6 ms·

Yes, 1000x this. It is frustrating to be sending piles of money to these states every year, which they then waste on political stunts like flying legal immigra

by cpurdy 4y ago

Yes, 1000x this. It is frustrating to be sending piles of money to these states every year, which they then waste on political stunts like flying legal immigrants to other states, instead of taking care of their citizens, or maybe investing in climate hardening. And then they're completely unprepared for cold weather, hot weather, wet weather, dry weather, ... and say things like "Nobody knew ___ could be so complicated." I really don't mind my tax dollars going to these states, but I don't want my tax dollars to be wasted, or worse yet, spent to hurt people on purpose.

rory 4y ago
> flying legal immigrants to other states Can we please not do this flamewar thing? Asylum seekers are technically neither legal nor illegal immigrants yet, but everyone knows this will cause an argument that's completely unrelated to the article.
- peterangular 4y ago
  I think it's a valid conversation to have in parallel when the people/politicians in these places are pulling expensive political stunts that do nothing but stoke the ever-increasing polarization of our nation... only to turn around and shamelessly ask for aide in such a situation. Sorry, but it's a bad look.
  - rory 4y ago
    > expensive political stunts Yeah wouldn't mind losing this $120B if they had saved that $600k, amirite? FEMA subsidizes all kinds of wealthy people, Florida MAGAs and NYC Davosers alike.
- btmiller 4y ago
  I think the relevance is that it’s solid evidence that: governments make bad decisions
- cpurdy 4y ago
  I tried to be very careful about what I said, and how I said it. As with many others here, I pay a great deal of taxes, by any measure. I do not want my contribution (_our_ contributions) to be used to hurt people for the purpose of hurting people. This is not a "flamewar thing". DeSantis chose to hurt people to accrue power to himself. Given the gifts and the fortune that we have inherited, if we cannot speak truth to power, then it would be better had we never been born. Sorry, not sorry?
  - rory 4y ago
    "Sorry, not sorry" is exactly a flamewar thing. You're not "speaking truth to power." First, as I pointed out you're factually incorrect. Second, who do you think is reading your HN thread that has power over the governor of Florida? So you're literally speaking lies to the powerless. Sick.
sieabahlpark 4y ago
notch656a 4y ago
Florida is pretty low on federally funding dependency ranking.
- cpurdy 4y ago
  Florida is pretty high on federal funding dependency. https://ritholtz.com/2019/01/makers-takers-states-edition/ https://ritholtz.com/2019/01/makers-takers-states-edition/
  - notch656a 4y ago
    The source under the page you cite shows Florida as #32 [Edit: the graphical tool shows it as #35] in per-capita balance payments (in direction towards state) over time. Next time you lie, try not using a source that contradicts yourself. https://rockinst.org/issue-areas/fiscal-analysis/balance-of-payments-portal/ https://rockinst.org/issue-areas/fiscal-analysis/balance-of-... https://rockinst.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/03/Balance-of-Payments-Federal-2022.pdf https://rockinst.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/03/Balance-of-P... Table 12B
- lotsofpulp 4y ago
  I do not see how that could be just from all the old people receiving social security/Medicare benefits.
  - notch656a 4y ago
    Yes and despite that they have below average per capita federal aid. Not only that, they had a record surplus in their state budget the last year. If someone were to try and attempt to portray Florida as some fiscally irresponsible welfare state, I would assert they would be quite misguided.
    - lotsofpulp 4y ago
      Interesting. I do not know how reliable this website is, but apparently, it incorporates Social security/Medicare spend also: https://worldpopulationreview.com/state-rankings/federal-spending-by-state https://worldpopulationreview.com/state-rankings/federal-spe...
mojo982 4y ago
I doubt FEMA money is actually used for the immigrant stunt and Florida is not unprepared for hurricanes. Florida actually has pretty good stormwater management infrastructure, mostly because it has to. Homes in South Florida are also required to be built out of concrete block and have hurricane windows. Point being: Florida is decently prepared for storms. Could it be better? Of course. But I would not say Florida is complete unprepared. I do think there needs to be changes to insurance and government aid though. We're distributing (read: subsidizing) a lot of the cost of living in an expensive area. We're seeing ripples of this with insurance companies not wanting to insure houses in Florida. That or making it more expensive to get insurance directly (premiums) and indirectly (you can't have a roof over 10 years old in some cases because, by law, they have to pay to replace a roof if a few shingles come off). I say Florida a lot because I lived there up until recently, I can't speak for other states.
- smileysteve 4y ago
  > I doubt FEMA money is actually used for the immigrant stunt An assertion is that money is fungible, so $12mln spent on a stunt in Texas could have been spent on breakwaters, infill, or to move less stable homes from the immediate coast. (Or to have more building inspection before Surfside's incident)
throwaway-blaze 4y ago
Legal immigrants? The feds flew or bused illegal border crossers who were processed and released to many states, including Florida. Yes it was a political stunt to move them again, but how is it worse than what the feds are doing?
- Lammy 4y ago
  Sad how we ended up in a world where capital is the only thing that gets the right to travel the globe freely. https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg23030681-000-the-truth-about-migration-how-we-lived-without-passports/ https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg23030681-000-the-trut... “The passport as an instrument of state regulation was born of the French revolution of 1789. At first, ordinary people were issued passes to control internal movement, especially to Paris. But after the king tried to escape, and foreign aristocrats attacked the revolution, the authorities started requiring such papers for exit and entry to the country. The revolution created one of the world’s first “nation-states”, defined by the “national” identity of its people rather than its monarchs’ claims.” “But as the industrial revolution snowballed in the 19th century, there was pressure to allow free movement of all the factors of production – money, trade *and labour*. Passport requirements were widely relaxed across Europe — in 1872, the British foreign secretary, Earl Granville, even wrote: “all foreigners have the unrestricted right of entrance into and residence in this country”. The situation was similar in North America.” https://fee.org/articles/passports-were-a-temporary-war-measure/ https://fee.org/articles/passports-were-a-temporary-war-meas... “In 1947, the first problem considered at an expert meeting preparing for the UN World Conference on Passports and Frontier Formalities was “the possibility of a return to the regime which existed before 1914 involving as a general rule the abolition of any requirement that travelers should carry passports.””
  - notch656a 4y ago
    I wonder how much public benefits has to do with strict immigration control. Before 1914 public benefits were practically nil, so it's not like you were likely to become a public charge as an immigrant. US seems to have 'solved' this by tolerating illegal immigration but then giving them the boot if the wheel ever squeaks.
bradgessler 4y ago
The reason people live in coastal regions is because there are outsized economic benefits to the hinterlands that may outweigh the damage these storms inflict. The interface between land and sea is crucially important for the survival of civilization at our scale. Under "2 and done", do you restore critical port infrastructure to dunes if they get destroyed by a hurricane twice? Port infrastructure can't exist on its own, it needs a community behind it which needs schools, parks, houses, etc. This is a problem that the insurance industry will need figure out so they can price risk to the area that's wiped out, the way the home is constructed, etc. In my mind the debate is how FEMA subsidies will distort the insurance markets. Perhaps they could serve as a "2 and done" re-re-insurance provider? A great counterpoint to this argument is that an insurance oligopoly might "price gouge" after a big event like Ian, which could kill the community that's needed to support the vital port infrastructure. Ultimately if FEMA subsidies were removed from the picture, shipping costs would increase to price in the risk of hurricanes for the area. Either way we're all paying for it somehow.
- bcrosby95 4y ago
  These regions can do what California did. Insurance companies left the market in response to the Northridge earthquake, so the state provides a very high deductible earthquake insurance.
- thebradbain 4y ago
  Yet fire and earthquake damage are not generally covered by FEMA in California in most cases (I would expect the Big One, when it happens, to be, but based on the big stink that Trump raised to the applause of certain states, like Florida, about cutting back wildfire prevention/disaster funds to CA in 2019, who knows) and economically that state is much more important than Florida. And thus California has very-high deductible insurance coverage in areas that are especially susceptible to such disasters, because it IS an inevitable risk that such an event will happen. Florida should do the same, as their "catastrophic disaster" is annual.
  - treeman79 4y ago
    Wild fire destroyed my home I California. FEMA gave me a check for 25 grand.

by cpurdy 4y ago

rory 4y ago

> flying legal immigrants to other states Can we please not do this flamewar thing? Asylum seekers are technically neither legal nor illegal immigrants yet, but everyone knows this will cause an argument that's completely unrelated to the article.

peterangular 4y ago
I think it's a valid conversation to have in parallel when the people/politicians in these places are pulling expensive political stunts that do nothing but stoke the ever-increasing polarization of our nation... only to turn around and shamelessly ask for aide in such a situation. Sorry, but it's a bad look.
- rory 4y ago
  > expensive political stunts Yeah wouldn't mind losing this $120B if they had saved that $600k, amirite? FEMA subsidizes all kinds of wealthy people, Florida MAGAs and NYC Davosers alike.
btmiller 4y ago
I think the relevance is that it’s solid evidence that: governments make bad decisions
cpurdy 4y ago
I tried to be very careful about what I said, and how I said it. As with many others here, I pay a great deal of taxes, by any measure. I do not want my contribution (_our_ contributions) to be used to hurt people for the purpose of hurting people. This is not a "flamewar thing". DeSantis chose to hurt people to accrue power to himself. Given the gifts and the fortune that we have inherited, if we cannot speak truth to power, then it would be better had we never been born. Sorry, not sorry?
- rory 4y ago
  "Sorry, not sorry" is exactly a flamewar thing. You're not "speaking truth to power." First, as I pointed out you're factually incorrect. Second, who do you think is reading your HN thread that has power over the governor of Florida? So you're literally speaking lies to the powerless. Sick.

sieabahlpark 4y ago

notch656a 4y ago

Florida is pretty low on federally funding dependency ranking.

cpurdy 4y ago
Florida is pretty high on federal funding dependency. https://ritholtz.com/2019/01/makers-takers-states-edition/ https://ritholtz.com/2019/01/makers-takers-states-edition/
- notch656a 4y ago
  The source under the page you cite shows Florida as #32 [Edit: the graphical tool shows it as #35] in per-capita balance payments (in direction towards state) over time. Next time you lie, try not using a source that contradicts yourself. https://rockinst.org/issue-areas/fiscal-analysis/balance-of-payments-portal/ https://rockinst.org/issue-areas/fiscal-analysis/balance-of-... https://rockinst.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/03/Balance-of-Payments-Federal-2022.pdf https://rockinst.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/03/Balance-of-P... Table 12B
lotsofpulp 4y ago
I do not see how that could be just from all the old people receiving social security/Medicare benefits.
- notch656a 4y ago
  Yes and despite that they have below average per capita federal aid. Not only that, they had a record surplus in their state budget the last year. If someone were to try and attempt to portray Florida as some fiscally irresponsible welfare state, I would assert they would be quite misguided.
  - lotsofpulp 4y ago
    Interesting. I do not know how reliable this website is, but apparently, it incorporates Social security/Medicare spend also: https://worldpopulationreview.com/state-rankings/federal-spending-by-state https://worldpopulationreview.com/state-rankings/federal-spe...

mojo982 4y ago

I doubt FEMA money is actually used for the immigrant stunt and Florida is not unprepared for hurricanes. Florida actually has pretty good stormwater management infrastructure, mostly because it has to. Homes in South Florida are also required to be built out of concrete block and have hurricane windows. Point being: Florida is decently prepared for storms. Could it be better? Of course. But I would not say Florida is complete unprepared. I do think there needs to be changes to insurance and government aid though. We're distributing (read: subsidizing) a lot of the cost of living in an expensive area. We're seeing ripples of this with insurance companies not wanting to insure houses in Florida. That or making it more expensive to get insurance directly (premiums) and indirectly (you can't have a roof over 10 years old in some cases because, by law, they have to pay to replace a roof if a few shingles come off). I say Florida a lot because I lived there up until recently, I can't speak for other states.

