Obama/Jersey/Sandy

[Comish]

There is a solution to this that is so simple it is laughable.

 

Pass a law that NO ammendments to ANY bill are allowed if they aren't DIRECTLY germane to the original bill. End of problem. However, it won't happen because congress uses it's power of the purse to attach far-reaching appurtenances to any bill being moved because those trappings aren't worthy enough to pass on their own. Money strings = power. It's a bullsh*t system and neither party is man enough to pursue it.

 

The only entity that benefits from that type of law would be the ENTIRE UNITED STATES.

 

There is a reason the opposite of progress is congress.........

[rawhide]

There is a solution to this that is so simple it is laughable.

 

Pass a law that NO ammendments to ANY bill are allowed if they aren't DIRECTLY germane to the original bill. End of problem. However, it won't happen because congress uses it's power of the purse to attach far-reaching appurtenances to any bill being moved because those trappings aren't worthy enough to pass on their own. Money strings = power. It's a bullsh*t system and neither party is man enough to pursue it.

 

The only entity that benefits from that type of law would be the ENTIRE UNITED STATES.

 

There is a reason the opposite of progress is congress.........

I like that. And I agree. With a limit to the number of pages any one bill can have. Sorry AR, I know that a lot of jurists get paid by the page 7000pages for one bill or a bill with multiple attachments/stipulations, etc. but let's pass it so we can see what it entails. Who said that?

 

This partisan government crap has got to stop. And We the People, are responsible for our government too. We can't just vote and say "There, I've done my part". Involvement begins with a vote and each person must invest from there.

[knapplc]

There is a solution to this that is so simple it is laughable.

 

Pass a law that NO ammendments to ANY bill are allowed if they aren't DIRECTLY germane to the original bill. End of problem. However, it won't happen because congress uses it's power of the purse to attach far-reaching appurtenances to any bill being moved because those trappings aren't worthy enough to pass on their own. Money strings = power. It's a bullsh*t system and neither party is man enough to pursue it.

 

The only entity that benefits from that type of law would be the ENTIRE UNITED STATES.

 

There is a reason the opposite of progress is congress.........

Ideally that would be great, but (and AR Husker Fan can explain this better than I), it's simply not feasible. There are SO MANY bills, so many laws, so many things that Congress has to do that they simply cannot vote individually on every single bill. It's just not possible.

 

Maybe it's time to elect yet another body of officials, a third House/Senate equivalent, who deals with minor domestic issues that affect the whole country, whose bills/appropriations would be vetted by Congress, but who take care of all the extras, like funding for fisheries or repairs of Smithsonian rooftops, so the House and Senate can focus solely on "the big stuff."

[ZRod]

Sounds reasonable, but could you imagine the howling that would come from some conservatives if that were to happen Knap? Bloating government, more bureaucracy, blah, blah, blah!

[carlfense]

Just think, if Boehner had allowed a vote - simply allowed a vote, which is his primary job - you wouldn't have to suffer right now.

It's Obama's fault that Boehner won't allow a vote.

 

Because . . . it's always Obama's fault. Always.

[krill]

If you live in the United States.... and you don't have insurance...and you simply rely on the federal government to bail you out after disaster...

 

...YOU are the problem.

 

Not Obama. Not Bush. Not Congress. Not the director of FEMA.

 

You.

 

--

 

If a city/state can't afford to restore/rebuild after a disaster, the LOCAL GOV. is the problem.

 

Not Obama. Not Bush. Not Congress. Not the director of FEMA.

 

--

 

This idea that the federal government is the "insurance company" we all rely on now is the exact opposite role it's supposed to be playing.

 

Individuals are supposed to purchase insurance covering their own loses and providing them with the ability to rebuild.

 

Cities are supposed to have budgets with reserve funds in the event a disaster happens.

 

States are supposed to be able to support their cities and be able to rebuild infrastructure.

 

The federal government's role in all this is supposed to be negligible.

 

--

 

FEMA should be reduced to an agency with a 2-3m annual budget, that simply develops "frameworks" for state, region, and nation wide insurance, and disaster recovery plans.

 

Wow. You do realize these people pay insurance premiums for the national flood insurance program? When Hallam was destroyed by a tornado a few years back, I don't recall anyone writing to the LJS stating that they should have planned better, or it would be best to keep the feds out of it. If Nebraska suffered through a few years of crippling drought, I seriously doubt anyone would say this is the time to end subsidies for crop insurance, hang farmers out to dry, and live with the state's economy in ruin.

 

It is better for the whole nation to rebuild areas hit with disasters as quickly as possible, which means leveraging the resources of the entire nation. States don't have the resources to do it, and the idea that a city could plan to be destroyed and then rebuild itself is hysterical. Also, on a side note, many people in coastal areas can't buy adequate disaster insurance because unlike armchair climate experts, insurance companies employ actual climate experts that understand the risk climate change has introduced. So unless we are going to order any area that could possibly be hit by a disaster to be depopulated or to fend for themselves, the only solution is for government to fill the void of private insurance and manage what states and local governments cannot.

[HSKR]

If you live in the United States.... and you don't have insurance...and you simply rely on the federal government to bail you out after disaster...

 

...YOU are the problem.

 

Not Obama. Not Bush. Not Congress. Not the director of FEMA.

 

You.

 

--

 

If a city/state can't afford to restore/rebuild after a disaster, the LOCAL GOV. is the problem.

 

Not Obama. Not Bush. Not Congress. Not the director of FEMA.

 

--

 

This idea that the federal government is the "insurance company" we all rely on now is the exact opposite role it's supposed to be playing.

 

Individuals are supposed to purchase insurance covering their own loses and providing them with the ability to rebuild.

 

Cities are supposed to have budgets with reserve funds in the event a disaster happens.

 

States are supposed to be able to support their cities and be able to rebuild infrastructure.

 

The federal government's role in all this is supposed to be negligible.

 

--

 

FEMA should be reduced to an agency with a 2-3m annual budget, that simply develops "frameworks" for state, region, and nation wide insurance, and disaster recovery plans.

 

Wow. You do realize these people pay insurance premiums for the national flood insurance program? When Hallam was destroyed by a tornado a few years back, I don't recall anyone writing to the LJS stating that they should have planned better, or it would be best to keep the feds out of it. If Nebraska suffered through a few years of crippling drought, I seriously doubt anyone would say this is the time to end subsidies for crop insurance, hang farmers out to dry, and live with the state's economy in ruin.

 

It is better for the whole nation to rebuild areas hit with disasters as quickly as possible, which means leveraging the resources of the entire nation. States don't have the resources to do it, and the idea that a city could plan to be destroyed and then rebuild itself is hysterical. Also, on a side note, many people in coastal areas can't buy adequate disaster insurance because unlike armchair climate experts, insurance companies employ actual climate experts that understand the risk climate change has introduced. So unless we are going to order any area that could possibly be hit by a disaster to be depopulated or to fend for themselves, the only solution is for government to fill the void of private insurance and manage what states and local governments cannot.

 

 

http://cadiiitalk.blogspot.com/2013/01/superstorms-new-phenomenon.html

 

Here's a very good essay on the issue written by a well respected scientist. I agree with what he says. He also debunks your tornado comparison quite well.

[ZRod]

http://cadiiitalk.bl...phenomenon.html

 

Here's a very good essay on the issue written by a well respected scientist. I agree with what he says. He also debunks your tornado comparison quite well.

That's a nice *blog* post and something everyone should keep in mind. But the real debate isn't about whether or not these storms are unprecedented, because they're not (there have been more powerful storms than Katrina in the last 20 years obviously), but the frequency of such storms. And like he said the expansion of people in vulnerable areas hasn't helped things any but you can be hit by a hurricane in some form anywhere in this country. Do you seriously think we should just move millions of people off the coast? That would A) be an almost impossible task and B) Devastating and not very feasible on so many levels! Think about transportation, commerce, current infrastructure, national defense the list goes on and on. Yes we should discourage people from rebuilding in the most vulnerable areas, but to deny people recovery assistance would be ludicrous.

[HSKR]

http://cadiiitalk.bl...phenomenon.html

 

Here's a very good essay on the issue written by a well respected scientist. I agree with what he says. He also debunks your tornado comparison quite well.

That's a nice *blog* post and something everyone should keep in mind. But the real debate isn't about whether or not these storms are unprecedented, because they're not (there have been more powerful storms than Katrina in the last 20 years obviously), but the frequency of such storms. And like he said the expansion of people in vulnerable areas hasn't helped things any but you can be hit by a hurricane in some form anywhere in this country. Do you seriously think we should just move millions of people off the coast? That would A) be an almost impossible task and B) Devastating and not very feasible on so many levels! Think about transportation, commerce, current infrastructure, national defense the list goes on and on. Yes we should discourage people from rebuilding in the most vulnerable areas, but to deny people recovery assistance would be ludicrous.

 

 

LOL. If you only knew the credentials that guy has in the field of meteorology and try to downplay anything he writes as a *blog* post in the scientific field. It would be on par as trying to lump something Stephen Hawkings wrote as just another blogger.

 

Where did I or he say anything about moving millions off the coast? The point is when something of this magnitude happens in a place that we now know is very vulnerable to these types of natural disasters, you simply don't throw money at the situation and rebuild, just like it was in the same place. Instead, you use science to determine if it is even practical in the long run and if there is rebuilding, it must be done at such high standards that the damage is minimal if something like this happens again and we don't have to bail out these people who made very poor decisions in where to live. You don't have to move the people off the coast, Sandy already achieved that. You simply don't let them move back in unless they are financially capable to do it right this time. The problem with situations like Sandy and Katrina is emotions and politics are used way too much in the recovery decision making process instead of sound science.

[strigori]

People have lived in the some areas effected by Katrina and Sandy for as long as Europeans have liven on this continent, literally hundreds of years. "Just don't live there" is kind of an asinine way of looking at it at all. And as to Katrina it was only as bad as it was due to neglect and defunding in the first place.

[tschu]

cliffs: LOL BOEHNER

 

(and due to his impressive accomplishments and general outstanding leadership qualities shown, he was reelected speaker! YOUR HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, LADIES AND GENTLEMEN!)

[tschu]

I would also like to send out my condolences to those blaming Obama for the lack of funding; their education system has failed them

[tschu]

There is a solution to this that is so simple it is laughable.

 

Pass a law that NO ammendments to ANY bill are allowed if they aren't DIRECTLY germane to the original bill. End of problem. However, it won't happen because congress uses it's power of the purse to attach far-reaching appurtenances to any bill being moved because those trappings aren't worthy enough to pass on their own. Money strings = power. It's a bullsh*t system and neither party is man enough to pursue it.

 

The only entity that benefits from that type of law would be the ENTIRE UNITED STATES.

 

There is a reason the opposite of progress is congress.........

Ideally that would be great, but (and AR Husker Fan can explain this better than I), it's simply not feasible. There are SO MANY bills, so many laws, so many things that Congress has to do that they simply cannot vote individually on every single bill. It's just not possible.

 

Maybe it's time to elect yet another body of officials, a third House/Senate equivalent, who deals with minor domestic issues that affect the whole country, whose bills/appropriations would be vetted by Congress, but who take care of all the extras, like funding for fisheries or repairs of Smithsonian rooftops, so the House and Senate can focus solely on "the big stuff."

There's something to this and I do generally agree that the current congressional system is becoming too congested, too bogged down with trivial things, and added in with the hilarious junior-high-level partison bickering that is happening, the simple things that need to get done simply cannot happen. Sometime in the future there will have to be fundamental changes to the way government is organized; the logistics are simply not well-suited to a large and growing country like we have.

[HSKR]

People have lived in the some areas effected by Katrina and Sandy for as long as Europeans have liven on this continent, literally hundreds of years. "Just don't live there" is kind of an asinine way of looking at it at all. And as to Katrina it was only as bad as it was due to neglect and defunding in the first place.

 

Again, they aren't living there right now. Sandy took their homes. Don't let them move back in unless they can do it right this time and on their own dime. It's time to be proactive and not reactive. We are not talking about moving them to another state, not even another city in many of these cases. It may be as simple as relocating from a few hundred yards to maybe a mile off the coast in many of these cases. Your statement on Katrina couldn't be more scientifically incorrect either. While neglect and defunding was a part of the problem on the levees, building in an area BELOW sea level in a hurricane prone area was then main culprit and even if the neglect and defunding had not occurred it could just as easily still have happened. Do you realize Katrina was only a cat 3 when it made landfall? If it had been stronger at landfall a neglect free and fully funding levee system could have been toppled. Then what's your solution? At least with Katrina to this day there are many areas that have not been rebuilt and should stay that way.