|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On January 16 2013 14:33 BluePanther wrote:Show nested quote +On January 16 2013 13:56 HunterX11 wrote:On January 16 2013 11:32 BluePanther wrote:On January 16 2013 11:11 Adreme wrote:
So it seems the House today finally voted for the additional 50 billion dollars in aid for Sandy relief 241-180 with 49 Republicans joining 192 Democrats to pass it. I dont really understand why you would want to be on record voting against hurricane relief efforts but I guess some districts are really really conservative but even then you would think relief effort would be something everyone supports. And you wonder why we're so far in debt... Do you really think we are so far in debt because of natural disasters? Most of the debt right now is a result of the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, and the economic downturn. None of those were caused by natural disasters, and all of them have created far, far more debt than any combination of natural disasters in the U.S. ever has. I didn't even suggest that. I was pointing out how that ATTITUDE is why we are so far in debt. But good thing you got your anti-war plug in. It was totally relevant.
In what universe are wars that cost trillions and push us from a surplus to a deficit irrelevant to debt, yet the "attitude" that disaster relief that costs billions is necessary not? I wasn't trying to make a snarky comment like you have been, but stating facts relevant to the conversation. The attitudes of people you disagree with who post on internet forums doesn't create government debt; government spending does. And government spending to mitigate disasters is a tiny and (for now at least) largely irrelevant portion of that spending.
|
On January 16 2013 14:36 BluePanther wrote:Show nested quote +On January 16 2013 12:07 Adreme wrote:On January 16 2013 11:52 BluePanther wrote:On January 16 2013 11:35 Adreme wrote:On January 16 2013 11:32 BluePanther wrote:On January 16 2013 11:11 Adreme wrote:
So it seems the House today finally voted for the additional 50 billion dollars in aid for Sandy relief 241-180 with 49 Republicans joining 192 Democrats to pass it. I dont really understand why you would want to be on record voting against hurricane relief efforts but I guess some districts are really really conservative but even then you would think relief effort would be something everyone supports. And you wonder why we're so far in debt... Some things are basic government functions that dont typically deserve opposition. Disaster relief is one of those things. Its the reason Katrina funding was approved within 2 weeks because disater relief isnt something that typically something you play games with. Also we are in debt due to a mixture of taxes being too low and spending being too high and the actual causes of that spending being too unpopular to touch so everyone just postures a lot and doesnt actually do anything. That's what someone says about everything. Shocker. You mean unpopular like disaster relief? YOU DONT SAY? Saying we shouldnt fund disaster relief is like saying we shouldnt have a military or we shouldnt build roads. Its one of the basic things that you have governements to do. If they refuse to do something like that they have no reason to exist because they arent doing there basic core job. Again if you want to deal with debt there are actual causes to it and no disaster relief is not one of them. There is money to be cut that can be cut without giving up on basic governemnt nessecities. States have governments too. I don't exactly see the Federal Government rushing to save us from Asian Carp (or any other natural disaster we've suffered). So yeah, I have a problem when I'm paying for these other states' natural disasters. They don't help us when we need it, why should we help them? It doesn't take a math major to understand that we give them billions while we only receive millions. It irritates me that these people would build homes and businesses in locations where they KNOW they will be subject to hurricanes, and then DON'T GET INSURANCE for it. Then when they lose everything, they think someone ought to pay them for it. It drives me nuts.
Wait? Are you saying Asian carp is dealing as much damage is hurricane Sandy? Leaving destruction in its wake? Holy moly!!
Can you provide us some source detailed the economic damage caused by natural disaster in your State?
|
On January 16 2013 14:59 HunterX11 wrote:Show nested quote +On January 16 2013 14:33 BluePanther wrote:On January 16 2013 13:56 HunterX11 wrote:On January 16 2013 11:32 BluePanther wrote:On January 16 2013 11:11 Adreme wrote:
So it seems the House today finally voted for the additional 50 billion dollars in aid for Sandy relief 241-180 with 49 Republicans joining 192 Democrats to pass it. I dont really understand why you would want to be on record voting against hurricane relief efforts but I guess some districts are really really conservative but even then you would think relief effort would be something everyone supports. And you wonder why we're so far in debt... Do you really think we are so far in debt because of natural disasters? Most of the debt right now is a result of the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, and the economic downturn. None of those were caused by natural disasters, and all of them have created far, far more debt than any combination of natural disasters in the U.S. ever has. I didn't even suggest that. I was pointing out how that ATTITUDE is why we are so far in debt. But good thing you got your anti-war plug in. It was totally relevant. In what universe are wars that cost trillions and push us from a surplus to a deficit irrelevant to debt, yet the "attitude" that disaster relief that costs billions is necessary not? I wasn't trying to make a snarky comment like you have been, but stating facts relevant to the conversation. The attitudes of people you disagree with who post on internet forums doesn't create government debt; government spending does. And government spending to mitigate disasters is a tiny and (for now at least) largely irrelevant portion of that spending.
You're argument that "well the wars cost more" is completely irrelevant. I'm not here to discuss WHAT put us in debt. I was making a comment on the ATTITUDE that put us in debt.
Who cares if it's only a small portion? I do. I'm paying for it.
In case you haven't noticed, I'm very much against most non-defense spending by the USA. I think most of it is wasted, or would be better utilized on a state level of government.
|
On January 16 2013 15:09 furymonkey wrote:Show nested quote +On January 16 2013 14:36 BluePanther wrote:On January 16 2013 12:07 Adreme wrote:On January 16 2013 11:52 BluePanther wrote:On January 16 2013 11:35 Adreme wrote:On January 16 2013 11:32 BluePanther wrote:On January 16 2013 11:11 Adreme wrote:
So it seems the House today finally voted for the additional 50 billion dollars in aid for Sandy relief 241-180 with 49 Republicans joining 192 Democrats to pass it. I dont really understand why you would want to be on record voting against hurricane relief efforts but I guess some districts are really really conservative but even then you would think relief effort would be something everyone supports. And you wonder why we're so far in debt... Some things are basic government functions that dont typically deserve opposition. Disaster relief is one of those things. Its the reason Katrina funding was approved within 2 weeks because disater relief isnt something that typically something you play games with. Also we are in debt due to a mixture of taxes being too low and spending being too high and the actual causes of that spending being too unpopular to touch so everyone just postures a lot and doesnt actually do anything. That's what someone says about everything. Shocker. You mean unpopular like disaster relief? YOU DONT SAY? Saying we shouldnt fund disaster relief is like saying we shouldnt have a military or we shouldnt build roads. Its one of the basic things that you have governements to do. If they refuse to do something like that they have no reason to exist because they arent doing there basic core job. Again if you want to deal with debt there are actual causes to it and no disaster relief is not one of them. There is money to be cut that can be cut without giving up on basic governemnt nessecities. States have governments too. I don't exactly see the Federal Government rushing to save us from Asian Carp (or any other natural disaster we've suffered). So yeah, I have a problem when I'm paying for these other states' natural disasters. They don't help us when we need it, why should we help them? It doesn't take a math major to understand that we give them billions while we only receive millions. It irritates me that these people would build homes and businesses in locations where they KNOW they will be subject to hurricanes, and then DON'T GET INSURANCE for it. Then when they lose everything, they think someone ought to pay them for it. It drives me nuts. Wait? Are you saying Asian carp is dealing as much damage is hurricane Sandy? Leaving destruction in its wake? Holy moly!! Can you provide us some source detailed the economic damage caused by natural disaster in your State?
It's not that they are equal. My point is that we're paying people billions while we're only getting millions in return. It's a bad deal for us, why should I support that? They can buy insurance if they want to live there. I don't think it's right for them to bypass on insurance, then demand financial support from other citizens who don't choose to live in higher risk areas.
|
On January 16 2013 15:11 BluePanther wrote:Show nested quote +On January 16 2013 14:59 HunterX11 wrote:On January 16 2013 14:33 BluePanther wrote:On January 16 2013 13:56 HunterX11 wrote:On January 16 2013 11:32 BluePanther wrote:On January 16 2013 11:11 Adreme wrote:
So it seems the House today finally voted for the additional 50 billion dollars in aid for Sandy relief 241-180 with 49 Republicans joining 192 Democrats to pass it. I dont really understand why you would want to be on record voting against hurricane relief efforts but I guess some districts are really really conservative but even then you would think relief effort would be something everyone supports. And you wonder why we're so far in debt... Do you really think we are so far in debt because of natural disasters? Most of the debt right now is a result of the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, and the economic downturn. None of those were caused by natural disasters, and all of them have created far, far more debt than any combination of natural disasters in the U.S. ever has. I didn't even suggest that. I was pointing out how that ATTITUDE is why we are so far in debt. But good thing you got your anti-war plug in. It was totally relevant. In what universe are wars that cost trillions and push us from a surplus to a deficit irrelevant to debt, yet the "attitude" that disaster relief that costs billions is necessary not? I wasn't trying to make a snarky comment like you have been, but stating facts relevant to the conversation. The attitudes of people you disagree with who post on internet forums doesn't create government debt; government spending does. And government spending to mitigate disasters is a tiny and (for now at least) largely irrelevant portion of that spending. You're argument that "well the wars cost more" is completely irrelevant. I'm not here to discuss WHAT put us in debt. I was making a comment on the ATTITUDE that put us in debt. Who cares if it's only a small portion? I do. I'm paying for it. In case you haven't noticed, I'm very much against most non-defense spending by the USA. I think most of it is wasted, or would be better utilized on a state level of government.
On what is this assumption based? What have state governments done to impress you so? Their collective track record is not so great, and that map doesn't even take federal assistance or efficiency into account.
|
On January 16 2013 15:11 BluePanther wrote:Show nested quote +On January 16 2013 14:59 HunterX11 wrote:On January 16 2013 14:33 BluePanther wrote:On January 16 2013 13:56 HunterX11 wrote:On January 16 2013 11:32 BluePanther wrote:On January 16 2013 11:11 Adreme wrote:
So it seems the House today finally voted for the additional 50 billion dollars in aid for Sandy relief 241-180 with 49 Republicans joining 192 Democrats to pass it. I dont really understand why you would want to be on record voting against hurricane relief efforts but I guess some districts are really really conservative but even then you would think relief effort would be something everyone supports. And you wonder why we're so far in debt... Do you really think we are so far in debt because of natural disasters? Most of the debt right now is a result of the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, and the economic downturn. None of those were caused by natural disasters, and all of them have created far, far more debt than any combination of natural disasters in the U.S. ever has. I didn't even suggest that. I was pointing out how that ATTITUDE is why we are so far in debt. But good thing you got your anti-war plug in. It was totally relevant. In what universe are wars that cost trillions and push us from a surplus to a deficit irrelevant to debt, yet the "attitude" that disaster relief that costs billions is necessary not? I wasn't trying to make a snarky comment like you have been, but stating facts relevant to the conversation. The attitudes of people you disagree with who post on internet forums doesn't create government debt; government spending does. And government spending to mitigate disasters is a tiny and (for now at least) largely irrelevant portion of that spending. You're argument that "well the wars cost more" is completely irrelevant. I'm not here to discuss WHAT put us in debt. I was making a comment on the ATTITUDE that put us in debt. Who cares if it's only a small portion? I do. I'm paying for it. In case you haven't noticed, I'm very much against most non-defense spending by the USA. I think most of it is wasted, or would be better utilized on a state level of government.
Even if you care about the attitude, I still think helping people recover from natural disasters is a better attitude than killing people overseas. It's not exactly reasonable to expect everyone to move away from the coasts (and it would cost a LOT more money than just rebuilding).
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
this state vs federal question when it comes to pork is pretty hilarious. if anything, a lot of pork are state level projects with federal funding. incidentally red states receive a lot of these projects without contributing as much revenue back.
|
On January 16 2013 15:20 HunterX11 wrote:Show nested quote +On January 16 2013 15:11 BluePanther wrote:On January 16 2013 14:59 HunterX11 wrote:On January 16 2013 14:33 BluePanther wrote:On January 16 2013 13:56 HunterX11 wrote:On January 16 2013 11:32 BluePanther wrote:On January 16 2013 11:11 Adreme wrote:
So it seems the House today finally voted for the additional 50 billion dollars in aid for Sandy relief 241-180 with 49 Republicans joining 192 Democrats to pass it. I dont really understand why you would want to be on record voting against hurricane relief efforts but I guess some districts are really really conservative but even then you would think relief effort would be something everyone supports. And you wonder why we're so far in debt... Do you really think we are so far in debt because of natural disasters? Most of the debt right now is a result of the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, and the economic downturn. None of those were caused by natural disasters, and all of them have created far, far more debt than any combination of natural disasters in the U.S. ever has. I didn't even suggest that. I was pointing out how that ATTITUDE is why we are so far in debt. But good thing you got your anti-war plug in. It was totally relevant. In what universe are wars that cost trillions and push us from a surplus to a deficit irrelevant to debt, yet the "attitude" that disaster relief that costs billions is necessary not? I wasn't trying to make a snarky comment like you have been, but stating facts relevant to the conversation. The attitudes of people you disagree with who post on internet forums doesn't create government debt; government spending does. And government spending to mitigate disasters is a tiny and (for now at least) largely irrelevant portion of that spending. You're argument that "well the wars cost more" is completely irrelevant. I'm not here to discuss WHAT put us in debt. I was making a comment on the ATTITUDE that put us in debt. Who cares if it's only a small portion? I do. I'm paying for it. In case you haven't noticed, I'm very much against most non-defense spending by the USA. I think most of it is wasted, or would be better utilized on a state level of government. Even if you care about the attitude, I still think helping people recover from natural disasters is a better attitude than killing people overseas. It's not exactly reasonable to expect everyone to move away from the coasts (and it would cost a LOT more money than just rebuilding).
I don't really care about your opinion on that matter. I don't consider the two to be related. At all. Military spending is clearly the federal government's job. I disagree that domestic relief should be funded by the federal government.
Section. 8.
The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;
To borrow Money on the credit of the United States;
To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;
To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;
To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;
To provide for the Punishment of counterfeiting the Securities and current Coin of the United States;
To establish Post Offices and post Roads;
To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;
To constitute Tribunals inferior to the supreme Court;
To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offences against the Law of Nations;
To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;
To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;
To provide and maintain a Navy;
To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;
To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;
To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;
To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings;--And
To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.
|
On January 16 2013 15:14 BluePanther wrote:Show nested quote +On January 16 2013 15:09 furymonkey wrote:On January 16 2013 14:36 BluePanther wrote:On January 16 2013 12:07 Adreme wrote:On January 16 2013 11:52 BluePanther wrote:On January 16 2013 11:35 Adreme wrote:On January 16 2013 11:32 BluePanther wrote:On January 16 2013 11:11 Adreme wrote:
So it seems the House today finally voted for the additional 50 billion dollars in aid for Sandy relief 241-180 with 49 Republicans joining 192 Democrats to pass it. I dont really understand why you would want to be on record voting against hurricane relief efforts but I guess some districts are really really conservative but even then you would think relief effort would be something everyone supports. And you wonder why we're so far in debt... Some things are basic government functions that dont typically deserve opposition. Disaster relief is one of those things. Its the reason Katrina funding was approved within 2 weeks because disater relief isnt something that typically something you play games with. Also we are in debt due to a mixture of taxes being too low and spending being too high and the actual causes of that spending being too unpopular to touch so everyone just postures a lot and doesnt actually do anything. That's what someone says about everything. Shocker. You mean unpopular like disaster relief? YOU DONT SAY? Saying we shouldnt fund disaster relief is like saying we shouldnt have a military or we shouldnt build roads. Its one of the basic things that you have governements to do. If they refuse to do something like that they have no reason to exist because they arent doing there basic core job. Again if you want to deal with debt there are actual causes to it and no disaster relief is not one of them. There is money to be cut that can be cut without giving up on basic governemnt nessecities. States have governments too. I don't exactly see the Federal Government rushing to save us from Asian Carp (or any other natural disaster we've suffered). So yeah, I have a problem when I'm paying for these other states' natural disasters. They don't help us when we need it, why should we help them? It doesn't take a math major to understand that we give them billions while we only receive millions. It irritates me that these people would build homes and businesses in locations where they KNOW they will be subject to hurricanes, and then DON'T GET INSURANCE for it. Then when they lose everything, they think someone ought to pay them for it. It drives me nuts. Wait? Are you saying Asian carp is dealing as much damage is hurricane Sandy? Leaving destruction in its wake? Holy moly!! Can you provide us some source detailed the economic damage caused by natural disaster in your State? It's not that they are equal. My point is that we're paying people billions while we're only getting millions in return. It's a bad deal for us, why should I support that? They can buy insurance if they want to live there. I don't think it's right for them to bypass on insurance, then demand financial support from other citizens who don't choose to live in higher risk areas.
I'm not sure about the efficiency of relief spending so I won't comment on that.
But i'm not quite sure why is insurance is bought into discussion, disaster relief normally only cover costs such as rebuilding infrastructure such as transportation, necessities such as water, power and health. Supply distribution such as food, medcines to area where those are hard to obtain. Most of these required complex logistics management which is suitable for government to undertake.
There might also be emergency housing for those who lost their home, but those aren't permanent and aren't given to people, they are still government owned and can be relocated or sold at later stage.
Insurance don't normally get paid right after disaster struck, they don't normally get paid till Insurance company get the full picture of the diaster, and this can take weeks. I think it is fair for government step in and provide diaster relief.
|
On January 16 2013 15:30 BluePanther wrote:Show nested quote +On January 16 2013 15:20 HunterX11 wrote:On January 16 2013 15:11 BluePanther wrote:On January 16 2013 14:59 HunterX11 wrote:On January 16 2013 14:33 BluePanther wrote:On January 16 2013 13:56 HunterX11 wrote:On January 16 2013 11:32 BluePanther wrote:On January 16 2013 11:11 Adreme wrote:
So it seems the House today finally voted for the additional 50 billion dollars in aid for Sandy relief 241-180 with 49 Republicans joining 192 Democrats to pass it. I dont really understand why you would want to be on record voting against hurricane relief efforts but I guess some districts are really really conservative but even then you would think relief effort would be something everyone supports. And you wonder why we're so far in debt... Do you really think we are so far in debt because of natural disasters? Most of the debt right now is a result of the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, and the economic downturn. None of those were caused by natural disasters, and all of them have created far, far more debt than any combination of natural disasters in the U.S. ever has. I didn't even suggest that. I was pointing out how that ATTITUDE is why we are so far in debt. But good thing you got your anti-war plug in. It was totally relevant. In what universe are wars that cost trillions and push us from a surplus to a deficit irrelevant to debt, yet the "attitude" that disaster relief that costs billions is necessary not? I wasn't trying to make a snarky comment like you have been, but stating facts relevant to the conversation. The attitudes of people you disagree with who post on internet forums doesn't create government debt; government spending does. And government spending to mitigate disasters is a tiny and (for now at least) largely irrelevant portion of that spending. You're argument that "well the wars cost more" is completely irrelevant. I'm not here to discuss WHAT put us in debt. I was making a comment on the ATTITUDE that put us in debt. Who cares if it's only a small portion? I do. I'm paying for it. In case you haven't noticed, I'm very much against most non-defense spending by the USA. I think most of it is wasted, or would be better utilized on a state level of government. Even if you care about the attitude, I still think helping people recover from natural disasters is a better attitude than killing people overseas. It's not exactly reasonable to expect everyone to move away from the coasts (and it would cost a LOT more money than just rebuilding). I don't really care about your opinion on that matter. I don't consider the two to be related. At all. Military spending is clearly the federal government's job. I disagree that domestic relief should be funded by the federal government. Show nested quote +Section. 8.
The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;
To borrow Money on the credit of the United States;
To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;
To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;
To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;
To provide for the Punishment of counterfeiting the Securities and current Coin of the United States;
To establish Post Offices and post Roads;
To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;
To constitute Tribunals inferior to the supreme Court;
To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offences against the Law of Nations;
To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;
To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;
To provide and maintain a Navy;
To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;
To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;
To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;
To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings;--And
To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.
The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States
That's where you'll have to do your definition wangling, for a fair case can most certainly be made in favor of the notion that "general Welfare" includes assistance in times of disaster.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
when your legal argument supports a clearly absurd policy it's not a good legal argument. law is not medieval scholastic metaphysics.
|
On January 16 2013 15:33 farvacola wrote:Show nested quote +On January 16 2013 15:30 BluePanther wrote:On January 16 2013 15:20 HunterX11 wrote:On January 16 2013 15:11 BluePanther wrote:On January 16 2013 14:59 HunterX11 wrote:On January 16 2013 14:33 BluePanther wrote:On January 16 2013 13:56 HunterX11 wrote:On January 16 2013 11:32 BluePanther wrote:On January 16 2013 11:11 Adreme wrote:
So it seems the House today finally voted for the additional 50 billion dollars in aid for Sandy relief 241-180 with 49 Republicans joining 192 Democrats to pass it. I dont really understand why you would want to be on record voting against hurricane relief efforts but I guess some districts are really really conservative but even then you would think relief effort would be something everyone supports. And you wonder why we're so far in debt... Do you really think we are so far in debt because of natural disasters? Most of the debt right now is a result of the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, and the economic downturn. None of those were caused by natural disasters, and all of them have created far, far more debt than any combination of natural disasters in the U.S. ever has. I didn't even suggest that. I was pointing out how that ATTITUDE is why we are so far in debt. But good thing you got your anti-war plug in. It was totally relevant. In what universe are wars that cost trillions and push us from a surplus to a deficit irrelevant to debt, yet the "attitude" that disaster relief that costs billions is necessary not? I wasn't trying to make a snarky comment like you have been, but stating facts relevant to the conversation. The attitudes of people you disagree with who post on internet forums doesn't create government debt; government spending does. And government spending to mitigate disasters is a tiny and (for now at least) largely irrelevant portion of that spending. You're argument that "well the wars cost more" is completely irrelevant. I'm not here to discuss WHAT put us in debt. I was making a comment on the ATTITUDE that put us in debt. Who cares if it's only a small portion? I do. I'm paying for it. In case you haven't noticed, I'm very much against most non-defense spending by the USA. I think most of it is wasted, or would be better utilized on a state level of government. Even if you care about the attitude, I still think helping people recover from natural disasters is a better attitude than killing people overseas. It's not exactly reasonable to expect everyone to move away from the coasts (and it would cost a LOT more money than just rebuilding). I don't really care about your opinion on that matter. I don't consider the two to be related. At all. Military spending is clearly the federal government's job. I disagree that domestic relief should be funded by the federal government. Section. 8.
The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;
To borrow Money on the credit of the United States;
To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;
To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;
To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;
To provide for the Punishment of counterfeiting the Securities and current Coin of the United States;
To establish Post Offices and post Roads;
To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;
To constitute Tribunals inferior to the supreme Court;
To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offences against the Law of Nations;
To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;
To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;
To provide and maintain a Navy;
To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;
To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;
To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;
To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings;--And
To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof. Show nested quote +The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States That's where you'll have to do your definition wangling, for a fair case can most certainly be made in favor of the notion that "general Welfare" includes assistance in times of disaster.
That's an opinion. I'm well aware under what clause they justify it. I simply disagree with it's justification for this type of disaster relief (as it was foreseeable).
Wikipedia:
Moreover, the Supreme Court held the understanding of the General Welfare Clause contained in the Taxing and Spending Clause adheres to the construction given it by Associate Justice Joseph Story in his 1833 Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States.[4][5] Justice Story concluded that the General Welfare Clause is not a grant of general legislative power,[4][6] but a qualification on the taxing power[4][7][8] which includes within it a federal power to spend federal revenues on matters of general interest to the federal government.[4][9][10] The Court described Justice Story's view as the "Hamiltonian position",[4] as Alexander Hamilton had elaborated his view of the taxing and spending powers in his 1791 Report on Manufactures. Story, however, attributes the position's initial appearance to Thomas Jefferson, in his Opinion on the Bank of the United States.[11]
I disagree that this spending is in the general interest of the United States. I'm not saying "I'm right, you're wrong" here. I'm just giving my opinion.
|
On January 16 2013 15:39 BluePanther wrote:Show nested quote +On January 16 2013 15:33 farvacola wrote:On January 16 2013 15:30 BluePanther wrote:On January 16 2013 15:20 HunterX11 wrote:On January 16 2013 15:11 BluePanther wrote:On January 16 2013 14:59 HunterX11 wrote:On January 16 2013 14:33 BluePanther wrote:On January 16 2013 13:56 HunterX11 wrote:On January 16 2013 11:32 BluePanther wrote:On January 16 2013 11:11 Adreme wrote:
So it seems the House today finally voted for the additional 50 billion dollars in aid for Sandy relief 241-180 with 49 Republicans joining 192 Democrats to pass it. I dont really understand why you would want to be on record voting against hurricane relief efforts but I guess some districts are really really conservative but even then you would think relief effort would be something everyone supports. And you wonder why we're so far in debt... Do you really think we are so far in debt because of natural disasters? Most of the debt right now is a result of the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, and the economic downturn. None of those were caused by natural disasters, and all of them have created far, far more debt than any combination of natural disasters in the U.S. ever has. I didn't even suggest that. I was pointing out how that ATTITUDE is why we are so far in debt. But good thing you got your anti-war plug in. It was totally relevant. In what universe are wars that cost trillions and push us from a surplus to a deficit irrelevant to debt, yet the "attitude" that disaster relief that costs billions is necessary not? I wasn't trying to make a snarky comment like you have been, but stating facts relevant to the conversation. The attitudes of people you disagree with who post on internet forums doesn't create government debt; government spending does. And government spending to mitigate disasters is a tiny and (for now at least) largely irrelevant portion of that spending. You're argument that "well the wars cost more" is completely irrelevant. I'm not here to discuss WHAT put us in debt. I was making a comment on the ATTITUDE that put us in debt. Who cares if it's only a small portion? I do. I'm paying for it. In case you haven't noticed, I'm very much against most non-defense spending by the USA. I think most of it is wasted, or would be better utilized on a state level of government. Even if you care about the attitude, I still think helping people recover from natural disasters is a better attitude than killing people overseas. It's not exactly reasonable to expect everyone to move away from the coasts (and it would cost a LOT more money than just rebuilding). I don't really care about your opinion on that matter. I don't consider the two to be related. At all. Military spending is clearly the federal government's job. I disagree that domestic relief should be funded by the federal government. Section. 8.
The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;
To borrow Money on the credit of the United States;
To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;
To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;
To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;
To provide for the Punishment of counterfeiting the Securities and current Coin of the United States;
To establish Post Offices and post Roads;
To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;
To constitute Tribunals inferior to the supreme Court;
To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offences against the Law of Nations;
To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;
To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;
To provide and maintain a Navy;
To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;
To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;
To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;
To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings;--And
To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof. The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States That's where you'll have to do your definition wangling, for a fair case can most certainly be made in favor of the notion that "general Welfare" includes assistance in times of disaster. That's an opinion. I'm well aware under what clause they justify it. I simply disagree with it's justification for this type of disaster relief (as it was foreseeable). Wikipedia: Show nested quote +Moreover, the Supreme Court held the understanding of the General Welfare Clause contained in the Taxing and Spending Clause adheres to the construction given it by Associate Justice Joseph Story in his 1833 Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States.[4][5] Justice Story concluded that the General Welfare Clause is not a grant of general legislative power,[4][6] but a qualification on the taxing power[4][7][8] which includes within it a federal power to spend federal revenues on matters of general interest to the federal government.[4][9][10] The Court described Justice Story's view as the "Hamiltonian position",[4] as Alexander Hamilton had elaborated his view of the taxing and spending powers in his 1791 Report on Manufactures. Story, however, attributes the position's initial appearance to Thomas Jefferson, in his Opinion on the Bank of the United States.[11] I disagree that this spending is in the general interest of the United States. I'm not saying "I'm right, you're wrong" here. I'm just giving my opinion.
So it's not in the general interest of the United States to help get the northeast coast back up and running as soon as possible? I thought we were the *United* States of America, not the "screw your state, it's all about what *my* state gets" thing.
|
On January 16 2013 15:31 furymonkey wrote:Show nested quote +On January 16 2013 15:14 BluePanther wrote:On January 16 2013 15:09 furymonkey wrote:On January 16 2013 14:36 BluePanther wrote:On January 16 2013 12:07 Adreme wrote:On January 16 2013 11:52 BluePanther wrote:On January 16 2013 11:35 Adreme wrote:On January 16 2013 11:32 BluePanther wrote:On January 16 2013 11:11 Adreme wrote:
So it seems the House today finally voted for the additional 50 billion dollars in aid for Sandy relief 241-180 with 49 Republicans joining 192 Democrats to pass it. I dont really understand why you would want to be on record voting against hurricane relief efforts but I guess some districts are really really conservative but even then you would think relief effort would be something everyone supports. And you wonder why we're so far in debt... Some things are basic government functions that dont typically deserve opposition. Disaster relief is one of those things. Its the reason Katrina funding was approved within 2 weeks because disater relief isnt something that typically something you play games with. Also we are in debt due to a mixture of taxes being too low and spending being too high and the actual causes of that spending being too unpopular to touch so everyone just postures a lot and doesnt actually do anything. That's what someone says about everything. Shocker. You mean unpopular like disaster relief? YOU DONT SAY? Saying we shouldnt fund disaster relief is like saying we shouldnt have a military or we shouldnt build roads. Its one of the basic things that you have governements to do. If they refuse to do something like that they have no reason to exist because they arent doing there basic core job. Again if you want to deal with debt there are actual causes to it and no disaster relief is not one of them. There is money to be cut that can be cut without giving up on basic governemnt nessecities. States have governments too. I don't exactly see the Federal Government rushing to save us from Asian Carp (or any other natural disaster we've suffered). So yeah, I have a problem when I'm paying for these other states' natural disasters. They don't help us when we need it, why should we help them? It doesn't take a math major to understand that we give them billions while we only receive millions. It irritates me that these people would build homes and businesses in locations where they KNOW they will be subject to hurricanes, and then DON'T GET INSURANCE for it. Then when they lose everything, they think someone ought to pay them for it. It drives me nuts. Wait? Are you saying Asian carp is dealing as much damage is hurricane Sandy? Leaving destruction in its wake? Holy moly!! Can you provide us some source detailed the economic damage caused by natural disaster in your State? It's not that they are equal. My point is that we're paying people billions while we're only getting millions in return. It's a bad deal for us, why should I support that? They can buy insurance if they want to live there. I don't think it's right for them to bypass on insurance, then demand financial support from other citizens who don't choose to live in higher risk areas. I'm not sure about the efficiency of relief spending so I won't comment on that. But i'm not quite sure why is insurance is bought into discussion, disaster relief normally only cover costs such as rebuilding infrastructure such as transportation, necessities such as water, power and health. Supply distribution such as food, medcines to area where those are hard to obtain. Most of these required complex logistics management which is suitable for government to undertake. There might also be emergency housing for those who lost their home, but those aren't permanent and aren't given to people, they are still government owned and can be relocated or sold at later stage. Insurance don't normally get paid right after disaster struck, they don't normally get paid till Insurance company get the full picture of the diaster, and this can take weeks. I think it is fair for government step in and provide diaster relief.
Maybe they should bargain for better insurance? I'm sorry, if you live on the East coast and you are hit by a hurricane, that is completely forseeable. Just like if you live in the Midwest, you damn well better have coverage for a tornado. It's not that I don't feel bad for these people, I just don't understand why I should be paying to rebuild their stuff.
Now, if a sea monster swallowed Long Island, and it wasn't covered by insurance policies, I would support helping fund some recovery efforts. Same with what happened with the Gulf Oil Spill... that was rather unexpected and wasn't the responsibility of the residents. I personally feel that natural disasters fall into two categories: forseeable and unforseeable. Federal funding shouldn't be used for the forseeable ones.
Now if this is just temporary support that is getting paid back by the state or locals, I'm ok with it. But it's not simply just a support structure we're providing that they don't' have the ability to organize.
|
Canada11475 Posts
Not to mention it is not unheard of for the balance of powers/ governmental responsibilities to adjust based on financial capability and various other changes. Canda's provinces wound up having large responsibilities when education, health, and labour laws were given to them by the consitution. But there have been multiple times where provinces have come to the federal government, hat in hand because they didn't have the means to deal with responsibility. And so a slight adjustment happens in province-federal roles and responsilities.
Or perhaps technology or society changes. I recall an old Ron Paul discussion with William F Buckley where Ron Paul insisted the FBI ought to be disbanded as states should handle law enforcement themselves as the first 100 years did not require such an organization. But rapid transportation necessitated a body that could enforce across the states so that criminals couldn't simply jump states.
|
On January 16 2013 15:42 Funnytoss wrote:Show nested quote +On January 16 2013 15:39 BluePanther wrote:On January 16 2013 15:33 farvacola wrote:On January 16 2013 15:30 BluePanther wrote:On January 16 2013 15:20 HunterX11 wrote:On January 16 2013 15:11 BluePanther wrote:On January 16 2013 14:59 HunterX11 wrote:On January 16 2013 14:33 BluePanther wrote:On January 16 2013 13:56 HunterX11 wrote:On January 16 2013 11:32 BluePanther wrote:
[quote]
And you wonder why we're so far in debt... Do you really think we are so far in debt because of natural disasters? Most of the debt right now is a result of the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, and the economic downturn. None of those were caused by natural disasters, and all of them have created far, far more debt than any combination of natural disasters in the U.S. ever has. I didn't even suggest that. I was pointing out how that ATTITUDE is why we are so far in debt. But good thing you got your anti-war plug in. It was totally relevant. In what universe are wars that cost trillions and push us from a surplus to a deficit irrelevant to debt, yet the "attitude" that disaster relief that costs billions is necessary not? I wasn't trying to make a snarky comment like you have been, but stating facts relevant to the conversation. The attitudes of people you disagree with who post on internet forums doesn't create government debt; government spending does. And government spending to mitigate disasters is a tiny and (for now at least) largely irrelevant portion of that spending. You're argument that "well the wars cost more" is completely irrelevant. I'm not here to discuss WHAT put us in debt. I was making a comment on the ATTITUDE that put us in debt. Who cares if it's only a small portion? I do. I'm paying for it. In case you haven't noticed, I'm very much against most non-defense spending by the USA. I think most of it is wasted, or would be better utilized on a state level of government. Even if you care about the attitude, I still think helping people recover from natural disasters is a better attitude than killing people overseas. It's not exactly reasonable to expect everyone to move away from the coasts (and it would cost a LOT more money than just rebuilding). I don't really care about your opinion on that matter. I don't consider the two to be related. At all. Military spending is clearly the federal government's job. I disagree that domestic relief should be funded by the federal government. Section. 8.
The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;
To borrow Money on the credit of the United States;
To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;
To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;
To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;
To provide for the Punishment of counterfeiting the Securities and current Coin of the United States;
To establish Post Offices and post Roads;
To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;
To constitute Tribunals inferior to the supreme Court;
To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offences against the Law of Nations;
To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;
To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;
To provide and maintain a Navy;
To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;
To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;
To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;
To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings;--And
To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof. The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States That's where you'll have to do your definition wangling, for a fair case can most certainly be made in favor of the notion that "general Welfare" includes assistance in times of disaster. That's an opinion. I'm well aware under what clause they justify it. I simply disagree with it's justification for this type of disaster relief (as it was foreseeable). Wikipedia: Moreover, the Supreme Court held the understanding of the General Welfare Clause contained in the Taxing and Spending Clause adheres to the construction given it by Associate Justice Joseph Story in his 1833 Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States.[4][5] Justice Story concluded that the General Welfare Clause is not a grant of general legislative power,[4][6] but a qualification on the taxing power[4][7][8] which includes within it a federal power to spend federal revenues on matters of general interest to the federal government.[4][9][10] The Court described Justice Story's view as the "Hamiltonian position",[4] as Alexander Hamilton had elaborated his view of the taxing and spending powers in his 1791 Report on Manufactures. Story, however, attributes the position's initial appearance to Thomas Jefferson, in his Opinion on the Bank of the United States.[11] I disagree that this spending is in the general interest of the United States. I'm not saying "I'm right, you're wrong" here. I'm just giving my opinion. So it's not in the general interest of the United States to help get the northeast coast back up and running as soon as possible? I thought we were the *United* States of America, not the "screw your state, it's all about what *my* state gets" thing.
If they pay for it, fine. But I shouldn't have to pay for it.
It's like the guy down the street has his garage burn down, and he didn't have insurance for it. Sure, I'll give him a place to store a few of his things until he can rebuild it, but I'll be damned if it's my duty to help buy him a new garage.
|
On January 16 2013 15:11 BluePanther wrote:
I'm not here to discuss WHAT put us in debt. I was making a comment on the ATTITUDE that put us in debt.
I think the point is that you're ignoring the "let's go kill us some a-rabs" ATTITUDE
|
On January 16 2013 15:50 sam!zdat wrote:Show nested quote +On January 16 2013 15:11 BluePanther wrote:
I'm not here to discuss WHAT put us in debt. I was making a comment on the ATTITUDE that put us in debt. I think the point is that you're ignoring the "let's go kill us some a-rabs" ATTITUDE
Am I? Where?
For clarification: I completely agree that it was a bad choice, in hindsight. At the time, I supported it. As did most Americans. I was wrong. It was a mistake.
He's essentially saying "another bad choice is ok because we made an even bigger bad choice at an earlier time." This is stupid.
I think a big reason I'm completely dismissing it is that Congressional power for that is completely legitimate, and occurs under a far less vague clause of the Constitution. They aren't similar in really ANY respect. For the sake of this conversation, it's merely an emotional argument intended to derail.
|
Meh, everything about the constitution is vague. I just think if you're going to go around talking about attitudes which put this country in the shitter, neocolonial adventurism should be at the top of your list.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
let's go back to leviticus for the heck of it
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
