Hurricane welfare...should we finance the lazy benefits-mongers?

by Original Quill Sat Sep 02, 2017 5:06 pm

Business Insider wrote:Texas and Louisiana will need billions from Congress after Hurricane Harvey — here's how they could get it

Bob Bryan,
Aug. 31, 2017, 8:30 AM

As Harvey continues to slam the coastal parts of Texas and Louisiana, Congress is starting to plan how to address the need for disaster recovery, rebuilding of infrastructure, and reshaping of affected areas.

The debate over funding has already been reignited political conflict between Texas Republicans who voted against Hurricane Sandy aid and some lawmakers from the Northeast where the storm hit in 2012. But it is virtually guaranteed that Congress will pass some sort of package soon after it returns from its August recess.

Based on the latest negotiations and discussions, it appears there are three avenues Congress could take:

Multiple, targeted bills: According to Politico's Burgess Everett and Sarah Ferris, one idea from Republicans is to dole out money for Harvey relief over a series of bills that target specific needs. "My view has always been that multiple bills are fine, but you're better off to pass multiple bills knowing what the costs are than some number that no one can really justify," Sen. Roy Blunt, a member of GOP leadership, told Politico.

One major standalone relief package: Most major storms of the past few decades have received a lump sum from the federal government spent over time via various agencies. Congress passed a nearly $52 billion bill a week after Hurricane Katrina hit the Gulf. It passed a $50 billion package two months after Hurricane Sandy. Many Republicans, however, criticized the lump approach after Sandy because it included at least some money for projects unrelated to the storm. But a single bill would still most likely serve as a down payment, with the total recovery needs unknowable this early.

Attach the bill to another must-pass piece of legislation: Another option that has been floated is attaching the relief package to a must-pass piece of legislation like a bill to raise the debt ceiling or a continuing resolution to fund the government. Such legislation would make it tough for members to vote against the package and would probably draw more support to a large relief package.

GOP Sen. Tom Cole told Politico that Congress may require extra time to assess the damage of the storm, but he stressed that the body would pass something. Thirty-four GOP senators votes against aid for Hurricane Sandy.

"Most of the people who couldn't bring themselves to vote during the Sandy thing, now the shoe's on the other foot," Cole said.

Ask yourself: are their new, fancy homes more important than our needy children getting hot lunches? Of course, we could always cut defense spending. Hurricane welfare...should we finance the lazy benefits-mongers? 2190311264

Hurricane welfare...should we finance the lazy benefits-mongers? 2190311264

http://www.businessinsider.com/hurricane-harvey-congress-relief-fund-bill-options-2017-8

by 'Wolfie Sat Sep 02, 2017 7:24 pm

That title for this thread looks like you were 'channelling' one of Stormee's old rants !!!

I now await the usual pro-rich/capital apologists from the extreme right on here to tell us their fanciful lies yet again, how their billionaire masters are paying record levels of taxation -- and how any kind of disaster relief or welfare funding is nothing more than communistic/"regressive left"/socialist Marxist thievery..

Deano, Tommy, gelico, Thorin and No_Indi'_Thoughts like to keep on telling us their stories to that effect -- and would they lie to us ? Hurricane welfare...should we finance the lazy benefits-mongers? 3893789544

Hurricane welfare...should we finance the lazy benefits-mongers? 3893789544

by Original Quill Sat Sep 02, 2017 8:09 pm

It just goes to show how far a little whimpering goes. The same people who are expecting their homes to be rebuilt cost-free, are the ones who holler when starved kids get subsidized hot lunches.

They cry and moan for their lost homes, but they don't give a shite when someone else is threatened. Just listen to a Republican from Texas:

If you're going to treat people equally, Dr. Paul speaks for those in Harris County: That's what freedom is all about...taking your own risks. [Applause] They took the risk, now let them live with the consequences. Republicans have been saying fook healthcare for decades. So now, it's fook housing in Harris County. How is that any different?

Don't get me wrong...I think the people in Texas should be taken care of. But the point is, I'm a damn socialist!! The people in Texas are the ones who don't believe the people in Texas should be taken care of...they would leave them to die.

by 'Wolfie Sun Sep 03, 2017 7:39 am

Hurricane welfare...should we finance the lazy benefits-mongers? 1530246098

See those $$multi-million$$ beach houses being washed away by storm surges in Southern California, Texas, Maryland, New Jersey -- and see how those whining multi-millionaires always come out demanding that the guvm'nt rescues them from their own arrogant stoopidity...

We have the same breed of wealthy ignoramuses down here -- on the Northern beaches of Sydney, Victoria's Mornington Peninsula, the NSW Far-North coast, Qld's Gold Coast and Sunshine Coast..

They build on the most crazy, inhospitable and unlikely sites -- and then cry like the self-entitled twonks they are. Only going to prove that unwarranted/undeserved monetary "wealth", intelligence and "common sense" don't necessarily go hand-in-hand..
Hurricane welfare...should we finance the lazy benefits-mongers? 3974176704

Hurricane welfare...should we finance the lazy benefits-mongers? 3974176704

by Raggamuffin Sun Sep 03, 2017 9:54 am

I'd say that having a roof over your head is pretty important, so I'm not sure why people are against it.

by Original Quill Sun Sep 03, 2017 3:45 pm

Raggamuffin wrote:I'd say that having a roof over your head is pretty important, so I'm not sure why people are against it.

I'd say that a hot lunch in the belly of a poor child is pretty important, so I'm not sure why people are against school lunches. But they are.

by 'Wolfie Sun Sep 03, 2017 4:21 pm

Raggamuffin wrote:
I'd say that having a roof over your head is pretty important, so I'm not sure why people are against it.

Nobody here is protesting against a person's fundamental right/need to a house/shelter...

The controversy arises when the same foolish millionaires "who build their houses upon shifting sands.." who decry welfare being provided to needy recipients, will then turn around after hurricanes, cyclones or winter storm surges have washed their own beach houses away, and scream out for the government to fix their own selfish blunders..

Often their arguments basically come down to nothing more than "my house is 'worth' $10 million (or more) -- and you're not."

by Raggamuffin Sun Sep 03, 2017 4:43 pm

Original Quill wrote:
Raggamuffin wrote:I'd say that having a roof over your head is pretty important, so I'm not sure why people are against it.

I'd say that a hot lunch in the belly of a poor child is pretty important, so I'm not sure why people are against school lunches. But they are.

I'd say that a roof over your head is more important - it's kind of basic really.

by 'Wolfie Sun Sep 03, 2017 4:53 pm

Raggamuffin wrote:
Original Quill wrote:

I'd say that a hot lunch in the belly of a poor child is pretty important, so I'm not sure why people are against school lunches. But they are.

I'd say that a roof over your head is more important - it's kind of basic really.

A $10 million beach house, (and it being rescued (i.e. subsidised) at taxpayer's expense..) is a bit of overkill, though...

Especially when it is built on unstable and temporary sands...
A $5 million dollar mansion built over solid (i.e. rock..) foundations is much smarter..

Why should those greedy and foolish twats who build on the beaches have their mansions rebuilt at taxpayers expense ??? Especially when thousands of average people may have been made homeless by the same storms..

Surely the welfare of thousands of needy people should take priority over the greed of a handful of millionaires ???

by Raggamuffin Sun Sep 03, 2017 4:59 pm

WhoseYourWolfie wrote:
Raggamuffin wrote:

I'd say that a roof over your head is more important - it's kind of basic really.

A $10 million beach house, (and it being rescued (i.e. subsidised) at taxpayer's expense..) is a bit of overkill, though...

Especially when it is built on unstable and temporary sands...
A $5 million dollar mansion built over solid (i.e. rock..) foundations is much smarter..

Why should those greedy and foolish twats who build on the beaches have their mansions rebuilt at taxpayers expense ??? Especially when thousands of average people may have been made homeless by the same storms..

Surely the welfare of thousands of needy people should take priority over the greed of a handful of millionaires ???

If they have somewhere else to go, and it's a holiday home, fair enough. If they don't, then they should receive help of course. I presume their houses would be covered by insurance? You also have to think about the general area. I presume people live there permanently and there will need to be help with the infrastructure.

I detect a note of envy and resentment in some of the posts in this thread.

by Original Quill Sun Sep 03, 2017 5:13 pm

Raggamuffin wrote:
Original Quill wrote:

I'd say that a hot lunch in the belly of a poor child is pretty important, so I'm not sure why people are against school lunches. But they are.

I'd say that a roof over your head is more important - it's kind of basic really.

I would say food is more basic. And...I would say a mother's instinct is more basic, still. What is a mother to do first, feed her starving child or build a shelter now that the rain has stopped?

I think vision has a lot to do with sympathy. We can see Harris County in ruins, while a child not getting proper nutrition is less visible. A short-sighted conservative is going to respond to an evident horrible vision, over a rational realization that a child's growth is being stunted.

by Raggamuffin Sun Sep 03, 2017 5:21 pm

Original Quill wrote:
Raggamuffin wrote:

I'd say that a roof over your head is more important - it's kind of basic really.

I would say food is more basic. And...I would say a mother's instinct is more basic, still. What is a mother to do first, feed her starving child or build a shelter now that the rain has stopped?

I think vision has a lot to do with sympathy. We can see Harris County in ruins, while a child not getting proper nutrition is less visible. A short-sighted conservative is going to respond to an evident horrible vision, over a rational realization that a child's growth is being stunted.

Children don't actually need hot food, and everyone should have a roof over their head. Did it occur to you that the victims might include children? Mothers should feed their children with money they earned, or which the father earned. Having your house destroyed is much worse than not having a hot meal.

by Original Quill Sun Sep 03, 2017 5:29 pm

Raggamuffin wrote:
WhoseYourWolfie wrote:

A $10 million beach house, (and it being rescued (i.e. subsidised) at taxpayer's expense..) is a bit of overkill, though...

Especially when it is built on unstable and temporary sands...
A $5 million dollar mansion built over solid (i.e. rock..) foundations is much smarter..

Why should those greedy and foolish twats who build on the beaches have their mansions rebuilt at taxpayers expense ??? Especially when thousands of average people may have been made homeless by the same storms..

Surely the welfare of thousands of needy people should take priority over the greed of a handful of millionaires ???

If they have somewhere else to go, and it's a holiday home, fair enough. If they don't, then they should receive help of course. I presume their houses would be covered by insurance? You also have to think about the general area. I presume people live there permanently and there will need to be help with the infrastructure.

No, flood insurance is not a part of normal home insurance. ""It's a terrible disaster just on the facts you see when you look at TV or the pictures," says Bob Hunter of the Consumer Federation of America, a former Texas insurance commissioner. "But it's also a terrible potential second disaster because so many of the people are not going to be insured."

If Houston is going to continue as the 4th-largest city in the US, it's going to have to subsist on hurricane welfare.

by Original Quill Sun Sep 03, 2017 5:38 pm

Raggamuffin wrote:
Original Quill wrote:

I would say food is more basic. And...I would say a mother's instinct is more basic, still. What is a mother to do first, feed her starving child or build a shelter now that the rain has stopped?

I think vision has a lot to do with sympathy. We can see Harris County in ruins, while a child not getting proper nutrition is less visible. A short-sighted conservative is going to respond to an evident horrible vision, over a rational realization that a child's growth is being stunted.

Children don't actually need hot food, and everyone should have a roof over their head. Did it occur to you that the victims might include children? Mothers should feed their children with money they earned, or which the father earned. Having your house destroyed is much worse than not having a hot meal.

Welfare is welfare, regardless of the source of the need. Why quibble over whether hurricane welfare is more important than food stamps. It's all welfare.

However, a part of Congress' consideration should be: Do we want to rebuild Houston? Climate is changing everything, as Harvey makes clear, and the Gulf Coast of Texas is obviously now only a 10-year floodplain.

by Raggamuffin Sun Sep 03, 2017 5:45 pm

Original Quill wrote:
Raggamuffin wrote:

Children don't actually need hot food, and everyone should have a roof over their head. Did it occur to you that the victims might include children? Mothers should feed their children with money they earned, or which the father earned. Having your house destroyed is much worse than not having a hot meal.

Welfare is welfare, regardless of the source of the need. Why quibble over whether hurricane welfare is more important than food stamps. It's all welfare.

However, a part of Congress' consideration should be: Do we want to rebuild Houston? Climate is changing everything, as Harvey makes clear, and the Gulf Coast of Texas is obviously now only a 10-year floodplain.

You were the one arguing about it and comparing hot meals to losing a home, so you're now contradicting yourself. It seems to be the in thing around here.

by Original Quill Sun Sep 03, 2017 6:04 pm

Raggamuffin wrote:
Original Quill wrote:

Welfare is welfare, regardless of the source of the need. Why quibble over whether hurricane welfare is more important than food stamps. It's all welfare.

However, a part of Congress' consideration should be: Do we want to rebuild Houston? Climate is changing everything, as Harvey makes clear, and the Gulf Coast of Texas is obviously now only a 10-year floodplain.

You were the one arguing about it and comparing hot meals to losing a home, so you're now contradicting yourself. It seems to be the in thing around here.

No, not at all. I'm a socialist...I'm in favor of government financing everyone and everything. It's profit and private property that we should do away with. Profit is another (huge) mouth to feed, and an unnecessary one at that.

The hypocrisy here is in failing to realize that it's all welfare benefits. Now, shall we narrow the question to which kind of benefits do we want to pay out for?

We in the US pay a huge, unnecessary amount out for defense welfare. Our territory hasn't been attacked since 1942...so I'm for tossing defense welfare out. I mean, if school lunch programs hadn't fed a local kid since 1942, what would you do? As it is, we just ship tuna sandwiches to Vietnam and Iraq. Why do that?

Now, hurricane welfare? Rebuilding in a massive floodplain...ehhhh, not a good idea, especially with climate change creating all of these disasters. I say move Houston up by Tulsa, and make the seaport upstream, on the Red River.

by Raggamuffin Sun Sep 03, 2017 6:10 pm

Original Quill wrote:
Raggamuffin wrote:

You were the one arguing about it and comparing hot meals to losing a home, so you're now contradicting yourself. It seems to be the in thing around here.

No, not at all. I'm a socialist...I'm in favor of government financing everyone and everything. It's profit and private property that we should do away with. Profit is another (huge) mouth to feed, and an unnecessary one at that.

The hypocrisy here is in failing to realize that it's all welfare benefits. Now, shall we narrow the question to which kind of benefits do we want to pay out for?

We in the US pay a huge, unnecessary amount out for defense welfare. Our territory hasn't been attacked since 1942...so I'm for tossing defense welfare out. I mean, if school lunch programs hadn't fed a kid since 1942, what would you do?

Now, hurricane welfare? Rebuilding in a massive floodplain...ehhhh, not a good idea, especially with climate change creating all of these disasters. I say move Houston up by Tulsa, and make the seaport upstream, on the Red River.

Yes you were - in your first post, and also after that.

Ask yourself: are their new, fancy homes more important than our needy children getting hot lunches?

Now you don't want to compare them after all. Neutral

by Original Quill Sun Sep 03, 2017 6:18 pm

Raggamuffin wrote:
Original Quill wrote:

No, not at all. I'm a socialist...I'm in favor of government financing everyone and everything. It's profit and private property that we should do away with. Profit is another (huge) mouth to feed, and an unnecessary one at that.

The hypocrisy here is in failing to realize that it's all welfare benefits. Now, shall we narrow the question to which kind of benefits do we want to pay out for?

We in the US pay a huge, unnecessary amount out for defense welfare. Our territory hasn't been attacked since 1942...so I'm for tossing defense welfare out. I mean, if school lunch programs hadn't fed a kid since 1942, what would you do?

Now, hurricane welfare? Rebuilding in a massive floodplain...ehhhh, not a good idea, especially with climate change creating all of these disasters. I say move Houston up by Tulsa, and make the seaport upstream, on the Red River.

Yes you were - in your first post, and also after that.

Ask yourself: are their new, fancy homes more important than our needy children getting hot lunches?

Now you don't want to compare them after all.

We are way beyond that. That's when we were arguing, what is welfare?

We are agreed that it's all welfare...so the question is, which welfare do you support? I think school lunch welfare is way more important than defense welfare, because we haven't needed defense benefits since 1942. We're just shipping defense shit (tons of money) overseas...a kind of foreign aid Let's save the money and feed our children. And free housing, properly situated, wouldn't be a bad way to go, either. And proper healthcare.

The sky is the limit.

by Raggamuffin Sun Sep 03, 2017 6:22 pm

Original Quill wrote:
Raggamuffin wrote:

Yes you were - in your first post, and also after that.

Now you don't want to compare them after all.

We are way beyond that. That's when we were arguing, what is welfare?

We are agreed that it's all welfare...so the question is, which welfare do you support? I think school lunch welfare is way more important than defense welfare, because we haven't needed defense benefits since 1942. We're just shipping defense shit (tons of money) overseas. Let's save the money and feed our children. And free housing, properly situated, wouldn't be a bad way to go, either.

The sky is the limit.

You were still going on about hot meals a few posts ago, and you're still going on about it now. You're comparing different scenarios when you just said that it didn't matter what the source of the need was. Make up your mind.

Defence doesn't come under welfare anyway.

I still say that a roof over your head is more important that hot meals or school lunches.

by Original Quill Sun Sep 03, 2017 6:34 pm

Raggamuffin wrote:
Original Quill wrote:

We are way beyond that. That's when we were arguing, what is welfare?

We are agreed that it's all welfare...so the question is, which welfare do you support? I think school lunch welfare is way more important than defense welfare, because we haven't needed defense benefits since 1942. We're just shipping defense shit (tons of money) overseas. Let's save the money and feed our children. And free housing, properly situated, wouldn't be a bad way to go, either.

The sky is the limit.

Defence doesn't come under welfare anyway.

I still say that a roof over your head is more important that hot meals or school lunches.

It's all welfare. You just don't get it. As long as the central government is paying for it, it's a benefit. Benefits are welfare.

by Raggamuffin Sun Sep 03, 2017 6:38 pm

Original Quill wrote:
Raggamuffin wrote:

Defence doesn't come under welfare anyway.

I still say that a roof over your head is more important that hot meals or school lunches.

It's all welfare. You just don't get it. As long as the central government is paying for it, it's a benefit. Benefits are welfare.

No, defence is not welfare.

by Original Quill Sun Sep 03, 2017 6:46 pm

Raggamuffin wrote:
Original Quill wrote:

It's all welfare. You just don't get it. As long as the central government is paying for it, it's a benefit. Benefits are welfare.

No, defence is not welfare.

Yes, defense is welfare. What you should be saying is, it's not necessary!

by Raggamuffin Sun Sep 03, 2017 6:56 pm

Original Quill wrote:
Raggamuffin wrote:

No, defence is not welfare.

Yes, defense is welfare. What you should be saying is, it's not necessary!

It's not welfare. You might think it's necessary if that chap in North Korea goes bonkers.

by Original Quill Sun Sep 03, 2017 7:27 pm

Raggamuffin wrote:
Original Quill wrote:

Yes, defense is welfare. What you should be saying is, it's not necessary!

It's not welfare. You might think it's necessary if that chap in North Korea goes bonkers.

Let's not argue semantics. If it's not welfare, it's of no benefit. If it's of no benefit, why buy it? America spends $660-billion per year on military toys and shite. All of it's unnecessary if it's not been of benefit since 1942.

North Korea is half a world away. It's none of our business what they do. Let Japan and China concern themselves. Or maybe Russia...perhaps if Russia were busy, they wouldn't have the time to mess in our elections.

There's always alternatives.

by Raggamuffin Sun Sep 03, 2017 7:35 pm

Original Quill wrote:
Raggamuffin wrote:

It's not welfare. You might think it's necessary if that chap in North Korea goes bonkers.

Let's not argue semantics. If it's not welfare, it's of no benefit. If it's of no benefit, why buy it? America spends $660-billion per year on military toys and shite. All of it's unnecessary if it's not been of benefit since 1942.

North Korea is half a world away. It's none of our business what they do. Let Japan and China concern themselves. Or maybe Russia...perhaps if Russia were busy, they wouldn't have the time to mess in our elections.

There's always alternatives.

It's not semantics. Defence does not come under welfare, so you're talking about two separate things. You might care what North Korea does if they attack American bases. Perhaps you won't - I suppose you think the attack on Pearl Harbour was nothing to do with the US.

by Victorismyhero Sun Sep 03, 2017 9:18 pm

do away with profit Quill??? without profit there is no motivation

I dont in a million years see YOU doing all your cases "pro bono" or for the same wages as a mere "civil servant"

by Tommy Monk Sun Sep 03, 2017 10:40 pm

As with all lefty idealists... 'socialism' is something that they think should just be for 'other' people...!

by Guest Sun Sep 03, 2017 11:13 pm

why do children 'need' hot lunches?

they do not

by eddie Sun Sep 03, 2017 11:39 pm

gelico wrote:

why do children 'need' hot lunches?

they do not

But it's far better if the option is available.

by Guest Sun Sep 03, 2017 11:40 pm

eddie wrote:
gelico wrote:

why do children 'need' hot lunches?

they do not

But it's far better if the option is available.

for sure but it's no big deal not to have one is my point

i'm with raggamuffin - far more important to have a roof over your head

by eddie Mon Sep 04, 2017 12:00 am

gelico wrote:
eddie wrote:
gelico wrote:

why do children 'need' hot lunches?

they do not

But it's far better if the option is available.

for sure but it's no big deal not to have one is my point

i'm with raggamuffin - far more important to have a roof over your head

Yes a roof is a safe place and everyone needs a safe place.

by 'Wolfie Mon Sep 04, 2017 4:12 am

gelico wrote:
eddie wrote:

But it's far better if the option is available.

for sure but it's no big deal not to have one is my point

i'm with raggamuffin - far more important to have a roof over your head

You're a fucking clueless idiot, though, gelico...

Anything to slag off Quill, me, Andy, veya or Jules, it seems..

Fuck off back to your slimepit, you 'orrible old troll.

by Original Quill Mon Sep 04, 2017 4:48 am

Lord Foul wrote:do away with profit Quill??? without profit there is no motivation

Soz vic...profit is the bane of modern society, your social-psychological theories of motivation notwithstanding. WTF...are you a socialist too? Laughing

Throughout most of history economics was one craftsman, turning out one piece at a time. It might be clay jars or a fish net, but it led to the labor theory of value: the value of the product was the time/effort it took to make it.

Then, as production became industrial, capital entered the equation and the capital-holder charged, not what it took to create, but what he could get on the market. That was labor value, plus surplus value. The surplus value has no production function...it's just called profit. Profit is just a useless mouth to be fed in the recipe of man and what he can do or produce. It's just a lazy hanger-on, so to speak.

Victor wrote:I dont in a million years see YOU doing all your cases "pro bono" or for the same wages as a mere "civil servant"

I don't work for profit (surplus value). I work by the hour, and there is always equivalency between my labor and and the product I produce. The practice of law is actually a return to the old craftsman form of production...and value.

by veya_victaous Mon Sep 04, 2017 6:03 am

I think the point is being missed that those that need the socialist help now are the same ones that voted to deny any help to others just a few years ago.

whats good for the goose is good for the gander I think it is the argument, If Texas wants/needs a socialist handout to help them rebuild, which is totally against everything that capitalism stands for, then they need to be less black and white in deny others help and then blaming the inherent selfishness of capitalism as justification.

by Raggamuffin Mon Sep 04, 2017 7:57 am

Where does it say that the people who lost their houses voted to deny help to others?

by Ben Reilly Mon Sep 04, 2017 8:30 am

Raggamuffin wrote:Where does it say that the people who lost their houses voted to deny help to others?

It doesn't say that anywhere, because that's a bunch of bullshit. But nobody here understands Texas besides me, even though lots of people like to pretend they do.

The only Texans who want to deny aid to others are in two places -- the country and the government.

Places like Houston have consistently voted for compassionate candidates who try to make our country more benevolent and helpful toward its citizens. TL/DR, they vote Democratic. There's a persistent myth that every Texan is a Republican but I'm here to tell you, it just ain't so.

Not only are Texas' major cities majority Democrat, but this whole damn country owes a lot to a Democratic Texan president, LBJ. If it weren't for him, seniors would still be struggling to get health care instead of not having to worry any more, as he passed Medicare (something the Bernie folk want to see extended to all Americans, not just those over 65). He also passed laws that finally guaranteed the vote to our black citizens and made sure you couldn't be ordered out of a grocery store because your skin was the "wrong" color.

In 2016, the only reason Texas went for Trump was that the younger people didn't get organized and to the polls as efficiently as the over-65 crowd. That demographic single-handedly delivered Texas to him.

In other words, we're going to be a blue state before long, in spite of the Republican Party's many efforts to "keep Texas red" (google that phrase for more slimy information).

by Raggamuffin Mon Sep 04, 2017 8:44 am

Ben Reilly wrote:
Raggamuffin wrote:Where does it say that the people who lost their houses voted to deny help to others?

It doesn't say that anywhere, because that's a bunch of bullshit. But nobody here understands Texas besides me, even though lots of people like to pretend they do.

The only Texans who want to deny aid to others are in two places -- the country and the government.

Places like Houston have consistently voted for compassionate candidates who try to make our country more benevolent and helpful toward its citizens. TL/DR, they vote Democratic. There's a persistent myth that every Texan is a Republican but I'm here to tell you, it just ain't so.

Not only are Texas' major cities majority Democrat, but this whole damn country owes a lot to a Democratic Texan president, LBJ. If it weren't for him, seniors would still be struggling to get health care instead of not having to worry any more, as he passed Medicare (something the Bernie folk want to see extended to all Americans, not just those over 65). He also passed laws that finally guaranteed the vote to our black citizens and made sure you couldn't be ordered out of a grocery store because your skin was the "wrong" color.

In 2016, the only reason Texas went for Trump was that the younger people didn't get organized and to the polls as efficiently as the over-65 crowd. That demographic single-handedly delivered Texas to him.

In other words, we're going to be a blue state before long, in spite of the Republican Party's many efforts to "keep Texas red" (google that phrase for more slimy information).

Thank you. I was a bit confused by the claims of Quill and Wolfman, and I was going to ask them for more information to back up what they're saying. So basically, they're just saying that voting for Trump means voting against welfare benefits. They don't know that the people who lost houses voted at all or voted against welfare benefits.

by Ben Reilly Mon Sep 04, 2017 8:49 am

If they were in Houston (or San Antonio) they most likely voted for more benefits. Like I say, the bigger cities in Texas are majority Democratic. But people still think we're the most Republican state, probably because of George W. Bush, and tend to ignore the fact that 43 percent of Texans (most of whom live in the big cities) voted for Hillary Clinton.

by Raggamuffin Mon Sep 04, 2017 9:06 am

I would also question the assumption that everyone who lives in the coastal area is rich. Is that actually true?

by Ben Reilly Mon Sep 04, 2017 9:10 am

Raggamuffin wrote:I would also question the assumption that everyone who lives in the coastal area is rich. Is that actually true?

Of course not. Plenty of poor people and people of moderate means had their houses blown down, too.

Texas has thousands of people moving in every day, and I've also wondered about the people who were getting ready to move here who found out that the place they were intending to live is no longer livable. Must be a real hardship to be turned away from the place you were intending to move to. I'd actually love a chance, as a journalist, to tell their stories and maybe attract a little help to them.

by Guest Mon Sep 04, 2017 10:16 am

WhoseYourWolfie wrote:
gelico wrote:

for sure but it's no big deal not to have one is my point

i'm with raggamuffin - far more important to have a roof over your head

You're a fucking clueless idiot, though, gelico...

Anything to slag off Quill, me, Andy, veya or Jules, it seems..

Fuck off back to your slimepit, you 'orrible old troll.

ah, wetwipe, there you are ol' girl. don't recall mentioning any of you on this thread

why hast thee got thou frillies in a pickle, pray tell?

by JulesV Mon Sep 04, 2017 1:53 pm

WhoseYourWolfie wrote:
See those $$multi-million$$ beach houses being washed away by storm surges in Southern California, Texas, Maryland, New Jersey -- and see how those whining multi-millionaires always come out demanding that the guvm'nt rescues them from their own arrogant stoopidity...

We have the same breed of wealthy ignoramuses down here -- on the Northern beaches of Sydney, Victoria's Mornington Peninsula, the NSW Far-North coast, Qld's Gold Coast and Sunshine Coast..

They build on the most crazy, inhospitable and unlikely sites -- and then cry like the self-entitled twonks they are. Only going to prove that unwarranted/undeserved monetary "wealth", intelligence and "common sense" don't necessarily go hand-in-hand..

I feel very sorry for all the poor people.

As for the rich .... meh ..... they can look after themselves - they'll probably claim double the amounts they should, from their insurance policies.

by JulesV Mon Sep 04, 2017 2:41 pm

Original Quill wrote:It just goes to show how far a little whimpering goes. The same people who are expecting their homes to be rebuilt cost-free, are the ones who holler when starved kids get subsidized hot lunches.

They cry and moan for their lost homes, but they don't give a shite when someone else is threatened. Just listen to a Republican from Texas:

If you're going to treat people equally, Dr. Paul speaks for those in Harris County: That's what freedom is all about...taking your own risks. [Applause] They took the risk, now let them live with the consequences. Republicans have been saying fook healthcare for decades. So now, it's fook housing in Harris County. How is that any different?

Don't get me wrong...I think the people in Texas should be taken care of. But the point is, I'm a damn socialist!! The people in Texas are the ones who don't believe the people in Texas should be taken care of...they would leave them to die.

Throughout my life I've noticed that when people vote in mean policies it often comes back to bite them on the butt - and in completely unexpected ways too. Karma has a pesky habit of putting the boot on the other foot when people least expect it.

Yes self sufficiency, and minimal govt is the central creed of the GOP - except when it comes to funding the army, then suddenly socialism looks attractive eh.

You couldn't make it up. king

GTG. take care x

by Original Quill Mon Sep 04, 2017 4:21 pm

Hi Jules. Yes, bites 'em in the butt, indeed. This is why I believe, if there is a God, he's a teacher. What better answer to Dr. Paul's arrogance, than Hurricane Harvey.

One thing we haven't touched upon is Dr. Paul's thesis on charity. Notice, he ends his argument (after attempts at evasion) by appealing to charity:

Dr. Paul wrote:"...and the churches took care of 'em. We never turned anybody away..."

So, the Republican answer is let the churches, and perhaps the Red Cross, rebuild Houston. Watch...see how much faith a Republican Congress, and a Republican President, has in charity...do they have the guts to leave the rebuilding of Houston to Joel Osteen's Lakewood Church?

Sounds like a plan. I would urge Congress to stop all bills for hurricane welfare, and draft a letter to Mr. Osteen directing him to pay for fixing Houston and the Texas Gulf Coast. Other charities may chip in as needed. Let's see if the Republican policy of volunteer contribution works.

by veya_victaous Tue Sep 05, 2017 6:16 am

Raggamuffin wrote:Where does it say that the people who lost their houses voted to deny help to others?

since when has that been how the senate works?

SENATORS for Texas(ted cruz) voted to deny aide to Hurricane Sandy Victims in 2013

by Original Quill Tue Sep 05, 2017 5:48 pm

Ben Reilly wrote:
Raggamuffin wrote:Where does it say that the people who lost their houses voted to deny help to others?

It doesn't say that anywhere, because that's a bunch of bullshit. But nobody here understands Texas besides me, even though lots of people like to pretend they do.

The only Texans who want to deny aid to others are in two places -- the country and the government.

Places like Houston have consistently voted for compassionate candidates who try to make our country more benevolent and helpful toward its citizens. TL/DR, they vote Democratic. There's a persistent myth that every Texan is a Republican but I'm here to tell you, it just ain't so.

Not only are Texas' major cities majority Democrat, but this whole damn country owes a lot to a Democratic Texan president, LBJ. If it weren't for him, seniors would still be struggling to get health care instead of not having to worry any more, as he passed Medicare (something the Bernie folk want to see extended to all Americans, not just those over 65). He also passed laws that finally guaranteed the vote to our black citizens and made sure you couldn't be ordered out of a grocery store because your skin was the "wrong" color.

In 2016, the only reason Texas went for Trump was that the younger people didn't get organized and to the polls as efficiently as the over-65 crowd. That demographic single-handedly delivered Texas to him.

In other words, we're going to be a blue state before long, in spite of the Republican Party's many efforts to "keep Texas red" (google that phrase for more slimy information).

Lots of good excuses there, Ben. But Texas is the most solidly Republican and conservative state in the US. Governor? Republican and conservative. Senators? Republican and conservative. House? Overwhelmingly conservative. Vote after Hurricane Sandy? Fuck 'em. Sandra Bland? Still dead and gone!

You think Texas will be Blue? Not without a fight. The Republicans (some of them Texans) will fight to the death to keep it Red. How about Sessions withdrawing the DACA program? The hope that Texas will become Blue is based on the Hispanic population. Hell, they just kicked them out of the country.

The Blue nation isn't looking for excuses. The Blue nation wants results. It ain't gonna find 'em in Texas.

C'mon over to California...good people are always welcome. Don't try to make a silk purse out of a sow's ear in Texas. You deserve better.

by Guest Tue Sep 05, 2017 6:05 pm

I seriously fail to see what people are getting at here?

Are they based on how some voted against funds for the victims of a previous disaster. Thus promoting the view how it was utterly wrong to vote against. Of which i agree is appalling. To then make the same ill founded view to deny funds now for Texas. As some sort of revenge against all the people of Texas who have suffered there??

Is that the clear double standard I am reading here?

What crime did all Texans commit, for it to even be a question of the Senate sending funds to help?

Such an absurd thread.

You do not condemn something horrible, where some elected, made an appalling vote, to then argue off that former wrong. To then arguing for doing the same wrong.

Two wrongs, never make a right.

by Original Quill Tue Sep 05, 2017 6:09 pm

Thorin wrote:Are they based on how some voted against funds for the victims of a previous disaster. Thus promoting the view how it was utterly wrong to vote against. Of which i agree is appalling. To then make the same ill founded view to deny funds now for Texas. As some sort of revenge against all the people of Texas who have suffered there??

That's a pretty accurate statement of where the USA is today. The country is fractured, and there is no sentiment for unity.

by Guest Tue Sep 05, 2017 6:12 pm

Original Quill wrote:
Thorin wrote:Are they based on how some voted against funds for the victims of a previous disaster. Thus promoting the view how it was utterly wrong to vote against. Of which i agree is appalling. To then make the same ill founded view to deny funds now for Texas. As some sort of revenge against all the people of Texas who have suffered there??

That's a pretty accurate statement of where the USA is today. The country is fractured, and there is no sentiment for unity.

And you are continually ensuring by such views, that it continues to fracture more and more.

As this thread clearly was not a sentiment on unity, but using a natural disaster for political gain.

by Original Quill Tue Sep 05, 2017 6:18 pm

Thorin wrote:You do not condemn something horrible, where some elected, made an appalling vote, to then argue off that former wrong. To then arguing for doing the same wrong.

It's deeper than just elected officials. As yourself, how did they get elected if everyone is against them? Everyone is not against them.

There are two distinct populations in America today. You saw them clash in Charlottesville. That's not the end of it.

When a nation becomes polarized, it is impossible to put it back together again. One side, if it gives an inch, the other side will take a mile. The only options you have aare one-sided peace, or no peace. Eventually, the sole option is no peace.

Personally, I believe this is an ideal opportunity for California to break away and do it's own thing. It's the only path to unity...at least in our small Pacific way.

by Sponsored content