I pit the 67 Republicans who voted against Hurricane Sandy relief

[Euphonious_Polemic]

@Clothahump

Note the term “increase the borrowing authority”. We as a nation cannot afford to take on any more debt, no matter how noble the cause may be.

You seem to be blissfully uneducated about the concept of “insurance”. You see, if I PAY FOR flood insurance premiums, I expect that if there is a flood that is covered by my policy, then the company (or the government, I don’t care which) **WILL PAY MY CLAIM.
**

I really don’t give a shit if someone like you or the 67 mouthbreathing morons trots along and says “ohh, ohh, we can’t afford to pay your claim. So sorry we took your insurance premiums, but we’re not going to fulfill our legal contract.”

Go and read up on what insurance is, and what the responsibilities of the insurer are.

[Eonwe]

@Clothahump

It’s nice to get all outraged and shit, but in the long run, the Republicans did the right thing.

HR 41
A bill to temporarily increase the borrowing authority of the Federal Emergency Management Agency for carrying out the National Flood Insurance Program.

Note the term “increase the borrowing authority”. We as a nation cannot afford to take on any more debt, no matter how noble the cause may be.

You’re an idiot.

We as a nation can certainly afford to take on debt in order to pay out insurance claims to people who paid us for coverage. It’s less costly than not paying for our debts. The minute the government starts withholding shit from me that I paid for is the minute I start questioning whether or not being honest on my taxes is really worth it.

These recent dumb-ass attempts to prevent the government from paying for anything unless it is covered by annual revenue (without increasing annual revenue) is foul, hypocritical, or at best completely ignorant.

Why don’t these guys start working on making real policies that work, instead of taking a hot steaming dump on the house floor every time anything comes up for a vote?

[BrotherCadfael]

@John_Mace

Can you cite any parts of the bill that do this?

If you bothered to read my original post :rolleyes:, I was asking whether the bill had been Chirstmas-treed or not, as I genuinely did not know.

No cite required.

[waterj2]

@Clothahump

Note the term “increase the borrowing authority”. We as a nation cannot afford to take on any more debt, no matter how noble the cause may be.

I’d really like a cite that $16,394,000,000,000 in debt is OK, but $16,403,000,000,000 is a problem.

[John_Mace]

@BrotherCadfael

If you bothered to read my original post :rolleyes:, I was asking whether the bill had been Chirstmas-treed or not, as I genuinely did not know.

No cite required.

Yes, cite required because you persist in arguing that such a bill is likely to be the target of such “christmas treeing”. We don’t care if it’s likely to the target. We want to know if it actually is.

The OP linked to an article that stated clearly that it wasn’t. Now, I’ve seen enough sloppy reporting that I wouldn’t be terribly surprised if we found another one. However, if you want to cast aspersions on the article, do so with a cite, not a vague smear.

[Saint_Cad]

@Clothahump

It’s nice to get all outraged and shit, but in the long run, the Republicans did the right thing.

HR 41
A bill to temporarily increase the borrowing authority of the Federal Emergency Management Agency for carrying out the National Flood Insurance Program.

Note the term “increase the borrowing authority”. We as a nation cannot afford to take on any more debt, no matter how noble the cause may be.

What happened with the money they paid in premiums?

[drew870mitchell]

Looks like Tom Cotton is off to a fabulous start.

edit: I looked up his excuse.

UPDATE: Cotton’s office has issued a statement:

“I pledged throughout my campaign to confront America's debt crisis and today I upheld that pledge by voting against legislation that would have added another $10 billion to our staggering national debt because it did not offset that funding for the national flood-insurance program with equal spending cuts.” Rep Tom Cotton AR4

Sigh.

[Euphonious_Polemic]

@drew870mitchell

Looks like Tom Cotton is off to a fabulous start.

edit: I looked up his excuse.

Sigh.

So they really are as stupid as our poster Clothing-hump, and really do think that they can simply reneg on paying out insurance claims after years of collecting insurance premiums.

Yes, they really are that stupid.

[yoyodyne]

@Saint_Cad

What happened with the money they paid in premiums?

It’s in a lockbox.

[Gedd]

I think I’ll skip on paying my taxes this year, and when the IRS comes to collect I’ll just say “I promised my kids I would cut back on outgoing funds that weren’t balanced by putting more monies into educational video games.”

