Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

democrattotheend

(11,605 posts)
Fri Dec 7, 2012, 06:28 PM Dec 2012

Obama Proposes $60.4 Billion Hurricane-Recovery Bill

Source: New York Times

WASHINGTON — President Obama proposed a $60.4 billion emergency spending bill on Friday to finance recovery efforts in states pummeled by Hurricane Sandy, a sum White House officials called a “robust” investment in the region but that was far less than the amount the states had requested.

The spending plan would pay for most but not all of the $82 billion in damage identified by the governors of New York, New Jersey and Connecticut, helping homeowners and small-business owners rebuild, repairing subway and other transit systems, replenishing eroded beaches and reimbursing governments for the cost of police, firefighters and other services.

The president’s plan would not cover several big-ticket items sought by state governments. It would not pay for damage already covered by private insurance and would extend aid only to primary residences. While small businesses will be eligible for help, larger private firms like Consolidated Edison will not be. The plan also assumes that states will have to pay about 10 percent of the cost of any repair and mitigation projects that are approved, even though they asked the federal government to foot 100 percent of the bills.



Read more: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/08/nyregion/obama-proposes-hurricane-recovery-bill.html?partner=rss&emc=rss&smid=tw-thecaucus



This is not everything we had hoped for, but it is better than the $50 billion we were hearing about yesterday.
29 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Obama Proposes $60.4 Billion Hurricane-Recovery Bill (Original Post) democrattotheend Dec 2012 OP
Imagine $60 billion for planting trees and restoring wetlands & biodiversity NoOneMan Dec 2012 #1
I'm not exactly offended at federal funds to give people their homes back. Posteritatis Dec 2012 #2
The hardest hit areas in New Jersey are republican areas. lalalu Dec 2012 #4
Ah, so only people who agree with you should get those basic protections. Posteritatis Dec 2012 #5
Obviously you don't get it. Neither do they which is why they keep lalalu Dec 2012 #10
Therefore collective punishment is awesome! Posteritatis Dec 2012 #11
Nature has a way of getting through to people like you what you continuously ignore. lalalu Dec 2012 #14
I'm merely offended at the lack of federal funds to actually combat climate change NoOneMan Dec 2012 #6
"but I'm a little surprised at seeing the immediate first reaction here being somebody implying..." NoOneMan Dec 2012 #7
uh, don't you think people should have insurance for that? And if they're building in flood plains wordpix Dec 2012 #22
It shouldn't happen. lalalu Dec 2012 #3
A lot of damage occurred outside of flood plains. geek tragedy Dec 2012 #9
A lot of damage done lalalu Dec 2012 #12
Certainly rebuilding should not be done stupidly. nt geek tragedy Dec 2012 #15
But it is. lalalu Dec 2012 #18
thank you for your sanity wordpix Dec 2012 #24
Ahh, "let's just abandon New Orleans because they shouldn't live there' echoes... (nt) Posteritatis Dec 2012 #13
They shouldn't live in most of New Orleans. lalalu Dec 2012 #17
let's be real here - N.O. is an important port surrounded by wetlands, ergo, people will build wordpix Dec 2012 #25
With a significant difference. Igel Dec 2012 #28
+10000 rebuild the wetlands, restore the flood plains and beaches/storm surge zones wordpix Dec 2012 #23
Romney's can food drive wasn't enough? lexw Dec 2012 #8
Obama should demand tax hikes to pay for it. Mr.Bill Dec 2012 #16
Fat chance three Blue states will get $60 billion from the GOP House banned from Kos Dec 2012 #19
congress obama2terms Dec 2012 #20
Only if any rebuilding is allowed 20 miles from the existing shoreline... Currently habitable Purveyor Dec 2012 #21
+1000 glad to see other DU'ers have thought this through wordpix Dec 2012 #26
I'm glad they're not giving the aid to vacation homes or large corporations okaawhatever Dec 2012 #27
Mixed feelings about denying aid to Con Ed democrattotheend Dec 2012 #29
 

NoOneMan

(4,795 posts)
1. Imagine $60 billion for planting trees and restoring wetlands & biodiversity
Fri Dec 7, 2012, 06:30 PM
Dec 2012

Oh, the carbon we could sequester

Posteritatis

(18,807 posts)
2. I'm not exactly offended at federal funds to give people their homes back.
Fri Dec 7, 2012, 06:39 PM
Dec 2012

I know the Republicans will oppose this and do so near-unanimously, but I'm a little surprised at seeing the immediate first reaction here being somebody implying they don't like helping the storm victims recover.

 

lalalu

(1,663 posts)
4. The hardest hit areas in New Jersey are republican areas.
Fri Dec 7, 2012, 06:42 PM
Dec 2012

The irony of Christie and these people asking for federal help after blasting government employees is hilarious. These are the same people who applauded Christie attacking environmental groups trying to protect coastal areas. Let the idiots rebuild. When a 50 foot wave takes them and their homes then maybe they will get the memo finally.

Posteritatis

(18,807 posts)
5. Ah, so only people who agree with you should get those basic protections.
Fri Dec 7, 2012, 06:44 PM
Dec 2012

And those areas are monolithically Republican, with no Democratic adults or nonvoting minors of any potential affiliation.

Got it.

 

lalalu

(1,663 posts)
10. Obviously you don't get it. Neither do they which is why they keep
Fri Dec 7, 2012, 07:00 PM
Dec 2012

destroying natural barriers and rebuilding in areas they were warned about. Their hero Christie was backing Romney and no feds in his state until Sandy hit. Hypocrites.

Posteritatis

(18,807 posts)
11. Therefore collective punishment is awesome!
Fri Dec 7, 2012, 07:02 PM
Dec 2012

I get it perfectly well, thanks. I just think "it" is even more despicable than you think one hundred percent of the population of the area is.

 

lalalu

(1,663 posts)
14. Nature has a way of getting through to people like you what you continuously ignore.
Fri Dec 7, 2012, 07:07 PM
Dec 2012

This was just a warning. Go ahead, rebuild, and double dare nature. Let's see who wins in the end.

 

NoOneMan

(4,795 posts)
6. I'm merely offended at the lack of federal funds to actually combat climate change
Fri Dec 7, 2012, 06:46 PM
Dec 2012

Despite the intended purpose of that $60 billion, it will undoubtedly increase atmospheric carbon levels and contribute to further environmental destruction (that we will be compelled to pay for because of the people it has hurt). Cannot we show an equal willingness to restore our carbon sinks, as well as shift agriculture to more sustainable models (like horticulture for instance)? FDR planted 3 billion trees to fight the ecological damage evasive agriculture caused...why can't we even think that big, when the situation is even more dire?

When it comes to solving big problems, humans excel at kicking the can down the road. Even our acts of compassion are laced with poison, as if there is any other way anymore. Its an awful situation we have got ourselves in, no doubt.

 

NoOneMan

(4,795 posts)
7. "but I'm a little surprised at seeing the immediate first reaction here being somebody implying..."
Fri Dec 7, 2012, 06:49 PM
Dec 2012

I am not surprised at one of the immediate responses to my comment being a strawman

wordpix

(18,652 posts)
22. uh, don't you think people should have insurance for that? And if they're building in flood plains
Fri Dec 7, 2012, 10:52 PM
Dec 2012

and storm surge zones, do you really want to pay your taxes to have them rebuild? I DON"T and I am angry at having to pay for that. Flame away if you will.

I would rather the feds work with states to restore wetlands with the double benefit of helping bring back fish and wildlife as well as storm protection for residents. People should build well back and elevated from low lying areas. Ditto for businesses, sewage systems, power stations, etc.

And NYC subway system will be subject to this kind of flooding increasingly as global warming continues unabated so that, too, should be rethought long and hard.

 

lalalu

(1,663 posts)
3. It shouldn't happen.
Fri Dec 7, 2012, 06:39 PM
Dec 2012

The dolts are rebuilding in the same areas and Christie has suspended long fought for regulations. I hope right after they rebuild a bigger storm will hit and take the whole lot out to sea. I can deal with another two weeks of being without electricity if it will rid the state of these ignorant people.

 

geek tragedy

(68,868 posts)
9. A lot of damage occurred outside of flood plains.
Fri Dec 7, 2012, 06:55 PM
Dec 2012

Moreover, those areas were likely covered by private flood insurance.

I too would oppose rebuilding in the Rockaways, SE Staten Island, etc.

 

lalalu

(1,663 posts)
12. A lot of damage done
Fri Dec 7, 2012, 07:03 PM
Dec 2012

outside of flood plains was due to the fact that natural barriers were destroyed due to development. There were tidal waves even running down city streets because areas that had never been developed before are now home to overpriced condos touting waterfront views.

Areas that were once left wild or open fields for fishing and hiking were turned over to private developers and destroyed. There are numerous reports showing warnings over this for years. The idiots still don't get it and want to rebuild in the same spots.

 

lalalu

(1,663 posts)
17. They shouldn't live in most of New Orleans.
Fri Dec 7, 2012, 07:11 PM
Dec 2012

An inconvenient fact. If people refuse to leave these areas in any state then they should not get a dime to rebuild.

wordpix

(18,652 posts)
25. let's be real here - N.O. is an important port surrounded by wetlands, ergo, people will build
Fri Dec 7, 2012, 11:02 PM
Dec 2012

there. But if you do and you're wiped out from the many storms/hurricanes that hit the area, don't depend on taxpayers to bail you out. Besides, some of these low lying areas and wetlands should just not be built on. Again, if you do, the fed gov should not be the one to bail people out---go to private flood insurance, build on stilts instead.

Igel

(35,173 posts)
28. With a significant difference.
Fri Dec 7, 2012, 11:20 PM
Dec 2012

The propsal to abandon low-lying areas was claimed to be based in reason. The rebuttal was that the only possible reason had to be racism, in a bit of post-hoc ill-will.

Now we have the same argument with the same claim, but it's hard to have a reply that it's all because of racism.

Some people really don't like dear Willem of Ockeghem. Or Occam.

wordpix

(18,652 posts)
23. +10000 rebuild the wetlands, restore the flood plains and beaches/storm surge zones
Fri Dec 7, 2012, 10:55 PM
Dec 2012

Tough luck, so you're going to have to walk or ride a bike to the beach instead of looking at the water from your $5 million home at the edge of the high tide mark.

Mr.Bill

(24,031 posts)
16. Obama should demand tax hikes to pay for it.
Fri Dec 7, 2012, 07:11 PM
Dec 2012

Wouldn't want to increase that national debt any more, would we?

 

Purveyor

(29,876 posts)
21. Only if any rebuilding is allowed 20 miles from the existing shoreline... Currently habitable
Fri Dec 7, 2012, 10:19 PM
Dec 2012

dwellings can remain...but nothing new within the 20 mile exclusion using gov't $$$.

You want to build within that parameter, fine...but do not ask for my taxpayer $$$ to subsidize your 'beachfront' view.

okaawhatever

(9,453 posts)
27. I'm glad they're not giving the aid to vacation homes or large corporations
Fri Dec 7, 2012, 11:15 PM
Dec 2012

Wouldn't it be awesome if they would tie the aid to "green" building. If all those homes were replaced with new ones that meet the current "green" buiilding guidelines, how awesome would that be? It would probably be too dificult under the circumstances, but it would be an awesome mandate for future disasters.

democrattotheend

(11,605 posts)
29. Mixed feelings about denying aid to Con Ed
Sat Dec 8, 2012, 04:15 AM
Dec 2012

As a Con Ed customer I am worried about rates increasing due to the costs the utility has from the hurricane. Not just for me but for people in NYC who are much poorer than I am. It took them a long time (6 days) to get my power back on, and for some it's been a lot longer. But I know their people worked really hard. They have had a lot of labor disputes and I don't want their workers to take a hit either.

That said, we probably won't even get the $60 billion the president asked for, so I guess there have to be priorities. I am just glad they upped the request from the $50 billion I was hearing yesterday.

Latest Discussions»Latest Breaking News»Obama Proposes $60.4 Bill...