Welcome to Detroit Sports Forum!

By joining our community, you'll be able to connect with fellow fans that live and breathe Detroit sports just like you!

Get Started
  • If you are no longer able to access your account since our recent switch from vBulletin to XenForo, you may need to reset your password via email. If you no longer have access to the email attached to your account, please fill out our contact form and we will assist you ASAP. Thanks for your continued support of DSF.

California Fires

biggunsbob

Moderator
Moderator
Joined
Aug 6, 2011
Messages
94,789
I kinda lose sympathy for those who build/buy where prone to natural disasters and/or are vulnerable to climate change. Apparently the Republicans' new tax bill may contain language to the effect of permitting write-offs for property losses, due to hurricanes, floods, and twisters, but not quakes, mudslides, and wildfires...sorry Cali...
 
Last edited:
I kinda lose sympathy for those who build/buy where prone to natural disasters and/or are vulnerable to climate change. Apparently the Republicans' new tax bill may contain lannguage to the effect of permitting write-offs for property losses, due to hurricanes, floods, and twisters, but not quakes and wildfires...sorry Cali...

The Trump Gop tax plan is really going after blue states sadly.
 
There is growing suspicion that these fires may not all be ..."natural" disasters, either.
 
the pictures of massive fires burning alongside rush hour traffic are really surreal.

yeah, Bob, I think it's only going to get worse. and with increasing drought, we'll see them in other areas.

it's nice though that there's been some coverage of the practice of wealthy houses are getting protected while less-wealthy ones burn. helpful glimpse into the future of our country.

private cops standing by and watching you get robbed if you didn't pay for "premium" police protection...

fire department letting your house burn because your neighbor paid higher insurance premiums...

getting sick and dying because you can't afford treatment. or getting sick and committing suicide to avoid bankrupting your family

getting to skip painful and humiliating "security" at the airport if you can afford "pre-check"

etc etc
 
the problem is these fires need to happen. Unfortunately, we have developed land in or near these forests.
 
The irony is these fires are WORSE because last winter wasn't as dry and the hillside vegetation (read, "fuel") grew back and is now burning again. I was in LA last week and while that one video of the pre-dawn commute went viral, I can say it was a pretty big deal and impacted a LOT of folks - whether on voluntary evacuation, becoming mandatory or the changing winds causing the fire to leap and cause immediate evacuations.

But when you're on the 20th floor of an office building on Wilshire Blvd, adjacent to the UCLA campus and with views of Bel Air and you see flames leaping into the air, producing thick black smoke ..you understand it isn't some rural brush fire or "natural disaster."

And yes, it (sadly) definitely makes a difference when it's multi-million dollar mansions at stake in Bel Air, Westwood, Pacific Palisades and other areas.
 
getting to skip painful and humiliating "security" at the airport if you can afford "pre-check" etc etc

I recall reading that an airport in SoCal was considering building or designating a terminal to be used exclusively for celebs and the wealthy, so they wouldn't have to rub shoulders with the hoi-polloi....as well as a state prison for the well-heeled convicts to "spend" their time in more plush accomodations.
 
Last edited:
fire department letting your house burn because your neighbor paid higher insurance premiums...

It's a good thing fire trucks in Cali head out to fires with dossiers on every individual homeowners' insurance policy. How the fuck else would they know whose home to save, and what poor schmuck's home they should just let burn to the ground...?
 

So...according to this article...those who can and want to pay a substantial amount of additional money can do so for an amount more comfort and convenience.

Seems unfair to me.

What will they think of next? How about, for a substantial amount more money, a person can sit in the front of the airplane, board before everyone who doesn't pay the additional money, and sit in a larger and more cushioned and comfortable seat, maybe have a gourmet type meal and get served cocktails? How much would that suck for everybody else?

Or what about this - instead of taking a bus or a train to and from the airport, for a whole lot more money, a person can be driven by a chauffeur to and from the airport in a stretch limousine? But what about the plight of those fuckers who are instead crammed like sardines on a bus or a train just because they didn't pay the extra money? Who's worried about those poor bastards?

Or what about this - instead of fucking with commercial travel at all, for a gigantic amount of additional money, a person can just be flown around by their own private pilot in their own private jet?
 
So...according to this article...those who can and want to pay a substantial amount of additional money can do so for an amount more comfort and convenience.

Seems unfair to me.

What will they think of next? How about, for a substantial amount more money, a person can sit in the front of the airplane, board before everyone who doesn't pay the additional money, and sit in a larger and more cushioned and comfortable seat, maybe have a gourmet type meal and get served cocktails? How much would that suck for everybody else?

