Third Shift Open Thread

Swearing at the federal government for having a program as idiotic as the National Flood Insurance Program. $1800 a year I’m paying for flood insurance for a house I’m trying to sell…which has never flooded…because it’s on top of a mountain…located right next to the start of a giant drainage canal…in the desert.

I pay almost as much for flood insurance as some dude living on the waterfront in a Gulf state who gets a hurricane every year. Which makes total sense, since it’s a program run by the federal government.

UCrawford - January 11, 2012 reply

About 10 years ago out here in vegas

a hail storm came through about a 2 mile radius. Crazy enough, it flooded quite a bit of houses. Bad part was that you couldnt get flood insurance out here if you wanted it. I think you can now but when this flood happened, it was impossible to get.

TheScreenName - January 11, 2012 reply

My House Is In Southern Arizona

We get yearly monsoons for two or three months in summer, but even with torrential downpours, I’m located so close to the top of the mountain and so surrounded by flood control measures that it’s pretty much impossible for my house to flood. I’m a mile above sea level, for Pete’s sake. Even if the water level quadrupled, it wouldn’t flood me out. My house is right at the start of the city’s flood control measures…two large trenches that can’t get plugged by debris..

Just insane.

UCrawford - January 12, 2012 reply

So why do you carry flood insurance?

Brsrkr - January 12, 2012 reply

Because The House Is In A FEMA-Designated Flood Zone "A"

Meaning that my mortgage company requires me to carry it. I was initially told that a certificate of elevation and survey would reduce my payment, only to find out that FEMA had set the “100 year flood” elevation so high that the survey didn’t change anything. Had I known that I’d be paying $1800 a year and had no chance of getting the payment reduced, I’d have stayed a renter. I also pay a higher rate because my insurance payments help subsidize rates in actual high-risk flood zones.

UCrawford - January 12, 2012 reply

Basically

It’s all due to the FEMA designation of the area I live in. How they came to the conclusion that the top of a mountain is Flood Zone A, I have no idea.

UCrawford - January 12, 2012 reply

Yeah, I am voting based on issues such as these.

I don’t like republican viewpoint, I don’t agree with some of the liberal financial ideas, and I certainly am not a libertarian, as I think we should be most generous with our own people. But after paying over a third of my income last year in ta xes i.e. income tax, property tax on the home that I own (on which the mortgage has gone up multiple times due to tax increases) car tax, 7% state sales tax, Social Security, I want Ron PAul to come in and mop up the government.
Like totally get rid of everything but bare essentials.

Our government is sooo inefficient. I have family in Australia. They pay a flat tax percentage over there which is under 30%. The have socialized medicine, that actually works despite what I have been told about socialized medicine, all kinds of government programs, and they are in the black every year. Anyway sorry for theunrelated rant. Its latenight and I thought I would throw my 200 cents in. The government is robbing us IMO,and we are willingly playing ball. Shit needs to change.

Kblomfiee - January 11, 2012 reply

The problem is that, at least on the federal level, we're going to have to raise taxes.

We’d have to cut over 90% of the discretionary spending if we want to balance the budget without raising taxes. So the question becomes who you want to raise taxes on. If you want to raise taxes on the poor and middle class, vote for Republicans. If you want to raise taxes on the poor and middle class, vote Democrat. If you want to raise taxes on the rich and giant corporations, then too bad, you’re SOL.

wustl_chiefs_fan - January 11, 2012 reply

I'm A Libertarian

I’m all for cutting everything pretty much except law enforcement, courts, national defense and currency. Let states and the private sector deal with flood insurance if they think it’s so important.

UCrawford - January 12, 2012 reply

thank you

im that dude in florida…sp

cgraham111 - January 11, 2012 reply

Looks like Met Tucker won't be our DC/HC in waiting

staying in Jacksonville

IPWT2009 - January 11, 2012 reply

This was the latest I could find on

Mel Tucker here

Can you show me where you found him sticking in Jacksonville?

Mularkey would be smart to hold onto the guy, but interim’s don’t always stay with the team.

Chief-blinders-on - January 11, 2012 reply

The QB situation

A lot of people think we should draft a promising rookie QB (RGIII, f’rex), but the question is: can we develop him if we get him? Rookie QBs, much more than any other position, need development, and KC hasn’t shown that they can do the job in recent years.

Is that because we didn’t have the system, or didn’t have the talent?

Bleedingredandgold - January 11, 2012 reply

Both

Hate to say it…but, I firmly believe it.

Do we now? No idea. On either count.

But yes, we need a QB. No doubt. And not a “stop-gap” or a “band-aid”. Someone who can nail down the position…and lead this team for a decade.

You’ll have yo excuse me if I don’t hold my breath while I continue to wait, though.

Scott B. - January 11, 2012 reply

most top qbs go in the top half of the first round

We haven’t had the opportunity to develop one of the top qb’s in the draft. I think it’s the talent.

prodigy101 - January 11, 2012 reply

Go Chiefs!!!

Chief-blinders-on - January 11, 2012 reply

So I was at the Rams SBNation site.

And they were talking about how Fisher going to Miami might indicate that the Rams will move to LA, and how they are rumored to go to LA because of poor attendance which is caused, not because they’re bad fans, but because their team has been so bad. They claimed they were doing better than teams like San Diego and Cincinnati who actually have decent teams. So I looked into it, and I learned some interesting things about NFL attendance.

1. The Rams had the second worst attendance in the league, so those people who argued that they didn’t have attendance issues are simply not right. Teams like the Browns and Bills crush them despite being bad for longer.

2. The only team worse than the Rams were the Bengals, and it wasn’t even close. This kind of surprised me, since they don’t have a reputation for bad fans and they had a pretty good team this year.

3. Attendance on the high end is largely determined by stadium capacity. Arrowhead is the 5th largest stadium, so we have good attendance at the game. If there are less than 70,000 people at the game that’s a small crowd for us, yet many stadiums in the NFL can’t even hold 70,000 people.

4. While stadium capacity and population are probably correlated, there are some weird exceptions. Kansas City and New Orleans, two of the smaller NFL markets, have stadiums in the top 5, while Chicago, the second largest NFL market, has the smallest stadium.

wustl_chiefs_fan - January 11, 2012 reply

good stuff WSF

It will be interesting watching the developments of the next LA team.

But hey, at least we know it won’t be the Kansas City Chiefs.

Life would be hard if we knew there was a team called the Los Angeles Chiefs? Ugh, even typing that is unpleasant.

Chief-blinders-on - January 11, 2012 reply

Good stuff!

I’m surprised we come in at 5th. Also, I figured Jerryworld would be 1st. It’s 3rd. Go figure. Beat out by MetLife and FedEx.

Wichita Chief - January 11, 2012 reply

I don't even know where MetLife and FedEx stadiums are. And I don't plan to learn.

Why honor a soul-less thing with a place in my memory?

Brsrkr - January 11, 2012 reply

Especially if we had to watch them play in the Oakland Coliseum

Kblomfiee - January 11, 2012 reply

hue jackson for OC

Jackson: an exceptional playcaller. a motivational leader. An intimate knowledge of the AFC West defenses. Win. Win. Win situation.

michaelaglover - January 11, 2012 reply

These candidates are going to start getting snatched up pretty quickly...

Chief-blinders-on - January 11, 2012 reply

Hue Jackson or Al Saunders

or other?

Shanghai_Chiefs - January 11, 2012 reply

jeff davidson

they’ll probably go with jeff davidson, though, because of his ties to crennel when they were with the browns and patriots. hue jackson would be the better coordinator because of his knowledge of working with quarterbacks and scheming against afc west defenses.

michaelaglover - January 11, 2012 reply

Who else wants to laugh at the Raiders

Interviewing Todd Bowles

Chief-blinders-on - January 11, 2012 reply

Longtime listener, first time caller...

Always creepin’ on Arrowhead Pride for the last two years. It occurred to me just now that maybe I should join so I can:
1. Support the Chiefs.
2. Laugh at the Raiders.
3. Punch my TV when Tim Tebow is on the screen.
4. Watch Philip Rivers Cry.

I can do all these things by myself…but the point is…I want to do them with all of you.
Awwwwww.

chiefsupreme - January 11, 2012 reply