Following the recent catastrophic F5 that hit Oklahoma Senator James Inhofe a republican is asking for federal aid. This is the same senator that argued against aid for hurricane Sandy aid. He is also known in the past for musing such as "The(Obama) administration is the one victimizing the sandy hook tragedy", and (paraphrased) " it is asinine to think that humans could effect global warming because they cannot effect what god does."
Truth is as an American each of these things is the same, however Mr. Inhof actually said that sandy relief and relief for his state was not the same thing because the bill had other things attached. Truth is the sandy relief bill was being worked on at the end of a legislation period(right before the holidays) and it is often that legislators add other less pressing issues to bills of high priority to get more done in less time. Mr. Inhof is a prime example of hypocrisy in our politics and where a two party system is flawed.
Source first video of this playlist.(sorry for kinda subpar source was what I found on reddit.)
In life all we can do is try to make things better. Sitting lost in old ways and fearing change only makes us outdated and ignorant.
Peace cannot be kept by force. It can only be achieved by understanding.
Albert Einstein
Millions of innocent men, women and children, since the introduction of Christianity, have been burnt, tortured, fined and imprisoned; yet we have not advanced one inch towards uniformity.
Following the recent catastrophic F5 that hit Oklahoma Senator James Inhofe a republican is asking for federal aid. This is the same senator that argued against aid for hurricane Sandy aid. He is also known in the past for musing such as "The(Obama) administration is the one victimizing the sandy hook tragedy", and (paraphrased) " it is asinine to think that humans could effect global warming because they cannot effect what god does."
Truth is as an American each of these things is the same, however Mr. Inhof actually said that sandy relief and relief for his state was not the same thing because the bill had other things attached. Truth is the sandy relief bill was being worked on at the end of a legislation period(right before the holidays) and it is often that legislators add other less pressing issues to bills of high priority to get more done in less time. Mr. Inhof is a prime example of hypocrisy in our politics and where a two party system is flawed.
Source first video of this playlist.(sorry for kinda subpar source was what I found on reddit.)
In this case, whether he is right or wrong we should not punish the people of OK who are suffering for things this one guy said or did.
This is what I said in the last part...it was quite wordy and probably hard to understand. Hopefully these constituents of his see how terrible this guy is though.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
In life all we can do is try to make things better. Sitting lost in old ways and fearing change only makes us outdated and ignorant.
Peace cannot be kept by force. It can only be achieved by understanding.
Albert Einstein
Millions of innocent men, women and children, since the introduction of Christianity, have been burnt, tortured, fined and imprisoned; yet we have not advanced one inch towards uniformity.
This is what I said in the last part...it was quite wordy and probably hard to understand. Hopefully these constituents of his see how terrible this guy is though.
Lol, why would they? He's getting them tornado relief
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"Proving god exists isn't hard. Proving god is God is the tricky part" - Roommate
Wait, how is it unreasonable to vote against a bill that included a bunch of stuff you oppose but also included one provision for disaster relief while you vote for a disaster aid bill standing by itself? Since when did it become unreasonable to be critical of Congres's tendency to package things together and shame people for voting against popular things? Sounds more like principles than hypocrisy to me.
Wait, how is it unreasonable to vote against a bill that included a bunch of stuff you oppose but also included one provision for disaster relief while you vote for a disaster aid bill standing by itself? Since when did it become unreasonable to be critical of Congres's tendency to package things together and shame people for voting against popular things? Sounds more like principles than hypocrisy to me.
exactly that was the issue with the sandy bill. it had about 1000 things in there that didn't have anything to do with the sandy.
it should be illegal to attached riders to these types of bills that have nothing to do with the bill itself.
I don't see any hypocrisy here. the didn't oppose the sandy bill because of the relief but because of the billion of dollars that were going to the relief but the 1000 pet projects of senators.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Thanks to Epic Graphics the best around. Thanks to Nex3 for the avatar visit ye old sig and avatar forum
You might actually want to look at what he called "pork" in the Sandy bill - he's completely full of crap.
Hurricane Sandy hit lots of things other than the massively effected areas - guess what all that pork was i.e. the most expensive one ($2m) for new roofing for the Smithsonian? It was an odd out of area damage from Sandy as well.
It was a wide-reaching bill, much like the hurricane, but it wasn't "pork laden" unless you consider various repairs to Sandy incurred damage to be "pork".
Most sane people would not. The dude is a huge hypocrite.
You might actually want to look at what he called "pork" in the Sandy bill - he's completely full of crap.
Hurricane Sandy hit lots of things other than the massively effected areas - guess what all that pork was i.e. the most expensive one ($2m) for new roofing for the Smithsonian? It was an odd out of area damage from Sandy as well.
It was a wide-reaching bill, much like the hurricane, but it wasn't "pork laden" unless you consider various repairs to Sandy incurred damage to be "pork".
Most sane people would not. The dude is a huge hypocrite.
I have read the bill, and I have seen the huge lists of additional spending that were in it that have absolutely nothing to do with the hurricane, or even the area in which the hurricane devastated. This has been a perpetual problem for quite some time, where extras "pork" get added into bills that have nothing to do with the purpose of the bill itself end up causing problems for the passage of the bill. If you insist, Ill go through the bill, make a list of the unrelated things, and post it here. I can guarantee that if those extra things weren't included in the bill, that it would have passed easily and without issue and quite likely unanimously. As much as the republicans like to be made out to be obstructionist, there have been quite a number of incidents, as with the initial sandy hurricane bill, that have had directly-unrelated things added, and were opposed because they wanted that stuff taken out and only solely having directly-related content within the bill.
If you truly believe that he or anyone else would have not voted for it if only directly-related spending was included in the bill, then please feel free to show evidence as such. I personally do not believe that to be true. I firmly believe that if so many additional items were not included in the bill, that it would have passed, quite likely, unanimously, or darned close to it.
Wait, how is it unreasonable to vote against a bill that included a bunch of stuff you oppose but also included one provision for disaster relief while you vote for a disaster aid bill standing by itself? Since when did it become unreasonable to be critical of Congres's tendency to package things together and shame people for voting against popular things? Sounds more like principles than hypocrisy to me.
This whole thread serves to make one political party look bad.
Following the recent catastrophic F5 that hit Oklahoma Senator James Inhofe a republican is asking for federal aid. This is the same senator that argued against aid for hurricane Sandy aid. He is also known in the past for musing such as "The(Obama) administration is the one victimizing the sandy hook tragedy", and (paraphrased) " it is asinine to think that humans could effect global warming because they cannot effect what god does."
Truth is as an American each of these things is the same, however Mr. Inhof actually said that sandy relief and relief for his state was not the same thing because the bill had other things attached. Truth is the sandy relief bill was being worked on at the end of a legislation period(right before the holidays) and it is often that legislators add other less pressing issues to bills of high priority to get more done in less time. Mr. Inhof is a prime example of hypocrisy in our politics and where a two party system is flawed.
Source first video of this playlist.(sorry for kinda subpar source was what I found on reddit.)
I think you're trying too hard here. He voted against the SH bill because it had other things tied to it. The real question you should be asking is, why did Democrats in Congress try to get these things passed by attaching them to a federal relief bill for Sandy Hook?
And even putting that aside, this is one of those cases where you just have to be a hypocrite if it works out that way. That is certainly a better option than not requesting aid after part of your state got ravaged by a tornado.
I don't like the idea of state-funded aid in general. Every time talk about an aid package comes up like this, I can't help but think of Grover Cleveland. When Cleveland infamously vetoed the Texas Seed Bill, he said that there was nothing in the Constitution that says the government can appropriate money to fund these kinds of services. Rather than aid coming from the government, we can count on other citizens to help those in need.
Like Cleveland, I much prefer aid through voluntary donations, rather than having the state extort money from taxpayers to do it.
I don't think that there is a reasonable expectation for charity to be able to come up with enough money, these days, to be able to provide the necessary assistance without government aid.
I don't think that there is a reasonable expectation for charity to be able to come up with enough money, these days, to be able to provide the necessary assistance without government aid.
The question for me is "what." For example, someone's beach home on a yuppy shoreline? No. Some tenements in a flooded district that needs to be torn down and not build on that property because it should be marsh land to act as a storm barrier? Yes, shut up and take my money.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Ambition must be made to counteract ambition.
Individualities may form communities, but it is institutions alone that can create a nation.
Nothing succeeds like the appearance of success.
Here is my principle: Taxes shall be levied according to ability to pay. That is the only American principle.
I don't think that there is a reasonable expectation for charity to be able to come up with enough money, these days, to be able to provide the necessary assistance without government aid.
I think you underestimate the generosity of people, especially when the internet has made it very easy for people to be aware of what's going on.
I disagree we are Americans and we are suppose to help each other when tragic things happen.
1 out of every 20 dollars on a 60 billion dollar bill got spend on unrelated pork projects.
I would have voted against it as well.
I agree that we are supposed to help each other when disaster strikes.
What I don't agree with is using the force of the state to involuntarily take money for an aid package. It doesn't matter if an aid package has pork or no pork. It is still immorally wrong for the state to use its monopoly on violence to extort money from the people.
I have read the bill, and I have seen the huge lists of additional spending that were in it that have absolutely nothing to do with the hurricane, or even the area in which the hurricane devastated. This has been a perpetual problem for quite some time, where extras "pork" get added into bills that have nothing to do with the purpose of the bill itself end up causing problems for the passage of the bill. If you insist, Ill go through the bill, make a list of the unrelated things, and post it here. I can guarantee that if those extra things weren't included in the bill, that it would have passed easily and without issue and quite likely unanimously. As much as the republicans like to be made out to be obstructionist, there have been quite a number of incidents, as with the initial sandy hurricane bill, that have had directly-unrelated things added, and were opposed because they wanted that stuff taken out and only solely having directly-related content within the bill.
If you truly believe that he or anyone else would have not voted for it if only directly-related spending was included in the bill, then please feel free to show evidence as such. I personally do not believe that to be true. I firmly believe that if so many additional items were not included in the bill, that it would have passed, quite likely, unanimously, or darned close to it.
I've seen the itemized version and although plenty of stuff at first blush sounds unrelated, all the items I found could be explained into being attached. (i.e. the roads money for the US Virgin Islands)
Care to point out some examples that were completely unrelated? (Although I will say, I didn't look at anything below $1m or so to be fair, because that gets into the less than 1% of the bill range that I could care less about pork that barely adjusts the costs of something personally)
I see the Breitbart article later - the FBI one I don't see in what's available on the Senate website, the others are DIRECTLY RELATED.
Fisheries: Targeted at fisheries in the Gulf and up the East Coast and slightly inland that were disrupted by Hurricane Sandy - i.e. directly related.
Roads: Targeted at roads for the US Virgin Islands - directly related.
Smithsonian Roof Repair: Damaged by Hurricane Sandy - directly related. (This is stupid to even think of being unrelated for a second even - DC's less than 100 miles from areas that were devastated, it's duh-worthy - as a nearby resident the roofs didn't look too bad off, but then again - one failure in the roof becomes damaged/lost priceless artifacts)
Head Start Program: Was allocating extra dollars to the Head Start programs for those displaced by Hurricane Sandy so that extra staff could be hired to cover the extra hours required to cover kids extra hours while parents deal with the ruination from Hurricane Sandy.
So maybe the FBI salaries was a legitimate gripe - maybe. But then again maybe the FBI helped with the evacuations and ran up overtime/Flextime bills because of that, I'm not sure on that.
What I don't agree with is using the force of the state to involuntarily take money for an aid package. It doesn't matter if an aid package has pork or no pork. It is still immorally wrong for the state to use its monopoly on violence to extort money from the people.
It isn't extortion, extortion is against the law and requiring that you pay taxes is not against the law.
Also, you don't generally get to elect the people "extorting" you.
I think the U.S. Constitution sums it up nicely.
"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."
We the people came together to create the government that has a mission to promote the general Welfare, and I don't know about you, but Disaster Relief surely fits in the meaning of that. Unless you feel that large swaths of displaced Americans don't matter to the general Welfare.
Telling a libertarian that taxation isn't theft?! good luck with that one, Timothy!
Also, people need to stop confusing Hurricane Sandy and Sandy Hook in this thread. Not. The. Same. Thing.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Asking people to remove quotes in their signatures is tyranny! If I can't say something just because someone's feelings are hurt then no one would ever be able to say anything! Political correctness is stupid.
Telling a libertarian that taxation isn't theft?! good luck with that one, Timothy!
It is really the one thing I don't understand about Libertarians like that. I mean, they choose to participate in a society that requires they pay taxes. If they really believed that taxation was theft, they would form some commune somewhere in the middle of the Montana forests where nobody would come looking or care that they are there. I mean, who would live in a neighborhood where someone comes into your house everyday and takes your stuff?
What I don't agree with is using the force of the state to involuntarily take money for an aid package. It doesn't matter if an aid package has pork or no pork. It is still immorally wrong for the state to use its monopoly on violence to extort money from the people.
Dude that is what the state government is suppose to do. That is part of the role of government.
It to provide aid where needed.
Vac this was a 2 second google search.
$150 million for what the Commerce Department described as fisheries disasters in places as far afield as Alaska and Mississippi, and $50 million in subsidies for replanting trees on private land damaged by wildfires.
$12.1 billion in the amendment for Department of Housing and Urban Development emergency block grants. Any state struck by a federally declared major disaster in 2011, 2012 or this year would qualify for the grants.
$135 million to help the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration to improve weather forecasting.
$125 million for an Agriculture Department program to restore watersheds damaged by wildfires and drought, $2 million for roof repairs at Smithsonian Institution museums in the Washington area, and $50 million in tree planting subsidies.
$188 million for an Amtrak expansion project with an indirect link to Sandy
$13 billion in the Senate bill for projects to protect against future storms, including fortification of mass transit systems in the Northeast and building new jetties in vulnerable seaside areas. While maybe worthwhile, those projects don't represent emergencies and shouldn't be exempt from federal spending caps, GOP lawmakers said.
That was just some of it not all.
Again i don't understand why you have to try and defend this stuff when people say it was in the bill and why someone voted against it?
it makes no sense when people say this was in the bill and you want to argue that it wasn't and it is sitting right there.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Thanks to Epic Graphics the best around. Thanks to Nex3 for the avatar visit ye old sig and avatar forum
If there is pork in a bill like that, it should be removed during reconciliation. The House passes their bill, as does the Senate and then they agree on what finally goes to the president. That is when the House Republicans go, no, we are not approving these projects here but the rest of the bill is fine and then Senate Democrats give their okay and all is well and fine. But no, that isn't how obstructionists like to do things.
Taking away pork in the House-Senate reconciliation process shouldn't figure into Inhofe's vote for a bill. If it does, it probably goes the other way—the more hard a line on unrelated spending Senate Republicans draw, the worse the bargaining position the Senate has against the House vis a vis pork. That's normal legislative strategy, not being an "obstructionist" (a term that should be reserved for the House Tea Party acolytes).
Vaclav, if establishing a Hurricane Sandy connection takes imagination on almost every single one of those items, the argument ends there. Once you're in imagination land, people can reasonably disagree about whether the money's really for repairing Hurricane Sandy damage, and charges of hypocrisy against Inhofe just don't lie.
And just to be clear on "putting lots of things in bills," that's not just some convenient criticism of Senate Democrat legislation. Oklahoma has a constitutional ban on "log rolling" called the "single-subject requirement." Of course, that's just state law, but please understand this is a serious issue, at least for somebody representing Oklahoma.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Truth is as an American each of these things is the same, however Mr. Inhof actually said that sandy relief and relief for his state was not the same thing because the bill had other things attached. Truth is the sandy relief bill was being worked on at the end of a legislation period(right before the holidays) and it is often that legislators add other less pressing issues to bills of high priority to get more done in less time. Mr. Inhof is a prime example of hypocrisy in our politics and where a two party system is flawed.
Source first video of this playlist.(sorry for kinda subpar source was what I found on reddit.)
http://widget.newsinc.com/_cfvp/playlist16x9_player.html?CID=13994&WID=23325&VID=24835492&freewheel=90019&sitesection=njdotcom_nws_loc_sec&external_url=http://www.nj.com/news/index.ssf/2013/05/top-shelf_scheme_authorities_r.html
Albert Einstein
Thomas Jefferson
In this case, whether he is right or wrong we should not punish the people of OK who are suffering for things this one guy said or did.
This is what I said in the last part...it was quite wordy and probably hard to understand. Hopefully these constituents of his see how terrible this guy is though.
Albert Einstein
Thomas Jefferson
Lol, why would they? He's getting them tornado relief
exactly that was the issue with the sandy bill. it had about 1000 things in there that didn't have anything to do with the sandy.
it should be illegal to attached riders to these types of bills that have nothing to do with the bill itself.
I don't see any hypocrisy here. the didn't oppose the sandy bill because of the relief but because of the billion of dollars that were going to the relief but the 1000 pet projects of senators.
Thanks to Epic Graphics the best around.
Thanks to Nex3 for the avatar visit ye old sig and avatar forum
Hurricane Sandy hit lots of things other than the massively effected areas - guess what all that pork was i.e. the most expensive one ($2m) for new roofing for the Smithsonian? It was an odd out of area damage from Sandy as well.
It was a wide-reaching bill, much like the hurricane, but it wasn't "pork laden" unless you consider various repairs to Sandy incurred damage to be "pork".
Most sane people would not. The dude is a huge hypocrite.
Re: People misusing the term Vanilla to describe a flying, unleash (sometimes trample) critter.
I have read the bill, and I have seen the huge lists of additional spending that were in it that have absolutely nothing to do with the hurricane, or even the area in which the hurricane devastated. This has been a perpetual problem for quite some time, where extras "pork" get added into bills that have nothing to do with the purpose of the bill itself end up causing problems for the passage of the bill. If you insist, Ill go through the bill, make a list of the unrelated things, and post it here. I can guarantee that if those extra things weren't included in the bill, that it would have passed easily and without issue and quite likely unanimously. As much as the republicans like to be made out to be obstructionist, there have been quite a number of incidents, as with the initial sandy hurricane bill, that have had directly-unrelated things added, and were opposed because they wanted that stuff taken out and only solely having directly-related content within the bill.
If you truly believe that he or anyone else would have not voted for it if only directly-related spending was included in the bill, then please feel free to show evidence as such. I personally do not believe that to be true. I firmly believe that if so many additional items were not included in the bill, that it would have passed, quite likely, unanimously, or darned close to it.
This whole thread serves to make one political party look bad.
BUWGRChilds PlayGRWUB
BUWGR Highlander GRWUB
UBSquee's Shapeshifting PetBU
BW Multiplayer Control WB
RG Changeling GR
UR Mana FlareRU
UMerfolkU
B MBMC B
I think you're trying too hard here. He voted against the SH bill because it had other things tied to it. The real question you should be asking is, why did Democrats in Congress try to get these things passed by attaching them to a federal relief bill for Sandy Hook?
And even putting that aside, this is one of those cases where you just have to be a hypocrite if it works out that way. That is certainly a better option than not requesting aid after part of your state got ravaged by a tornado.
http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2013/01/16/60-Billion-Sandy-Bill-Larded-With-Pork
This looks like a mostly factual article on the subject.
Like Cleveland, I much prefer aid through voluntary donations, rather than having the state extort money from taxpayers to do it.
The question for me is "what." For example, someone's beach home on a yuppy shoreline? No. Some tenements in a flooded district that needs to be torn down and not build on that property because it should be marsh land to act as a storm barrier? Yes, shut up and take my money.
Ambition must be made to counteract ambition.
Individualities may form communities, but it is institutions alone that can create a nation.
Nothing succeeds like the appearance of success.
Here is my principle: Taxes shall be levied according to ability to pay. That is the only American principle.
I disagree we are Americans and we are suppose to help each other when tragic things happen.
1 out of every 20 dollars on a 60 billion dollar bill got spend on unrelated pork projects.
I would have voted against it as well.
Thanks to Epic Graphics the best around.
Thanks to Nex3 for the avatar visit ye old sig and avatar forum
I think you underestimate the generosity of people, especially when the internet has made it very easy for people to be aware of what's going on.
I agree that we are supposed to help each other when disaster strikes.
What I don't agree with is using the force of the state to involuntarily take money for an aid package. It doesn't matter if an aid package has pork or no pork. It is still immorally wrong for the state to use its monopoly on violence to extort money from the people.
I've seen the itemized version and although plenty of stuff at first blush sounds unrelated, all the items I found could be explained into being attached. (i.e. the roads money for the US Virgin Islands)
Care to point out some examples that were completely unrelated? (Although I will say, I didn't look at anything below $1m or so to be fair, because that gets into the less than 1% of the bill range that I could care less about pork that barely adjusts the costs of something personally)
I see the Breitbart article later - the FBI one I don't see in what's available on the Senate website, the others are DIRECTLY RELATED.
Fisheries: Targeted at fisheries in the Gulf and up the East Coast and slightly inland that were disrupted by Hurricane Sandy - i.e. directly related.
Roads: Targeted at roads for the US Virgin Islands - directly related.
Smithsonian Roof Repair: Damaged by Hurricane Sandy - directly related. (This is stupid to even think of being unrelated for a second even - DC's less than 100 miles from areas that were devastated, it's duh-worthy - as a nearby resident the roofs didn't look too bad off, but then again - one failure in the roof becomes damaged/lost priceless artifacts)
Head Start Program: Was allocating extra dollars to the Head Start programs for those displaced by Hurricane Sandy so that extra staff could be hired to cover the extra hours required to cover kids extra hours while parents deal with the ruination from Hurricane Sandy.
So maybe the FBI salaries was a legitimate gripe - maybe. But then again maybe the FBI helped with the evacuations and ran up overtime/Flextime bills because of that, I'm not sure on that.
Re: People misusing the term Vanilla to describe a flying, unleash (sometimes trample) critter.
It isn't extortion, extortion is against the law and requiring that you pay taxes is not against the law.
Also, you don't generally get to elect the people "extorting" you.
I think the U.S. Constitution sums it up nicely.
"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."
We the people came together to create the government that has a mission to promote the general Welfare, and I don't know about you, but Disaster Relief surely fits in the meaning of that. Unless you feel that large swaths of displaced Americans don't matter to the general Welfare.
Also, people need to stop confusing Hurricane Sandy and Sandy Hook in this thread. Not. The. Same. Thing.
It is really the one thing I don't understand about Libertarians like that. I mean, they choose to participate in a society that requires they pay taxes. If they really believed that taxation was theft, they would form some commune somewhere in the middle of the Montana forests where nobody would come looking or care that they are there. I mean, who would live in a neighborhood where someone comes into your house everyday and takes your stuff?
Re: People misusing the term Vanilla to describe a flying, unleash (sometimes trample) critter.
Dude that is what the state government is suppose to do. That is part of the role of government.
It to provide aid where needed.
Vac this was a 2 second google search.
That was just some of it not all.
Again i don't understand why you have to try and defend this stuff when people say it was in the bill and why someone voted against it?
it makes no sense when people say this was in the bill and you want to argue that it wasn't and it is sitting right there.
Thanks to Epic Graphics the best around.
Thanks to Nex3 for the avatar visit ye old sig and avatar forum
Vaclav, if establishing a Hurricane Sandy connection takes imagination on almost every single one of those items, the argument ends there. Once you're in imagination land, people can reasonably disagree about whether the money's really for repairing Hurricane Sandy damage, and charges of hypocrisy against Inhofe just don't lie.
And just to be clear on "putting lots of things in bills," that's not just some convenient criticism of Senate Democrat legislation. Oklahoma has a constitutional ban on "log rolling" called the "single-subject requirement." Of course, that's just state law, but please understand this is a serious issue, at least for somebody representing Oklahoma.