House Scraps Vote on Hurricane Sandy Aid

[isired]

Originally Posted by Warfish

The lesson appears to be to be killed or demaged only in large-scale events, 9-11, Sandy, Katrina, etc.

In that spot, you're great, Govt. takes care of you.

Just have your House burn down or a Storm destroy just your house or the like, best of luck, you're on your own.



What is it about size that suddenly makes an event a public responsabillity?

No, if you burn down you're good. People on the same block in Breezy Point, some covered by their insurance because the wind-swept fire got to their house before the water and burned it down. They were the 'lucky ones'.

You can't make sense of any of this. But if money is earmarked to FEMA for recovery, then that money should be spent in these ways I think. If you don't want money marked for FEMA for natural disaster recovery, that's where your issue is.

[Warfish]

Originally Posted by isired

No, if you burn down you're good. People on the same block in Breezy Point, some covered by their insurance because the wind-swept fire got to their house before the water and burned it down. They were the 'lucky ones'.

You can't make sense of any of this. But if money is earmarked to FEMA for recovery, then that money should be spent in these ways I think. If you don't want money marked for FEMA for natural disaster recovery, that's where your issue is.

-------- <--------My position

<--------Your Head


The issue is not "do not want money for aid".

/facepalm

[isired]

Originally Posted by Warfish

-------- <--------My position

<--------Your Head


The issue is not "do not want money for aid".

/facepalm

Oh, it's one of those days, huh?

I do not think that means what you think it means, friend.

[Warfish]

Originally Posted by isired

Oh, it's one of those days, huh?

I do not think that means what you think it means, friend.

If what you got from my many posts here is "no aid for natural disasters", then yes, it means exactly what it says on the tin, and having a semantics argument about it is boring.

Suffice to say, no, my position is not "no aid".

Appreciate the feedback tho.

[isired]

Originally Posted by Warfish

If what you got from my many posts here is "no aid for natural disasters", then yes, it means exactly what it says on the tin, and having a semantics argument about it is boring.

Suffice to say, no, my position is not "no aid".

Appreciate the feedback tho.

I was responding to one post, and didn't realize it was from early in the thread (damn you, tapatalk!). If you're position changed or was clarified since you made that post, add I guess it was, I missed it. I am surely glad to see that you feel that sometimes FEMA should use natural disaster relief/recovery funds to aid in natural disaster relief/recovery.

[Warfish]

Originally Posted by isired

I am surely glad to see that you feel that sometimes FEMA should use natural disaster relief/recovery funds to aid in natural disaster relief/recovery.

[quantum]

Originally Posted by Axil

I think most conservatives are in favor of disaster relief, actually.



I find this sentiment interesting though. It's a common thought, but one i can't find the logic in. Aren't most things (that matter anyway) black or white?

I've always been of the opinion that if you're seeing somthing as grey, you haven't broken down the components far enough. At certain level of granularity, everything is black or white.

I always felt shades of gray came from over-analyzing, but there are tons of examples of grayness in the world.

[palmetto defender]

Originally Posted by quantum

well this took a weird series of turns.

First, props to both PK and palmetto for sticking to their beliefs and despite that, defending a conservative, and attacking a conservative, respectively.

Second, now that I know that being outside of a govt-determined flood zone guarantees nothing (I should known not to trust a flood zone map from the govt! ), I have looked into flood insurance via the National Flood Insurance Program and have gotten a very good quote for insurance. And this was NOT guilt from palmetto's posts - this was from talking to the nice FEMA people back in December.

Third, I don't know if conservatives actually think I'm conservative anymore, but there MUST be some midway point between "you're on your own" and "here's thousands of dollars for strippers and booze". As Obi-wan said "only the Sith speak in absolutes".

To be honest, I encounter this a lot with people in my local Tea Party, which I find very disturbing.

Hey, good job on investigating a quote.
Was not trying to terrorize you, just advise and/or help. None of us has all the answers (right ones anyway) but many of us can bring sound practical input. That's why even presidents seek input.
You're still a conservative. Just one that got caught in a disater.

[palmetto defender]

Originally Posted by Jetworks

All very fair points, but in the case of 9/11, there were clear intelligence indicators that an attack was imminent. Therefore, the government is liable for failing to act in an appropriate manner. Just as a doctor would be for missing the signs that someone had cancer, not for failing to predict it. But yes, ultimately the offending party is liable for the action. I suppose "martyrdom" makes that concept harder to digest.

As for first responders such as myself, the government would owe us nothing as that was what we signed on for (more or less). Their culpability lies in putting forth official statements by the regulatory bodies that stated the conditions were safe to work in, or short of that, providing the necessary equipment to function in a hazardous area.



Guess I really hit a nerve. Sorry, but I stand by everything I said. Your failure to address even one point I raised speaks volumes, imho. Kudos on holding the line, tenuous as it is.

Didn't answer your post because I'm not big on name calling. You usually refrain, but.... There are some here who are name callers without any intelligence. those I'll take a shot at.
Point though: if you "trust" the government in an assessment that conditions are ok for you in anything, you are making a mistake. That's why there are professionals. I trust my lawyer, accountant, broker and insurance advisors - each in their areas of expertise. I trust the government on NOTHING. That's a healthy piece of advise.

[Jetworks]

Originally Posted by palmetto defender

Didn't answer your post because I'm not big on name calling. You usually refrain, but.... There are some here who are name callers without any intelligence. those I'll take a shot at.
Point though: if you "trust" the government in an assessment that conditions are ok for you in anything, you are making a mistake. That's why there are professionals. I trust my lawyer, accountant, broker and insurance advisors - each in their areas of expertise. I trust the government on NOTHING. That's a healthy piece of advise.

Pulled the crappy portion of my post out yesterday as I realized it was unwarranted. I felt the rest of my post(s) was salient. Agree to disagree on the finer points...

[PlumberKhan]

Originally Posted by palmetto defender

I trust the government on NOTHING. That's a healthy piece of advise.

But you have no problem with them operating a military armed with nuclear weapons.




Sent from a phone using an app

[palmetto defender]

Originally Posted by PlumberKhan

But you have no problem with them operating a military armed with nuclear weapons.




Sent from a phone using an app

I have always differentiated between the government and the U.S. military.
Our military leadership consists of people who have actually been trained. Unlike the bozos who sit in Congress or the Executive branch.

[PlumberKhan]

Originally Posted by palmetto defender

I have always differentiated between the government and the U.S. military.
Our military leadership consists of people who have actually been trained. Unlike the bozos who sit in Congress or the Executive branch.

What about ex Military politicians?

You trust them?

[JetPotato]

Originally Posted by PlumberKhan

What about ex Military politicians?

You trust them?

Ex military politicians? See Vader, Darth.

Same tired old story.

[palmetto defender]

Originally Posted by PlumberKhan

What about ex Military politicians?

You trust them?

Some ok. Some not.
Ike pretty good. He was a very senior guy.
It's been a while since a general was an elected official. The others were mostly mid officer rank at most. Some ok. Some eh. Certainly not "players" in the military.

Lindsay Graham, Senator ffrom SC is a military reserve officer. Pretty honest guy. Certainly more than Chuck the Schmuck or Obama.

[Warfish]

House approves $50.7B Sandy aid bill


Published January 15, 2013

Associated Press


Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013...#ixzz2I8tcygni

Guess it all worked out ok after all.

[quantum]

its like a Sandy Stimulus: I'm not keeping the money, I'm reinvesting it in the local economy (new roof, new patio doors, new boiler, new tools, new lawnmower, etc).

[JetPotato]

So the House passed this two weeks ago, and the Senate finally got around to it yesterday. And not a peep of outrage? Got it.