• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

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

[/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.
 
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."
 
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.....


.
 
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!!!

...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:
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?
 
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.

...I mean, you're tarring and feathering a man for absolutely nothing aside from using wording that (using your own term) "offends" you. How would you classify that, aside from hurt feelings? He hasn't "injected politics" into anything. Joplinites aren't going to go through any more red tape because of his statement. They're not going to get less money. They're not going to have more stringent repayment terms.

You're literally ONLY mad because he brought up the budget in regards to a natural disaster, and did not construct his response to your liking.

What's your point? That he could have been a little more empathetic? Okay. Sure. He could have. Are you happy? Does that change anything? :roll:
 
What's your point? That he could have been a little more empathetic? Okay. Sure. He could have. Are you happy? Does that change anything? :roll:
Yes, that's exactly my point.

However, I've also said I understood his point of view that: 1) federal dollars aren't that easy to come by in the face of our country's economic woes; and 2) that in order to provide said funds money would have to be pulled (or offset) from other programs.

I heard him (or rather, I read his words) and the meaning came out clearly. Still, as I've said and as you're pointed out, he could have been more empathetic. IMO, he demonstrated a degree of callousness that shouldn't be displayed from a public figure in the wake of such tragic events.

So, yes, the tone of his message did offend me.
 
Yes, that's exactly my point.

However, I've also said I understood his point of view that: 1) federal dollars aren't that easy to come by in the face of our country's economic woes; and 2) that in order to provide said funds money would have to be pulled (or offset) from other programs.

I heard him (or rather, I read his words) and the meaning came out clearly. Still, as I've said and as you're pointed out, he could have been more empathetic. IMO, he demonstrated a degree of callousness that shouldn't be displayed from a public figure in the wake of such tragic events.

So, yes, the tone of his message did offend me.

128920704651986649.jpg
 
Yes, that's exactly my point.

However, I've also said I understood his point of view that: 1) federal dollars aren't that easy to come by in the face of our country's economic woes; and 2) that in order to provide said funds money would have to be pulled (or offset) from other programs.

I heard him (or rather, I read his words) and the meaning came out clearly. Still, as I've said and as you're pointed out, he could have been more empathetic. IMO, he demonstrated a degree of callousness that shouldn't be displayed from a public figure in the wake of such tragic events.

So, yes, the tone of his message did offend me.

:blink:


Seriously?
 
Really?

REALLY!?!

People have lost their lives. Homes, businesses and property have all been destroyed. Entire towns lay in ruin. They're still finding bodies in Joplin. Folks down south of me in Tuscaloosa, AL are still homeless; some are even still hospitalized. And Congressman Cantor has the audacity to politicize federal disaster relief funds?

REALLY!?!

U-N-F-R-E-A-K-I-N' REAL!!!

You don't play politics with peoples' lives. He is trying to hold aid for these people hostage. That is just wrong. In an emergency such as this, you find the money and help the people. You don't say, "Do what I want or we won't help these people." If republicans are so great with the budget, why didn't President Bush pull this when sending aid after Katrina?

Is Cantor so stupid that he doesn't understand the difference between family finance and running a country? How dare he and other republicans hold these people hostage to try to get more budget cuts. This shows that they don't give a damn about the people of this country. He should be ashamed and so should anyone who votes for him ever again!

Do you people not get it? WE HAVE NO MORE MONEY...NONE...ZERO...ZILCH...THERE IS NO MONEY TO SPEND...MONEY FOR HELP DOES NOT EXIST. The only way to get the money is to take it from somewhere else or print it. Printing it will destroy the economy, so the only viable option is to cut other programs to give to Joplin. Which is stupid any way...natural disasters are insured and I seriously doubt that more than 1 or 2% of the people in Joplin don't have coverage. If we are bailing out Joplin, we are really bailing out insurance companies so they don't have to pay for disasters that they are supposed to cover.
 
Do you people not get it? WE HAVE NO MORE MONEY...NONE...ZERO...ZILCH...THERE IS NO MONEY TO SPEND...MONEY FOR HELP DOES NOT EXIST. The only way to get the money is to take it from somewhere else or print it. Printing it will destroy the economy, so the only viable option is to cut other programs to give to Joplin. Which is stupid any way...natural disasters are insured and I seriously doubt that more than 1 or 2% of the people in Joplin don't have coverage. If we are bailing out Joplin, we are really bailing out insurance companies so they don't have to pay for disasters that they are supposed to cover.

Clearly, you are NOT reading my post entirely. Instead, you're just picking and choosing what you want to read.

I've said it 3 TIMES that I understand the economic difficulties our country is in currently. I've also said I understand Congressman Cantor's point that in order to provide disaster relief funds to the victims of these natural (or man-made) disasters Congress would have to offset funds by reducing expenditures from other federally funded programs. I UNDERSTAND THAT and have said so in each of my posts.