[drew870mitchell]

@Gedd

I think I’ll skip on paying my taxes this year, and when the IRS comes to collect I’ll just say “I promised my kids I would cut back on outgoing funds that weren’t balanced by putting more monies into educational video games.”

I appreciate your sentiment, but the less we let people think of comparing the federal budget to a family budget, the better. I can’t express just how ignorant that meme is.

[VinylTurnip]

Aw, come on. Try!

[tdn]

UPDATE: Cotton’s office has issued a statement:

“I pledged throughout my campaign to confront America’s debt crisis and today I upheld that pledge by voting against legislation that would have added another $10 billion to our staggering national debt because it did not offset that funding for the national flood-insurance program with equal spending cuts.” Rep Tom Cotton AR4

We could start by no longer paying asshole politicians.

[BrotherCadfael]

@John_Mace

Yes, cite required because you persist in arguing that such a bill is likely to be the target of such “christmas treeing”. We don’t care if it’s likely to the target. We want to know if it actually is.

Which is exactly what I am asking. I am not arguing anything.

[Euphonious_Polemic]

@BrotherCadfael

Which is exactly what I am asking. I am not arguing anything.

What is the purpose of you “Just Asking Questions”, rather than simply going to look up the information and educating yourself?

Is your intention to sow doubt? To distract? To make it seem as if thing are other than they actually are? I’m just asking questions here.

[Bridget_Burke]

Ichecked the Texas reps who voted No, expecting that most of them represented parts of Texas away from the Gulf Coast.

All 12 Democrats in the Texas delegation voted in favor of the storm relief.

Among the dozen Houston-area lawmakers, 10 voted for the measure, including hard-core conservatives such as Kevin Brady of The Woodlands, John Culberson of Houston, Pete Olson of Sugar Land, Ted Poe of Humble and Steve Stockman of Friendswood. Reps. Randy Weber of Pearland and Bill Flores of College Station cast dissenting votes.

Other Texas Republicans who voted against the measure: Louie Gohmert of Tyler, Mike Conaway of Midland, Mac Thornberry of Clarendon, Randy Neugebauer of Lubbock, Kenny Marchant of Carrollton and Roger Williams of Weatherford.

Weber is the only Texas lawmaker who represents any part of the Gulf Coast who voted “no.”

Weber is a teabagger who was just sworn in.

[Bridget_Burke]

Too late to edit my previous post. I wanted to be sure this bill was for flood insurance alone. From those commies at Forbes:

The $9.7 billion—which represents only a small portion of $60 billion pork laden bill passed by the United States Senate—came free of any questionable additions as the money was specifically designated to fund the insurance program so that legitimate claims can be paid— and nothing else.

Without Federal Flood Insurance, the Texas Gulf Coast would be difficult to develop. The treehuggers would be just fine with more nature preserves & the occasional bait camp. The developers would be miffed…

[Jas09]

Here is the text of the bill in question: http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?c113:3:./temp/~c113SZ2wil::

It’s so short I’ll post it in its entirety here:

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. TEMPORARY INCREASE IN BORROWING AUTHORITY FOR NATIONAL FLOOD INSURANCE PROGRAM.

(a) Section 1309(a) of the National Flood Insurance Act of 1968 (42 U.S.C. 4016(a)) is amended by striking `$20,725,000,000' and inserting `$30,425,000,000'.

(b) The amount provided by this section is designated by the Congress as an emergency requirement pursuant to section 403(a) of S. Con. Res. 13 (111th Congress), the concurrent resolution on the budget for fiscal year 2010, and as an emergency pursuant to section 4(g) of the Statutory Pay-As-You-Go Act of 2010 (2 U.S.C. 933(g)).

[Smapti]

Not surprisingly, it turns out that 37 of the Republicans who voted against Sandy relief have previously voted in favor of federal disaster relief money for their own constituencies.

[Algher]

Did these guys vote “no” in a meaningful way? For example, if it was known that the funding would pass regardless - you could vote “no” so that you could show your teabagger supporters how tough you are. This is done at times in Congress - a meaningless vote “no” or “yes” just so that you can trumpet it to the faithful back home.

I still think those guys are tools, and I would be tempted to punish their own districts IF this had kept the money from being allocated. Since it did nothing, I am not nearly as outraged.