Could not agree more. Garrett did not even speak on the floor today as most other NJ/NY reps did on both sides of the aisle. His only answer is we spend too much. His do nothing style has run its course and he needs to be replaced.

Matt, Scott Garrett ran in 2002 as "I'm Just Like Marge" after Marge Roukema announced her retirement. Anyone who did his/her homework knew that Garrett was a right-wing extremist even then. This anti-government zealot has been collecting a government paycheck since January 2003, will collect a nice pension if he is ever voted out of office, and yet looks to screw over everyone without a do-nothing job as a Congressman the way he does. The Democrats have refused to put any skin in the game of NJ-5 so those few intrepid Democrats who have tried to run have had no support from either the state or national parties, the result of which is that until and unless voters in NJ-5 wake the heck up and stop mindlessly hitting the "X" in front of Garrett's name every two years and actually look at his record.

I'm curious to see if Christie puts his influence where his mouth is and at least backs a primary challenger to Rep Garrett in '14. Same goes for Bloomberg (and his boatloads of cash).

Right on!! Garrett is the absolute worst

Marco Rubio voted against the plan to avoid the fiscal cliff. He too is a right-wing extremist and a Tea Party darling. Don't call him a moderate, he's far from it. (I do agree with you on props for Christie, though.)

I agree Mary. Let's give control of the Republican party back to the Republicans.

Because President Bush was so concerned and sincere after Hurricane Katrina? I'm pretty sure most people had already made up their minds about who they were going to vote for by the time Hurricane Sandy hit. Will you and your fellow Republican's never run out of excuses as to why you lost the election?

You really think Christie changed the election by appearing with Obama? Romney could not have won NJ/NY in a million years.

Scondo: It is the GOP Congress that refused to vote on Sandy relief. Obama cannot just write checks.

YOU CAN THANK THE (GOVENOR) FOR HUGGING (OSAMA OBAMA) AND MR. GOVENOR ARE YOU A REPUBLICAN OR DEMOCRAT? PLEASE MAKE UP YOUR MIND.

So you claim $30 Billion in pork yet only reference $0.15 Billion in "unnecessary spending" (though would be more accurate to call it unrelated spending since you did not provide any evidence that it is indeed wasteful, merely off topic).

Right on WC !!! most people posting here have not done any homework and therefore have little knowledge of what they have such strong opinions on. Its not that hard to be informed before you comment here... Why is $$$ for Alaskan Fisheries in this bill .... are any of you interested or do you just want to add your uninformed, worthless voice to the screaming rabble ?

The only real "relief" for those impacted by the natural disaster would have been a 9.7b bailout of the flood insurance, 5.4b for FEMA, 5.4b for Port of Authority and NJ Transit and 3.9b for urban development. That's 24.4b out of the original 27b bill sent to the Senate.

The Senate doubled the size of the bill with nearly half of everything being pork to get the votes of Republican Senators from Alabama, Louisiana, Mississippi and Texas.

I think the outrage is misdirected and should be heaped on those holding up a relief bill by porking it up.

A short list of pork:

• $13b for large infrastructure projects
• $10.8b for public transportation, not related to disaster relief.
• $207m for the Department of Veterans Affairs’ Manhattan Medical Center.
• $199m in tax breaks for rum makers.
• $188m for upgrading, not repairing, Amtrak rail lines.
• $150m for fisheries in Alaska.
• $100m for a federal day-care program.
• $57m for tracking debris from the 2011 tsunami.
• $20m for a national “water priorities” study.
• $8m to buy vehicles and equipment for the DOJ and HS.

So this was killed and two separate votes will be held: 1) the 9.7b flood insurance bailout and 2) 30b for flexible community block grants, transportation, flood control and beach protection projects (thanks to Frelinghuysen).

Let's see if the Senate porks this up too.

Where did you get the information that you are quoting about the Alaskan Fisheries? Please look at the text of the bill and point out the section that specifically states that $150 million is going to "Alaskan Fisheries". Also note that the title of the bill is "Disaster Relief Appropriations Act" hence although most of the funds were targeted to "Sandy" , there were other disasters in 2012. The scope of the bill was more general than "Sandy" relief.

the US government is the corrupt ones, Chris holds everybodys feet to the fire, No free lunch here

brother clyde, not a big fan of the gov. here in jersey. some of his political positions stink.BUT the man did a great job during sandy and yea, we might be the most corrupt state in the union, but love him or hate him, the gov. is not. he has responded in out time of need like no other. and he has put restictions on how much money goes to whom with out a full review. you know there is going to be some people trying to scam money, and there will be reports of it happening. but coming from nj the gov. sure as hell knows corruption and i for one am confident he can if not eliminate it, at least hold it to a manageable level.

The Governor let Obama use the hurricane as a political tool to win the presidential election. I have mixed feeling about Christie. The hurricane butt-kissing event with Obama was a blunder.

I'll trust Chris Chirstie's ability to control corruption when he gets rid of the mountain of Republican corruption in Morris County.

Take your own advice, "clyde," and stuff a cork in it. And I don't mean your rear, because the gas I'm smelling is coming from your mouth.

Here's another example of internet stalking by "sick of trolls."

"It is imperative that you seek help from your local police department if you are a victim of a cyberstalker. It is also important that you do not delete emails, chats, phone messages, and harassing private message board messages so that you can present this evidence to your local police department. Do NOT call 911 to report a cyberstalking crime. Please visit your local police department for assistance."

Hey, "clyde," I'll make you a deal: you stop making irrelevant, libelous, racist and combative comments, and I'll leave you alone. Better yet, post your vitriol and hate under your real name, and I'll leave you to say whatever you want. But I'm hardly stalking you, I haven't even posted your real name. So go ahead, accuse me of internet stalking. Here's the thing: the Sixth Amendment (I know you're only familiar with the first two, there's actually 27. It's ok, though, I'll explain) gives me the right to confront my accuser. So if you want to accuse me of a crime, you have to reveal who you really are. Be my guest.

But, just so you're unaware, here's the definition of internet stalking:
"Cyberstalking is the use of the Internet or other electronic means to stalk or harass an individual, a group of individuals, or an organization. It may include the making of false accusations or statements of fact (as in defamation), monitoring, making threats, identity theft, damage to data or equipment, the solicitation of minors for sex, or gathering information that may be used to harass."

Now, ask yourself, "clyde," do you regularly make false statements and accusations about certain individuals, public officials who you think are corrupt and lying? Do you not defame other members of this community when they disagree with you? If you can't take it, don't dish it out, "clyde." If you want to be treated with respect and courtesy, show the same to others.

Feel free to move Clyde.

Almost always does !

For a guy with the screen name Just Facts, you sure do have a hard time remembering the governor's name. Or is there someone else named Mr. Crispy (Chrispy?) that you're talking about?

not an exact quote from Christie -> "all you have to do is look at all of the million dollar mansions on the coast to appreciate all the damage to NJ" ... Who the heck cares about the few rich people with mansions on the coast ??? believe me they have insurance and abundant financial resources.

I personally do not care for our governor, but he did a good job where Sandy was concerned and properly placed the blame for lack of financial help squarely where it belongs.

Aren't we all TAXED ENUF ALREADY ?????

The difference is this was a natural disaster, not a bunch of leaches sucking off the government, You must be a democrat because anytime you koolaid drinking peeps go on a rant about cutting spending, the first thing you bring up is S.S, and medicare. You never mention welfare, Obama phones, the abuse of Disability, paid bus rides to go and vote for a dem, Golf trips costing billions, vacations to Africa to go and see Mendella, class trips to mexico with the daughters and their friends costing 200 million, a second inaugaration party, should I keep going ? Give help to the helpless, not the people who play the system

So let me get this straight: if it's a natural disaster then it's "okay" to get help from the government?
If it's people YOU know who need help, then it's somehow okay.
But if regular people need health insurance (as if it's not something that everyone needs), then it's a big problem for government to spend money on that?

Big Daddy, that's ridiculous. I don't live at the "shore" so why should I pay for the damage done to those communities. If you choose to live on ocean front properties and deny dune restoration, then the destruction of your home should not be on the backs of the other taxpayers. So let's define "need". I think food, healthcare, and transportation to work are needs, not rebuilding of beachfront homes and boardwalks, those are luxuries.

I'm a republican just like you but, Christie is a different politician, he trully reaches across the isle to get things done. Romney was a poor choice by the republicans, he cant relate to normal people. Christie can. So, far as helping Obama get re elected,Christie talking to him on TV didnt change anything, the fact is we have more moochers voting than working people. End of story. "Hence 47%"

This is why there needs to be a split in the Republican party.

... as if there isn't already???

In practice yes, Hookerman. That is why it should be done officially. We need a third political party that the nutjobs can exit into.

To say that one party or the other has the market cornered on nutjobs is wrong. They both have their share. Moderates need to band together under the Libertarian Party flag and put up a real candidate.

I love Chris Christie.

I agree that neither the left nor right have the market cornered on nutjobs. But the nuts on the left do not have a hold, or even great influence, on the mainstream of the democratic party. The extreme right has a tremendous hold and influence on the Republican party right now.

Consider the relative success of the Tea Party in winning congressional elections, as compared to the complete absence of such candidacies via the Occupy movement. There is no labor party or socialist party, within, steering the democrats far to the left.

The Democratic mainstream is just ever so slightly center-left within the contemporary American political discourse, The Republican mainstream is very far to the right of center. Moreover, the Republican party is inconsistent within itself.

First it was the Greatest Generation Then came the Me Generation.Then it was Generation X. This is the Perception Generation .Read the accolades for Christie; He tells it like it is,he holds people's feet to the fire, he takes on the special interests, he builds consensus, he demands accountability etc. etc. New Jersey has a 10% unemployment rate. 3,000,000 New Jerseyans earn less than $34, 400 a year,and their take - home pay is shrinking . 30% of working people rely on food stamps. One in five New Jerseyans live in poverty..A Star Ledger article was entitled " Foreclosures are down everywhere - except New Jersey. " Over the past decade, 75% of the " new wealth created" in New Jersey has gone to the top 20% of households - those earning $129,000 or more .The "new wealth" is in large part simply the transference of money from the private sector to its employees. the public sector. Crime in New Jersey rose 3% last year. He says nothing about Police Chiefs of small Departments who earn way over his $175,000 School Superintendent Cap. He says and does nothing about the epidemic of civil servants who work one or more private sector jobs, leaving only the crumbs for their employers,the public. Almost 1,000 government workers have 3 or more government jobs. 300,000+ illegal immigrants work in New Jersey. But,he talks the talk and walks the walk , he likes a good fight, he doesn't mince words... President Christie? Why not, he's got the Perception Generation's vote.

John im between the age of 18 and 26 and assuming i may be grouped into your "Perception Generation". however i classify my generation as the "every person ive ever seen run for office is an a-hole generation". therefore if i vote for christie its not because i really like the guy, its because im stuck chosing be bad and worse.
i also believe politicians have always been this way, just easier to get away with it years before. with the internet and 24 hour news coverage everyone knows everything. im pretty sure presidents before the 90s were getting "work" done under the desk by female interns and accepting money in exchange for favors, only difference is people kept their mouths shut back then.
ps- thank you to the baby boomers and me generation for turning the majority of my generation (your kids) into a bunch of cry baby idiots

XJS has it right: absolutely no nutjobs in the Libertarian party!

Truth stated. Amen
Taxpayers have been sold out.
Christie is another Obama....no difference.

Garrett's district was on the recipient end of these funds marked for Sandy. Garrett's extreme ideology of letting disaster victims sink or swim on their own, based on the idea of them taking or not taking personal responsibility, will cost his constituents money and will result in higher taxes to cover disaster related costs, specifically for his constituents.

It is difficult to imagine a more fiscally irresponsible decision. Not to mention a more morally irresponsible one.

These are precisely the sorts of self inflicted wounds that or extreme right legislators have shown themselves as willing to make, of recent, just to make ideological points. There is no courage in them. Only pain and suffering for Americans.

We need to get these wackos out of the Republican party.

Garrett, who gets farm subsidies for his "Christmas tree farm" and ensure that his tea party buddies continue to plunder the treasury--- it's ironic that food stamp usage and farm subsidies go overwhelmingly to tea party strongholds-- -these are FACTS that can not be disputed--- NJ, NY, Mass, Texas, Ct and Cali pretty much pay for the rest of the nation--- all blue states except Texas--- .

Garrett does not an have a oz of decency in him. He voted against injured vet benefits, used a anti disability campaign message in his last election ( remember the BLIND RABBI attack line). Jim Crammer on todays Morning Joe TV show said that upon calling Garrett yesterday, all he got as a response was holding people accountable. Maybe we should all re look at his phony "christmas tree farm" and the tax riff off he his employed to line his pockets. Better yet, just don't reelect him. He has been in Congress for a number of years and has anyone asked the question why the current Republican leadership has not given him MORE responsibility. They know better. He hides behind staff, votes absent on some measures while he says he supports the issue and has a pattern of of no votes on issues like disaster assistance in support of his own neighbors plight. Maybe Christee can find a Republican who is better suited or the Dems can find a better foe, but clearly Garrett SHOULD GO.

@ Paul Smith -- Red states "take," but so do blue states. Calculating direct transfer payments, look at what top electoral vote generating blue & red states "take" or "give" -
CA - $1.09 (taker)
FL - 1.39
NY - 1.00
PA - 1.17
OH - 0.90 (giver)
MI - 1.56
IL - 0.92
NJ - 0.77

Top red states
TX - 0.91
GA - 1.11
IN - 1.13
MO - 1.09
NC - 1.29
TN - 1.21

Source: http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2012/02/the-map-that-proves-red-staters-use-the-safety-net-too.php

Drill down at the "taking" and "giving" in certain red states further, and you will find "blue" areas within "red" states (eg, KC and StL in Missouri) are BIG net takers. Ditto other blue voting areas in red states like Atlanta in GA, Indianapolis and Gary in Indiana, Charlotte in NC and Memphis in TN. Likewise, "red" counties/areas in "blue" states (eg, Morris County in NJ). But, why drill down to these nettlesome details when they contradict the point you're trying to make and especially when you TALK ABOUT "FACTS" IN ALL CAPITALIZED LETTERS (*grrrr, snarl*). As for Garrett's specific objections, he has noted his objection based on a lack of oversight. There was massive fraud in the way Katrina aid was given out, is it reasonable that we insist on oversight, so as to avoid & minimize fraud? ......GXR

GXR rocks! Love your post.

