These members from hurricane-prone districts voted against Sandy relief

[Indy Texas]

Steve Palazzo (R-MS)
Randy Weber (R-TX)

The hypocrisy is revolting. I hope their districts don't get a dime from any natural disasters that befall them in the coming years.

[CatoMinor]

Steve Palazzo (R-MS)
Randy Weber (R-TX)

The hypocrisy is revolting. I hope their districts don't get a dime from any natural disasters that befall them in the coming years.

You want 1.4 million to suffer because of 2 people?

[You kip if you want to...]

Steve Palazzo (R-MS)
Randy Weber (R-TX)

The hypocrisy is revolting. I hope their districts don't get a dime from any natural disasters that befall them in the coming years.

You want 1.4 million to suffer becuase of 2 people?

Yeah, don't let idiots like those two wreck it for any potential victims...

[Indy Texas]

Steve Palazzo (R-MS)
Randy Weber (R-TX)

The hypocrisy is revolting. I hope their districts don't get a dime from any natural disasters that befall them in the coming years.

You want 1.4 million to suffer because of 2 people?

Yes I do. These people didn't seize their congressional seats in a coup. Their constituents voted for them. Steve Palazzo's district in particular deserves to get it good and hard - how much money did they get after Katrina? And we all know Mississippi gets far more federal dollars than in pays in taxes. Let the Tea Partiers who elected Mr. Palazzo be reminded that in the grand scheme of things, they are the moochers and takers they love to rail against.

[Atlas Has Shrugged]

Steve Palazzo (R-MS)
Randy Weber (R-TX)

The hypocrisy is revolting. I hope their districts don't get a dime from any natural disasters that befall them in the coming years.

You want 1.4 million to suffer because of 2 people?

Yes I do. These people didn't seize their congressional seats in a coup. Their constituents voted for them. Steve Palazzo's district in particular deserves to get it good and hard - how much money did they get after Katrina? And we all know Mississippi gets far more federal dollars than in pays in taxes. Let the Tea Partiers who elected Mr. Palazzo be reminded that in the grand scheme of things, they are the moochers and takers they love to rail against.

The first and most obvious point is, if you live in a Hurricane prone area (which by the way I do; in fact my house had heavy roof damage from the 2005 season), you should expect hurricanes.

 As long as federal government relief is being given out, everyone deserves an equal share. I think the attitude you take in this post is what is wrong with America-the fact that you are so polarized as to wish despair on the innocent working class of Mississippi because they voted for asshole hypocrites (like EVERY other Congressional district in the country) is almost immoral. I can’t stand most of the New York delegation. I find most of the New York Democratic congressmen/women to be repugnant hypocrites. But I don’t call for the relief for them to be cut.

[Maxwell]

Surprisingly, its Tea Party guys who can't tell the difference between necessary, life-warranted spending and wasteful spending. How shocking.

[SPC]

Glad they didn't let their personal biases interfere with moral hazard.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

Glad they didn't let their personal biases interfere with moral hazard.

Is this the moral hazard of people knowingly subordinating other people's real homes and livelihoods to the rigid diktats of a self-involved social theory invented by and for rich white landowners and spuriously applied to a representative government's allocation of the money it invented by fiat? Because that moral hazard was very much incurred, courtesy of these two gentlemen and sixty-five of their compadres.

[CountryRoads]

Gosh, I already thought that IndependentTX was a HP, but this? this is surprises me. I have no words for you sir.

[badgate]

Steve Palazzo (R-MS)
Randy Weber (R-TX)

The hypocrisy is revolting. I hope their districts don't get a dime from any natural disasters that befall them in the coming years.

You want 1.4 million to suffer because of 2 people?

Yes I do. These people didn't seize their congressional seats in a coup. Their constituents voted for them. Steve Palazzo's district in particular deserves to get it good and hard - how much money did they get after Katrina? And we all know Mississippi gets far more federal dollars than in pays in taxes. Let the Tea Partiers who elected Mr. Palazzo be reminded that in the grand scheme of things, they are the moochers and takers they love to rail against.

I know I'll be sure to write a letter to whoever runs against Palazzo in '14 urging them to make this an issue.

[Miles]

As a Gulf Coast resident, I'm disgusted with Mr. Palazzo.

Gene Taylor's first post-Katrina speech on the House floor was one of the most passionate I've ever seen. Its a real shame that Taylor's seat is now occupied by this trash.

[SPC]

Glad they didn't let their personal biases interfere with moral hazard.

Is this the moral hazard of people knowingly subordinating other people's real homes and livelihoods to the rigid diktats of a self-involved social theory invented by and for rich white landowners and spuriously applied to a representative government's allocation of the money it invented by fiat? Because that moral hazard was very much incurred, courtesy of these two gentlemen and sixty-five of their compadres.

Maybe if the federal government didn't subsidize flood insurance for places at high risk of having floods, people would be more reluctant to establish their homes in such dangerous areas?

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

Glad they didn't let their personal biases interfere with moral hazard.

Is this the moral hazard of people knowingly subordinating other people's real homes and livelihoods to the rigid diktats of a self-involved social theory invented by and for rich white landowners and spuriously applied to a representative government's allocation of the money it invented by fiat? Because that moral hazard was very much incurred, courtesy of these two gentlemen and sixty-five of their compadres.

Maybe if the federal government didn't subsidize flood insurance for places at high risk of having floods, people would be more reluctant to establish their homes in such dangerous areas?

Or maybe areas around river mouths and along seashores have always been densely populated and it's not some sort of nefarious government scheme that makes people want to live there. Or maybe, even if it was a scheme, we shouldn't punish (or refuse to help) these people for it after the fact, because we are not a civilization of antiheroes from nineties comic books.

[SPC]

Glad they didn't let their personal biases interfere with moral hazard.

Is this the moral hazard of people knowingly subordinating other people's real homes and livelihoods to the rigid diktats of a self-involved social theory invented by and for rich white landowners and spuriously applied to a representative government's allocation of the money it invented by fiat? Because that moral hazard was very much incurred, courtesy of these two gentlemen and sixty-five of their compadres.

Maybe if the federal government didn't subsidize flood insurance for places at high risk of having floods, people would be more reluctant to establish their homes in such dangerous areas?

Or maybe areas around river mouths and along seashores have always been densely populated and it's not some sort of nefarious government scheme that makes people want to live there.

I never said such moral hazard was intentional, nor did I say that government-subsidized disaster insurance makes people want to live there. However, as I already stated, if the government did not provide disaster insurance to people living in disaster-prone areas, then people seeking to live there would have to consider the cost of disaster insurance prior to purchasing a house in a disaster-prone areas. Ceteris paribus, fewer people would buy houses in disaster-prone areas, and fewer people would be in need of disaster relief.

Just for argument, consider this extreme hypothetical: Suppose that it is known that there is a 90% chance of a hurricane demolishing my pristine $400,000 Florida home. Hurricane insurance would have to cost $360,000 if this were the case. Ordinarily, paying $760,000 for a home that gives me slightly more than $400,000 satisfaction would make no sense, but since the government is paying $360,000 of this cost by taking money from people who live in less pristine locations, I consider this a rational decision. Of course, while the numbers may not be as extreme in real life, the same principles apply. If you consider it a goal of government policy to inflate real estate prices for hurricane-prone areas at the expense of people who live in less aesthetically-desirable areas, then I suppose it would make sense to support this policy.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Of course the situation looks much more clear-cut when examined from only one side of the equation. You neglect to mention that government cannot create wealth, and must fund its endeavors through either taxation, inflation, or credit. Any way you slice it, you must punish people who live nowhere near the areas struck by Hurricane Sandy in order to compensate those affected by the hurricane. If you prefer punishing wage earners in order to help primarily well-off individuals affected by the hurricane, then so be it.

[Indy Texas]

Gosh, I already thought that IndependentTX was a HP, but this? this is surprises me. I have no words for you sir.

I'm a HP for calling out two recently-minted a**holes in the House?

These guys have no clue how legislating works. Next year or the year after next, there will be a major hurricane on the Gulf Coast. And there will be a lot of stuff in these guys' districts that will have to be repaired and aid that will have to be given out. Would you begrudge the New York and New Jersey delegations for doing what they can to make sure Palazzo and Weber's districts get as little money as possible after the way they voted here? Do they not understand that that's what's going to happen?

When you give a big middle finger to the rest of the country, don't be surprised if somewhere down the road you don't get back what you give out...in abundance.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

Of course the situation looks much more clear-cut when examined from only one side of the equation. You neglect to mention that government cannot create wealth, and must fund its endeavors through either taxation, inflation, or credit. Any way you slice it, you must punish people who live nowhere near the areas struck by Hurricane Sandy in order to compensate those affected by the hurricane. If you prefer punishing wage earners in order to help primarily well-off individuals affected by the hurricane, then so be it.

I'm indeed unconcerned about 'punishing' people whose homes and businesses are physically intact in order to help people whose homes and businesses aren't, and would be even more so were the people in the latter group primarily poor. In fact, I think this is a fairly minimal expectation of people living in a society where one plays nicely with others.

[Sbane]

Gosh, I already thought that IndependentTX was a HP, but this? this is surprises me. I have no words for you sir.

Maybe the constituents should hold their congressman responsible for their voting record or face the consequences? This is pretty much symptomatic of Southern politics. Get your pork but rail against pork spending because, of course, it endangers you getting your pork in the future. Southern politics is disgusting.

[krazen1211]

Obvious solution. Simply cancel Obamacare in those districts and repeal all the spending.

[minionofmidas]

Steve Palazzo (R-MS)
Randy Weber (R-TX)

The hypocrisy is revolting. I hope their districts voters don't get a dime from any natural disasters that befall them in the coming years.

You want 1.4 million to suffer because of 2 people?

Corrected. -_-

[politicallefty]

There is no excuse for this vote whatsoever. If you vote against this bill, you are truly a horrible person. Thank you, Congressman Ryan, for confirming that fact. I have no respect for anyone that voted "nay".

[Filuwaúrdjan]

I'm not sure if some of the sentiments expressed in this thread are all that much better than the 'classic' desire for a natural disaster to strike some place seen as ungodly in some way or other.

[SPC]

Of course the situation looks much more clear-cut when examined from only one side of the equation. You neglect to mention that government cannot create wealth, and must fund its endeavors through either taxation, inflation, or credit. Any way you slice it, you must punish people who live nowhere near the areas struck by Hurricane Sandy in order to compensate those affected by the hurricane. If you prefer punishing wage earners in order to help primarily well-off individuals affected by the hurricane, then so be it.

I'm indeed unconcerned about 'punishing' people whose homes and businesses are physically intact in order to help people whose homes and businesses aren't, and would be even more so were the people in the latter group primarily poor.

You do realize that it is primarily the former group that is poor, unless you believe that the poor own waterfront property?

Just out of curiosity, is there any form of insurance you would not like to see the government subsidize? Under the same logic as above, you should also be unconcerned about punishing good drivers to pay for the car insurance of people who frequently get in accidents.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Nothing is preventing you or similarly minded individuals from donating to a charitable organization for hurricane relief. That seems like a more noble pursuit than devaluing working peoples' paychecks in order to subsidize peoples' risky choice of home.

[SPC]

I'm not sure if some of the sentiments expressed in this thread are all that much better than the 'classic' desire for a natural disaster to strike some place seen as ungodly in some way or other.

I do not desire for a hurricane to strike the Atlantic coast. That does not mean that I deny the reality that they often do. Thus, I do not think other people should pay for hurricane insurance for people in high-risk zones any more than they should pay for my earthquake insurance.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

You do realize that it is primarily the former group that is poor, unless you believe that the poor own waterfront property?

There are plenty of dirt poor riverside towns and grim coastal villages, you stupid, sheltered, SoCal prick.

[minionofmidas]

You do realize that it is primarily the former group that is poor, unless you believe that the poor own waterfront property?

There are plenty of dirt poor riverside towns and grim coastal villages, you stupid, sheltered, SoCal prick.

The latter are getting quite excessively rare in the United States outside the Northwest, actually. Though there's Oxnard.

Not that the poor live far from the shoreline, of course. All those rich beachfronts have a poor hinterland, usually long before the hills.

But I actually thought you meant the OP... because both sides are on such territory in this thread. And yet not, for hurricanes - not in NY, actually, but further south - are indeed to be expected and thus not really a 'natural disaster' unless they turn as calamitous as Katrina. It does make sense to ask Florida coastal dwellers to pay through their nose on insurance.