Relief Bill For Hurricane Harvey Will Be intersting

NorthernStar · Aug 29, 2017

When the bill for Superstorm Sandy was seeking $50 billion 20 of 21 Texans voted against it. Other republicans wanted cuts in other places to pay for it.

My questions is how do you think this will play out?

will politics come into play? Will fiscal conservatives request the funds come from somewhere else? Will it be more of a party line with democrats not wanting to do something Because Trump is in charge?

for all of those that don't believe in climate change.....is it just a coincident that the magnitude of storms continue to get larger? Should the rest of Americans continue to pay for those living in higher risk area or should it be the state's responsibility?

I am sure the responses will be across the board on this one

NorthernStar · Aug 29, 2017

Hurricane Harvet is the next major hurricane to be named :nohead::nohead:

halekulani · Aug 30, 2017

they will pass a massive bill. when oil gets affected by it, they will push to get it passed.
also, 4th largest city in the US. no way it doesn't

rolltide · Aug 30, 2017

Northern Star said:
for all of those that don't believe in climate change.....is it just a coincident that the magnitude of storms continue to get larger?

magnitude of what storms? this is the first large hurricane to hit the usa in 12 years. if you want to credit climate change (still love this term...), errr, global warming for the decrease of American hurricanes THEN you might be on to something

halekulani · Aug 30, 2017

allegedly, the main issue the republicans had with the bill was that it contained a lot of "pork" that was not sandy related.

rolltide · Aug 30, 2017

halekulani said:
allegedly, the main issue the republicans had with the bill was that it contained a lot of "pork" that was not sandy related.

you don't really need the word "allegedly" it was the actual reason. there was a $150M earmarked for Alaska fisheries...check a map and let me know what that had to do with a storm hitting NJ/NY/CT, more than 1/4 billion for amtrak expenses unrelated to a storm, $5M for kennedy space station repairs, $125m for wildfires and drought projects in california, etc. (yeah, they actually tossed in >$100M for drought projects in CA into a bill supposedly helping flood victims 3000 miles away). they also allotted >$5B to army corp of engineers for projects likely unrelated...their entire annual budget isn't even $5B

it was pretty ridiculous but you never let a crisis go to waste. Texas will get their aid but let's see if they're spending it appropriately

NorthernStar · Aug 30, 2017

rolltide said:
magnitude of what storms? this is the first large hurricane to hit the usa in 12 years. if you want to credit climate change (still love this term...), errr, global warming for the decrease of American hurricanes THEN you might be on to something

Where a storm hits effects the magnitude of damage and how memorable it is. Probably the first one that I remember is hurricane Carmen in the 70's.

In the last 13 years there have been 4 memorable hurricanes in terms of damage: Charley, Katrina, Sandy and Harvey.

NorthernStar · Aug 30, 2017

In terms of relief packages..... I think it is the states responsibility. If you are going to live in places that are prone to hurricanes then you have to assume the risk.....it is not the responsibility of everyone else in the country to make you whole again.

On the other hand if companies and individuals want to donate to causes to help those people kudos to them for pitching in. It should just not be expected that the federal government will increase taxes because you live in an area that is subject to hurricanes to pay for it. Not exactly fair to the rest of the country that doesnt live in an area prone to natural disasters.

Willie99 · Aug 30, 2017

The spending bill for Sandy included MASSIVE DEMOCRATIC PORK, which is what the people who opposed the bill opposed. If this bill includes massive pork and they vote for it, then they're hypocrites. I'm thinking (read hoping) it won't.

And everyone believes in climate change, it's been happening for 2 billion years, give or take a few hundred million. Everyone knows or should know the earth's climate has been going through it's most recent warming cycle. Been doing that for about the last 17,000 years. Been doing that since the end of the last ICE AGE. Has done that hundreds or thousands of times before a cooling cycle sets in.

The debate is about MAN MADE CLIMATE CHANGE. I think it's naive that anyone thinks we're going to stop 2 BILLION YEARS OF CLIMATE CHANGE by driving smaller cars. Climate change will continue, and some changes may be catastrophic, we should be trying to figure out how to survive those changes and stop pretending we know how to stop climate change.