My problem with Cantor's remarks had everything to do with him politicizing the issue. If you can't understand how he used the tragedies to further the GOP call for still more spending cuts - right or wrong- then I can't make you see where in my view he went wrong in how he addressed the matter publically.
 
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!

A tad sensitive, eh? From your explanation it appears you heard what you wanted to hear from the interview. It also appears sir, that you have politicized the event.
 
I'm going to have to agree with Mo. It seemed to me that Cantor is detailing the problem of having too much debt and you heard Cantor trying to discredit left wing policies....maybe there is some cross over, but when Cantor says we have to find the money for the relief effort, he is stating a fact.
 
Do you people not get it? WE HAVE NO MORE MONEY...NONE...ZERO...ZILCH...THERE IS NO MONEY TO SPEND...MONEY FOR HELP DOES NOT EXIST. The only way to get the money is to take it from somewhere else or print it. Printing it will destroy the economy, so the only viable option is to cut other programs to give to Joplin. Which is stupid any way...natural disasters are insured and I seriously doubt that more than 1 or 2% of the people in Joplin don't have coverage. If we are bailing out Joplin, we are really bailing out insurance companies so they don't have to pay for disasters that they are supposed to cover.

Liberals support corperate welfare when it supports people who might vote for them.
 
Μολὼν λαβέ;1059529411 said:
Budget: An estimate, often itemized, of expected income and expense for a given period; a limited stock or supply of something (Dictionary.com).

So I guess we just print some more money and everything and will be just fine, eh?

Tick Tock...

U.S. National Debt Clock : Real Time

Kind of reminds me of my family life. If my wife falls down and breaks her leg, I take her to the hospital immediately, and worry about how I am going to pay for it later. Of course, if I am one of today's Republicans, I would have to figure out whether

1) To stop giving her the thyroid medicine she needs, in order to balance my budget.

2) To cut her back to one meal every 3 days in order to pay for it.

3) Let her leg remain broken, so that I don't go deeper into debt.

Hmm, you know, if I was that kind of a husband, my wife would divorce me in a heartbeat, because it would be obvious that I didn't give two craps about her. I think America needs to divorce today's Republican party.
 
Last edited:
Kind of reminds me of my family life. If my wife falls down and breaks her leg, I take her to the hospital immediately, and worry about how I am going to pay for it later. Of course, if I am one of today's Republicans, I would have to figure out whether

1) To stop giving her the thyroid medicine she needs, in order to balance my budget.

2) To cut her back to one meal every 3 days in order to pay for it.

3) Let her leg remain broken, so that I don't go deeper into debt.

Hmm, you know, if I was that kind of a husband, my wife would divorce me in a heartbeat, because it would be obvious that I didn't give two craps about her. I think America needs to divorce today's Republican party.

Or you can man up and figure it out yourself. No insurance? That won't last long because Obama has ensured you will purchase health care whether you can afford it or not. There are also lots of hospitals that take indigent patients if you can''t afford it. Or, ever heard of a credit card? You wouldn't be the first to live on a credit card for a period of time and pay it off when you can. Been there, done that. Or, hey, you can just let the government pay for it, right? Then you get to keep your wife, because living off the government shows her how just much you really love her.

The democracy will cease to exist when you take away from those who are willing to work and give to those who would not. -Thomas Jefferson
 
Kind of reminds me of my family life. If my wife falls down and breaks her leg, I take her to the hospital immediately, and worry about how I am going to pay for it later. Of course, if I am one of today's Republicans, I would have to figure out whether

1) To stop giving her the thyroid medicine she needs, in order to balance my budget.

2) To cut her back to one meal every 3 days in order to pay for it.

3) Let her leg remain broken, so that I don't go deeper into debt.

Hmm, you know, if I was that kind of a husband, my wife would divorce me in a heartbeat, because it would be obvious that I didn't give two craps about her. I think America needs to divorce today's Republican party.

Instead you're one of today's liberals.

Don't plan for and have the means to get what you want, scream you're a victim, demand others pay for what it is you want because "you are entitled to it" then when it's pointed out we're you know, BANKRUPT, out come the heart string stoies of children and old people starving in the street to pay for rich people's golf lessons.

Which of course, is exactly what Barry Goldwater was about, Government doing everything for you and the Children.
 
Clearly, you are NOT reading my post entirely. Instead, you're just picking and choosing what you want to read.

I've said it 3 TIMES that I understand the economic difficulties our country is in currently. I've also said I understand Congressman Cantor's point that in order to provide disaster relief funds to the victims of these natural (or man-made) disasters Congress would have to offset funds by reducing expenditures from other federally funded programs. I UNDERSTAND THAT and have said so in each of my posts.

My problem with Cantor's remarks had everything to do with him politicizing the issue. If you can't understand how he used the tragedies to further the GOP call for still more spending cuts - right or wrong- then I can't make you see where in my view he went wrong in how he addressed the matter publically.


Too late. My offended kitty face has turned the tide against you. :p
 
Kind of reminds me of my family life. If my wife falls down and breaks her leg, I take her to the hospital immediately, and worry about how I am going to pay for it later. Of course, if I am one of today's Republicans, I would have to figure out whether

1) To stop giving her the thyroid medicine she needs, in order to balance my budget.

2) To cut her back to one meal every 3 days in order to pay for it.

3) Let her leg remain broken, so that I don't go deeper into debt.

Hmm, you know, if I was that kind of a husband, my wife would divorce me in a heartbeat, because it would be obvious that I didn't give two craps about her. I think America needs to divorce today's Republican party.

I woke up one night with very severe pain at my lower right abdominal area. WebMD said it could be a kidney stone or it could be my appendix. Since I wasn't peeing blood, and the pain was so severe I was puking, I had little choice but to go to the ER (not many PCPs open at night). I live paycheck to paycheck. I didn't have the money for it. It took me a year and a half to pay off that bill, WITH insurance. But I did it...because my health is my responsibility and mine alone. Forgive me if I don't pull out the violin for you.
 
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.

Oh don't spoil it for them. Cantor is eating little children, beating old ladies and pushing quadraplegics down stairwells.
 
Instead you're one of today's liberals.

Don't plan for and have the means to get what you want, scream you're a victim, demand others pay for what it is you want because "you are entitled to it" then when it's pointed out we're you know, BANKRUPT, out come the heart string stoies of children and old people starving in the street to pay for rich people's golf lessons.

Which of course, is exactly what Barry Goldwater was about, Government doing everything for you and the Children.

How dare you sit there with that holier than thou attitude! No matter how much you plan and prepare things can happen to completely blow up those plans. For example, a tornado destroys your house, your child's school, and your workplace. The government is supposed to help people that need it. Needing help doesn't make you weak. Do you think liberals are the only people in Joplin needing help? Are the conservatives rebuilding their homes by hand?
 
I woke up one night with very severe pain at my lower right abdominal area. WebMD said it could be a kidney stone or it could be my appendix. Since I wasn't peeing blood, and the pain was so severe I was puking, I had little choice but to go to the ER (not many PCPs open at night). I live paycheck to paycheck. I didn't have the money for it. It took me a year and a half to pay off that bill, WITH insurance. But I did it...because my health is my responsibility and mine alone. Forgive me if I don't pull out the violin for you.

That's great that you could do that. Luckily you had a job and insurance, many don't. Luckily you weren't in the hospital so long that you lost your job and with it your insurance. Good thing you weren't laid off before you paid off the bill. Luckily nothing else major went wrong before you paid the bill. When getting you insurance, good thing you didn't have a pre-existing condition that kept you from getting insurance.

I know that some people take advantage of government programs when they really don't need them, but that is not true of everyone. Sometimes good responsible people need help.
 
How dare you sit there with that holier than thou attitude! No matter how much you plan and prepare things can happen to completely blow up those plans. For example, a tornado destroys your house, your child's school, and your workplace. The government is supposed to help people that need it. Needing help doesn't make you weak. Do you think liberals are the only people in Joplin needing help? Are the conservatives rebuilding their homes by hand?

Is it, can you cite in the Constitution where this is? Wait, you'll zero in on the phrase "General welfare". Context is everything, and you fail if you go there.

Homes and businesses, it's called INSURANCE, that you pay for. Don't have it, sucks to be you. School's are the School District/State's issue, and they rebuild those. That's just... duh part of Government to rebuild when it's buildings get waxed. Rebuild peoples homes? Businesses? Nope. Roads? Yes. Water supply? If it's municipal, certainly. If it's privately owned, nope.

How dare YOU ma'am, believe you have some right to other people hard earned money, how dare YOU ma'am assume you have some right to have others fix your life for you, how dare YOU ma'am use a tragic incident in a town like Joplin to score petty political points.
 
That's great that you could do that. Luckily you had a job and insurance, many don't. Luckily you weren't in the hospital so long that you lost your job and with it your insurance. Good thing you weren't laid off before you paid off the bill. Luckily nothing else major went wrong before you paid the bill. When getting you insurance, good thing you didn't have a pre-existing condition that kept you from getting insurance.

I know that some people take advantage of government programs when they really don't need them, but that is not true of everyone. Sometimes good responsible people need help.

We can't afford to keep paying the leeches of society in the vain hope it helps "someone who really needs it".
 
Makes perfect sense.

The nation has to set priorities. If the libs have to decide if saving people is more important the keeping the stolen money flowing to NPR.

It's about time the libs learned that the printing presses shouldn't be used to make funny money.
 
Back
Top Bottom