Or what about this - instead of taking a bus or a train to and from the airport, for a whole lot more money, a person can be driven by a chauffeur to and from the airport in a stretch limousine? But what about the plight of those fuckers who are instead crammed like sardines on a bus or a train just because they didn't pay the extra money? Who's worried about those poor bastards?

Or what about this - instead of fucking with commercial travel at all, for a gigantic amount of additional money, a person can just be flown around by their own private pilot in their own private jet?

exactly!
 

One conclusion we can come to - everybody in the terminal waiting to board their flight, no matter what a hassle getting their might have been, or what a pain in the ass getting through security might have been, or regardless how uncomfortable their flight is going to be based on the class of their ticket - everybody there at least had enough money, or had other resources, to purchase their ticket.

Nobody in an airport terminal is down to their last biscuit.
 
fire department letting your house burn because your neighbor paid higher insurance premiums...

getting sick and dying because you can't afford treatment. or getting sick and committing suicide to avoid bankrupting your family

Health care for the poor is and has been pretty accessible in the United States; how many people actually die from lack of treatment is pretty hard to gauge, as this from PolitiFact, hardly a darling of the far right, (ostensibly criticizing Raul Labrador's dumbass claim that NOBODY dies in the U.S. from lack of access to health care), points out.

Most studies I see seem to be biased in one direction or other, done based on the organization doing the study's agenda.

My estimation is that the number of people who die because they don't have access to/can't afford private insurance is somewhere between 0, which the conservatives would claim, and all of them, falling over dead right in the middle of the street, which is what the liberals would like everybody to believe.
 
Last edited:
What made the US "great" was the post WWIi boom which gave people the oportunity to become middle-class, with all its perks. Since the 70s, wages have stagnated, while the cost of living continued to rise. So wives entered the workforce, or continued working, so the lifestyle could still be achieved or maintained. But the consumer golden-goose isn't laying as many "discretionary" eggs, since necessities like food, utilities, rent, mortgages, insurance, clothing, communications, and transportation take up so much of their monthly budgets.


Getting a temporary tax-cut doesn't compare to getting permanent raises in pay. The tax-cuts are a clever "in lieu" means of business avoiding doing so with theirs.
 
What made the US "great" was the post WWIi boom which gave people the oportunity to become middle-class, with all its perks. Since the 70s, wages have stagnated, while the cost of living continued to rise. So wives entered the workforce, or continued working, so the lifestyle could still be achieved or maintained. But the consumer golden-goose isn't laying as many "discretionary" eggs, since necessities like food, utilities, rent, mortgages, insurance, clothing, communications, and transportation take up so much of their monthly budgets.


Getting a temporary tax-cut doesn't compare to getting permanent raises in pay. The tax-cuts are a clever "in lieu" means of business avoiding doing so with theirs.

the good old days...when men worked in factories and women stayed in the kitchen where they belong.
 
Anyway, getting back to the OP, and continuing to interject politics into the discussion because, you know, what could possibly be more biased and partisan and discriminating than the way a fire burns, right? - I'm right here at ground zero or just about, the Creek fire is about 10 miles north and the Skirball fire is about ten miles south, as the crows fly - as far right wing and Republitard as California is, I haven't heard a whole lot of reports that the combined fire and rescue services are conspiring to save the homes of only the rich, and just letting poor peoples' homes just burn to the ground, because, ya know - fuck 'em, they're poor - right?

Jesus Tap Dancing Christ...
 
Health care for the poor is and has been pretty accessible in the United States; how many people actually die from lack of treatment is pretty hard to gauge, as this from PolitiFact, hardly a darling of the far right, (ostensibly criticizing Raul Labrador's dumbass claim that NOBODY dies in the U.S. from lack of access to health care), points out.

Most studies I see seem to be biased in one direction or other, done based on the organization doing the study's agenda.

My estimation is that the number of people who die because they don't have access to/can't afford private insurance is somewhere between 0, which the conservatives would claim, and all of them, falling over dead right in the middle of the street, which is what the liberals would like everybody to believe.


Going to the ER, sans inurance, credit, or funds isn't the answer. Patients who must resort to that are being triaged, and unless he or she is in imminent danger of death from illness or injury, are treated and stabilized, then are released with 24 hours worth of meds, and instructions/eval to see his or her "primary care provider" with ASAP.

This often causes conditions to gradually worsen, since the afflicted cannot afford/does not have any, so they eventually could be @ death's door in an ER. b/c of inability to pay the outrageous unpaid costs get passed on to everyone else.
 
Back
Top