• 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 .
Uzidoesit said:
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.
Click to expand...

I think you must be thinking private flood or some sort of no exception disaster insurance. federal flood insurance is usually a one time fee (typically when you purchase the property or refi). After Katrina people whose homes were destroyed while they evacuated had issues getting payment because their home owners said flood should pay and flood said homeowner's should pay.
 
Wiseone said:
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.
Click to expand...

It would benefit me by having more freedom and wealth.
 
Kal'Stang said:
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.
Click to expand...

Now youve moved on to opinion. Lets stick to legality. That the govt routinely violates the constitution doesnt negate what it says. And the federalist papers were written by the writers of the constitution to explain the meaning of it. I credit their interpretation more than yours. They also wrote into it a way to add disaster aid to the list of powers if you wanted. And a bill of rights which was supposed to make it even more clear that any powers not specifically in it, was not allowed.

3 - I would rather the federal govt follow the law and stick to its actual written powers, primarily defending our lives from violence, and ensuring justice.
 
jonny5 said:
It would benefit me by having more freedom and wealth.
Click to expand...

Would you really have more wealth if we didn't repair after disasters? Our economy wouldn't exactly be as strong you know.

Also I get the hardliner individualist theme, but you're a member of society and like any member you have obligations to that society
 
jonny5 said:
Now youve moved on to opinion. Lets stick to legality. That the govt routinely violates the constitution doesnt negate what it says. And the federalist papers were written by the writers of the constitution to explain the meaning of it. I credit their interpretation more than yours. They also wrote into it a way to add disaster aid to the list of powers if you wanted. And a bill of rights which was supposed to make it even more clear that any powers not specifically in it, was not allowed.

3 - I would rather the federal govt follow the law and stick to its actual written powers, primarily defending our lives from violence, and ensuring justice.
Click to expand...

None of what I said was opinion. 1 is a fact. The federalist papers were not law. And they were not trying to define the constitution in those papers. They were trying to convince the individual states to ratify them. They said what needed to be said. 2: Is also a fact. SCOTUS has ruled. 3: Is also a fact. It is the governments job to protect the interests of this country.
 
Kal'Stang said:
None of what I said was opinion. 1 is a fact. The federalist papers were not law. And they were not trying to define the constitution in those papers. They were trying to convince the individual states to ratify them. They said what needed to be said. 2: Is also a fact. SCOTUS has ruled. 3: Is also a fact. It is the governments job to protect the interests of this country.
Click to expand...

So which is a more accurate explanation of what the constitution means, the federalist papers, or you? SCOTUS can rule all they want. They do not have the power to define the law. They rule on cases, thats it. That is also in the constitution. And 3 is clearly YOUR opinion.
 
Other
This, of course depends on the severity of the disaster and the conditions of the people.
Congress must fund when the infrastructure is destroyed, this is something that is not insured, I believe..
Often times I believe that we would be better off without insurance companies...they only exist to make a ton of money anyway...and they create open avenues for stealing and greed.
 
jonny5 said:
So which is a more accurate explanation of what the constitution means, the federalist papers, or you? SCOTUS can rule all they want. They do not have the power to define the law. They rule on cases, thats it. That is also in the constitution. And 3 is clearly YOUR opinion.
Click to expand...

Accurate does not equal complete. Again, they were just trying to get the Constitution ratified and was saying what they thought would get the job done.

And you're right that SCOTUS does not have the power to define law. But they do have the power to determine if a law is constitutional or not.

And no, 3 is not my opinion. Protecting the US is exactly what the Federal government was made for.
 
Kal'Stang said:
Accurate does not equal complete. Again, they were just trying to get the Constitution ratified and was saying what they thought would get the job done.

And you're right that SCOTUS does not have the power to define law. But they do have the power to determine if a law is constitutional or not.

And no, 3 is not my opinion. Protecting the US is exactly what the Federal government was made for.
Click to expand...

Whatever, we're just going in circles. In the end you win because the govt does whatever it wants, and you dont care.
 
jonny5 said:
Whatever, we're just going in circles. In the end you win because the govt does whatever it wants, and you dont care.
Click to expand...

No, I "win" (if you really care about such things) because I am right.

As for your claim of "you don't care"...don't make assertions you know nothing about.
 
Kal'Stang said:
No, I "win" (if you really care about such things) because I am right.

As for your claim of "you don't care"...don't make assertions you know nothing about.
Click to expand...

No, you win because you side with the tyrancial govt that has all the guns and does whatever they please under two words in the constitution. If that is how you want to live, then leave me out of it.
 
Luckily the House adjourned before the bill was passed, so weve saved a few billion in interest until the next congress comes in and gets pressured to send some more welfare to the northeast.
 
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...

Wrong. I'm just going to quote myself here since I'm tired of writing it over and over again in a slightly different way.

me said:
The General Welfare clause was meant to ensure that the Powers granted applied to the population in general as opposed to certain towns, counties, or states. Now understand the constitution grants the power to tax ONLY IN ORDER TO provide for the general welfare and the common defense.
Click to expand...

