Bitcoin Forum

Senate passed a bill that will put $60.4 billion towards reconstructing the areas hit by superstorm sandy.

Republicans who are trying to cut down the bills costs have thus far been unsuccessful.

http://www.moneycontrol.com/news/wire-news/us-senate-approves-36604-billion-superstorm-sandy-reconstruction-bill_801026.html
http://www.businessweek.com/news/2012-12-28/senate-approves-60-billion-hurricane-sandy-aid-package
http://news.yahoo.com/senate-approves-60-4-billion-sandy-aid-bill-000348278.html


Opinions? IMO it sucks that many people had their lives destroyed but it is not up to the taxpayers to pay for damage done to private property via a natural occurrence. This sort of thing is best handled by charitable organizations, forcing people to pay for the misfortunes of others seems like charity-at-gunpoint so to speak. I also don't get where this $60 billion is coming from, last I checked the U.S. was broke.

Ben Bernanke creates about 50B per month, out of thin air. That's how.

Coincidentally, that's about the same as US's trade deficit, per month.

Wheels on the press go round and round..........

$60.4 billion towards reconstructing the areas is good amount.

Nobody expected insurance companies to swallow this loss did they? With all the politicians they've bought and paid for? ...come on. Just like the banking industry, the gains are private, the losses are socialized. Business as usual in a fascist corporatocracy.

Consider, the poor neighborhoods will be rebuilt first, then the most affluent neighborhoods next, and finally, always at the end of the doling-out-of-funds-after-a-natural-disaster, getting the vital businesses up and running. Maybe I have this ass backwards.

~Bruno K~

maybe if the government was actually capable of using resources efficiently we could have a debate about whether tax dollars should be used to help these people but since it cant the whole point is moot. The government will spend 60 billion dollars in order to accomplish as much as the private sector could have accomplished with 10 billion dollars and since that part of the country represents roughly (10billion/60billion) percent of the country it reasonable to expect it wont even benefit on net the people it is intended to help let alone all the people it is not intended to help.

I do not feel it is right for the government, and the insurance industry by proxy, to kill me because I refuse to help someone in another state who lost their home in a natural disaster.

Keep that in mind if you ever lose anything.. Or ever need government assistance, I hope all your medical bills are paid cash out of your pocket too.


Besides, its not as if they're giving 60.4 billion dollars for free.
It's going to create jobs, and the jobs that are created the workers will pay taxes.

Taxes on purchased supplies, taxes on sold supplies, taxes on paychecks, and taxes on spent paychecks.

Do the math if only 10 billion of it was put aside for workers sorry if my math is bad I'm tired, but $1000/wk paycheck for 52 weeks for 192,000 people.
At 25% taxes that's $2.5 billion back to the government just in paychecks.
At FL rate that's 487.5m just to spend it, so 3b back into the treasury so out of 10b paychecks 3b goes back.

192,000 more jobs will make longer lines in walmart, and another lane will open, another worker getting a paycheck going to subway, needing another worker because with the walmart employee and the construction workers needing food. chain reaction.

Not saying these are going to be exact numbers, but jobs are always good.

Greed is the fall, you would want help.

If you lost your job, would you point a gun at me to make me pay for your unemployment?

But 60 billion less in taxes would have allowed the taxpayers to spend more than their current budget allows, which means more $ for business which means growth which means jobs. You can use that argument for anything.

Most unemployment benefits are delivered as insurance and are funded from paychecks themselves.   The extended unemployment benefits are not and those are the ones that I have a problem with, not the regular 26 week ones. 

Repairing what is broken is not the same as taxing to prosperity.  It is actually in the governments interest to rebuild faster so more economic activity and taxes happen.  Most of the money is composed of loans that will be paid back. 

That doesn't really answer my question. Let me rephrase:

If you needed food, would you point a gun at me to force me to provide for you?

If a behavior is unacceptable on the personal level, it is still unacceptable on the government level. It is unacceptable for anyone to point a gun at me and force me to provide for them. It is unacceptable for the government to do the same.