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

[ivwshane]

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.

Oh? Will this Harvey relief plan have infrastructure spending for California? What about new jersey? How about any blue state? No? So how long should those states wait till they get the needed federal money, after its too late.

In this political climate what do you think is more likely? An infrastructure bill where all states are covered or relief bills where only red states that are affected by natural disasters?

If you said the former, you'd be wrong. So the politically smart move would be to force a clean relief bill and negotiate a nationwide infrastructure bill.

 

[UglyCasanova]

So how long should those states wait till they get the needed federal money, after its too late.

The Congress members from those states are free to propose legislation on it.

 

[Paratus]

Oh, will this Harvey relief plan have infrastructure for California? What about new jersey? How about any blue state? No? So how long should those states wait till they get the needed federal money?

In this political climate what do you think is more likely? An infrastructure bill where all states are covered or relief bills where only red states that are affected by natural disasters?

If you said the former, you'd be wrong. So the politically smart move would be to force a clean relief bill and negotiate a nationwide infrastructure bill.

Is the federal flood insurance plan going to payout the next time the Texas coast floods?

(The answer is yes)

Any infrastructure improvements that reduce expenditures on flooding more than the infrastructure costs is a net benefit to the entire nation, not just a red state.

Finally, in a perfect world each bill would be passed or not on its merits. We don't live in that world. Nor do the Dems currently have to political power to force that world into existence. A compromise bill is likely the best that can be had.

 

[ivwshane]

The Congress members from those states are free to propose legislation on it.

That's not how it works. Proposing legislation doesn't guarantee the bill will be passed let alone even see the light of day. For example, the senate passed immigration reform in 2013, do you remember the house working on that bill? No? That's because they didn't work on it, they didn't even send it to a committee.

What Democrats fail to realize is that Republicans have passed the point where shaming them into picking up a bill to address the needs of American citizens. Their moral compass has been broken for years and the Democrats unwillingness to play hardball not only gets the dems nowhere but it also plays right into the Republicans hands.

 

[ivwshane]

Is the federal flood insurance plan going to payout the next time the Texas coast floods?

(The answer is yes)

Any infrastructure improvements that reduce expenditures on flooding more than the infrastructure costs is a net benefit to the entire nation, not just a red state.

Finally, in a perfect world each bill would be passed or not on its merits. We don't live in that world. Nor do the Dems currently have to political power to force that world into existence. A compromise bill is likely the best that can be had.

So the answer is that blue states will have to continue paying for red states while blue state's infrastructure continues to fall apart. Great! That's a really great plan, politically speaking of course.

 

[Paratus]

So has this already been linked?

http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slat...to_tie_harvey_funds_to_debt_ceiling_rise.html

The White House wants to try and tie Harvey relief to the debt ceiling increase.

 

[Jhhnn]

Oh? Will this Harvey relief plan have infrastructure spending for California? What about new jersey? How about any blue state? No? So how long should those states wait till they get the needed federal money, after its too late.

In this political climate what do you think is more likely? An infrastructure bill where all states are covered or relief bills where only red states that are affected by natural disasters?

If you said the former, you'd be wrong. So the politically smart move would be to force a clean relief bill and negotiate a nationwide infrastructure bill.

I think you're engaging in an ideological argument not based in reality. Repubs simply will not do what you want so nobody would end up with infrastructure improvements if we make it into an all or nothing deal.

Dems are not ideologically bent the way you are & can't afford to hold the relief bill hostage, either, no matter what Repubs manage to put in it. We'll take what we can get, because infrastructure improvements make us all richer, not just Texas.

 

[Jhhnn]

So has this already been linked?

http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slat...to_tie_harvey_funds_to_debt_ceiling_rise.html

The White House wants to try and tie Harvey relief to the debt ceiling increase.

Kudos to Mnuchin. He has that part right. It gives HOR Repubs Dem support they need to blow the Teahadis out their ass for a change.

 

[ivwshane]

I think you're engaging in an ideological argument not based in reality. Repubs simply will not do what you want so nobody would end up with infrastructure improvements if we make it into an all or nothing deal.

Dems are not ideologically bent the way you are & can't afford to hold the relief bill hostage, either, no matter what Repubs manage to put in it. We'll take what we can get, because infrastructure improvements make us all richer, not just Texas.

They can't afford it? Why because they are too busy winning elections?

I guess we'll see.

 

[imported_tajmahal]

So you're just parroting Cruz about how disaster relief bills should be purely for emergency spending... He couldn't give a reason, and neither can you, I suspect. It's not like there is any way to know if it actually resulted in more spending, or not.

The rest is just the usual anti-gubmint ranting of the Right. It's good for Houston that we have a big country & a big govt. to help them out. I'm also in favor of working with Houston to create a much, much better way for them to deal with torrential rains like this. It's a vital link in our economy & an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.

A reasonable stance, but i'm not parroting Cruz. A Disaster Bill, any Bill for that matter, should be exactly what it says and is supposed to be.

 

[imported_tajmahal]

Haha of course.

Person 1: 'The bill was full of pork, as proven by these links '

Person 2: 'Those links are propaganda posts by extreme right wing interest groups and filled with easily debunked lies.'

Person 1: 'I insist they are still right though.'

Except they aren't and weren't. 50% of the Sandy Disaster relief Bill had nothing to do with Sandy, nothing to do with the disaster and provided no relief to the victims.

 

[imported_tajmahal]

I am still struggling to understand why funding to prevent damage from future storms just like Sandy is inappropriate to put in a Sandy relief bill.

If you're going to spend a shitload of money to repair the damage from some storm any smart person is going to want to include provisions that make it less likely to happen again. That's just common sense.

It's just common to swamp dwellers who see an opportunity to loot an emergency disaster Bill.

 

[imported_tajmahal]

I don't know if this has been mentioned but did anyone else see the photoshop of trump rescuing people in texas?

http://www.snopes.com/trump-raft-harvey/

You know it's bad when the president is so disliked that the right have to try and manufacture good will through subterfuge and lies. Don't worry though I feel secure in the knowledge that a guy who once wrestled vince mcmahon on live TV is all over the north korea issue. Do you think anyone takes trump seriously?

I did see the one of George Washington rescuing people in Houston though. I guess that was President Trump supporters also.

 

[theeedude]

We should not just put Harvey on the credit card and cut taxes while bailing out Texas.

 

[fskimospy]

Except they aren't and weren't. 50% of the Sandy Disaster relief Bill had nothing to do with Sandy, nothing to do with the disaster and provided no relief to the victims.

More lies that have already been debunked. Saying that money spent in the bill to mitigate the next Sandy, particularly money spent in areas explicitly affected by Sandy has 'nothing to do with Sandy' is an obvious lie.

Remember when you claimed you were more honest than average for this board? Good job showing what a joke that was. Thank you for showing how extraordinarily dishonest you are in such an obvious way.

 

[theeedude]

Trump gutted the regulation that requires houses rebuilt with federal insurance money to meet stricter construction regulations. But why should the US government be paying for people to rebuild flooded houses over and over, before it pays for housing for the poor or health care or other more important things? Texas should raise taxes and pay for the damage.

 

[fskimospy]

Trump gutted the regulation that requires houses rebuilt with federal insurance money to meet stricter construction regulations. But why should the US government be paying for people to rebuild flooded houses over and over, before it pays for housing for the poor or health care or other more important things? Texas should raise taxes and pay for the damage.

While Trump is an unbelievable moron for changing those regulations the idea that Texas should fund its own disaster recovery is ridiculous nonsense.

 

[theeedude]

While Trump is an unbelievable moron for changing those regulations the idea that Texas should fund its own disaster recovery is ridiculous nonsense.

Federal government should pay to repair damage to federal objects and federally insured objects.
Individuals should pay for their uninsured property losses. If they become poor as a result, then government should take care of them with welfare. But this idea that they are entitled to hundreds of thousands of federal dollars to rebuild if they didn't pay for it is ridiculous. It's a perversion.

 

[urvile]

I did see the one of George Washington rescuing people in Houston though. I guess that was President Trump supporters also.

Awesome dude. Thanks for that.

 

[Puffnstuff]

Texas should raise taxes and pay for the damage.

After Ivan tore through Pensacola in 04 our insurance rates skyrocketed and mine increased 100%. I knew people who lived on the coast who's insurance rates climbed 400% because of the damage the storm caused and the amount of money the insurance industry paid out for it.

Then the state placed additional insurance premiums across all citizens in the state to help pay for the damage even though we all carried individual policies on our properties. Essentially they forced people who didn't suffer any damage to pay for those who did and we were hit with multiple heavy hitting storms that year.

But this idea that they are entitled to hundreds of thousands of federal dollars to rebuild if they didn't pay for it is ridiculous. It's a perversion.

This entitlement mentality permeates our society and is one of the reasons that we're in trouble financially as a nation. People want to do whatever they please yet they don't want to have to pony up for the consequences of their actions.

 

[pmv]

So the problem is that the state [I mean, the nation state, not Texas] hugely underestimated the risks when offering flood insurance to all? And even with premium increases the sums still don't add up. Hence it is left with a situation of having to repeatedly pay to repair the same properties, and paying for '100 year storms' every 5 years, and is having to borrow to meet the bill.

And all this is happening at a time when the debt-ceiling and hyper-partisanship (not to mention Trump supporters' fixation with that wall) is making it increasingly difficult to get any spending agreed at all?

And many of those owners of badly-located homes and members of unsustainable communities who need state bail-outs from flooding, are the same folk who oppose 'entitlements' for low-paid or unemployed black inner-city dwellers and have conniptions at anything that smacks of socialism?

And the flooding risk is increasing precisely because one of the main industries in Texas is determined to spend a fortune lobbying to ensure that nothing be done to avert climate-change?

Quite a mess.

(Hey, maybe you could build a huge wall incorporating millions of homes along the Mexican border, and move all the flood-plain residents to there? Roll all the spending into one. They'd only have windows on one side, of course)

 

[Puffnstuff]

So the problem is that the state [I mean, the nation state, not Texas] hugely underestimated the risks when offering flood insurance to all? And even with premium increases the sums still don't add up. Hence it is left with a situation of having to repeatedly pay to repair the same properties, and paying for '100 year storms' every 5 years, and is having to borrow to meet the bill.

And all this is happening at a time when the debt-ceiling and hyper-partisanship (not to mention Trump supporters' fixation with that wall) is making it increasingly difficult to get any spending agreed at all?

And many of those owners of badly-located homes and members of unsustainable communities who need state bail-outs from flooding, are the same folk who oppose 'entitlements' for low-paid or unemployed black inner-city dwellers and have conniptions at anything that smacks of socialism?

And the flooding risk is increasing precisely because one of the main industries in Texas is determined to spend a fortune lobbying to ensure that nothing be done to avert climate-change?

Quite a mess.

(Hey, maybe you could build a huge wall incorporating millions of homes along the Mexican border, and move all the flood-plain residents to there? Roll all the spending into one. They'd only have windows on one side, of course)

What you say is true, however, the insurance industry that is tasked with providing coverage is a mandatory for profit scheme rather than provided as a service like municipal garbage collection or water/sewer operated by greedy CEO's.

I wonder what would happen if the government assumed all liability removing the for profit aspect of insuring everyone cutting privatization out of the picture?

 

[Starbuck1975]

Federal government should pay to repair damage to federal objects and federally insured objects.
Individuals should pay for their uninsured property losses. If they become poor as a result, then government should take care of them with welfare. But this idea that they are entitled to hundreds of thousands of federal dollars to rebuild if they didn't pay for it is ridiculous. It's a perversion.

So was the housing bailout, but I didn't hear too many people crying about the federal governmemt supporting artificially inflated housing prices. The crisis was due to federal deregulation so the federal government was on the hook.

Houston is the 4th largest city in the nation. There are federal and national interests to ensuring its recovery. Similarly, federal deregulation as it relates to zoning, wetlands, flood plains and insurance requirements set the stage for Houston.

The only perversion is stigginit sentiments because this is Texas.

 

[Jhhnn]

A reasonable stance, but i'm not parroting Cruz. A Disaster Bill, any Bill for that matter, should be exactly what it says and is supposed to be.

You still haven't said why you think it should be that way. If all spending bills were structured the way you want then few would ever be passed.

 

[Starbuck1975]

Thank you to @Jhhnn and @fskimospy for being able to distinguish between the tragedy of Trump and human tragedy.