After ten weeks, Congress approves $9.7 billion in Sandy aid

[Chris_]

Congress OKs $9.7B in Sandy relief, as conservatives question call for more aid

The Senate bill included a $4 million repair job at the Kennedy Space Center in Florida.

It also included $150 million for fishery disasters in a range of states -- including Alaska and Mississippi. Along those lines, the bill included $821 million for dredging projects nationwide in natural disaster areas, but not necessarily those affected by Sandy.

Some of this spending, it can be argued, is related to Sandy, but not the kind of direct emergency aid that some lawmakers make it out to be. For instance, nearly $45 million was included for work on NOAA's hurricane reconnaissance aircraft.

The Congressional Budget Office estimates that only $9 billion of the $60.4 billion proposed on the Senate side would be spent over the next nine months. An additional $12 billion would be spent the following year. Republicans claimed the CBO's estimate undercuts the urgency of the bill.

Fox News

Dang, I wonder what was holding it up.  Sounds like Harry Reid and another one of his shady land deals.  I can't understand why someone might object to wasteful spending during an emergency.

[mrclose]

Not Yours to Give: Davy Crockett and Welfare

Not only is taxpaid, government dictated welfare opposite to Christian charity, it also flies directly in the face of the Constitution of the United States.

Hero of the Alamo Davy Crockett was a colonel in the Tennessee Regulars and was elected to the House of Representatives from his native state. That was before his part in the valiant defense of the famed Alamo. He served three terms as congressman.

While Crockett was in Congress a distinguished naval officer died, leaving a widow. Members of the House proposed to appropriate $20,000 of public money to give to the widow to assure her welfare and to honor the memory of the late officer. Crockett opposed that appropriation in such persuasive terms that it received only a few votes and was defeated.

For those of you that have never read about this .. I hope that you will take the time to do so.

http://www.101bananas.com/library2/crockett.html

[Maxiest]

I was actually going to start a thread similar to the last post.

Why do federal dollars go to these disasters.  I don't want to sound heartless or unsympathetic, but I have always wondered this.  Is it even constitutional?

[mrclose]

I was actually going to start a thread similar to the last post.

Why do federal dollars go to these disasters.  I don't want to sound heartless or unsympathetic, but I have always wondered this.  Is it even constitutional?

No, it isn't but when was the last time that the Constitution stood in the way of the Rats?

[Freeper]

I was actually going to start a thread similar to the last post.

Why do federal dollars go to these disasters.  I don't want to sound heartless or unsympathetic, but I have always wondered this.  Is it even constitutional?

Because if congress doesn't write a check they will get crucified. Until we can get a congress with some backbone this will continue.

The question no one is asking is I thought FEMA and 0bama fixed it all back in Nov why do they still need money?

[17 Oaks]

I was actually going to start a thread similar to the last post.

Why do federal dollars go to these disasters.  I don't want to sound heartless or unsympathetic, but I have always wondered this.  Is it even constitutional?

With you 100%

Why should I pay for them building homes in a flood zone.

Friend of mine, her husband is in the FBI, high ranker, they own a home on the BEACH down in the Cape Hatteras area.  4 x the house has been rebuilt from the foundation up by tax payers dollars.  His fed ins costs less than $400 per year.  They love it, big storm or hurricane blows house away and they get to build ALL NEW.

[SSG Snuggle Bunny]

I was actually going to start a thread similar to the last post.

Why do federal dollars go to these disasters.  I don't want to sound heartless or unsympathetic, but I have always wondered this.  Is it even constitutional?

Government has 3 responsibilities: defend people from 1) force 2) fraud 3) calamity

If state and local authorities are overwhelmed there is no evil in committing federal assets.

The problem is our response assets are designed to look busy more than actually respond in meaningful ways.

With you 100%

Why should I pay for them building homes in a flood zone.

Everybody lives in some kind of zone. I defy anyone to show me a home not susceptible to hurricane, tornado, wildfire, earthquake, pestilence, etc.

Remember how far Mt. St. Helens pitched its destruction?

You cannot prevent or avoid disasters, you can only respond to them.

[17 Oaks]

Government has 3 responsibilities: defend people from 1) force 2) fraud 3) calamity

If state and local authorities are overwhelmed there is no evil in committing federal assets.

The problem is our response assets are designed to look busy more than actually respond in meaningful ways.

Everybody lives in some kind of zone. I defy anyone to show me a home not susceptible to hurricane, tornado, wildfire, earthquake, pestilence, etc.

Remember how far Mt. St. Helens pitched its destruction?

You cannot prevent or avoid disasters, you can only respond to them.

You are right, HOWEVER I carry insurance, I pay for it, my loss is my loss NOT YOUR responsibility to pay me a damn dime.

Yea, I am different, older, came from different stock, my mom and dad lived thru the depression and the dust bowl, lost our ranch, our cattle, our crop, they nearly starved to death but dad could hunt and fish and he put protein on the table...when it all failed they picked up in a horse drawn wagon headed to Texas, dad got a job throwing a newspaper and a job in the daytime working for Western Union and a job working at night running the projector at a movie house, the Paramount...he had 3 jobs while other stood in a soup line.  I will make it on my own, don't need YOUR TAX MONEY, keep it, take care of your family...

[J P Sousa]

Flood insurance was initially set up to avoid huge government spending to recover loses BUT it's a big mess.  


http://www.nytimes.com/2012/11/13/nyregion/federal-flood-insurance-program-faces-new-stress.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

Even with the new rules, critics argue, it will be many years, if ever, before many homeowners are required to pay premiums that accurately reflect the market cost of the coverage. Some communities have long resisted imposing more appropriate building codes to prevent damage, putting the program at further risk of devastating losses when storms like Hurricane Sandy hit.    

The insurance is mandatory for homeowners with a federally backed mortgage if they live in an area subject to flooding at least once every 100 years. The average annual flood insurance premium is about $615, but for homeowners in areas at higher risk of flooding, an annual policy can cost from $1,200 to $3,000, according to Steve Harty, president of National Flood Services, a claims-processing company, depending on the level of coverage.    

[J P Sousa]

BTW: We live in an area that is least likely to flood but we have "contents flood coverage" for our basement such as oil furnace and freezer. We have never in 25 years had any water in the basement but I am one to prepare for anything. 

.

[SSG Snuggle Bunny]

You are right, HOWEVER I carry insurance, I pay for it, my loss is my loss NOT YOUR responsibility to pay me a damn dime.

To be honest I'm not sure what this supposed relief bill has in it (Not even the legislators do, these days.) but before your house was rebuilt you would need shelter, food, water, sanitation, medicine, trauma care, utilities, roads, etc etc etc restored before brick #1 could be laid.

I'm OK with providing those things until your insurance company pays your general contractor to rebuild your house.

Alas, I fear rebuilding homes is now part of the vote-buying schemes needed to gain/stay-in office. Too many people addicted to it and even the good pols would suffer if they failed to vote for it.

[J P Sousa]

(Caution blood pressure alert)

It's a matter of taxpayers paying for stupid people.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/11/13/nyregion/federal-flood-insurance-program-faces-new-stress.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

  One Biloxi, Miss., property valued at $183,000 flooded 15 times over a decade, costing the program $1.47 million, according to federal data provided by the agency to a member of Congress. Another in Humble, Tex., has resulted in over $2 million in flood payouts even though it was worth just $116,000.   

New York and New Jersey;

  But homeowners in those two states have fought measures that would reduce storm damage. Barrier island communities in the Northeast, for example, have resisted overtures from the Army Corps of Engineers to build sand dunes as a natural flood barrier, arguing that the dunes would block ocean views or harm the local tourism industry.

Other communities, like Tuckerton, N.J., have failed to take steps recommended by FEMA to better protect homes after flooding through a program that pushes owners to elevate new homes above minimum required heights or to move flood-prone buildings.
 

.

[SSG Snuggle Bunny]

(Caution blood pressure alert)

It's a matter of taxpayers paying for stupid people.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/11/13/nyregion/federal-flood-insurance-program-faces-new-stress.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0


New York and New Jersey;

Taxpayer subsidized.

If they had to pay market-based rates they'd be begging to have barrier islands poured for them.

[17 Oaks]

To be honest I'm not sure what this supposed relief bill has in it (Not even the legislators do, these days.) but before your house was rebuilt you would need shelter, food, water, sanitation, medicine, trauma care, utilities, roads, etc etc etc restored before brick #1 could be laid.

I'm OK with providing those things until your insurance company pays your general contractor to rebuild your house.

Alas, I fear rebuilding homes is now part of the vote-buying schemes needed to gain/stay-in office. Too many people addicted to it and even the good pols would suffer if they failed to vote for it.

Lets take a look at ANY catastrophe event over the past 20 years or so, Katrina is a good one.  Govt housing for people for YEARS, their homes rebuilt, living expenses, every event has been a wind fall for those involved, many do so well they can retire on the largesse of taxpayer and donations.  I have stopped donating and I used to give a sizable amount, but no more.  The big winners are the so called poor, best thing that ever happened to them...the govt has taken over charity and have done so in order to buy a vote, never met a LibTard in my life that would pizz in your mouth if your guts were on fire...

[Maxiest]

To be honest I'm not sure what this supposed relief bill has in it (Not even the legislators do, these days.) but before your house was rebuilt you would need shelter, food, water, sanitation, medicine, trauma care, utilities, roads, etc etc etc restored before brick #1 could be laid.

I'm OK with providing those things until your insurance company pays your general contractor to rebuild your house.

Alas, I fear rebuilding homes is now part of the vote-buying schemes needed to gain/stay-in office. Too many people addicted to it and even the good pols would suffer if they failed to vote for it.

I agree that the necessities should be provided, but a bill that is weeks to months after the disaster isn't to provide those.  They happened when the natural disaster happened.  You and I both know that these bills are nothing but put out to buy votes and spend a shit ton of taxpayer money on pork.