US Politics Mega-thread - Page 79

On January 17 2013 03:54 Zergneedsfood wrote:


So you're saying in an ideal world, no congressman should ever plea for federal aid for their constituents? Ever? All the time?

Pretty sure we added improvements in Katrina too, and we did the same after the famous earthquake in San Francisco. At the very least, it's an investment to hedge against future losses.

Um....the source you just cited said that the amount that isn't covered by private insurers are going to be $50bn, which means after private insurance, it's still $50bn. You also don't want to match dollar for dollar in estimates because what if you're wrong? What if you have homes that are in dire need of repair?

We're talking about places in NYC, a city with some of the highest property values in the world, in dire need of repair and help. I think overestimating some of the costs is worth it in this case, especially when you might need some money for food/shelter/emergency health services. I don't know. Important stuff.

No that's not what I'm saying at all. Wasteful government spending - that is, government spending that cannot pass a reasonable cost benefit analysis - should be minimized. It doesn't matter if it fits whatever definition of "pork" you are using. Waste is waste. Junk is junk. Shit is shit.

That's the general idea. Doesn't mean all improvements are good and worthwhile. There's lots that the government can do but it takes money - you need to prioritize and that requires scrutiny and analysis and debate. This isn't a minor or easy issue.

"Total economic losses from Sandy, which also includes losses that aren’t covered by private insurers, are expected to be about $50 billion, Munich Re officials said." <--- keyword: also, meaning both covered and not covered.

And no, you don't pad a budget... geez...

On January 17 2013 04:20 smokeyhoodoo wrote:
I wasn't furious, I was trying to make you see what 50 billion dollars is. Your failure to acknowledge what it is, and your ensuing argument over the matter, is what caused this shitstorm.

On January 17 2013 04:09 Zergneedsfood wrote:


What? That I said $50bn is nothing to the government?

It's not. Maybe it's a lot to you, but to the government? They treat it as if it's nothing. It's not how I see it. If I had $50bn, I'd be a happy dude, but don't confuse my position with how the government sees $50bn. It's a trillion dollar economy not a billion dollar one and you're getting furious over a comment about how $50bn is not a lot of money?

Come on. This government doles out hundreds of billions to save failing banks, start wars, pet energy projects, disaster relief. It spends over a trillion a year on health care (....I think), and you're talking about a comment that I think that government treats $50bn like it's nothing? Clearly someone doesn't understand the size and scope of this economy. It's just not that big compared to what other priorities government has.

On January 17 2013 04:23 JonnyBNoHo wrote:

The Federal government will spend about $136B on education and $114B on transportation this year. Would the Federal government increasing its education budget by 50% be "nothing" to you?

On January 17 2013 04:25 sam!zdat wrote:
The federal government increasing education by 50 percent is the day i run around naked in the street shouting hosannas

On January 17 2013 04:23 Zergneedsfood wrote:


Whoever said pork is wasteful spending?

Pretty sure given the unexpected damage from Sandy, that it's probably worthwhile.

Why not? So you're 100% sure that $50bn is what you're going to need? What happens when you don't have the the money? Let's not forget that the bill says that it will allow the agency to borrow an additional $50-60bn dollar in aid, it'll take what it needs in order to do the job.

Were we 100% sure that $700bn for TARP was exactly the amount that we needed to do the job during the financial crisis? No. Some people even said we needed more. Some said we shouldn't have done it at all. These calculations for budgeting are so weaved in different models and analyses that can't just say "Well this one source says that it's expected to be $50bn" and take that as it is.

I did. It is prima facia waste - if it was not waste then it could be agreed upon as worthwhile on its own merits, not stuffed into unrelated spending plans.

Extremely speculative.

TARP was an emergency that required immediate action where estimates were hazy at best. This is money for a slow construction project over a period of years. If cost overruns occur you can just authorize (or deny) mo money down the road.

To temporarily increase the borrowing authority of the Federal Emergency Management Agency for carrying out the National Flood Insurance Program.

First, the House agreed to an underlying bill that contained $17 billion intended to cover immediate relief needs, including $5.4 billion for the Federal Emergency Management Agency fund that funnels aid directly to individuals and local communities to rebuild. The measure passed on a 327 to 91 vote.

Then, on a 228 to 192 vote, the House tacked on $33.6 billion in additional money to cover a longer-term effort to rebuild.

Splitting the bill into two pieces allowed Republicans who wanted to provide immediate help to be able to withhold their votes from the long-term effort; only 38 Republicans backed adding the longer-term dollars.

Supporters say all of the money is desperately needed — Christie and New York Gov. Andrew M. Cuomo (D) have requested nearly $80 billion in federal aid.

Together, the $50 billion, along with $9.7 billion for flood relief approved by the House this month, would equal a package passed in December on a bipartisan basis in the Senate.

On January 17 2013 04:38 JonnyBNoHo wrote:

I did. It is prima facia waste - if it was not waste then it could be agreed upon as worthwhile on its own merits, not stuffed into unrelated spending plans.

Extremely speculative.

TARP was an emergency that required immediate action where estimates were hazy at best. This is money for a slow construction project over a period of years. If cost overruns occur you can just authorize (or deny) mo money down the road.

On January 17 2013 04:43 Zergneedsfood wrote:


Pretty sure Congress doesn't want to waste time debating thousands of legislation for all 50 states that ask for federal money. Pork is there because a lot of the time it isn't standalone. A long time ago, most of it was ignored too. Pork barrel spending is a problem, but I don't think it's a substantial enough issue to stall a bill that provides aid for people who are suffering in cold east coast winter.

