H/T to Talkingpointsmemo for bringing to our attention this AP news article on what Obama had to say about McCains’ flood control policy (pet project, pork):
Obama, an Illinois senator, canceled a visit to eastern Iowa last week at the request of state officials and instead went to fill sandbags in Quincy, Ill. McCain, an Arizona senator, toured flood damage in Iowa Thursday.
“I know that Sen. McCain felt as strongly as I did,” Obama said, “feeling enormous sympathy for the victims of the recent flooding. I’m sure they appreciated the sentiment, but they probably would have appreciated it even more if Sen. McCain hadn’t opposed legislation to fund levees and flood control programs, which he considers pork.”
The bill that McCain opposed spent $23 billion on water projects. It passed Congress overwhelmingly and was vetoed by President Bush because he said it spent too much on lawmaker’s pet projects. Congress voted to override the veto, the first time of Bush’s presidency.
The bill funded hundreds of projects — such as dams, sewage plants and beach restoration — that are important to local communities and their representatives. It also included money for the hurricane-hit Gulf Coast and for Florida Everglades restoration efforts.
Insurance has a steep learning curve – and understanding what a policy covers, believe it or not, is the bottom of the curve. Some say learning is more caught than taught; and, if that’s the case, I caught a lot more than I bargained for last week – and learned even more from research over the weekend.
Before I explain why you need to invest your sweet potatoes on the weather, you need to take a look at this picture of the the insurance industry. It’s the one I had in my head – although far more developed (understatement) – when I posted this link on the ALL Board in response to a comment from Slabbed’s friend cominglatersooner.
Now. about those sweet potatoes – or commodities as they’re known when they’re not groceries. Continue reading “Bet your sweet potatoes on the weather and take the pot!”
If he does and has not seen Folo then I suggest he take a stroll over to see what USAA’s star eyewitness is saying:
As neighbors of the Lisanby’s, we feel sad for them, but right is right, and they have no business sueing USAA.
This is my favorite though.
It’s been almost three years, lets move on. Shame on Scruggs, Barrett and all the greedy homeowners blaiming the Ins Co.
So much for fact witnesses making like Joe Friday and staying with the facts eh? I wonder if Mr Treadway was referring to every homeowner who sued or just the ones on Washington Avenue in Pascagoula where he claims Katrina’s winds did not blow?
As my old cyber friend P would say you can’t make this stuff up.
Here at slabbed we don’t just blog about Katrina recovery issues of which insurance is the most important item, we also live the experience, beginning with the fight for our lives on August 29, 2005, through the recovery process to becoming consumer oriented insurance activists. Between holding down our day jobs, posting current issues and news and attending insurance forums and lectures our insurance page suffered from the lack of attention but no more. Included with Gene Taylor’s Mississippi Law Journal Article from March 2008 are PDF’s of reference materials I collected by attending Representative Taylor’s lecture and Commissioner Chaney’s forum.
This quote from Representative Taylor’s article reinforces what I mean about us slabbers living the experience: Continue reading “Hallelujah We’ve Finally Finished the Insurance Page”
Sop, I noted you were asked the SLABBED perspective on the Lisanby’s damage and thought I’d get my two cents in before the day gets completely away. Actually, I have two – one literal and the other legal.
Just looking at the picture, I think most everyone would say water – but from the perspective of one who was there so soon after the storm and talked with literally thousands of people, I believe every case is different. The age of their home, the way it sat on the lot and so forth have to be considered – it’s possible both neighbors are truthful and just witnessed a different truth from one another.
Here’s a link to think – a long page of links to before and after pictures of homes along the Coast posted on the Sun Herald.
From a legal perspective, it would seem the only possible means to a better outcome is taking the case to court; and, that’s a wait and see – I assume for lawyers and no-lawyers like me as well.
The link offers lots of clues – as well as a very pleasant experience – and in the absence of a definitive answer, that will have to do for now.