Can a conservative explain to me why i should be paying for Texas' disaster relief when ...

[VirtualLarry]

If communities want to build on land susceptible to hurricanes, they should not be subsidized by the federal government to do so.

Sucesptible to hurricanes? Like... anywhere within 100 miles of the coastal areas of the country? You can't be that clueless...

This isn't like LA, with levees keeping the ocean out or whatever.

We're talking, like, MA (Boston, Cape Cod), NJ, etc.

 

[bshole]

Sucesptible to hurricanes? Like... anywhere within 100 miles of the coastal areas of the country? You can't be that clueless...

This isn't like LA, with levees keeping the ocean out or whatever.

We're talking, like, MA (Boston, Cape Cod), NJ, etc.

I suppose we could carry on business as usual but I have little confidence that it will end well for us as a nation.

How does this hit you?

The United States spends about $300 billion responding to natural disasters like Hurricane Harvey. In contrast, we only spend about $600 million on mitigation — improving buildings so they won’t flood when the next storm comes. This is despite the fact that mitigation has a 4-1 payback, Larson said. The problem is that people often don’t want to spend money up front to protect their house or business, and then get caught up in a cycle of rebuilding.

https://www.vox.com/2017/8/26/16208230/hurricane-harvey-flood-damage

 

[UglyCasanova]

There's only so much spending that Repubs will allow & they'd obviously like to reduce that so that they can cut taxes at the top.

I don't agree, Republicans say they don't like spending but the reality is they do (albeit on different things). And they would be for tax cuts no matter if spending decreased or not, Bush's tax cuts weren't coupled with a massive reduction in the size of government. What they say and what they do don't necessarily align, and there is the misconception that the debt cealing is the same thing as government spending and it's not, it is simply paying the bills that have already been spent. If government spending remained at the same level or increased (let's throw billions at a wall for instance) but you gave them tax cuts they would be perfectly fine with that. It's a hypocritical reality that undermines the idea of them being the fiscally responsible party.

 

[UglyCasanova]

Sucesptible to hurricanes? Like... anywhere within 100 miles of the coastal areas of the country? You can't be that clueless...

This isn't like LA, with levees keeping the ocean out or whatever.

We're talking, like, MA (Boston, Cape Cod), NJ, etc.

One could argue though that the NFIP doesn't accurately price for risk though and that yeah it's subsidizing the coastal areas. As a result it encourages risky development.

 

[fskimospy]

Because it is a specific disaster relief bill, not a national infrastructure overhaul bill.

It's a bill meant to address disasters, which is precisely what it did. Again, common sense.

 

[OWR88]

The Republicans claim to be small business and fiscally conservative. Reality is the current Republicans party are not fiscally responsible, they are just cheap. Too cheap to pay for preventative maintenance. People call on them to conserve the environment, they bitch. People call on them to conserve our resources, they bitch and make stupid YouTube videos with black exhaust.

I have seen enough of the destruction this ultra right wing movement has taken. My country is free falling and I am genuinely worried. Hopefully the right side of history prevails again. I don't know if there will be another civil war, but it is broiling fast.

 

[UglyCasanova]

It's a bill meant to address disasters, which is precisely what it did. Again, common sense.

It's a bill meant to address a specific disaster, not disaster(s). I.e. Hurricane Sandy relief bill.

I know you get this and are dug in, but cmon.

 

[fskimospy]

It's a bill meant to address a specific disaster, not disaster(s). I.e. Hurricane Sandy relief bill.

I know you get this and are dug in, but cmon.

Let's be honest about who is dug in here, this is pure common sense. I personally would be outraged if we passed a spending bill to rebuild after a disaster and included nothing to mitigate future similar disasters. I mean think how silly this reasoning is: 'this bill is to address a disaster in NORTH Carolina, why would we proof against a similar disaster in SOUTH Carolina!?'

Anyone who knows how Congress works knows if you pass a relief bill with the idea some nebulous future infrastructure bill will include disaster mitigation that really means disaster mitigation is never happening. Hence, you do it all at once.

Like I said, if you actually want that mitigation it's common sense.

 

[Jhhnn]

I don't agree, Republicans say they don't like spending but the reality is they do (albeit on different things). And they would be for tax cuts no matter if spending decreased or not, Bush's tax cuts weren't coupled with a massive reduction in the size of government. What they say and what they do don't necessarily align, and there is the misconception that the debt cealing is the same thing as government spending and it's not, it is simply paying the bills that have already been spent. If government spending remained at the same level or increased (let's throw billions at a wall for instance) but you gave them tax cuts they would be perfectly fine with that. It's a hypocritical reality that undermines the idea of them being the fiscally responsible party.

They had the war spending/ support the troops excuse during the Bush years and then tried to hold back economic recovery with tight-fisted policy during the Obama years in an attempt to discredit him. Their mega rich donors want no deficits because it enhances the power of their wealth (deflation would be even better) & they've convinced their base that govt spending is bad, very bad.... After all their raving & shutting down the govt over spending they'd need a new & bigger war than Iraq to justify busting the budget.

 

[UglyCasanova]

The Republicans claim to be small business and fiscally conservative. Reality is the current Republicans party are not fiscally responsible, they are just cheap. Too cheap to pay for preventative maintenance. People call on them to conserve the environment, they bitch. People call on them to conserve our resources, they bitch and make stupid YouTube videos with black exhaust.

I have seen enough of the destruction this ultra right wing movement has taken. My country is free falling and I am genuinely worried. Hopefully the right side of history prevails again. I don't know if there will be another civil war, but it is broiling fast.

Neither side likes to pay for infrastructure maintenance. It's not sexy and doesn't get votes, it simply something that needs to be done. The reality is politicians from both aisle are, well...politicians. As soon as they are elected they are focusing on reelection and maintenance doesn't buy them much in political capital, spending on new stuff does.

 

[Jhhnn]

Let's be honest about who is dug in here, this is pure common sense. I personally would be outraged if we passed a spending bill to rebuild after a disaster and included nothing to mitigate future similar disasters.

Anyone who knows how Congress works knows if you pass a relief bill with the idea some nebulous future infrastructure bill will include disaster mitigation that really means disaster mitigation is never happening. Hence, you do it all at once.

Like I said, if you actually want that mitigation it's common sense.

Agreed.

 

[Jhhnn]

Neither side likes to pay for infrastructure maintenance. It's not sexy and doesn't get votes, it simply something that needs to be done. The reality is politicians from both aisle are, well...politicians. As soon as they are elected they are focusing on reelection and maintenance doesn't buy them much in political capital, spending on new stuff does.

That's called bothsiderism...

 

[fskimospy]

Neither side likes to pay for infrastructure maintenance. It's not sexy and doesn't get votes, it simply something that needs to be done. The reality is politicians from both aisle are, well...politicians. As soon as they are elected they are focusing on reelection and maintenance doesn't buy them much in political capital, spending on new stuff does.

So you're saying neither side wants to do it but are also against it the one time both sides can be made to do it.

Does that make a lot of sense?

 

[UglyCasanova]

After all their raving & shutting down the govt over spending they'd need a new & bigger war than Iraq to justify busting the budget.

Are you implying the current NK situation is a stimulus package for the MIC?

 

[UglyCasanova]

So you're saying neither side wants to do it but are also against it the one time both sides can be made to do it.

Does that make a lot of sense?

It's not the one time both sides can be "made to do it", a relief bill is the wrong time for a national infrastructure spending plan. I feel like we're going in circles here. if it needs to be done (and I think we both agree it does), introduce an infrastructure bill.

 

[fskimospy]

It's not the one time both sides can be "made to do it", a relief bill is the wrong time for a national infrastructure spending plan. I feel like we're going in circles here. if it needs to be done (and I think we both agree it does), introduce an infrastructure bill.

So we know a relief bill is a time we can implement infrastructure spending but we shouldn't because it's the wrong time? Why is it the wrong time? Are you someone who thinks all bills should be single issue? (This is a bad idea.)

Can you describe to me a time when you think an infrastructure bill is coming? I sure can't think of it happening any time soon.

 

[UglyCasanova]

Can you describe to me a time when you think an infrastructure bill is coming? I sure can't think of it happening any time soon.

I have no idea when one is coming, hopefully soon but like you I have my doubts. Maybe Harvey will prompt one. Democrats can introduce one just as much as Republicans can.

 

[fskimospy]

I have no idea when one is coming, hopefully soon but like you I have my doubts. Maybe Harvey will prompt one. Democrats can introduce one just as much as Republicans can.

So you're saying if you can choose between vital infrastructure spending in a relief bill and nothing you choose nothing?

 

[UglyCasanova]

So you're saying if you can choose between vital infrastructure spending in a relief bill and nothing you choose nothing?

You're last three posts in here started with "So...",stop trying to play gotcha with me and add your own thoughts.

I'm saying that a disaster relief bill isn't the way to pass a national infrastructure plan. A disaster relief bill is meant to provide relief to those in need from a disaster. A plan designed to address our crumbling infrastructure should stand on its own two feet, not tacked onto a relief bill and be guilt tripped into passage.

 

[fskimospy]

You're last three posts in here started with "So...",stop trying to play gotcha with me and add your own thoughts.

I'm saying that a disaster relief bill isn't the way to pass a national infrastructure plan. A disaster relief bill is meant to provide relief to those in need from a disaster. A plan designed to address our crumbling infrastructure should stand on its own two feet, not tacked onto a relief bill and be guilt tripped into passage.

There's no gotcha here, I sincerely don't understand the objection. Sure it would be best if we did infrastructure on its own but failing that the Sandy relief bill was perfectly fine, especially considering the alternative is nothing.

 

[Jhhnn]

You're last three posts in here started with "So...",stop trying to play gotcha with me and add your own thoughts.

I'm saying that a disaster relief bill isn't the way to pass a national infrastructure plan. A disaster relief bill is meant to provide relief to those in need from a disaster. A plan designed to address our crumbling infrastructure should stand on its own two feet, not tacked onto a relief bill and be guilt tripped into passage.

Gawd. The only way we'll get infrastructure spending out of this Repub Congress is pieces of infrastructure spending tacked on to this relief bill & wherever else we can get it. Any big infrastructure bill is doomed to fail. Anything else is fantasy.

 

[FelixDeCat]

pfft

 

[UglyCasanova]

Gawd. The only way we'll get infrastructure spending out of this Repub Congress is pieces of infrastructure spending tacked on to this relief bill & wherever else we can get it. Any big infrastructure bill is doomed to fail. Anything else is fantasy.

We didn't get it when the Dems had Congress and the Oval Office either, laying the blame solely at the GOP's feet is misguided - no politician wants to spend money on infrastructure maintenance, it doesn't get votes.

 

[fskimospy]

We didn't get it when the Dems had Congress and the Oval Office either, laying the blame solely at the GOP's feet is misguided - no politician wants to spend money on infrastructure maintenance, it doesn't get votes.

Uhmm...

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Recovery_and_Reinvestment_Act_of_2009

Sure we need more but depending on what you want to count that was between $100 and $200 billion on infrastructure in one bill that was primarily intended to help us deal with an economic crisis.

 

[JSt0rm]

Guys it's easy. No more gay people no more hurricanes.