smileysteve 4y ago
> I doubt FEMA money is actually used for the immigrant stunt An assertion is that money is fungible, so $12mln spent on a stunt in Texas could have been spent on breakwaters, infill, or to move less stable homes from the immediate coast. (Or to have more building inspection before Surfside's incident)

throwaway-blaze 4y ago

Legal immigrants? The feds flew or bused illegal border crossers who were processed and released to many states, including Florida. Yes it was a political stunt to move them again, but how is it worse than what the feds are doing?

Lammy 4y ago
Sad how we ended up in a world where capital is the only thing that gets the right to travel the globe freely. https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg23030681-000-the-truth-about-migration-how-we-lived-without-passports/ https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg23030681-000-the-trut... “The passport as an instrument of state regulation was born of the French revolution of 1789. At first, ordinary people were issued passes to control internal movement, especially to Paris. But after the king tried to escape, and foreign aristocrats attacked the revolution, the authorities started requiring such papers for exit and entry to the country. The revolution created one of the world’s first “nation-states”, defined by the “national” identity of its people rather than its monarchs’ claims.” “But as the industrial revolution snowballed in the 19th century, there was pressure to allow free movement of all the factors of production – money, trade *and labour*. Passport requirements were widely relaxed across Europe — in 1872, the British foreign secretary, Earl Granville, even wrote: “all foreigners have the unrestricted right of entrance into and residence in this country”. The situation was similar in North America.” https://fee.org/articles/passports-were-a-temporary-war-measure/ https://fee.org/articles/passports-were-a-temporary-war-meas... “In 1947, the first problem considered at an expert meeting preparing for the UN World Conference on Passports and Frontier Formalities was “the possibility of a return to the regime which existed before 1914 involving as a general rule the abolition of any requirement that travelers should carry passports.””
- notch656a 4y ago
  I wonder how much public benefits has to do with strict immigration control. Before 1914 public benefits were practically nil, so it's not like you were likely to become a public charge as an immigrant. US seems to have 'solved' this by tolerating illegal immigration but then giving them the boot if the wheel ever squeaks.

bradgessler 4y ago

The reason people live in coastal regions is because there are outsized economic benefits to the hinterlands that may outweigh the damage these storms inflict. The interface between land and sea is crucially important for the survival of civilization at our scale. Under "2 and done", do you restore critical port infrastructure to dunes if they get destroyed by a hurricane twice? Port infrastructure can't exist on its own, it needs a community behind it which needs schools, parks, houses, etc. This is a problem that the insurance industry will need figure out so they can price risk to the area that's wiped out, the way the home is constructed, etc. In my mind the debate is how FEMA subsidies will distort the insurance markets. Perhaps they could serve as a "2 and done" re-re-insurance provider? A great counterpoint to this argument is that an insurance oligopoly might "price gouge" after a big event like Ian, which could kill the community that's needed to support the vital port infrastructure. Ultimately if FEMA subsidies were removed from the picture, shipping costs would increase to price in the risk of hurricanes for the area. Either way we're all paying for it somehow.

bcrosby95 4y ago
These regions can do what California did. Insurance companies left the market in response to the Northridge earthquake, so the state provides a very high deductible earthquake insurance.
thebradbain 4y ago
Yet fire and earthquake damage are not generally covered by FEMA in California in most cases (I would expect the Big One, when it happens, to be, but based on the big stink that Trump raised to the applause of certain states, like Florida, about cutting back wildfire prevention/disaster funds to CA in 2019, who knows) and economically that state is much more important than Florida. And thus California has very-high deductible insurance coverage in areas that are especially susceptible to such disasters, because it IS an inevitable risk that such an event will happen. Florida should do the same, as their "catastrophic disaster" is annual.
- treeman79 4y ago
  Wild fire destroyed my home I California. FEMA gave me a check for 25 grand.