• 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 .
jonny5

jonny5

DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 4, 2012
Messages
27,581
Reaction score
4,664
Location
Republic of Florida
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
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.

-$9.7 billion in new borrowing authority for the National Flood Insurance Program to pay claims filed by homeowners and businesses.

— $11.5 billion for the Federal Emergency Management Agency's Disaster Relief Fund.

— $10.8 billion for the Transportation Department's Public Transportation Emergency Relief fund for assistance to subway, commuter rail and public bus systems.

— $17 billion for Community Development Block Grants administered by the Department of Housing and Urban Development, with $15 billion designated for disaster relief and restoration and the other $2 billion for mitigation to reduce future risks.

— $5.35 billion for Army Corps of Engineers infrastructure projects including $3.5 billion for mitigation projects to reduce future flooding risks.

— $760 million for the Small Business Administration's disaster loan program.

— $921 million for highway and bridge repairs funded through the Federal Highway Administration.


Sandy aid passes Senate but House action uncertain
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
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.
 
Hurricane Sandy was a tragic disaster that killed many people, destroyed homes and businesses. If the money went to them I would support aid, however that's never the case with FEMA. Federal agencies are never reliable with helping these people, and shouldn't be rewarded.
 
I think we should provide some limited disaster relief. I think the government should get out of the flood insurance business though. I think the 9th and 10th Amendments when read together and in context of the paradigm in which they were crafted offer an argument for federal authority beyond which I have seen anybody here make.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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 read your post carefully and agree with much that you stated. Nevertheless I voted that the NE disaster relief should be funded. The secondary impact of the funding creates jobs locally. Downhome repairs. Local. There are not many successful job creation programs, but this is one, even if it is not the primary intent. Pull the $60 billion out of our Military Offense budget.
 
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...

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.
 
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...

So you support fighting stupid wars in the MI?
 
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...

I see how that can be troublesome. However, how often does such a hurricane happen?
 
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...

Simply put, no.


It is another example of the governments selective nature and nothing to do with fairness. Small incidents of floods, fires, earthquakes, ect where persons may have lost their homes the federal government turns a blind eye. Only when it is large enough scale to garner real public attention do they offer to help. Tell me, the 10 people that lost their homes in small indecents, is it any less traumatic or difficult for them? Why are they overlooked?
 
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...

Wow, I'm glad I left Michigan before they got invaded.
 
we have to fund the cleanup this time around. however, i would support taking a serious look at where we're building, and consider not putting houses right on the coast. as much as i hate it, communities which are going to get knocked down again and again might be better served by using the money to relocate them. this is incredibly easy for me to say, though, because i don't live in one of them, and if it were my own town, i would have a really hard time seeing the whole place torn down and moved.

as for whether i'd rather see the money spent on this or on interventionism, it isn't even a contest. we don't need a military presence all over the world, and we shouldn't be spending anything to nation build anywhere but here.
 
DaveFagan said:
I read your post carefully and agree with much that you stated. Nevertheless I voted that the NE disaster relief should be funded. The secondary impact of the funding creates jobs locally. Downhome repairs. Local. There are not many successful job creation programs, but this is one, even if it is not the primary intent. Pull the $60 billion out of our Military Offense budget.
Click to expand...

Well then we should have more disasters, since its a wealth multiplier. This is a myth of course. Stossel had economist David Henderson on one time to explain how. The common sense answer is that the money has to come from somewhere first. So helping them hurts someone else. Much like destroying old cars hurt used car sales. Theres an opportunity cost.

Hayek and Hurricanes, David Henderson | EconLog | Library of Economics and Liberty
 
Helix said:
we have to fund the cleanup this time around. however, i would support taking a serious look at where we're building, and consider not putting houses right on the coast. as much as i hate it, communities which are going to get knocked down again and again might be better served by using the money to relocate them. this is incredibly easy for me to say, though, because i don't live in one of them, and if it were my own town, i would have a really hard time seeing the whole place torn down and moved.

as for whether i'd rather see the money spent on this or on interventionism, it isn't even a contest. we don't need a military presence all over the world, and we shouldn't be spending anything to nation build anywhere but here.
Click to expand...

I disagree in part. People can put houses whereever they want. They just shouldnt make me pay for it when it gets destroyed by weather.
 
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...


Excellent point. I don't think any of the million dollar ocean front properties should be repaired or reimbursed. I also don't think beach erosion should get any funding. With Global Warming, the oceans will continue rising and why fight a losing battle. The hurricane was not selective and didn't just damage beachfront, but you can be damn sure some politicians own beachfront and they will be jockeying to feather their own nests. The politics will be right out of the sewers, but that's what the best politicians money can buy buys.
 
jonny5 said:
Well then we should have more disasters, since its a wealth multiplier. This is a myth of course. Stossel had economist David Henderson on one time to explain how. The common sense answer is that the money has to come from somewhere first. So helping them hurts someone else. Much like destroying old cars hurt used car sales. Theres an opportunity cost.

Hayek and Hurricanes, David Henderson | EconLog | Library of Economics and Liberty
Click to expand...

I did not state that it was a wealth multiplier, only acknowledged that the monies spent on homes are locally spent in the areas of need. I'd prefer to pay anybody on a local level before paying Lockheed Martin, GE, Raytheon, or any other Military Offense profiteer.
 
jonny5 said:
Hurricanes damage coastal areas every year.
Click to expand...

I was more like... saying how often do hurricanes of such magnitude.
But anyway. I can't pertain to be for or against any of these things. I guess hurricanes are a more... predictable natural disaster. I guess you can't have the same notions apply to all natural disasters.
 
Rainman05 said:
I was more like... saying how often do hurricanes of such magnitude.
But anyway. I can't pertain to be for or against any of these things. I guess hurricanes are a more... predictable natural disaster. I guess you can't have the same notions apply to all natural disasters.
Click to expand...

I think you can. Stuff happens. All the time.
 
Hate to break it to all those people saying that we shouldn't help those that build along the coast due to natural disasters but it doesn't matter where you build on this planet...every single spot is subject to natural disasters. Tornado's, hurricanes, earthquakes, electrical storms, blizzards, sand storms, tsunami's...these are all a part of this planet and at least ONE of them will hit in your area some time or another. The only way that you're going to escape these things is if you build a space station and live on it. Course then you're subject to solar storms and meteorites.

Yes the government should help in disaster relief. Serving the people is one of its primary responsiblities.
 
This is a real tragedy with real people that need help.

The problem is that Americans are demonized full time as stingy and greedy while being overwhelmed 24/7 with sobbing and wailing demands for support and sympathy, more money, unsolvable problems, foreigners that have come simply because they want freebies, endless emotion and victimization. The boundless generosity of Americans was seen as a trait that could be vastly exploited around the world. And exploited us they have.

Many of us are tired of giving, take your sob story and shove it, stay in your worthless 3rd world country rather than coming here and whining. Give money to what few Americans are left in New York if there are any.

Nobody can even know how to evaluate real American tragedies anymore. Why haven't all the foreign governments we've helped sent money to the Northeast? Why hasn't the government of Mexico sent help and cash? We took all of their uneducated, crime ridden, huge families to support. How much has been sent by China and Japan, how much from Israel? Nobody helps the generous Americans, they all just take, ridicule us and take some more.

How many real enemies of America are in those NE states? With the American culture destroyed by multiculturalism, there is no way to know. I don't want them to have my money. I don't even want the Obama supporters to have my money. I'd like to help the children and rebuild the infrastructure only, but there's no way to do that. The enemies hide amongst the good Americans.

The liberal government has truly trapped us.
 
Last edited:
Ray410 said:
This is a real tragedy with real people that need help.

The problem is that Americans are demonized full time as stingy and greedy while being overwhelmed 24/7 with sobbing and wailing demands for support and sympathy, more money, unsolvable problems, foreigners that have come simply because they want freebies, endless emotion and victimization. The boundless generosity of Americans was seen as a trait that could be vastly exploited around the world. And exploited us they have.

Many of us are tired of giving, take your sob story and shove it, stay in your worthless 3rd world country rather than coming here and whining. Give money to what few Americans are left in New York if there are any.

Nobody can even know how to evaluate real American tragedies anymore. Why haven't all the foreign governments we've helped sent money to the Northeast? Why hasn't the government of Mexico sent help and cash? We took all of their uneducated, crime ridden, huge families to support. How much has been sent by China and Japan, how much from Israel? Nobody helps the generous Americans, they all just take, ridicule us and take some more.

How many real enemies of America are in those NE states? With the American culture destroyed by multiculturalism, there is no way to know. I don't want them to have my money. I don't even want the Obama supporters to have my money. I'd like to help the children and rebuild the infrastructure only, but there's no way to do that. The enemies hide amongst the good Americans.

The liberal government has truly trapped us.
Click to expand...

These third world countries that you accuse of ignoring our charitable good works would probably mention that we got their resources wholesale by purchasing the management of their countries to control the raping of the citizenry. Japan reinvested billions in the USA to repatriate USA dollars. China is in the same trap. China is doing with their currency what we did with ours for 70 years. Get your head out of that controlled media and take a look at the real world. Start with Vietnam, Granada, Panama, Colombia, Chile, Guatemala, Honduras, El Salvador, Nicaragua, Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, Phillipines, etc. Oil, copper, gas, cocoa, cobalt, rare earth, silver, gold, etc. are what we have taken for all this alleged goodwill and it has not been fair trade. We have always charged handsomely for our value added to cheap resources and the tables have turned. Make some practical suggestions on how to get us back to "honest" traders.
 
Kal'Stang said:
Hate to break it to all those people saying that we shouldn't help those that build along the coast due to natural disasters but it doesn't matter where you build on this planet...every single spot is subject to natural disasters. Tornado's, hurricanes, earthquakes, electrical storms, blizzards, sand storms, tsunami's...these are all a part of this planet and at least ONE of them will hit in your area some time or another. The only way that you're going to escape these things is if you build a space station and live on it. Course then you're subject to solar storms and meteorites.

Yes the government should help in disaster relief. Serving the people is one of its primary responsiblities.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Kal'Stang said:
Hate to break it to all those people saying that we shouldn't help those that build along the coast due to natural disasters but it doesn't matter where you build on this planet...every single spot is subject to natural disasters. Tornado's, hurricanes, earthquakes, electrical storms, blizzards, sand storms, tsunami's...these are all a part of this planet and at least ONE of them will hit in your area some time or another. The only way that you're going to escape these things is if you build a space station and live on it. Course then you're subject to solar storms and meteorites.

Yes the government should help in disaster relief. Serving the people is one of its primary responsiblities.
Click to expand...


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?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom