Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
NRDC Report: Federal Government Spent More Taxpayer Money on 2012 Extreme Weather Cleanup than on Schools or Roads
23 views
Skip to first unread message
gpsman
May 20, 2013, 9:02:32 AM5/20/13
to
Try to ignore the correlation = causation "climate change" aspects/
conclusions.
NRDC Report: Federal Government Spent More Taxpayer Money on 2012
Extreme Weather Cleanup than on Schools or Roads
Taxpayers Outspend Private Insurers 3:1 on Climate Disruption Costs
WASHINGTON (May 14, 2013) – U.S. taxpayers paid nearly $100 billion
responding to damages caused by last year’s extreme weather events
associated with climate change, about $1,100 per taxpayer, according
to an analysis by the Natural Resources Defense Council released
today.
By paying nearly $100 billion, taxpayers—through the federal government
—spent more on climate change cleanup than on education or
transportation, the analysis shows.
Further, the burden to pay for climate disruption has shifted away
from private insurers and is falling more heavily on America’s
taxpayers. This is occurring at a time when Congress continues to
avoid taking action against climate change and instead has cut support
to address its causes, the NRDC analysis shows.
"While Congress debates the federal budget, our government is spending
more responding to extreme weather made worse by climate change than
we are to educate our kids or take care of our bridges and roads,”
said Dan Lashof, co-author of the report and director of NRDC’s
Climate and Clean Air Program. “In fact, this single-ticket expense
now tops the list of non-defense discretionary federal spending.
“And taxpayers are shouldering more of the burden—they are spending
three times more than private insurers to pay for recovery from
climate damages. Fortunately, the government has tools it can use
right now to address these climate risks—without waiting for Congress
to act.”
The NRDC report titled, “Who Pays for Climate Change? U.S. Taxpayers
Outspend Private Insurers Three-to-One to Cover Climate Disruption
Costs,” was released today during a telephone-based press conference.
Lashof was joined on the call by Tom Steyer, a clean energy
philanthropist and founder of NexGen Action, a firm engaged in
political activity on behalf of climate and prosperity. He also
founded but has left Farallon Capital Management, LLC.
Federal spending for the drought, storms, floods and wildfires in 2012
totaled nearly $100 billion. Although climate doesn’t show up as a
line item in federal spending, the costs of what NRDC calls the
“Climate Disruption Budget” equals one of every six dollars spent on
non-defense discretionary programs, making it the largest such
spending item, the NRDC report shows.
The impact on America’s taxpayers is startling. The insurance industry
estimates that 2012 was the second most expensive in U.S. history for
climate-related disasters, with damages totaling more than $139
billion. But private insurers only covered about 25 percent of the
costs, leaving taxpayers to pay the bulk of the remaining costs – a
ratio of about 3:1 in terms of costs borne by taxpayers versus
insurers. This shift in liabilities began in earnest following the $72
billion bill to the insurance industry in 2005 from Hurricane Katrina,
and has continued to grow since, the NRDC report shows.
“The fact that private insurers are leaving the table sends an
unmistakable signal. It tells us that climate change risks are
increasing and their costs to our society are climbing,” said Steyer.
“$100 billion is a big expense by any measure. Good fiscal stewardship
of our country’s future dictates that we should be spending more to
combat climate change so we can spend less on cleaning up its impacts.
“President Obama has called on Congress to curb the threat—and rising
cost—of climate change and said if Congress balks, he will act. The
sooner we make sound investments to curb the pollution driving climate
change, the quicker we’ll reduce its drag on the federal budget and
our economy.”
http://www.nrdc.org/media/2013/130514.asp
-----
- gpsman
conclusions.
NRDC Report: Federal Government Spent More Taxpayer Money on 2012
Extreme Weather Cleanup than on Schools or Roads
Taxpayers Outspend Private Insurers 3:1 on Climate Disruption Costs
WASHINGTON (May 14, 2013) – U.S. taxpayers paid nearly $100 billion
responding to damages caused by last year’s extreme weather events
associated with climate change, about $1,100 per taxpayer, according
to an analysis by the Natural Resources Defense Council released
today.
By paying nearly $100 billion, taxpayers—through the federal government
—spent more on climate change cleanup than on education or
transportation, the analysis shows.
Further, the burden to pay for climate disruption has shifted away
from private insurers and is falling more heavily on America’s
taxpayers. This is occurring at a time when Congress continues to
avoid taking action against climate change and instead has cut support
to address its causes, the NRDC analysis shows.
"While Congress debates the federal budget, our government is spending
more responding to extreme weather made worse by climate change than
we are to educate our kids or take care of our bridges and roads,”
said Dan Lashof, co-author of the report and director of NRDC’s
Climate and Clean Air Program. “In fact, this single-ticket expense
now tops the list of non-defense discretionary federal spending.
“And taxpayers are shouldering more of the burden—they are spending
three times more than private insurers to pay for recovery from
climate damages. Fortunately, the government has tools it can use
right now to address these climate risks—without waiting for Congress
to act.”
The NRDC report titled, “Who Pays for Climate Change? U.S. Taxpayers
Outspend Private Insurers Three-to-One to Cover Climate Disruption
Costs,” was released today during a telephone-based press conference.
Lashof was joined on the call by Tom Steyer, a clean energy
philanthropist and founder of NexGen Action, a firm engaged in
political activity on behalf of climate and prosperity. He also
founded but has left Farallon Capital Management, LLC.
Federal spending for the drought, storms, floods and wildfires in 2012
totaled nearly $100 billion. Although climate doesn’t show up as a
line item in federal spending, the costs of what NRDC calls the
“Climate Disruption Budget” equals one of every six dollars spent on
non-defense discretionary programs, making it the largest such
spending item, the NRDC report shows.
The impact on America’s taxpayers is startling. The insurance industry
estimates that 2012 was the second most expensive in U.S. history for
climate-related disasters, with damages totaling more than $139
billion. But private insurers only covered about 25 percent of the
costs, leaving taxpayers to pay the bulk of the remaining costs – a
ratio of about 3:1 in terms of costs borne by taxpayers versus
insurers. This shift in liabilities began in earnest following the $72
billion bill to the insurance industry in 2005 from Hurricane Katrina,
and has continued to grow since, the NRDC report shows.
“The fact that private insurers are leaving the table sends an
unmistakable signal. It tells us that climate change risks are
increasing and their costs to our society are climbing,” said Steyer.
“$100 billion is a big expense by any measure. Good fiscal stewardship
of our country’s future dictates that we should be spending more to
combat climate change so we can spend less on cleaning up its impacts.
“President Obama has called on Congress to curb the threat—and rising
cost—of climate change and said if Congress balks, he will act. The
sooner we make sound investments to curb the pollution driving climate
change, the quicker we’ll reduce its drag on the federal budget and
our economy.”
http://www.nrdc.org/media/2013/130514.asp
-----
- gpsman
hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com
May 20, 2013, 10:51:30 PM5/20/13
to
On May 20, 9:02 am, gpsman <gps...@driversmail.com> wrote:
> The
> sooner we make sound investments to curb the pollution driving climate
> change, the quicker we’ll reduce its drag on the federal budget and
> our economy.”http://www.nrdc.org/media/2013/130514.asp
You'll be able to take guns away from people before you'll take their
> The
> sooner we make sound investments to curb the pollution driving climate
> change, the quicker we’ll reduce its drag on the federal budget and
> our economy.”http://www.nrdc.org/media/2013/130514.asp
big fat SUVs.
Remember the ending of Three Days of the Condor: Cliff Robertson
reminding Robert Redford that the people will DEMAND the government
get them oil, no matter how they do it.
Larry Sheldon
May 20, 2013, 11:02:51 PM5/20/13
to
On 5/20/2013 9:51 PM, hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com wrote:
> On May 20, 9:02 am, gpsman <gps...@driversmail.com> wrote:
>
>> The
>> sooner we make sound investments to curb the pollution driving climate
>> change, the quicker we�ll reduce its drag on the federal budget and
> On May 20, 9:02 am, gpsman <gps...@driversmail.com> wrote:
>
>> The
>> sooner we make sound investments to curb the pollution driving climate
>> our economy.�http://www.nrdc.org/media/2013/130514.asp
>
> You'll be able to take guns away from people before you'll take their
> big fat SUVs.
>
> Remember the ending of Three Days of the Condor: Cliff Robertson
> reminding Robert Redford that the people will DEMAND the government
> get them oil, no matter how they do it.
>
I don't actually look to the talkies for moral guidance.
> You'll be able to take guns away from people before you'll take their
> big fat SUVs.
>
> Remember the ending of Three Days of the Condor: Cliff Robertson
> reminding Robert Redford that the people will DEMAND the government
> get them oil, no matter how they do it.
>
--
Idioten aangeboden. Gratis af te halen.
h/t Dagelijkse Standaard
Paul D. DeRocco
May 21, 2013, 2:33:01 PM5/21/13
to
The idea that the money spent last year on weather cleanup had the
remotest connection to our "failure" to spend money to avoid climate
change is something only an ideologue could convince himself of. What
tiny fraction of a degree has the climate warmed by, between the moment
people started warning about "global warming", and this past year? Zero,
actually.
Furthermore, a huge chunk of last year's (and this year's) money was
stimulus (a.k.a. "pork") surrounding Hurricane Sandy that was spent
elsewhere, not actual cleanup.
remotest connection to our "failure" to spend money to avoid climate
change is something only an ideologue could convince himself of. What
tiny fraction of a degree has the climate warmed by, between the moment
people started warning about "global warming", and this past year? Zero,
actually.
Furthermore, a huge chunk of last year's (and this year's) money was
stimulus (a.k.a. "pork") surrounding Hurricane Sandy that was spent
elsewhere, not actual cleanup.
hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com
May 21, 2013, 2:50:08 PM5/21/13
to
On May 21, 2:33 pm, "Paul D. DeRocco" <pdero...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> The idea that the money spent last year on weather cleanup had the
> remotest connection to our "failure" to spend money to avoid climate
> change is something only an ideologue could convince himself of. What
> tiny fraction of a degree has the climate warmed by, between the moment
> people started warning about "global warming", and this past year? Zero,
> actually.
Climate change is more severe storms, not just "warming". That means
> The idea that the money spent last year on weather cleanup had the
> remotest connection to our "failure" to spend money to avoid climate
> change is something only an ideologue could convince himself of. What
> tiny fraction of a degree has the climate warmed by, between the moment
> people started warning about "global warming", and this past year? Zero,
> actually.
winter storms are more severe, too.
http://www.philly.com/philly/news/nation_world/Oklahoma_tornado_survivors_await_news_about_loved_ones.html
> Furthermore, a huge chunk of last year's (and this year's) money was
> stimulus (a.k.a. "pork") surrounding Hurricane Sandy that was spent
> elsewhere, not actual cleanup.
Paul D. DeRocco
May 22, 2013, 4:15:15 AM5/22/13
to
> On 5/21/2013 11:50 AM, hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com wrote:
>
> Climate change is more severe storms, not just "warming". That means
> winter storms are more severe, too.
> http://www.philly.com/philly/news/nation_world/Oklahoma_tornado_survivors_await_news_about_loved_ones.html
Yeah, we get that. But if the moment the first person ever raised the
>
> Climate change is more severe storms, not just "warming". That means
> winter storms are more severe, too.
