Lets remember Ted cruz didnt want sandy storm to get Fed aid

Link us up Desh... because the CBO stated that the 'disaster/emergency aide bill only had 30-40% going to actual disaster relief'. Schumer and other Dems loaded the 'emergency' bill with PORK.
 
evince said:
even Christy said cruz is a lying shitheel
Click to expand...

http://www.nj.com/politics/index.ssf/2017/08/christie_blasts_texas_gop_hypocrites_urges_swift_f.html

The "pork" line is beautiful, not only did the Texas representaribes work against Sandy aid they also delayed any aid saying they wanted other Federal cuts before any relief money would be released

Christie summed it up best, "When you're a state that has any kind of coastal exposure like Texas does to the gulf, you're going to wind up having some type of disaster that's going to ... (harm) the people of your state. Then all of a sudden, you're not gonna want a conversation of the philosophical niceties cause people are suffering and dying."
 
this is how the republican philosophy of FUCK YOUR FELLOW AMERICAN works out folks


Its not only evil

Its massively stupid
 
A month after Sandy hit New York and New Jersey in November 2012, the Obama administration requested $60 billion in appropriations for disaster relief.

That request eventually passed in the form of the Disaster Relief Appropriations Act. Before it did, however, the Congressional Budget Office found that more than 60 percent of the funds included in the draft bill would not be spent until at least 2015.

Leave it to the text of the House version of the bill, H.R. 152, to describe the funding package best: “Supplemental appropriations to improve and streamline disaster assistance for Hurricane Sandy, and for other purposes.”

Other purposes indeed. The bill had provisions involving fisheries in Alaska and New England; upgraded Amtrak lines, which had been largely unaffected by the storm; set aside money for highway improvements throughout the entire country; and devoted funds to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) to help it improve its weather forecasting.

It also set aside $16 billion for a community-development fund that would send money to any state that had declared a disaster within the previous two years — a criterion met by all but Arizona, Michigan, and South Carolina.

Provisions such as these more usually go through the normal budgetary process; here, they were jammed into a bill that simply had to pass.

In terms of pork-barrel spending, this is the essence of treif.

Sure enough, some Republicans opposed the pork-laden bill. Among those were Texas senators Ted Cruz and John Cornyn, along with several House Republicans from Texas because they subscribed to the proposition that disaster-relief bills should be targeted to relieve disaster.

Much of the bundle of bacon that politicians squeezed into the Sandy relief bill had nothing to do with hurricanes, much less Hurricane Sandy. If anyone was cynically exploiting a disaster, it was not those who opposed the bill but those who designed it.



http://www.nationalreview.com/article/450912/hurricane-harvey-gop-non-hypocrisy
 
ther purposes indeed. The bill had provisions involving fisheries in Alaska and New England, which had suffered their own disasters; upgraded Amtrak lines, which had been largely unaffected by the storm; set aside money for highway improvements throughout the entire country; and devoted funds to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) to help it improve its weather forecasting. It also set aside $16 billion for a community-development fund that would send money not just to states affected by Sandy, but to any state that had declared a disaster within the previous two years — a criterion met by all but Arizona, Michigan, and South Carolina. Provisions such as these more usually go through the normal budgetary process; here, they were jammed into a bill that simply had to pass.

Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/article/450912/hurricane-harvey-gop-non-hypocrisy

this is what national review says was in the bill. Is there any source from the left to verify / debunk?
 
tsuke said:
ther purposes indeed. The bill had provisions involving fisheries in Alaska and New England, which had suffered their own disasters; upgraded Amtrak lines, which had been largely unaffected by the storm; set aside money for highway improvements throughout the entire country; and devoted funds to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) to help it improve its weather forecasting. It also set aside $16 billion for a community-development fund that would send money not just to states affected by Sandy, but to any state that had declared a disaster within the previous two years — a criterion met by all but Arizona, Michigan, and South Carolina. Provisions such as these more usually go through the normal budgetary process; here, they were jammed into a bill that simply had to pass.

Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/article/450912/hurricane-harvey-gop-non-hypocrisy

this is what national review says was in the bill. Is there any source from the left to verify / debunk?
Click to expand...

only there feelz :rofl2:
 
2013 newz report

again libz wont read & refute

they will just reject the source

The bill was broken down into an immediate $17 billion in aid and a contentious amendment to add $33 billion in separate relief, which passed 228-192. Of the "no votes," 190 were Republicans and two were Democrats. That amendment nearly tripled the size of the original bill.

Combined with the $9.7 billion bill the House passed on Jan. 4, the new package completes a $60.2 billion aid plan for Hurricane Sandy victims — 79 days after the storm hit the U.S.

Meanwhile, the House voted down the so-called Mulvaney amendment to the bill, 258-162. The amendment would have offset the $17 billion in aid with a 1.63 percent cut to all discretionary appropriations in the 2013 budget.

Of the 162 voting in favor, 157 were Republicans and five were Democrats. Northeast lawmakers worried that if the Mulvaney amendment passed in the House, it could have complicated swift action in the Senate.

The House also rejected amendments that would have pared down the spending in the bill.



http://www.businessinsider.com/sandy-relief-bill-vote-pork-congress-conservatives-2013-1
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top