Why should we give NY 60Billion for Hurricane victims?

[K1052]

I never said city, I said New York and New Jersey. As in, those two states.

There are rich people in both places, of course there are more of them numerically because of the NYC metro area population and the fact that it's an international center of business. However the places most impacted by Sandy aren't where those people live....

It would be like saying the Feds shouldn't chip in if an asteroid hit the south side of Chicago because there are some rich people in Wilmette.

 

[fskimospy]

Wow...NYC really has come full circle in the stereotype department. From burned out crime hell hole to everyone is riding in a Bently while lighting their Cuban cigars with $100 bills.

New York is whatever is convenient ay any moment, just depends on whether or not they need it to be shitty or good to justify the current opinion.

 

[chucky2]

There are rich people in both places, of course there are more of them numerically because of the NYC metro area population and the fact that it's an international center of business. However the places most impacted by Sandy aren't where those people live....

But they live in those States. Those States should be responsible first for what goes on/happens in their State. If they're not, then we are instead United America, not, United States of America.

It would be like saying the Feds shouldn't chip in if an asteroid hit the south side of Chicago because there are some rich people in Wilmette.

That really would depend on the level of damage. If it wipes out one small town, yeah, Illinois would be responsible. If it hits in Harvey and takes out Chicago and all its suburbs, then IL would be rendered decimated, unable to pay for its own reconstruction, and would have to seek Fed help.

Which brings us to NY and NJ. Given where they are damaged, and the extent of their damage, and what it will take to repair/replace, and given their wealth...

...I still don't see a need yet for Fed having to fund $60B. Especially if they'd be using those funds to build where it'll just be damaged again, ala NO.

Chuck

 

[Daverino]

Never been. Never plan to. No need. Much more scenic areas of the country I'd rather visit first.
Chuck

Really just sad. I don't know what you are, but you're certainly not an American. Americans look out for each other and help each other. To argue that the people of New Jersey and New York should be left to their own devices in a disaster because they are 'rich' is appalling. Like I said, if New York and New Jersey blood is good enough to spill in Afghanistan and Iraq, it's good enough to get disaster aid when the most powerful storm in the region's history comes ashore. If New York and New Jersey money is good enough to support the welfare of 'poor states' every day, then the money of the rest of the country is good enough to support our states on this occasion.

That's what it means to be a citizen of the United States. We are equal under the law and we enjoy equal rights, privileges and support from our government whether we live in Brooklyn or Topeka. You must have missed that day in civics class. Perhaps a country like Somalia is more your style.

Oh, and here's New York:

and New Jersey:

 

[K1052]

Never been. Never plan to. No need. Much more scenic areas of the country I'd rather visit first. If I use the power of Google and look up income distribution levels in those states, am I going to find a majority of poor broke @ss people or large concentrations (and numbers) of the wealthiest Americans?

Like watching video of combat is the same as being there. Our company looks at a lot of real estate in the course of our business....the only real way to know a place is to actually go spend some time there. If I sat on my ass and made all my decisions from behind this computer by just looking at demos and charts without firsthand knowledge we'd be broke.

 

[nextJin]

Really just sad. I don't know what you are, but you're certainly not an American. Americans look out for each other and help each other. To argue that the people of New Jersey and New York should be left to their own devices in a disaster because they are 'rich' is appalling. Like I said, if New York and New Jersey blood is good enough to spill in Afghanistan and Iraq, it's good enough to get disaster aid when the most powerful storm in the region's history comes ashore. If New York and New Jersey money is good enough to support the welfare of 'poor states' every day, then the money of the rest of the country is good enough to support our states on this occasion.

That's what it means to be a citizen of the United States. We are equal under the law and we enjoy equal rights, privileges and support from our government whether we live in Brooklyn or Topeka. You must have missed that day in civics class. Perhaps a country like Somalia is more your style.

Yes and that's why we have the American Red Cross among other organizations to actually donate to. You're missing the point entirely, how about they draft a 5 page bill outlying how much each state will get "specifically" to let them deal with it as they please.

As it stands We (the citizens of the other 48 states) are being robbed by a bill that throws 75% of the overall money to shit in no way related to the storm. It's like saying my family is wanting to donate to your family, we give this contractor 100 dollars to eventually get to you but once it gets to you you are looking at a solid 19 dollars and seventy five cents when I actually want to give you 100.

 

[chucky2]

Really just sad. I don't know what you are, but you're certainly not an American. Americans look out for each other and help each other.

I'm an American who expects States to be largely self sufficient and to handle their own problems, rather than run crying to the Fed everytime something happens.

To argue that the people of New Jersey and New York should be left to their own devices in a disaster because they are 'rich' is appalling.

No, I never said that. I said they should get Fed help if they're not able to help themselves. Have they even tried? Has each State shown they are unable to fund and secure loans to fund their own reconstruction? Because, I'm betting, the answer is 'No' on that. What they've done is came running to the Fed to get FedBucks. What I'm saying is, use NY and NJ resources first, then, when those are not enough, come to the Fed with a request for what you need. Why is that so hard to understand???

Like I said, if New York and New Jersey blood is good enough to spill in Afghanistan and Iraq, it's good enough to get disaster aid when the most powerful storm in the region's history comes ashore.

Illinois blood is good enough to spill in Iraq and Afghanistan, so that means our tax dollars can stay right here given we've met that burden, right? What a terrible example...

If New York and New Jersey money is good enough to support the welfare of 'poor states' every day, then the money of the rest of the country is good enough to support our states on this occasion.

Except it's not NY/NJ money supporting 'poor states', it's individual NY/NJ citizen/business money supporting 'poor states'. Of course, I've already said I don't think poor states should be receiving more Fed money than what their citizens/business send in, so why you are using that as an example when replying to me is...strange...

That's what it means to be a citizen of the United States. We are equal under the law and we enjoy equal rights, privileges and support from our government whether we live in Brooklyn or Topeka. You must have missed that day in civics class. Perhaps a country like Somalia is more your style.

No, that's not what it means to be a citizen. As for Somolia, Dave, is that you?

Oh, and here's New York:

and New Jersey:

That's nice. But I can see stuff like that for years out West, plus do it a whole hell of a lot cheaper. Plus spend my money in red states that need it rather than blue states that don't. Given that disparity, I'm still not seeing the attraction of going to NY or NJ over my other options.

Chuck

 

[chucky2]

Like watching video of combat is the same as being there. Our company looks at a lot of real estate in the course of our business....the only real way to know a place is to actually go spend some time there. If I sat on my ass and made all my decisions from behind this computer by just looking at demos and charts without firsthand knowledge we'd be broke.

See above.

 

[fskimospy]

It's interesting that, given his political leanings, that chucks argument seems to be 'frim each according to his ability, to each according to his need'

 

[chucky2]

Yes and that's why we have the American Red Cross among other organizations to actually donate to. You're missing the point entirely, how about they draft a 5 page bill outlying how much each state will get "specifically" to let them deal with it as they please.

As it stands We (the citizens of the other 48 states) are being robbed by a bill that throws 75% of the overall money to shit in no way related to the storm. It's like saying my family is wanting to donate to your family, we give this contractor 100 dollars to eventually get to you but once it gets to you you are looking at a solid 19 dollars and seventy five cents when I actually want to give you 100.

It's actually worse than that. What it really is, is, you give $100 because they have a disaster, and find out your $19 that eventually reaches them is spent on shit not even needed to get them out of the hole of the disaster. They blow on it on nice to haves. The best part? They're likely already rich enough to fund their own reconstruction efforts, they didn't even need you to send in the $100, but, figured, 'F it, why not bleed others so we don't have to ourselves?'

 

[chucky2]

It's interesting that, given his political leanings, that chucks argument seems to be 'frim each according to his ability, to each according to his need'

What's interesting about having entire States (in this case "rich" ones) take care of the people in their own State before coming to whine to the Fed about needing money?

 

[fskimospy]

What's interesting about having entire States (in this case "rich" ones) take care of the people in their own State before coming to whine to the Fed about needing money?

That you, someone who seems to be quite conservative, is making the argument that rich places should pay more than poor ones.

 

[Daverino]

As it stands We (the citizens of the other 48 states) are being robbed by a bill that throws 75% of the overall money to shit in no way related to the storm. It's like saying my family is wanting to donate to your family, we give this contractor 100 dollars to eventually get to you but once it gets to you you are looking at a solid 19 dollars and seventy five cents when I actually want to give you 100.

But, simply put, none of that is true. The states did suffer $60 billion in damages. That's not an outrageous number. Katrina caused over $80 billion. Nobody has shown more than $500 million in genuine pork in this bill. And although that's a lot and it shouldn't be there, it still represents less than one percent of the total bill. In Washington's terms, that's pretty damned good.

Denying relief to New Yorkers and New Jerseyans because of this 'pork' is throwing the baby out with the bathwater. But, since we're Blue Staters and 'rich' apparently that's OK.

Like I said, if America isn't your style, maybe you should move to Somalia. You won't have to carry anyone's burden but your own there. Go be all bootstrappy or something. But we New Yorkers and New Jerseyans pay our taxes and fight America's wars just like the rest of you real Americans. We gladly gave our tax money to the victims of Katrina and Andrew or in Joplin or Northridge. And now you'll sit there with a straight face and tell us to fuck off? Shameful.

 

[sactoking]

I mention this only because it's been discussed:

When it comes to New York/New Jersey subsidies and the flood insurance discussion (two separate topics) you can actually combine them to indicate that New York/New Jersey already receive massive subsidies by way of the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP).

For example, I have a chart in front of me from NFIP showing total number of flood insurance policies in effect as of 9/30/11 by state:
1) Florida - 2,069,735
2) Texas - 665,740
3) Louisiana - 492,817
4) California - 267,990
5) New Jersey - 230,708
6) South Carolina - 201,963
7) New York - 164,203

I also have a chart from NFIP showing the total number of flood insurance claims from 10/1/10 throgh 9/30/11 by state:
1) New Jersey - 22,033
2) New York - 20,323
3) Pennsylvania - 10,486
4) North Carolina - 9,391
5) Connecticut - 4,116
7) Louisiana - 2,758
8) Florida - 2,038
29) California - 272
31) Texas - 238

Finally, I have a chart from NFIP showing total claim payments from 10/1/10 through 9/30/11 by state (in thousands):
1) New Jersey - $494,959
2) New York - $395,762
3) Pennsylvania - $248,541
4) North Carolina - $137,183
5) North Dakota - $87,764
10) Louisiana - $37,632
16) Florida - $12,423
31) California - $2,510
35) Texas - $1,345

Florida issues about 9x as many flood policies as New Jersey and 12.5x as many flood policies as New York, yet has a claim incidence 11x and 10x lower, respectively, and a claims payment rate 40x and 32x lower, respectively.

If that's not subsidization I don't know what is.

 

[chucky2]

That you, someone who seems to be quite conservative, is making the argument that rich places should pay more than poor ones.

What do you mean, rich pay more than poor? Pay more for what?

 

[JTsyo]

You must support the abolishment of things likle Social Security and Medicare, which is what nearly all of the difference is due to. You act like you care about the disable and elderly, but really you don't give a damn. You are as bad as the worst republicans. With dumb ass thinking like yours why even have a government, just the rich trambling over everyone else, that is what you are basically advocating for.

Not at all. I was just pointing out that the Midwest doesn't have to pay for it. NY has already contributed to the Federal government in excess of what it uses. Now when a disaster strike, it's not time to shun them as rich New Yorkers trying to suck money from the rest of the country.

 

[fskimospy]

What do you mean, rich pay more than poor? Pay more for what?

That if a state is capable of paying more for disaster relief it should. Why should poor states with fewer resources get extra money?

 

[JTsyo]

I mention this only because it's been discussed:

When it comes to New York/New Jersey subsidies and the flood insurance discussion (two separate topics) you can actually combine them to indicate that New York/New Jersey already receive massive subsidies by way of the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP).

For example, I have a chart in front of me from NFIP showing total number of flood insurance policies in effect as of 9/30/11 by state:
1) Florida - 2,069,735
2) Texas - 665,740
3) Louisiana - 492,817
4) California - 267,990
5) New Jersey - 230,708
6) South Carolina - 201,963
7) New York - 164,203

I also have a chart from NFIP showing the total number of flood insurance claims from 10/1/10 throgh 9/30/11 by state:
1) New Jersey - 22,033
2) New York - 20,323
3) Pennsylvania - 10,486
4) North Carolina - 9,391
5) Connecticut - 4,116
7) Louisiana - 2,758
8) Florida - 2,038
29) California - 272
31) Texas - 238

Finally, I have a chart from NFIP showing total claim payments from 10/1/10 through 9/30/11 by state (in thousands):
1) New Jersey - $494,959
2) New York - $395,762
3) Pennsylvania - $248,541
4) North Carolina - $137,183
5) North Dakota - $87,764
10) Louisiana - $37,632
16) Florida - $12,423
31) California - $2,510
35) Texas - $1,345

Florida issues about 9x as many flood policies as New Jersey and 12.5x as many flood policies as New York, yet has a claim incidence 11x and 10x lower, respectively, and a claims payment rate 40x and 32x lower, respectively.

If that's not subsidization I don't know what is.

Hurricane Irene. Do you have numbers for 2010? Also the costs of houses pay into the per claim cost.

 

[K1052]

No, I never said that. I said they should get Fed help if they're not able to help themselves. Have they even tried? Has each State shown they are unable to fund and secure loans to fund their own reconstruction? Because, I'm betting, the answer is 'No' on that. What they've done is came running to the Fed to get FedBucks. What I'm saying is, use NY and NJ resources first, then, when those are not enough, come to the Fed with a request for what you need. Why is that so hard to understand???

You'd be talking about bonds in this case. I imagine it would come as a surprise to both states to suddenly discover $30B ish worth of debt headroom that would not negatively affect ongoing borrowing or the region's overall economic health.

 

[chucky2]

That if a state is capable of paying more for disaster relief it should. Why should poor states with fewer resources get extra money?

They shouldn't, unless they can show they can't self fund + can't get loans to do so. Only then should the Fed step in and grant loans or in extreme cases grants.

I don't expect NY/NJ to pay for an F5 that lays waste to Will Co. I expect the State of IL to do that. I don't expect Will Co. to start ripping up all their sewer lines simply because they're old and some have been damaged by the storm. I expect them to repair what's broke. And pay for that themselves, and, if need by, come to the State of IL for help. Not go across the country making their and potentially ILs problem NY/NJ.

And I'd expect the same of any other location/State.

What do you find wrong with this?

Chuck

 

[chucky2]

You'd be talking about bonds in this case. I imagine it would come as a surprise to both states to suddenly discover $30B ish worth of debt headroom that would not negatively affect ongoing borrowing or the region's overall economic health.

Never said it wouldn't in some way affect their economic health. I'm sorry if every New Yawker can't buy the new iPhone 6 next year because they're going to have to fund the subway repair that they use everyday, and their taxes will be raised because of that.

If their States are under that much of burden, then fine, come to the Fed with things needing repair or in cases of total destruction replacement, and the Fed can help.

But to just say, 'Welp, we got hit because we built up all our infra on a coast that eventually will experience bad storms, haha, well, give us money Fed!' is simply not acceptable. To me it sounds like they haven't even tried going through their own funding exercises (and, in a serious manner), they're simply expecting Uncle Sugar to pick up their tab. I'd say that mentality is shocking, but, really, it doesn't shock me at all.

Chuck

 

[lotus503]

Never said it wouldn't in some way affect their economic health. I'm sorry if every New Yawker can't buy the new iPhone 6 next year because they're going to have to fund the subway repair that they use everyday, and their taxes will be raised because of that.

If their States are under that much of burden, then fine, come to the Fed with things needing repair or in cases of total destruction replacement, and the Fed can help.

But to just say, 'Welp, we got hit because we built up all our infra on a coast that eventually will experience bad storms, haha, well, give us money Fed!' is simply not acceptable. To me it sounds like they haven't even tried going through their own funding exercises (and, in a serious manner), they're simply expecting Uncle Sugar to pick up their tab. I'd say that mentality is shocking, but, really, it doesn't shock me at all.

Chuck

what about us tax payers that want to help fund the rebuilding etc?
Those of us with a different view on the role of the fed government in disasters that pay tax?

 

[K1052]

Never said it wouldn't in some way affect their economic health. I'm sorry if every New Yawker can't buy the new iPhone 6 next year because they're going to have to fund the subway repair that they use everyday, and their taxes will be raised because of that.

Since you've never been to New York nor ridden the subway I find it fascinating that you seem to be so well acquainted with it's ridership demographics.

Or you could just be talking out of your ass.

 

[chucky2]

what about us tax payers that want to help fund the rebuilding etc?
Those of us with a different view on the role of the fed government in disasters that pay tax?

Send the State of NY and NJ a check, I'm sure they'll take it. Your problem is now solved, and, far more efficiently than sending your money into the Fed, having them take their slice, and finally getting it to NY/NJ.

Chuck

 

[Acanthus]

That is what you get when you build trains systems below sea level. New york people are such snobs about people in the midwest, so why shoud the midwest pay for New York? Let the rich snobs solve their own problems. Along the Mississippi we have flood gates. So they are not smart enough to have flood gates? Why do you build a subway under a river?

Because New York has voted to give the midwest disaster relief hundreds of times? Because New York and NJ consistently give out more money in federal taxes than they take in?

This is a stupid argument. The disaster happened and a section of America is in trouble. You do the right thing.