The_Jazz

OK, this is going to be a long one since I've only now seen the responses. The end of the year is hell, btw.

I like how you've conveniently ignored the fact that there were basic engineering mistakes in the construction of the levies. The soil that they thought that they were building on just wasn't there. Please also remember that corruption, which is a universal in ALL political systems, has been particularly endemic to New Orleans since the French handed control over to the Spanish. I suppose that the American 2-party system, which didn't even exist at the time, was responsible for the graft and poor construction practices when the levies were built and upgraded. There were several break sites that showed signs of a lack of clay in the building materials, which was key to their design.

I don't know how to say this any more politely, but you have absolutely no idea what you're talking about, and you aren't making any sense at all with Florida insurance. Property insurance is the simpliest coverage to figure a value - the building costs what it costs. It's a little more complex when it's older or the owner doesn't want to insure the value to replace it, but we're still talking about finite costs.

Let me give you a little peek into insurance and what went wrong in 2005, chief. That was by far the worst year for insurance companies writing coastal property coverage ever. Just as a benchmark, Allstate Insurance, which was the biggest writer of homeowner's coverage back before Andrew, had all of their profits back to 1923 wiped out by that ONE storm. At the time, it almost put them under since they hadn't bought any reinsurance on that book of business to lay off any of the risk. When Wilma hit Tampa last year, it was the second worst storm in terms of dollars ever - #1 was Katrina. In the months after the storm, the companies that create the models for wind damage, storm surge and construction costs for insurance companies discovered that they had screwed up majorly. These companies basically help insurance companies recalculate property values every year since buildings increase in value every year (home equity loan, anyone?). When the claims started rolling in insurers discovered that the replacement cost for almost every policy they had were about 20% higher than what they originally thought and priced for. That caused a huge problem.

At the same time, the reinsurers were being hit with big storm claims from Katrina, Rita and Wilma. Most of them decided to make the business decision to stop writing coastal wind business. Those that chose to remain jacked up their rates and cut their capacity (the total values that they'd insure in any one area). Right now there are no private insurers writing wind coverage in the Miami area. None. If you have a building down there and your wind coverage comes up for renewal between now and the end of the year, your only choice is Citizens Insurance, which was created by the State of Florida to write coverage when no other alternative was available. However, there are very serious doubts about its ability to pay claims in the event of a large storm simply because it now accounts for something like 45% of all property insurance in the state. Think about that for a second - that's a huge amount of risk, and it's the only thing available. If you build a new home anywhere within 5 miles of the coast in Tampa or Miami now, you cannot get homeowners coverage because all of the private insurers have stopped writing new business because the claims have been so bad. There are lots of Floridians that get very nervous when the wind blows because they are self-insuring their own risk.

So tell me, how does the 2 party system contribute to corporations making business decisions to stop doing unprofitable things? Honestly, the private sector has completely failed to find a way to provide coverage in a profitable but affordable way.

Let me know if you want more detail, because I'm up to my ears in it.


The Amish shooter was neither homeless nor diagnosed with a mental illness. He was a truck driver with a wife and kids. What does anything in your response have to do with the actual facts?

The debates usually aren't about where we want to go but rather how to get there. We all want success and security but how we get both is what the debate has been about for the past 30,000 years.

So you're blaming the voters for not keeping tabs on the lawmakers now? Wait, I thought we were blaming the 2 party system for everything.

I don't know about you, but the newspapers I read break down the votes of every local representative on every important piece of legislation that comes to the floor. I think that you're also ignoring the fact that voting record is generally the first issue mentioned in any political race.

The fact remains that Madison embraced the two party system and contributed heavily to its creation. He cemented the Democratic-Republican party in place when the Federalists collapsed after the War of 1812, and there can be no debate that the man viciously consolidated power in his own party throughout his presidency.



Sorry, I don't think that I made my point very well originally. Basically, what I was trying to say was that saying that one party or another is in control ignores the basic fact that several members routinely break with their party to vote with the other on several issues. Reagan Democrats anyone? I know that my Representative growing up (John Duncan, Sr. of TN) came back often to meet with people to gauge their support on issues. I know that his successor does the same thing, and I've personally met with both of them on issues I thought were important at the time. My current rep does the same thing, although I haven't had the inclination to go to any of her meetings.



The basic failing of any political system, whether it's single, dual or multi-party is that interests compete for finite resources. I agree with all of your points on campaign spending, healthcare, Iraq and soldiers.

If you want my nutshell version of what the biggest problem in this country, it's the rise of the single-issue voter. Folks that think that, for instance, the anti-abortion candidate is their best choice despite the fact that they are voting against their class interest is a major problem. I don't mean to pick on conservatives, but many of them are violently opposed to the programs that keep the working poor afloat. However, if they cloak themselves in the anti-abortion guise, they get votes and contributions from the conservative churches that have taken up the pro-life cause. It doesn't matter that the representative routinely votes against the interest of the majority of their constituents so long as they vote correctly on that single issue. See Eastern Kansas for proof.

I agree that Nader should have been allowed to debate in 2000 but not in 2004. If you're not on the ballot in all 50 states, then you don't belong in a national debate - you don't meet the most basic criteria. Running for President, by necessity requires a great deal of organisation and coordination. In 2004, Nader didn't have that so he didn't get on a lot of ballots. However, the Presidential race isn't where 3rd party candidates should start. All politics are local, and if a 3rd party can get grassroots support to get them into elected office, that's the critical mass they need to start thinking nationally. The Green Party just doesn't have the support nationally yet, although there are hotbeds of support here and there.

__________________
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." - B. Franklin
"There ought to be limits to freedom." - George W. Bush
"We have met the enemy and he is us." - Pogo