House Overwhelmingly OK's Sandy Relief Over Wingnut Objections

Izzatright?

From everything I've seen you post, you're good with acting in a fiscally responsible way, cutting spending and pork, right up to the point that a concrete proposal is on the table...The those floating the proposal are suddenly "wingnuts".

Really? Is THAT what I've done?
Can you point me to that?

Or better yet, gimme your concrete proposal.

(Mine is - and has been - 5% across the board - no sacred cows. And then we can work from there to see where else we can cut.)
Mine involves huge Pentagon cuts (i.e. closing virtually all bases on foreign soil and ending idiotic boondoggles like the Osprey and F-35), along with shutting down and/or devolving, to the states or the marketplace, the responsibilities of entire cabinet-level departments like the Departments of Education, Energy, Commerce, Fatherland Security'/TSA, HUD and a bunch of other agencies that just waste money and duplicate services....Ending stupid crap like the war on (some) drugs, ETOH (and most other ag) subsidies, etcetera.

The time for timid measures like 3% and 5% cuts has long since past...This nation is in deep financial trouble and bold action is the only thing that is going to save it.
 
Last edited:
Glad they cut the pork out of the bill. I had no doubt that it would pass once they did. Though constitutionaly, there is still no authorization for them to provide "charity" with tax payer dollars.

They are very generous with the tax payers money. They should be giving their own money and encouraging others to provide charity for the victims. At one point the American people understood that. I long for the day when they once again do

I believe that disaster relief is a fundamental responsibility of government.
Apparently more people agree with me than with you.
We did it your way for a while - we decided we didn't like it.

But I do agree with taking out the pork. (although some of those items were disaster relief items, just not from Sandy. And other items were just unrelated crap they wanted to buy. Silly move. Glad no other legislators have ever tried to pull that one before. Hope the "watchdogs" catch it no matter which side it is coming from.)
 
Izzatright?

From everything I've seen you post, you're good with acting in a fiscally responsible way, cutting spending and pork, right up to the point that a concrete proposal is on the table...The those floating the proposal are suddenly "wingnuts".

Really? Is THAT what I've done?
Can you point me to that?

Or better yet, gimme your concrete proposal.

(Mine is - and has been - 5% across the board - no sacred cows. And then we can work from there to see where else we can cut.)
Mine involves huge Pentagon cuts (i.e. closing virtually all bases on foreign soil and ending idiotic boondoggles like the Osprey and F-35), along with shutting down and/or devolving, to the states or the marketplace, the responsibilities of entire cabinet-level departments like the Departments of Education, Energy, Commerce, Fatherland Security'/TSA, HUD and a bunch of other agencies that just waste money and duplicate services....Ending stupid crap like the war on (some) drugs, ETOH (and most other ag) subsidies, etcetera.

The time for timid measures like 3% and 5% cuts has long since past...This nation is in deep financial trouble and bold action is the only thing that is going to save it.

I agree with some of these ideas. Not all of them by any stretch. Why don't we do this, let's cut 5% across the board - right now. See what happens. And if we have to raise the debt ceiling again you get to pick a department to close every time we have to raise the debt ceiling?
 
Really? Is THAT what I've done?
Can you point me to that?

Or better yet, gimme your concrete proposal.

(Mine is - and has been - 5% across the board - no sacred cows. And then we can work from there to see where else we can cut.)
Mine involves huge Pentagon cuts (i.e. closing virtually all bases on foreign soil and ending idiotic boondoggles like the Osprey and F-35), along with shutting down and/or devolving, to the states or the marketplace, the responsibilities of entire cabinet-level departments like the Departments of Education, Energy, Commerce, Fatherland Security'/TSA, HUD and a bunch of other agencies that just waste money and duplicate services....Ending stupid crap like the war on (some) drugs, ETOH (and most other ag) subsidies, etcetera.

The time for timid measures like 3% and 5% cuts has long since past...This nation is in deep financial trouble and bold action is the only thing that is going to save it.

I agree with some of these ideas. Not all of them by any stretch. Why don't we do this, let's cut 5% across the board - right now. See what happens. And if we have to raise the debt ceiling again you get to pick a department to close every time we have to raise the debt ceiling?
Why should we cut anything that is actually useful and within the bounds of de jure federal governance?...Things like the DoJ could merely have their spending frozen (after the BATF and DEA are dumped) and still get along just fine.
 
Remember Katrina? Nagan and the rest of the dumb assed liberal establishment and media managed to blame the republican president for the slow federal response even though democrats held the majority in both houses of congress. Here we are with a similar disaster and the dumb asses in the liberal establishment give the democrat president a pass and blame...you guessed it, the republican majority in congress.
 
Mine involves huge Pentagon cuts (i.e. closing virtually all bases on foreign soil and ending idiotic boondoggles like the Osprey and F-35), along with shutting down and/or devolving, to the states or the marketplace, the responsibilities of entire cabinet-level departments like the Departments of Education, Energy, Commerce, Fatherland Security'/TSA, HUD and a bunch of other agencies that just waste money and duplicate services....Ending stupid crap like the war on (some) drugs, ETOH (and most other ag) subsidies, etcetera.

The time for timid measures like 3% and 5% cuts has long since past...This nation is in deep financial trouble and bold action is the only thing that is going to save it.

I agree with some of these ideas. Not all of them by any stretch. Why don't we do this, let's cut 5% across the board - right now. See what happens. And if we have to raise the debt ceiling again you get to pick a department to close every time we have to raise the debt ceiling?
Why should we cut anything that is actually useful and within the bounds of de jure federal governance?...Things like the DoJ could merely have their spending frozen (after the BATF and DEA are dumped) and still get along just fine.

Ohhh you opposing cuts? You commie liberal?

Actually, the reason you make the cuts across the board is to kneecap all those "cut HIS spending, not MINE" hacks. You don't get to re-define the role of government. We've spent more than 200 years doing that - sorry it didn't go your way.

Now are you interested in cutting spending or just pushing a political agenda that has already failed?
 
I agree with some of these ideas. Not all of them by any stretch. Why don't we do this, let's cut 5% across the board - right now. See what happens. And if we have to raise the debt ceiling again you get to pick a department to close every time we have to raise the debt ceiling?
Why should we cut anything that is actually useful and within the bounds of de jure federal governance?...Things like the DoJ could merely have their spending frozen (after the BATF and DEA are dumped) and still get along just fine.

Ohhh you opposing cuts? You commie liberal?

Actually, the reason you make the cuts across the board is to kneecap all those "cut HIS spending, not MINE" hacks. You don't get to re-define the role of government. We've spent more than 200 years doing that - sorry it didn't go your way.

Now are you interested in cutting spending or just pushing a political agenda that has already failed?
No, what I'm saying that you don't necessarily need to cut across the board to be able to save massive amounts of money and still run good and proper federal agencies.

Sheesh. :rolleyes:
 
Izzatright?

From everything I've seen you post, you're good with acting in a fiscally responsible way, cutting spending and pork, right up to the point that a concrete proposal is on the table...The those floating the proposal are suddenly "wingnuts".

Really? Is THAT what I've done?
Can you point me to that?

Or better yet, gimme your concrete proposal.

(Mine is - and has been - 5% across the board - no sacred cows. And then we can work from there to see where else we can cut.)

well...in this thread, you ridiculed those that refused to vote on a Sandy Bill that was laden with pork....which was the first bill presented to Boehner and the house and he refused to put it up for a vote.

Finally, yesterday, a bill was presented stripped of the pork and it went from 50+ billion to 9 Billion..and he allowed a vote and it passed.

Yet you called him a wing nut for taking that position.

If you vote republican and are for fiscal responsibility....why do you refer to those that took such a position as a wing nut?
 
Why should we cut anything that is actually useful and within the bounds of de jure federal governance?...Things like the DoJ could merely have their spending frozen (after the BATF and DEA are dumped) and still get along just fine.

Ohhh you opposing cuts? You commie liberal?

Actually, the reason you make the cuts across the board is to kneecap all those "cut HIS spending, not MINE" hacks. You don't get to re-define the role of government. We've spent more than 200 years doing that - sorry it didn't go your way.

Now are you interested in cutting spending or just pushing a political agenda that has already failed?
No, what I'm saying that you don't necessarily need to cut across the board to be able to save massive amounts of money and still run good and proper federal agencies.

Sheesh. :rolleyes:

what you are saying is that you want to re-define the roll of government. That you want to roll back the clock 100 years or so.

You already lost that argument (over the last hundred years or so) now, do you want to talk spending - I'm game.
 
Ohhh you opposing cuts? You commie liberal?

Actually, the reason you make the cuts across the board is to kneecap all those "cut HIS spending, not MINE" hacks. You don't get to re-define the role of government. We've spent more than 200 years doing that - sorry it didn't go your way.

Now are you interested in cutting spending or just pushing a political agenda that has already failed?
No, what I'm saying that you don't necessarily need to cut across the board to be able to save massive amounts of money and still run good and proper federal agencies.

Sheesh. :rolleyes:

what you are saying is that you want to re-define the roll of government. That you want to roll back the clock 100 years or so.

You already lost that argument (over the last hundred years or so) now, do you want to talk spending - I'm game.
No, I want to put gubmint back in it's properly defined box.

Even though you keep trying to build them, you're not getting at all better at building straw men. :lol:
 
Ohhh you opposing cuts? You commie liberal?

Actually, the reason you make the cuts across the board is to kneecap all those "cut HIS spending, not MINE" hacks. You don't get to re-define the role of government. We've spent more than 200 years doing that - sorry it didn't go your way.

Now are you interested in cutting spending or just pushing a political agenda that has already failed?
No, what I'm saying that you don't necessarily need to cut across the board to be able to save massive amounts of money and still run good and proper federal agencies.

Sheesh. :rolleyes:

what you are saying is that you want to re-define the roll of government. That you want to roll back the clock 100 years or so.
You already lost that argument (over the last hundred years or so) now, do you want to talk spending - I'm game.

You libs fascinate me... we say tomato, you respond "hex-nut".

:lol:

Are you all this thick?
 
Pork passes again

This has got to stop

The House passed a short-term $9 billion relief package. They're expected to vote on bigger package in a couple of weeks.

Care to point out the pork in the short-term package?
 
that's what I thought.

You didn't think... That's where the root of problem lies.

It looks like you and the USMB Wingnut Brigade are the ones who aren't thinking. There is no "pork" in this scaled down version.

Pork by definition is added financail items to a bill. This one has a couple.

So the wingnuts managed to stop almost $52B. in spending? Sounds like their objections were heard.
 
A pork-barrel feast of goodies for federal agencies to fix museum roofs in D.C. and aid fisheries in Alaska, cooked up in the middle of the night, is not the way to aid hurricane victims or run a government.

As if the fallout from agreeing to a bad deal that raises the debt by $4 trillion and accepts a 41-1 ratio in tax hikes to spending cuts weren't enough, Speaker of the House John Boehner has New Jersey's Chris Christie on his case.

"There's only one group to blame," the New Jersey governor said of the Sandy relief bill that was not included in the fiscal cliff deal, "the House Majority and John Boehner."

Christie, the man who hugged President Obama during his post-hurricane photo-op for doing a "good job," can't understand why Boehner, in a brief moment of fiscal sanity, decided the pork-laden Sandy relief bill might need a tad more examination before we rush to fix the roof on the Smithsonian Institution and subsidize fisheries in hurricane-ravaged Alaska.

"The House majority failed the most basic test of leadership," Christie said Wednesday, as the new year dawned, "and they did so with callous disregard to the people of my state."

Except the Sandy bill wasn't just about providing relief to directly impacted areas such as New Jersey and Staten Island.

Democrats had expanded the legislation during a markup to include not only areas affected by Sandy, but also to provide money for all "storm events that occurred in 2012 along the Gulf Coast and Atlantic Coast within the boundaries of the North Atlantic and Mississippi Valley divisions of the Corps that were affected by Hurricanes Sandy and Isaac."

This was done to get red state Republican senators from Alabama, Texas and Mississippi on board, old-fashion vote-buying.

Matt Mayer of the conservative Heritage Foundation slammed the request as an "enormous Christmas gift worth of stuff," and indeed it is. As Heritage reports, the estimate of insured losses from Sandy comes in around $20 billion, only one-third the request.

To start, the relief bill provides some $28 billion for future "disaster-mitigation" projects — spending that at the least is not a middle-of-the-night emergency.

The bill also allocates $100 million for the repair of all 265 Head Start centers around the country. Some Head Start centers in the New York-New Jersey area may have sustained some hurricane damage. But this is, again, a huge cash infusion to the $8 billion a year day-care program that exploits a tragedy.

Then there's more than $8 million to buy cars and equipment for the Homeland Security and Justice departments, $150 million for the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration to dole out to fisheries in Alaska and $2 million for the Smithsonian Institution to repair museum roofs in Washington, D.C.

The bill also includes $207 million for the VA Manhattan Medical Center; $41 million to fix up eight military bases along the storm's path, including Guantanamo Bay, Cuba; $4 million for repairs at Kennedy Space Center in Florida; $3.3 million for the Plum Island Animal Disease Center of New York; and $1.1 million to repair national cemeteries.

Just which of these is a house-on-fire emergency, Gov. Christie?

Heritage's Patrick Louis Knudsen adds that "there is the truly audacious $17 billion in Community Development Block Grant funds, an embarrassingly transparent slush fund."

So how much do the actual victims of Sandy get to fix homes and rebuild their lives? Not much.

Christie should direct his outrage over the "selfishness and duplicity," not at the GOP House and its leadership, but at the Democrats who loaded it up with an assortment of earmarked pork on the theory that a devastating hurricane is a spending opportunity that should not be wasted.



Read More At IBD: Speaker John Boehner Delays Pork-Laden Superstorm Sandy Relief Bill - Investors.com

Democrats could give a shit. It is free and it is from the gubmint.

And anyone who objects is a hater.
 

Forum List

Back
Top