How is it speculative? There's been $50bn in damages from a storm that hit harder than expected (and its strength wasn't as strong as other more notable storms iirc). That means there was something wrong with our infrastructure, and we should probably fix it. Somehow. Maybe federal money isn't the right answer, but at the very least, investments in infrastructure are necessary to keep this from happening again.

And people having no utilities, water, electricity, and damaged homes during the winter is not an emergency?

Besides, do you really think people want to go over multiple legislative processes to just fix a problem that can be finished now and be done with it? Again, the agency is allowed borrow this money as the bill's design was to increase the borrowing potential of the agency for hurricane relief aid. That doesn't mean they have to call upon all of the money. It just means it's authorized to if it needs it.

Here is the bill, again, where it says that it's quote:



Edit: Oops, another package too, but I agree nonetheless. Here were the specifications (the bill can be found here):



Looks like it was divided into two votes, but both seemed targeted at mostly just relieving and rebuilding the communities that were destroyed.

And here again: one source says damages are expected to be $50bn, and then you have the governors of both cities who ask for $80bn in aid. I think that speaks for itself the wide differences in how much aid the city wants and what people think the city needs.

On January 17 2013 04:48 EnterpriseE1701E wrote:

You're assuming that people would vote for something based purely on a calculus of its merits. I think politics, ideology, and cynicism prove this to be incredibly unlikely.


I mean, we see reports of conditions being still fairly awful pretty frequently. I think the "probably" might have been a reference to the effectiveness of such relief, not to whether or not the conditions there are bad.

And this doesn't? I'm unsure how people being homeless/without adequate housing or public services during the winter isn't a situation that requires immediate action as well, especially, as you pointed out, the long term nature of fixing the issue. Doesn't it make more sense for action to be even more urgent if the issue we're trying to solve is going to take while anyways? That way, we'll have a chance of reaping rewards sooner before later.

I've heard zero reports of emergency funding being held up because of this. FEMA didn't run out of money and more immediate spending needs were passed first (as you point out below).

It is speculative because you can't totally prevent these things from happening. You can mitigate them but at a cost - a cost than may not be worth it. You can deem the spending worth it - but that's open for debate an analysis. Don't misinterpret my position - I'm not against spending some money here, but we need to do our due diligence.

This is why these spending bills need time. In the immediate aftermath people want the future to be perfectly safe. That's impossible. You need to dial back expectations - otherwise you overspend and create moral hazard. People living in dangerous areas should not be encouraged to live there. It's bad for public health and bad for government budgets.

This is why these spending bills need time. In the immediate aftermath people want the future to be perfectly safe. That's impossible. You need to dial back expectations - otherwise you overspend and create moral hazard. People living in dangerous areas should not be encouraged to live there. It's bad for public health and bad for government budgets.

On January 17 2013 05:34 Zergneedsfood wrote:


I know some people held up relief to 9/11 first responders because of potential "tax loopholes" or "pork." To me, it's less so much about actual money being held up as much as it is what kind of message is out there. I'd be fine if people who oppose legislation at least make it clear to us (the public) that they have the lives of those wrecked by disasters or unfortunate circumstances in mind.

It just sounds like political posturing to me and there's really no other reason for there to be such a hold up.

Right, but how much analysis is there to consider? How long do we have to wait for it?

It seems to me like the solutions to these problems are really simple, or at least the issues themselves are clear which make solutions easier to figure out. Some people didn't have homes that were sturdy enough for a hurricane. Or maybe our power grid was too vulnerable to a storm. These sound like relatively obvious problems with our infrastructure that caused this disaster to be worse than it needed to be.

Sure, solutions to it may be vast, but that's not up to us, the non-experts to decide. I think since the problems are obvious structural problems, I think the solutions can be addressed accordingly now that we know what the issues are.

Not really. People in the immediate aftermath don't want to get sick, or die, or get further ill, etc. etc. There's a pretty bad flu crisis in NY right now, and I'm sure a lot of people are less concerned about the future than they are about contracting a serious fever.

And again, you're talking about New York City. A lot of people have lived here for generations. You can't expect them to just move away, or find a new job somewhere, and for those who don't have a very solid job in an expensive city, they might not be able to afford all of the protections.

These places wouldn't have been as dangerous if not for the fact that infrastructure was not very good.

On January 17 2013 05:58 Trainrunnef wrote:


Almost the entire country is a dangerous area... Wildfires in the west, extreme summer heat in the southwest, hurricanes all up and down the gulf and east coast, tornadoes in the breadbasket states, where would you like us all to live? north and south dakota (no offence to their residents)?

On January 17 2013 04:09 Zergneedsfood wrote:


What? That I said $50bn is nothing to the government?

It's not. Maybe it's a lot to you, but to the government? They treat it as if it's nothing. It's not how I see it. If I had $50bn, I'd be a happy dude, but don't confuse my position with how the government sees $50bn. It's a trillion dollar economy not a billion dollar one and you're getting furious over a comment about how $50bn is not a lot of money?

Come on. This government doles out hundreds of billions to save failing banks, start wars, pet energy projects, disaster relief. It spends over a trillion a year on health care (....I think), and you're talking about a comment that I think that government treats $50bn like it's nothing? Clearly someone doesn't understand the size and scope of this economy. It's just not that big compared to what other priorities government has.

On January 17 2013 08:08 aksfjh wrote:

$15 trillion economy. Wanted to clarify.