The Flat Earth Society
Other Discussion Boards => Philosophy, Religion & Society => Topic started by: Rama Set on October 01, 2022, 03:56:46 PM
-
One of the leading contenders for the 2024 GOP Presidential nomination, Ron DeSantis, is requesting federal funds for hurricane relief. Relief sorely needed and granted without question by Biden. However, Ron DeSantis did not want the same aid to be extended to other states. Classic GOP policy making. Hurt others and help yourselves.
https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/ron-desantis-hurricane-biden-florida-b2184613.html?utm_source=reddit.com
-
Yes, it is apparent that you continuously post things without taking 5 minutes into looking at the opposition. DeSantis was part of a group of congressmen who rejected the bill because it was not a fiscally appropriate emergency aid bill.
https://www.jacksonville.com/story/news/politics/2013/06/17/us-rep-ron-desantis-defensive-after-disaster-vote/15825475007/
June 17, 2013 - ' In one of his first official acts, U.S. Rep. Ron DeSantis voted against a bill to provide $9.7 billion in flood insurance aid for Hurricane Sandy victims.
"The problem with the Sandy package was, if you look at it, only 30 percent of it was going to be spent in the first two years," DeSantis said in an interview recently at his St. Augustine office. "It actually appropriated money out to 2020 and 2021, things that could not in any way be said to be emergency spending. It just was so much extraneous stuff."
...The opposition to the Sandy aid came from 67 Republicans, including DeSantis and Ted Yoho of Gainesville. Both DeSantis, a lawyer, and Yoho, a veterinarian, had strong support in their elections from tea party groups. They were the only two representatives from Florida to vote against the Sandy aid bill.
DeSantis said he would have supported a leaner bill.
"So what we tried to do, we wanted to do a package," he said. "It would have been a relief package that focused on immediate relief, not spending down the line that's not necessary. We thought that would have been a better way to go about it."
The bill allowed the Federal Emergency Management Agency to pay out claims to those who held federal flood insurance.
..."So, I never made the point of saying we shouldn't do anything," DeSantis said recently. "You also had the New York state government coming into Congress saying, 'Hey, look at all these buildings that got damaged.' And we asked, OK, what is insurance picking up on this? And they said, 'Well, we didn't insure them, we didn't think they'd ever be a problem.' So, in that situation, we want to help people, I think, as the last line of defense, but you don't want to basically reward them for not doing the responsible thing. So I think a lot of people who have looked at it have acknowledged that there was more spending in it than what needed to be done, and it was not an appropriate vehicle, with excessive spending and extraneous money. For example, they were refurbishing the Smithsonian, and there was highway spending and different things like that [in the plan]."
DeSantis said he doesn't always support the way Congress spends money.
"In Washington, the way it works is this: I can file a bill tomorrow, about whatever you want," he said. "You just tell me, I can spend money on this or that. But chances are, it's not going to go anywhere. So, what people look for are vehicles that are definitely going to move. We knew something was going to pass. So when you see that, people say 'Oh, I can add this or that,' and it kind of goes from there. We're just trying to change the philosophy and the way Washington operates." '
-
They vote no but take the dough.
-
Yes, it is apparent that you continuously post things without taking 5 minutes into looking at the opposition. In 2013 he was part of a group of congressmen who rejected the bill because it was not a fiscally appropriate emergency aid bill.
https://www.jacksonville.com/story/news/politics/2013/06/17/us-rep-ron-desantis-defensive-after-disaster-vote/15825475007/
June 17, 2013 - ' In one of his first official acts, U.S. Rep. Ron DeSantis voted against a bill to provide $9.7 billion in flood insurance aid for Hurricane Sandy victims.
"The problem with the Sandy package was, if you look at it, only 30 percent of it was going to be spent in the first two years," DeSantis said in an interview recently at his St. Augustine office. "It actually appropriated money out to 2020 and 2021, things that could not in any way be said to be emergency spending. It just was so much extraneous stuff."
...The opposition to the Sandy aid came from 67 Republicans, including DeSantis and Ted Yoho of Gainesville. Both DeSantis, a lawyer, and Yoho, a veterinarian, had strong support in their elections from tea party groups. They were the only two representatives from Florida to vote against the Sandy aid bill.
DeSantis said he would have supported a leaner bill.
"So what we tried to do, we wanted to do a package," he said. "It would have been a relief package that focused on immediate relief, not spending down the line that's not necessary. We thought that would have been a better way to go about it."
The bill allowed the Federal Emergency Management Agency to pay out claims to those who held federal flood insurance.
..."So, I never made the point of saying we shouldn't do anything," DeSantis said recently. "You also had the New York state government coming into Congress saying, 'Hey, look at all these buildings that got damaged.' And we asked, OK, what is insurance picking up on this? And they said, 'Well, we didn't insure them, we didn't think they'd ever be a problem.' So, in that situation, we want to help people, I think, as the last line of defense, but you don't want to basically reward them for not doing the responsible thing. So I think a lot of people who have looked at it have acknowledged that there was more spending in it than what needed to be done, and it was not an appropriate vehicle, with excessive spending and extraneous money. For example, they were refurbishing the Smithsonian, and there was highway spending and different things like that [in the plan]."
DeSantis said he doesn't always support the way Congress spends money.
"In Washington, the way it works is this: I can file a bill tomorrow, about whatever you want," he said. "You just tell me, I can spend money on this or that. But chances are, it's not going to go anywhere. So, what people look for are vehicles that are definitely going to move. We knew something was going to pass. So when you see that, people say 'Oh, I can add this or that,' and it kind of goes from there. We're just trying to change the philosophy and the way Washington operates." '
This is not, in fact, shocking.
1. Yes, politicians will ask for their own shit because otherwise they will not care. Pretty sure DeSantis has done so.
2. Money being spent our, even as far as 2018, is not unexpected.
https://www.transit.dot.gov/funding/grant-programs/emergency-relief-program/hurricane-sandy-disaster-relief#:~:text=L.,Control%20Act%20of%202011%20(Pub.
Basically: part of the money is to repair and upgrade areas of transit to help prevent future problems. Such projects can take many years and you can't do them all at once either since that might totally cripple part or all of your public transit.
So its done over many years with projects staggered so service inturruption is minimal.
Thats just part of the money, of course, but illustrates the point.
-
This is not, in fact, shocking.
1. Yes, politicians will ask for their own shit because otherwise they will not care. Pretty sure DeSantis has done so.
2. Money being spent our, even as far as 2018, is not unexpected.
https://www.transit.dot.gov/funding/grant-programs/emergency-relief-program/hurricane-sandy-disaster-relief#:~:text=L.,Control%20Act%20of%202011%20(Pub.
Basically: part of the money is to repair and upgrade areas of transit to help prevent future problems. Such projects can take many years and you can't do them all at once either since that might totally cripple part or all of your public transit.
So its done over many years with projects staggered so service inturruption is minimal.
Thats just part of the money, of course, but illustrates the point.
After a hurricane you only need to repair the infrastructure once. Repairs intended for many years out should be in a regular spending bill, and not snuck into an emergency bill to get passed sight unseen.
-
“Trying to make things to survive the next hurricane is dumb and a liberal hoax”
-Tom “Shillington” Bishop
Obviously 2 years might not be enough time to plan, contact and complete a massive infrastructure repair, but hey ho. Toss De Santis’ salad a little more; he is almost there.
Also worth noting that De Santis was happy to take federal funds for Coronavirus recovery, despite being one of the most flagrantly and intentionally careless stewards of pandemic responses. He’s a hypocritical shitbag.
-
This is not, in fact, shocking.
1. Yes, politicians will ask for their own shit because otherwise they will not care. Pretty sure DeSantis has done so.
2. Money being spent our, even as far as 2018, is not unexpected.
https://www.transit.dot.gov/funding/grant-programs/emergency-relief-program/hurricane-sandy-disaster-relief#:~:text=L.,Control%20Act%20of%202011%20(Pub.
Basically: part of the money is to repair and upgrade areas of transit to help prevent future problems. Such projects can take many years and you can't do them all at once either since that might totally cripple part or all of your public transit.
So its done over many years with projects staggered so service inturruption is minimal.
Thats just part of the money, of course, but illustrates the point.
After a hurricane you only need to repair the infrastructure once. Repairs intended for many years out should be in a regular spending bill, and not snuck into an emergency bill to get passed sight unseen.
Sure. And how long should that take Tom? In your expert opinion on repair of major metropolitan transit systems?
-
After a hurricane you only need to repair the infrastructure once. Repairs intended for many years out should be in a regular spending bill, and not snuck into an emergency bill to get passed sight unseen.
Sure. And how long should that take Tom? In your expert opinion on repair of major metropolitan transit systems?
Assuming that no other hurricanes come along in the mean time, of course.
-
After a hurricane you only need to repair the infrastructure once. Repairs intended for many years out should be in a regular spending bill, and not snuck into an emergency bill to get passed sight unseen.
Sure. And how long should that take Tom? In your expert opinion on repair of major metropolitan transit systems?
Assuming that no other hurricanes come along in the mean time, of course.
Why would that happen? We all know superstorm sandy was a once in a lifetime thing and has no underlying reason for another one to happen in the next 100 years.
-
Sure. And how long should that take Tom? In your expert opinion on repair of major metropolitan transit systems?
Irrelevant. Funding intended for years down the line isn't an emergency.
In the aftermath of 9-11 emergency funding was needed for the people hurt and killed in the aftermath, but funding the construction of new towers and ongoing maintenance on those new towers wasn't an emergency. The buildings might need to be built back, but if it can take 5 years instead of 4 years, that is not an emergency and is not appropriate to be on an emergency funding bill in the immediate aftermath of 9-11.
The word emergency connotates an immediate serious need and multi-year funding projects for ongoing projects, improvements, etc, are not emergencies. It is more appropriate for those items to be outside of a bill presented as an emergency.
-
Sure. And how long should that take Tom? In your expert opinion on repair of major metropolitan transit systems?
Irrelevant. Funding intended for years down the line isn't an emergency.
In the aftermath of 9-11 emergency funding was needed for the people hurt and killed in the aftermath, but funding the construction of new towers and ongoing maintenance on those new towers wasn't an emergency.
The word emergency connotates an immediate serious need and multi-year funding projects for ongoing projects, improvements, etc, are not emergencies. It is more appropriate for those items to be outside of a bill labeled as an emergency.
That’s your opinion, we got it. Now why do you think rebuilding after a disaster with infrastructure designed to withstand the next disaster is inferior to slapping some plywood and grout on the potholes and moving on?
-
You should build back better, no doubt.
Keeping in mind the concept of fiscal integrity, I think all funds slated for Ukraine should be taken off the board, drastic cuts should be made in military spending, and all that money should be repurposed toward infrastructure (actual, physical infrastructure, not some BS labeled as such by woke shitbags roaming the flat earth plane) across the US.
De Santis is not a shitbag for pointing out the BS labeled as infrastructure by stupid liberals and their AI-generated bots.
-
Ron DeSantis is busy tackling the real cause of hurricanes: Critical Race Theory!
-
Now why do you think rebuilding after a disaster with infrastructure designed to withstand the next disaster is inferior to slapping some plywood and grout on the potholes and moving on?
You believe Tom wrote something indicating he thinks this way?
-
Now why do you think rebuilding after a disaster with infrastructure designed to withstand the next disaster is inferior to slapping some plywood and grout on the potholes and moving on?
You believe Tom wrote something indicating he thinks this way?
You believe he didn’t???
-
Now why do you think rebuilding after a disaster with infrastructure designed to withstand the next disaster is inferior to slapping some plywood and grout on the potholes and moving on?
You believe Tom wrote something indicating he thinks this way?
You believe he didn’t???
Not necessarily.
Could you point out the specific sentence he wrote indicating he does think this way?
-
Now why do you think rebuilding after a disaster with infrastructure designed to withstand the next disaster is inferior to slapping some plywood and grout on the potholes and moving on?
You believe Tom wrote something indicating he thinks this way?
You believe he didn’t???
Not necessarily.
Could you point out the specific sentence he wrote indicating he does think this way?
Why should I bother with you?
-
One of the leading contenders for the 2024 GOP Presidential nomination
This fellow absolutely cannot handle the gauntlet of a presidential run and will be exposed in short order. He doesn't have Trump's support and his bid will be over before the first (maybe 2nd) debate. Rick Santorum 2.0
-
Now why do you think rebuilding after a disaster with infrastructure designed to withstand the next disaster is inferior to slapping some plywood and grout on the potholes and moving on?
You believe Tom wrote something indicating he thinks this way?
You believe he didn’t???
Not necessarily.
Could you point out the specific sentence he wrote indicating he does think this way?
Why should I bother with you?
I just asked.
Your retort simply and eloquently demonstrates you have nothing and your entire train of thought regarding Tom and DeSantis is really just an Angry Rant.
Not surprising.
-
Sure. And how long should that take Tom? In your expert opinion on repair of major metropolitan transit systems?
Irrelevant. Funding intended for years down the line isn't an emergency.