I'm thinking the OP's source of data is CNN, maybe the NYT or WP or some other credible source that tells people what to think.

NorthernStar · Aug 31, 2017

Willie99 said:
The spending bill for Sandy included MASSIVE DEMOCRATIC PORK, which is what the people who opposed the bill opposed. If this bill includes massive pork and they vote for it, then they're hypocrites. I'm thinking (read hoping) it won't.

And everyone believes in climate change, it's been happening for 2 billion years, give or take a few hundred million. Everyone knows or should know the earth's climate has been going through it's most recent warming cycle. Been doing that for about the last 17,000 years. Been doing that since the end of the last ICE AGE. Has done that hundreds or thousands of times before a cooling cycle sets in.

The debate is about MAN MADE CLIMATE CHANGE. I think it's naive that anyone thinks we're going to stop 2 BILLION YEARS OF CLIMATE CHANGE by driving smaller cars. Climate change will continue, and some changes may be catastrophic, we should be trying to figure out how to survive those changes and stop pretending we know how to stop climate change.

I'm thinking the OP's source of data is CNN, maybe the NYT or WP or some other credible source that tells people what to think.

I think it is naive to think that the actions of humans do not have a significant effect on the climate. In physics for every action there is an equal reaction.

My arguement to those that dont believe the actions of man are going to have a long term effect on the earth......what if you are wrong.....oh well tough shit grandkids....our generation kind of screwed it up for future generations.

What makes the arguement not making changes a really poor decision is the fact that there are solutions available today to make positive changes. The reality is the fight isnt about what is best for the future....it is driven by money. Usually if you follow the money you will find the root cause. If you are making millions selling oil and fighting wars over oil......guess what.....oil is the solution.

rolltide · Aug 31, 2017

Northern Star said:
In the last 13 years there have been 4 memorable hurricanes in terms of damage: Charley, Katrina, Sandy and Harvey.

like i said the last major hurricane to hit the usa was katrina in 2005. charley and harvey were pre-2005 but thanks for moving the goal posts. sandy was not a major-strength hurricane which is exactly what you meant by magnitude.

again, i'm more than happy to accept what SHOULD be your new correlation that global warming is creating both less hurricanes overall and drastically fewer strong 'canes. one every dozen years!?!? thanks global warming

Ricboff · Aug 31, 2017

Northern Star said:
I think it is naive to think that the actions of humans do not have a significant effect on the climate. In physics for every action there is an equal reaction.

My arguement to those that dont believe the actions of man are going to have a long term effect on the earth......what if you are wrong.....oh well tough shit grandkids....our generation kind of screwed it up for future generations.

What makes the arguement not making changes a really poor decision is the fact that there are solutions available today to make positive changes. The reality is the fight isnt about what is best for the future....it is driven by money. Usually if you follow the money you will find the root cause. If you are making millions selling oil and fighting wars over oil......guess what.....oil is the solution.

100%. This reverberates in other sectors Most notably healthcare. OVER AND OVER AGAIN. ALMOST laughable. The US consumer has been raped, utterly clueless.

Willie99 · Aug 31, 2017

rolltide said:
like i said the last major hurricane to hit the usa was katrina in 2005. charley and harvey were pre-2005 but thanks for moving the goal posts. sandy was not a major-strength hurricane which is exactly what you meant by magnitude.

again, i'm more than happy to accept what SHOULD be your new correlation that global warming is creating both less hurricanes overall and drastically fewer strong 'canes. one every dozen years!?!? thanks global warming

in 2005 there were all kinds of records set:

27 tropical depressions
15 hurricanes
5 catagory 5 hurricanes
6 hurricanes with direct hits on USA

Following which Global Warming Guru Algore told us (paraphrasing) "this is the new norm, and it's only going to get worse, and it's all the fault of man made global warming skeptics. It was still "global warming" in those days, they've since switched to "climate change" to better fit their hyperbolic narrative.

Every time a natural disaster occurs, they blame it on the combustion engine, despite the fact that natural disasters have been occurring throughout the history of the earth (again, maybe some 2 billion years) AND global warming has been a thing for some 17,000 years BEFORE we started using fossil fuels.

No matter how many of their predictions fail to materialize, they just keep on ticking

Finally, I too believe you should follow the money. Many people have become crazy rich off of the man made climate change hyperbole, like Algore, and thousands of scientists depend on funding their research for survival. Many of them have been caught modifying if not flat out falsifying their data. Why would they need to do that? Can it be they're not attaining their desired results? Maybe their theories don't add up? Maybe they know it's hyperbole?

At the end of the day, the greatest lies have an element of truth.

rolltide · Aug 31, 2017

Willie99 said:
in 2005 there were all kinds of records set:

27 tropical depressions
15 hurricanes
5 catagory 5 hurricanes
6 hurricanes with direct hits on USA

Following which Global Warming Guru Algore told us (paraphrasing) "this is the new norm, and it's only going to get worse, and it's all the fault of man made global warming skeptics. It was still "global warming" in those days, they've since switched to "climate change" to better fit their hyperbolic narrative.

Every time a natural disaster occurs, they blame it on the combustion engine, despite the fact that natural disasters have been occurring throughout the history of the earth (again, maybe some 2 billion years) AND global warming has been a thing for some 17,000 years BEFORE we started using fossil fuels.

No matter how many of their predictions fail to materialize, they just keep on ticking

Finally, I too believe you should follow the money. Many people have become crazy rich off of the man made climate change hyperbole, like Algore, and thousands of scientists depend on funding their research for survival. Many of them have been caught modifying if not flat out falsifying their data. Why would they need to do that? Can it be they're not attaining their desired results? Maybe their theories don't add up? Maybe they know it's hyperbole?

At the end of the day, the greatest lies have an element of truth.

exactly...they loved to blame global warming in 2005 on the large volume of canes that hit in the first half of the 2000 decade and now they want to use it for the first decent sized to storm to hit a dozen years later. It's exactly why they changed the term from global warming to climate change...the climate is constantly changing so you can never be wrong. so silly that someone would bring up climate change for the first major storm to hit the USA since Mike Shula was coaching Alabama...but that's the narrative and the new normal yet they would never actually ask themselves the question "if global warming...errrr climate change...directly increases both volume and severity of storms why didn't any occur in a dozen years?" :think2:

logic never wins out when there's an agenda

EasyMoney · Aug 31, 2017

Northern Star said:
In terms of relief packages..... I think it is the states responsibility. If you are going to live in places that are prone to hurricanes then you have to assume the risk.....it is not the responsibility of everyone else in the country to make you whole again.

On the other hand if companies and individuals want to donate to causes to help those people kudos to them for pitching in. It should just not be expected that the federal government will increase taxes because you live in an area that is subject to hurricanes to pay for it. Not exactly fair to the rest of the country that doesnt live in an area prone to natural disasters.

How far do you want to take this theory? Lets see, states like Texas, Florida, California (natural disaster states) plow billons of dollars into the federal government which then get doled out at a much higher rate back to states like Kentucky, Alabama, Mississippi, New Mexico ect. By your logic, why are my hard earned Florida tax dollars going to people in Alabama who take federal money at an extremely higher rate more then they put in? In fact Alabama takes about $2.46 back from the gov for every $1 it gives. Florida, Texas and Cali are all way way below that figure. BTW i have no problem with my tax money going to other states but by your theory it shouldn't. And I'd rather have my money go to a place that had a natural disaster hit an area as opposed to a state thats leaders don't run it well enough to even come close to break even.

