How will the GOP congress members will vote for aid in Texas
Will they vote like they did in 2012
https://www.dallasnews.com/news/weather/...y-spending
Or will they be hypocrites and vote for aid ?
My guess is they are like any other typical republican got to get mine and the hell with anybody else
Now Private spellchecker how did I do ?
vector Wrote:How will the GOP congress members will vote for aid in Texas
Will they vote like they did in 2012
https://www.dallasnews.com/news/weather/...y-spending
Or will they be hypocrites and vote for aid ?
My guess is they are like any other typical republican got to get mine and the hell with anybody else
Now Private spellchecker how did I do ?
I just figured your pet monkey typed it for you..
vector Wrote:How will the GOP congress members will vote for aid in Texas
Will they vote like they did in 2012
https://www.dallasnews.com/news/weather/...y-spending
Or will they be hypocrites and vote for aid ?
My guess is they are like any other typical republican got to get mine and the hell with anybody else
Now Private spellchecker how did I do ?
Nobody wants to see other people tearing up their cars in wrecks, or having their houses burned down, or facing down a bad medical condition without having health insurance, or having their house flooded out without flood insurance, (which can be relatively cheap BTW). Still, insurance costs money, and because of that fact many people choose not to purchase insurance, especially flood insurance. But people are in real trouble and this is not the time to say I told you so. That's why most of the adults in my family have determined to send financial aid to Texas.
I hate it for those in Texas who were under covered or not covered at all. But if you drive your car uninsured, you should bear the financial burden of any property damage you caused while driving without it. I know the law makes sure everybody in my family has car insurance and house insurance. If not, they get a notice in very short order telling us we have but a few days to get it or else. Why in the world people think they deserve to be bailed out or patted on the head for every possible moral lapse is beyond me. Their ain't no car fairy and there ain't no house fairy. There shouldn't be a health care fairy or a food fairy, or a hud fairy, or a cell phone fairy either, but you can't tell Dems that. They all believe it's government's job to force people already struggling under a mountain of financial responsibility of their own, to pay for what others don't want to. And that's the way Dem supporters all vote.
That's why the men and women of the rust belt rose up against the Democrats last time and that's why it will happen again in 2018.
Bob Seger Wrote:I just figured your pet monkey typed it for you..
Wrong again Robert it was Mrs Segaer who helped me type it while I was working on my NIGHT MOVES
Bob Seger Wrote:I just figured your pet monkey typed it for you..
:biglmao: I actually thought a monkey would have done a little better than that.
vector's one of those people whose itching ears always take him to an MSNBC-like news outlet, so that he can get all charged up with fake news.
The Sandy relief bill (Disaster Relief Appropriations Act) was in fact LOADED with pork spending. Yes, the storm relief funding was in there, but so too were 2 million dollars to fix the roof of the Smithsonian. So was 4 million for the Kennedy Space Center, 50 million for the National Parks Service, and a whopping 16 Billion for some kind of slush fund to be used by the individual states for non specific "events."
America is in financial free fall. We now owe a mind numbing 20 Trillion dollars in public debt, and the unfunded liabilities (things like past, present and future government pensions) presently stands at the even more impossible level of over 210 Trillion. I say we can't pay that amount, much less with the insanity of ObamaCare and the absolutely endless demands for more and more welfare benefits for the able bodied added to it. Of course, the rationale for those who push the insanity, like Schumer and Pelosi, is that we need more artists. And they need the free time on the taxpayer dollar to create. :please: And these are the guys on a hunt down after the President, who's trying his best to delivers us from under the control of the blissfully naïve.
The point is this. If the relief bill for Sandy had been a clean bill, the Texas delegation would have voted for it. But it was not, it added to our already impossible debt and here we are again, beset with yet another of an endless stream of national disasters, the cost for which we are poised to stack on top of that. Why? Because Hurricane Sandy is by no means yet a settled debt for the taxpayer and we must now ante up again. The Congressmen from Texas had it right if you ask me. Let's deal with the effects of the storm only, and let entities like the Smithsonian Institute fend for themselves this time.
Meanwhile back in La-La Land, vector and the Democrat leadership try to paint lucid minded and fiscally responsible legislators such as the Texas delegation, as callous and selfish rich white men who don't care about the downtrodden. When in fact those very Congressmen see a vast and black ice water ocean laying out there past the temporary safety of the gunwales. And the music being played on the decks by placid faced Dems, offers little solace to those of us who deal in reality. Because we know this particular ship of state is going down, and like those doomed of the Titanic, those icy black waters await.
vector Wrote:Wrong again Robert it was Mrs Segaer who helped me type it while I was working on my NIGHT MOVES
More evidence that you were not the typist of anything that was correctly done...You would think that any moron would be able to look at my name and then type it correctly....It's no wonder you have held the #1 postion for all these years and still counting..
Keep up the good work vector.
TheRealThing Wrote:vector's one of those people whose itching ears always take him to an MSNBC-like news outlet, so that he can get all charged up with fake news.
The Sandy relief bill (Disaster Relief Appropriations Act) was in fact LOADED with pork spending. Yes, the storm relief funding was in there, but so too were 2 million dollars to fix the roof of the Smithsonian. So was 4 million for the Kennedy Space Center, 50 million for the National Parks Service, and a whopping 16 Billion for some kind of slush fund to be used by the individual states for non specific "events."
America is in financial free fall. We now owe a mind numbing 20 Trillion dollars in public debt, and the unfunded liabilities (things like past, present and future government pensions) presently stands at the even more impossible level of over 210 Trillion. I say we can't pay that amount, much less with the insanity of ObamaCare and the absolutely endless demands for more and more welfare benefits for the able bodied added to it. Of course, the rationale for those who push the insanity, like Schumer and Pelosi, is that we need more artists. And they need the free time on the taxpayer dollar to create. :please: And these are the guys on a hunt down after the President, who's trying his best to delivers us from under the control of the blissfully naïve.
The point is this. If the relief bill for Sandy had been a clean bill, the Texas delegation would have voted for it. But it was not, it added to our already impossible debt and here we are again, beset with yet another of an endless stream of national disasters, the cost for which we are poised to stack on top of that. Why? Because Hurricane Sandy is by no means yet a settled debt for the taxpayer and we must now ante up again. The Congressmen from Texas had it right if you ask me. Let's deal with the effects of the storm only, and let entities like the Smithsonian Institute fend for themselves this time.
Meanwhile back in La-La Land, vector and the Democrat leadership try to paint lucid minded and fiscally responsible legislators such as the Texas delegation, as callous and selfish rich white men who don't care about the downtrodden. When in fact those very Congressmen see a vast and black ice water ocean laying out there past the temporary safety of the gunwales. And the music being played on the decks by placid faced Dems, offers little solace to those of us who deal in reality. Because we know this particular ship of state is going down, and like those doomed of the Titanic, those icy black waters await.
I respect your fiscal conservatism and your views on individual responsibility.
But what do you propose instead, given the gravity of the situation. The time for buying insurance is over. There's hundreds of thousands that are going to be catastrophically effected by this disaster. While I respect your fiscal constraint, you can't possibly be proposing that we just allow these people to fend for themselves and let survival of the fittest weed out the weak. We could bail these guys out, with a condition that they pay it back in some form or fashion. Perhaps keep the bailout on hold unless texas passes a state tax increase with the increase earmarked to the federal government. Or offer assistance in the form of interest free long term loans. Targeted tax cuts, etc.
But under your proposal, should a mega tsunami hit the entire east coast and leave tens of millions dead and homeless, we should just turn a blind eye to it because they weren't properly insured.
I think if you consider the cost analysis you will find it cheaper to fund a large scale rebuilding of Houston than allow them to be absorbed long-term into the current governement assistance programs. When you combine the costs of economic losses, and real asset losses, mixed with current government programs such as disaster relief, unemployment, welfare, foodstamps, hud, etc.... it'd be cheaper to spend 20 billion to rebuild it as quick as possible. Also, because of 10 refineries being down currently and some indefinitely... we're lookin at a disaster for gas prices in the near and long term. This will effect us all at the pocket level, macro and micro economies as well. Loss of a few points on GDP will increase deficits for a much longer period of time than just shelling out the 20 billion to rebuild.
I'd much rather just turn a blind eye and say they should have been prepared. But they weren't. And I can't. And I strongly believe the idea I laid out above --- because of the multitude of safety nets in place, and the strong probability of these people being absorbed into the programs for a very long period of time, it only makes sense to pass a bill funding a rebuilding program that begins immediately. It'll be cheaper, and will keep GDP up, and deficits down.
What are your thoughts on this post?
You didn't ask for my thoughts but I think you meant "affected".
ronald reagan Wrote:I respect your fiscal conservatism and your views on individual responsibility.
But what do you propose instead, given the gravity of the situation. The time for buying insurance is over. There's hundreds of thousands that are going to be catastrophically effected by this disaster. While I respect your fiscal constraint, you can't possibly be proposing that we just allow these people to fend for themselves and let survival of the fittest weed out the weak. We could bail these guys out, with a condition that they pay it back in some form or fashion. Perhaps keep the bailout on hold unless texas passes a state tax increase with the increase earmarked to the federal government. Or offer assistance in the form of interest free long term loans. Targeted tax cuts, etc.
But under your proposal, should a mega tsunami hit the entire east coast and leave tens of millions dead and homeless, we should just turn a blind eye to it because they weren't properly insured.
I think if you consider the cost analysis you will find it cheaper to fund a large scale rebuilding of Houston than allow them to be absorbed long-term into the current governement assistance programs. When you combine the costs of economic losses, and real asset losses, mixed with current government programs such as disaster relief, unemployment, welfare, foodstamps, hud, etc.... it'd be cheaper to spend 20 billion to rebuild it as quick as possible. Also, because of 10 refineries being down currently and some indefinitely... we're lookin at a disaster for gas prices in the near and long term. This will effect us all at the pocket level, macro and micro economies as well. Loss of a few points on GDP will increase deficits for a much longer period of time than just shelling out the 20 billion to rebuild.
I'd much rather just turn a blind eye and say they should have been prepared. But they weren't. And I can't. And I strongly believe the idea I laid out above --- because of the multitude of safety nets in place, and the strong probability of these people being absorbed into the programs for a very long period of time, it only makes sense to pass a bill funding a rebuilding program that begins immediately. It'll be cheaper, and will keep GDP up, and deficits down.
What are your thoughts on this post?
Like I said, if I drive a car without insurance and I have a wreck it is not right to expect those who
do pay for insurance to bail me out. The only thing different here is the scale of loss. When I lived in Port Arthur, Texas, any meaningful rain resulted in the streets being flooded for hours. Insurance underwriters in the area strongly recommend flood insurance, though under the law it is not mandatory. As I said, MANY people choose not to buy flood insurance, and many more merely live in apartment complexes, meaning their losses are over time, replaceable.
People do suffer loss you know, that is just the way of things. I believe Government's responsibility is in the restoration of the environment such as dams, levies, bridges and highways, the clean up and containment of contaminants, interim pubic safety, as well as providing immediate relief in the form of food, water and shelter. Add to that after all the emergency actions are done, the condemning and removal of buildings and structures that are no longer fit for use. The utility companies will have by that time assumedly, restored their services and life goes on. All of these things represent incredible cost. But if the government can force me to foot the bill for ObamaCare, they can darn well force me to buy flood insurance in flood prone areas too. The replacement of personal belongings is not the purview of the federal government.
IMO, there will be massive charitable giving associated with Hurricane Harvey. and that will help towards the restoration of personal situations immensely. And, that's by no means turning a blind eye, but let's get real here. There is a decided echo to be heard inside the vaults of the federal treasury. And even in a hurricane 2+2 still equals 4.