NationStates Jolt Archive

File this one under: great timing!

Republican House Speaker Dennis Hastert has just released a new book. In it, he complains about New York's requests for the help funding the reconstruction after 9-11 as being "an unseemly scramble" for cash.

All this on the eve of the RNC in New York, not to mention the 9-11 anniversary.

But I suppose that's fair. I mean - why should New York get it's costs to rebuild covered Federally during a time of war? Don't they know that Iraq and Afghanistan come first? What - don't they of all people understand why that war is neccessary?

And I suppose those Floridians asking for aid after the hurricane are just whining unjustly too....


Funny thing though - Hastert aparently only complains about New York.... a state that generally receives back $11Billion per year less than it puts into Federal coffers.


http://www.nypost.com/news/nationalnews/18963.htm

Wanna bet how nice and warm a reception he gets from the city if he drops into the reception?

lol, they should make the insurance companies pay for it, lord knows they made enough money off both those disasters

File this one under: great timing!

Republican House Speaker Dennis Hastert has just released a new book. In it, he complains about New York's requests for the help funding the reconstruction after 9-11 as being "an unseemly scramble" for cash.

All this on the eve of the RNC in New York, not to mention the 9-11 anniversary.

But I suppose that's fair. I mean - why should New York get it's costs to rebuild covered Federally during a time of war? Don't they know that Iraq and Afghanistan come first? What - don't they of all people understand why that war is neccessary?

And I suppose those Floridians asking for aid after the hurricane are just whining unjustly too....


Funny thing though - Hastert aparently only complains about New York.... a state that generally receives back $11Billion per year less than it puts into Federal coffers.


http://www.nypost.com/news/nationalnews/18963.htm

Wanna bet how nice and warm a reception he gets from the city if he drops into the reception?

Why should the federal government pay to rebuild commercial property? They are not helping us rebuild after he recent hurricane here. The buildings that were lost were not owned by the federal government nor were they the responsibility of the government. The owners carried insurance, therefore, like everyone else, they should deal with their insurance company for compensation.

EDIT: The only "aid" the government has offered us here in Florida is low interest loans. No free money for us either.

Well, it's not as if New York isn't used to getting treated badly by Republicans...

Just before the war in Iraq, when protests in New York against the war were taking place, Joe Scarborough had this to say on the subject (3/13/03 ):

"New York City, the city hit hardest by September 11, now takes a big stand against the war with Saddam. Is the Big Apple sending a bad message to our men and women in uniform?...New York City is the latest city to back war as a final result. Is the Big Apple being anti-American?...New York City, hit the hardest on September 11. Now the very same city is working against the president in his showdown with Saddam...But up next, New York City, ground zero in the attack on America. Now that city's not standing by us in the looming attack on Iraq."



Or we could go back to '90 when Gingrich talked about the Democrats holding their convention in NYC with:

"I would personally be very comfortable having the Democratic party going to New York City, standing in the middle of the collapse of the welfare state, and explaining that we, too, could resemble New York City."



You can just feel the love can't ya?

Biff?

You a Liberterian?

No hidden meanings behind the question.....

EDIT: The only "aid" the government has offered us here in Florida is low interest loans. No free money for us either.

Biff, have you ever heard the phrase "disaster aid"?

http://www.sptimes.com/2004/08/17/Weather/Unlike_Andrew__aid_s_.shtml
http://www.fema.gov/news/newsrelease.fema?id=13394

You can see a history of how much FEMA paid out for past disasters here:
http://www.adjustersinternational.com/journalists.html?journalists/disasterdata.html~body

(Also, WTC insurance isn't going to pay to clean up asbestos dust from most of NYC. Nor for the increased police presence in New York, which has been on "Orange Alert" for quite some time now.)

Biff?

You a Liberterian?

No hidden meanings behind the question.....

Actually I am.

Commercial property is just that....the buildings lost were owned by corporations. The government has no business rebuilding commercial property. if they do so, then EVERY small business that has EVER had it's business damaged or destroyed for whatever reason will demand equal treatment. it is a slippery slope that we really don't want to go down.

Biff, have you ever heard the phrase "disaster aid"?

http://www.sptimes.com/2004/08/17/Weather/Unlike_Andrew__aid_s_.shtml
http://www.fema.gov/news/newsrelease.fema?id=13394

You can see a history of how much FEMA paid out for past disasters here:
http://www.adjustersinternational.com/journalists.html?journalists/disasterdata.html~body

(Also, WTC insurance isn't going to pay to clean up asbestos dust from most of NYC. Nor for the increased police presence in New York, which has been on "Orange Alert" for quite some time now.)

Absolutely I have....but rebuilding commercial property with public funds is a bad idea.

Asbestos cleanup and increased security costs are one thing, but construction costs should be the responsibility of the building owner and the insurance carrier.

EDIT: yeah, FEMA helps out as much as they can I guess. Most people here are being offered low interest loans, but no grants.

From the FEMA handbook....

FEMA payments will be reduced by the amount of any payments an applicant receives from their insurance company. Those insurance payments must be deemed reasonable by FEMA.

For damages caused by flood, the amount of eligible funding for buildings in a special flood hazard area will be reduced by the maximum amount of coverage available under the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) for those structures that are uninsured. This amounts to $500,000 per building and $500,000 for each building's contents.

Deductibles are eligible for reimbursement.

Applicants must acquire coverage for insurable items that receive federal funding for repair/replacement. Damages must be greater than $5,000. Waivers are available under certain circumstances, such as when the insurance cost is too great, it's unavailable, or there is a self-insurance pool.

Absolutely I have....but rebuilding commercial property with public funds is a bad idea.

Asbestos cleanup and increased security costs are one thing, but construction costs should be the responsibility of the building owner and the insurance carrier.

Yahuh. Those buildings were owned by the government, just leased to private industry. The subways under the building weren't owned by private industry, either. We don't live in a world where buildings are only ever built by private industry. The leasee had an (significant) insurance policy, which has paid out.

I think you're taking "reconstruction" a bit literally, which is fair considering how vague the article was. New York is looking for money to help with a huge variety of related problems - including health care for the first responders who breathed in that nasty gunk up close.

The GOP has a history of slamming NYC, though.
http://www.davidsirota.com/2004/08/gop-to-ny-drop-dead.html

Why should the federal government pay to rebuild commercial property? They are not helping us rebuild after he recent hurricane here. The buildings that were lost were not owned by the federal government nor were they the responsibility of the government. The owners carried insurance, therefore, like everyone else, they should deal with their insurance company for compensation.

EDIT: The only "aid" the government has offered us here in Florida is low interest loans. No free money for us either.


Well, Bif - for starters there was a lot more than just "commercial property" damage. There were roads, subways, utilities, cleanup costs etc that the insurance on the buildings would probably not cover, and if you ever read your insurance papers MOST state clearly that acts of war or insurrection are not covered. And yes- infrastructure building is often helped out with federal programs. There were also the costs to the city regarding tourism, commercial losses, environmental cleanup, need to replace a ton of uniformed first responders who perished. The added security costs to also help secure other potential targets that we keep hearing are under threat. This MAY suprise you - but New York's costs in that regard are just a wee bit higher than those in Ohio or Nebraska.

But hey - if it really wasn't a big deal and it should just be the problem of the insurance companies - then I guess you expect that the insurance companies will be more than happy to pony up for that nice expensive memorial to the victims right?



As to the aid to Florida - do you think FEMA is going to knock on your door and request payback for the emergency shelters, food, water, and other supplies it has been bringing in to help out? There is more to aid than just the loans you know.

http://www.fema.gov/

Oh look - $53 Million to Florida already.....

Someone commented about insurance companies making money off of disasters...which isn't quite accurate how it was stated.

The insurance companies had to shell out tons of money after the disasters so they actually lost money, but that justified them to raise their rates so they didn't begin making tons of money until after the two events, but...why wasn't the WTC insured?...

File this one under: great timing!
Republican House Speaker Dennis Hastert has just released a new book.
First Cheney comes out in support of his gay daughter and breaks ranks with the official White House opinion. Then Hastert publishes a book critical of the RNC's host city. Hmmmm.

Like 'em or not, the Bush Administration has demonstrated that they are capable of controlling the spin from within the ranks. Remember Colin Powell's anti-war stance? Then his defense of the formerly-indefensible in front of the UN? Nothing much goes on public display from within the Republican Party unless the White House has vetted and approved it. Hastert may be his own man in the House, but in the RNC he's just a powerful member. He wouldn't have hit the stands with this unless there was a reason.

I don't know what that reason is, but shouldn't we be asking that question? What is the value of refocusing the RNC on Gay Marriage during convention week? What benefit does the RNC get from pissing off New Yorkers at the start of the convention? Are they slapping Bloomberg for something he did wrong? Is this a stab at Hillary?

The only thing I'm certain of is that it isn't a mistake by Hastert. Somebody planned this. Why?

Actually I am.

Commercial property is just that....the buildings lost were owned by corporations. The government has no business rebuilding commercial property. if they do so, then EVERY small business that has EVER had it's business damaged or destroyed for whatever reason will demand equal treatment. it is a slippery slope that we really don't want to go down.

Question though. I agree with you on some exent on the buildings, but let us look at the specifics of what is happening here: The old, depreciated towers are getting replaced with a pair of high-tech, huge, snazzy "Freedom Towers" plus a memorial to the events of 9-11.

This is being done as a proper remembrance of the events, and also as a "fuck-you" message to the terrorists to say "We can't be beaten. Knock something down and we will just rebuild it bigger and better than before"

Frankly, I think that this IS the right message to send.

The question is - who picks up the tab?

The insurance companies won't. Even if fully insured this is WAY bigger than the twin tower's replacement costs. They will pay out what they have to, but that it all.

So - should New York have to pay the diference for what will really be a national symbol? Or should the nation help out?

Actually I am.

Commercial property is just that....the buildings lost were owned by corporations. The government has no business rebuilding commercial property. if they do so, then EVERY small business that has EVER had it's business damaged or destroyed for whatever reason will demand equal treatment. it is a slippery slope that we really don't want to go down.


If you think about it the US Govt is responsible as they admitted it themselves it was a failure of intelligence that led to this attacks success.

Someone commented about insurance companies making money off of disasters...which isn't quite accurate how it was stated.

Yeah, that boggled me as well.

The insurance companies had to shell out tons of money after the disasters so they actually lost money, but that justified them to raise their rates so they didn't begin making tons of money until after the two events, but...why wasn't the WTC insured?...

There was insurance; it just had a cap of 3.4 billion per incident. The leaseholder took the insurance company to court to argue that two planes equals two incidents, but lost.

The insurance company paid out $2.4 billion, $1.1 billion is tied up in arguments, and the cost for the new buildings is estimated at between $10-12 billion.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Trade_Center_site

Well...heh, as the National government is supposed to be held responsible for national security (not to knock Bush, it could've happened to a Gore too), I think the National Government needs to chip in a little bit.

Well, Bif - for starters there was a lot more than just "commercial property" damage. There were roads, subways, utilities, cleanup costs etc that the insurance on the buildings would probably not cover, and if you ever read your insurance papers MOST state clearly that acts of war or insurrection are not covered. And yes- infrastructure building is often helped out with federal programs. There were also the costs to the city regarding tourism, commercial losses, environmental cleanup, need to replace a ton of uniformed first responders who perished. The added security costs to also help secure other potential targets that we keep hearing are under threat. This MAY suprise you - but New York's costs in that regard are just a wee bit higher than those in Ohio or Nebraska.

But hey - if it really wasn't a big deal and it should just be the problem of the insurance companies - then I guess you expect that the insurance companies will be more than happy to pony up for that nice expensive memorial to the victims right?

As to the aid to Florida - do you think FEMA is going to knock on your door and request payback for the emergency shelters, food, water, and other supplies it has been bringing in to help out? There is more to aid than just the loans you know.

http://www.fema.gov/

Oh look - $53 Million to Florida already.....

Cleanup is one thing as I have stated, but reconstruction costs should not be the concern of the taxpayers. Subways and roads were built with city and state monies or federally guaranteed loans, but not federal tax monies.

Wow....a whole $53 Million? With estimates of $7.5 billion how long will it take them to reach that amount? As for supplies and things that FEMA is bringing in? this might surprise you, but I have not personally seen a single FEMA rep or vehicle or anything since the storm came through and I am right here in the middle of the path. Trees are down all over the place and angry squirrels have taken to the streets in protest.

Now I HAVE seen them on the local news offering people low interest loans until their insurance companies come through with the repairs, but thats ALL I have seen or heard them doing here. Yet New York wants the taxpayers to rebuild on the WTC site?

Maybe in Canada you might expect the socialist government to do so, but here we don't do things like that.

There was insurance; it just had a cap of 3.4 billion per incident. The leaseholder took the insurance company to court to argue that two planes equals two incidents, but lost.

The insurance company paid out $2.4 billion, $1.1 billion is tied up in arguments, and the cost for the new buildings is estimated at between $10-12 billion.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Trade_Center_site
Okay. Thanks.

Yet New York wants the taxpayers to rebuild on the WTC site?
9-11 was a failure of the government. The government had a job to do and it didn't get done and they need to be held responsible. The government isn't responsible for preventing natural disasters.

9-11 was a failure of the government. The government had a job to do and it didn't get done and they need to be held responsible. The government isn't responsible for preventing natural disasters.
opel, biff pileon is IMMUNE to reason, just ignore him, its alot easier

9-11 was a failure of the government. The government had a job to do and it didn't get done and they need to be held responsible. The government isn't responsible for preventing natural disasters.


that was basically my point too.

I was hoping Biff had a comeback for it.

Cleanup is one thing as I have stated, but reconstruction costs should not be the concern of the taxpayers. Subways and roads were built with city and state monies or federally guaranteed loans, but not federal tax monies.

Wow....a whole $53 Million? With estimates of $7.5 billion how long will it take them to reach that amount? As for supplies and things that FEMA is bringing in? this might surprise you, but I have not personally seen a single FEMA rep or vehicle or anything since the storm came through and I am right here in the middle of the path. Trees are down all over the place and angry squirrels have taken to the streets in protest.

Now I HAVE seen them on the local news offering people low interest loans until their insurance companies come through with the repairs, but thats ALL I have seen or heard them doing here. Yet New York wants the taxpayers to rebuild on the WTC site?

Maybe in Canada you might expect the socialist government to do so, but here we don't do things like that.

I think that you are missrepresenting here Bif. Yes, Canada expects insureance companies to pay what is owed. No - New york is not expecting otherwise. And in this case where there is an intent for a symbolic structure to be erected then I think it should be a shared costs.

Of course, by that token I think it should also imply a shared result in that the landlord should not benefit by having a free building hnded to them to profit from rents on.

But, I guess you are right. Canada does feel that national memorials should be a shared cost. In the US your government won't even kick in to memorialize those soldiers that fall in it's defence - leaving it up to private donations to build such things as the WWII Memorial, and the Vietnam Wall.

Frankly I found that disgraceful, but if you think that such things are inherently "socialist", well... that's your opinion.

Hmm, maybe if the memorial was erected with taxpayers money, the "landlord" should be the federal government. The rent should be used to pay off the bills (water, electric, etcetera), then any NY State taxes, then the rest should be used to pay back the taxpayers over time. That way it isn't so much as taxpayers paying for it, but taxpayers lending for it.

Question though. I agree with you on some exent on the buildings, but let us look at the specifics of what is happening here: The old, depreciated towers are getting replaced with a pair of high-tech, huge, snazzy "Freedom Towers" plus a memorial to the events of 9-11.

This is being done as a proper remembrance of the events, and also as a "fuck-you" message to the terrorists to say "We can't be beaten. Knock something down and we will just rebuild it bigger and better than before"

Frankly, I think that this IS the right message to send.

The question is - who picks up the tab?

The insurance companies won't. Even if fully insured this is WAY bigger than the twin tower's replacement costs. They will pay out what they have to, but that it all.

So - should New York have to pay the diference for what will really be a national symbol? Or should the nation help out?

Since you are not from the US you may not be familiar with how various parts of the country are treated during times of disaster.

In 1992 I believe it was, the earthquake in California that resulted in the freeways being destroyed. The federal government rushed in and the roads were rebuilt in a couple of weeks. A world record that I believe still stands.

1989....Hurricane Hugo tears through South Carolina. Some people were without power for almost 8 weeks. There was very little federal aid. Why the discrepancy?

1992...Hurricane Andrew tears up Homestead Florida and aid is extremely slow in arriving. Riots break out in some Hispanic neighborhoods.

California is a huge Democrat stronghold....as is New York. South Carolina and Florida largely support the Republicans. Clinton/Gore were in office for two of those events. The response is typical of politicians. California went to Clinton, Florida did not.

This being an election year....New York will likely go to Kerry and Florida is a swing state. FEMA may be reported to be doing great things here, but many streets are still barely passable and we still have to boil water before drinking it. However, the aid was approved before the storm even hit, so that shows the earnestness on the side of Bush to look good during an election year.

I think that you are missrepresenting here Bif. Yes, Canada expects insureance companies to pay what is owed. No - New york is not expecting otherwise. And in this case where there is an intent for a symbolic structure to be erected then I think it should be a shared costs.

Of course, by that token I think it should also imply a shared result in that the landlord should not benefit by having a free building hnded to them to profit from rents on.

But, I guess you are right. Canada does feel that national memorials should be a shared cost. In the US your government won't even kick in to memorialize those soldiers that fall in it's defence - leaving it up to private donations to build such things as the WWII Memorial, and the Vietnam Wall.

Frankly I found that disgraceful, but if you think that such things are inherently "socialist", well... that's your opinion.

A national memorial is one thing...but rebuilding a commercial building is out of bounds. If the WTC was under insured, then the owner has to deal with that.

Solution: Live in North Dakota. Fewer natural disasters, plus your choice for president is worth more than the average American.

A national memorial is one thing...but rebuilding a commercial building is out of bounds. If the WTC was under insured, then the owner has to deal with that.
A building (no matter what kind it was) that was insured from international terrorism if the government was doing its job, which it wasn't, so they should pay.

I thought this was intended to be a topic about Hastert and his book, not about insurance.


"Oooh, insurance is fun! Let's argue about it!"

Since you are not from the US you may not be familiar with how various parts of the country are treated during times of disaster.

In 1992 I believe it was, the earthquake in California that resulted in the freeways being destroyed. The federal government rushed in and the roads were rebuilt in a couple of weeks. A world record that I believe still stands.

1989....Hurricane Hugo tears through South Carolina. Some people were without power for almost 8 weeks. There was very little federal aid. Why the discrepancy?

1992...Hurricane Andrew tears up Homestead Florida and aid is extremely slow in arriving. Riots break out in some Hispanic neighborhoods.

California is a huge Democrat stronghold....as is New York. South Carolina and Florida largely support the Republicans. Clinton/Gore were in office for two of those events. The response is typical of politicians. California went to Clinton, Florida did not.

This being an election year....New York will likely go to Kerry and Florida is a swing state. FEMA may be reported to be doing great things here, but many streets are still barely passable and we still have to boil water before drinking it. However, the aid was approved before the storm even hit, so that shows the earnestness on the side of Bush to look good during an election year.

Ummm - the Northridge Earthquake was '94.

But in '89 and '92 you had a Republican President.... as you do now.


So what you are trying to say is that in times of need Democrats help the people who vote for them if they are in power.... but Republicans do not?


And people still vote for them?


Interesting.... if I were you I would point this out to Republicans and suggest that they talk to their representatives about how shabbily they get treated when they need help the most.

A building (no matter what kind it was) that was insured from international terrorism if the government was doing its job, which it wasn't, so they should pay.

I see....

But then it could be argued in court that by doing so with public funds that every business that suffers a loss should be given the same consideration.

You know those whacky lawyers....

I see....

But then it could be argued in court that by doing so with public funds that every business that suffers a loss should be given the same consideration.

You know those whacky lawyers....
Anything (not just businesses) that are physically effected by non-domestic terrorism should be able to hold the government accountable...

You do know that 16 of the 19 hijackers were in the country illegally, right?

I see....

But then it could be argued in court that by doing so with public funds that every business that suffers a loss should be given the same consideration.

You know those whacky lawyers....


If they suffer a loss from an act of terrorism I would agree.

So what you are trying to say is that in times of need Democrats help the people who vote for them if they are in power.... but Republicans do not?

Absolutely, politics is funny thing....

Well here's a question for all you out there. If New York has anything to be upset about, wouldn't a big one be the fact that the Department of Homeland Security is dispersing less funds to New York City for terrorist prevention than they are to places like Lexington, Kentucky? My state now has 8 mobile, biological terror trauma teams with the chemical showers and rapid response kits and all that jazz....all courtesy of DHS. Sooooo, we already had 2 in the state that were supplied courtesy Dow, FMC, and Rhone-Poulenc. Why did we need more? Who was planning to bomb all over West Virginia? Why are we getting more money to prevent terrorists than New York City?

Anything (not just businesses) that are physically effected by non-domestic terrorism should be able to hold the government accountable...

You do know that 16 of the 19 hijackers were in the country illegally, right?

I stubbed my toe getting to the TV to watch the coverage. Can I get paid too?

Oh, and Bif:

From: http://www.fema.gov/news/newsrelease.fema?id=13394

Brown said emergency assistance triggered by the declaration can range from the use of federal personnel, equipment and lifesaving systems to the delivery of heavy-duty generators, plastic sheeting, tents, cots, food, water, medical aid and other essential supplies and materials for sustaining human life.

In addition to emergency aid, Brown said the declaration makes federal funds available for the long-term recovery of storm-stricken residents and business owners in the counties of Charlotte, Lee, Manatee and Sarasota.

The assistance, to be coordinated by FEMA, can include grants to help pay for temporary housing, home repairs and other serious disaster-related expenses. Low-interest loans from the U.S. Small Business Administration also will be available to cover residential and business losses not fully compensated by insurance.

Additionally, Brown said the state and affected local governments in all 67 counties are eligible to apply for federal funds to pay 75 percent of the approved costs for debris removal and emergency services related to the storms. Federal funding also will be available to the state on a cost-shared basis for approved projects that reduce future disaster risks.




So the feds are picking up 75% of the cleanup costs for those trees you mentioned. If your neighbourhood isn't getting it done fast enough then complain locally. The funds have already been released by the President. This is the diference between paying for something as opposed to actually doing the work - which I do not beleive that New York is asking for either.

Perhaps you shold ask your governer why the national guard hasn't been called out to help clean up - if they aren't deployed elsehwere that is. That would certainly be a cost-effective way of getting the job done.

I stubbed my toe getting to the TV to watch the coverage. Can I get paid too?
No. Not a result of terrorism. Besides, going to a doctor won't fix a stubbed toe.

I stubbed my toe getting to the TV to watch the coverage. Can I get paid too?

Can you prove this was caused by a terrorist?

The WTC disaster was due to an US Govt Intelligence failure which they admitted to. So obviously they should take on some of the burden. As a taxpayer I'm not happy about it but we gotta take care of our people.

Well here's a question for all you out there. If New York has anything to be upset about, wouldn't a big one be the fact that the Department of Homeland Security is dispersing less funds to New York City for terrorist prevention than they are to places like Lexington, Kentucky? My state now has 8 mobile, biological terror trauma teams with the chemical showers and rapid response kits and all that jazz....all courtesy of DHS. Sooooo, we already had 2 in the state that were supplied courtesy Dow, FMC, and Rhone-Poulenc. Why did we need more? Who was planning to bomb all over West Virginia? Why are we getting more money to prevent terrorists than New York City?
go go gadget partisan motivations, gotta make sure the republican states are safe

Oh, and Bif:

From: http://www.fema.gov/news/newsrelease.fema?id=13394




So the feds are picking up 75% of the cleanup costs for those trees you mentioned. If your neighbourhood isn't getting it done fast enough then complain locally. The funds have already been released by the President. This is the diference between paying for something as opposed to actually doing the work - which I do not beleive that New York is asking for either.

Perhaps you shold ask your governer why the national guard hasn't been called out to help clean up - if they aren't deployed elsehwere that is. That would certainly be a cost-effective way of getting the job done.

The number of trees is staggering...it will be up to 8 months before they have it all cleaned up they say. Crews are here from all over the country cleaning up and several unlicensed contractors have already been arrested for doing work here.

The number of trees is staggering...it will be up to 8 months before they have it all cleaned up they say. Crews are here from all over the country cleaning up and several unlicensed contractors have already been arrested for doing work here.
The United States government is not responsible for the prevention of natural disasters.

The United States government is not responsible for the prevention of natural disasters.

No, but they are responsible for the cleanup.

No, but they are responsible for the cleanup.
They are also responsible for national security. If they fail to uphold their responsibilities, there should be repercussions.

Yeah, Repercussions Like We Kill Them All Muahahahaha.

New York sucks!!!!!! So let them pay for it themselfs!!!!!

They are also responsible for national security. If they fail to uphold their responsibilities, there should be repercussions.

There are....changes are being made.

There are....changes are being made.
They aren't fixing the results of their mishap.

New York sucks!!!!!! So let them pay for it themselfs!!!!!
most cleverest first post ever

They aren't fixing the results of their mishap.
like i said, biff is immune to reason and logic, just give it up

most cleverest first post ever
Indeed.

Dammit. I was about to comment on that. Assmonkey.

Indeed.
it was a joke because of his "themselfs"

They aren't fixing the results of their mishap.

Well, I guess the ONLY way to do that would be to put the WTC back together again. Like Humpty-Dumpty, thats not going to happen.

like i said, biff is immune to reason and logic, just give it up

Nah, I am just not blind like you are.

No, but they are responsible for the cleanup.


Seems to me you're going in circles from your position that they aren't in relation to New York though Bif.... ;)



We had similar circumstances regading trees and debris in the ice storm in '98. Trees down all over the place. It took time. Of course, we had the added disadvantage that it was winter too - although I certainly grant that we had the advantage that most of us still had a roof over our head. But a lot of communities got together and fired up the chainsaws and did some of their own cleanup - stacking the wood on lawns for the city to collect later rather than than wait for the roads to become passable. Of course, up here more of us probably HAVE chainsaws than in Florida, and we also didn't have the issues of ripping apart bits of buildings lying around waiting for the insurance adjuster.

If your goverments are giving a hard time about people doing some of the cleanup for them, then they are being silly in my opinion. It is amazing what groups of citizens can get done on their own if you let them.

Still - it will get done, and the Feds WILL pay for most of it. But it's not the job of the Federal Government to run the cleanup. If that is the problem turn your gaze locally rather than to Washington.

Well, I guess the ONLY way to do that would be to put the WTC back together again. Like Humpty-Dumpty, thats not going to happen.
Uh...so the government is responsible for fixing unpreventable natural disasters, but not responsible for fixing disasters that are their own fault?

Nah, I am just not blind like you are.
Well, you may not be completely blind because you can definitely see your side of the issue.

Seems to me you're going in circles from your position that they aren't in relation to New York though Bif.... ;)



We had similar circumstances regading trees and debris in the ice storm in '98. Trees down all over the place. It took time. Of course, we had the added disadvantage that it was winter too - although I certainly grant that we had the advantage that most of us still had a roof over our head. But a lot of communities got together and fired up the chainsaws and did some of their own cleanup - stacking the wood on lawns for the city to collect later rather than than wait for the roads to become passable. Of course, up here more of us probably HAVE chainsaws than in Florida, and we also didn't have the issues of ripping apart bits of buildings lying around waiting for the insurance adjuster.

If your goverments are giving a hard time about people doing some of the cleanup for them, then they are being silly in my opinion. It is amazing what groups of citizens can get done on their own if you let them.

Still - it will get done, and the Feds WILL pay for most of it. But it's not the job of the Federal Government to run the cleanup. If that is the problem turn your gaze locally rather than to Washington.


Oh, we cleared our street alright. I have only worked that hard once before and that was throwing sandbags during the flood in the midwest in 1993.

You should have seen the politicos falling all over themselves over that one. Gephardt was there telling everyone how much help he was bringing everyone.

One thing is true, noone can help you as much as you can help yourself.

Well, you may not be completely blind because you can definitely see your side of the issue.

Wow....and I guess the same is true of you as well.

Maybe we should get the UN involved huh? ;)

You are saying that the government shouldn't pay to help with the WTC, but should pay to help out after the natural disaster. I am saying the government should pay for both, but most especially the WTC because that was the government's fault. If the government isn't held accountable for disasters they could have prevented, what incentive is there for the government to prevent those disasters from happening?

Opal, that makes perfect sense. Thank you.

You are saying that the government shouldn't pay to help with the WTC, but should pay to help out after the natural disaster. I am saying the government should pay for both, but most especially the WTC because that was the government's fault. If the government isn't held accountable for disasters they could have prevented, what incentive is there for the government to prevent those disasters from happening?

No, I am saying they should be treated the same....

The feds will not pay to repair a single house here. They will pay for the street cleanup and probably reimburse the state for any infrastructure damage.

Insurance will pay to repair/rebuild any homes. Commercial property as well....

Incentive? Well, the prevention of terrorist acts is important and steps are being taken and successes are being made. Most we will never hear about.

WHy shoudl they be treated teh same?

You are not acknowledging the fact that it was teh US Govt.'s intelligence failure that allowed the WTC disaster to happen int eh first place? Do you not agree with the Govt's own assesment that they failed to do their job correctly?

Incentive? Well, the prevention of terrorist acts is important and steps are being taken and successes are being made. Most we will never hear about.

Only in an effort to get re-elected.

WHy shoudl they be treated teh same?

You are not acknowledging the fact that it was teh US Govt.'s intelligence failure that allowed the WTC disaster to happen int eh first place? Do you not agree with the Govt's own assesment that they failed to do their job correctly?

Yes, they missed all the clues that were there and it happened. However, they are NOT going to pay to build another commercial building on that site.

Had it only been a Wal-Mart store that was hit would you be calling for tax dollars to rebuild it? Knowing that Wal-mart is the largest retailer in the world and could replace the building without batting an eye?

Dude, Biff, go back a few posts and read my idea about how it could be paid for...

Only in an effort to get re-elected.

Very true....but thats the nature of politics. ALL politicians do that. Gephardt in the floods of 1993 running along the dike telling everyone that he was taking care of things. Yeah, he managed to get the dike on the Illinois side blown up to relieve pressure on the St. Louis side so HIS constituents would not lose their homes. Then after the flood he claimed to have "saved" St. Louis. :rolleyes: Of course those whose homes were destroyed in the process might not agree with him, but they lived in Illinois. ;)

Yes, they missed all the clues that were there and it happened. However, they are NOT going to pay to build another commercial building on that site.

Had it only been a Wal-Mart store that was hit would you be calling for tax dollars to rebuild it? Knowing that Wal-mart is the largest retailer in the world and could replace the building without batting an eye?

Yes I would. And I will be the first to tell you that I hate WalMart and their sweatshop business practices. I also hate most large corporations that show no social responsibility.

Hmm, maybe if the memorial was erected with taxpayers money, the "landlord" should be the federal government. The rent should be used to pay off the bills (water, electric, etcetera), then any NY State taxes, then the rest should be used to pay back the taxpayers over time. That way it isn't so much as taxpayers paying for it, but taxpayers lending for it.
Read that, since you didn't the first time.

Yes I would. And I will be the first to tell you that I hate WalMart and their sweatshop business practices. I also hate most large corporations that show no social responsibility.

I hate Wal-Mart too, but I cannot see taxpayers money going to repair/replace any commercial property. THAT is a terrible precedent to set and if you cannot see where that will lead, then you might want to sit down and really think about it for awhile.

Some idiot drives his car into a storefront....precedent says the taxpayers pay for it.

A strong wind blows a window in at the 7-11...precedent says the taxpayer will pay for it.

See where thats going.....

Hmm, maybe if the memorial was erected with taxpayers money, the "landlord" should be the federal government. The rent should be used to pay off the bills (water, electric, etcetera), then any NY State taxes, then the rest should be used to pay back the taxpayers over time. That way it isn't so much as taxpayers paying for it, but taxpayers lending for it.

Ok, who pays for the beauracracy that will be needed to administer this program? Will it be an elected position or a political appointment?

In case you haven't figured it out yet...EVERYTIME some program like this is set up it entails a staff increase and just makes government bigger.

Ok, who pays
The tenants of the building.

The tenants of the building.

I see...so their rents will be higher than in adjoining buildings. So why would a tenant pay extra to support a beauracracy like that. I envision a lot of empty space in that building...which will result in the owner posting a loss for the year and thus the tax base will decline.

There is no simple way to look at that is there?

I see...so their rents will be higher than in adjoining buildings. So why would a tenant pay extra to support a beauracracy like that. I envision a lot of empty space in that building...which will result in the owner posting a loss for the year and thus the tax base will decline.

There is no simple way to look at that is there?
No, the rent won't be much higher, and if it is, it is only because of 1) it being a new, better building and 2) it being on such a famous site.
Anyway, since the rent isn't going to make the owner's (since it would essentially be a federal building) pocketbook bigger, it can be used to pay the bills and the people administrating. The excess would be used to pay of the loan per se granted to them by the government and when that is payed off, the rent decreases slightly.

No, the rent won't be much higher, and if it is, it is only because of 1) it being a new, better building and 2) it being on such a famous site.
Anyway, since the rent isn't going to make the owner's (since it would essentially be a federal building) pocketbook bigger, it can be used to pay the bills and the people administrating. The excess would be used to pay of the loan per se granted to them by the government and when that is payed off, the rent decreases slightly.

IF they build a FEDERAL building there that is OWNED by the taxpayers then there is no problem.

IF they build a COMMERCAIL building like the WTC and turn it over to the previous owners, then there is a problem.

IF they guarantee a low interest loan to the previous owners and assist them in rebuilding with a guarantee that the taxpayers will be repaid in full, then there is no problem.

IF they build a FEDERAL building there that is OWNED by the taxpayers then there is no problem.

IF they guarantee a low interest loan to the previous owners and assist them in rebuilding with a guarantee that the taxpayers will be repaid in full, then there is no problem.
I am suggesting they do one of those two things, and maybe if they do the loan, don't make the owners pay the government back for the costs to build the memorial.

Actually I am.

Commercial property is just that....the buildings lost were owned by corporations. The government has no business rebuilding commercial property. if they do so, then EVERY small business that has EVER had it's business damaged or destroyed for whatever reason will demand equal treatment. it is a slippery slope that we really don't want to go down.

It depends, maybe if a small percentage was offered, like 5% then it wouldn't draw everyone who thinks they can get an extra dollar.

And whether or not it's their business it's in the government's best interest to help rebuilding, the sooner the economy in an area recovers the sooner that part will become productive again.

I am suggesting they do one of those two things, and maybe if they do the loan, don't make the owners pay the government back for the costs to build the memorial.

I don't have any problem with the government building a memorial, but the taxpayer has no business building commercial property. Making loans and even grants to business is a daily function of the government, although I wonder if the airlines will ever pay back the money they were fronted to keep them flying after 9-11.

Absolutely I have....but rebuilding commercial property with public funds is a bad idea.

Ok, I see why you believe this is so, so: let me put some stuff on the table here.

1) The monies are not ALL to rebuild the WTC complex. There was major damage done to the infrastructure and to both subway (city public transport) and commuter rail lines below the surface of the towers. Gas, sewer, electrical, phone and other services also were hit.

2) The WTC was originally built from monies collected from by Port Authority of NY & NJ entirely -- it was built with tolls and rail passes collected from commuters. It was indeed a city project and not merely a commercial concern.

3) The companies that were there paid taxes to the city, as did their employees, and contributed to the economy... another reason why one could justify it. We're talking 50,000 jobs lost or relocated, which has impacted on the city economy.

as a tangentally related aside....

4) The Federal government sees fit to give MORE MONEY per capita to people in Nebraska for terrorism prevention than NYC or Washington DC.

Sense much?

Or we could go back to '90 when Gingrich talked about the Democrats holding their convention in NYC with:




You can just feel the love can't ya?
In 1990, NYC was the absolute shittiest city on the planet. Times Square was filled with peep shows and adult movie theaters. Crime and vandalism was rampant. And overall, the city was filthy. It has turned around 180 degrees since then.

whats really sick is the way the Bush administration has politicized homeland security anti terrorism aid giving states like extremely low risk Wyoming more anti-terrorism money then #1 terrorist target NYC

whats really sick is the way the Bush administration has politicized homeland security anti terrorism aid giving states like extremely low risk Wyoming more anti-terrorism money then #1 terrorist target NYC

O_O

I'm shocked. There is something we agree upon!

I live in downtown Manhattan, a few miles from the WTC site.

The damage done to New York City was not pure property damage. The government cannot intervene to help private commercial property -- they cannot foot the bill for the Freedom Towers. That is not a government project, that is a PRIVATE project that the owners of the site need to be considering. Insurance needs to handle that. IF the owners of the site were to get a judgement against the government, claiming that their negligence of anti-terrorism duties led to the destruction of their property, then they would be entitled to however much the judgement would be, but that is not the case.

Where the government needs to intervene is the revitalization of the economy in downtown Manhattan and to support the city governments of all major cities for antiterrorism efforts.

Right now, New York City is preparing to pay for the overtime of 30,000+ NYPD officers plus riot control equipment (megaphones and crowd control weapons in anticipation of the massive marches against the convention), convention protection (inspection of vehicles/people, watching for activity, etc.), the loss of revenue in the closing of major avenues and the security of Penn Station (the main commuter rail outlet to Long Island/the Northeast, which is located directly under the convention site of Madison Square Garden). This is not daily support, this is EXTRA CONVENTION SUPPORT ONLY.

Daily support includes subway protection and investigation of any and all suspicious packages, checks of all van/truck traffic into and out of Manhattan (huge, all supplies that travel by truck into Manhattan, from food to computers, need to be stopped and inspected before entering the bridge/tunnel to Manhattan), and a massive, visible, and highly antiterrorism-trained police presence.

Meanwhile, the economy of lower Manhattan is in a shambles. Corporations are moving their offices out of high-profile buildings such as the Empire State Building and the Citicorp Building and, in some cases, out of the city. People are afraid to travel to and from major landmarks. Tourism is down, business is down near the WTC site, and shops are closing. This creates a huge loss of tax revenue (despite higher taxes which drive more businesses out) -- hitting at the exact moment while the city needs more money than ever. Schools and Mass Transit are being given the short end of the stick in favor of terrorism protection, simply because the federal government's aid package, 5.1 billion of which is now in question, does not compensate for all of the extra expenses. And as always, NY State sends more money to the gov't than it gets back.

Government intervention is required not for the one-time loss of the Trade Center buildings, but instead for the consistent and unending loss of revenue due to antiterrorist efforts and keeping Lower Manhattan afloat. And this is the aid which we need that we're not getting, not the Freedom Towers construction efforts.

The difference between the 9/11 attacks and the Hurricane Charley damage is not government responsibility for the events (I do blame Bush for them, but I don't hold it against him too much -- no one expected a terrorist attack), but instead the fact that the 9/11 attacks have created what will be an unending need for extra funding -- against antiterrorism and to support NYC's economy -- as opposed to the relatively one-time expense of rebuilding after the Charley damage.

As to Hastert -- he isn't worth a response.

O_O

I'm shocked. There is something we agree upon!
Im shocked too heh

lol, they should make the insurance companies pay for it, lord knows they made enough money off both those disasters

Insurance companies don't get money from disasters, they get money from people not having disasters but wanting converage on the off chance that they will.

Solution: Live in North Dakota. Fewer natural disasters, plus your choice for president is worth more than the average American.

Exactly!

We get tornados, but only out further west. Eastern border (like grand forks) is better.

File this one under: great timing!

Republican House Speaker Dennis Hastert has just released a new book. In it, he complains about New York's requests for the help funding the reconstruction after 9-11 as being "an unseemly scramble" for cash.

All this on the eve of the RNC in New York, not to mention the 9-11 anniversary.

But I suppose that's fair. I mean - why should New York get it's costs to rebuild covered Federally during a time of war? Don't they know that Iraq and Afghanistan come first? What - don't they of all people understand why that war is neccessary?

And I suppose those Floridians asking for aid after the hurricane are just whining unjustly too....


Funny thing though - Hastert aparently only complains about New York.... a state that generally receives back $11Billion per year less than it puts into Federal coffers.


http://www.nypost.com/news/nationalnews/18963.htm

Wanna bet how nice and warm a reception he gets from the city if he drops into the reception?
Only to comment on the bolded part there--if you take the election map from 2000 and look at the states that voted for Gore versus the states that voted for Bush and superimposed a map of the states that pay more money in federal taxes than they receive back in good and services versus the opposite (get more than they pay), guess what you'll find?

Hell, here's what I wrote about it on Jan. 30. (http://incertus.blogspot.com/2004/01/there-is-major-disparity-in-us-tax.html)
To use a crude (and to some, offensive) analogy, some states are the wealthy who pay the majority of the income taxes and some are the welfare mothers who qualify for the Earned Income Credit and get back more than they paid in.

If you believe the hype and rhetoric thrown around by the Republican party in the US, you might think that they were all from Giver states, being leeched by those income redistributing liberals who want a welfare state and want to destroy human motivation and competition in the interests of equality. You would be wrong....

In their [the Tax Foundation, a non-profit research group] analysis, 33 states were classified as Takers, while 16 were Givers. Only Indiana manages to find that perfect and serene balance of getting back every dollar they put in.

But how did those states vote in 2000?

"George W. Bush was the candidate of the Taker states. Al Gore was the candidate of the Giver states.

Consider:

78 percent of Mr. Bush's electoral votes came from Taker states.

76 percent of Mr. Gore's electoral votes came from Giver states.

Of the 33 Taker states, Mr. Bush carried 25.

Of the 16 Giver states, Mr. Gore carried 12."

Have Republicans become the party of the welfare state? It certainly seems so, at least in the realm of federal spending.

When you factor in that one of the giver states that Bush "carried" was Florida, the disparity becomes even more evident. Dennis Hastert has a lot of gall to claim that New Yorkers are involved in an unseemly scramble for cash--not much in the way of smarts, but lots of gall.