• 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!

Trump administration rejects 99% of Hurricane Matthew N.C. funds

Absentglare said:
Wow, President Trump shows us how much he cares about the people who voted for him:



Trump administration rejects 99% of Hurricane Matthew N.C. funds - NY Daily News

I wonder how much Americans will have to suffer before conservatives acknowledge the error of turning a blind eye to the suffering of others.
Click to expand...

Trump isn't a conservative, even his hard core supporters call Trump a populist, a nationalist, even a nativist. But they don't call him a conservative. He isn't. The only faction or group within the Republican Party that Trump lost were conservatives during the primaries. He won moderate and liberal Republicans, he even won evangelicals and every other group that the polls broke down within the GOP. Trump lost conservatives.

It was the conservatives that launched the never Trump movement during the primaries. Now in the general election, given a choice of voting for Trump, Clinton or a third party candidate, conservatives did go 81-16 Trump with 3% voting third party. That didn't mean conservatives liked Trump, it meant they hated Clinton worst than Trump. Big difference, although a vote is a vote no matter what reason it is cast.

Liberals on the other hand went for Clinton by a 84-10 margin with 6% voting third party.

Then there is this

Donald Trump Supporters are Liberal and Moderate Republicans, Not Conservatives | National Review

Numbers Don’t Lie: Is Donald Trump Conservative Or Liberal?
 
Absentglare said:
Your argument is that President Trump is so drunk at the wheel that he can't be blamed for the collateral damage of his oblivious and misguided leadership?

Fascinating argument.
Click to expand...

Where did you get any of that from what I said?

Was Obama responsible for the IRS harassing conservative groups, or was he drunk at the wheel?
 
Mason66 said:
Where did you get any of that from what I said?

Was Obama responsible for the IRS harassing conservative groups, or was he drunk at the wheel?
Click to expand...

You were claiming that the president is not responsible for his own administration's behavior. What a convenient cop-out now that there's a republican in the white house.

I remember when President Obama was in the white house, he was even held responsible for the historic obstructionism of congressional republican cowards. Funny how that flipped so suddenly when we got an inept, incompetent boob in the job.
 
Perotista said:
Trump isn't a conservative, even his hard core supporters call Trump a populist, a nationalist, even a nativist. But they don't call him a conservative. He isn't. The only faction or group within the Republican Party that Trump lost were conservatives during the primaries. He won moderate and liberal Republicans, he even won evangelicals and every other group that the polls broke down within the GOP. Trump lost conservatives.

It was the conservatives that launched the never Trump movement during the primaries. Now in the general election, given a choice of voting for Trump, Clinton or a third party candidate, conservatives did go 81-16 Trump with 3% voting third party. That didn't mean conservatives liked Trump, it meant they hated Clinton worst than Trump. Big difference, although a vote is a vote no matter what reason it is cast.

Liberals on the other hand went for Clinton by a 84-10 margin with 6% voting third party.

Then there is this

Donald Trump Supporters are Liberal and Moderate Republicans, Not Conservatives | National Review

Numbers Don’t Lie: Is Donald Trump Conservative Or Liberal?
Click to expand...

If your argument is that none of the congressional republicans who are supporting him are conservative, i think that will be news to many of their constituents.
 
Absentglare said:
You were claiming that the president is not responsible for his own administration's behavior. What a convenient cop-out now that there's a republican in the white house.

I remember when President Obama was in the white house, he was even held responsible for the historic obstructionism of congressional republican cowards. Funny how that flipped so suddenly when we got an inept, incompetent boob in the job.
Click to expand...

Obama was not held responsible for anything that happened in his administration.

Do you know what "held responsible" means?

It doesn't mean people on the internet talking about it.
 
Absentglare said:
If your argument is that none of the congressional republicans who are supporting him are conservative, i think that will be news to many of their constituents.
Click to expand...

No it's not. I said Trump isn't a conservative, not in the traditional sense of conservatism. He is nothing more than an egotistical opportunist who would have wrapped himself or change many of his lifelong held views to run as a democrat if that was what he needed to do.
 
Perotista said:
No it's not. I said Trump isn't a conservative, not in the traditional sense of conservatism. He is nothing more than an egotistical opportunist who would have wrapped himself or change many of his lifelong held views to run as a democrat if that was what he needed to do.
Click to expand...

My argument is that conservative ideology seeks to turn a blind eye to the suffering of Americans:

Absentglare said:
Wow, President Trump shows us how much he cares about the people who voted for him:



Trump administration rejects 99% of Hurricane Matthew N.C. funds - NY Daily News

I wonder how much Americans will have to suffer before conservatives acknowledge the error of turning a blind eye to the suffering of others.
Click to expand...

I find the idea of being conservative when it comes to disaster relief is misguided.

President Trump is doing the conservative thing in this case: refusing to provide disaster relief. I think the conservative approach is a bad approach to disaster relief.
 
Absentglare said:
My argument is that conservative ideology seeks to turn a blind eye to the suffering of Americans:



I find the idea of being conservative when it comes to disaster relief is misguided.

President Trump is doing the conservative thing in this case: refusing to provide disaster relief. I think the conservative approach is a bad approach to disaster relief.
Click to expand...

It's the man that refused to provide disaster relief. Not an ideology.
 
Perotista said:
It's the man that refused to provide disaster relief. Not an ideology.
Click to expand...

Okay maybe i wasn't clear.

The conservative position (the one that shrinks the government) applied to disaster relief is a bad position.

Whether or not you think President Trump is or is not a conservative on other issues is irrelevant. What is relevant is that you should at least dignify constituents with an explanation when you turn down 99% of their requested disaster relief- unless you're just interested in turning a blind eye to the suffering of Americans for personal gain.
 
Absentglare said:
Okay maybe i wasn't clear.

The conservative position (the one that shrinks the government) applied to disaster relief is a bad position.

Whether or not you think President Trump is or is not a conservative on other issues is irrelevant. What is relevant is that you should at least dignify constituents with an explanation when you turn down 99% of their requested disaster relief- unless you're just interested in turning a blind eye to the suffering of Americans for personal gain.
Click to expand...

Small government is a traditional conservative's tenet for sure. That means keeping government out of a citizens private business and lives. Now if you equate not providing disaster relief as part of keeping government out of a citizens private business and life, then in your mind, your correct. As far as I am concerned, disaster relief doesn't have a darn thing to do with keeping government out of a citizens private business and lives.
 
Perotista said:
Small government is a traditional conservative's tenet for sure. That means keeping government out of a citizens private business and lives. Now if you equate not providing disaster relief as part of keeping government out of a citizens private business and life, then in your mind, your correct. As far as I am concerned, disaster relief doesn't have a darn thing to do with keeping government out of a citizens private business and lives.
Click to expand...

That philosophy ran into reality with the Great Depression
 
Perotista said:
Small government is a traditional conservative's tenet for sure. That means keeping government out of a citizens private business and lives. Now if you equate not providing disaster relief as part of keeping government out of a citizens private business and life, then in your mind, your correct. As far as I am concerned, disaster relief doesn't have a darn thing to do with keeping government out of a citizens private business and lives.
Click to expand...

Is it that hard for you to admit that conservatism shouldn't be blindly applied to every aspect of governance?
 
Unitedwestand13 said:
That philosophy ran into reality with the Great Depression
Click to expand...

Perhaps. But I have to wonder if not for WWII which stimulated the heck out of our economy and put 13 million or so men to work how long would the depression have lasted? That isn't a knock on FDR, he is one of the greatest presidents ever. He gave the American people hope which Hoover couldn't. FDR created all the alphabet soup organizations which helped build America. CCC, WPA, TVA and more. Which left this country far better off than before.

I abide by that tenet pretty much, but there are things a government can do that a private citizen can't. One also has to use common sense to met different situations. Before all this welfare came along, back when I was a kid growing up, charities, neighbors, communities, families all helped each other. No one starved or did without what they needed. I remember food and can drives in school, do they do that anymore? The big difference back then was people gave of their time, money and energy instead of sending someone down to the nearest government office.

Are we better off today with all this government assistance? I would say so. But there are times I wonder if we haven't gone way overboard. One thing I learned at a young age, there are always exceptions to rules or even philosophies. Philosophies have to evolve and adapt, adjust to met situations that arise. Failure to do so will leave any philosophy dead in the water.

Bottom line, providing disaster relief isn't against conservative principals.
 
Absentglare said:
Is it that hard for you to admit that conservatism shouldn't be blindly applied to every aspect of governance?
Click to expand...

Applying any philosophy blinding without consideration to common sense and circumstances is irrational. My point is that disaster assistance isn't stopped or hindered by conservative principals. To think that it is, is just as asinine as Trump not providing any.
 
Mr Person said:
Well, it is rather easy to make it look like things don't add up if one cuts out the relevant facts - a particularly slimey move when "one" is complaining about the cutting out of relevant facts.


Also from the article: North Carolina asked for $929 million from the government in its effort to recover from the disaster last year. The Trump administration has agreed to give it only $6.1 million — less than 1% of what the state said it needed.


Also from the article: "The state sustained an estimated $4.8 billion in damages when the hurricane ravaged the area last October, according to the governor’s office. Hurricane Matthew killed nearly 30 people in North Carolina, and damaged more than 100,000 homes and buildings."


And what led to your quote, cherry-picked in haste? This did:



Cooper wrote that he and state legislators collaborated to come up with a “conservative” funding request. North Carolina needs most of the federal funds for housing and public buildings — “our state’s most critical and immediate needs,” as the governor put it. The money the Trump administration has offered is not enough to cover even one of the state’s multiple recovery requests. North Carolina asked for a combined $600.6 million for housing repairs and elevation, as well as $39 million for small businesses, $37 million for health services, $43 million for public facilities and $92.6 million for agriculture recovery. The White House offered no public explanation for denying the funds to North Carolina, a swing state Trump won in the presidential election. So far, North Carolina has secured $1.4 billion in state and federal funds for Hurricane Matthew recovery.





Must we do math?

Damage: 4.8 billion
Requested from feds: 0.600 billion
Also requested: 0.929 billion
Received from feds: 0.0061 billion
{edit: I see someone has claimed they got 600 mil already, then disclaimed it. Either way, point stands}.

So now comes that sentence, "So far, North Carolina has secured $1.4 billion in state and federal funds for Hurricane Matthew recovery."

State AND federal it says. Well, the federal appears to be 0.0061 billion, so that means that everything between 0.0061 and 1.4 billion are STATE FUNDS, not federal funds. (Unless someone can demonstrate the article itself is factually wrong. I don't trust NY daily news).


Meaning.....in turn.....

Damage: 4.8 billion
Federal funding: 0.0061 billion
State funding: 1.393 billion
Needed over time: 3.4009 billion
Click to expand...

You forgot insurance companies.
 
Perotista said:
Applying any philosophy blinding without consideration to common sense and circumstances is irrational. My point is that disaster assistance isn't stopped or hindered by conservative principals. To think that it is, is just as asinine as Trump not providing any.
Click to expand...

As argued elsewhere the conservative view is to leave state issues to the states. The Federal government shouldn't provide any assistance at all for issues which arise within the borders of a state. State autonomy first...That's why the electoral college...let's at least be consistent.

As a Massachusetts Democrat I'm tired of my federal tax dollars supporting and enabling conservatives in red states.
 
Partsguy57 said:
The country is going broke at what point are you going to quit advocating for more spending?? Caring?? You won't believe the level of suffering that will occur if both parties don't cut spending and get the country solvent. At the current path I can promise you some very bad things will eventually happen.... Venezuela???

Sent from my SM-G920R4 using Tapatalk
Click to expand...
You can't promise anything. Nothing.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom