StrangerThan
Posts: 1515
Joined: 4/25/2008 Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: tazzygirl ~FR When asked if the district would be receiving federal assistance from the government, McDonnell noted that the state had yet to do a thorough analysis determining "our own capacity through state and local resources and private and benevolent resources to be able to handle it," and had not yet determined whether it was "prudent" to request federal aid. But, Cantor added, "the federal government does have a role in situations like this. When there's a disaster there's an appropriate federal role and we will find the monies. But we've had discussions about these things before and those monies will be offset with appropriate savings or cost-cutting elsewhere in order to meet the priority of the federal government's role in a situation like this." http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20096790-503544.html The House majority leader says any relief money should be offset by spending cuts. Is he right — or is it cruel to talk accounting as a storm crashes in? As the East Coast braces for Hurricane Irene and Virginia shakes off a mild earthquake, one of the country's most powerful Republicans, House Majority Leader Eric Cantor, is vowing to prevent disaster relief money from reaching the states unless Democrats agree to budget cuts. Is this insensitive grandstanding, or is he just making sure the government doesn't spend money it doesn't have? http://news.yahoo.com/hurricane-irene-eric-cantors-callous-disaster-aid-refusal-135500597.html Before people discuss the callousness of the OP, they may want to look to the leaders first. Then let's discuss the OP "If the personal property (house, car, etc.) or the town/city of a Tea Partier is destroyed due to Hurricane Irene, how many of them will stand on principle and refuse any and all assistance from the evil Federal government? " The principles of Tea Party folk, and speaking for them may get me in trouble with them, have nothing to do with rejecting any and everything federal. States accept federal money all the time. It's the way the US works. Citizens pay taxes ( part of them do anyway). Taxes go to the federal government. Money is allocated to states by the federal government. The only recent discussion I've seen on states rejecting federal dollars is in relation to the stimulus. So what this thread essentially asks up front is, if you had a problem with the stimulus, are you going to reject assistance if a storm destroys your property. So asswipe, stands on one hill and attempts to define all hills in the mountain range as having the same name. That's what the OP asks. He says, I have apples, but since you don't like oranges, are you therefore going to resist eating any fruit, including these apples? The question itself is stupid and contrived.
_____________________________
--'Whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority, it is time to reform' - Mark Twain
|