Now that you understand what General Welfare means perhaps you now understand why they can't tax towards financial assistance?
 
Wiseone said:
Would you really have more wealth if we didn't repair after disasters? Our economy wouldn't exactly be as strong you know.

Also I get the hardliner individualist theme, but you're a member of society and like any member you have obligations to that society
Click to expand...

Which don't include paying your way unless I otherwise decide to do such. Great useless argument, btw. It was almost as good as that democrat in the house going on about the social contract after she failed to get her way.
 
Wiseone said:
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.
Click to expand...

Then go over to New York and give them your money. Problem solved.

Helping each other is the job of the community, not the government.
 
Henrin said:
Then go over to New York and give them your money. Problem solved.

Helping each other is the job of the community, not the government.
Click to expand...

I don't have enough money to solve those problems...

What about publically owned things that were damaged in the storm, bridges, subways, etc should not the government pay, using your taxes, to rebuild the things it owns?

I still fail to see how your plan would result in a better reconstruction, or are you uninterested in that?
 
jonny5 said:
No, you win because you side with the tyrancial govt that has all the guns and does whatever they please under two words in the constitution. If that is how you want to live, then leave me out of it.
Click to expand...

Oh yes, :roll: providing humanitarian assistance to disaster victims is really tyranical. :roll: Get a grip.
 
Henrin said:
Wrong. I'm just going to quote myself here since I'm tired of writing it over and over again in a slightly different way.

The General Welfare clause was meant to ensure that the Powers granted applied to the population in general as opposed to certain towns, counties, or states. Now understand the constitution grants the power to tax ONLY IN ORDER TO provide for the general welfare and the common defense.
Click to expand...

Now that you understand what General Welfare means perhaps you now understand why they can't tax towards financial assistance?
Click to expand...

You do realize that you just contradicted yourself right? Also providing for the general welfare and common defense of the US doesn't always entail useing guns you know. And as I've said before, major disasters often have far reaching consequences that can affect the entire US and not just to the area hit directly by a disaster.
 
Kal'Stang said:
Oh yes, :roll: providing humanitarian assistance to disaster victims is really tyranical. :roll: Get a grip.
Click to expand...

Taking money:lamo from someone using force and then giving it to someone else, without the power to do so, is indeed tyranical. :2wave:Get a clue.
 
WOW, So many different thoughts floating around. Here is another.
Of course, the federal government must provide relief in instances of national disasters or events too large for individual states; just as a state provides relief for municipalities that need help recovering from some dire event. and so on, down to the level of a family protecting children that is the basic concept of civilization.
If the population is secure then a premise/idea behind civilization is that the diversification and division of skills, labor, resources can be accomplished in such a way that basic requirements for life and population maintenance are distributed across the entire population. {formation of governance}
What is more is that if any catastrophe happens to you, your state, or anybody else's - on a sufficient scale - you would go whining to the Federal government too!

It may not be clear to you but this is one of the values and qualities that separates our democratic republic from a dictatorship. Unless your friends with the dictator, when a natural disaster occurs your own your own.
 
pbrauer said:
Absolutely they should. If this country can spend trillions fighting stupid wars in the MI, we can spend a few billion helping our sisters and brothers in the Northeast.
Click to expand...

Sounds "fair" in principle but the fact is that we ARE fighting stupid wars in the Middle East and can't afford to send relief as well. However, we did raise taxes on the rich so those increases in revenue just paid for this relief. Now we're back at square one.
 
Well not exactly, the GDP isn't free falling nor in free fall, nor stocks, real estate, nor jobs growth. Even though I have yet to look at some indicators, I sense or IOW, I have the sense that the economy is becoming more robust. More companies are hiring and there appears to be more start-ups. Recent resurgence in collective bargaining in the face of concerted efforts to hold down living wages, and improvements in healthcare coverage are converging to create conditions that perhaps are conducive to sustained above average economic growth.
 
amph said:
WOW, So many different thoughts floating around. Here is another.
Of course, the federal government must provide relief in instances of national disasters or events too large for individual states; just as a state provides relief for municipalities that need help recovering from some dire event. and so on, down to the level of a family protecting children that is the basic concept of civilization.
If the population is secure then a premise/idea behind civilization is that the diversification and division of skills, labor, resources can be accomplished in such a way that basic requirements for life and population maintenance are distributed across the entire population. {formation of governance}
What is more is that if any catastrophe happens to you, your state, or anybody else's - on a sufficient scale - you would go whining to the Federal government too!

It may not be clear to you but this is one of the values and qualities that separates our democratic republic from a dictatorship. Unless your friends with the dictator, when a natural disaster occurs your own your own.
Click to expand...

The country is based on a system of law, not values and qualities. Law is what seperates from dictatorship.
 
jamesrage said:
I believe that any disaster relief should come with strings attached such as making structures resistant to natural disasters or not building in areas below sea level.
Click to expand...

Again I agree with this Conservative.

It should be illegal for any "bundling" to occur in any bill.

Did I mention campaign finance and campaign reform....this is one more area....as it is, our Congress is corrupt.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom