Page 3 of 11 FirstFirst 12345 ... LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 105

Thread: Eric Cantor: Disaster Relief For Joplin Tornado Victims Must Be Offset

  1. #21
    Professor

    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Nashville, TN
    Last Seen
    11-21-14 @ 03:20 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Liberal
    Posts
    2,120

    Re: Eric Cantor: Disaster Relief For Joplin Tornado Victims Must Be Offset

    How 'bout he starts with his salary?

  2. #22
    Bring us a shrubbery!
    tessaesque's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Plano, Texas
    Last Seen
    11-09-17 @ 06:18 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    15,910

    Re: Eric Cantor: Disaster Relief For Joplin Tornado Victims Must Be Offset

    Quote Originally Posted by Objective Voice View Post
    1. We know our national economy is in disarray. No one is disbuting that.

    2. We also know hundreds of thousands of people have sustained substantial loses and lose of life due to the tornados that have swept across the country.

    3. We know from experience that with natural disasters as with the tonados in Joplin and Tuscaloosa and now the tornado that hit in the upper north-east w/their destructive power and the scale of damage they create, as well as the recent floods, these such storms cost millions, if not billions, in damages not to mention lost wages and loss of life.

    4. Cities and towns no matter how large or small, their residents nor businesses that have been affected by such storms can't recover from such large scale devastation on their own. They need the financial support from the community, from local charities, from businesses and business leaders, but most of all they need help from their local, state and federal governments.

    Now, although Eric Cantor did say "Congress will find the money," he also made it very clear that "disaster relief funds for the tornado victims in Joplin, Missouri must be paid for with cuts to other programs," and that such funding "will be offset" by those cuts. As such, based on the difficult budgeting negotiations in Congress and the GOP's insistance on large trillion dollar spending cuts before they do anything else as far as financial appropriations or raising the debt ceiling, it's clear that Cantor is putting politics before compassion and humanitarism. And in the face of still more natural disasters that have occurred within the last 24-hours and the very real likelihood that more such disaster are either still to come or remain in effect (i.e., the flooding along the Mississippi River along several states from as far north as Minnesota to as far south as New Orleans, LA), Cantor is playing a very dangerous game with people's lives, if not their very survival.

    That's why I have a problem with what he said. If he had said perhaps in a different way, "I understand the tragic losses people in Joplin and across the country have suffered due to these tornados and floods, but the federal government is running out of money to provide financial disaster relief support. As such, we're going to have to pull funds from other programs in order to try to make sure that emergency funds remain available to those who need it," I'd have totally agreed with him. But he didn't phrase his argument that way. As such, not only did he NOT come across as a compassionate public figure, he also came across as someone who has politicized a tragic event. IMHO, that is wrong!
    I see virtually no difference between what you said and what he said.
    "Hmmm...Can't decide if I want to watch "Four Houses" or give myself an Icy Hot pee hole enema..." - Blake Shelton


  3. #23
    Distributist
    Jeezy's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Last Seen
    10-14-15 @ 03:15 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    1,326

    Re: Eric Cantor: Disaster Relief For Joplin Tornado Victims Must Be Offset

    If all the bleeding hearts in this thread could please just untwist their panties for just a second, maybe we could put Cantor's statement in context.

    Roy Blunt to Eric Cantor: Find the money to offset tornado aid - Jonathan Allen - POLITICO.com

    The House Appropriations Committee approved $1 billion to replenish disaster relief funds — not specific to Missouri — on Tuesday. The money is offset.
    ...so Cantor isn't withholding anything. Sorry to disappoint you all, but the "Big Bad Republican Screwing The Poor" argument does not apply here. Any claims about his insensitivity are worthless. He's public official and he made a dispassionate statement.

    The end.
    Last edited by Jeezy; 06-02-11 at 01:05 PM.
    SWAGSWAGSWAGSWAGSWAGSWAGSWAGSWAG
    Quote Originally Posted by Josie
    Thanks for your awesomeness, Jeezy.

  4. #24
    Sage

    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Huntsville, AL (USA)
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 10:48 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    9,772

    Re: Eric Cantor: Disaster Relief For Joplin Tornado Victims Must Be Offset

    Quote Originally Posted by tessaesque View Post
    I see virtually no difference between what you said and what he said.
    Quote Originally Posted by Jeezy View Post
    If all the bleeding hearts in this thread could please just untwist their panties for just a second, maybe we could put Cantor's statement in context.

    Roy Blunt to Eric Cantor: Find the money to offset tornado aid - Jonathan Allen - POLITICO.com



    ...so Cantor isn't withholding anything. Sorry to disappoint you all, but the "Big Bad Republican Screwing The Poor" argument does not apply here. Any claims about his insensitivity are worthless. He's public official and he made a dispassionate statement.

    The end.
    I was not saying that Cantor nor Congress would NOT provide financial relief for disaster victims. No such words were espoused by me in any of my posts on this issue. My problem with Cantor was that he injected politics into a tragic situation that affects hundreds if not thousands of people through no fault of their own. They didn't ask for a tornado or flood to wreck havoc upon their lives, but it happened. Some people may be better prepared to recover; others may not be. Our government at all levels is suppose to be their in such times of need to render assistance. The perception Cantor projected was that unless disaster relief funds were offset by spending cuts, Congress likely would not find the money dispite his insistance that they would. In short, he played politics with a tragic situation and that's what I have a problem with him on.

    You don't play such games with people's lives or their livelihood when so many people are suffering due to no fault of their own. But again, it's what he said and how he said it - the words and phrasalogy - that makes a huge difference. Go back and read what he said in his interview then read how I phrased the issue. We may have said the same thing, but we came across very differently. One side (Cantor) injected politics into the matter, the other side (me) showed compassion while also being truthful about our nation's economic problems as it applies to providing disaster relief aid.

    Cantor has said repeatedly that the government must maintain fiscal discipline...
    In other words, Cantor saw POLITICS FIRST, PEOPLE SECOND. I saw PEOPLE FIRST, POLITICS SECOND. That's the difference!!
    Last edited by Objective Voice; 06-02-11 at 02:22 PM.

  5. #25
    Sage
    Harry Guerrilla's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Not affiliated with other libertarians.
    Last Seen
    09-01-17 @ 02:38 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    28,955

    Re: Eric Cantor: Disaster Relief For Joplin Tornado Victims Must Be Offset

    Homeowners insurance folks, it exists for a reason.

    Why doesn't everyone who has a "disaster" get federal money, seems a bit one sided.
    I was discovering that life just simply isn't fair and bask in the unsung glory of knowing that each obstacle overcome along the way only adds to the satisfaction in the end. Nothing great, after all, was ever accomplished by anyone sulking in his or her misery.
    —Adam Shepard

  6. #26
    Distributist
    Jeezy's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Last Seen
    10-14-15 @ 03:15 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    1,326

    Re: Eric Cantor: Disaster Relief For Joplin Tornado Victims Must Be Offset

    Quote Originally Posted by Objective Voice View Post
    [/u]I was not saying that Cantor nor Congress would NOT provide financial relief for disaster victims. No such words were espoused by me in any of my posts on this issue.[/u] My problem with Cantor was that he injected politics into a tragic situation that affects hundreds if not thousands of people through no fault of their own. They didn't ask for a tornado or flood to wreck havoc upon their lives, but it happened. Some people may be better prepared to recover; others may not be. Our government at all levels is suppose to be their in such times of need to render assistance. The preception Cantor projected was that unless disaster relief funds were offset by spending cuts, Congress likely would not find the money dispite his insistance that they would. In short, he played politics with a tragic situation and that's what I have a problem with him on.

    You don't play such games with people's lives or their livelihood when so many people are suffering due to no fault of their own. But again, it's what he said and how he said it - the words and phrasalogy - that makes a huge difference. Go back and read what he said in his interview then read how I phrased the issue. We may have said the same thing, but we came across very differently. One side (Cantor) injected politics into the matter, the other side (me) showed compassion while also being truthful about our nation's economic problems as it applies to providing disaster relief aid.


    In other words, Cantor saw POLITICS FIRST, PEOPLE SECOND. I saw PEOPLE FIRST, POLITICS SECOND. That's the difference!!
    ...so what your argument boils down to is, "I don't actually disagree with anything of substance, Eric Cantor hurt my feelings."

    Oh.

    Okay.

    I mean, I'm sorry that you're from Huntsville and my heart goes out to you, but you're angry about nothing.
    SWAGSWAGSWAGSWAGSWAGSWAGSWAGSWAG
    Quote Originally Posted by Josie
    Thanks for your awesomeness, Jeezy.

  7. #27
    Bring us a shrubbery!
    tessaesque's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Plano, Texas
    Last Seen
    11-09-17 @ 06:18 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    15,910

    Re: Eric Cantor: Disaster Relief For Joplin Tornado Victims Must Be Offset

    Quote Originally Posted by Objective Voice View Post
    I was not saying that Cantor nor Congress would NOT provide financial relief for disaster victims. No such words were espoused by me in any of my posts on this issue. My problem with Cantor was that he injected politics into a tragic situation that affects hundreds if not thousands of people through no fault of their own. They didn't ask for a tornado or flood to wreck havoc upon their lives, but it happened. Some people may be better prepared to recover; others may not be. Our government at all levels is suppose to be their in such times of need to render assistance. The perception Cantor projected was that unless disaster relief funds were offset by spending cuts, Congress likely would not find the money dispite his insistance that they would. In short, he played politics with a tragic situation and that's what I have a problem with him on.

    You don't play such games with people's lives or their livelihood when so many people are suffering due to no fault of their own. But again, it's what he said and how he said it - the words and phrasalogy - that makes a huge difference. Go back and read what he said in his interview then read how I phrased the issue. We may have said the same thing, but we came across very differently. One side (Cantor) injected politics into the matter, the other side (me) showed compassion while also being truthful about our nation's economic problems as it applies to providing disaster relief aid.


    In other words, Cantor saw POLITICS FIRST, PEOPLE SECOND. I saw PEOPLE FIRST, POLITICS SECOND. That's the difference!!
    I didn't interpret it that way. My interpretation of what he said was, "Hey, we're gonna get that money down there, and what's better is we're not going to borrow to do it! We're taking this spending thing seriously and we're going to meet our obligations responsibly."
    "Hmmm...Can't decide if I want to watch "Four Houses" or give myself an Icy Hot pee hole enema..." - Blake Shelton


  8. #28
    pawn in the game of life
    pragmatic's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Last Seen
    10-17-17 @ 05:33 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    1,984

    Re: Eric Cantor: Disaster Relief For Joplin Tornado Victims Must Be Offset

    Read nothing in Cantor's words that either stated or implied any federal funds would be delayed in their disbursement. What he did imply was that the Joplin relief money wasn't simply going to be printed/borrowed as has become the recent norm.

    This tragedy in Joplin provides a fine opportunity to restate our nation needs to have budget priorities that it actually adheres to. When a new high priority enters the picture (relief for Joplin), then something lower priority needs to roll off.....


    .


    “Build a man a fire, and he'll be warm for a day. Set a man on fire, and he'll be warm for the rest of his life.”

  9. #29
    Sage

    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Huntsville, AL (USA)
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 10:48 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    9,772

    Re: Eric Cantor: Disaster Relief For Joplin Tornado Victims Must Be Offset

    Quote Originally Posted by Harry Guerrilla View Post
    Homeowners insurance folks, it exists for a reason.

    Why doesn't everyone who has a "disaster" get federal money, seems a bit one sided.
    Many victims of these tornados and floods do have insurance, but many do not. Why don't they have it? Probably because they couldn't afford it. OR...

    Probably because they don't live in a flood zone and there was no need to acquire that kind of insurance. I understand the issue Cantor addressed were the tornado victims in Joplin, but if he espousing "financial restrain and responsibility" for this tornatic event, what makes one thing he won't insist on spending cuts for the next set of victims for a national tragedy due to a natural disaster? To put it in perspective, the Mississippi River flood victims won't recover from this for quite some time because they can't begin the cleanup efforts until the flood waters recede. That flood isn't just affecting a small town or a portion of a large metro city. The flood damage stretches across several states and several towns large and small. How much do you think that's going to cost? Will he still insist on offsetting spending? And why should there even be a need to do that when we've constantly been told "we don't have a revenue problem; we have a spending problem?" Considering that our country has always set aside emergency relief funds for such things like hurricanes, major floods, wild fires and widespread tornado damage, does it make sense to you that Cantor would even make such a statement...that disaster relief should even be offset by spending cuts? It's absurd!!!

    Quote Originally Posted by Jeezy View Post
    ...so what your argument boils down to is, "I don't actually disagree with anything of substance, Eric Cantor hurt my feelings."
    No. My feelings aren't hurt at all. Don't bring this issue down to such immature levels. You're smarter than that.

    This is about the human tragedy that's involved here. People lost their lives, their homes, their property, their jobs, their entire community if not entire towns are gone! And yes, victims have filed property insurance claims as they are suppose to do. I know this is happening where I live because people who have been interviewed have been stating they are doing such. However, in those instances where private insurance doesn't pickup the tab, disaster relief aid is suppose to be there to cover the rest.

    Again, I read Cantor's words and I do understand that despite it all he did say that Congress will find the money for disaster relief. But it is the mere fact that he put politics ahead of people that offended me. I just don't think anyone should be purposefully injecting politics into such tragic events.
    Last edited by Objective Voice; 06-02-11 at 02:47 PM.

  10. #30
    Sage
    Harry Guerrilla's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Not affiliated with other libertarians.
    Last Seen
    09-01-17 @ 02:38 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    28,955

    Re: Eric Cantor: Disaster Relief For Joplin Tornado Victims Must Be Offset

    Quote Originally Posted by Objective Voice View Post
    Many victims of these tornados and floods do have insurance, but many do not. Why don't they have it? Probably because they couldn't afford it. OR...

    Probably because they don't live in a flood zone and there was no need to acquire that kind of insurance. I understand the issue Cantor addressed were the tornado victims in Joplin, but if he espousing "financial restrain and responsibility" for this tornatic event, what makes one thing he won't insist on spending cuts for the next set of victims for a national tragedy due to a natural disaster? To put it in perspective, the Mississippi River flood victims won't recover from this for quite some time because they can't begin the cleanup efforts until the flood waters recede. That flood isn't just affecting a small town or a portion of a large metro city. The flood damage stretches across several states and several towns large and small. How much do you think that's going to cost? Will he still insist on offsetting spending? And why should there even be a need to do that when we've constantly been told "we don't have a revenue problem; we have a spending problem?" Considering that our country has always set aside emergency relief funds for such things like hurricanes, major floods, wild fires and widespread tornado damage, does it make sense to you that Cantor would even make such a statement...that disaster relief should even be offset by spending cuts? It's absurd!!!
    I'm sorry but that's not really an excuse.
    Buying a home is an adult decision, if people can't be expected to purchase insurance then they should understand that there is no catch all for them.

    Quite a many people have home fires, tornadoes, etc, that cause them to lose their home, without it being insured.

    What makes these people more special that they get federal money and others don't?
    I was discovering that life just simply isn't fair and bask in the unsung glory of knowing that each obstacle overcome along the way only adds to the satisfaction in the end. Nothing great, after all, was ever accomplished by anyone sulking in his or her misery.
    —Adam Shepard

Page 3 of 11 FirstFirst 12345 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •