• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Should Congress Fund Disaster Aid for Northeast

Should Congress Fund Disaster Aid for the Northeast

  • Yes

    Votes: 26 68.4%

  • No

    Votes: 12 31.6%
  • Total voters
    38
  • Poll closed .
Rainman05 said:
Cut the budget increase in defense and spend a few more billions in helping those people. God dammit, in case of natural disaster it is the duty of the state to help out. People NEED to look for one another. The state uses YOUR money or YOUR debt to help YOU, the citizen, just not you directly, but indirectly. That being said, I think the money will be even more wisely used if the 60bil $ will be given to the municipalities who were affected, instead of having the federal government regulate the money which will get wasted in the bureaucracy.
Click to expand...

So are we just going to get rid of flood insurance then?

But I think more limited aid should be provided in the form of food, water, temporary shelter, etc etc. And I think the government should invest money in making building more flood resistant and such.
 
jonny5 said:
Theres no need to escape them. Individuals can deal with weather. The question is whether everyone else has to take care of you. It wasnt intended by the constitution, but here we are 500bn later.
Click to expand...

What goes around comes around. If you were ever a part of a natural disaster you would get help also. Its not like there is a vacuum where only select people get help and select people never do. And yes, it was intended in the Constitution. Section 8 article 1.

Not to mention its just plain common decency to help those struck by natural disasters.

Baralis said:
Then it either should cover everyone or stop all together, enough with the selective benefits. If a tornado touches down and takes out 2 homes does the federal government swoop in and help cover expenses? So then why do they when a larger disaster happens? Is a persons home any less valuable to them because the same disaster didn't also take out hundreds of others?
Click to expand...

The reason that the government doesn't help when just two homes are struck by a tornado is simple. They are not needed. Thats why the Red Cross and other similar programs exist. The government gets involved when the disaster is too big to be handled by charity alone. And the government does have a interest in helping with larger disasters for the simple fact that if they didn't then there would be far larger consequences, such as disease, economic troubles etc etc...things which affect the whole of the US and not just the area that was hit by disaster. 2 homes being destroyed does not affect the whole of the US near as much as 1000 homes and buisnesses being destroyed.
 
ReformCollege said:
So are we just going to get rid of flood insurance then?

But I think more limited aid should be provided in the form of food, water, temporary shelter, etc etc. And I think the government should invest money in making building more flood resistant and such.
Click to expand...

Absolutely, of course, but there is the high cost..

In truth, some places are more risky than others...IMO, some are so risky (California mudslides for one) that NO aid should ever be given and that NO intelligent man would choose to live....this is common sense....people should use this now and again...
I think that it is good economic sense to dredge our rivers, have strong buildings, and protect our coasts..
I am leery of insurance in general - all too often, this leads to corruption/stealing (Medicare as an example)
 
jonny5 said:
Im referring to H.R. 1 which, which in addition to spending 650 billion on defense, adds another 60 billion in specific funding related to natural disasters. My answer is no. First off, the federal govt does not have the power to spend money on flood insurance, transportation other than post roads, housing, flooding or small business loans. Second, it is individuals responsibility first to avoid risk from nature, and if deciding to take that risk, to cover their losses when damages occur (with local govt or charity if they choose). Third, the country is already borrowing a trillion dollars a year. If people want it to spend money on this, they should raise the revenue seperately through a special tax or cut spending to cover the additional spending. Fourth, this should not be bundled with the defense appropriations. It is not germane and it puts pressure on representatives to play political games.

To put it another way, if the govt succeeds in raising taxes on the rich, that additional revenue will already be spent by this one bill.
Click to expand...

When you build your home on land that obviously is prone to flood we taxpayers owe you nothing, you made the decision to live there so live with your decision. I live out in the woods and someday a forest fire may burn up my land, my home my barn etc. You will not see me begging for other people to help me, it's my decision to live here.
 
Kal'Stang said:
What goes around comes around. If you were ever a part of a natural disaster you would get help also. Its not like there is a vacuum where only select people get help and select people never do. And yes, it was intended in the Constitution. Section 8 article 1.
Click to expand...

There is no such clause which has to do with disaster aid. Quote it.
 
earthworm said:
Absolutely, of course, but there is the high cost..

In truth, some places are more risky than others...IMO, some are so risky (California mudslides for one) that NO aid should ever be given and that NO intelligent man would choose to live....this is common sense....people should use this now and again...
I think that it is good economic sense to dredge our rivers, have strong buildings, and protect our coasts..
I am leery of insurance in general - all too often, this leads to corruption/stealing (Medicare as an example)
Click to expand...

I think you wouldn't give those regions aid because generally people buy their way into those risky situations.

But my point is, if you're going to have disaster insurance, its unfair to then have the federal government giving an area an additional $50B in aid, when that is supposed to be paid by the insurance companies.

Its like getting into a nonfatal car wreck, having the insurance company buy you a new car and pay your medical bills, then expect the city to write you an additional check for your "personal tragedy."

And interesting. I thought all liberal/progressives were for universal health insurance. That is an insurance after all.
 
Kal'Stang said:
The reason that the government doesn't help when just two homes are struck by a tornado is simple. They are not needed. Thats why the Red Cross and other similar programs exist. The government gets involved when the disaster is too big to be handled by charity alone. And the government does have a interest in helping with larger disasters for the simple fact that if they didn't then there would be far larger consequences, such as disease, economic troubles etc etc...things which affect the whole of the US and not just the area that was hit by disaster. 2 homes being destroyed does not affect the whole of the US near as much as 1000 homes and buisnesses being destroyed.
Click to expand...

Exactly... but I think its dangerous for the federal government to pick up the entire bill and leave other responsible parties off the hook.
 
ReformCollege said:
Exactly... but I think its dangerous for the federal government to pick up the entire bill and leave other responsible parties off the hook.
Click to expand...

1: What other responsible parties? Who is responsible for what amounts to in the legal world "Acts of God"?

2: How is it dangerous? A specific set of circumstances must happen for the government to take part. Those circumstances are thing which the government, indeed no one period, has control over. Unless you buy into conspiracy theories regarding HARP?
 
Kal'Stang said:
1: What other responsible parties? Who is responsible for what amounts to in the legal world "Acts of God"?

2: How is it dangerous? A specific set of circumstances must happen for the government to take part. Those circumstances are thing which the government, indeed no one period, has control over. Unless you buy into conspiracy theories regarding HARP?
Click to expand...

Its dangerous if we have private companies offer insurance, and then add the complete cost of federal aid on top of that.
 
Kal'Stang said:
It is a part of the taxation for the general welfare. I gave you the article and section regarding it.
Click to expand...

That clause says nothing about disaster aid. And the writers made it clear that general welfare was not a blank check to give the govt any power it thinks is in the countries best interest. That would make the rest of the sec unnecesary.

Federalist Papers

It has been urged and echoed, that the power "to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts, and excises, to pay the debts, and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States,'' amounts to an unlimited commission to exercise every power which may be alleged to be necessary for the common defense or general welfare. No stronger proof could be given of the distress under which these writers labor for objections, than their stooping to such a misconstruction. Had no other enumeration or definition of the powers of the Congress been found in the Constitution, than the general expressions just cited, the authors of the objection might have had some color for it; though it would have been difficult to find a reason for so awkward a form of describing an authority to legislate in all possible cases. A power to destroy the freedom of the press, the trial by jury, or even to regulate the course of descents, or the forms of conveyances, must be very singularly expressed by the terms "to raise money for the general welfare.
Click to expand...
 
jonny5 said:
The problem is the state is using my money to help someone who built in the wrong place. To rebuild in the same place. And then they will charge me again when their house gets knocked down again.
Click to expand...

So we just shouldn't build in the Northeast anymore.
 
ReformCollege said:
Its dangerous if we have private companies offer insurance, and then add the complete cost of federal aid on top of that.
Click to expand...

Simply being a disaster victim doesn't get you money from the government. You must qualify for it also. If you have insurance I doubt that you get federal aid unless that insurance does not cover the full cost of the damage.
 
Folks in NJ don't squawk when we fork over money to help everyone else with their tragedies and disasters. Why is SS Sandy different?
 
jonny5 said:
That clause says nothing about disaster aid. And the writers made it clear that general welfare was not a blank check to give the govt any power it thinks is in the countries best interest. That would make the rest of the sec unnecesary.
Click to expand...

1: The federalist papers are not law.

2: Reality has shown that the government HAS used that clause for damn near everything that they possibly can.

3: It is the governments responsibility to protect the whole of the US and her interests. A major disaster can have far reaching affects that span the entire country from things like disease to economics. Such things could affect the US governments ability to defend this country from both foreign and domestic threats. Since it is the governments responsibility to protect the US helping with major natural disasters would obviously fall under that responsibility. Or would you rather the government ignore the plight of US citizens across the country?

Now if you were to argue against helping other countries which the US has no interest in then you might have a valid point. But we are talking about disasters that happen on US soil. Quite obviously that would mean that the Government has an interest.
 
Uzidoesit said:
Folks in NJ don't squawk when we fork over money to help everyone else with their tragedies and disasters. Why is SS Sandy different?
Click to expand...

The issue isn't helping New jersey--it is whether or not we should be helping anyone and if so in what ways.
 
jonny5 said:
Im referring to H.R. 1 which, which in addition to spending 650 billion on defense, adds another 60 billion in specific funding related to natural disasters. My answer is no. First off, the federal govt does not have the power to spend money on flood insurance, transportation other than post roads, housing, flooding or small business loans. Second, it is individuals responsibility first to avoid risk from nature, and if deciding to take that risk, to cover their losses when damages occur (with local govt or charity if they choose). Third, the country is already borrowing a trillion dollars a year. If people want it to spend money on this, they should raise the revenue seperately through a special tax or cut spending to cover the additional spending. Fourth, this should not be bundled with the defense appropriations. It is not germane and it puts pressure on representatives to play political games.

To put it another way, if the govt succeeds in raising taxes on the rich, that additional revenue will already be spent by this one bill.
Click to expand...

I have no problem with my tax dollars being used to help people who's lives have been destroyed, especially those who don't have the capacity to put their lives back together again. Nothing is served by letting people or cities that have suffered a natural disaster deal with it on their own. For example what benefit would the United States had if we left millions of people and our biggest economic hub, New York City, without any kind of aid or federal assistance? None at all.
 
Uzidoesit said:
Why is this an issue here and now; after a disaster of epic proportions in the NE?
Click to expand...

Maybe you are just now aware of it. People have been blasting flood insurance every time a hurricane destroys an ocean front mansion wherever and whenever that happens.
 
Fisher said:
Maybe you are just now aware of it. People have been blasting flood insurance every time a hurricane destroys an ocean front mansion wherever and whenever that happens.
Click to expand...

People seemed okay about fixing up things after Katrina. I didn't hear any complaints around my way.

It's not true that people in the NE are all rich folks with mansions. Rich folks with mansions have lots of insurance to pay for damages; it's the regular folks, and folks like those in Staten Island, firefighters and policemen and such who need more help.
 
Uzidoesit said:
People seemed okay about fixing up things after Katrina. I didn't hear any complaints around my way.

It's not true that people in the NE are all rich folks with mansions. Rich folks with mansions have lots of insurance to pay for damages; it's the regular folks, and folks like those in Staten Island, firefighters and policemen and such who need more help.
Click to expand...

I was referring to when hurricanes hit the Carolina coast with the mansions comment.
 
Fisher said:
I was referring to when hurricanes hit the Carolina coast with the mansions comment.
Click to expand...

Did they or didn't they have flood insurance? I don't know.

What I do know is that in NJ flood insurance will have gone up so much that some folks have to walk away from their properties.
 
Uzidoesit said:
Did they or didn't they have flood insurance? I don't know.

What I do know is that in NJ flood insurance will have gone up so much that some folks have to walk away from their properties.
Click to expand...

The feds were at one point the only ones who would insure coastal homes in hurricane country. It has been a debate that has been going on for years. It also comes up when the Mississippi floods and you have people on TV lamenting that this is the third or 4th time their house has washed away or flooded. Whether or not you are required to be insured on a mortgage for floods is whether or not you are in a flood plane.
 
Fisher said:
The feds were at one point the only ones who would insure coastal homes in hurricane country. It has been a debate that has been going on for years. It also comes up when the Mississippi floods and you have people on TV lamenting that this is the third or 4th time their house has washed away or flooded. Whether or not you are required to be insured on a mortgage for floods is whether or not you are in a flood plane.
Click to expand...

The flood maps in NJ are in the process of being re-drawn and flood insurance will go up around $1,000.00 per month, which many people cannot afford since a lot of properties at the shore are "legacy properties" which have been handed down for generations to people who will now be unable to afford flood insurance, and which will probably be mandatory.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom