"Majority Leader Eric Cantor said dollars spent for disaster relief should be balanced by new cuts elsewhere in the federal budget"
Is he kidding me? This is not the time to be a political jerk. Every year a budget is passed. Every year there is a disaster somewhere in the US that needs assistance from our government. We help first, we respond and do what we can at first. We stabilize the situation, help the injured, mourn our losses. Then our Government continues to rise by offering assistance for the people affected. This assistance comes on many levels, including offering low to no interest loans to rebuild. This is what we have done throughout history and we pay for it later. We always have, we always will.
While Cantor is jerk, he is joined by the heartless and non-knowing Paul. We really need to clean house in Washington
Wow,American View speaking out in favour of socialism!
No John, speaking out for what is right. But you knew that. Socialism is a free handout. What I am talking about is a loan that the people have to pay back. Huge difference
Of course you are speaking out for what is right, it just so happens to be socialism as well.
what part of it is not a freebie are you missing? Socialism is about freebies
No it's not about freebies man, get that thought right out of your head and you'll be a better man.
I already am a way better man. You can spout all you want, I am against freebies and that is what you are for. Government always giving a freebie. Thats OK if that i where you want to live. But I belive a mna earns his way, or he is not a man
I'm for freebies! That's news to me!
I am for governments using the tax dollars on the people that pay them but that is by no means a freebie.
Remember that governments have no money of their own, al they have is what we give them, their returning it to us either as a grant or a loan is not a freebie, it is our right.
Hey, have you ever had to claim on your car or house insurance? Has the insurer ever refused you money because it exceeds the amount that you have paid them?
No, but then of course you've refused the money because you're a man and don't accept freebies!
Face it, you have spoken out in favour of socialism, live with it.
Stop trying to deflect the facts, and yes, you have argued in other threads for freebies. But if you must know, I only have the insurance that I have to have such as car insurance. I never filed a claim with an insurance company except for the health issues that has arrisen from work. And the Workers Comp insurance refuses to pay, but I am not alone with this particular claim. And yes, I have paid my own way on my Health bills and will pay the $3000,000 plus I currently owe when I get out of here.
Regardless of that, even if I ever did file a claim on an insurance policy, say homeowners, that is something someone paid for in an agreement with a PRIVATE company. Private comany with a contract, governmentt giving freebies, huge difference. But you know that
No AV, it is you who try to deflect the facts!
In what other threads have I argued for freebies?
Why is an agreement signed with a private company more sacrosanct than one signed with your government? And why is the government paying out on an agreement a freebie?
Cite one contract the goverment signed with every person. Again, it is you that are deflecting the difference between private and government.
A contract need not be signed and on a piece of paper, the law recognises verbal and tacit agreements.
I'm not deflecting the difference between private and government but you are.
Ar e you kidding me, Who is it that failed in using an insurace company and compared that to the governmeny? (Insert Jepordy music here) IT was YOU john. I had to explain the difference to you and you still do not get it
Show me in one court that verbal agreement is accepted. I will save you the trouble NONE.
What are you on about? When did I fail in using an insurance company and when did you explain what difference?
Certainly in English courts of law a verbal agreement is as equally binding as a written agreement.
So that's you wrong again.
Sorry, this debate is not about what goes on in England. Your laws do not apply here just as ours do not apply there. IN the US verbal means nothing. I guess I can fly to the UK and claim we had a verbal agreement you will pay me one million dollars and I can take you to court for it. Here, you can file that kind of lawsuit, but you will get a letter in the mail that it will not go to court for you have no just cause. So that is the difference in our debate. You are trying to make an case for things that happen there, but they do not happen that way here. Hence , why we disagree.
Usually when I show the mistakes of the right I never hear from the right, of course when I make even the smallest comment on the left, they come out of the woodwork. This is the first time When I knock a republican that a lefty has commented. Wonders never cease
We have done this throughout history, Obama didn't help Texans when they needed it. Thats ok though, we won't help him get reelected. Just like we didn't help him get elected the first time, maybe it was payback.
Totally was, anyone who thinks different is blind. I was all over Obama for turning his back on Texas. He was like a little child having a temper tantrum. But we will remember.
