Sandy Relief Funding: ANOTHER SCAM
2013-01-04
Karl Denninger

This article gives the most complete over view of the various aspects of the Sandy bill that I have seen.

Zitat

---

There are two parts to the Sandy issue. The first one is easy -- about $8 billion in appropriations that will fund NFIP insurance policies already written and paid in, for which people now want to collect
. . .
But -- the second half of this so-called "relief", some $60 billion, is only about half going to Sandy "victims." And I use "victims" in quotes because those who decided not to insure against these losses have zero right to claim anything from the government at all.
. . .
of the $60 billion nearly half has exactly nothing to do with Sandy. There are hundreds of millions in allocations for programs in Alaska, for example, which has exactly nothing to do with the storm. Then there's over $20 billion for various liberal "advocacy" programs which have nothing to do with the storm either..

---

More at:
http://market-ticker.org/akcs-www?post=215646

This is another great example of things being presented as false alternatives.

The Sandy Bill was set up so that you could be for it and be partially correct, and be against it and be partially correct. If Denninger can lay that out why not the RNC ???

Charles Krauthammer calls the Sandy bill "a rape of the Treasury".

I think what Boehner did in postponing the vote until today was absolutely right,” Krauthammer declared. “That was a rape of the Treasury — $60 billion, including a ton of pork. The part that was essentially passed today to replenish the flood insurance. That is right, and the rest ought to be debated in regular order.

Nonetheless, he also notes that though Boehner and the House Republicans did the right thing, guess who's being blamed for not getting aid to the Sandy victims? Surprise!

“And this idea that somehow the person to blame for suffering of the people today, months after Sandy, who aren’t getting help … is John Boehner, because of a bill he didn’t pass on January 1 — it’s preposterous, and the press is playing along that line,” he added.