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 01-04-2013, 07:56 PM
 
Location: Long Island
47,526 posts, read 19,848,875 times
Reputation: 11587

Advertisements

67 republicans voted no, who are these people, I know who 50 of them are but the other 17?



Quote:
By Tom Curry, NBC News national affairs writer Updated 2:13 pm ET Responding to the insurance claims of property owners hit by last October’s super-storm Sandy, both the House and the Senate voted Friday to approve $9.7 billion in additional borrowing authority for the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) which covers property owners in flood-prone areas.
The House vote was 354 to 67. Among Republican members, 161 voted for the bill and 67 voted against it. No Democrats opposed the bill and 193 voted for it. The Senate passed the measure by voice vote later Friday.

.................................................. ..........................
.................................................. .................................................. ............
The Federal Emergency Management Agency notified Congress Wednesday that additional borrowing authority was needed -- otherwise NFIP funds available to pay claims would be exhausted next week




Congress votes to expand borrowing authority for Sandy flood claims - NBC Politics
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 01-04-2013, 08:11 PM
 
Location: Great State of Texas
86,068 posts, read 79,357,692 times
Reputation: 27670
What a load of hogwash.

Congress both extended and expanded the Insurance program back in July with no additional funding.
It was going to go broke whether Sandy happened or not on 1/7/2013.
They extended it for 5 years and let multi-family housing apply for fed insurance.
It was already $18 billion in debt from borrowing.

I'll wager they figured they'd get it funded as part of the fiscal cliff bill because that was a for sure piece of legislature that had to be passed before 1/7/2013.

Thank Maxine Waters for sponsoring it. It passed both the House and Senate in one day with no debate.

President Obama Signs Flood Insurance Reform Bill

NAR provided input to the legislation. It got passed on the "promise" to study its affordability.
NAR Legislative Analysis: Biggert-Waters Flood Insurance Reform Act of 2012 | realtor.org
The bill also requires a study on affordability and implementation, enabling NAR to revisit these provisions down the road if necessary. These provisions were necessary to save a program that is $18 billion debt and secure passage of the 5-year extension to avoid further disruption of real estate markets across the U.S.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-05-2013, 07:39 AM
 
Location: Long Island
47,526 posts, read 19,848,875 times
Reputation: 11587
Quote:
Originally Posted by HappyTexan View Post
What a load of hogwash.

Congress both extended and expanded the Insurance program back in July with no additional funding.
It was going to go broke whether Sandy happened or not on 1/7/2013.
They extended it for 5 years and let multi-family housing apply for fed insurance.
It was already $18 billion in debt from borrowing.

I'll wager they figured they'd get it funded as part of the fiscal cliff bill because that was a for sure piece of legislature that had to be passed before 1/7/2013.

Thank Maxine Waters for sponsoring it. It passed both the House and Senate in one day with no debate.

President Obama Signs Flood Insurance Reform Bill

NAR provided input to the legislation. It got passed on the "promise" to study its affordability.
NAR Legislative Analysis: Biggert-Waters Flood Insurance Reform Act of 2012 | realtor.org
The bill also requires a study on affordability and implementation, enabling NAR to revisit these provisions down the road if necessary. These provisions were necessary to save a program that is $18 billion debt and secure passage of the 5-year extension to avoid further disruption of real estate markets across the U.S.
They never really recovered from Katrina and Rita, nver put it in the budget as if a disaster would never happen again, at least they are moving in the direction of home owners paying reasonable flood insurance.

The issue is the congressmen who received aid for their local communities now voting no. I don't have any problem with fiscal prudence, the time to start isn't when a hurricane hits, especially when they knew it was underfunded for years.
Rate this post positively 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.

© 2005-2022, 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