Eric Cantor: no disaster relief for Irene w/o budget cuts

[bfdd]

Remember when taxation and spending debates were about the most efficient way to use government money, to get the most benefit for the smallest amount of spending? Me either, because now it mostly seems to be about pushing some silly emotion based agenda and feeling superior.

Nevermind that the economy of the eastern seaboard might have something to say about who pays for who most of the time. If the government isn't meant to handle stuff like natural disasters, then I really don't know what it should be doing. Last time I checked, "insurance" doesn't cover the power going out or streets becoming impassible or stores being unable to stock food.

But then, your tirade really isn't about practicality or logic, is it?

Who cares about the economy of the eastern seaboard? New York is all bullshit wealth leeching financial markets, New Jersey is like the only state over there on the northern half really contributing much, the southern states just leech and leech off the rest of us with their terrible ass fucking economies where they produce nothing.

IF WE CANNOT AFFORD TO PAY FOR RELIEF, THEN PEOPLE ARE SOL. Sorry, I can only give when I can give, right now I and others can't give so make do or gtfo. Sucks, but so what? Life sucks, life is hard, stop being such bitches.

 

[Ausm]

Who cares about the economy of the eastern seaboard? New York is all bullshit wealth leeching financial markets, New Jersey is like the only state over there on the northern half really contributing much, the southern states just leech and leech off the rest of us with their terrible ass fucking economies where they produce nothing.

IF WE CANNOT AFFORD TO PAY FOR RELIEF, THEN PEOPLE ARE SOL. Sorry, I can only give when I can give, right now I and others can't give so make do or gtfo. Sucks, but so what? Life sucks, life is hard, stop being such bitches.

Sounds like you were working for Bush when Katrina hit Louisiana.

 

[irishScott]

When congressmen cut their own salaries, as would happen to them in the private sector given their performance, then they can talk with a straight face about spending cuts.

 

[Rainsford]

Who cares about the economy of the eastern seaboard? New York is all bullshit wealth leeching financial markets, New Jersey is like the only state over there on the northern half really contributing much, the southern states just leech and leech off the rest of us with their terrible ass fucking economies where they produce nothing.

IF WE CANNOT AFFORD TO PAY FOR RELIEF, THEN PEOPLE ARE SOL. Sorry, I can only give when I can give, right now I and others can't give so make do or gtfo. Sucks, but so what? Life sucks, life is hard, stop being such bitches.

Life does suck sometimes, that's no reason to make it suck more by requiring everything to operate in some economic fantasy world you thought up. One where every state on the east coast except New Jersey is an economic leech, and where we can't pay for disaster relief so everyone should just suck it up.

Except we CAN afford it, that's the whole point. We can afford to provide disaster relief, and in most cases it's money well spent, and it's something the government should be doing. Getting all pissy about paying for it, like you and Eric Cantor are doing, seems a little bit ridiculous. Of course we have to figure out how to pay for things, but over-emphasizing that when there's really no reason to do so is a bit...odd.

 

[ProfJohn]

This pretty much sums it up:
http://img843.imageshack.us/img843/5055/bushtoobama.jpg

If the Republicans want to "take back the country", then they need to offer up something else than their current warmed-over turd of an economic policy. Voodoo economics FTL. :thumbsdown:

And what exactly is Obama offering??

Yet another new jobs plan? How many job plans has he offered so far??

The guy in charge is a failure, why would we reward his failure with another 4 years? What is he offering us? 4 more years of failure and inability to come up with a solution that works?

 

[Rainsford]

When congressmen cut their own salaries, as would happen to them in the private sector given their performance, then they can talk with a straight face about spending cuts.

You know, I'm not exactly the biggest fan of Congress...but I get a little tired of hearing this argument. Congressmen and Senators get paid WAY less than a private sector individual with similar responsibilities. So does the President, for that matter. And we've all heard about the infamous golden parachutes, where private sector executives run some company into the ground and walk away with millions. In fact, are there any examples out there of private sector executives getting their salaries cut due to poor performance in a bad market?

I know people love to dump on the government like they're way overpaid and overindulged compared to the hard working private sector...I just don't see it.

 

[ProfJohn]

Except for when Clinton raised taxes in 93....

We have gone over this a million times.

Look at Clinton's 1996 budget
http://www.gpoaccess.gov/usbudget/fy96/pdf/bud96h.pdf

NO balanced budgets in it.
From 1995-2000 he called for $1.1 trillion in deficits and his planned 2000 deficit was $194 billion.

This was AFTER his tax increases had gone into place.

He raised taxes and yet had no plan to balance the budget or even cut the deficit further. His 2000 deficit was $9 billion less than his 1994 deficit.

The REAL reason we had a balanced budget was due to spending cuts and some help due to higher than expected revenue.

Compare Clinton's 1996 budget to the reality of 1998
1996 projection
Revenue $1.548 trillion Spending $1.745 trillion Deficit $196 billion
Reality
Revenue $1.721 trillion Spending $1.652 trillion Surplus $69 billion

If we had followed Clinton's 1996 budget there would NOT have been a balanced budget in 1998. Using Clinton's own spending numbers we would have had a $5 billion surplus in 1999 and a $120 billion in 2000 and those are the ONLY two years where enhanced revenue exceeded Clinton's spending desires.

Tax increases will NOT solve our problems. You have to cut spending or else you are just throwing more money on the pile.

 

[feralkid]

And what exactly is Obama offer??

Yet another new jobs plan? How many job plans has he offered so far??

The guy in charge is a failure, why would we reward his failure with another 4 years? What is he offering us? 4 more years of failure and inability to come up with a solution that works?

Very trollish reply, as per usual, PJ.

 

[ProfJohn]

Very trollish reply, as per usual, PJ.

What is wrong with it??

What is Obama offering? What is his solution to the problem?

Please enlighten me as to the steps Obama is taking right now to fix the economy.

The guy has been in office for 2.5 years and we hear how he is putting the finishing touches on his newest economic plan?

If he had a plan that worked we wouldn't be having this discussion. Unemployment is HIGHER today than it was in January. GDP has come to a stand still.

If that is not a sign of failure then what is?

 

[Craig234]

You know, I'm not exactly the biggest fan of Congress...but I get a little tired of hearing this argument. Congressmen and Senators get paid WAY less than a private sector individual with similar responsibilities. So does the President, for that matter. And we've all heard about the infamous golden parachutes, where private sector executives run some company into the ground and walk away with millions. In fact, are there any examples out there of private sector executives getting their salaries cut due to poor performance in a bad market?

I know people love to dump on the government like they're way overpaid and overindulged compared to the hard working private sector...I just don't see it.

Paying a reasonable salary to our politicians is the best money we can spend.

The alternative will have plenty of politicians serving other interests, including the lobbying interests half of them join after leaving office already.

Underpaying them at best will deter good people from running.

It's analogous to the old 'government workers suck, pay them nothing and treat them like dogs, see the people who apply for that aren't the best, told you so'.

 

[woolfe9999]

Nobody said it should not be done or that it wasn't the job of government. Cantor is saying they need to identify how they are going to pay for it.
He's right.

No, more precisely, we need to balance the budget in toto. I see no constructive reason to raise the issue of "paying for" disaster relief in particular right when a disaster is impending unless it's a stunt to appeal to the tea party. Think about it. Cantor could say that about every single dollar or cent that goes out the door, on a daily basis, meaning he'd be talking about individual items non-stop. But he chooses disaster relief of all things.

 

[Double Trouble]

This type of situation is a good example of what the government should be doing. To cut programs to "pay" for this is stupid. If these programs can be cut that easily they shouldn't be there in the first place.

I disagree that if something can be cut "that easily" it shouldn't be there. It doesn't matter if it's easy or not, if you're going to spend more on something for whatever reason, you identify where that extra money is coming from (borrowing, spending cuts, tax increases).

You get the money for this once the crisis is over, or before the crisis. When a crisis happens you want to do what is needed to get through it. If there is a cost you ether need to be saving before hand for it, or be ready to save money after.

The problem is that we didn't save or setup money during the good times to help when things went bad.

I agree, the time to do these things is way before the crisis ever hits, not during or shortly after, and certainly not long after because we all know that will never happen.

 

[Double Trouble]

No, more precisely, we need to balance the budget in toto. I see no constructive reason to raise the issue of "paying for" disaster relief in particular right when a disaster is impending unless it's a stunt to appeal to the tea party. Think about it. Cantor could say that about every single dollar or cent that goes out the door, on a daily basis, meaning he'd be talking about individual items non-stop. But he chooses disaster relief of all things.

The timing doesn't change the fact that he's right. He is. Whether it's great timing, whether it's politically expedient or not is another question entirely, but he's right in the sense that you have to identify where this extra money is coming from.

Yes, in theory you should be having that discussion for every single dollar getting spent, but when something like this rolls around and there are potentially billions in new spending that everyone agrees has to be done, a little reminder that the money has to come from somewhere is not a bad thing.

 

[tweaker2]

And what exactly is Obama offering??

Yet another new jobs plan? How many job plans has he offered so far??

The guy in charge is a failure, why would we reward his failure with another 4 years? What is he offering us? 4 more years of failure and inability to come up with a solution that works?

I don't think it's so much what Obama has to offer, but rather what the Repubs have been denying him through minority rule in the Senate (chronic fillibustering) and majority rule in the House.

Really. For real.

 

[tweaker2]

The timing doesn't change the fact that he's right. He is. Whether it's great timing, whether it's politically expedient or not is another question entirely, but he's right in the sense that you have to identify where this extra money is coming from.

Yes, in theory you should be having that discussion for every single dollar getting spent, but when something like this rolls around and there are potentially billions in new spending that everyone agrees has to be done, a little reminder that the money has to come from somewhere is not a bad thing.

Looking at the behavior of the Repubs and especially the Tea Party since Obama took office, it seems logical to assume the Cantor's comments on this issue is pure political posturing at it's finest.

Like this whole issue of suddenly being the Party of Fiscal Restraint after being the Party of Fiscal Disasters for eight years running, Cantor's remarks stink of the same miraculous change of fiscal attitude that the Repubs found so convenient to beat Obama over the head with.

I agree with your line of reasoning that it is logical to ask where the money's coming from, but given the political game plan the Repubs have been employing since Obama took office, I'm sure being logical and practical about finances is not, nor will it ever be Cantor's intent and primary source of motivation in this regard.

 

[ProfJohn]

I don't think it's so much what Obama has to offer, but rather what the Repubs have been denying him through minority rule in the Senate (chronic fillibustering) and majority rule in the House.

Really. For real.

Bullshit excuse.

Examples of Obama programs that Republicans blocked please.

 

[tweaker2]

Bullshit excuse.

Examples of Obama programs that Republicans blocked please.

Aw c'mon, PJ, don't make me go through the trouble of stating the obvious, or, what's obvious to everyone else but you?

 

[Engineer]

What is wrong with it??

What is Obama offering? What is his solution to the problem?

Please enlighten me as to the steps Obama is taking right now to fix the economy.

The guy has been in office for 2.5 years and we hear how he is putting the finishing touches on his newest economic plan?

If he had a plan that worked we wouldn't be having this discussion. Unemployment is HIGHER today than it was in January. GDP has come to a stand still.

If that is not a sign of failure then what is?

Since you think Obama has been a failure (not sure that I don't agree at this point), what would McCain (or any other Rep. Pres) have done to make it better? What can anyone do at this point to fix the systemic problem that we have in this country and that is the ripping out of the bottom and lower middle class jobs and replacing them with government assistance (used to be debt).

What would (should) a GOP president do to fix this and can they do it?

 

[Rainsford]

Bullshit excuse.

Examples of Obama programs that Republicans blocked please.

He tried to close down Gitmo like he said he would, pretty much right out of the gate. Except that idea was very shortly followed by every Republican who could dial a phone getting on TV or in the newspaper and saying Obama was going to release terrorists onto elementary school playgrounds or put them into "regular" prisons they could easily escape from.

Now I can't blame Republicans for that as much as I can blame the unbelievable stupidity of the average voter, who can apprently be very easily convinced that terrorists are Batman villians. But it's definitely an example of something Obama wanted to do, tried to get done, and was twarted by Republicans being assholes. It was political instead of procedural thwarting, but we do live in a democracy after all.

 

[piasabird]

I was without power twice in one year for periods over 1 week. In the midwest we had an Ice storm and I lost power and heat for 10 days. Almost every pole mounted generator in our city was burned out. Yes I went to work every day during this time. Then during the hot summer we had another storm in the summer of that same year and the tree limbs wiped out a lot of power lines. Nothing like 90 degree weather with no air conditioner, or electricity. I dont recall from this time any mention of federal aid.

I dont think a little heavy rain qualifies people for federal assistance. That is what insurance is for. Floods, storms and damage from storms happens every year all over the USA. Aint no reason for a handout.

After a couple of days the high water will recede. Remember in 93' when the entire mississippi flooded? People managed to survive.

Why dont they call up the national guard to help?

 

[Rainsford]

I was without power twice in one year for periods over 1 week. In the midwest we had an Ice storm and I lost power and heat for 10 days. Almost every pole mounted generator in our city was burned out. Yes I went to work every day during this time. Then during the hot summer we had another storm in the summer of that same year and the tree limbs wiped out a lot of power lines. Nothing like 90 degree weather with no air conditioner, or electricity. I dont recall from this time any mention of federal aid.

I dont think a little heavy rain qualifies people for federal assistance. That is what insurance is for. Floods, storms and damage from storms happens every year all over the USA. Aint no reason for a handout.

After a couple of days the high water will recede. Remember in 93' when the entire mississippi flooded? People managed to survive.

Why dont they call up the national guard to help?

I don't think anybody is saying there will be catastrophic results without federal aid for natural disasters. But I don't get this austerity mentality you and bfdd and others seem to be pushing.

Insurance doesn't cover downed power lines or the local Safeway not having any food (but of course you knew that). And while many disasters result in serious inconvenience rather than directly life threatening situations, it's still a pain to deal with and the federal government helping out is one of the best ways the government can spend money to improve the lives of its citizens. You think they shouldn't just because people will "manage to survive" if they don't? Is that REALLY your argument?

Honestly this sounds a lot like a "back in my day" kind of thing, with you guys against federal aid just to be old and crotchety.

 

[Craig234]

I don't think anybody is saying there will be catastrophic results without federal aid for natural disasters. But I don't get this austerity mentality you and bfdd and others seem to be pushing.

Insurance doesn't cover downed power lines or the local Safeway not having any food (but of course you knew that). And while many disasters result in serious inconvenience rather than directly life threatening situations, it's still a pain to deal with and the federal government helping out is one of the best ways the government can spend money to improve the lives of its citizens. You think they shouldn't just because people will "manage to survive" if they don't? Is that REALLY your argument?

Honestly this sounds a lot like a "back in my day" kind of thing, with you guys against federal aid just to be old and crotchety.

http://crooksandliars.com/karoli/ron-paul-thinks-hurricane-aid-wasteful-tout

 

[senseamp]

Talk about a bullshit story...

"But, as you know, Eric has consistently said that additional funds for federal disaster relief ought to be offset with spending cuts."


Someone teach these guys the meaning of "ought."

You ought to stop grasping for straws.

 

[Double Trouble]

Looking at the behavior of the Repubs and especially the Tea Party since Obama took office, it seems logical to assume the Cantor's comments on this issue is pure political posturing at it's finest.

I am shocked, shocked I tell you! Politicians posturing? Say it ain't so!

Like this whole issue of suddenly being the Party of Fiscal Restraint after being the Party of Fiscal Disasters for eight years running,

You'll get no disagreement from me on this. The republicans have just conveniently discovered fiscal responsibility when it's politically expedient to do so. When they had the power they spent like teenagers with new credit cards as well.

However, the reason for their stance (waning to score political points and hurt Obama in the process) doesn't impact whether they're right or not. We need more fiscal responsibility, from all sides.

 

[Ausm]

You guys continue to prove our point for us.

You say we should raise taxes on the rich so we can cut the deficit.

But then you go back to talking about how you would spend that money if you had it.

So basically you rather spend money to kill people then to help your fellow Americans? One thing I can be certain of all the money we have spent to help people in need PALES in comparison to the Trillions we have WASTED on killing people.