Gary, this isn't the first hurricane to hit the US or the first time aid money has been sent to communities following a natural disaster of some sort. If the Feds can't figure out how to police how the money is distributed and deal w/ fraud by now, then everyone in those departments tasked w/ overseeing the disbursement of funds and insuring it is used as intended needs to be fired. Not buying the fraud argument at all.

@gxr- I do concede on California but on a state by state level you can see that the majority of red states are the takers - yes it varies by county and municipality but looking on an electoral level it is red states that take what NJ makes- grrr grrr snarl snarl

@ Ojo Rojo: "If the Feds can't figure out how to police how the money is distributed and deal w/ fraud by now, then everyone in those departments tasked w/ overseeing the disbursement of funds and insuring it is used as intended needs to be fired"

Never have truer words been said. The Federal gov't is an engine of fraud and waste. Perhaps Rep. Garrett is being selective in singling out this bill for the Feds' $16 trillion accumulated legacy of fraud & waste. For his part, Rep. Garrett deserves far more scorn and abuse for his votes in favor of the Iraq War, but I digress. GXR

@ paul smith - "LOL"......well, it seems like you might be selective in stopping at the state level to conclude "this state contributes" (good) and "that one takes" (bad). Really, if you look at exit polls and who voted for whom, at the individual level, we get a 'taker' and 'giver' picture that is eerily close to the reality of Romney's 47% gaffe with some notable exceptions (eg, the "super rich" (aka 1%) voting for Obama, poor rural whites voting for Romney). Contrary to your comment, food stamps (EBT) goes disproportionately to "blue voters" (their particular state of residence -- Houston, TX, Gary, IN, Charlotte, NC, Memphis, TN -- notwithstanding. But don't take my word for paul smith - http://www.businessinsider.com/cities-most-food-stamp-recipients-2010-10?op=1

Cheers! GXR

Well Gary, if you are going to criticize Paul for being selective about his numbers, regarding who does and doesn't "take" then why are you being so selective in the states that you choose to list?

Taken both collectively and generally, red states absolutely receive a great deal more then do blue states, which give more.

According to the Tax Foundation, the biggest takers are: (1) New Mexico, (2) Mississippi, (3) Alaska, (4) Louisiana, (5) West Virginia, (6) North Dakota. (7) Alabama, (8) South Dakota, (9) Virginia, (10) Kentucky. Much red there?

Also according to the tax foundation, the biggest givers were (in order): (1) New Jersey, (2) Nevada, (3) Connecticut, (4) New Hampshire, (5) Minnesota, (6) Illinois, (7) Delaware, (8) California, (9) New York, (10) Colorado. All of these are blue.

http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_reckoning/2012/10/25/blue_state_red_face_guess_who_benefits_more_from_your_taxes.html

http://www.theamericanconservative.com/where-do-the-47-percent-live/

I am very eager to see you "drill down" further breakdowns within those states. In particular, I would like you to try to show us how "blue" areas are receiving the most entitlements within states as you claim. Your choice examples seems to fixate around the idea that poorer areas receive the most in entitlements relative to rich areas. Are you aware that only a very small percentage of entitlements go to poor people?

http://www.cbpp.org/cms/?fa=view&id=3677

@gxr (is the x for xavier? I went there)- we can start with this..http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_reckoning/2012/10/25/blue_state_red_face_guess_who_benefits_more_from_your_taxes.html..
Also I voted for Romney and most of the 47% he ripped live in RED states... have nice day and keep oin trying to find more wyas to skin that cat

Right on Joe Taxpayer .... we need more fiscal responsibility and accountability...even during/after disasters !!!!!

@ THE ridgewood mom: my 'selectivity' is a sampling of top states by electoral votes, which, by virtue of their larger populations account for lion's share of total tax contribution/consumption. I could get the actual $, but I don't have the time......
>"Taken both collectively and generally, red states absolutely receive ..more then do blue states" - Whew, all those unnecessary adverbs!...I don't buy that, but am open to evidence. Read on...
>"According to the Tax Foundation, the biggest takers are: (1) NM MS AK LA WV ND AL SD VA KY Much red there?" ughh, 1st, can we refrain from the juvenile slang ('much slang there'? what next, an "OH SNAP"?). Overall, these are small states population wise. On a % term, perhaps they are "biggest takers". Those sites' #s include corporate subsidies, welfare, SS, military bases (which my links ignored). Your links give reasonable indication of a states' reliance on the fed. budget, but what about the defense contractors in WA, VA, CA, CT that sell goods to the military? What about CA, MA, NJ pharma/biotech companies use of Bayh Dole Act IP? And, what about the $7.7 TRILLION in loans/aid the financial sector got, disproportionately helping "giving" states of NY, NJ, CT, CA and NC (homes to TARP 'welfare queens' banks like Citi, Wells Fargo, GS, MS, JPM, BofA, and countless individuals who work at same). http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-11-28/secret-fed-loans-undisclosed-to-congress-gave-banks-13-billion-in-income.html

Back to Gov. Christie's original point about "New Jersey and New York's position as donor states, who pay far more in taxes to the federal government each year than they get in return" -- explain away $7.7 trillion "paul smith" and "the ridgewood mom." Tell me "it was repaid," which it was, but don't tell me the banks paid market rate (see the 'toxic convertible' that loan shark Warren Buffett charged GE and Goldman Sachs for 'market rates'). Big banks and the financial sector-dependent states of CA, NC, NJ, NY & CT put 'welfare queens' (like the viral video "Obama phone lady") to shame.

As an aside, Chris Christie's wife worked at Cantor Fitzgerald. Cantor's meteoric success was due in large part to the growth in the federal deficit during the 1980s (Cantor is one of a few firms that can sell US Treasury bonds as a 'primary dealer'). Cantor is one of many Wall St firms that rely on the US Treasury dept/federal govt though. "Just saying." So, tell me again about what a drag the state of South Dakota and its 840,000 people are!

By the way "the ridgewood mom," love the American COnservative link, good post and a great magazine (I never knew you were a Pat Buchanan fan!)

"paul smith" - that you voted for Romney is not my problem. Actually, candidates like him and the GOP (aka "the stupid party") are part of The Problem. I didn't pick up the rest of your comment, and at this point don't much care. To paraphrase "the ridgewood mom," ...'much spell check there'? -GXR

Hmmm. Then I think we agree about the poor not being the main entitlement drains, Gary.

My point about red and blue states, and Paul's point (I think), was not simply meant as a slight of persons living in red states. It was in response to the usual "fiscal responsibility and accountability" rhetoric, to the effect that "entitlement" spending is a case of lazy poor people (who vote democrat in order to get handouts) taking the money of hard working and industrious rich people (who need to protect their well deserved pocketbooks from moochers). Such is not how it works. Entitlements go all around, including right into the pocket of Scott Garret himself.

Regarding The American Conservative, I have been known to read through it now and again. Regarding Pat Buchanan, I do think that he has some good ideas. Albeit, some bad ones as anyone else on the right or left. While you have seen me advocate on behalf of certain issues, on the Patch, in a way that comes across as liberal to you, I have said several times that I identify as an independent.

This broke my heart today. I used to work at a legal aid clinic for domestic violence victims. This legislation was CRUCIAL for the protection of battered women. It has enjoyed bipartisian support for almost 20 years, and the reauthorization was co-authored by a democrat and a Republican. It passed the Senate easily in April, and has been rotting by the wayside since - all thanks to the extreme right in the House.

The Tea Party fascists who are currently in control of that body can talk all day long about being the party of "family values", but they're sure not putting their money where their mouths are.

Jersey: Tea Party "family values" involve women being submissive to their husbands. Part of that involves husbands being able to beat their wives. So it is actually logically consistent that they would oppose protection for battered women. Reprehensible and appalling, but consistent.

Liberty- how can we stop electing self serving, unqualified people if they are the only ones given a chance to run? i voted third party Gary Johnson cause he was the most qualified, however third party never stands a chance and it is like throwing away a vote.
98% of dems and reps who are given the oppurtinity to run for office by their party are corrupt.
i agree with your statement but not sure if there is a solution. to me the only chance would be for people to not vote or a decent percentage votes third party to send a message to the reps and dems that we are tired of their games... however i dont see that happening anytime soon. so we are stuck chosing between the dem who doesnt give a sh** about me or the Rep who doesnt give a sh** about me.

The problem with term limits (and I like them in theory) is that the power brokers will just sit back and put shill after shill into the position and carry on business as usual.

I hate our system of bought and paid for politics. It's disgusting.

There are already term limits. It's called "elections." If voters paid attention to what their representatives actually do and studied the opposing candidates (instead of just blindly pushing the button for the incumbent of the same party as the voter), they could implement term limits through the voting booth. See also: Scott Brown in Massachusetts, Ben Quayle in Arizona, Allen West in Florida, etc.

Your extreme cynicism about the government is unfounded Bill. There is sometimes corruption in government, but there is corruption in other institutions as well. However imperfect, relief aid works at providing relief. And for people who need it, it is often essential.

It is also not the case, as you argue, that all wealth the government spends comes from the pockets of the people. When the government puts people to work, engaging them in the production of goods and services, that is a case of wealth being generated. Government actuated employment programs have an incredibly successful record of stimulating economies by decreasing unemployment.

And to be fair, much of the money that private businesses accumulate is siphoned from the pockets of the people without there being any wealth created. For example, if someone buys a company and destroys it and sells off the aftermath for a huge personal profit, that destroys the societal contribution of the company. Furthermore, the money obtained by the individual engaged in the venture comes from elsewhere and not from thin air. And it is not the fruit of their labor.

A person does not create wealth simply because they accumulate money. If it worked that way then the government would be creating wealth through the simple act of taxation.

I'm going to try and break this down point by point and not hurt myself attempting to comprehend your "logic," RC, so help me out if I miss something:

1. Greed is local. Ok, if you say so. Not sure what that has to do with anything, but thanks for pointing it out.

2. You can't argue against big government and want to spend government money, for whatever reason no matter how justified. So you're saying politicians can't argue against spending, but then spend money for any reason, like say a war in Iraq that doesn't need fighting or a new tunnel into Manhattan to ease traffic. Not for education or animal control or spying on American citizens. Even if it's for people whose homes were destroyed in a hurricane; who get back barely 70% of the money they send to Washington in taxes, the politicians shouldn't be spending our tax dollars to help us, is that what you're getting at? Unless you get to go to the beach for free, then it's ok.

3. You think that FEMA is paying people instead of homeowners insurance, when in fact it's in addition to, to cover losses that aren't covered under homeowner's or other insurance, since most homeowner's insurance doesn't cover flood damage. If your home and business were destroyed in this storm, would you be so dead set against FEMA spending, I wonder? Or would you be complaining about how you haven't gotten your fair share yet?

4. I have no idea what a Greek handout is. Does it involve souvlaki? Can I get tzatziki sauce on it?

Big Tommy L. !!! New name on the site, but same old crap. What use is a new tunnel into NYC for you ??? Piano tuning off the hook in there this time of year ?

Bill, you are not making sense. If we are all dependent on the government, how can they steal our money? What you're saying is that they will give it to us, but then they will take it back? Please explain in detail.

Brilliant--in fact you should be horsewhipped if you voted at all!

jr Great comments . I ran for office twice. More than a few times, I was called an " A hole in waiting " - " John, I believe you're an honest person. But once you're elected, you'll change" " "Power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely " "John, I don't vote anymore. I've been let down too many times." And of course, " Anyone who gets involved in politics is a low life/crook " Do you blame people for their profound cynicism? You're cynicism runs even deeper - Not just everyone IN office, but everyone who seeks office too. Is Gary Johnson an a- hole? According to you, he must be. Why would people believe I'm different. Why don't honest people believe that there are other honest people in the world? Or is what they're saying transference of what would be their own lack of resolve in the face of pressure? It's a classic catch - 22; The guy in there is a crook, The guy who wants the job is a good guy, but if he's elected, he'll become a crook. { The current guy was a good guy until he got elected }. Why bother exchanging one crook for another ? And keep in mind, the next guy could be even worse.What if the new guy is true to his word and cannot be bought? What would I have to show for a lifetime spent believing with all my heart and soul that everyone who gets involved in politics is an A- hole? If your PERCEPTION of me is that I'm an A - hole, how can I argue to the contrary?

Good For Them.

Hey Look. Did this guy Garrett screw your wife or something? I mean buddy it seems you have an unhealthy hate of him. Or is it your candidate didn’t get in, so you didn’t get one of those sweetheart political plum jobs, and now you are destine to flipping hamburgers, or working in a big box store like the rest of us slobs? STFU, take it like a man, and remember to ask the next customer if you can super-size that for him.

Seems like all of BillBalls's balls are on his keyboard; the discomfort's making him mean.

did billballs really just criticize someone for having "unhealthy hate" and then proceed to exhibit THE EXACT SAME HATE in return?

bill, you are making this all up just to fun us, ain'tcha? i mean, nobody can really be as brainless as that, right?

Like them two wars Dubya put on our credit card. Ah, yes, personal responsibility, gotta love them right wingers.

If Christie really had any balls he would become an Independent, since that is what he really has become to a great degree.

Christie's social values are regionally nuanced in a way that is not typical of the Republican party, but they are a typical degree to the right of center as is the mainstream of the republican party. His economic views are further to the right then that.

The divide, that exists within the Republican party, is not caused by Christie's more mainstream republican thinking but by those who are even further to the right then he is. In particular, tea party types and libertarians in the area of economic thinking. I would not go so far as to call Christie a moderate republican, although he is clearly more moderate on fiscal matters then those he terms here as being "toxic."

There is a major battle going on these days, within the Republican party, and those on the far right ultimately will not be able to win it. If a split occurs on the right, it will most likely involve the branching off of a splinter group of extremists and not moderates.

Christie is wise to separate himself from those elements which are hurting the overall success of the Republican party in the US, and which would hurt the chances of him winning future elections.

What in the name of Buford's bullfrog is "intibitation"? Intimidation? Cohabitation?

Read that article again. That is just for insured losses. That covers nothing for things like beach & road repair, replacement of bridges taken out by the storm, damages to mass transit systems, damages to the telecom or electrical grid, the cost of paying public safety workers to work OT for weeks in some communities while the power was out and so many other costs & repair bills that were not and never will be insured for. The government steps in to cover everything above what the insurance covers so damages that exceed the $20bn that should be covered by insurance is what Congress needs to pass a bill to pay for. And just so you know, the total estimated damages caused by the storm are closer to the $70bn or more range.

For that matter, where was the outrage from the right when there were simultaneously tax cuts for the wealthiest and two unfunded wars, in one of which $9 billion just completely disappeared and no one knows where it went? Republicans get all up in arms when there is a Democratic president, but let a Republican president (George W. Bush, for those who have forgotten that he existed) nearly drive us into global economic collapse, and the IOKIYAR* rule always applies. (*It's OK If You're A Republican)

Because rebuilding infrastructure requires the funds that are currently being held hostage by the House. Stop being disingenious.

You're right, you ARE confused. It's probably the teabags dangling from your hat brim making it impossible to see what's in front of you.

So? That doesn't change the fact that NY & NJ suffered in excess of $70bn in damages. This isn't a contest to decide which storm was bigger.

OR
You want someone else to rebuild your house every 20-50 years or so?
Take the money damaged by the flood but then the land belongs to the public and you find something else out of the flood zone.
This government welfare has to stop

Oh Alethiologist, have a heart. Some of these houses were worth 3 or 4 million dollars, and owned by people like Joe Tucci, CEO EMC Corp, who raked in like 150 million last year. Of course they need help rebuilding, and of course our Governor is going to get it for them. You know, he doesn't like taxing millionaires.

BB,
OK, I see the error of my ways.
Let's just conscript the people on food stamps and get them to build new homes for the zillionaires. That will keep the little people busy

Wow, you fabricated quotes to prove your own unpleasant position, very impressive. It's also marvelous that you repeat these points tirelessly.

Actually, BB states the truth.

C;etus
Were you named after the cartoonish slacked-jaw yokel or the former Pope?

Alethiologist, Here’s another little fact that is slipping out – Many homes down the shore had restrictions on finishing the basement and first floor (because of possible “flooding” you know) but many homeowners did anyway, and guess what? Yeap, now they are standing there with their hands out asking their neighbors, and the rest of us who followed the rules to help them out anyway

BTW, Tucci’s $3 million dollar house was just one (he has many) of his vacation homes. Oh and I was wrong about Tucci’s $150 Million last year. Turns out he only raked in just under $25 Million, and to be perfectly honest, I have no idea if his house was hit or not, but given where it is, it seems likely

As to Cletus. If he had a contract with an insurance company, be it private or federal, and his property was damaged in accordance to what would be replaced or repaired by the insurance policy, he certainly is entitled to his or her money. If he’s just looking for a handout however, he should get back what he paid in ----- NOTHING!

PS. Just as a point of reference: Between 1998 and 2007, there were an average of 397,650 house fires EACH YEAR. These cause an average of 3,040 deaths and 14,960 injuries EVERY SINGLE YEAR.

You do realize that most of the hurricane relief bill is not for homeowners, right? It is to cover the costs of beach replenishment, fixing up the transit systems, replacing bridges, sewer repairs and to pay towns and the state back for the billions they spent, flood prevention efforts by the Army Corps of Engineers, etc...

Perhaps instead of just pulling facts out of thin air you might want to actually read what the Sandy relief money is going towards?

Ojo Rojo, You should read this

http://e360.yale.edu/feature/hurricane_sandy_relief_bill_fails_to_face_coastal_realities/2606/

You know, if you can't stand by your original post like the one you made at 9:59 PM, perhaps you should just delete it instead of posting more crap. I don't care what some professor at Yale says b/c I was responding to your 9:59 PM post, the one where you make stuff up just like in all those other posts of yours.

What am I making up? Go check the facts. No mortgage no requirement for flood insurance. Pork in the bill, there is no need to repeat what is there, unless you would somehow like to show me it isn’t!

Now let me ask you question, please try to answer it. Given all we now know, why should any of this stuff be rebuilt? We all know there is another Sandy that will form out there and it will come and undo everything we just rebuilt. Maybe you should look back 50 years to the 100 year storm that destroyed LBI!

When Floyd hit, I got flooded because of a defective weeping tile system. I bit the bullet and had it replaced. Over $10K worth of work, but at the EOD, when Irene came I stayed dry as a bone. My insurance didn’t pay, and I sure as crap didn’t run to the government and cry screw someone else and help me instead!

Now look don’t get me wrong. I don’t give two rats butts if you rebuild there or not. Nor do I give a crap if you federal flood insurance pays you, after all you have a contract. Have a damn good time, it is you property and for sure your right to do as you please, just STOP reaching in my pocket to solve your problems. Make sure you include in that, if you rebuild there, there will be no more national flood insurance for you, unless you want to start paying my fire insurance to off set what I pay for your flood insurance.

Get the government out of my life and force the federal government to live by the Constitution that created it!

When you post a fact based post, I will check the facts. All I see out of you is hot air.

Ojo Rojo, Hummmmm – Seems these people elected not to carry flood insurance. But you tell me that can’t be. So how is that?

http://goo.gl/5xXjk

PS… anyone who lives in a flood zone knows dam well their standard private insurance won’t cover even minor water damage, let alone floods. These people obviously knew that, but they dropped their federal flood insurance and spent the money elsewhere. Look, I feel for them, I really do. I don’t know what I’d do if my house was destroyed and it wasn’t covered, which is why I make double, no make that triple sure it is insured against everything I can insure it from, and BTW, if that means I go without something else, so be it.

Insurance is like a seat belt Ojo Rojo, you can’t put it on after the accident!

Also Ojo Rojo, I am NOT responsible for your or anyone else's life.

its sad that this group of republicans are so awful and hypocritical its comical, unfortunatly it loses it humor when you realize they are destroying our country:

Eventually, the House got around to approving $9 billion in flood funding – delaying a vote on an additional $51 million in relief until next week because, as Stewart joked, “What’s another week when you’ve been [in trouble] for months?”
Given that voting for hurricane recovery is something that “Jesus, or any other human being that isn’t” a jerk would do, Stewart wondered why 67 Republicans voted against the $9 billion package. Among them was former vice presidential candidate Paul Ryan, who dismissed the bill as pork-barrel spending. Stewart wasn’t buying it. “It’s two paragraphs that add 9.7 billion to the national flood insurance program and nothing else,” he said. “There’s as much pork in here as in the mini fridge in the PETA break room. there’s no pork in this thing.”
He also argued that Republicans who claimed they objected to Sandy relief for principled ideological reasons were nothing short of hypocrites. “Exhibit A” was Mississippi Rep. Steve Palazzo, who as recently as last year was asking for money for constituents hit by Hurricane Katrina in 2005.

Exactly. Little of the money is being used for homeowners.

Some of them are just making an ideological point...which is laughable in the face of the fact that when THEIR districts were impacted, they were the first ones out there imploring Congress for timely aid. In fact, the esteemed senator from Mississippi, who refused to part with aid for Sandy victims, was begging for money for his constituents who continue to be affected by KATRINA, 7 years after the storm. Apparently, he didn't think he got enough money the first time.

Ojo Rojo, Steve and others -- Try to understand facts. No money has been approved for distribution yet; however the Federal Flood insurance fund has been given the okay to borrow the money they need to pay their contractual obligations. Also, and I don't know how I can be any clearer about this, and contrary to what you all seem to believe, money from the Federal Flood Insurance Fund goes exclusively to the homeowners who held that insurance.

The cost to replace the roads, sewer and other infrastructure cost will fall on the homeowners in that area, no different than if the area were being developed for the first time.

The government is not your friend! Wake Up!

Oh clueless Bill how much it must suck to be so angry and to spend your afternoons listening to that hillbilly heroin addict on the radio. No, the local residents will not be paying for the flood damage or cleanup costs. The US Government is picking up the tab for much of the cost of replacing the bridges, repairing the roads, fixing sewer lines, repairing mass transit systems, covering the cost of the OT of all the workers cleaning things up and running essential services & the relief efforts. They do that in every natural disaster & they funnel the money through FEMA and other government agencies. Perhaps if you focused more on facts and less on hyperbole, you might have figured that out by now.

Now do us all a favor and use google to look up where the Sandy money is going and how it is going to be spent before you make a bigger fool out of yourself than you already have.

Ojo—I took you advice and Googled “where is sandy money going?” and I found this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6JDofc5DT-4

Also, I Googled Rebuilding of New Orleans, and I found this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reconstruction_of_New_Orleans

Okay, I have to be done with you now, you really can't see the truth at all

Clearly the man is geographically challenged if he thinks Hurricane Sandy hit New Orleans. And I just love how he posts a video clip that shows most of the money is not going to homeowners and is instead going to the Feds, much of that will then be distributed to state & local governments and thus completely disproves a part of one of his own previous posts. LMAO!

Seriously, you have serious anger issues there buddy and that is the truth.

Alethiologist – You are welcome. You seem like an intelligent guy who gets it. Might I suggest to you a book by Daniel Gardner, Titled “the Science of Fear: Why We Fear the Things We Shouldn't--and Put Ourselves in Greater Danger”

It will help you understand people like Ojo Rojo, and why they always miss the point by miles!

do you follow the news? the republicans are the ones holding up our money for aid not the president. im no obama fan but this ones not his fault.
keeping telling it how it is chris christie

So Robert, you think that if Christie had snubbed Obama for political reasons, instead of doing what was in the best interest of the state, NJ voters would have been more likely to elect him to a 2nd term??? Considering that Christie’s approval ratings are through the roof in NJ right now, I would say that your POV is a little backwards.