People who decide to build their homes and businesses in these known high-risk areas should be told that if they burn down going forward, it is their problem to solve. Outside of these high-risk areas it is possible for insurance companies to maintain affordable rates. You can afford insurance in Kansas because the risk of your home burning down is small. It is not sustainable, however, to have to cover the scale of damages in the CA fire. No insurance company can stay in business. Fire is a naturally occurring event in that area. Everyone knows that when they buy a home in that area. In the US, we just throw money at problems. Most often after the disaster has occurred. The government is $38 trillion in debt. Some tough financial decisions are coming either voluntarily or otherwise. It's not sustainable. And I don't mean just cutting back here and there but substantial cuts in the military, social security and other programs that most politicians won't mention because those cuts are unpopular.
 
Watching the video on Fox News website of the Eagles fan calling a woman in a Packers jersey vile names at the game. This sounds like a ticky tack situation but it is common disgusting behavior at sporting events. It took a lot of restraint from her companion not to clock that guy upside the head. In which case he would have been arrested. Glad that the guy was fired from his job even if the company gave a woke driven explanation. I went to a couple of NFL games a few years ago with my kids and couldn't believe the behavior of the fans. Drunk, disorderly, obnoxious, vile. People were fighting, falling down drunk, puking, cursing. What a great fan experience for which you get to pay top dollar.
 
The cease fire deal. After years of war, the outcome is that Hamas release some of the hostages over the next six weeks and stays in power. And only two of the seven Americans. Wow. The deal should be that they release all the hostages within 24 hours and surrender themselves or its nuke time. A one-time take it or leave it offer. Not a good sign that even Trump's team is patting themselves on the back for this capitulation to terrorists. The Hamas supporters are dancing on the streets. And no doubt the Biden administration promised a ton of money to various Arab leaders to get it done.
 
The cease fire deal. After years of war, the outcome is that Hamas release some of the hostages over the next six weeks and stays in power. And only two of the seven Americans. Wow. The deal should be that they release all the hostages within 24 hours and surrender themselves or its nuke time. A one-time take it or leave it offer. Not a good sign that even Trump's team is patting themselves on the back for this capitulation to terrorists. The Hamas supporters are dancing on the streets. And no doubt the Biden administration promised a ton of money to various Arab leaders to get it done.
Wonder how long before Trump lets Israel finish the job. Hopefully shortly.
TD
 
Wonder how long before Trump lets Israel finish the job. Hopefully shortly.
TD
Unfortunately, I think the objective is to bring it to an end by whatever means necessary. I can't understand how the allies could overrun Germany, force the Nazis to surrender, and bring those responsible for atrocities to justice, but we can't do that in Gaza. I can guarantee that the US has paid millions to Arab countries to broker this deal. The media is touting this as a major success while most of the hostages remain in captivity and Hamas remains in power. Did anyone suggest cutting a deal with the Nazis that would have allowed them to stay in power?
 
The bottom line is that states have allowed overbuilding in known fire, flood, and hurricane zones. It is not a question of if but when these properties are going to be damaged by natural disasters. At the same time, they have refused to take commonsense solutions that might at least mitigate the harms. Like burying the power lines, finding innovative sources of water (like the Pacific Ocean!), and being more proactive at high-risk times when the winds are blowing. Simply paying hundreds of billions to rebuild in these areas without any such measures is the definition of insanity. This is a centuries old problem in California for which they have done little to address and much to exacerbate.

This also can't only be a government driven solution. People who decide to build their homes and businesses in these known high-risk areas should be told that if they burn down going forward, it is their problem to solve. Outside of these high-risk areas it is possible for insurance companies to maintain affordable rates. You can afford insurance in Kansas because the risk of your home burning down is small. It is not sustainable, however, to have to cover the scale of damages in the CA fire. No insurance company can stay in business. Fire is a naturally occurring event in that area. Everyone knows that when they buy a home in that area. In the US, we just throw money at problems. Most often after the disaster has occurred. The government is $38 trillion in debt. Some tough financial decisions are coming either voluntarily or otherwise. It's not sustainable. And I don't mean just cutting back here and there but substantial cuts in the military, social security and other programs that most politicians won't mention because those cuts are unpopular.
You can't cut the military unless you can make it much more streamline and efficient. Voting to cut SS would be a death knell to any party voting to do so. People can't live on what they get now and these are people who actually earned it. And Congress didn't help it any by making it so federal (I think) employees to get the full amount. But they sure can come up with money for deadbeats.
 
The bottom line is that states have allowed overbuilding in known fire, flood, and hurricane zones. It is not a question of if but when these properties are going to be damaged by natural disasters. At the same time, they have refused to take commonsense solutions that might at least mitigate the harms. Like burying the power lines, finding innovative sources of water (like the Pacific Ocean!), and being more proactive at high-risk times when the winds are blowing. Simply paying hundreds of billions to rebuild in these areas without any such measures is the definition of insanity. This is a centuries old problem in California for which they have done little to address and much to exacerbate.

This also can't only be a government driven solution. People who decide to build their homes and businesses in these known high-risk areas should be told that if they burn down going forward, it is their problem to solve. Outside of these high-risk areas it is possible for insurance companies to maintain affordable rates. You can afford insurance in Kansas because the risk of your home burning down is small. It is not sustainable, however, to have to cover the scale of damages in the CA fire. No insurance company can stay in business. Fire is a naturally occurring event in that area. Everyone knows that when they buy a home in that area. In the US, we just throw money at problems. Most often after the disaster has occurred. The government is $38 trillion in debt. Some tough financial decisions are coming either voluntarily or otherwise. It's not sustainable. And I don't mean just cutting back here and there but substantial cuts in the military, social security and other programs that most politicians won't mention because those cuts are unpopular.
 
Yes these people live in dangerous areas but if they actually had a government out there that actually focused on important things instead of worrying instead of renaming schools, changing children into something they're not, taking parents rights away, not allowing ID for voting, and trying to protect illegal aliens I think these areas would be much safer.
Mark
 
You can't cut the military unless you can make it much more streamline and efficient. Voting to cut SS would be a death knell to any party voting to do so. People can't live on what they get now and these are people who actually earned it. And Congress didn't help it any by making it so federal (I think) employees to get the full amount. But they sure can come up with money for deadbeats.
Social security should have paid for itself. Unfortunately, all that money has been misappropriated for other purposes. That money is gone. That's the reality that we face. Something like 70% of the US budget is for the military, social security, and health care. Something has to give. The US is $38 trillion in debt and counting. There is two ways to go. Stick our heads in the sand and pretend this problem doesn't exist. Or acknowledge it and try to fix it. The US always does the former instead of being honest and telling people hard truths. The decision is going to be taken out of our hands shortly as the money is gone. It's not a sustainable situation. The types of cuts being discussed by Musk and Vivak are laughable. Grains of sand on the beach. And even those are not likely achievable. The US is in big trouble.
 
Social security should have paid for itself. Unfortunately, all that money has been misappropriated for other purposes. That money is gone. That's the reality that we face. Something like 70% of the US budget is for the military, social security, and health care. Something has to give. The US is $38 trillion in debt and counting. There is two ways to go. Stick our heads in the sand and pretend this problem doesn't exist. Or acknowledge it and try to fix it. The US always does the former instead of being honest and telling people hard truths. The decision is going to be taken out of our hands shortly as the money is gone. It's not a sustainable situation. The types of cuts being discussed by Musk and Vivak are laughable. Grains of sand on the beach. And even those are not likely achievable. The US is in big trouble.
I agree, big trouble. Going to be hard times, especially for the younger generations.
Mark
 
Unfortunately, I think the objective is to bring it to an end by whatever means necessary. I can't understand how the allies could overrun Germany, force the Nazis to surrender, and bring those responsible for atrocities to justice, but we can't do that in Gaza. I can guarantee that the US has paid millions to Arab countries to broker this deal. The media is touting this as a major success while most of the hostages remain in captivity and Hamas remains in power. Did anyone suggest cutting a deal with the Nazis that would have allowed them to stay in power?
The Allies may not have cut a deal with the Nazi's at the end of WW2, however they certainly took advantage and made use of their scientists and medical specialists regardless of the atrocities they were responsible for and lets not mention where did all the stolen gold bullion disappear too.....

Not being made to release all the Jewish hostages as part of phase 1 is a crime in itself and you have to ask yourself what other compromises Biden made to agree to a ceasefire?

As for the ceasefire, given recent history, I'd say its got zero % chance of lasting more than 5 minutes in Middle East terms.

.....and this is me being Mr Positive :ROFLMAO::rolleyes::giggle:
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top