PDA

View Full Version : Chris Christie Calls 'Disgusting' Boehner's Decision to Yank Sandy Funds



Teh One Who Knocks
01-02-2013, 08:16 PM
By RUSSELL GOLDMAN - ABC News


http://i.imgur.com/yvZjC.jpg

New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie said today that it was "disgusting" that the House adjourned without voting on a $60 billion relief package for the victims of superstorm Sandy and put the blame squarely on a fellow Republican -- House Speaker John Boehner.

Christie, who is considered a possible Republican presidential candidate four years from now, said there was "only one group to blame, the Republican Party and Speaker Boehner."

The blunt talking New Jersey governor joined a chorus of Republicans from New York and New Jersey fuming over his decision to pull the bill at the last minute.

Christie in an angry news conference decried the "selfishness and duplicity," the "palace intrigue," "the callous indifference to the people of our state."

"Unfortunately people are putting politics ahead of their responsibilities... You do the right thing. Enough with all the politics," he said.

Christie said that when it comes to natural disasters, "We respond as Americans, at least we did until last night... it was disgusting to watch."

"In our hour of desperate need, we've been left waiting for help six times longer than the victims of Katrina with no end in sight," said Christie. "Sixty-six days and counting, shame on you. Shame on Congress."

The governor said his four calls to Boehner Tuesday night went unanswered, but he said he spoke to the House speaker today. Christie would not disclose any details of the conversation, but clearly his anger over the no-vote was not mollified.

He said that Boehner told him that the speaker would meet with the New Jersey and New York delegations today about the bill.

Lawmakers were told by Boehner, R-Ohio, that the relief bill would get a vote on Tuesday night following an eleventh hour vote on the fiscal cliff bill. But in an unexpected switch, Boehner refused to put the relief bill to a vote, leading to lawmakers from parties yelling on the floor of the House.

Congress historically has responded to natural disasters by promptly funding relief efforts. It took just 11 days to pass a relief package for victims of Hurricane Katrina in 2005. The Senate already passed its version of the bill that would replenish an emergency fund set to run out of cash next week and which will help repair subways and tunnels in New York City and rebuild parts of the New Jersey shore devastated by superstorm Sandy.

Time is particularly pressing, given that a new Congress will be sworn in Thursday. The Senate will therefore have to vote on the bill again before it comes to the House, which could be as late as February or March.

"This was a betrayal," Rep. Michael Grimm, R-N.Y., told ABC News.com. "It's just reprehensible. It's an indefensible error in judgment not have given relief to these people that are so devastated."

Rep. Peter King, R- N.Y., took the floor of the House and to the airwaves and aimed his outrage squarely at Boehner, accusing him plunging "a cruel knife in the back" of storm-ravaged residents "who don't have shelter, don't have food," he said during a House session this morning.

"This is not the United States. This should not be the Republican Party. This shouldn't not be the Republican leadership," King said on the floor of the House.

He made no attempt to hide his anger, suggesting that residents in New York and New Jersey should stop sending money to Republicans and even questioning whether he could remain a member of the party.

"Anyone who donates one cent to the Republican Congressional Campaign Committee should have their head examined," King, a staunch conservative and Republican congressman for 10 years, told CNN.

"They have written off New York and New Jersey. They've written me off…. Party loyalty, I'm over that. When your people are literally freezing in the winter… Then why should I help the Republican Party?" he added.

He said that Boehner refused to talk to Republican members from New York and New Jersey when they tried to ask him about the vote Tuesday night.

"He just decided to sneak off in the dark of night," King said.

Democrats were also outraged.

"It is truly heartless that the House will not even allow the Sandy bill to come to the floor for a vote, and Speaker Boehner should reconsider his ill advised decision," Sen. Chuck Schumer, D- N.Y., said in a statement.

October's storm was the worst natural disaster ever to hit the region, causing billions in damage and leaving 120 people dead.

More than 130,000 people are expected to make claims to the federal government, but without a funding increase only about 12,000 people can be covered with existing funds.

"It doesn't make sense they wouldn't vote on this. There are truly people in need," said Steve Greenberg, whose home was flooded and damaged by fire in the hard-hit Breezy Point section of Queens. "Not of these people are fit to serve," he said.

Grimm said Boehner's decision fuels a perception that the Republican Party does not care about people.

"It buys into the ideology that Republicans don't care and are callous," he said. Grimm said there were enough votes to get the bill passed and that it makes fiscal sense, because the money would go to help spur small businesses.

RBP
01-02-2013, 08:21 PM
idk why they didn't vote on it... except that it had a bunch of unrelated bullshit tacked on to it.

Hugh_Janus
01-02-2013, 08:24 PM
how much was the relief package for katrina?

Muddy
01-02-2013, 08:51 PM
No one helped us when Isabel tore down my pier and my neighbors river house.. Why are these people due a hand out?

Acid Trip
01-02-2013, 09:17 PM
It's disgusting that the Sandy relief bill was full of shit that had nothing to do with Sandy.

Just another attempt by Democrats to make Republicans look bad. Unfortunately, people are so god damn stupid that it works every time.

FBD
01-02-2013, 09:38 PM
yup, not to mention,

FK YOU INSURANCE COMPANIES! PAY UP, BITCHES!!!!! Its what you exist for! Not to have your costs covered by everyone else who doesnt pay premiums to you!!!!!

RBP
01-02-2013, 09:40 PM
yup, not to mention,

FK YOU INSURANCE COMPANIES! PAY UP, BITCHES!!!!! Its what you exist for! Not to have your costs covered by everyone else who doesnt pay premiums to you!!!!!

Yeah really... how does insurance play into this? $9B from the taxpayers! :wha:

Acid Trip
01-02-2013, 09:42 PM
yup, not to mention,

FK YOU INSURANCE COMPANIES! PAY UP, BITCHES!!!!! Its what you exist for! Not to have your costs covered by everyone else who doesnt pay premiums to you!!!!!

Except that all flood insurance is issued by the federal government. At the very minimum the government must make those policies whole.

That money (assuming it exists and hasn't been spent) comes out of the flood insurance premiums. I wonder how short they'll be...

FBD
01-02-2013, 09:43 PM
Easy, the executive staff calls up red phone and tells the "democrats" in charge that their bonuses will be affected if they dont get a taxpayer bailout!

That's what reinsurance is for, assholes! Contemptible scum.

FBD
01-02-2013, 09:45 PM
Easy, the executive staff calls up red phone and tells the "democrats" in charge that their bonuses will be affected if they dont get a taxpayer bailout!

That's what reinsurance is for, assholes! Contemptible scum.

Because basically, the executives always negotiate guaranteed bonuses and shit, regardless of their performance. $15 mil for running a company into the ground doesnt sound like a bad deal for the exec, eh? They'll just cut staff, staff OT, staff bonuses...

Godfather
01-03-2013, 02:25 AM
Except that all flood insurance is issued by the federal government. At the very minimum the government must make those policies whole.

That money (assuming it exists and hasn't been spent) comes out of the flood insurance premiums. I wonder how short they'll be...

Interesting, I had no idea that's how flood insurance worked down there. Canada is the only G8 country where you can't buy flood coverage. Pretty weak. I'm surprised it's the government and not the re-insurers who cover flood in the US though.

With Earthquake in Vancouver which is obviously high risk... a LOT of people pass on it because it can cost as much as your comprehensive home insurance over again. People seem to feel that if there is a quake, that the reinsurers will be broker and it will fall on the government so they're fine :roll: Entitled pricks.

RBP
01-03-2013, 02:39 AM
Interesting, I had no idea that's how flood insurance worked down there. Canada is the only G8 country where you can't buy flood coverage. Pretty weak. I'm surprised it's the government and not the re-insurers who cover flood in the US though.

With Earthquake in Vancouver which is obviously high risk... a LOT of people pass on it because it can cost as much as your comprehensive home insurance over again. People seem to feel that if there is a quake, that the reinsurers will be broker and it will fall on the government so they're fine :roll: Entitled pricks.

If I remember correctly, it used to be private market, then it was optional private or government market, then after several insurers went out of business from losses, the government took over the whole program. Now they have national ad campaigns to get people (who don't need it?) to buy the insurance because the government will lose their (our) ass in a catastrophe.

Muddy
01-03-2013, 03:18 AM
Interesting, I had no idea that's how flood insurance worked down there. Canada is the only G8 country where you can't buy flood coverage. Pretty weak. I'm surprised it's the government and not the re-insurers who cover flood in the US though.

With Earthquake in Vancouver which is obviously high risk... a LOT of people pass on it because it can cost as much as your comprehensive home insurance over again. People seem to feel that if there is a quake, that the reinsurers will be broker and it will fall on the government so they're fine :roll: Entitled pricks.

It floods that high up in the Klondike?

Lambchop
01-03-2013, 03:29 AM
I need to buy insurance to cover loss of insurance when the insurance companies refuse to pay out :-k

Godfather
01-03-2013, 03:32 AM
It floods that high up in the Klondike?

Sure does... exactly who buys houses on floodplains and deltas is beyond me though.

Muddy
01-03-2013, 03:34 AM
Sure does... exactly who buys houses on floodplains and deltas is beyond me though.

Right.. And who buys a waterfront house and is shocked when it floods? Lol

RBP
01-03-2013, 03:36 AM
Right.. And who buys a waterfront house and is shocked when it floods? Lol

and then rebuilds in the same fucking spot after! :wha:

Muddy
01-03-2013, 03:38 AM
Wahh.. We gotta rebuild!!!

RBP
01-03-2013, 03:42 AM
Like Sam Kinison talking about Ethiopia...

"you live in a desert, nothing grows there, nothing is ever going to grow there. Move where the food is"

Godfather
01-03-2013, 03:49 AM
and then rebuilds in the same fucking spot after! :wha:

The tough part is that the insurer probably won't cover full replacement cost anywhere except on the same site, unless you have a premium policy :lol:

RBP
01-03-2013, 04:15 AM
The tough part is that the insurer probably won't cover full replacement cost anywhere except on the same site, unless you have a premium policy :lol:

How fucking stupid is THAT!

FBD
01-03-2013, 01:27 PM
its not, you start talking other plots of land and the valuation can change far too much, then you'll be left with people trying to make out on the deal and get free upgrades.

FBD
01-03-2013, 01:28 PM
issued by the federal government.

roight, so basically another fucking to the people

Acid Trip
01-03-2013, 03:33 PM
Interesting, I had no idea that's how flood insurance worked down there. Canada is the only G8 country where you can't buy flood coverage. Pretty weak. I'm surprised it's the government and not the re-insurers who cover flood in the US though.

With Earthquake in Vancouver which is obviously high risk... a LOT of people pass on it because it can cost as much as your comprehensive home insurance over again. People seem to feel that if there is a quake, that the reinsurers will be broker and it will fall on the government so they're fine :roll: Entitled pricks.

I would say that Canada is doing it the right way. The Federal government hands out flood insurance to anyone who wants it regardless of where they live. You live in a 10 year flood plane? No problem! That'll be $500 a year for flood insurance for a $300k house.

And we wonder why people buy houses in flood zones. It's like the government wants them to even though the government will lose their ass if a flood happens.

Godfather
01-03-2013, 03:42 PM
I would say that Canada is doing it the right way. The Federal government hands out flood insurance to anyone who wants it regardless of where they live. You live in a 10 year flood plane? No problem! That'll be $500 a year for flood insurance for a $300k house.

And we wonder why people buy houses in flood zones. It's like the government wants them to even though the government will lose their ass if a flood happens.

Yeah we call that adverse selection in the industry. Who else is going to buy flood insurance other than the people who live in high risk zones? You're no longer assuming someone's "reasonable risk in exchange for premium"... you're just collecting a menial amount of funds in exchange for a near guarantee that you'll be rebuilding the neighborhood in the next 25 years :lol: