• 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 Taxpayers pay to rebuild homes after Hurricane Sandy?

Should Taxpayers pay to rebuild homes damages by Hurricane Sandy


  • Total voters
    47
No.

Why would you rebuild houses when they can just be washed away again?

Move!
 
I honestly don't know. I think if we have money for war and humanitarian aid for countries I could give two squirts of piss about, we should have some help for my fellow Americans. If a bunch of Middle East assholes rammed planes into all these homes no one would have any qualms. Of course, I'm just using common sense so don't mind me. Go on with your thread.
 
I honestly don't know. I think if we have money for war and humanitarian aid for countries I could give two squirts of piss about, we should have some help for my fellow Americans. If a bunch of Middle East assholes rammed planes into all these homes no one would have any qualms. Of course, I'm just using common sense so don't mind me. Go on with your thread.

Are you able to send some money of your own? Or are you just expecting others to do it?
 
US Industry Profit Margins:

profits.bmp

Thanks for the update, I was quoting a CBS News report from a few years back. It was broadcast, don't know if it was ever printed.
 
Healthcare insures skim 15 to 25% from our premiums and do nothing to make us healthy. That's alot of money just to cut the checks.
The only "epidemic" I see happening is a total loss of any form of civilized behavior from the far right. You are a perfect example.
Emulating the Nazi dream of the master race will not get you any further than carrying pictures of Chairmen Mao.

Your first sentence has already been replied to by someone else. In the second, you accuse me of being far right (I'm not, actually on their little test things that come up sometimes, I am slightly right and slightly authoritarian) then say I am emulating and carrying pictures of socialist/communist which are extreme left. How does that make any sense?
 
The damage is estimated at $20 BILLION plus. Insurance is estimated to only cover half, few homes have full coverage and many have no insurance coverage at all. Should taxpayers pay to rebuilt homes damaged or destroyed by hurricane Sandy?

I vote other. That money should come with stipulations that they build these structures to be able to handle another hurricane so that tax payers are not paying for another hurricane damage or that damage from future hurricanes are minimized. We should be paying to rebuild structures that are going to topple over every time a hurricane like that hits. The same thing should apply to tornado prone areas, earth quake prone areas and flood prone areas.
 
I honestly don't know. I think if we have money for war and humanitarian aid for countries I could give two squirts of piss about, we should have some help for my fellow Americans. If a bunch of Middle East assholes rammed planes into all these homes no one would have any qualms. Of course, I'm just using common sense so don't mind me. Go on with your thread.

:) Do you like not being a subsistence farmer?
 
:) Do you like not being a subsistence farmer?

So I get two empty replies. No disagreements just empty replies challenging common sense. Yes Utah I donated money. Give me one good reson though that says spending money abroad is a better idea than helping out other Americans. Why there is even people that question this is annoying.
 
This is why we have home owner's insurance. Why give the government one more reason to saddle the American people with more debt?
 
I honestly don't know. I think if we have money for war and humanitarian aid for countries I could give two squirts of piss about, we should have some help for my fellow Americans. If a bunch of Middle East assholes rammed planes into all these homes no one would have any qualms. Of course, I'm just using common sense so don't mind me. Go on with your thread.

I will leave the war comment for another thread if someone starts it, again.

It is easy to say "help my fellow Americans", but what really helps them in the long run, government paying for their lack of preparedness encouraging others to follow the same example because why pay for insurance if the government is going to come in during a disaster and pay for what they need anyway or letting them suffer because they had options to protect themselves but didn't take them? Which lesson do you want people to learn? Which is better in the longterm, not only for the individuals involved but for the country as a whole?

I vote for letting them learn the lessons the hard way. They made their own beds, no let the lay in them.
 
So I get two empty replies. No disagreements just empty replies challenging common sense. Yes Utah I donated money. Give me one good reson though that says spending money abroad is a better idea than helping out other Americans. Why there is even people that question this is annoying.

The short version:


The US economy is completely dependent upon a global supply chain.

Trade is completely dependent on security.

Global Security as regards liberalized trade is completely dependent upon the US military and in a couple of cases, the money we pay Saudi Arabia not to go to war with Iran and Egypt and Israel not to go to war with each other.

The removal of this linchpin of security means that the worlds critical vulnerability spins out of order...

Which means that the global economy goes into a tailspin that makes 2008/2009 look like a friggin sunshine picnic....

And destroys the global supply chain....

Destroying the US economy...

Meaning that most jobs which are directly or indirectly dependent upon global trade are gone and will not be replaced...

Which means that a large portion of Americans now have to figure out how to feed themselves...

Except that we haven't farmed as a people for a couple of generations....

Which means that we will suck at it...

Which means that many of us will likely starve, and many more of us will barely make it.


OH. And nuclear war becomes a near - inevitability. Though it likely won't hit our shores, but still kill millions (again, both directly and indirectly).




That's Why spending that money is a good idea.
 
lets just take the foreign aid we send overseas to terrorists in egypt and pakistan and use that to rebuild.
 
Everywhere in the civilized world, whenever something like this happens, aid is sent to the region to help rebuild. For the US government to abandon its own people is absurd. It gave millions to Haiti when the Earthquake hit... it should give much, much more to its own citizens.
 
Everywhere in the civilized world, whenever something like this happens, aid is sent to the region to help rebuild. For the US government to abandon its own people is absurd. It gave millions to Haiti when the Earthquake hit... it should give much, much more to its own citizens.

should we raise taxes to do this? or add to our ever escalating national debt?
 
So I get two empty replies. No disagreements just empty replies challenging common sense. Yes Utah I donated money. Give me one good reson though that says spending money abroad is a better idea than helping out other Americans. Why there is even people that question this is annoying.

Did I suggest spending money abroad? I am totally against foreign aid. I have never owned a foreign brand car, except for a used Mazda Rotary truck with a dead motor that I put a 62 Buick aluminum v8 and chevy OD tranny into....
I try to buy American products as much as possible. And most importantly, I am doing my best to make sure ALL my kids and grandkids get a college education so they will have a better chance at being tax payers to support those who expect their govt to compensate them for being lazy and stupid and failing to prepare for their own future. That would include my own siblings who have asked me for money, and didn't get it. I don't pay my brother's gambling debts, why should I pay for people who gambled on living in New Orleans or the lower elevations of the east coast? The govt provides subsidized flood insurance for people like that, and if they didn't buy it, too bad.....
 
should we raise taxes to do this? or add to our ever escalating national debt?

No, we should allocate funds to give the necessarily relief. I'm sure the military could use a budget cut or two, and there're some subsidies that don't need to be there.

We have the money, we're just using it poorly.
 
No, we should allocate funds to give the necessarily relief. I'm sure the military could use a budget cut or two, and there're some subsidies that don't need to be there.

We have the money, we're just using it poorly.

allocate funds? isn't that spending money?
as for subsidies, which ones do you want reduced? which one do you consider untouchable?
The subsidies I want reduced are those that reward stupidity...
like those who build on flood prone property.
If they want to build there, fine, but no more govt subsidized flood insurance, they get to pay full price.
 
allocate funds? isn't that spending money?
Yes, but not increasing the current spending. It's taking funds we'd spend elsewhere and using them for disaster relief.

as for subsidies, which ones do you want reduced? which one do you consider untouchable?

Subsidies for the development/extraction of non-renewable fuels and manufacturing subsides should be reduced, if not completely cut.

The subsidies I want reduced are those that reward stupidity...
like those who build on flood prone property.
If they want to build there, fine, but no more govt subsidized flood insurance, they get to pay full price.

Be that as it may, the people living in flood prone property aren't generally the same who built there. We shouldn't punish these people.
 
Yes, but not increasing the current spending. It's taking funds we'd spend elsewhere and using them for disaster relief.



Subsidies for the development/extraction of non-renewable fuels and manufacturing subsides should be reduced, if not completely cut.



Be that as it may, the people living in flood prone property aren't generally the same who built there. We shouldn't punish these people.

I never said punish them, just don't reward them for their stupidity.....
and I am pretty sure they weren' forced to buy those homes built in flood prone areas...
 
Life sucks sometimes when you don't prepare, they took a gamble. You learn and move on. There is always help, but rebuilding your house at the cost of the tax payers?
 
Last edited:
Be that as it may, the people living in flood prone property aren't generally the same who built there. We shouldn't punish these people.
what? Regardless of whether they built it there or not, they still chose to live there. And it is their responsibility to find out, and I believe you are told when you buy/rent property if it is in a flood zone.
 
what? Regardless of whether they built it there or not, they still chose to live there. And it is their responsibility to find out, and I believe you are told when you buy/rent property if it is in a flood zone.

Hardly... People don't just go around choosing homes willy-nilly. There are other factors, job availability, cost, needing to be near family, quality of education, etc.
 
I never said punish them, just don't reward them for their stupidity.....
and I am pretty sure they weren' forced to buy those homes built in flood prone areas...

You're punishing them by not giving them much needed disaster relief.

Like I said before, "there are other factors[in choosing where to live], job availability, cost, needing to be near family, quality of education, etc."

So instead of wanting to help them, you advocate for subsidizing a soon to be failing industry. Nice.
 
Life sucks sometimes when you don't prepare, they took a gamble. You learn and move on. There is always help, but rebuilding your house at the cost of the tax payers?

How cold can you possibly be?

What if they can't move on? Their entire lives have been destroyed. No home, no job, etc. Honestly, what do you expect them to do? :crazy3:
 
You're punishing them by not giving them much needed disaster relief.

Like I said before, "there are other factors[in choosing where to live], job availability, cost, needing to be near family, quality of education, etc."

So instead of wanting to help them, you advocate for subsidizing a soon to be failing industry. Nice.
how so? what industry am I advocating subsidies for?
For a lot of years, we chose where to live based on the job, and the last place we worked was Arizona which has high ground, and low ground. While we lived there, the growth was phenominal, such that builders started using the low ground. Even with the scarcity of rain there, it is just a matter of time til they get one of their really bad rain storms, and those houses will wash away. I hope the govt has lots of money....
 
Back
Top Bottom