|
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 5, 2016 17:39:27 GMT -5
the Republicans in Congress today blocked ANY aid to Flint. (they feel the local government should handle it and not the Federal one. . oh, and they blame the EPA, not the Governor of Michigan). SCUM. . all of them (and it's a Republican Governor who appointed a Republican City Manager, who caused the crisis in the first place) This isn't entirely true. The Republicans weren't happy that the Democrats tried to tack on the Flint aid package to the bipartisan energy bill that was coming up for vote. They felt the Flint aid should be discussed and voted on based on its own merits, not used as a political football by the Democrats in a "if you don't add it to the energy bill, we won't vote for said bill" manner. Mind you, I fully support aid going to Flint to solve this problem, and it needs to get there as soon as they figure out exactly what the entire scope of infrastructure needs are (rather than sending over an inadequate amount upfront), but the Democrats are the ones playing politics with this one, not the Republicans. Democrats aren't the only ones who use pork. Difference is this pork is going to help people in need. We could pass a bill ending the practice altogether, but Republicans would never support that. How else are they going to funnel money into faith based abstinence only education and creationist museums? |
|
|
|
Post by dupersuper on Feb 5, 2016 18:39:59 GMT -5
This isn't entirely true. The Republicans weren't happy that the Democrats tried to tack on the Flint aid package to the bipartisan energy bill that was coming up for vote. They felt the Flint aid should be discussed and voted on based on its own merits, not used as a political football by the Democrats in a "if you don't add it to the energy bill, we won't vote for said bill" manner. Mind you, I fully support aid going to Flint to solve this problem, and it needs to get there as soon as they figure out exactly what the entire scope of infrastructure needs are (rather than sending over an inadequate amount upfront), but the Democrats are the ones playing politics with this one, not the Republicans. Democrats aren't the only ones who use pork. Difference is this pork is going to help people in need. We could pass a bill ending the practice altogether, but Republicans would never support that. How else are they going to funnel money into faith based abstinence only education and creationist museums? Every time I read/see/hear news of a needed or advantageous American bill not passed because of a completely unrelated add-on, or a horrible add-on getting through by being attatched to such a bill, I feel like vomiting. |
|
|
|
Post by thwhtguardian on Feb 5, 2016 21:13:57 GMT -5
@ bert... I agree that something needs to be done "quickly", not "immediately" and not without some sort of plan in place to ensure millions of US tax dollars aren't wasted. Look, I'm not arguing that the Republican-led state government in Michigan didn't screw this up. I'm not arguing that this isn't a tragedy of the highest scale and that it isn't incredibly sad that the most-vulnerable section of Flint's population, namely their children, are going to suffer long-term effects of this. I'm not arguing that the folks responsible for this debacle should not face the full repercussions allowed under the law. I'm arguing that the proposed aid packaged should not have been attached to the energy bill, and that Congress should not start sending money to Flint until they fully understand what it is going to take to fix the problem. I can get behind that, though instead of blocking it out of hand I think it would have been more advantageous to open it up to discussion because otherwise it comes across as saying, "Hey, only we can add on pork, not you!" |
|
The Captain
CCF Mod Squad
Posts: 4,918 
Member is Online
|
Post by The Captain on Feb 5, 2016 22:18:23 GMT -5
@ bert... I agree that something needs to be done "quickly", not "immediately" and not without some sort of plan in place to ensure millions of US tax dollars aren't wasted. Look, I'm not arguing that the Republican-led state government in Michigan didn't screw this up. I'm not arguing that this isn't a tragedy of the highest scale and that it isn't incredibly sad that the most-vulnerable section of Flint's population, namely their children, are going to suffer long-term effects of this. I'm not arguing that the folks responsible for this debacle should not face the full repercussions allowed under the law. I'm arguing that the proposed aid packaged should not have been attached to the energy bill, and that Congress should not start sending money to Flint until they fully understand what it is going to take to fix the problem. I can get behind that, though instead of blocking it out of hand I think it would have been more advantageous to open it up to discussion because otherwise it comes across as saying, "Hey, only we can add on pork, not you!" They really didn't dismiss it, though. They said there was still room to discuss it and negotiate about it, but they didn't want it tied to this bill. Also, I don't think anyone, on either side of the aisle, views this as "pork". It's necessary, like the money sent to the Gulf Coast after Katrina or the East Coast after Sandy, but there is a lot of unknown here because of the buried infrastructure associated with the water system. They ( the folks in Michigan) can't just start tearing up the streets until they've identified where the bad lines are and which houses are affected. |
|
|
|
Post by thwhtguardian on Feb 6, 2016 9:06:45 GMT -5