NorthernStar · Aug 31, 2017

rolltide said:
exactly...they loved to blame global warming in 2005 on the large volume of canes that hit in the first half of the 2000 decade and now they want to use it for the first decent sized to storm to hit a dozen years later. It's exactly why they changed the term from global warming to climate change...the climate is constantly changing so you can never be wrong. so silly that someone would bring up climate change for the first major storm to hit the USA since Mike Shula was coaching Alabama...but that's the narrative and the new normal yet they would never actually ask themselves the question "if global warming...errrr climate change...directly increases both volume and severity of storms why didn't any occur in a dozen years?" :think2:

logic never wins out when there's an agenda

So the storm in Houston was a "500 year" rainfall. (this is only for the Houston area). So the odds of this happening is fairly remote. I think everyone could agree to that.

The fact that they have had a "500 year" rainfall 3 years in a row. Wow what are the odds......I wish I could have bet a parlay on something like this......because the odds were over 10,000,000 to one.

In the United States there have been 25 "500 year" events since 2010.

So the logical question is this a statistical fluke or is there some other thing going on that is making something like this happen. I believe there is something else causing the odds of this to increase.

NorthernStar · Aug 31, 2017

EasyMoney said:
How far do you want to take this theory? Lets see, states like Texas, Florida, California (natural disaster states) plow billons of dollars into the federal government which then get doled out at a much higher rate back to states like Kentucky, Alabama, Mississippi, New Mexico ect. By your logic, why are my hard earned Florida tax dollars going to people in Alabama who take federal money at an extremely higher rate more then they put in? In fact Alabama takes about $2.46 back from the gov for every $1 it gives. Florida, Texas and Cali are all way way below that figure. BTW i have no problem with my tax money going to other states but by your theory it shouldn't. And I'd rather have my money go to a place that had a natural disaster hit an area as opposed to a state thats leaders don't run it well enough to even come close to break even.

I agree with the fact that the amount of federal tax dollars going to states should be "close" (doesn't have to be exact). I dont think taxpayers in some state...pick any state should be paying in a $10 and getting $5 back .....while some other state they pay in $5 and get $10 back. How could anyone argue that this is fair. There would have to be some other underlying logical reason for this to happen....which could be the case. But there should be some baseline where the amount of funds distributed back are equal.

Many people want less federal government....myself included.....let states and cities tax me and decide how to spend those dollars. If that is the case....let the states put in plans to handle these disasters. The state can fight and argue how they want to get those funds. If that was the case I am sure the people in Dallas are not going to want to put some reserve fund in place for the people of Houston.

I dont know about all of the states...but most seem to be required to have a balanced budget. Unlike the federal government that just prints more as they see fit.

EasyMoney · Aug 31, 2017

Northern Star said:
I agree with the fact that the amount of federal tax dollars going to states should be "close" (doesn't have to be exact). I dont think taxpayers in some state...pick any state should be paying in a $10 and getting $5 back .....while some other state they pay in $5 and get $10 back. How could anyone argue that this is fair. There would have to be some other underlying logical reason for this to happen....which could be the case. But there should be some baseline where the amount of funds distributed back are equal.

Many people want less federal government....myself included.....let states and cities tax me and decide how to spend those dollars. If that is the case....let the states put in plans to handle these disasters. The state can fight and argue how they want to get those funds. If that was the case I am sure the people in Dallas are not going to want to put some reserve fund in place for the people of Houston.

I dont know about all of the states...but most seem to be required to have a balanced budget. Unlike the federal government that just prints more as they see fit.

I dont disagree with your general sentiment. However, its a very complex issue. I mean lets take Kentucky. They take a lot of federal money but some of that money is for Military personal and bases ect. That isnt necessarily a bad thing. But a lot of these states also take way more money in the form of food stamps and shit. I can see how someone feeling their state shouldn't have to help support that isn't right. Personally I don't have a big problem with it but I get it. My whole point is i'd rather my tax money go to rebuild after a hurricane then to a random state that just takes tons of gov money every year.

rolltide · Aug 31, 2017

Northern Star said:
So the storm in Houston was a "500 year" rainfall. (this is only for the Houston area). So the odds of this happening is fairly remote. I think everyone could agree to that.

The fact that they have had a "500 year" rainfall 3 years in a row. Wow what are the odds......I wish I could have bet a parlay on something like this......because the odds were over 10,000,000 to one.

In the United States there have been 25 "500 year" events since 2010.

So the logical question is this a statistical fluke or is there some other thing going on that is making something like this happen. I believe there is something else causing the odds of this to increase.

yep seen this dumbass, sophomoric theory and, statistically, that 25 "500 year" events is actually very light. hard to look forward when you're blind (and either incredibly stupid or just stuck to an agenda)

(btw in finance the average time between "100 year events" is 2.5 years....of course mental midgets take this literally to mean chaos only ever happens every 100 years but they are talking about one single item out of millions that happens once in 100 years. just like the 500 year storm theory applies to each individual town/city in america and when you add them up 25 in 7.5 years is statistically tiny)

here is the statistical response that you can find in many places...

In a one-year window we have a mean of [FONT=MathJax_Main]1[FONT=MathJax_Main]500<math xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML"><mfrac><mn>1</mn><mn>500</mn></mfrac></math>[/FONT] 500-year storms occurring. In a 15-month ([FONT=MathJax_Main]5[FONT=MathJax_Main]4[/FONT]<math xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML"><mfrac><mn>5</mn><mn>4</mn></mfrac></math>[/FONT] year) window we would thus expect a mean of [FONT=MathJax_Main]1[FONT=MathJax_Main]500[FONT=MathJax_Main]×[FONT=MathJax_Main]5[FONT=MathJax_Main]4[FONT=MathJax_Main]=[/FONT][FONT=MathJax_Main]1[FONT=MathJax_Main]400[/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT]<math xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML"><mfrac><mn>1</mn><mn>500</mn></mfrac><mo>×</mo><mfrac><mn>5</mn><mn>4</mn></mfrac><mo>=</mo><mfrac><mn>1</mn><mn>400</mn></mfrac></math>[/FONT] storms.[/FONT]
Now assuming the independence of storms, we will model them by the Poisson distribution. This distribution has one parameter, the mean, which is [FONT=MathJax_Math-italic]λ[FONT=MathJax_Main]=[FONT=MathJax_Main]1[FONT=MathJax_Main]400[/FONT][/FONT]<math xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML"><mi>λ</mi><mo>=</mo><mfrac><mn>1</mn><mn>400</mn></mfrac></math>[/FONT] here. Given a window and a mean, the probability that k events occur in the window is[/FONT]

[FONT=MathJax_Math-italic]λ[FONT=MathJax_Math-italic]k[FONT=MathJax_Math-italic]e[FONT=MathJax_Main]−[FONT=MathJax_Math-italic]λ[FONT=MathJax_Math-italic]k[FONT=MathJax_Main]![/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT]<math xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" display="block"><mfrac><mrow><msup><mi>λ</mi><mi>k</mi></msup><msup><mi>e</mi><mrow class="MJX-TeXAtom-ORD"><mo>−</mo><mi>λ</mi></mrow></msup></mrow><mrow><mi>k</mi><mo>!</mo></mrow></mfrac></math>[/FONT][/FONT]

Substituting the values in, we get a probability of [FONT=MathJax_Main]3.775[FONT=MathJax_Main]×[FONT=MathJax_Main]10[FONT=MathJax_Main]−[FONT=MathJax_Main]26[/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT]<math xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML"><mn>3.775</mn><mo>×</mo><msup><mn>10</mn><mrow class="MJX-TeXAtom-ORD"><mo>−</mo><mn>26</mn></mrow></msup></math>[/FONT] that eight 500-year storms happen in 15 months.

...so there fella if statistically you can expect eight 500-year storms every 15 months in the USA then the timeframe you're working with (7.5 years) would have seem about 48 of these "500 year storms", not just the 25 that have been noted.

so now that we've dispelled your new storm (no longer hurricanes, i see....lol) notion maybe we can go for forest fires or droughts, how about snowfalls or hail events? please, entertain me

pathologist · Aug 31, 2017

rolltide said:
yep seen this dumbass, sophomoric theory and, statistically, that 25 "500 year" events is actually very light. hard to look forward when you're blind (and either incredibly stupid or just stuck to an agenda)

(btw in finance the average time between "100 year events" is 2.5 years....of course mental midgets take this literally to mean chaos only ever happens every 100 years but they are talking about one single item out of millions that happens once in 100 years. just like the 500 year storm theory applies to each individual town/city in america and when you add them up 25 in 7.5 years is statistically tiny)

here is the statistical response that you can find in many places...

In a one-year window we have a mean of [FONT=MathJax_Main]1[FONT=MathJax_Main]500<math xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML"><mfrac><mn>1</mn><mn>500</mn></mfrac></math>[/FONT] 500-year storms occurring. In a 15-month ([FONT=MathJax_Main]5[FONT=MathJax_Main]4[/FONT]<math xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML"><mfrac><mn>5</mn><mn>4</mn></mfrac></math>[/FONT] year) window we would thus expect a mean of [FONT=MathJax_Main]1[FONT=MathJax_Main]500[FONT=MathJax_Main]×[FONT=MathJax_Main]5[FONT=MathJax_Main]4[FONT=MathJax_Main]=[/FONT][FONT=MathJax_Main]1[FONT=MathJax_Main]400[/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT]<math xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML"><mfrac><mn>1</mn><mn>500</mn></mfrac><mo>×</mo><mfrac><mn>5</mn><mn>4</mn></mfrac><mo>=</mo><mfrac><mn>1</mn><mn>400</mn></mfrac></math>[/FONT] storms.[/FONT]
Now assuming the independence of storms, we will model them by the Poisson distribution. This distribution has one parameter, the mean, which is [FONT=MathJax_Math-italic]λ[FONT=MathJax_Main]=[FONT=MathJax_Main]1[FONT=MathJax_Main]400[/FONT][/FONT]<math xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML"><mi>λ</mi><mo>=</mo><mfrac><mn>1</mn><mn>400</mn></mfrac></math>[/FONT] here. Given a window and a mean, the probability that k events occur in the window is[/FONT]

[FONT=MathJax_Math-italic]λ[FONT=MathJax_Math-italic]k[FONT=MathJax_Math-italic]e[FONT=MathJax_Main]−[FONT=MathJax_Math-italic]λ[FONT=MathJax_Math-italic]k[FONT=MathJax_Main]![/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT]<math xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" display="block"><mfrac><mrow><msup><mi>λ</mi><mi>k</mi></msup><msup><mi>e</mi><mrow class="MJX-TeXAtom-ORD"><mo>−</mo><mi>λ</mi></mrow></msup></mrow><mrow><mi>k</mi><mo>!</mo></mrow></mfrac></math>[/FONT][/FONT]
Substituting the values in, we get a probability of [FONT=MathJax_Main]3.775[FONT=MathJax_Main]×[FONT=MathJax_Main]10[FONT=MathJax_Main]−[FONT=MathJax_Main]26[/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT]<math xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML"><mn>3.775</mn><mo>×</mo><msup><mn>10</mn><mrow class="MJX-TeXAtom-ORD"><mo>−</mo><mn>26</mn></mrow></msup></math>[/FONT] that eight 500-year storms happen in 15 months.

...so there fella if statistically you can expect eight 500-year storms every 15 months in the USA then the timeframe you're working with (7.5 years) would have seem about 48 of these "500 year storms", not just the 25 that have been noted.

so now that we've dispelled your new storm (no longer hurricanes, i see....lol) notion maybe we can go for forest fires or droughts, how about snowfalls or hail events? please, entertain me

Holy shit RT, lol

Relief Bill For Hurricane Harvey Will Be intersting

New member

New member

New member

I'm from the government and I'm here to help

New member

I'm from the government and I'm here to help

New member

New member

Conservatives, Patriots & Huskies return to glory

New member

I'm from the government and I'm here to help

Member

Conservatives, Patriots & Huskies return to glory

I'm from the government and I'm here to help

New member

New member

New member

New member

I'm from the government and I'm here to help

Member

Forum statistics

Share this page