> http://www.philly.com/philly/news/nation_world/Oklahoma_tornado_survivors_await_news_about_loved_ones.html
issue of climate change, about 25 years ago, the entire world stopped in
its tracks and began throwing trillions of dollars at non-carbon-based
energy sources, how much cooler would the earth be today? A tenth of a
degree? Does anyone seriously think that would make the difference
between Hurricane Sandy and No Hurricane Sandy? Or even between
Hurricane Sandy and Hurricane Wimpy? People have no sense of the scale
of things.
And as to the tornado, check out the historical data here:
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/severeweather/tornadoes.html
--
Ciao, Paul D. DeRocco
Paul mailto:pder...@ix.netcom.com
jgar the jorrible
May 22, 2013, 12:04:05 PM5/22/13
to
On May 21, 11:50 am, hanco...@bbs.cpcn.com wrote:
> On May 21, 2:33 pm, "Paul D. DeRocco" <pdero...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>
> > The idea that the money spent last year on weather cleanup had the
> > remotest connection to our "failure" to spend money to avoid climate
> > change is something only an ideologue could convince himself of. What
> > tiny fraction of a degree has the climate warmed by, between the moment
> > people started warning about "global warming", and this past year? Zero,
> > actually.
>
> Climate change is more severe storms, not just "warming". That means
> winter storms are more severe, too.http://www.philly.com/philly/news/nation_world/Oklahoma_tornado_survi...
> On May 21, 2:33 pm, "Paul D. DeRocco" <pdero...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>
> > The idea that the money spent last year on weather cleanup had the
> > remotest connection to our "failure" to spend money to avoid climate
> > change is something only an ideologue could convince himself of. What
> > tiny fraction of a degree has the climate warmed by, between the moment
> > people started warning about "global warming", and this past year? Zero,
> > actually.
>
> Climate change is more severe storms, not just "warming". That means
You posted the wrong link, though the right one was in there:
http://www.philly.com/philly/news/science/20130521_ap_moretornadoesfromglobalwarmingnobodyknows.html
Slightly more to the point: http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/04/16/us-climate-slowdown-idUSBRE93F0AJ20130416
The point being, we can measure the obvious increase in CO2, we can
(and must!) gather data on temperature locally and worldwide, but we
still can't establish causality for even continental scale climate
change, and we still don't know such important things as the
variability over time of the sun's output, and there are still way too
many variables for even the most sophisticated current computer
models.
We can state in no uncertain terms that the politically biased climate
change deniers are bad. We don't really have enough data to make
strong political decisions, and even when we make such decisions
anyways, Chinese economic development will moot it - they will soon be
the largest car market in the world.
Whatever happens, we are likely to be in for a rough ride, and the
worst part is we really can't predict the outcome of all the
technological, political and physical interactions. For example, the
most deadly tornado was in the 30's, so now we have much better
prediction, monitoring and civil response, as bad as the OK EF5 was,
it still wasn't as bad as it would have been in the 30's.
>
> > Furthermore, a huge chunk of last year's (and this year's) money was
> > stimulus (a.k.a. "pork") surrounding Hurricane Sandy that was spent
> > elsewhere, not actual cleanup.
>
> ???
more. Good thing we bailed out the reinsurer a few years ago, rather
than let Smith's giant invisible hand pound sand.
jg
--
@home.com is bogus.
http://www.nbcsandiego.com/news/local/Fatal-Accident-Closes-I-8-in-Alpine-133969123.html
John Levine
May 22, 2013, 12:04:58 PM5/22/13
to
>Furthermore, a huge chunk of last year's (and this year's) money was
>stimulus (a.k.a. "pork") surrounding Hurricane Sandy that was spent
>elsewhere, not actual cleanup.
Just because some right winger said that doesn't make it true. A
>stimulus (a.k.a. "pork") surrounding Hurricane Sandy that was spent
>elsewhere, not actual cleanup.
winter storm is not a tornado that lands in one place, it's a huge
system that sweeps up the coast. I think you'll find that even the
places far from NYC that got Sandy aid were affected by the storm.
