Now that we have a new thread, 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 complete and thorough read before posting!
NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source.
On September 28 2022 03:14 Gahlo wrote: New Innuendo Studios and why white moderate Democrats need to take a long look in the mirror while courting moderate republicans.
That's a great video.
On a Florida note, I wonder if DeSantis and his fellow Republicans are going to use any of that "socialist" federal aid to help the state rebuild after this crazy hurricane.
I'm out of the loop here. Has DeSantis called using federal aid after a natural disaster socialism? Or are you calling it socialism?
DeSantis has done this, specifically in regards to using federal aid after a natural disaster. For example, he voted against New York receiving federal aid after Hurricane Sandy, for that same reason: https://robertreich.substack.com/p/how-floridians-are-benefiting-from#details It seems government assistance - especially during emergencies - is dismissed as socialist and irresponsible and government overreach... unless it's benefitting DeSantis or other Republican leaders. Obviously, DeSantis isn't the only Republican leader who calls pretty much everything "socialist", but he's looking to Biden for financial assistance in Florida, and DeSantis will almost certainly be relevant in the upcoming Republican primary for president, so scrutinizing him in this moment isn't surprising.
To be honest, its pretty consistent with modern day conservative philosophy. They don't want other people getting disaster aid because its a waste of money and doesn't benefit them. When they're in trouble, they'll suck as much aid as possible because its free money. See: PPP loans during the peak of the pandemic.
Its ridiculously cynical but is the sole tenant of modern day conservatism at this point. They're not especially consistent with anything except that they're kind of willing to turn a blind eye when they seek to benefit from something.
Robert Riech is a partisan hack. The hurricane Sandy bill was LOADED with pork and opposing it was justified, maybw even entirely correct. I pointed this out the last time there was a large natural disaster in a red state, but conservatives don't oppose federal disaster aid per se, especially not immediate supplies and material help during the emergency.
Also note the slight of hand he plays in that piece. Nowhere does he quote DeSantis saying that federal disaster aid is socialism, he plucks out a line from a 2018 campaign speech. There's no hypocrisy here. It in fact IS Riech who is calling disaster aid socialism, again because he's a dishonest hack.
On September 30 2022 23:55 Introvert wrote: Robert Riech is a partisan hack. The hurricane Sandy bill was LOADED with pork and opposing it was justified, maybw even entirely correct. I pointed this out the last time there was a large natural disaster in a red state, but conservatives don't oppose federal disaster aid per se, especially not immediate supplies and material help during the emergency.
Also note the slight of hand he plays in that piece. Nowhere does he quote DeSantis saying that federal disaster aid is socialism, he plucks out a line from a 2018 campaign speech. There's no hypocrisy here. It in fact IS Riech who is calling disaster aid socialism, again because he's a dishonest hack.
1. The Hurricane Sandy Bill was not loaded with pork. This is the bill, broken down piece by piece, which shows both reactive and proactive approaches to dealing with the issue by building and rebuilding communities and infrastructure: https://www.ncsl.org/ncsl-in-dc/standing-committees/law-criminal-justice-and-public-safety/senate-passes-sandy-bill.aspx $16B for CDBG ("providing decent housing and a suitable living environment" - https://www.hud.gov/program_offices/comm_planning/cdbg ) $11.5B for FEMA ("disaster relief aid fund for Sandy and other disasters. The money is used for shelter, restoring utilities and meeting other immediate needs.") "$10.9 billion for New York and New Jersey transit system recovery projects." "$5.35 billion for Army Corps of Engineers projects for Sandy-related damages and protections against future storms." "$2 billion for the Federal Highway Administration's emergency relief program to repair storm-damaged federal highways.$836 million to the Department of Interior for repairs to national lands." etc.
Also, the "loaded with pork" assertion wasn't even DeSantis's justification for opposing the bill, anyway: "In 2013, Representative DeSantis opposed federal disaster relief for New York and New Jersey, which had been impacted by Hurricane Sandy, due to "no plan to offset the spending with cuts elsewhere".[188][189]" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ron_DeSantis#Disaster_relief He didn't care about the content of the bill, but rather that the government was overreaching and spending money.
2. Even if the Sandy bill was loaded with irrelevant things (even though it's not), DeSantis is the last person who would sincerely reject a bill for that reason, given how much taxpayer money he just threw away for his little political stunt of kidnapping and human trafficking (which backfired anyway). We now know that he has no problem wasting money.
His supporters believe him, too: "We are ready for a leader like Florida Governor Ron DeSantis, who condemns socialism at every turn. In his words: “Socialism wrapped in ignorance is something Floridians from all walks of life reject.” ... DeSantis recognizes that socialist policies are destined to fail. And he isn’t afraid to say so, despite facing daily attacks from Democrats and their media allies. ... Ron DeSantis is that leader. We are “ready for Ron” because we’re ready to defeat socialism—before it’s too late." https://townhall.com/columnists/vanessaporras/2022/09/03/americans-ready-for-ron-desantis-to-fight-socialism-in-2024-n2612489
1) the breakdown you cited is vague, lots of irrelevant things were grouped under all those headings.
I remember that time and I checked the link provided in the blog post. Paying for things without adding the debt and making sure all spending was actually relevant are, of course related.
Second, and I'm surprised you really are trying to defend this one, is that is that federal aid is some sort of socialist endeavor that he, or any conservative, opposes. Disappointingly, you are just doing the exact thing Riech is doing, which may explain your lack of concern for his dishonesty. The criticism of "socialism" and federal disaster aid are NOT RELATED. The two links you provided give no evidence for the claim you are making. Federal involvement after a disaster is not socialism, despite the attempt of socialist to claim that everything people like is actually socialism.
Edit: and BTW the Sandy bill was not an "emergency" bill or action. It came two months after the storm. It had little to do with immediate federal assistance.
Edit to below. That's fine if true, but not the point I was making sorry. Contrasting with the statements being made now about Ian.
the aftermath of hurricane sandy did not dissipate within months. people were displaced for over a year. there was very much still urgency at the time. emergent? arguable (certainly can’t be dismissed,) but two months later aid was very much sorely needed. those made homeless, as i’m sure many in florida feel now as well, surely considered it emergency aid.
On October 01 2022 01:44 Introvert wrote: I'm at work so short on time but a few points.
1) the breakdown you cited is vague, lots of irrelevant things were grouped under all those headings.
I remember that time and I checked the link provided in the blog post. Paying for things without adding the debt and making sure all spending was actually relevant are, of course related.
Second, and I'm surprised you really are trying to defend this one, is that is that federal aid is some sort of socialist endeavor that he, or any conservative, opposes. Disappointingly, you are just doing the exact thing Riech is doing, which may explain your lack of concern for his dishonesty. The criticism of "socialism" and federal disaster aid are NOT RELATED. The two links you provided give no evidence for the claim you are making. Federal involvement after a disaster is not socialism, despite the attempt of socialist to claim that everything people like is actually socialism.
Edit: and BTW the Sandy bill was not an "emergency" bill or action. It came two months after the storm. It had little to do with immediate federal assistance.
Edit to below. That's fine if true, but not the point I was making sorry. Contrasting with the statements being made now about Ian.
With both Sandy and Ian, a state or region needed financial assistance due to the damage caused by a hurricane; it's as simple as that. The actual contrast between helping victims of Sandy and helping victims of Ian is that DeSantis pretended to care about the government paying back the cost of the Sandy aid, whereas DeSantis asked for the Ian aid without caring about making the federal assistance cost-neutral. It's exactly what Republicans do all the time: ask "how are Dems gonna pay for X" when Dems want something, but conveniently don't ask the same question when Repubs want something. This game shouldn't be about blue states needing aid vs. red states needing aid, yet DeSantis and other Republican leaders have this exact double-standard.
And I know that federal disaster aid isn't socialism, but many on the right do think they're related, so when you say "The criticism of "socialism" and federal disaster aid are NOT RELATED", you're ignoring conservative comments like these: "Anyone in Sandy's path can latch on to the FEMA teat. This is not disaster relief but disaster socialism. It is one thing for the government to provide emergency housing, health care and food; it is quite another to compensate victims for every loss. If people knocked down by a storm deserve such federal largesse, why not open the coffers to anyone who suffers a car crash, a death in the family or a broken heart?" This quote is from an article literally entitled "FEMA and disaster socialism" ( https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/fema-and-disaster-socialism ).
Step 1: Look at a government program or bill or aid package. Step 2: Hyper-focus on the problematic parts that you think are overreaching or irrelevant. Step 3: Call all those problematic parts "Socialist" or any other buzzword (Communist? Satanic? Atheist?) that will automatically garner a hatred of those parts by your followers, since now they'll attach these taboo words to the problematic parts (or, better yet, maybe the followers will attach the taboo words to the entire program or bill or aid package).
On October 01 2022 01:44 Introvert wrote: I'm at work so short on time but a few points.
1) the breakdown you cited is vague, lots of irrelevant things were grouped under all those headings.
I remember that time and I checked the link provided in the blog post. Paying for things without adding the debt and making sure all spending was actually relevant are, of course related.
Second, and I'm surprised you really are trying to defend this one, is that is that federal aid is some sort of socialist endeavor that he, or any conservative, opposes. Disappointingly, you are just doing the exact thing Riech is doing, which may explain your lack of concern for his dishonesty. The criticism of "socialism" and federal disaster aid are NOT RELATED. The two links you provided give no evidence for the claim you are making. Federal involvement after a disaster is not socialism, despite the attempt of socialist to claim that everything people like is actually socialism.
Edit: and BTW the Sandy bill was not an "emergency" bill or action. It came two months after the storm. It had little to do with immediate federal assistance.
Edit to below. That's fine if true, but not the point I was making sorry. Contrasting with the statements being made now about Ian.
With both Sandy and Ian, a state or region needed financial assistance due to the damage caused by a hurricane; it's as simple as that. The actual contrast between helping victims of Sandy and helping victims of Ian is that DeSantis pretended to care about the government paying back the cost of the Sandy aid, whereas DeSantis asked for the Ian aid without caring about making the federal assistance cost-neutral. It's exactly what Republicans do all the time: ask "how are Dems gonna pay for X" when Dems want something, but conveniently don't ask the same question when Repubs want something. This game shouldn't be about blue states needing aid vs. red states needing aid, yet DeSantis and other Republican leaders have this exact double-standard.
And I know that federal disaster aid isn't socialism, but many on the right do think they're related, so when you say "The criticism of "socialism" and federal disaster aid are NOT RELATED", you're ignoring conservative comments like these: "Anyone in Sandy's path can latch on to the FEMA teat. This is not disaster relief but disaster socialism. It is one thing for the government to provide emergency housing, health care and food; it is quite another to compensate victims for every loss. If people knocked down by a storm deserve such federal largesse, why not open the coffers to anyone who suffers a car crash, a death in the family or a broken heart?" This quote is from an article literally entitled "FEMA and disaster socialism" ( https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/fema-and-disaster-socialism ).
Step 1: Look at a government program or bill or aid package. Step 2: Hyper-focus on the problematic parts that you think are overreaching or irrelevant. Step 3: Call all those problematic parts "Socialist" or any other buzzword (Communist? Satanic? Atheist?) that will automatically garner a hatred of those parts by your followers, since now they'll attach these taboo words to the problematic parts (or, better yet, maybe the followers will attach the taboo words to the entire program or bill or aid package).
Well first I would like to point out that immediate assistance (such as is happening right now) is generally already budgeted for afaik. That's kind of what FEMA does... that's why I made the distinction between immediate relief and later spending. Second, he was a member of the House at the time and had a set of priorities and responsibilities as a member of the national legislature. Most governors of any party don't really whine about the national debt, it's not their wheelhouse. I wouldn't be surprised to see him accept a bill that may or may come down, but it hasn't even happened yet.
Third, I think the killer here for the point you are trying to make is that there's simply no record of DeSantis calling federal aid socialism. Since that was the thing you were up in arms about, I understand why you are now trying to skip past that and imply that's really what he means. Even in his opposition to the bill he didn't call it socialism even though you and RR are trying to say he did. Sorry, your point is just wrong.
I put this in a spolier because it's getting away from the point of the blog you quoted ("Desantis bad"). The opinion piece you cited (besides being written by someone who works at a libertarian institution) explains it. No one is calling federal aid, even after the fact!, socialism. He's making the case that it was a handout.
Your 3 step program is the same tired accusation that's been debated to death a million times, it is, again, almost as tired as lefties calling every government program socialism.
On September 28 2022 03:14 Gahlo wrote: New Innuendo Studios and why white moderate Democrats need to take a long look in the mirror while courting moderate republicans.
On a Florida note, I wonder if DeSantis and his fellow Republicans are going to use any of that "socialist" federal aid to help the state rebuild after this crazy hurricane.
I'm out of the loop here. Has DeSantis called using federal aid after a natural disaster socialism? Or are you calling it socialism?
DeSantis has done this, specifically in regards to using federal aid after a natural disaster. For example, he voted against New York receiving federal aid after Hurricane Sandy, for that same reason: https://robertreich.substack.com/p/how-floridians-are-benefiting-from#details It seems government assistance - especially during emergencies - is dismissed as socialist and irresponsible and government overreach... unless it's benefitting DeSantis or other Republican leaders. Obviously, DeSantis isn't the only Republican leader who calls pretty much everything "socialist", but he's looking to Biden for financial assistance in Florida, and DeSantis will almost certainly be relevant in the upcoming Republican primary for president, so scrutinizing him in this moment isn't surprising.
I think Introvert correctly points out that it's not DeSantis calling federal aid socialism but Robert Reich calling it socialism
But how exactly does DeSantis define “socialism?”
One hint came in 2013, when as a freshman congressman he claimed that a federal bailout for the New York region after Hurricane Sandy was an irresponsible boondoggle. “I sympathize with the victims,” he said. But his answer was no.
The guy spends all day ranting and raving against socialism but the best we can do for how he defines it as taking "a hint" from a single no vote he made 9 years ago?
I think there's a good point to be made about how Republicans use socialism as a boogeyman buzzword to scare people. But this kind of grasping at straws where we decide that they define socialism as any and all government aid and then call them hypocrites for supporting anything that isn't straight anarchy is a bit ridiculous.
On October 01 2022 01:44 Introvert wrote: I'm at work so short on time but a few points.
1) the breakdown you cited is vague, lots of irrelevant things were grouped under all those headings.
I remember that time and I checked the link provided in the blog post. Paying for things without adding the debt and making sure all spending was actually relevant are, of course related.
Second, and I'm surprised you really are trying to defend this one, is that is that federal aid is some sort of socialist endeavor that he, or any conservative, opposes. Disappointingly, you are just doing the exact thing Riech is doing, which may explain your lack of concern for his dishonesty. The criticism of "socialism" and federal disaster aid are NOT RELATED. The two links you provided give no evidence for the claim you are making. Federal involvement after a disaster is not socialism, despite the attempt of socialist to claim that everything people like is actually socialism.
Edit: and BTW the Sandy bill was not an "emergency" bill or action. It came two months after the storm. It had little to do with immediate federal assistance.
Edit to below. That's fine if true, but not the point I was making sorry. Contrasting with the statements being made now about Ian.
With both Sandy and Ian, a state or region needed financial assistance due to the damage caused by a hurricane; it's as simple as that. The actual contrast between helping victims of Sandy and helping victims of Ian is that DeSantis pretended to care about the government paying back the cost of the Sandy aid, whereas DeSantis asked for the Ian aid without caring about making the federal assistance cost-neutral. It's exactly what Republicans do all the time: ask "how are Dems gonna pay for X" when Dems want something, but conveniently don't ask the same question when Repubs want something. This game shouldn't be about blue states needing aid vs. red states needing aid, yet DeSantis and other Republican leaders have this exact double-standard.
And I know that federal disaster aid isn't socialism, but many on the right do think they're related, so when you say "The criticism of "socialism" and federal disaster aid are NOT RELATED", you're ignoring conservative comments like these: "Anyone in Sandy's path can latch on to the FEMA teat. This is not disaster relief but disaster socialism. It is one thing for the government to provide emergency housing, health care and food; it is quite another to compensate victims for every loss. If people knocked down by a storm deserve such federal largesse, why not open the coffers to anyone who suffers a car crash, a death in the family or a broken heart?" This quote is from an article literally entitled "FEMA and disaster socialism" ( https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/fema-and-disaster-socialism ).
Step 1: Look at a government program or bill or aid package. Step 2: Hyper-focus on the problematic parts that you think are overreaching or irrelevant. Step 3: Call all those problematic parts "Socialist" or any other buzzword (Communist? Satanic? Atheist?) that will automatically garner a hatred of those parts by your followers, since now they'll attach these taboo words to the problematic parts (or, better yet, maybe the followers will attach the taboo words to the entire program or bill or aid package).
Well first I would like to point out that immediate assistance (such as is happening right now) is generally already budgeted for afaik. That's kind of what FEMA does... that's why I made the distinction between immediate relief and later spending. Second, he was a member of the House at the time and had a set of priorities and responsibilities as a member of the national legislature. Most governors of any party don't really whine about the national debt, it's not their wheelhouse. I wouldn't be surprised to see him accept a bill that may or may come down, but it hasn't even happened yet.
Third, I think the killer here for the point you are trying to make is that there's simply no record of DeSantis calling federal aid socialism. Since that was the thing you were up in arms about, I understand why you are now trying to skip past that and imply that's really what he means. Even in his opposition to the bill he didn't call it socialism even though you and RR are trying to say he did. Sorry, your point is just wrong.
I put this in a spolier because it's getting away from the point of the blog you quoted ("Desantis bad"). The opinion piece you cited (besides being written by someone who works at a libertarian institution) explains it. No one is calling federal aid, even after the fact!, socialism. He's making the case that it was a handout.
Your 3 step program is the same tired accusation that's been debated to death a million times, it is, again, almost as tired as lefties calling every government program socialism.
You had taken the time to write out multiple points, so I was attempting to address everything you had said - including the assertions that the Sandy bill was loaded with irrelevant spending (unsubstantiated) and that conservatives don't connect socialism with federal disaster aid (refuted in my previous post about "FEMA and disaster socialism") - even though some of your points were peripheral to the Ron DeSantis conversation. And to that original point, I now agree with you and BlackJack that Ron DeSantis didn't literally say that Sandy aid / federal disaster relief was "socialist". I was mistaken with that, although I do think that DeSantis's (and others') nebulous use of that term happens too frequently, and I still think that DeSantis was a hypocrite for his position on Sandy aid vs. his position on Ian aid.
On October 01 2022 01:44 Introvert wrote: I'm at work so short on time but a few points.
1) the breakdown you cited is vague, lots of irrelevant things were grouped under all those headings.
I remember that time and I checked the link provided in the blog post. Paying for things without adding the debt and making sure all spending was actually relevant are, of course related.
Second, and I'm surprised you really are trying to defend this one, is that is that federal aid is some sort of socialist endeavor that he, or any conservative, opposes. Disappointingly, you are just doing the exact thing Riech is doing, which may explain your lack of concern for his dishonesty. The criticism of "socialism" and federal disaster aid are NOT RELATED. The two links you provided give no evidence for the claim you are making. Federal involvement after a disaster is not socialism, despite the attempt of socialist to claim that everything people like is actually socialism.
Edit: and BTW the Sandy bill was not an "emergency" bill or action. It came two months after the storm. It had little to do with immediate federal assistance.
Edit to below. That's fine if true, but not the point I was making sorry. Contrasting with the statements being made now about Ian.
With both Sandy and Ian, a state or region needed financial assistance due to the damage caused by a hurricane; it's as simple as that. The actual contrast between helping victims of Sandy and helping victims of Ian is that DeSantis pretended to care about the government paying back the cost of the Sandy aid, whereas DeSantis asked for the Ian aid without caring about making the federal assistance cost-neutral. It's exactly what Republicans do all the time: ask "how are Dems gonna pay for X" when Dems want something, but conveniently don't ask the same question when Repubs want something. This game shouldn't be about blue states needing aid vs. red states needing aid, yet DeSantis and other Republican leaders have this exact double-standard.
And I know that federal disaster aid isn't socialism, but many on the right do think they're related, so when you say "The criticism of "socialism" and federal disaster aid are NOT RELATED", you're ignoring conservative comments like these: "Anyone in Sandy's path can latch on to the FEMA teat. This is not disaster relief but disaster socialism. It is one thing for the government to provide emergency housing, health care and food; it is quite another to compensate victims for every loss. If people knocked down by a storm deserve such federal largesse, why not open the coffers to anyone who suffers a car crash, a death in the family or a broken heart?" This quote is from an article literally entitled "FEMA and disaster socialism" ( https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/fema-and-disaster-socialism ).
Step 1: Look at a government program or bill or aid package. Step 2: Hyper-focus on the problematic parts that you think are overreaching or irrelevant. Step 3: Call all those problematic parts "Socialist" or any other buzzword (Communist? Satanic? Atheist?) that will automatically garner a hatred of those parts by your followers, since now they'll attach these taboo words to the problematic parts (or, better yet, maybe the followers will attach the taboo words to the entire program or bill or aid package).
Well first I would like to point out that immediate assistance (such as is happening right now) is generally already budgeted for afaik. That's kind of what FEMA does... that's why I made the distinction between immediate relief and later spending. Second, he was a member of the House at the time and had a set of priorities and responsibilities as a member of the national legislature. Most governors of any party don't really whine about the national debt, it's not their wheelhouse. I wouldn't be surprised to see him accept a bill that may or may come down, but it hasn't even happened yet.
Third, I think the killer here for the point you are trying to make is that there's simply no record of DeSantis calling federal aid socialism. Since that was the thing you were up in arms about, I understand why you are now trying to skip past that and imply that's really what he means. Even in his opposition to the bill he didn't call it socialism even though you and RR are trying to say he did. Sorry, your point is just wrong.
I put this in a spolier because it's getting away from the point of the blog you quoted ("Desantis bad"). The opinion piece you cited (besides being written by someone who works at a libertarian institution) explains it. No one is calling federal aid, even after the fact!, socialism. He's making the case that it was a handout.
Your 3 step program is the same tired accusation that's been debated to death a million times, it is, again, almost as tired as lefties calling every government program socialism.
You had taken the time to write out multiple points, so I was attempting to address everything you had said - including the assertions that the Sandy bill was loaded with irrelevant spending (unsubstantiated) and that conservatives don't connect socialism with federal disaster aid (refuted in my previous post about "FEMA and disaster socialism") - even though some of your points were peripheral to the Ron DeSantis conversation. And to that original point, I now agree with you and BlackJack that Ron DeSantis didn't literally say that Sandy aid / federal disaster relief was "socialist". I was mistaken with that, although I do think that DeSantis's (and others') nebulous use of that term happens too frequently, and I still think that DeSantis was a hypocrite for his position on Sandy aid vs. his position on Ian aid.
Well let's end amicably with me saying that I agree, in a certain way. Just as it's annoying how socialists call everything they like socialism, it's not good to call things you don't like socialism (or fascism, or whatever). I'd prefer we not do that.
On October 01 2022 01:44 Introvert wrote: I'm at work so short on time but a few points.
1) the breakdown you cited is vague, lots of irrelevant things were grouped under all those headings.
I remember that time and I checked the link provided in the blog post. Paying for things without adding the debt and making sure all spending was actually relevant are, of course related.
Second, and I'm surprised you really are trying to defend this one, is that is that federal aid is some sort of socialist endeavor that he, or any conservative, opposes. Disappointingly, you are just doing the exact thing Riech is doing, which may explain your lack of concern for his dishonesty. The criticism of "socialism" and federal disaster aid are NOT RELATED. The two links you provided give no evidence for the claim you are making. Federal involvement after a disaster is not socialism, despite the attempt of socialist to claim that everything people like is actually socialism.
Edit: and BTW the Sandy bill was not an "emergency" bill or action. It came two months after the storm. It had little to do with immediate federal assistance.
Edit to below. That's fine if true, but not the point I was making sorry. Contrasting with the statements being made now about Ian.
With both Sandy and Ian, a state or region needed financial assistance due to the damage caused by a hurricane; it's as simple as that. The actual contrast between helping victims of Sandy and helping victims of Ian is that DeSantis pretended to care about the government paying back the cost of the Sandy aid, whereas DeSantis asked for the Ian aid without caring about making the federal assistance cost-neutral. It's exactly what Republicans do all the time: ask "how are Dems gonna pay for X" when Dems want something, but conveniently don't ask the same question when Repubs want something. This game shouldn't be about blue states needing aid vs. red states needing aid, yet DeSantis and other Republican leaders have this exact double-standard.
And I know that federal disaster aid isn't socialism, but many on the right do think they're related, so when you say "The criticism of "socialism" and federal disaster aid are NOT RELATED", you're ignoring conservative comments like these: "Anyone in Sandy's path can latch on to the FEMA teat. This is not disaster relief but disaster socialism. It is one thing for the government to provide emergency housing, health care and food; it is quite another to compensate victims for every loss. If people knocked down by a storm deserve such federal largesse, why not open the coffers to anyone who suffers a car crash, a death in the family or a broken heart?" This quote is from an article literally entitled "FEMA and disaster socialism" ( https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/fema-and-disaster-socialism ).
Step 1: Look at a government program or bill or aid package. Step 2: Hyper-focus on the problematic parts that you think are overreaching or irrelevant. Step 3: Call all those problematic parts "Socialist" or any other buzzword (Communist? Satanic? Atheist?) that will automatically garner a hatred of those parts by your followers, since now they'll attach these taboo words to the problematic parts (or, better yet, maybe the followers will attach the taboo words to the entire program or bill or aid package).
Well first I would like to point out that immediate assistance (such as is happening right now) is generally already budgeted for afaik. That's kind of what FEMA does... that's why I made the distinction between immediate relief and later spending. Second, he was a member of the House at the time and had a set of priorities and responsibilities as a member of the national legislature. Most governors of any party don't really whine about the national debt, it's not their wheelhouse. I wouldn't be surprised to see him accept a bill that may or may come down, but it hasn't even happened yet.
Third, I think the killer here for the point you are trying to make is that there's simply no record of DeSantis calling federal aid socialism. Since that was the thing you were up in arms about, I understand why you are now trying to skip past that and imply that's really what he means. Even in his opposition to the bill he didn't call it socialism even though you and RR are trying to say he did. Sorry, your point is just wrong.
I put this in a spolier because it's getting away from the point of the blog you quoted ("Desantis bad"). The opinion piece you cited (besides being written by someone who works at a libertarian institution) explains it. No one is calling federal aid, even after the fact!, socialism. He's making the case that it was a handout.
Your 3 step program is the same tired accusation that's been debated to death a million times, it is, again, almost as tired as lefties calling every government program socialism.
You had taken the time to write out multiple points, so I was attempting to address everything you had said - including the assertions that the Sandy bill was loaded with irrelevant spending (unsubstantiated) and that conservatives don't connect socialism with federal disaster aid (refuted in my previous post about "FEMA and disaster socialism") - even though some of your points were peripheral to the Ron DeSantis conversation. And to that original point, I now agree with you and BlackJack that Ron DeSantis didn't literally say that Sandy aid / federal disaster relief was "socialist". I was mistaken with that, although I do think that DeSantis's (and others') nebulous use of that term happens too frequently, and I still think that DeSantis was a hypocrite for his position on Sandy aid vs. his position on Ian aid.
Well let's end amicably with me saying that I agree, in a certain way. Just as it's annoying how socialists call everything they like socialism, it's not good to call things you don't like socialism (or fascism, or whatever). I'd prefer we not do that.
I think it's good Biden is finally giving in on refusing to clean up a tiny fraction of a catastrophic mess he was instrumental in creating/perpetuating (while his own family conveniently avoided such a draconian approach) because it is politically expedient now.
On October 07 2022 05:53 GreenHorizons wrote: I think it's good Biden is finally giving in on refusing to clean up a tiny fraction of a catastrophic mess he was instrumental in creating/perpetuating (while his own family conveniently avoided such a draconian approach) because it is politically expedient now.
Oh man, you're trying way tooo hard here dude. This type of thing should be easy wins across the board but for whatever reason, it's pretty consistently the libs/"socialists" that are the ones pushing for decriminalization and legalization with the opposition typically from the freedom/free-enterprise loving conservatives. Pretending that the "right" has been for these types of things more than the "left" is just silly.
Biden can only do so much with what he has at the moment and the reality is, it's the R's in the senate that he has to win over to get anything done. Are you really ignoring this reality? He did what he could.
Seriously man, think you need see the big picture a bit and see that a good thing can be a good thing (even if evil Biden does it for political gain, not sure what the fuck Trump was doing with this type of shit while he controlled everything lol, what a joke right?). + Show Spoiler +
Honestly, I've been out of this thread for a while. If this guy's just a troll, let me know.
On October 07 2022 05:53 GreenHorizons wrote: I think it's good Biden is finally giving in on refusing to clean up a tiny fraction of a catastrophic mess he was instrumental in creating/perpetuating (while his own family conveniently avoided such a draconian approach) because it is politically expedient now.
Oh man, you're trying way tooo hard here dude. This type of thing should be easy wins across the board but for whatever reason, it's pretty consistently the libs/"socialists" that are the ones pushing for decriminalization and legalization with the opposition typically from the freedom/free-enterprise loving conservatives. Pretending that the "right" has been for these types of things more than the "left" is just silly.
Biden can only do so much with what he has at the moment and the reality is, it's the R's in the senate that he has to win over to get anything done. Are you really ignoring this reality? He did what he could.
Seriously man, think you need see the big picture a bit and see that a good thing can be a good thing (even if evil Biden does it for political gain, not sure what the fuck Trump was doing with this type of shit while he controlled everything lol, what a joke right?). + Show Spoiler +
Honestly, I've been out of this thread for a while. If this guy's just a troll, let me know.
No, GH isn't a troll. He's a communist who doesn't believe in electoral politics and thinks political revolution is the only solution to America's problems, so any win gained through electoral politics is met with total cynicism.
On October 07 2022 05:53 GreenHorizons wrote: I think it's good Biden is finally giving in on refusing to clean up a tiny fraction of a catastrophic mess he was instrumental in creating/perpetuating (while his own family conveniently avoided such a draconian approach) because it is politically expedient now.
Oh man, you're trying way tooo hard here dude. This type of thing should be easy wins across the board but for whatever reason, it's pretty consistently the libs/"socialists" that are the ones pushing for decriminalization and legalization with the opposition typically from the freedom/free-enterprise loving conservatives. Pretending that the "right" has been for these types of things more than the "left" is just silly.
Biden can only do so much with what he has at the moment and the reality is, it's the R's in the senate that he has to win over to get anything done. Are you really ignoring this reality? He did what he could.
Seriously man, think you need see the big picture a bit and see that a good thing can be a good thing (even if evil Biden does it for political gain, not sure what the fuck Trump was doing with this type of shit while he controlled everything lol, what a joke right?). + Show Spoiler +
Honestly, I've been out of this thread for a while. If this guy's just a troll, let me know.
No, GH isn't a troll. He's a communist who doesn't believe in electoral politics and thinks political revolution is the only solution to America's problems, so any win gained through electoral politics is met with total cynicism.
My position regarding this is more in line with Malcolm's "If you stick a knife in my back nine inches and pull it out six inches, there's no progress."
I don't think the steps he's reportedly taking are bad, they are just insignificant and insufficient in contrast to the irretrievably hypocritical damage he was/is instrumental in inflicting against countless families, even limited specifically to drug use.
Yeah GH doesn't care about Us politics and can't be happy about anything happening unless things get much much worse for everyone first. Hes not a troll he's just not having the same conversation that you are having. He doesn't want for anything because he doesn't think anything is actually possible to get better. Just imagine he's from another country and it makes a lot more sense.
EPT
