Wed Jan 2, 2013, 01:28 PM
uponit7771 (35,951 posts)
The Sandy Relief vote is GREAT example of REAL Hatred
REAL Hate manifest itself in different ways one of them is indifference...
Republicans aren't indifferent of Sandy victims because they don't like people from the North East it's because they hate Obama.
Causing others tangible grief so that a person that they don't like will suffer even peripherally is REAL hatred.
They've been doing stuff like this for YEARS...
This time SHOULD be different, the democrats should be yelling fire on this issue to set the base on the debate on HOW much republicans are bad for America with this topic ALONE...
Obama shouldn't be the only one wanting relief for Sandy victims...
What are the NE cons says (the ones that are left) about this ?!
4 replies, 766 views
Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
The Sandy Relief vote is GREAT example of REAL Hatred (Original post)
Response to Mojorabbit (Reply #2)
Wed Jan 2, 2013, 02:00 PM
2ndAmForComputers (3,527 posts)
3. "Devoid of empathy" would be an improvement.
It would mean people NOT suffering wouldn't bother them.
No, it's NEGATIVE empathy. They'll pay one thousand to make you lose one hundred.
Response to uponit7771 (Original post)
Wed Jan 2, 2013, 03:41 PM
Igel (24,890 posts)
4. The discussion leading up to no Sandy relief vote is public record.
The plans are consistent with what (R) have said in the past and with what they said this time. Obama, oddly, wasn't mentioned.
Alaska, that was mentioned. The Port Authority's request for many millions to be able to start running the subways again but instead to being planning for a multi-year upgrade and retrofit was mentioned. Upgrading fisheries was mentioned. Lots of things that had nothing to do with Sandy relief were mentioned.
Short-term, immediate relief versus long-term infrastructure, that was mentioned. The short-term stuff helped people, and was mostly intended to be divvied up and doled out in smaller amounts. The long-term stuff helped state agencies, municipal governments, and private and public-private companies and agencies, and the typical payout was in the 10s of millions or more.
Wanting to split the Senate bill into a short-term bill for immediate passage and a long-term bill for discussion was mentioned. Having the Senate bill be an all-or-nothing matter was also mentioned. You either accept that half the bill has nothing to do with immediate relief to those who are suffering and in need and pass it to help those suffering or you reject it all and let the bill wait a few more days and try again.
An outsider's take.
The (R) said that the deficit's too large. They had a bill for $60 billion that had $28 billion for immediate relief and $32 billion for long-term projects. They said they'd pass the $28 billion immediately. They wouldn't pass the $60 billion with the $32 billion non-immediate aid in it without having a chance to debate and amend the contents. Or, probably, add their own wish-list items and ask that a funding source be provided for the non-emergency spending. The (R) were willing to let the Sandy victims suffer rather than approve what they viewed as an unnecessarily large long-term spending package unnecessarily pushed on them at the last minute that they were pressured to pass.
The Senate said, "Nothing doing" to the plan to split the bill. They realized that if they let the $32 billion be stripped out now that a lot of it wouldn't be approved in the House. The plight of the needy was leverage. They could have allowed the House to pass an immediate-need bill but they chose not to. They'd lose stuff in the bill, and if the $30+ billion long-term spending wasn't emergency it would count as something they'd have to offset when any spending cuts are already too large. They chose to let the Sandy victims suffer rather than approve what they viewed as an undesirably small, short-term only spending package and even let the House (R) have a win and "force" the Senate (D) to do something they didn't want.
The (R) House compromise was workable, however limited. It would answer the immediate need, but the long-term spending might get sucked into the debt-debate black hole. The (D) Senate thought this compromise unnecessary, harmful even to the narrative they're bulding, and too short-sighted. Both sides played politics, however much the longer-term spending may have been justified and necessary.
Except, of course, for the stuff in Alaska.