(We'll leave for a separate argument the fact that stimulus is exactly
what the country needs to put people back to work, not self-defeating
tax cuts to fight the non-existent exploding deficit.)
--
Regards,
John Levine, jo...@iecc.com, Primary Perpetrator of "The Internet for Dummies",
Please consider the environment before reading this e-mail. http://jl.ly
John Levine
May 22, 2013, 12:05:39 PM5/22/13
to
>(We'll leave for a separate argument the fact that stimulus is exactly
>what the country needs to put people back to work, not self-defeating
>tax cuts to fight the non-existent exploding deficit.)
Sigh, self defeating SPENDING cuts ...
>what the country needs to put people back to work, not self-defeating
>tax cuts to fight the non-existent exploding deficit.)
Larry Sheldon
May 22, 2013, 4:16:57 PM5/22/13
to
On 5/22/2013 11:05 AM, John Levine wrote:
>> (We'll leave for a separate argument the fact that stimulus is exactly
>> what the country needs to put people back to work, not self-defeating
>> tax cuts to fight the non-existent exploding deficit.)
>
> Sigh, self defeating SPENDING cuts ...
>
Now we know why there is a roadgeek mailing list.
>> (We'll leave for a separate argument the fact that stimulus is exactly
>> what the country needs to put people back to work, not self-defeating
>> tax cuts to fight the non-existent exploding deficit.)
>
> Sigh, self defeating SPENDING cuts ...
>
jgar the jorrible
May 22, 2013, 4:37:11 PM5/22/13
to
On May 22, 9:04 am, jgar the jorrible <joel-ga...@home.com> wrote:
>
> We can state in no uncertain terms that the politically biased climate
> change deniers are bad. We don't really have enough data to make
> strong political decisions, and even when we make such decisions
> anyways, Chinese economic development will moot it - they will soon be
> the largest car market in the world.
>
Serendipitously, right after I posted that China comment, someone
>
> We can state in no uncertain terms that the politically biased climate
> change deniers are bad. We don't really have enough data to make
> strong political decisions, and even when we make such decisions
> anyways, Chinese economic development will moot it - they will soon be
> the largest car market in the world.
>
unrelated to this group tweeted this:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2013/may/22/china-carbon-trading-shenzhen
Man, I am lovin' this guy's photos: http://www.flickr.com/photos/t_zero/4935974569/
Paul D. DeRocco
May 23, 2013, 1:15:32 AM5/23/13
to
On 5/22/2013 9:04 AM, John Levine wrote:
>> Furthermore, a huge chunk of last year's (and this year's) money was
>> stimulus (a.k.a. "pork") surrounding Hurricane Sandy that was spent
>> elsewhere, not actual cleanup.
>
> Just because some right winger said that doesn't make it true. A
> winter storm is not a tornado that lands in one place, it's a huge
> system that sweeps up the coast. I think you'll find that even the
> places far from NYC that got Sandy aid were affected by the storm.
Sure, but the political justification for the package was entirely the
>> Furthermore, a huge chunk of last year's (and this year's) money was
>> stimulus (a.k.a. "pork") surrounding Hurricane Sandy that was spent
>> elsewhere, not actual cleanup.
>
> Just because some right winger said that doesn't make it true. A
> winter storm is not a tornado that lands in one place, it's a huge
> system that sweeps up the coast. I think you'll find that even the
> places far from NYC that got Sandy aid were affected by the storm.
devastation in NY and NJ, and all criticism of its size was denounced as
hard-heartedness toward the people in those areas. Even Chris Christie
jumped on that bandwagon. The more modest routine damage to other areas
didn't need Federal intervention, and the fact that it got it is an
example of why we're running trillion dollar deficits.
Kenny McCormack
May 23, 2013, 1:42:29 AM5/23/13
to
In article <iYmdnW9y-MFyOADM...@earthlink.com>,
Paul D. DeRocco <pder...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
...
--
(This discussion group is about C, ...)
Wrong. It is only OCCASIONALLY a discussion group
about C; mostly, like most "discussion" groups, it is
off-topic Rorsharch [sic] revelations of the childhood
traumas of the participants...
Paul D. DeRocco <pder...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
...
>Sure, but the political justification for the package was entirely the
>devastation in NY and NJ, and all criticism of its size was denounced as
>hard-heartedness toward the people in those areas. Even Chris Christie
>jumped on that bandwagon. The more modest routine damage to other areas
>didn't need Federal intervention, and the fact that it got it is an
>example of why we're running trillion dollar deficits.
It's amazing how fucked up one gets when all one watches is Fox News.
>devastation in NY and NJ, and all criticism of its size was denounced as
>hard-heartedness toward the people in those areas. Even Chris Christie
>jumped on that bandwagon. The more modest routine damage to other areas
>didn't need Federal intervention, and the fact that it got it is an
>example of why we're running trillion dollar deficits.
--
(This discussion group is about C, ...)
Wrong. It is only OCCASIONALLY a discussion group
about C; mostly, like most "discussion" groups, it is
off-topic Rorsharch [sic] revelations of the childhood
traumas of the participants...
Larry Sheldon
May 23, 2013, 1:54:43 AM5/23/13
to
On 5/23/2013 12:42 AM, Kenny McCormack wrote:
> It's amazing how fucked up one gets when all one watches is Fox News.
Not nearly as amazing that people who would rather be uninformed on top
> It's amazing how fucked up one gets when all one watches is Fox News.
of being so stupid.
(Don't bother to drool again--I won't see it.)
John Levine
May 23, 2013, 12:58:16 PM5/23/13
to
>> Just because some right winger said that doesn't make it true. A
>> winter storm is not a tornado that lands in one place, it's a huge
>> system that sweeps up the coast. I think you'll find that even the
>> places far from NYC that got Sandy aid were affected by the storm.
>
>Sure, but the political justification for the package was entirely the
>devastation in NY and NJ, and all criticism of its size was denounced as
>hard-heartedness toward the people in those areas. Even Chris Christie
>jumped on that bandwagon. The more modest routine damage to other areas
>didn't need Federal intervention
Actually, most of the non-Sandy aid that was added to try and gain votes
>> winter storm is not a tornado that lands in one place, it's a huge
>> system that sweeps up the coast. I think you'll find that even the
>> places far from NYC that got Sandy aid were affected by the storm.
>
>Sure, but the political justification for the package was entirely the
>devastation in NY and NJ, and all criticism of its size was denounced as
>hard-heartedness toward the people in those areas. Even Chris Christie
>jumped on that bandwagon. The more modest routine damage to other areas
>didn't need Federal intervention
was stripped out in the House before passage. See this article in
the NY Daily News, no friend of the Obama administration:
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/oklahoma-senator-tornado-aid-totally-sandy-aid-article-1.1350410
> and the fact that it got it is an
>example of why we're running trillion dollar deficits.
trillion dollar deficits, not even close.
Pleasantly ironic twist: due to prudent management, there's $11
billion of Sandy aid left over which can be used for Oklahoma relief,
no thanks to Sens. Coburn and Inhofe.
Paul D. DeRocco
May 23, 2013, 3:30:35 PM5/23/13
to
> On 5/22/2013 10:42 PM, Kenny McCormack wrote:
>
> In article <iYmdnW9y-MFyOADM...@earthlink.com>,
> Paul D. DeRocco <pder...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> ...
>> Sure, but the political justification for the package was entirely the
>> devastation in NY and NJ, and all criticism of its size was denounced as
>> hard-heartedness toward the people in those areas. Even Chris Christie
>> jumped on that bandwagon. The more modest routine damage to other areas
>> didn't need Federal intervention, and the fact that it got it is an
>> example of why we're running trillion dollar deficits.
>
> It's amazing how fucked up one gets when all one watches is Fox News.
I may be fucked up, but that's a non-sequitur, because I haven't
>
> In article <iYmdnW9y-MFyOADM...@earthlink.com>,
> Paul D. DeRocco <pder...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> ...
>> Sure, but the political justification for the package was entirely the
>> devastation in NY and NJ, and all criticism of its size was denounced as
>> hard-heartedness toward the people in those areas. Even Chris Christie
>> jumped on that bandwagon. The more modest routine damage to other areas
>> didn't need Federal intervention, and the fact that it got it is an
>> example of why we're running trillion dollar deficits.
>
> It's amazing how fucked up one gets when all one watches is Fox News.
actually watched Fox News in a very long time. But what exactly is wrong
about the above statement? Was the huge package of aid NOT politically
promoted as necessary to help the poor suffering people of NY and NJ?
Was the extraneous (in the critics' view) stuff ever eagerly advertised
to the country as a reason everyone should support the whole package?
Did the supporters (including Gov. Christie) NOT accuse the critics of
trying to interfere with relief to the worst hit areas, when they were
actually just complaining about all the other spending hitchhiking on
the same bill? When places suffer modest storm damage, are they truly
incapable of rebuilding without help from the Federal government? Do
they not have insurance, or their own sources of local or state revenue?
Is there something magic about Federal dollars?
Paul D. DeRocco
May 23, 2013, 3:40:25 PM5/23/13
to
> On 5/23/2013 9:58 AM, John Levine wrote:
>
>> Sure, but the political justification for the package was entirely the
>> devastation in NY and NJ, and all criticism of its size was denounced as
>> hard-heartedness toward the people in those areas. Even Chris Christie
>> jumped on that bandwagon. The more modest routine damage to other areas
>> didn't need Federal intervention
>
> Actually, most of the non-Sandy aid that was added to try and gain votes
> was stripped out in the House before passage. See this article in
> the NY Daily News, no friend of the Obama administration:
>
> http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/oklahoma-senator-tornado-aid-totally-sandy-aid-article-1.1350410
I'm not just talking about non-Sandy aid, I'm talking about aid to areas
>
>> Sure, but the political justification for the package was entirely the
>> devastation in NY and NJ, and all criticism of its size was denounced as
>> hard-heartedness toward the people in those areas. Even Chris Christie
>> jumped on that bandwagon. The more modest routine damage to other areas
>> didn't need Federal intervention
>
> Actually, most of the non-Sandy aid that was added to try and gain votes
> was stripped out in the House before passage. See this article in
> the NY Daily News, no friend of the Obama administration:
>
> http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/oklahoma-senator-tornado-aid-totally-sandy-aid-article-1.1350410
lightly hit by Sandy, which ought to be able to take care of themselves.
The Federal government is not some magic source of free money, when
anything bad happens anywhere. It should only be relied on when
something really huge happens, which the locals can't be expected to
handle. Parts of NJ and NY qualify; the rest don't.
>> and the fact that it got it is an
>> example of why we're running trillion dollar deficits.
>
> Um, remember what I said about right wingers? No, we're not running
> trillion dollar deficits, not even close.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/budget/fy2014/assets/hist01z1.xls
> Pleasantly ironic twist: due to prudent management, there's $11
> billion of Sandy aid left over which can be used for Oklahoma relief,
> no thanks to Sens. Coburn and Inhofe.
jgar the jorrible
May 23, 2013, 6:00:43 PM5/23/13
to
On May 23, 12:40 pm, "Paul D. DeRocco" <pdero...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> > On 5/23/2013 9:58 AM, John Levine wrote:
>
> >> and the fact that it got it is an
> >> example of why we're running trillion dollar deficits.
>
> > Um, remember what I said about right wingers? No, we're not running
> > trillion dollar deficits, not even close.
>
> Which planet are you from?
>
> http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/budget/fy2014/asset...
