Can a conservative explain to me why i should be paying for Texas' disaster relief when ...

[imported_tajmahal]

So what?

Hell, Taj- they'll probably do it again, minus all the faux spending concerns & grandstanding for the folks back home. And this time Repubs won't have anybody to blame but themselves.

I don't let Republicans off the hook for being pigs at the trough. Some are as bad or worse than some Democrats.

 

[shortylickens]

Meanwhile we are almost 20 trillion in debt.

thats mostly from horrible budgeting and ridiculously overpriced govt. contracts with people who are lazy and also dont know how to budget.

 

[imported_tajmahal]

So what's your argument, Taj? That we should be stingy with relief & future mitigation efforts to leave room in the budget for mega rich tax cuts, or what?

My argument is that spending for disaster relief should be exactly what it says.......... spending for disaster relief. There's a reason that the Counties surrounding the nations capital are some of the wealthiest counties in the Country. They're all bellying up to the the huge Washington trough, in the nastiest, most corrupt and deepest swamp looking to get what they can at the citizens expense.

 

[Victorian Gray]

So your number and the number from "factcheck" is about 2/3rds of the money actually went to disaster relief and 1/3 of the money went to various special interest groups. I think it's a high estimate, but at least it's a number.

It's not "my number" it's the Congressional Research Service numbers which, apparently, are beyond your ability to understand.

 

[FelixDeCat]

whip out dat checkbook for H-town

 

[fskimospy]

Remember that fskimospy self admittedly only checked 2 of the named instances of the published links i posted. 2!

"
The bill itself is here. Its summary is here. Cruz’s statement at the time on the Sandy bill is here. And the Roll Call vote is here. Here is a Heritage report about the bill at the time. Here is fiscal hawk Tom Coburn on the problems with emergency disaster bills. And here are some things you will find if you read all of these, including specific spending in the Sandy relief bill that has nothing to do with emergency needs or any relation to disaster relief:

16,000,000,000 dollars for Community Development Block Grants (11 billion higher than HUD was requesting at the time)
600,000,000 for State and Tribal Assistance Grants under the EPA
348,000,000 for “construction” for the National Park Service
100,000,000 for Head Start
50,000,000 for the Historic Preservation Fund at the NPS
45,000,000 for upgrades to NOAA aircraft
22,000,000 for upgrading NOAA weather equipment
50,000,000 for “construction” for Fish and Wildlife Services
24,000,000 for the Defense Working Capital Fund
10,000,000 to Small Business Administration to plus up grants to organizations seeking to participate in disaster relief
4,400,000 for “capital improvement” to the Forestry Service
3,000,000 for oil spill research
2,000,000 for the Smithsonian’s famously leaky roofs.
1,000,000 for new cars for the DEA.
1,000,000 to the Legal Services Corporation.

http://thefederalist.com/2017/08/31/sandy-relief-bill-chock-full-pork/

And here you are still re-linking the same right wing blog posts that I already showed were filled with lies and still repeating things like the Smithsonian roof lie that were already debunked. You aren't even smart or honest enough to remove the lies I already pointed out before repasting the same crap again.

You have zero credibility here. I don't even know why you bother as nobody believes a single thing you say.

 

[FelixDeCat]

And here you are still re-linking the same right wing blog posts that I already showed were filled with lies and still repeating things like the Smithsonian roof lie that were already debunked. You aren't even smart or honest enough to remove the lies I already pointed out before repasting the same crap again.

You have zero credibility here. I don't even know why you bother as nobody believes a single thing you say.

It was still full of pork.

 

[Sheik Yerbouti]

It was still full of pork. Them damn Yankees never learn.

Them damn Yankees wanted all sorts off free shit and pork barrel crap.

Dats why we-uns said no.

Fuck dem damn Yankees.

No whip out dat checkbook for H-town

osteens' taint isn't going to lick itself, get in there poseur.

 

[Jhhnn]

My argument is that spending for disaster relief should be exactly what it says.......... spending for disaster relief. There's a reason that the Counties surrounding the nations capital are some of the wealthiest counties in the Country. They're all bellying up to the the huge Washington trough, in the nastiest, most corrupt and deepest swamp looking to get what they can at the citizens expense.

So you're just parroting Cruz about how disaster relief bills should be purely for emergency spending... He couldn't give a reason, and neither can you, I suspect. It's not like there is any way to know if it actually resulted in more spending, or not.

The rest is just the usual anti-gubmint ranting of the Right. It's good for Houston that we have a big country & a big govt. to help them out. I'm also in favor of working with Houston to create a much, much better way for them to deal with torrential rains like this. It's a vital link in our economy & an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.

 

[fskimospy]

It was still full of pork. Them damn Yankees never learn.

Haha of course.

Person 1: 'The bill was full of pork, as proven by these links '

Person 2: 'Those links are propaganda posts by extreme right wing interest groups and filled with easily debunked lies.'

Person 1: 'I insist they are still right though.'

 

[brycejones]

Haha of course.

Person 1: 'The bill was full of pork, as proven by these links '

Person 2: 'Those links are propaganda posts by extreme right wing interest groups and filled with easily debunked lies.'

Person 1: 'I insist they are still right though.'

Alternative facts FTW?

 

[UglyCasanova]

The rest is just the usual anti-gubmint ranting of the Right. It's good for Houston that we have a big country & a big govt. to help them out. I'm also in favor of working with Houston to create a much, much better way for them to deal with torrential rains like this. It's a vital link in our economy & an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.

I agree but perhaps that should be it's own bill then? I loathe Cruz but do see the point that these disaster relief funds should be for that and that only. A disaster relief bill for Sandy or Harvey shouldn't contain flood prevention funding for Wyoming or Oregon. Put that in an infrastructure bill.

 

[urvile]

I don't know if this has been mentioned but did anyone else see the photoshop of trump rescuing people in texas?

http://www.snopes.com/trump-raft-harvey/

You know it's bad when the president is so disliked that the right have to try and manufacture good will through subterfuge and lies. Don't worry though I feel secure in the knowledge that a guy who once wrestled vince mcmahon on live TV is all over the north korea issue. Do you think anyone takes trump seriously?

 

[Puffnstuff]

I agree but perhaps that should be it's own bill then? I loathe Cruz but do see the point that these disaster relief funds should be for that and that only. A disaster relief bill for Sandy or Harvey shouldn't contain flood prevention funding for Wyoming or Oregon. Put that in an infrastructure bill.

Unless that funding is directly related to the consequences from the storm in question.

 

[UglyCasanova]

Unless that funding is directly related to the consequences from the storm in question.

Sure I think that's fair, but disaster relief for Harvey shouldn't substitute for a national flood infrastructure bill.

 

[fskimospy]

Unless that funding is directly related to the consequences from the storm in question.

I am still struggling to understand why funding to prevent damage from future storms just like Sandy is inappropriate to put in a Sandy relief bill.

If you're going to spend a shitload of money to repair the damage from some storm any smart person is going to want to include provisions that make it less likely to happen again. That's just common sense.

 

[Sheik Yerbouti]

Sure I think that's fair, but disaster relief for Harvey shouldn't substitute for a national flood infrastructure bill.

the nations infrastructure is fucked right now, and has been for a long time, so I doubt we'll see any actual traction on any real infrastructure bill from don the con. But I'm sure he has one, and it's the best, only the best people worked on it using the best words. People are saying it's the greatest bill any presidents' ever submitted.

 

[UglyCasanova]

I am still struggling to understand why funding to prevent damage from future storms just like Sandy is inappropriate to put in a Sandy relief bill.

If you're going to spend a shitload of money to repair the damage from some storm any smart person is going to want to include provisions that make it less likely to happen again. That's just common sense.

Because it is a specific disaster relief bill, not a national infrastructure overhaul bill.

 

[UglyCasanova]

the nations infrastructure is fucked right now, and has been for a long time, so I doubt we'll see any actual traction on any real infrastructure bill from don the con. But I'm sure he has one, and it's the best, only the best people worked on it using the best words. People are saying it's the greatest bill any presidents' ever submitted.

I agree and lets fix it. A specific disaster relief bill isn't the way to do so though.

 

[Puffnstuff]

Sure I think that's fair, but disaster relief for Harvey shouldn't substitute for a national flood infrastructure bill.

I completely agree and said that because some people would try to hold up funding which could be justified as mitigation for any damaged caused by the storm. The USACE needs more funding to address coastal concerns and Trump sliced $1 billion from the FY18 budget.

 

[Jhhnn]

I agree and lets fix it. A specific disaster relief bill isn't the way to do so though.

You're making the perfect the enemy of the good.

If you think you can get a comprehensive infrastructure program funded by a Congress hell bent on tax cuts at the top & beefing up the military you're not thinking very clearly.

 

[UglyCasanova]

If you think you can get a comprehensive infrastructure program funded by a Congress hell bent on tax cuts at the top & beefing up the military you're not thinking very clearly.

Not sure what tax cuts or the military have to do with it? If a national infrastructure plan doesn't pass - we'll...that's democracy (representative republic, whatever ). Taking the approach that if we can't pass it on its own ground we'll just throw it in this bill instead is the wrong way to go imo.

 

[J.Wilkins]

Obviously the right should be against any handouts.

If they are not, they need to justify why it's OK in this case and not for other people in need. They need to do that publicly and at length.

You have to lead these horses to water and drown them or they will never get the fucking point.

 

[J.Wilkins]

Not sure what tax cuts or the military have to do with it? If a national infrastructure plan doesn't pass - we'll...that's democracy (representative republic, whatever ). Taking the approach that if we can't pass it on its own ground we'll just throw it in this bill instead is the wrong way to go imo.

A national infrastructure plan is a handout, isn't it? Usually to businesses affiliated with the politicians but still a handout.

 

[Jhhnn]

Not sure what tax cuts or the military have to do with it? If a national infrastructure plan doesn't pass - we'll...that's democracy (representative republic, whatever ). Taking the approach that if we can't pass it on its own ground we'll just throw it in this bill instead is the wrong way to go imo.

There's only so much spending that Repubs will allow & they'd obviously like to reduce that so that they can cut taxes at the top. That's as obvious as sunrise & their stated goal as well.

They won't pass a comprehensive infrastructure spending bill under any circumstances so we need to squeeze in what we can while we can get it.