I can get behind that, though instead of blocking it out of hand I think it would have been more advantageous to open it up to discussion because otherwise it comes across as saying, "Hey, only we can add on pork, not you!" They really didn't dismiss it, though. They said there was still room to discuss it and negotiate about it, but they didn't want it tied to this bill. Also, I don't think anyone, on either side of the aisle, views this as "pork". It's necessary, like the money sent to the Gulf Coast after Katrina or the East Coast after Sandy, but there is a lot of unknown here because of the buried infrastructure associated with the water system. They ( the folks in Michigan) can't just start tearing up the streets until they've identified where the bad lines are and which houses are affected. Except several republican senators specifically called it an "ear mark" that they felt would set a precedent, and the fact of the matter is that while the,"Let's see what they really need and vote when they have a plan for what to do." does make a certain amount of sense it's contrary to how those same senators have reacted when crisis have effected their homes. |
|
|
|
Post by Prince Hal on Feb 6, 2016 11:14:39 GMT -5
They really didn't dismiss it, though. They said there was still room to discuss it and negotiate about it, but they didn't want it tied to this bill. Also, I don't think anyone, on either side of the aisle, views this as "pork". It's necessary, like the money sent to the Gulf Coast after Katrina or the East Coast after Sandy, but there is a lot of unknown here because of the buried infrastructure associated with the water system. They ( the folks in Michigan) can't just start tearing up the streets until they've identified where the bad lines are and which houses are affected. Except several republican senators specifically called it an "ear mark" that they felt would set a precedent, and the fact of the matter is that while the,"Let's see what they really need and vote when they have a plan for what to do." does make a certain amount of sense it's contrary to how those same senators have reacted when crisis have effected their homes. And it's amazing, isn't it, how quickly the "Keep-the-gummint-out-of-my-life" crowd screams for federal help as soon as a flood, tornado, or hurricane sweeps away their home. Not as many rugged individualists as we think, are there? |
|
|
|
Post by the4thpip on Feb 6, 2016 11:41:09 GMT -5
I am really looking forward to how nasty the GOP primaries will get now. Trump is gonna drive the birther thing hard. I hope that Cruz will counter-attack by bringing up the fraudulent Trump university scandals, and the assumption that Trump desires carnal relations with his own daughter.
I'd get some popcorn, but I really don't like popcorn.
|
|
|
|
Post by DE Sinclair on Feb 8, 2016 11:28:47 GMT -5
I am really looking forward to how nasty the GOP primaries will get now. Trump is gonna drive the birther thing hard. I hope that Cruz will counter-attack by bringing up the fraudulent Trump university scandals, and the assumption that Trump desires carnal relations with his own daughter. I'd get some popcorn, but I really don't like popcorn. It's probably just as well, because some of this stuff would probably make you choke on the popcorn anyway. |
|
|
|
Post by the4thpip on Feb 13, 2016 18:06:21 GMT -5
With Scalia's death, shit just got real.
|
|
|
|
Post by spoon on Feb 13, 2016 18:58:51 GMT -5
With Scalia's death, shit just got real. Except it's clearly President Obama's job to nominate Scalia's successor. Ted Cruz's suggestion mere minutes after Scalia's death was announced, that the selection of the next justice be delayed a year is beyond the pale and contrary to our Constitution. No justice in recent history has waiting 4 months between nomination and confirmation, let alone 12 months. It is a reminder, though, that the next President may have other unexpected vacancies to fill. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 13, 2016 19:47:06 GMT -5
swiping this comment I saw online:
"I was always taught to only speak good of the dead.
He's dead. Good."
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 13, 2016 19:48:45 GMT -5
With Scalia's death, shit just got real. Except it's clearly President Obama's job to nominate Scalia's successor. Ted Cruz's suggestion mere minutes after Scalia's death was announced, that the selection of the next justice be delayed a year is beyond the pale and contrary to our Constitution. No justice in recent history has waiting 4 months between nomination and confirmation, let alone 12 months. It is a reminder, though, that the next President may have other unexpected vacancies to fill. oh, not just Cruz. Rubio, several conservative Pundits, and now Mitch McConnel (Senate Leader!) are all insisting they will not confirm Obama's - yet to be announced -- nominations to fill Scalia's seat. |
|
|
|
Post by Ish Kabbible on Feb 13, 2016 20:03:36 GMT -5
A new Supreme Court justice and another nail in the coffin of gun loving, racist conservatives
|
|
|
|
Post by thwhtguardian on Feb 13, 2016 20:24:31 GMT -5
swiping this comment I saw online: "I was always taught to only speak good of the dead. He's dead. Good." Eh, I hardly ever agreed with him but I always enjoyed reading his opinions. As for McConnel and several others saying they'd simply refuse to confirm anyone the President might choose...all I can say is that would be despicable; just do your damn job and hash it out with the other side. |
|
|
|
Post by Slam_Bradley on Feb 13, 2016 20:38:52 GMT -5
swiping this comment I saw online: "I was always taught to only speak good of the dead. He's dead. Good." Eh, I hardly ever agreed with him but I always enjoyed reading his opinions. As for McConnel and several others saying they'd simply refuse to confirm anyone the President might choose...all I can say is that would be despicable; just do your damn job and hash it out with the other side. They haven't done their job for eight years. Why would they start now. |
|
