Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
Old 11-01-2012, 05:16 PM
 
Location: Pa
20,300 posts, read 22,182,754 times
Reputation: 6552

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by brattpowered View Post
Yes, it is the government's job. More so than funnelling trillions to Cheney's friends in Halliburton and Blackwater to fight illegal and unnecessary wars. What were you opinions on the Iraqi invasion before it happened? I doubt you were marching for peace.
Which illegal wars would those be? Oh the ones the democrats in congress voted to support. Got it.
I am for the FED paying for infrastructure and even for the coastal homes devestated by the storm. That is if the properties affected are condemned and return to nature so that we don't have to pay to rebuild after the next big storm.
As for repairing the damage in land. One would hope the owners had the grey matter to buy insurance instead of waiting for a bailout.
Most properties in flood prone areas are required to have insurance. For those to cheap or dumb to buy the required insurance? Oh well.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 11-01-2012, 05:19 PM
 
Location: Pa
20,300 posts, read 22,182,754 times
Reputation: 6552
Quote:
Originally Posted by ringwise View Post
You don't get to decide that you need the insurance AFTER an event. You might want to look up the definition of insurance.
The question was if they didnt have insurance then why not? That is a fair question. If I dont buy insurance on my car and I wreck it or it is damaged by a hail storm does that mean the Fed should by me a new one?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-01-2012, 05:32 PM
 
20,948 posts, read 19,015,110 times
Reputation: 10270
Quote:
Originally Posted by desertdetroiter View Post
Conservative Christians are "far more" a lot of things than lefties, but charitable ain't one of them.

And if i put 100 bucks in your pocket, i'm taking 101 bucks out of your other pocket.
Every single study ever done proves that conservatives are far more generous than lefties.

Just look at the difference in charitable contributions between Bush and algore, Bush and Kerry, Bush and obama, Bush and Biden, Romney and any leftie. Even the "Darth Vader" of the left, Dick Cheney was far more generous than any leftie.

You won't even donate $100 for your fellow citizens! But demand that it be taken from others.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-01-2012, 05:34 PM
 
20,948 posts, read 19,015,110 times
Reputation: 10270
Quote:
Originally Posted by ABQConvict View Post
Hell no. Would you give your brother a kidney? Screw that leech. It is totally un-American to help Americans. Especially the ones that pay the most taxes.
Not by force.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-01-2012, 05:36 PM
 
20,948 posts, read 19,015,110 times
Reputation: 10270
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lone-Ranger View Post
funny how you wrote "Conservative christians" as if there are no "Liberal Christians", hate to break this to you, but many of my friends who are doctors and nurses see more white folks having abortions and lets say a good half of them are "Christians", that is still more than any groups combined who are having these abortions. You do not have any facts to back up your claim.

Abortion Statistics
Where did I mention race?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-01-2012, 06:04 PM
 
27,624 posts, read 21,080,845 times
Reputation: 11095
Quote:
Originally Posted by newtoli View Post
He (as well as Christie) are asking for 100% of certain costs (emergency work) and 90% of others, which it is acceptable to request as per the Fed code

This is the actual letter.



Link to the federal regulation he cites in the letter
Cost-share adjustments.

§ 206.47Cost-share adjustments.
(a) We pay seventy-five percent (75%) of the eligible cost of permanent restorative work under section 406 of the Stafford Act and for emergency work under section 403 and section 407 of the Stafford Act, unless the Federal share is increased under this section.
(b) We recommend an increase in the Federal cost share from seventy-five percent (75%) to not more than ninety percent (90%) of the eligible cost of permanent work under section 406 and of emergency work under section 403 and section 407 whenever a disaster is so extraordinary that actual Federal obligations under the Stafford Act, excluding FEMA administrative cost, meet or exceed a qualifying threshold of:
(1) Beginning in 1999 and effective for disasters declared on or after May 21, 1999, $75 per capita of State population;
(2) Effective for disasters declared after January 1, 2000, and through December 31, 2000, $85 per capita of State population;
(3) Effective for disasters declared after January 1, 2001, $100 per capita of State population; and,
(4) Effective for disasters declared after January 1, 2002 and for later years, $100 per capita of State population, adjusted annually for inflation using the Consumer Price Index for All Urban Consumers published annually by the Department of Labor.

(c) When we determine whether to recommend a cost-share adjustment we consider the impact of major disaster declarations in the State during the preceding twelve-month period.
(d) If warranted by the needs of the disaster, we recommend up to one hundred percent (100%) Federal funding for emergency work under section 403 and section 407, including direct Federal assistance, for a limited period in the initial days of the disaster irrespective of the per capita impact.
I was about to delve further myself. I guess this kind of rips some of the posts on this thread to shreds..huh? Doesn't seem as of Cuomo was asking for anything that the state is not entitled to after all.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-01-2012, 06:19 PM
 
Location: Baltimore, MD / NY
781 posts, read 1,193,324 times
Reputation: 434
Quote:
Originally Posted by tinman01 View Post
As for repairing the damage in land. One would hope the owners had the grey matter to buy insurance instead of waiting for a bailout.
Most properties in flood prone areas are required to have insurance. For those to cheap or dumb to buy the required insurance? Oh well.
Repeat, banks require customers in floodplains to purchase flood insurance to get or maintain their mortgages. You cannot get a mortgage loan without the required flood insurance through FEMA.

In terms of not having insurance on your home for damages inland; I'd like to see a statistic or some credible figure that shows how many folks in these hard hit areas don't possess regular homeowner's insurance instead of additional posts throwing around opinions or assumptions. I have a hunch, considering the AMIs, that it's quite low.

Lastly, op was about cleanup not rebuilding. Everyone is getting ahead of themselves because of the original tone of this post, designed to further a myopic POV regarding the standard horse manure of "bailouts, entitlements, and dependency," instead of contribute to intelligent discourse. Kudos to the folks who posted the actual letter from Cuomo clarifying, as well as Economist article that hits the nail on the head.

/rant
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-01-2012, 06:21 PM
 
Location: Baltimore, MD / NY
781 posts, read 1,193,324 times
Reputation: 434
Quote:
Originally Posted by sickofnyc View Post
I was about to delve further myself. I guess this kind of rips some of the posts on this thread to shreds..huh? Doesn't seem as of Cuomo was asking for anything that the state is not entitled to after all.
Yes, indeed.

But why not create a firestorm with inaccuracy, to pander to the masses?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-01-2012, 06:58 PM
 
Location: NJ/NY
10,655 posts, read 18,634,706 times
Reputation: 2829
Quote:
Originally Posted by sickofnyc View Post
I was about to delve further myself. I guess this kind of rips some of the posts on this thread to shreds..huh? Doesn't seem as of Cuomo was asking for anything that the state is not entitled to after all.
No one is even bothering to read it.

They're all working on the assumption that he wants money to rebuild houses that don't have insurance.

Couldn't be farther from the truth.

To repeat:

NEITHER GOVERNOR IS ASKING FOR FUNDS TO PAY FOR HOUSES THAT WERE NOT INSURED.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-01-2012, 07:36 PM
 
3,353 posts, read 6,423,030 times
Reputation: 1128
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rakin View Post
When Cuomo says "Washington" he means you and me. Should Obama agree to pay 100% of the cleanup ? Typical Democrat who says just print more money. All done by union workers.

New York state asks Washington to cover all storm costs - Yahoo! News
I'm confused.

If this happens to your home, I'm pretty sure you would want help, no matter who its from. You wouldn't say "the gov't is too big to be helping me" would you? No, plus who else can pay for it? I along with plenty of others on this site have donated to the Redcross but that's about all we can do, I don't know of a organization (besides our taxes) that could help rebuild infrastructure in the area. Either way, somebody has to pay for it, rather its you, me, donor's, the government, etc.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 10:46 PM.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top