Even economically, disasters like Hurricane Sandy are bad things

I don't understand how we can give billions of dollars to the Muslim Brotherhood, and other countries, but struggle with rebuilding our own country.

Remember when eighty percent of our stimulus package went to other countries?

Professor Phillips. Your points are valid, but there is no question that disasters do stimulate the economy. Just like the release of water from the Dam to repair the damage of storing the water this week, a disaster releases money back into the economy that would never happen without the disaster. Of course no one wants a disaster, but there is value, even economic value, to any disaster or tragedy. We see it all the time in places where disasters have struck. I have spent a great deal of time in Haiti and know that the massive earthquake was not a positive event, but the outpouring of effort after that event was tremendous. Often, only a disaster gives you the impetus to make the change. We can't stop disasters from coming, but we should recognize the value of a disaster. How else would you have the terms recovery, restoration, reformation, redemption, etc. without the disaster. My life has had plenty of "disasters," that I don't actively pursue, but I'm grateful for them and I know economically there is a silver lining even if it does have the compounding affect of a lightning strike.

Why can't Paul Krugman, "The Nobel Prize-winning Op-Ed columnist" for the New York Times, figure this out?