5 ms·

> Florida, Louisiana and Texas residents have received the lion's share of FEMA direct assistance since 2015, per newly gathered data. https://www.axios.com/20

by Terr_ 2y ago

> Florida, Louisiana and Texas residents have received the lion's share of FEMA direct assistance since 2015, per newly gathered data. https://www.axios.com/2024/10/08/fema-direct-payments-state-recipients https://www.axios.com/2024/10/08/fema-direct-payments-state-...

xnx 2y ago
Would be slightly more informative as per-capita numbers since Texas and Florida are #2 and #3 most populous states.
- toomuchtodo 2y ago
  This is splitting hairs. These are vocally low/anti regulation and tax states hostile to even the belief in climate change when scoped to state reps [1] [2]. Let them financially support themselves and their disaster risk costs. They voted for this (both at federal and state levels). If they would like federal support for their high risk geography [3] [4] [5], they should consider voting for an administration that will provide such policy and support and believes in the science. California is the world's fifth largest economy. They will be fine. [1] https://www.texastribune.org/2023/06/02/texas-environment-climate-energy-bills-legislature/ https://www.texastribune.org/2023/06/02/texas-environment-cl... [2] https://www.npr.org/2024/05/17/1252012825/florida-gov-desantis-signs-bill-that-deletes-climate-change-from-state-law https://www.npr.org/2024/05/17/1252012825/florida-gov-desant... [3] https://www.axios.com/2023/09/27/insurance-rates-climate-change-extreme-weather https://www.axios.com/2023/09/27/insurance-rates-climate-cha... [4] https://www.mckinsey.com/~/media/McKinsey/Business%20Functions/Sustainability/Our%20Insights/Will%20mortgages%20and%20markets%20stay%20afloat%20in%20Florida/MGI_Climate%20Risk_Case%20Studies_Florida_May2020.pdf https://www.mckinsey.com/~/media/McKinsey/Business%20Functio... [5] https://www.newsweek.com/map-reveals-scale-florida-property-insurance-crisis-1920042 https://www.newsweek.com/map-reveals-scale-florida-property-...
  - kcplate 2y ago
    Gotcha. So your answer is to break up the republic because you don’t like some of the region’s politics.
    - krapp 2y ago
      These states and many of their citizens have been murmuring about a "cold civil war" and "peaceable secession" for decades, and a few have been flirting with secession since the actual civil war ended. They don't want to be a part of the US - or more accurately they consider only themselves to be the US, proper, and reject the authority of the Federal government as illegitimate, oppressive, and run according to cultural values which they despise. So yeah, maybe it's better to let them go than suffer having them dragging the rest of the country down with them.
      - kcplate 2y ago
        …or maybe they can just vote for the change they would like at the federal level like they just did. Funny how that works in a republic like ours. If their direction doesn’t pan out, you have opportunities in 2026 and 2028 to right the ship. Of course that would mean that the democrats will actually have to provide a leader to two that can effectively communicate, motivate, and lead.
        krapp 2y ago
        A republic doesn't work when half of the people simply vote to burn it down every four years to spite the other half. You can't just "right the ship" to correct policies this destructive. This isn't simple politics as usual.
        kcplate 2y ago
        You are making an assumption that only half the country votes to “burn it down” and that whatever side you are on is the correct one that should be preserved. It’s possible that both sides seek to destroy the policies of the other and maybe, just maybe, neither side truly has a monopoly on what is right and correct. All I hear as an independent political thinker is two sides whining that the other is dogmatic.
- Terr_ 2y ago
  While I am normally in team "hey scale it by capita", this case makes me hesitate. (Would we also need to factor in statewide cost-of-living values?) If $X is exported from residents of my state out to support another state, that's the same local impact regardless of how populous the destination is or how finely that $X gets split after it arrives. In any case, I think it's enough to support the idea that there's a tension (if not contradiction) where the states that receive the most absolute benefit are also the ones electing politicians who pretend the exact opposite.

by Terr_ 2y ago

xnx 2y ago

Would be slightly more informative as per-capita numbers since Texas and Florida are #2 and #3 most populous states.

toomuchtodo 2y ago
This is splitting hairs. These are vocally low/anti regulation and tax states hostile to even the belief in climate change when scoped to state reps [1] [2]. Let them financially support themselves and their disaster risk costs. They voted for this (both at federal and state levels). If they would like federal support for their high risk geography [3] [4] [5], they should consider voting for an administration that will provide such policy and support and believes in the science. California is the world's fifth largest economy. They will be fine. [1] https://www.texastribune.org/2023/06/02/texas-environment-climate-energy-bills-legislature/ https://www.texastribune.org/2023/06/02/texas-environment-cl... [2] https://www.npr.org/2024/05/17/1252012825/florida-gov-desantis-signs-bill-that-deletes-climate-change-from-state-law https://www.npr.org/2024/05/17/1252012825/florida-gov-desant... [3] https://www.axios.com/2023/09/27/insurance-rates-climate-change-extreme-weather https://www.axios.com/2023/09/27/insurance-rates-climate-cha... [4] https://www.mckinsey.com/~/media/McKinsey/Business%20Functions/Sustainability/Our%20Insights/Will%20mortgages%20and%20markets%20stay%20afloat%20in%20Florida/MGI_Climate%20Risk_Case%20Studies_Florida_May2020.pdf https://www.mckinsey.com/~/media/McKinsey/Business%20Functio... [5] https://www.newsweek.com/map-reveals-scale-florida-property-insurance-crisis-1920042 https://www.newsweek.com/map-reveals-scale-florida-property-...
- kcplate 2y ago
  Gotcha. So your answer is to break up the republic because you don’t like some of the region’s politics.
  - krapp 2y ago
    These states and many of their citizens have been murmuring about a "cold civil war" and "peaceable secession" for decades, and a few have been flirting with secession since the actual civil war ended. They don't want to be a part of the US - or more accurately they consider only themselves to be the US, proper, and reject the authority of the Federal government as illegitimate, oppressive, and run according to cultural values which they despise. So yeah, maybe it's better to let them go than suffer having them dragging the rest of the country down with them.
    - kcplate 2y ago
      …or maybe they can just vote for the change they would like at the federal level like they just did. Funny how that works in a republic like ours. If their direction doesn’t pan out, you have opportunities in 2026 and 2028 to right the ship. Of course that would mean that the democrats will actually have to provide a leader to two that can effectively communicate, motivate, and lead.
      - krapp 2y ago
        A republic doesn't work when half of the people simply vote to burn it down every four years to spite the other half. You can't just "right the ship" to correct policies this destructive. This isn't simple politics as usual.
        kcplate 2y ago
        You are making an assumption that only half the country votes to “burn it down” and that whatever side you are on is the correct one that should be preserved. It’s possible that both sides seek to destroy the policies of the other and maybe, just maybe, neither side truly has a monopoly on what is right and correct. All I hear as an independent political thinker is two sides whining that the other is dogmatic.
Terr_ 2y ago
While I am normally in team "hey scale it by capita", this case makes me hesitate. (Would we also need to factor in statewide cost-of-living values?) If $X is exported from residents of my state out to support another state, that's the same local impact regardless of how populous the destination is or how finely that $X gets split after it arrives. In any case, I think it's enough to support the idea that there's a tension (if not contradiction) where the states that receive the most absolute benefit are also the ones electing politicians who pretend the exact opposite.