Some people no matter how hard they work and try cannot ob=vercome bad luck

[JoJo]

 I'm talking about the people of the California wild fires that have to live pay check to pay check. If they made it to safety with a car chances they still have a car payment, if they had a house they probably had a mortgage, children's college tuition and many other bills.
 Chances are the place where they worked has burnt to the ground also. Those ready to retire now will have to work until they die and the retirees, well they're now zombies, their whole life gone.
 I truly truly feel for them. My wife and I are 77 years old and if it happened to us, well I dont think I could stop crying.
 GOD go with them. 

[grizz]

I dont. They are living the life that they regulated for

[JohnyMac]

First, MrsMac and I too feel sorry for the fire victims in California. Those people are truly screwed and will be looking towards the government for help. When it doesn't come I wonder what will happen? Maybe this is the start of the reset. Keep in mind California is the fifth largest economy in the world.

I just finished a book by T.C. Sherry, Deep Winter. A quick synopsis of the book: Mount Rainer erupts in Southern Washington state. The ash and mud flows post the eruption is enough to start the snow ball rolling down the mountain that causes the country to go into an economic slide.

Now some hard facts. The blame for these fires lay at the feet of the citizens who voted in the idiots in Sacramento.

When MrsMac an I lived in Los Angles 1987-92 it was a full time job doing control burns and brush hogging the canyons. Around 2005 they stopped doing this because of environmental concerns. The last time I was in California ~2009 many counties were using goats to clear the brush but there was a debate going on as to whether that was acceptable either. 

At the time many of the land/home owners were screaming about not clearing the brush and dead trees however due to pure democracy they were overridden by folks who had no fear of wild fires. That is people who rent and folks east of the Sierra Nevada.

It should be interesting what transpires in California. Stay tuned. 

[Kbop]

same kinda things are going on in FL, GA, AL, MS - probably a few other Gulf and SE states.  With homes along hurricane prone coasts and reclaimed wetlands. 

funny, insurance companies are pulling out of FL because they can't raise the premiums due to state laws.  They just consider it too high a liability rate now.  its so bad in Florida they had to create a state insurer 'Citizens Property Insurance'.  FL is trying to ween people off of it but having problems enticing the insurance companies back.  the hurricane problem wasn't a 'bad patch' its becoming the new norm.

[JohnyMac]

Interesting Kbop.

I had FEMA flood insurance when we lived on the water in Rhode Island. When we purchased the house the cost was ~$3K a year in 1997. By 2017 it was ~$8.5K a year. We had a tough time selling the house because in 2012 a law was passed that FEMA insurance cost could not be transferred when the house was sold. Consequently, the insurance for our house went from $8.5K to almost $30K for a new buyer.

If you have a mortgage for a house and it is within X amount of miles from a flood plane, the insurance institution requires you to have FEMA insurance.

In 2015 with both Houses controlled by the GOP, a bill was passed that a house could be transferred/sold and the FEMA insurance would not go up from the price of the year it was sold with the exception of normal yearly increases. There is a "sunset clause" in this bill (I forget what year) so we will be back to folks spending $30K a year for FEMA insurance.

Now my 2¢. I DO NOT think that the government should be in the insurance business. I DO NOT think the government should subsidize the folks who choose to live within X miles of a flood zone. If I choose to live in a house, on the water or beach, or....If my house is swept away or flooded this should be my responsibility.

   

[grizz]

Interesting Kbop.

I had FEMA flood insurance when we lived on the water in Rhode Island. When we purchased the house the cost was ~$3K a year in 1997. By 2017 it was ~$8.5K a year. We had a tough time selling the house because in 2012 a law was passed that FEMA insurance cost could not be transferred when the house was sold. Consequently, the insurance for our house went from $8.5K to almost $30K for a new buyer.

If you have a mortgage for a house and it is within X amount of miles from a flood plane, the insurance institution requires you to have FEMA insurance.

In 2015 with both Houses controlled by the GOP, a bill was passed that a house could be transferred/sold and the FEMA insurance would not go up from the price of the year it was sold with the exception of normal yearly increases. There is a "sunset clause" in this bill (I forget what year) so we will be back to folks spending $30K a year for FEMA insurance.

Now my 2¢. I DO NOT think that the government should be in the insurance business. I DO NOT think the government should subsidize the folks who choose to live within X miles of a flood zone. If I choose to live in a house, on the water or beach, or....If my house is swept away or flooded this should be my responsibility.

 

Amen to that brother

[JoJo]

Interesting Kbop.

I had FEMA flood insurance when we lived on the water in Rhode Island. When we purchased the house the cost was ~$3K a year in 1997. By 2017 it was ~$8.5K a year. We had a tough time selling the house because in 2012 a law was passed that FEMA insurance cost could not be transferred when the house was sold. Consequently, the insurance for our house went from $8.5K to almost $30K for a new buyer.

If you have a mortgage for a house and it is within X amount of miles from a flood plane, the insurance institution requires you to have FEMA insurance.

In 2015 with both Houses controlled by the GOP, a bill was passed that a house could be transferred/sold and the FEMA insurance would not go up from the price of the year it was sold with the exception of normal yearly increases. There is a "sunset clause" in this bill (I forget what year) so we will be back to folks spending $30K a year for FEMA insurance.

Now my 2¢. I DO NOT think that the government should be in the insurance business. I DO NOT think the government should subsidize the folks who choose to live within X miles of a flood zone. If I choose to live in a house, on the water or beach, or....If my house is swept away or flooded this should be my responsibility.

 

Amen to that brother

 Glad to see that I'm not the only one who thinks that way.
 Why should I as a tax payer pay for property damage to people who chose to live in a known dangerous area. If they could afford to live there then they can afford to rebuild them selves.
 I feel sorry for the working man who loses everything but not the rich man.

[Jackalope]

  It looks like Democrats are going to go full retard.  A California commiecrat suggested that the military could use nukes on folks that don't want to give up their guns:  https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2018-11-16/california-democrat-threatens-nukes-if-americans-dont-hand-over-their-guns  I'd say that this could be a true declaration of war.  I'm very surprised that some of these traitors haven't been tarred and feathered or hung yet.  I guess it's coming.  I'm glad we'll be in a warmer clime when the shit does start flying.  Earlier this week it was -1 F and we got over 15 inches of snow over the past couple of days, winter has settled in.

[patriotman]

First, MrsMac and I too feel sorry for the fire victims in California. Those people are truly screwed and will be looking towards the government for help. When it doesn't come I wonder what will happen? Maybe this is the start of the reset. Keep in mind California is the fifth largest economy in the world.

I just finished a book by T.C. Sherry, Deep Winter. A quick synopsis of the book: Mount Rainer erupts in Southern Washington state. The ash and mud flows post the eruption is enough to start the snow ball rolling down the mountain that causes the country to go into an economic slide.

Now some hard facts. The blame for these fires lay at the feet of the citizens who voted in the idiots in Sacramento.

When MrsMac an I lived in Los Angles 1987-92 it was a full time job doing control burns and brush hogging the canyons. Around 2005 they stopped doing this because of environmental concerns. The last time I was in California ~2009 many counties were using goats to clear the brush but there was a debate going on as to whether that was acceptable either. 

At the time many of the land/home owners were screaming about not clearing the brush and dead trees however due to pure democracy they were overridden by folks who had no fear of wild fires. That is people who rent and folks east of the Sierra Nevada.

It should be interesting what transpires in California. Stay tuned. 

I love fire science as I have my wildland fire fighting certs and my masters thesis was on fuel loading related topics. One of the problems is that after the 1910 fire (The Big Burn - excellent book with the same name) the prevailing thought process was to suppress fire so that it would never get that bad again. I understand why they did, because the fledgling forest/fire service took a huge number of casualties. That led, however, to huge fuel build ups. That, in turn, led to terrible wildfires. They learned their lesson. Now, they do try to control the fuel which is the best way to control fire (remember the fire triangle - fuel, heat, oxygen; we can't really control the latter two, so we control the fuel). Besides fire lines and plow lines, we use control burns and stand trims.  They also allow some fires to burn if it is in a non threatening direction and make the containment area bigger instead of stamping it out immediately.

This is where the environmentalists are fucking stupid (pardon the french). They don't understand that cutting down non-dominant trees (which lead to crown fires) and dead brush (which lead to any fires) is necessary to allow for fire threat reduction. We also need control burns to remove the fuel layer and reduce it to an acceptable layer. In New Jersey, we do extensive control burns in the Pine Barrens because a) it reduced fire threat, and b) it is the natural state of the Pine Barrens as, without the natural fire occurring that we suppress, would lead to all of the pine trees being dominated by oak trees. The Forest Service and the fire agencies are driven mad by politicians putting arbitrary restrictions on burning and environmentalists whining about the damage to the ecosystem (like a massive fire wouldn't do that anyway...). Look to Gov Brown's veto in 2016 of a bill passed unanimously in the CA Legislature as the reason this fire occurred.

https://canadafreepress.com/article/ca-gov.-jerry-brown-vetoed-bipartisan-wildfire-management-bill-in-2016

/end rant

[JohnyMac]

Great post Patriotman!   

@Jackalope, yeah I saw that teat by the Rep. from California. What blows me away is that it really shows the intent of our more Progressive politicians. "Do what I say. I work for the Government."