Not the time for political revenge

[badger]

A New Jersey media site is pointing out that our freshmen reps voted against Sandy relief earlier this year.

Linky (http://www.nj.com/news/index.ssf/2013/05/oklahomas_us_senators_voted_ag.html) (via nj.com)

I also know that Coburn and Inhofe wanted to find alternative means to fund the relief before and wanted less than the original amount.

I really hope that nobody is planning political revenge for our Oklahoma delegation's previous actions concerning Sandy relief (which overwhelmingly passed, regardless of how our guys voted).

[rock on sooner]

Anyone who injects partisan politics into such devastation should
be flogged, publicly, keel hauled then put in stocks in the public
square!

[SoonerorLater]

And yet i could see that happening.

[XingTheRubicon]

how 'bout maybe don't put a bunch of bullsh*t IN said relief bill in the first place

[KantoSooner]

Anyone who injects partisan politics into such devastation should
be flogged, publicly, keel hauled then put in stocks in the public
square!

So when do Inhofe and Coburn start stripping down and will it be on cable?

[SouthCarolinaSooner]

Inhofe and his buddies shouldn't have played politics with the first bill either, Oklahoma and New Jersey need all the aid they can get

[okie52]

Any senator should play "politics" if a $60,000,000,000 relief is supposedly including billions of pork.

I would hope that the $1,000,000,000 or so that will go to OK will be without earmarks.

[SouthCarolinaSooner]

The National Hurricane Center estimated the damage from Sandy to be $71 billion, so the damage wasn't even fully covered by the relief bill, that's hardly overspending. Id like to see the so-called "pork" from that bill, if you can find it.

[okie52]

The National Hurricane Center estimated the damage from Sandy to be $71 billion, so the damage wasn't even fully covered by the relief bill, that's hardly overspending. Id like to see the so-called "pork" from that bill, if you can find it.

Well I'll see what I can dig up for you.

$71,000,000,000 and the government is supposed to cover it all? Don't these people have insurance?

[olevetonahill]

Well I'll see what I can dig up for you.

$71,000,000,000 and the government is supposed to cover it all? Don't these people have insurance?

They Yankees and Libs to boot. what ya think /

[yermom]

Well I'll see what I can dig up for you.

$71,000,000,000 and the government is supposed to cover it all? Don't these people have insurance?
you think insurance companies make money by writing checks?

[diverdog]

A New Jersey media site is pointing out that our freshmen reps voted against Sandy relief earlier this year.

Linky (http://www.nj.com/news/index.ssf/2013/05/oklahomas_us_senators_voted_ag.html) (via nj.com)

I also know that Coburn and Inhofe wanted to find alternative means to fund the relief before and wanted less than the original amount.

I really hope that nobody is planning political revenge for our Oklahoma delegation's previous actions concerning Sandy relief (which overwhelmingly passed, regardless of how our guys voted).

There is a lot of talk from the voters on the radio about this very subject up here. I was praying it would not be discussed for several days. They are still steamed about Sandy and what went on with the funding.
i don't think they will play politics with it but I am sure they will ask a favor down the road.

[SouthCarolinaSooner]

Well I'll see what I can dig up for you.

$71,000,000,000 and the government is supposed to cover it all? Don't these people have insurance?
I didn't mean to imply they were supposed to cover it all, just that in a scanning of the spending nothing seemed excessive or out of place. I could easily have missed something though

[Soonerjeepman]

I believe there was some money for cars for FEMA in Iowa or Ohio or someplace not even affected...there was a ton of BS spending.

[diverdog]

I believe there was some money for cars for FEMA in Iowa or Ohio or someplace not even affected...there was a ton of BS spending.

You know if this happened in Kansas us Yankee Libs would be sending you plastic dog sh*t on a cargo plane from Hong Kong. :) :)

[OU_Sooners75]

you think insurance companies make money by writing checks?

No, but I think Insurance Companies are also suppose to honor paid services.

[Midtowner]

No, but I think Insurance Companies are also suppose to honor paid services.

9 times out of 10, you're fine. Many of these homeowners are experiencing problems like this though:

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/02/your-money/fighting-the-insurer-over-hurricane-sandy-damage.html?pagewanted=all

[okie52]

you think insurance companies make money by writing checks?

Maybe someone ought to explain that concept to the government.

[Midtowner]

Sometimes the government has a hard time regulating insurance companies due to the efforts of their lobbyists and things end up in court for years.

If their policy limits are $150K and the insurance company offers $50K, the homeowner could very easily be out $100k in attorney fees fighting for the insurance company to pay what they should have in the first place, even less 40% or so in attorney fees. Insurance companies know this and sometimes will play dirty.

I will tell you though, my personal experience with Farmer's has always been excellent. There are insurance companies to avoid though.

[okie52]

Sure glad there isn't a trial lawyers lobby. Seems like the dems have found some lobbyist group that is consistently their biggest donor.

[rock on sooner]

Being in a town full of insurance companies and a wife that works for one
of them, this issue will be a topic for a while. Jus guessin but I think nearly
all of em will step to the plate here....

[yermom]

the PR would get pretty rough otherwise seeing as this is all over the national news

[Blue]

you think insurance companies make money by writing checks?

They make money by jacking up premiums with hurricane and tornado deductibles. The amount they pay is no where close to what they make. You want us to feel sorry for them?

[SicEmBaylor]

Federal relief is unconstitutional -- no way around that. This is an intrastate disaster. Oklahoma can and should take care of itself via state resources and private donations.

[Midtowner]

FEMA =/= interstate commerce?

[SicEmBaylor]

FEMA =/= interstate commerce?

How on Earth is it interstate commerce? It isn't even commerce let alone "interstate" commerce. The fact that the Federal government is the one moving the money across state lines does not constitute interstate commerce because it's the government itself creating the movement. The constitution gives the Federal government to regulate the movement of commerce across state lines, but that doesn't mean the government itself has the right to take taxpayer money from one region of the country and spend it on a strictly intrastate disaster in one state.

If this were a multi-state disaster then there might be a case but only to fix any infrastructure that crossed state lines such as roads.

[diverdog]

Federal relief is unconstitutional -- no way around that. This is an intrastate disaster. Oklahoma can and should take care of itself via state resources and private donations.

Good lord!

Article I, section 8 of the Constitution.

To allow any state to have to take care of itself after a natural disaster is unthinkable. I spent some time in Florida after Andrew and it made what happened in Moore look like a walk in the park. Florida could not have handled that disaster on its own. It is in the best interest of this nation to get these problems fixed asap because in some cases it does affect commerce.

Midtown might be right in his thinking:


On August 18, 2005, Macroeconomic Advisers released a forecast of 4.6% growth in the third quarter and 3.6% in the fourth quarter. On September 6, 2005, they revised those numbers down to 3.2% and 3.3%. After the storm, the Bank of America is reported to have lowered its GDP growth forecast for the fourth quarter from 3.7% to 3.0%. Merrill Lynch economists were reported to have estimated that the combination of the storm and higher energy prices could reduce output by a combined $70 billion, or 0.6% of GDP.5
The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimates that the overall reduction in economic growth due to Katrina in the second half of 2005 is likely to be somewhere between one-half and one percentage point, and will be even less when considered on a year-over-year basis. CBO also estimated that Katrina could reduce employment through the end of the year by as much as 400,000.6

[SicEmBaylor]

Good lord!

Article I, section 8 of the Constitution.

To allow any state to have to take care of itself after a natural disaster is unthinkable. I spent some time in Florida after Andrew and it made what happened in Moore look like a walk in the park. Florida could not have handled that disaster on its own. It is in the best interest of this nation to get these problems fixed asap because in some cases it does affect commerce.

Midtown might be right in his thinking:
Nowhere in Article I, Section 8 is the issue of Federal disaster assistance addressed. If you're referring to the 'general welfare' clause then you're mistaken. The 'general welfare clause' is applicable to issues pertaining to the nation as a whole. You could get by with claiming Article 1, Section 8 on a disaster like Katrina but not a tornado such as in Moore.

Once again, Oklahoma should take care of Oklahoma along with generous and voluntary private donations form out of state. If other state governments (such as Texas) want to lend assets then that is also perfectly acceptable -- if the citizens of those states have an issue then that is purely between the citizens of those states and their state government.

Neither the GWC nor the supremacy clause were ever intended to be a 'carte blanche' for whatever the hell the Federal government wants to do -- both must remain consistent with the rest of the Constitution and the limitations put on Federal action that are not specifically enumerated.

Further, it may be in the "best interest of the nation" to do a lot of things that aren't the least bit Constitutional which is why we have a Constitution. You and Midtowner always take the position that the ends justify the means which usually entails disregarding critical parts of the Constitution simply because you think it's the right thing to do; however, I take a narrow view of such opinion. Disregarding critical components of the Constitution simply because it's in the "best interest of the nation" is an invitation to tyranny.

[diverdog]

Nowhere in Article I, Section 8 is the issue of Federal disaster assistance addressed. If you're referring to the 'general welfare' clause then you're mistaken. The 'general welfare clause' is applicable to issues pertaining to the nation as a whole. You could get by with claiming Article 1, Section 8 on a disaster like Katrina but not a tornado such as in Moore.

Once again, Oklahoma should take care of Oklahoma along with generous and voluntary private donations form out of state. If other state governments (such as Texas) want to lend assets then that is also perfectly acceptable -- if the citizens of those states have an issue then that is purely between the citizens of those states and their state government.

Neither the GWC nor the supremacy clause were ever intended to be a 'carte blanche' for whatever the hell the Federal government wants to do -- both must remain consistent with the rest of the Constitution and the limitations put on Federal action that are not specifically enumerated.

Further, it may be in the "best interest of the nation" to do a lot of things that aren't the least bit Constitutional which is why we have a Constitution. You and Midtowner always take the position that the ends justify the means which usually entails disregarding critical parts of the Constitution simply because you think it's the right thing to do; however, I take a narrow view of such opinion. Disregarding critical components of the Constitution simply because it's in the "best interest of the nation" is an invitation to tyranny.

I agree to a point but disaster relief is general welfare. This type of thing has been going along for as long as we have been a nation.

how about writing an OP ED in the daily Oklahoman about your beliefs and then run on that platform. I would be interested to see how you make out.

[yermom]

They make money by jacking up premiums with hurricane and tornado deductibles. The amount they pay is no where close to what they make. You want us to feel sorry for them?

My anti-corporate Simpsons reference my have been too obscure

"'Buy him out' boys"

[okie52]

They make money by jacking up premiums with hurricane and tornado deductibles. The amount they pay is no where close to what they make. You want us to feel sorry for them?

Property insurance is quite often a money losing proposition in OK.

Most property insurers like state farm, allstate and farmers would be glad to not sell property insurance in OK and other storm/hurricane states. They only do it because they make good money on the auto insurance. Companies like Geico and Progressive do not sell homeowners policies in OK.

As bad as tornadoes are it is hail that usually hurts property insurers most in OK.

[Midtowner]

How on Earth is it interstate commerce? It isn't even commerce let alone "interstate" commerce. The fact that the Federal government is the one moving the money across state lines does not constitute interstate commerce because it's the government itself creating the movement. The constitution gives the Federal government to regulate the movement of commerce across state lines, but that doesn't mean the government itself has the right to take taxpayer money from one region of the country and spend it on a strictly intrastate disaster in one state.

If this were a multi-state disaster then there might be a case but only to fix any infrastructure that crossed state lines such as roads.

Your premise that the government apparently does not engage in interstate commerce is pretty obtuse. Is money changing hands? Yeppers. Is it crossing state lines? Yeppers times two.

= Interstate commerce.

game/set/match

If we can say drug production intrastate for consumption intrastate = interstate commerce, I don't think you have much of an argument here unless of course we're living in some kind of wonky libertarian parallel universe.

[diverdog]

Your premise that the government apparently does not engage in interstate commerce is pretty obtuse. Is money changing hands? Yeppers. Is it crossing state lines? Yeppers times two.

= Interstate commerce.

game/set/match

If we can say drug production intrastate for consumption intrastate = interstate commerce, I don't think you have much of an argument here unless of course we're living in some kind of wonky libertarian parallel universe.

The thing I do like about Sic em is that he is a policy wonk and a true believer. The problem is the libertarian utopia works nowhere. In fact I heard two questions that could not be answered.

1. Name one country where austarity is working.

2. Name one country with a population of 75,000,000 or more where small government works.

[Midtowner]

Name one country with a population of 75,000,000 or more where small government works.

South Africa?

At least I'd assume their government is pretty small, what with all of the crime and violence being perpetrated freely and whatnot...

[SoonerorLater]

The thing I do like about Sic em is that he is a policy wonk and a true believer. The problem is the libertarian utopia works nowhere. In fact I heard two questions that could not be answered.

1. Name one country where austarity is working.

2. Name one country with a population of 75,000,000 or more where small government works.

----------

1. It depends on what you mean by working. To my knowledge there isn't any country that has truly instituted austerity.
True austeriy would mean no zombie financial institutions and other corporations would be supported by various Central Banks.
There would be rampant liquidation and inflated assets would be sold for pennies on the dollar. Unemployment would rise in many countries to levels higher than we experienced in the 1930's. Doesn't sound like much fun but that is exactly what needs to happen. Probably 2-3 years of brutal economic mailaise. However the alternatives are worse. Unless asset values are allowed to fall to market levels it will continue to be year after year of economic decline. Death by a thousand cuts and it will eventually come crashing down anyway.

2. I assume you mean by both size and scope. It used to be the USA. No country I know of has a small government. At least
not as small as it should.

[KantoSooner]

Chile is something of a success story.

[KantoSooner]

Australia used to be.

[SouthCarolinaSooner]

Estonia is the sole European success story of austerity, they clamped down immediately following the '08 meltdown and have managed well for themselves. Population 1.2 million

[diverdog]

Chile is something of a success story.

I guess when you start from zero.

[badger]

Federal relief is unconstitutional -- no way around that. This is an intrastate disaster. Oklahoma can and should take care of itself via state resources and private donations.

If Oklahoma wasn't doing things to take care of itself, I would be more inclined to think "Why should the entire county bail out Oklahoma if we're not even trying to take care of our problems?"

But Oklahoma is taking care of itself, to the tune of a 95-0 vote in the state House today (http://www.tulsaworld.com/article.aspx/State_House_passes_emergency_aid_bill_for_tornado_ response/20130523_777_0_OKLAHO599914?subj=298) to use Rainy Day funds for disaster relief.

And yes, private donations are pouring in to, but I see absolutely no reason why the entire country can't provide funds to help make Oklahoma whole after this awful storm.

[okie52]

Being in a town full of insurance companies and a wife that works for one
of them, this issue will be a topic for a while. Jus guessin but I think nearly
all of em will step to the plate here....

With most of the homes totally destroyed there probably won't be much quibbling on payouts...probably only debates will be on the contents of the homes.

Insurance companies also like to use catastrophic occurrences as good PR moments so I think you are right...in most cases they are going to bend over backwards to take care of their customers and do so as quick as possible.

[SoonerorLater]

If Oklahoma wasn't doing things to take care of itself, I would be more inclined to think "Why should the entire county bail out Oklahoma if we're not even trying to take care of our problems?"

But Oklahoma is taking care of itself, to the tune of a 95-0 vote in the state House today (http://www.tulsaworld.com/article.aspx/State_House_passes_emergency_aid_bill_for_tornado_ response/20130523_777_0_OKLAHO599914?subj=298) to use Rainy Day funds for disaster relief.

And yes, private donations are pouring in to, but I see absolutely no reason why the entire country can't provide funds to help make Oklahoma whole after this awful storm.

The problem is Oklahomans are paying for disaster relief for other states. Despite all the flak that our congressmen
are getting about the Hurricane Sandy Stuff we ended up paying for that. We absolutely should be going after Federal funds no question about it. If somebody wants to change the status quo going forward then fine.

[badger]

By the way, I finally made it over to one of my favorite political sites, the cartoon page (cagle.com) to see how they're depicting our state.

Some are nice, some are sympathetic, while others are simply pathetic.

Check em out here. (http://www.cagle.com/news/oklahoma-tornado/)

This was my favorite, and it's 100 percent accurate:
http://media.cagle.com/77/2013/05/21/132066_600.jpg

And then there are others that are using this opportunity to cast their judgmental (elitist coastal) eyes our direction. Gag

[okie52]

Oh Lord...hard to grasp that some global warmers find a tornado in May in Oklahoma proves AGW.

[SicEmBaylor]

I agree to a point but disaster relief is general welfare. This type of thing has been going along for as long as we have been a nation.
Madison would disagree although, you're right, disaster relief has been debated since very early on in our Republic. The first example that I can recall is the Georgetown fire.


how about writing an OP ED in the daily Oklahoman about your beliefs and then run on that platform. I would be interested to see how you make out.
I have no issue with telling anyone what I think.

Your premise that the government apparently does not engage in interstate commerce is pretty obtuse. Is money changing hands? Yeppers. Is it crossing state lines? Yeppers times two.

= Interstate commerce.

game/set/match
That is one of the most ridiculous interpretations I've ever heard. It's inconsistent with not only original intent but common sense. Taking tax money via the force of law, collecting that tax money in D.C., and then redistributing that tax money for various purposes across multiple states is not commerce. It's redistribution, but it's certainly not commerce in any legitimate sense of the word. And, if you want to be even more technical, DC is not a state therefore the transfer of tax money from D.C. to a singular state is not interstate commerce either.


If we can say drug production intrastate for consumption intrastate = interstate commerce, I don't think you have much of an argument here unless of course we're living in some kind of wonky libertarian parallel universe.
Intrastate drug production/intrastate drug consumption is an even bigger abuse of the interstate commerce clause. It's lunacy and unconstitutional and the only people for whom it makes sense are progressives who see the constitution as an impediment to social progress. It has been that way since the first moment the interstate commerce clause was stretched beyond the point of absurdity.

Intrastate firearm manufacturing and sales is another example.

Now, am I living in a libertarian lala land? No, I'm living in a land that is supposed to be governed by the Constitution consistent with our founding principles. Hell, I'm not even reallya libertarian! I'm a paleoconservative.

The overwhelming majority of libertarians would oppose government relief regardless of what level of government it comes from because to libertarians, the market is the final "end all be all" solution to all of society's ills. I think that's absurd. I actually accept quite a bit of government action so long as it comes from the proper level of government consistent with our constitutional framework. I have absolutely no problem with state-based social programs (to an extent of course). I have no problem with taxpayer funded disaster relief, but there is absolutely no proper constitutional role for the Federal government to be engaged in disaster relief.

[diverdog]

By the way, I finally made it over to one of my favorite political sites, the cartoon page (cagle.com) to see how they're depicting our state.

Some are nice, some are sympathetic, while others are simply pathetic.

Check em out here. (http://www.cagle.com/news/oklahoma-tornado/)

This was my favorite, and it's 100 percent accurate:
http://media.cagle.com/77/2013/05/21/132066_600.jpg

And then there are others that are using this opportunity to cast their judgmental (elitist coastal) eyes our direction. Gag

I only saw one that was judgemental. The dig at ypur Senator was spot on. Other than that I loved the one that said "nothing to see here but a little ole windstorm". And I do like that Oklahoma is still portrayed as a cowboy state. I hope that image is never lost. Cowboys are a true American icon.