HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » Latest Breaking News (Forum) » Obama Proposes $60.4 Bill...
Introducing Discussionist: A new forum by the creators of DU

Fri Dec 7, 2012, 05:28 PM

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, 4112 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 29 replies Author Time Post
Reply Obama Proposes $60.4 Billion Hurricane-Recovery Bill (Original post)
democrattotheend Dec 2012 OP
NoOneMan Dec 2012 #1
Posteritatis Dec 2012 #2
lalalu Dec 2012 #4
Posteritatis Dec 2012 #5
lalalu Dec 2012 #10
Posteritatis Dec 2012 #11
lalalu Dec 2012 #14
NoOneMan Dec 2012 #6
NoOneMan Dec 2012 #7
wordpix Dec 2012 #22
lalalu Dec 2012 #3
geek tragedy Dec 2012 #9
lalalu Dec 2012 #12
geek tragedy Dec 2012 #15
lalalu Dec 2012 #18
wordpix Dec 2012 #24
Posteritatis Dec 2012 #13
lalalu Dec 2012 #17
wordpix Dec 2012 #25
Igel Dec 2012 #28
wordpix Dec 2012 #23
lexw Dec 2012 #8
Mr.Bill Dec 2012 #16
banned from Kos Dec 2012 #19
obama2terms Dec 2012 #20
Purveyor Dec 2012 #21
wordpix Dec 2012 #26
okaawhatever Dec 2012 #27
democrattotheend Dec 2012 #29

Response to democrattotheend (Original post)

Fri Dec 7, 2012, 05:30 PM

1. Imagine $60 billion for planting trees and restoring wetlands & biodiversity

 

Oh, the carbon we could sequester

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NoOneMan (Reply #1)

Fri Dec 7, 2012, 05:39 PM

2. I'm not exactly offended at federal funds to give people their homes back.

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Posteritatis (Reply #2)

Fri Dec 7, 2012, 05:42 PM

4. The hardest hit areas in New Jersey are republican areas.

 

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to lalalu (Reply #4)

Fri Dec 7, 2012, 05:44 PM

5. Ah, so only people who agree with you should get those basic protections.

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

Got it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Posteritatis (Reply #5)

Fri Dec 7, 2012, 06:00 PM

10. Obviously you don't get it. Neither do they which is why they keep

 

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to lalalu (Reply #10)

Fri Dec 7, 2012, 06:02 PM

11. Therefore collective punishment is awesome!

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Posteritatis (Reply #11)

Fri Dec 7, 2012, 06:07 PM

14. Nature has a way of getting through to people like you what you continuously ignore.

 

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

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Posteritatis (Reply #2)

Fri Dec 7, 2012, 05:46 PM

6. I'm merely offended at the lack of federal funds to actually combat climate change

 

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Posteritatis (Reply #2)

Fri Dec 7, 2012, 05:49 PM

7. "but I'm a little surprised at seeing the immediate first reaction here being somebody implying..."

 

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

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Posteritatis (Reply #2)

Fri Dec 7, 2012, 09:52 PM

22. uh, don't you think people should have insurance for that? And if they're building in flood plains

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to democrattotheend (Original post)

Fri Dec 7, 2012, 05:39 PM

3. It shouldn't happen.

 

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to lalalu (Reply #3)

Fri Dec 7, 2012, 05:55 PM

9. A lot of damage occurred outside of flood plains.

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

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

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to geek tragedy (Reply #9)

Fri Dec 7, 2012, 06:03 PM

12. A lot of damage done

 

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to lalalu (Reply #12)

Fri Dec 7, 2012, 06:09 PM

15. Certainly rebuilding should not be done stupidly. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink



Response to lalalu (Reply #12)

Fri Dec 7, 2012, 09:56 PM

24. thank you for your sanity

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to geek tragedy (Reply #9)

Fri Dec 7, 2012, 06:04 PM

13. Ahh, "let's just abandon New Orleans because they shouldn't live there' echoes... (nt)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Posteritatis (Reply #13)

Fri Dec 7, 2012, 06:11 PM

17. They shouldn't live in most of New Orleans.

 

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

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Posteritatis (Reply #13)

Fri Dec 7, 2012, 10:02 PM

25. let's be real here - N.O. is an important port surrounded by wetlands, ergo, people will build

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Posteritatis (Reply #13)

Fri Dec 7, 2012, 10:20 PM

28. With a significant difference.

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to lalalu (Reply #3)

Fri Dec 7, 2012, 09:55 PM

23. +10000 rebuild the wetlands, restore the flood plains and beaches/storm surge zones

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to democrattotheend (Original post)

Fri Dec 7, 2012, 05:50 PM

8. Romney's can food drive wasn't enough?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to democrattotheend (Original post)

Fri Dec 7, 2012, 06:11 PM

16. Obama should demand tax hikes to pay for it.

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

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to democrattotheend (Original post)

Fri Dec 7, 2012, 06:43 PM

19. Fat chance three Blue states will get $60 billion from the GOP House

 

still, this is a good political move.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to democrattotheend (Original post)

Fri Dec 7, 2012, 07:38 PM

20. congress

Let's hope the idiots in our congress don't filibuster this!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to democrattotheend (Original post)

Fri Dec 7, 2012, 09:19 PM

21. Only if any rebuilding is allowed 20 miles from the existing shoreline... Currently habitable

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Purveyor (Reply #21)

Fri Dec 7, 2012, 10:03 PM

26. +1000 glad to see other DU'ers have thought this through

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to democrattotheend (Original post)

Fri Dec 7, 2012, 10:15 PM

27. I'm glad they're not giving the aid to vacation homes or large corporations

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to okaawhatever (Reply #27)

Sat Dec 8, 2012, 03:15 AM

29. Mixed feelings about denying aid to Con Ed

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread