Total Posts:6|Showing Posts:1-6
Jump to topic:

Super Storm Sandy

Danielle
Posts: 21,330
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/9/2013 2:49:19 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Being that I am from NY/NJ, the Republicans in the House and Senate who have voted against the bill are taking a huge backlash - including from our Republican leaders (most notably, Chris Christie). Of course, I believe had Sandy not impacted CC's home state and he wasn't the one who needed the money, that he would have no problem saying no to the bill in what he would probably label a "hand out." Or maybe he'd call it "pork." The same goes for all of the Republican congressman from NY who are so "outraged" and have been condemning their own party pretty ruthlessly. It's interesting how ideology changes when one is the person in need, yes?

Anyway, sadly I'm admittedly unfamiliar with the bill and its implications. I was wondering if anyone could tell me what the bill entails in terms of why 32 Senators voted against it (all Republican). Obviously Christie's smack down of Boehner and the House led him to backtrack and agree to voting sooner rather than later on other aspects of relief in the House... hmm. Just wondering what the defense is from those who agree with the Republicans voting no to this.
President of DDO
lewis20
Posts: 5,093
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/9/2013 3:01:21 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Ya I haven't seen it clearly stated what the money is for. I've heard its just the fed paying out on its federal flood insurance program, in which case they should be obligated to pay, right? As misguided as the federal flood insurance program is they can't with hold funds after the fact.
"If you are a racist I will attack you with the north"- Abraham Lincoln

"Do not wear clothing woven of two kinds of material" - Leviticus 19 19

"War is a racket" - Smedley Butler
Greyparrot
Posts: 14,314
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/9/2013 3:27:56 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/9/2013 2:49:19 PM, Danielle wrote:
Being that I am from NY/NJ, the Republicans in the House and Senate who have voted against the bill are taking a huge backlash - including from our Republican leaders (most notably, Chris Christie). Of course, I believe had Sandy not impacted CC's home state and he wasn't the one who needed the money, that he would have no problem saying no to the bill in what he would probably label a "hand out." Or maybe he'd call it "pork." The same goes for all of the Republican congressman from NY who are so "outraged" and have been condemning their own party pretty ruthlessly. It's interesting how ideology changes when one is the person in need, yes?

Anyway, sadly I'm admittedly unfamiliar with the bill and its implications. I was wondering if anyone could tell me what the bill entails in terms of why 32 Senators voted against it (all Republican). Obviously Christie's smack down of Boehner and the House led him to backtrack and agree to voting sooner rather than later on other aspects of relief in the House... hmm. Just wondering what the defense is from those who agree with the Republicans voting no to this.

Why would there be a backlash against bacon?
Azul145
Posts: 22
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/9/2013 4:02:10 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Well there are many expenses involved with the bill and we need money for other things like for the upcoming Obama care bill so the republicans want to leave the clean up of Sandy to charities and small communities in the area.
Everything is going according to my plan.
Khaos_Mage
Posts: 23,214
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/9/2013 4:44:07 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/9/2013 2:49:19 PM, Danielle wrote:
Being that I am from NY/NJ, the Republicans in the House and Senate who have voted against the bill are taking a huge backlash - including from our Republican leaders (most notably, Chris Christie). Of course, I believe had Sandy not impacted CC's home state and he wasn't the one who needed the money, that he would have no problem saying no to the bill in what he would probably label a "hand out." Or maybe he'd call it "pork." The same goes for all of the Republican congressman from NY who are so "outraged" and have been condemning their own party pretty ruthlessly. It's interesting how ideology changes when one is the person in need, yes?

It is disheartening, and happens on both sides and in many forums. Unfortunately, it is human nature...

Anyway, sadly I'm admittedly unfamiliar with the bill and its implications. I was wondering if anyone could tell me what the bill entails in terms of why 32 Senators voted against it (all Republican). Obviously Christie's smack down of Boehner and the House led him to backtrack and agree to voting sooner rather than later on other aspects of relief in the House... hmm. Just wondering what the defense is from those who agree with the Republicans voting no to this.

I am guessing the defense would be something like the insurance companies should pay for it (it is kind of their thing), along with charities and other groups (churches, concerned citizens, etc.). This, or maybe a federalism issue, like why should residents of MN or CA pay for NJ/NY.
My work here is, finally, done.
autodidact
Posts: 23
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/13/2013 2:37:41 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
The reason is simple, those 32 senators were not affected by the storm their constants are not going to vote them out, had the bill failed, the republicans in the affected districts would have been elected too, because while i am sure many re as mad as CC they would not blame their representative for the failure.
that is the intuitive way to look at it.

an idea take will not take hold is electing democrats to the positions that republicans hold in the affected districts, because the only way to punish the republicans is to decrease their caucus. this would sadly punish the republicans that did the right thing, but would be more effective