Texas didn't exactly help itself either. Perry spent months blaming Obama for not sending enough federal aid (despite the fact that FEMA did, in fact, cover 75% of Texas's emergency response costs in fighting the wildfires), but last I heard he was planning to sign a budget cutting funding for the Texas Forest Service (the main state firefighting agency) by a third. If that's true, I'm not sure whether the hypocrisy or the idiocy is more extreme!
JUst wanted to let you know that the Obama Administration rejected 4 requests for the US to declare a disaster. Obama said no each time. Now a Disaster declaration would have meant the HOMEOWNERS would have recieved low interest loans from lenders backed by the government. In fact, FEMA did not cover 75% of the costs. They help procure some grant money for local municipalities to recoup some of their costs for they are small town cities and do not have the monetary resources it took to fight a fire of that magnitude. Two of those grants were to replace the 2 fire apperatus lost in that blaze. The State never recieved one penny in help to offset what they contributed. In addition, it was the State of Texas that granted those low interest loans for all those homeowners that lost their homes. Seems Obama did not care about them. I believe they will not care about him on election day
As I recall, Texas wasn't helpful in Obama's win over McCain.
No, Texas does not approve of Obama. I do not think that will change
So its tit for tat government? Thanks for admitting his corruptness.
Hello, Ralph. Good to see you here.
You’re right about that. Texas hasn't helped a Democrat presidential candidate since Jimmy Carter in 1976. Although McCain won 100% of Texas’ 34 Electoral Votes in 2008, President Obama had 44% of the popular vote. Far from a landslide for McCane.
(http://www.usatoday.com/news/politics/e … 008/tx.htm)
For a guy who keeps threatening to secede from the union, Perry sure is quick to beg for federal help. His requests for a Major Disaster declaration included 252 of Texas's 254 counties, which was a ludicrous exaggeration even before you consider that even some of the counties hardest hit by the fires don't qualify for federal rebuilding aid (only firefighting aid, which many got) because the majority of damaged homes were vacation homes, not primary residences.
Texas owed the Federal Fire Fund $75 million at the beginning of 2011 and they've continued to charge the current fires to the FFF, so if the FEMA FMAGrant gets approved (as of May, 25 already had), Texas only owes 25%, which can be paid, interest free, at its leisure. With a $75 million debt before the 2011 fires even started, it's pretty obvious that Texas has been abusing the federal system, while simultaneously cutting funding to its own state firefighting agencies. Who's looking for "freebies" now?
The grants you keep refering to do not go to the State of Texas, they are grants that go to local municipalities, not just in Texas, but in all States.
During the 2009 and 2010 award periods, the federal Department of Homeland Security through FEMA awarded $39,747,075 to Texas fire departments for firefighting,Through the Assistance to Firefighter Grants, Staffing for Adequate Fire and Emergency Response Grants, Fire Prevention and Safety Grants, and Fire Station Construction Grants. That dollar amount does not include complete data for two of the grant programs (FP&S and FSC) which have not yet provided their information for the 2010 grant application period. In 2009 those two grant programs gave a total of $4,339,014 to Texas.
Now I am sure you do not mean to confuse or mislead the readers but the the fact is Under Section 11 of the Federal Fire Prevention and Control Act of 1974 the Fedral Fire Fund is strictly for wildfires on FEDERAL land. The homes destroyed and the land that was scorched In Texas was not on Federal land, therefore that fund is not applicable to this situation. In addition, that fund does not allow for low interest loans on homes lost. It's sole purpoe is to clean and restore the federal land, like for example the replanting of trees lost in the blaze.
So it appears Texas is not abusing anything. A piece of advise, do not put much stock in an article that says "the word on the street is Texas owes" The "word" is generally always wrong. In fact is this fund is a part of and overseen by the USFA, the USFA is a part of FEMA which gets there funding from the Federal General fund as part of the yearly budget.
"The grants you keep refering to do not go to the State of Texas, they are grants that go to local municipalities"
That's because most of Texas's firefighters are local volunteers and municipal fire departments due to the state forest service having insufficient funds to protect the whole state.
I'm not sure where I implied that the FFF was intended for anything other than firefighting aid. Federal rebuilding aid would come from a Major Disaster declaration, but as I pointed out above, some of the counties that Perry demanded be included in the declaration weren't eligible for federal rebuilding aid even if such a declaration had been made.
Which one ultimately was, by the way: http://www.fema.gov/news/event.fema?id=14975
While most of Texas is Paid or paid assist departments, there are many that are 100% volunteer. Those places do not have the tax base and dearly need and receive State aid, The Grants are something totally else. They are used for many specific purposes,such as apperatus, equiptment, training, and more, not to just add to the budget.
AS for the FFF, you insinuated Texas owes them and Texas is draining the system, when in fact funding comes from Fema, not state payments.
You said "His requests for a Major Disaster declaration included 252 of Texas's 254 counties" You supplied the Fema report that says
“Release Date: August 18, 2011
Release Number: 1999-010
AUSTIN, Texas -- Four additional Texas counties have been designated for federal disaster assistance for wildfires, according to officials with the Texas Division of Emergency Management (TDEM) and the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). This brings the total number of eligible counties to 50.
Notice the release date, it includes the current fires that are burning today that have claimed 170 homes so far. Take notice of the release number. That means the request began in 1999. Also notice that it brings the total counties to 50, not the 252 counties as you claimed. Now let me explain, Since 1999, Texas has applied for Federal Aide for 50 counties. Thats, requests for 50 counties, not 50 seperate requests over 12 years. Now in case you did not know, Perry was not Govenor in 1999.
If you do not like Perry or Texas, that's fine. I am not for Perry either. But please be accurate on your points.
I believe Perry has called SS a "Ponzi scheme" and a "monstrous lie" and that he looks forward to repeal of Medicare and the healthcare reform bill. I can only imagine what he would do to Social Security, given the chance. Fortunately it's not likely he'll get the chance.
"[PERRY:] I don’t think our founding fathers when they were putting the term “general welfare” in there were thinking about a federally operated program of pensions nor a federally operated program of health care. What they clearly said was that those were issues that the states need to address. Not the federal government. I stand very clear on that. From my perspective, the states could substantially better operate those programs if that’s what those states decided to do."
He's almost as looney tunes as Michele Bachman.
More. He did make that comment. People need to stand up and see some of his accomplishments. Since he sold Texas highways to foriegncountries, who knows who he may sell SS to. I cannot understand how he got re-elected in the first place
This election is for the Republicans to lose, and they are doing a good job of it so far
But if the market rules, surely he's right to sell the highways to the highest bidder!
The idea of a nation owning its own highways smacks of socialism to me.
WOW John has nothing to do but stalk me, I am honored. Guess I am cuter than I thought. Sorry John, I am taken
By the way, our nation does not own highways, we maintain them by jurisdiction. Hence the problem Perry created for himself as he is being sue for that action. He has already lost in court on some of what he swold abroad.
So sorry to inform you once more, you are inncorect on socialism.
Nope, under the free market anybody can own anything, remember?
Relly John, Can I come to UK and own you? Unreal, go find something to do.
You said "under the free market anybody can own anything" So since under your belief, I can own anything. So When can I come t the UK and own you? Are you a mutt or do you come with papers?
You said "His requests for a Major Disaster declaration included 252 of Texas's 254 counties"
His original request, which was denied for obvious reasons.
Where are you getting that the FEMA disaster declaration was originally issued in 1999? The numbering appears to be based on number of disaster declarations, not year of issue, unless you think that Irene hit Puerto Rico, North Carolina, New York, and New Jersey in 4017, 4019, 4020, and 4021 respectively:
The actual declaration states that it was issued July 1, 2011 and confirms that the original, denied request was for 252 counties:
Nor does FEMA show any record of any major disaster declarations relating to wildfires from 1999. The only two from Texas that year were Hurricane Bret and some tornadoes:
Do you have a clue? or due you not understand? or do you deliberatly try to twist information
While you are partly right by looking at a table but not looking closly at it, New Jersy is DR 2011-4017, DR 2011-4019 and so on. Now to clarify one thing. In Texas DISASTER claim for 50 counties, they all are from wildfires and that is why they are bundled together. Now NJ has several diasters even though they are all from Irene. One is for storm damage, one is for flooding, one is for infrastructure, and so on.
The request you are now citing is a request for Emergency protective measures, Category B. This was a different application than one for actual wildfires that was also turned down. This was applied for due to the drought and possible fire outbreaks. If you went to the bottom, you would have seen the breakdown per county of the current damages. The government should have turned this one down, there was not enough damage in those counties, and Fema stated that in the report you linked. But if you read it, you knew that.
Hey, I freely admit that my knowledge of FEMA's bureaucratic numbering policies is limited. If I'm wrong, however, you're going to have to break it down for me in little pieces, because I don't see a single shred of evidence supporting your claims that Texas has only applied for federal (wildfire) aid for 50 counties over a 12 year period.
To remind you what you said earlier:
"Notice the release date, it includes the current fires that are burning today that have claimed 170 homes so far. Take notice of the release number. That means the request began in 1999. Also notice that it brings the total counties to 50, not the 252 counties as you claimed. Now let me explain, Since 1999, Texas has applied for Federal Aide for 50 counties. Thats, requests for 50 counties, not 50 seperate requests over 12 years. Now in case you did not know, Perry was not Govenor in 1999."
To borrow New Jersey for comparison, nowhere does this chart say New Jersey is DR 2011-4021, as you claim. If you click on it, this is the closest thing you see to that sort of numbering: Major Disaster Declared August 31, 2011 (DR-4021).
But that is identical to the Texas wildfires' numbering: Major Disaster Declared July 1, 2011 (DR-1999)
So what gives? Why is New Jersey supposedly DR 2011-4021 and Texas DR 1999-???? despite the fact that FEMA shows them both being issued in 2011?
Going back to DR-1999, the release number you cited above (1999-010) is for the 10th news release related to DR-1999. It has nothing to do with the year 1999 and the release date of the news release is plainly stated as being August 18, 2011.
Additionally, the "Designated Counties" listing shows no indication that any of the counties listed are being compensated for anything other than damage sustained during the "Incident Period" between April 6 - May 3, 2011, with 5 additional counties added later. So again, where are you getting the idea that these counties are being compensated for damage going back 12 years?
"The request you are now citing is a request for Emergency protective measures, Category B. This was a different application than one for actual wildfires that was also turned down."
Category B is part of the major disaster declaration he was requesting for the 252 counties. From the declaration:
"On April 16, 2011, Governor Rick Perry requested a major disaster declaration due to wildfires. The Governor requested a declaration for emergency protective measures (Category B) and direct Federal assistance under the Public Assistance program for 252 counties."
"The government should have turned this one down, there was not enough damage in those counties, and Fema stated that in the report you linked."
In other words, Perry exaggerated the extent of the damage in an attempt to get more aid, and FEMA was right to turn him down. That's exactly what I've been saying all along, so I'm not sure why you're arguing with me.
First, I do not have a lifetime to keep explaining when you coninue to twist facts. Do you not see you own posts have no consistancty and keep changing.
I am not arguing, I am mearly pointing out the facts. I do not like Perry, but I will stick to what really happened, not make it look like something else. All I said was the ONE particular FEMA request should have been turned down. Perry was doing it as a defensive measure, but that is not how the system works. The preventitive measure is for events we know are coming like Katrina so that FEMA can deploy assets before the disaster hits. Inthis case, Perry was trying to set uo relief for something that did not happen yet and there was no expectaion there was going to be one.
THe rest, including the current one should be honored, but it will not for political reasons. So I guess Texas willhave to make more loans
I'm inconsistent? I am not the one blasting Obama for not doing enough to aid Texas while simultaneously admitting that the original relief request was inappropriate and was rightfully denied.
He ultimately did grant the declaration for the 50 counties of the original 252 that actually needed it, as well as issuing 45 firefighting assistance grants to fight various Texas wildfires since February of this year and sending federal firefighters and equipment from other states, so it's not clear to me what else you think Obama should have done - granted the original inappropriate request for aid and allowed Texas to abuse the system?
You are just completly clueless. There was no original there are seperate ISSUES DO YOU GET IT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! The one FEMA request was aplied for as a pre- emptive on possible fires due to the drought, like all states do when a confirmed disaster is on the way like katrina or Irene. FOLLOWING SO FAR. There was no such disaster at that time. He listed total damages from small incidents but none of it meets the treshold of a disaster so it was turned down. After all, no one can predict when A major fire will erupt. FOLLOWING. THe next FEMA request was for actual disasters and to this dat Obama has turned them all down FOLLOWING. The low interest loans that went to the homeowners was done by the State Of Texas, Not FEMA. STILL FOLLOWING. THe federal goverment does not send firefighter and equiptment from any where to any where. He does not have that authority. Only a chief of district or Department can request Mutual aid from another district or department. Most times, other states call and ask if they would like help. FOLLOWING THAT PART. Once more, the grants you keep refering to went to local municipalities, not the State of Texas. The State does not apply for those grants, but in the report it shows how many grants and dollars went to Departments in the State of Texas. DO YOU SEE THE DIFFERENCE. You cannot take a report that show fungs that went into Texas as funds recieved BY Texas. Huge difference.
And as for inconsistent All one need to do is read you last statement. Since as you agree and stated the aid requsest was turned down, why do you insist they got that money and are abusing the system? Either they ot it or they did not get it. You are just so confused. Time for you to get a new hobby. I am done, cannot explain something to someone who just twists it all around trying to justify their incorrect points.
Are you really talking to yourself or does this refer to another post? If so, which?
I have been talking this entire time about ONE specific request, which I have linked to repeatedly and which was made April 16, 2011, by Governor Perry, denied by FEMA on May 3, appealed by Perry on May 26th, and subsequently GRANTED (for 45 out of the original 252 counties requested, with 5 additional counties added later) on July 1 following damage assessments by federal, state, and local authorities. If you're talking about a different request, that may account for some of the misunderstanding. However, it would be helpful if you could provide information about exactly what other request you're talking about, since otherwise it just looks like you're claiming that Obama didn't grant a request that he clearly did.
The 45 loans are a separate issue, but as I said above, it's irrelevant whether they went to the state of Texas or to local Texan municipalities because the state of Texas doesn't fund its firefighting program well enough to have adequate state firefighters in the first place, so municipalities would end up fighting the fires either way. It's only right, given the state's irresponsibility on this matter, that local areas should end up with the money.
You still do not get it The 50 counties you keep refering to was not a part of the Fema requset that was turned down, It was a seperate request. And Obama has turned them both down INCLUDING THE CURRENT REQUET FOR PALO PINTO WHICH IS ALL OVER THE NEWS WITH OVER 170 HOMES LOST!!!!!!!!! I am sure that you have an excuse for that too. You just cannot grip reality and facts. As I said earlier, you need to find something else to do
B the way, do you think Gov Bobby Gindel is abusing the system for filing his FEMA disaster request for "13" which will become a tropical storm? You claim Perry was abusive for doing the same thing. But do you see the difference between the 2 requests? One request is based on an actual event that is going to happen, so it should be approved. The other was based on the guess that because of a state wide drought wildfires may occur, thats why that one was turned down. But I am sure you cannot not.
ANd lastly, as I said earlier and will say it again, you keep twisting the fact . You now say "The 45 loans are a separate issue" even though you made the suject relevenat. But there are NO LOANS!!! so where did you get that one from. You just keep changing your story.
In reality FEMA passed 24 FMAGS " A FEMA spokesperson confirmed that the agency awarded Texas 25 "FMAGS" this fire season. The representative couldn't put a dollar amount on the how much the grants were for.
The FMAGS help firefighters pay for things such as equipment repairs, food and shelter. The funds do not help fire victims with recovery efforts."
DOES NOT HELP VICTIMS!!!!!!! The FEMA request for 50 counties was to help the victims, BUT THAT WAS TURNED DOWN BY OBAMA
This is what you are hanging you hat on, a FEMA disaster halp that occured in 2006. THey could care less about the 400 plus homes and now the 170 plus homes that have been destroyed
"In 2006, Texas was granted a disaster declaration -- and $19 million in federal aid -- after 1.9 million acres burned, according to FEMA.
You keep talking about this other request, but you have yet to offer any proof of its existence, unless you are counting the appeal of the first request as a separate request. Hint: it's not.
"On April 16, 2011, Governor Rick Perry requested a major disaster declaration due to wildfires. The Governor requested a declaration for emergency protective measures (Category B) and direct Federal assistance under the Public Assistance program for 252 counties. On May 3, 2011, Governor Perry was notified that his request was denied. Governor Perry appealed the denial on May 26, 2011 for a major disaster declaration during the period of April 6 to May 3, 2011. During the period of May 2-6, 2011, joint Federal, State, and local Preliminary Damage Assessments (PDAs) were conducted in the requested counties and are summarized below. [...]
On July 1, 2011, President Obama declared that a major disaster exists in the State of Texas. This declaration made Public Assistance requested by the Governor available to State and eligible local governments and certain private nonprofit organizations on a cost-sharing basis for emergency protective measures (Category B), including direct Federal assistance in Andrews, Archer, Armstrong, Bailey, Baylor, Brewster, Callahan, Carson, Castro, Clay, Coleman, Concho, Cottle, Crockett, Dawson, Duval, Eastland, Garza, Glasscock, Hall, Hemphill, Hockley, Irion, Kent, King, Lynn, Martin, Mason, Mitchell, Moore, Motley, Pecos, Presidio, Scurry, Stephens, Sterling, Sutton, Terrell, Terry, Throckmorton, Tom Green, Trinity, Tyler, Val Verde, and Young Counties."
That is ONE request and it was GRANTED by Obama following Perry's appeal and the PDAs.
Palo Pinto is one of the five counties (as of today, it's actually now six) that was added to the major disaster declaration later, on August 18th, so the request for Palo Pinto to be included in the major disaster declaration was also GRANTED, not refused as you keep claiming. If there has been another request for Palo Pinto since Aug. 18th that was denied, Google is not turning up any evidence of it for me.
"But there are NO LOANS!!!"
I said loans when I meant grants. That was my bad. However, the correct number is 45 FMAGs, not 25. 25 had been issued as of May, so you may be relying on an outdated source.
"The FMAGS help firefighters pay for things such as equipment repairs, food and shelter. The funds do not help fire victims with recovery efforts."
As I said earlier, I also never implied that FMAGs were intended to help with rebuilding efforts and have no idea how you got the idea that I did, unless you're confusing the discussion of DR-1999, the major disaster declaration (which does), with the discussion of the FMAGs.
"The FEMA request for 50 counties was to help the victims, BUT THAT WAS TURNED DOWN BY OBAMA"
No, it was initially turned down, then granted on appeal following damage assessments. I don't see how this is such a difficult concept to grasp. You do know what an appeal process is?
"This is what you are hanging you hat on, a FEMA disaster halp that occured in 2006."
The 2006 major disaster declaration was DR-1624: http://www.fema.gov/news/event.fema?id=5765
We are discussing DR-1999: http://www.fema.gov/news/event.fema?id=14975
Please keep them straight.
When did Perry threaten to secede from the United States? I think its another case of liberal hyperbole.
http://www.politifact.com/texas/stateme … nted-sece/
Current Texas fire has destroyed 174 homes so far. Guess Obama will not declare a disaster again, then maybe he will looking for campaign points
Howdy, Rep. I may be a little late, but welcome to Hubpages.
No disrespect intended. I was just struck by your comment above and had to throw in my own little bit of humor. I chuckled when I read “we won't help him get reelected.” Since you also said, "we didn't help him get elected the first time", maybe he won’t need your help next time either.
Just a thought, Rep. Enjoy your evening.
They are both irresponsible jerks. Cantor is worse than Paul. I think he stepped on his you-know-what this time.
American, I appreciate your comments. I wrote an ebook on Cantor. His picture is on it. I go into the real motives that he has for doing what he is doing. Secret: it is all about blowing another housing bubble.
I know I am going to regret this, but what does his pitiful budget, what he wants to do to SS and Medicare have to do with another bubble
By cutting massively, and by deflating the economy massively, he and Ryan have budgeted in a housing bubble as a means to cut unemployment and jumpstart the economy. This is very DANGEROUS to the middle class.
It is desperation at work. And it is because they are funded by hedge funds that created the last bubble. Big time funded.
Sorry, but that makes no sense what so ever, I knew I was going to regret asking
You don't need to regret asking. Just read Katya's article at BI that exposes Cantor's backers, hedge funds, the same ones that caused the original housing bubble:
http://www.businessinsider.com/eric-can … ton-2011-7
Um, disaster money comes straight out of the deficit. And as you say, there will always be disasters so this is adding to the huge debt.
It should be budgeted for, that's only logical. "Socialist" countries like New Zealand have a civil defense fund for this purpose.
FEMA has a budget, but it never covers all that happens. Hard to budget for what we do not know is coming
Actually the core costs in the US are drawn directly from the debt. FEMA has only routine operational funding like salaries and equipment, not funding for compensation paid to those who lose property or family members (e.g. widows).
This is radically different to what most other countries do, in terms of having a emergency fund or multiple funds paid into every year and drawn down in emergency.
New Zealand for example has a specific earthquake fund which was recently exhausted due to unprecedented multiple quakes and they are deciding how to replenish it (e.g. special tax, general tax and or cuts).
I hadn't heard this, but I'm not surprised. Disaster relief helps the American people. Of course they begrudge the expenditure. I didn't see anyone rushing to figure out where the hundred of billions were going to be made up when Wall street had their disaster relief. I don't remember Bush even bringing that up.
I could be wrong.
This is not a free handout. The people have to pay this money back. So there is no reason for the US gov to not help. Cantor is out of line calling it an expenditure.
I know. And I agree with you. It's simply that anything that will directly benefit the American people, even if it washes out and is paid back in the long run, will of course be seen as a burden in the short term by Washington. Why would our taxes dollars be used to benefit us?
With all of the taxes we pay,not only income,what is Disaster Aide for? Peoples whole lives are now a political football? Insurers are raising rates also, for what ,using your policy? This place is beginning to be a joke.
You're not surpised by this are you?
Cantor and co. made it very clear they don't care for anyone under six figures and up.
People voted for them anyway!
They are getting what they voted for.
We tried to tell them it was Bush on steroids....All they could say was Nobama Nobama.
This attitude is what the rabid right live by....get used to it, and worse!
Unfortunately, the rest of us have to suffer too.
If SocSec is a Ponzi scheme, it's the longest-running and most successful in history. The real Ponzi scheme and "monstrous lie" would be privatizing SocSec and Medicare. If what happened to pension funds in the last decade is an example, SocSec in the hands of Wall Street and Big Money would absolutely guarantee it would go bankrupt in a very short time. The fraud and waste in Medicare DOES have to be stopped, but repealing it is NOT the answer.
Right on, JamaGenee!
I think he's also talked about Texas seceding.
*doing a double take*
I agree with you, AV, on three major posts here.
1. Cantor is a jerk.
2. Perry is a jerk.
3. The Republicans are doing a great job losing 2012.
I think I should stop posting and savor this historical HP forums trifecta!
"Eric and Irene" by Paul Krugman
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/02/opini … ef=opinion
Thanks for that,Ralph.
VERY Well stated.
Of course, the usual naysayers will be quick to ridicule the source (Paul Krugman) as a hack economist.
They always do.
He is a hack. Even a broken clock is right twice a day. But Cantor is a true idiot using the budget as a political tool. True Americans come to the aid of people in need. We worry about the rest later. COntor is showing he may not be red, white and blue
You are really, really scaring me, AV.
We seem to be agreeing on everything all of a sudden!*
How can this be?
Oh well, I'm not complaining.
*The Cantor part, not the Krugman part.
I get this all the time. I keep telling everyone I am an independent. I do not take either sied serious and check on it and post what I believe is correct. When Its for the left, the right is fairly quiet, when its for the right, they come out of the woodwork and attack. Though In another thread I was pointing out something that was a left idea and I agreed with it, and I had one of the left guys who go after me in other thread, went after me there, and I was agreeing with him LOL.
MM at least while we do not always agree, we talk without the bantor or name calling and that is why you have my respect. Take care
Right you are, AV.
While Congress may be acting like kindergartners (note to hubbers: see other forum thread started by AV today), I'm proud to say we conduct ourselves at a substantially higher level of decorum.
6th grade, at least, don't you agree?
You read this right, in answer to your question about Eric Cantor, hedge funds and his desire for a housing bubble:
http://www.businessinsider.com/eric-can … ton-2011-7
He also wants to make aid to Israel a permanent part of our budget. He is a Zionist, working for Israel! IMO.
“An israel-first zionist like Cantor doesn't give **** about Americans. His main interest, like all the ZionCons, is keeping us suckered into bleeding in wars to "protect" zionist crimes against humanity in Palestine.
Republican Rep. Eric Cantor Brags About Committing Treason
.... Eric Cantor (R-VA) ... has joined the ranks of treasonous legislators, and taken it further by breaking a Federal law. Cantor engaged in talks with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu the same day that the U.S. Secretary of State met with Netanyahu, and vowed that he and his GOP colleagues would protect and defend Israeli interests against his own Government; the United States of America....
It is against The Logan Act, a Federal Law, to deal with a foreign government against the government of the United States. Cantor’s actions are a direct violation of the Logan Act and he should be impeached, indicted, convicted and imprisoned to the full extent of the law. The Logan Act states:...
If Republicans truly care about America, they will prosecute Cantor for treason under the Logan Act for working with a foreign government against the interests of the United States of America. However, hypocrisy is the hallmark of the Republican Party, and they will be true to their hypocrisy by letting Eric Cantor get away with treason. It is the Republican way."
I would like to add that Tea-Bagger Marco Rubio flew straight to Israel after he won his election. Why?
"Lawless extremists infest Congress like crabgrass besets lawns. House Foreign Affairs Committee Chairwoman Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (R. FL) is one of the worst.
On August 30, (with 57 co-sponsors) she introduced “HR 2829: To promote transparency, accountability, and reform within the United Nation system, and for other purposes.”
It’s also called the “United Nations Transparency, Accountability, and Reform Act of 2011.”
The bill was referred to the House Foreign Affairs committee she heads.
If enacted, her bill will slash UN contributions and punish its organizations for embracing full Palestinian rights.
It “(o)pposes efforts by the Palestinian leadership to evade a negotiated settlement with Israel” by seeking UN recognition, and “(w)ithholds US contributions from any UN agency or program that upgrades the status of the PLO/Palestinian observer mission.”
The UN Relief and Works Agency (UNRWA), providing humanitarian aid to Palestinian refugees and Gazans under siege will be specifically targeted by her bill."
Can anyone please tell me why an American Congressperson is doing this? How does this concern America? The money we give to the UNRWA?
But what of the money we give Israel? And Rubio said that Social security and medicare "hand-outs" "weakens" people. Are we not "weakening" foreign country's
by giving them aid?
Why are Cantor, Rubio and Ros-Lethin so concerned with Israel?
I thought their big goal was Jobs Jobs Jobs? For Americans!
Republicans: Where do your loyalties lie? Dems too, for that matter!!
WHAT IS GOING ON HERE?
by JOC 2 years ago
This article tended to resonate with how the left and the right view the issue.https://www.nytimes.com/2019/02/07/opin … union.html
by Claire Evans 5 years ago
Very rarely do I see a forum thread on Islam. I have not seen an atheist who has started a thread on Islam insulting Mohammed or Allah or just speaking out against them. Christianity and Jesus seem to be the target. I know it is because the US, for example, is considered a...
by kirstenblog 10 years ago
This time the socialist movement in America is targeting puppy mills. That's right ladies and gentlemen, big government wants to control those puppy mills. Your god given constitutional right to own a dog is at stake here people! Force those puppy mills to give the animals adequate food, shelter...
by Susie Lehto 4 years ago
My name is Danney Lee Williams, I'm the son of the 42nd President of the United States Bill Clinton. All I want to do is shake my father's hand. I have requested a DNA test.* https://www.facebook.com/Danney-William … 276415563/Danney says he was banished by Hillary Clinton. Black lives...
by ga anderson 15 months ago
Sanders' positive comments about Cuba's socialism prompted a look around.I found plenty of anti-Bernie thoughts, but I kept looking until I found one that I thought was least biasedMy thoughts:First, Cuba has a lot of problems, and not a few of them are caused by American sanctions. So, we are not...
by Kathryn L Hill 2 years ago
Everyone knows it is not fair to tax someone just because they generate huge amounts of money. Yet the democratic/(Left-influenced)/youth take the rich for granted targeting them just for being successful. The rich already pay a higher tax rate. The rich are people too. Why take unfair advantage of...
Copyright © 2021 Maven Media Brands, LLC and respective content providers on this website. HubPages® is a registered trademark of Maven Coalition, Inc. Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners. Maven Media Brands, LLC and respective content providers to this website may receive compensation for some links to products and services on this website.
|HubPages Device ID||This is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.|
|Login||This is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.|
|HubPages Traffic Pixel||This is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized.|
|Remarketing Pixels||We may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites.|
|Conversion Tracking Pixels||We may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service.|