> > On 5/23/2013 9:58 AM, John Levine wrote:
>
> >> and the fact that it got it is an
> >> example of why we're running trillion dollar deficits.
>
> > Um, remember what I said about right wingers? No, we're not running
> > trillion dollar deficits, not even close.
>
> Which planet are you from?
>
>
How about Planet Congressional Budget Office:
http://business.time.com/2013/05/15/the-mystery-of-the-incredible-shrinking-budget-deficit/
Can't afford rent or to feed horses - sad. Beating on bubble-headed
bleach blonde reporter - priceless http://www.kusi.com/video?clipId=8910429&autostart=true
Yeah, back up that trailer doofus.
Sancho Panza
May 23, 2013, 8:41:49 PM5/23/13
to
On 5/23/2013 6:00 PM, jgar the jorrible wrote:
> On May 23, 12:40 pm, "Paul D. DeRocco" <pdero...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>> > On 5/23/2013 9:58 AM, John Levine wrote:
>>
>
>>>> and the fact that it got it is an
>>>> example of why we're running trillion dollar deficits.
>>
>>> Um, remember what I said about right wingers? No, we're not running
>>> trillion dollar deficits, not even close.
>>
>> Which planet are you from?
>>
>> http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/budget/fy2014/asset...
>>
>
> How about Planet Congressional Budget Office:
>
> http://business.time.com/2013/05/15/the-mystery-of-the-incredible-shrinking-budget-deficit/
Yup, $600 billion is bupkus. Especially when added to the $4 trillion
> On May 23, 12:40 pm, "Paul D. DeRocco" <pdero...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>> > On 5/23/2013 9:58 AM, John Levine wrote:
>>
>
>>>> and the fact that it got it is an
>>>> example of why we're running trillion dollar deficits.
>>
>>> Um, remember what I said about right wingers? No, we're not running
>>> trillion dollar deficits, not even close.
>>
>> Which planet are you from?
>>
>> http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/budget/fy2014/asset...
>>
>
> How about Planet Congressional Budget Office:
>
> http://business.time.com/2013/05/15/the-mystery-of-the-incredible-shrinking-budget-deficit/
President Irrelevant added to the deficit after promising balanced
budgets. Gotta love that BS. Too bad it doesn't really take the place of
work and food.
Paul D. DeRocco
May 25, 2013, 2:55:40 AM5/25/13
to
On 5/23/2013 3:00 PM, jgar the jorrible wrote:
> On May 23, 12:40 pm, "Paul D. DeRocco" <pdero...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>> > On 5/23/2013 9:58 AM, John Levine wrote:
>>
>>> Um, remember what I said about right wingers? No, we're not running
>>> trillion dollar deficits, not even close.
>>
>> Which planet are you from?
>>
>> http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/budget/fy2014/asset...
>
> How about Planet Congressional Budget Office:
>
> http://business.time.com/2013/05/15/the-mystery-of-the-incredible-shrinking-budget-deficit/
So the CBO is predicting a much smaller deficit ($642B) than the White
> On May 23, 12:40 pm, "Paul D. DeRocco" <pdero...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>> > On 5/23/2013 9:58 AM, John Levine wrote:
>>
>>> Um, remember what I said about right wingers? No, we're not running
>>> trillion dollar deficits, not even close.
>>
>> Which planet are you from?
>>
>> http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/budget/fy2014/asset...
>
> How about Planet Congressional Budget Office:
>
> http://business.time.com/2013/05/15/the-mystery-of-the-incredible-shrinking-budget-deficit/
House is predicting (over a trillion) for this year in progress. We'll
eventually find out who's right, but that doesn't alter the fact that we
have indeed been running trillion dollar deficits for the last four
years. And part of the reason is that we can't resist any claim on our
sympathy over modest hardships that states, localities, individuals or
other institutions ought to be able to deal with themselves. At some
point, you have to say, no, we don't have any money.
And none of this has bupkis to do with Climate Change.
Message has been deleted
0 new messages