In the aftermath of 9-11 emergency funding was needed for the people hurt and killed in the aftermath, but funding the construction of new towers and ongoing maintenance on those new towers wasn't an emergency. The buildings might need to be built back, but if it can take 5 years instead of 4 years, that is not an emergency and is not appropriate to be on an emergency funding bill in the immediate aftermath of 9-11.
The word emergency connotates an immediate serious need and multi-year funding projects for ongoing projects, improvements, etc, are not emergencies. It is more appropriate for those items to be outside of a bill presented as an emergency.
Then whats the point of emergency funding?
If your house is flooded to the point where it needs to be rebuilt, do you just get some emergency funding for a week at a hotel and thats it? Is spending a year to rebuild your house (or more depending on how many houses need to be rebuilt) not an emergency?
-
Now why do you think rebuilding after a disaster with infrastructure designed to withstand the next disaster is inferior to slapping some plywood and grout on the potholes and moving on?
You believe Tom wrote something indicating he thinks this way?
You believe he didn’t???
Not necessarily.
Could you point out the specific sentence he wrote indicating he does think this way?
Why should I bother with you?
I just asked.
Your retort simply and eloquently demonstrates you have nothing and your entire train of thought regarding Tom and DeSantis is really just an Angry Rant.
Not surprising.
Coming from the guy who calls people AIs, this means nothing. What do you think about De Santis’ accepting of COVID relief and emergency funds when it suits him?
-
What do you think about De Santis’ accepting of COVID relief and emergency funds when it suits him?
I think people of all sorts accept all kinds of things all the time.
Nobody is coming out of this alive.
Let me know when you are done ranting.
Thanks.
-
DeSantis will become Pres.
House and Senate will close borders, require only citizens can vote and deport all these illegals once found. Jails will be built to house the Dirty Dems....
-
What do you think about De Santis’ accepting of COVID relief and emergency funds when it suits him?
I think people of all sorts accept all kinds of things all the time.
Nice deflection.
Nobody is coming out of this alive.
Man, you're creepy.
Let me know when you are done ranting.
Thanks.
That's my secret. I am always ranting.
-
Then whats the point of emergency funding?
If your house is flooded to the point where it needs to be rebuilt, do you just get some emergency funding for a week at a hotel and thats it? Is spending a year to rebuild your house (or more depending on how many houses need to be rebuilt) not an emergency?
Many of the fundamental problems with the bill are not even about rebuilding what the hurricane damaged. The emergency hurricane relief request contained significant items which were going towards projects that were unrelated to the hurricane damage:
https://www.dailysignal.com/2012/12/14/hurricane-sandy-and-fema-abuse/
Last week, President Obama issued a request for $60.4 billion for Hurricane Sandy response and recovery. . . .Roughly $28 billion of the request is marked for future disaster-mitigation projects on the East Coast, including $3.2 million for erosion control projects and $15 billion for Housing and Urban Development Community Development Block Grants. As Heritage’s Matt Mayer explains, “Setting aside whether these projects have merit, a supplemental spending request to deal with a current crisis is not the appropriate vehicle to propose new spending projects.”
...Remove unnecessary items from the Administration’s request, and you’re left with a request of $12.8 billion in supplemental funds. . . .Proponents of looking at offsets for the hurricane supplemental have a point. As Mayer explains, “Too much of the Obama Administration’s supplemental request for Hurricane Sandy includes items best left for its upcoming budget.… Because of the federal government’s dire fiscal condition, underscored by the current fiscal cliff negotiations, spending reductions should offset any additional spending.”
If they want money for future disaster-mitigation projects then they should have acted honestly and created a request for that with the normal way they get funding, not try to sneak it into the hurricane sandy emergency relief.
-
Then whats the point of emergency funding?
If your house is flooded to the point where it needs to be rebuilt, do you just get some emergency funding for a week at a hotel and thats it? Is spending a year to rebuild your house (or more depending on how many houses need to be rebuilt) not an emergency?
Many of the fundamental problems with the bill are not even about rebuilding what the hurricane damaged. The emergency hurricane relief request contained significant items which were going towards projects that were unrelated to the hurricane damage:
https://www.dailysignal.com/2012/12/14/hurricane-sandy-and-fema-abuse/
Last week, President Obama issued a request for $60.4 billion for Hurricane Sandy response and recovery. . . .Roughly $28 billion of the request is marked for future disaster-mitigation projects on the East Coast, including $3.2 million for erosion control projects and $15 billion for Housing and Urban Development Community Development Block Grants. As Heritage’s Matt Mayer explains, “Setting aside whether these projects have merit, a supplemental spending request to deal with a current crisis is not the appropriate vehicle to propose new spending projects.”
...Remove unnecessary items from the Administration’s request, and you’re left with a request of $12.8 billion in supplemental funds. . . .Proponents of looking at offsets for the hurricane supplemental have a point. As Mayer explains, “Too much of the Obama Administration’s supplemental request for Hurricane Sandy includes items best left for its upcoming budget.… Because of the federal government’s dire fiscal condition, underscored by the current fiscal cliff negotiations, spending reductions should offset any additional spending.”
If they want money for future disaster-mitigation projects then they should have acted honestly and created a request for that with the normal way they get funding, not try to sneak it into the hurricane sandy emergency relief.
Maybe so. Sadly, American politics doesn't work like.
I'm all for a 1 bill, one issue kinda system. But I'm pretty sure the midwestern states and westard would just vote "no" because why should they care about the East Coast? Politicians represent their state or area and their state/area generally doesn't give a shit about everyone else's problems.
So nothing would get done and the next Superstorm that hits would require yet another emergency bill.
-
Then whats the point of emergency funding?
If your house is flooded to the point where it needs to be rebuilt, do you just get some emergency funding for a week at a hotel and thats it? Is spending a year to rebuild your house (or more depending on how many houses need to be rebuilt) not an emergency?
Many of the fundamental problems with the bill are not even about rebuilding what the hurricane damaged. The emergency hurricane relief request contained significant items which were going towards projects that were unrelated to the hurricane damage:
https://www.dailysignal.com/2012/12/14/hurricane-sandy-and-fema-abuse/
Last week, President Obama issued a request for $60.4 billion for Hurricane Sandy response and recovery. . . .Roughly $28 billion of the request is marked for future disaster-mitigation projects on the East Coast, including $3.2 million for erosion control projects and $15 billion for Housing and Urban Development Community Development Block Grants. As Heritage’s Matt Mayer explains, “Setting aside whether these projects have merit, a supplemental spending request to deal with a current crisis is not the appropriate vehicle to propose new spending projects.”
...Remove unnecessary items from the Administration’s request, and you’re left with a request of $12.8 billion in supplemental funds. . . .Proponents of looking at offsets for the hurricane supplemental have a point. As Mayer explains, “Too much of the Obama Administration’s supplemental request for Hurricane Sandy includes items best left for its upcoming budget.… Because of the federal government’s dire fiscal condition, underscored by the current fiscal cliff negotiations, spending reductions should offset any additional spending.”
If they want money for future disaster-mitigation projects then they should have acted honestly and created a request for that with the normal way they get funding, not try to sneak it into the hurricane sandy emergency relief.
Maybe so. Sadly, American politics doesn't work like.
I'm all for a 1 bill, one issue kinda system. But I'm pretty sure the midwestern states and westard would just vote "no" because why should they care about the East Coast? Politicians represent their state or area and their state/area generally doesn't give a shit about everyone else's problems.
So nothing would get done and the next Superstorm that hits would require yet another emergency bill.
I don't know. I think most Americans are cognizant of how connected the states are to each other economically. Places like Texas and Florida, while they have vile politicians in charge of them are just not areas that we can allow to be down for any amount of time.
Objecting to future disaster mitigations is also kind of a head scratcher to me. Do republicans really think that this will be the last hurricane that'll hit Florida? What if spending 10 billion hardening infrastructure in these storm areas saves 50 billion in damages? It's financially irresponsible to not prepare for what we know with absolute certainty will happen again.
-
If they want money for future disaster-mitigation projects then they should have acted honestly and created a request for that with the normal way they get funding, not try to sneak it into the hurricane sandy emergency relief.
The thing is, it isn't an emergency relief bill, it's a disaster recovery bill. The hint is in the name.
-
Objecting to future disaster mitigations is also kind of a head scratcher to me.
The objection was treating non-emergency funding for future disasters and future projects as emergency funding for Hurricane Sandy. Those agencies have normal ways to get funding which does not involve sneaking in money into an emergency aid bill.
If they want money for future disaster-mitigation projects then they should have acted honestly and created a request for that with the normal way they get funding, not try to sneak it into the hurricane sandy emergency relief.
The thing is, it isn't an emergency relief bill, it's a disaster recovery bill. The hint is in the name.
Well, that's incorrect.
https://www.afscme.org/issues/congressional-scorecards/doc2/Scorecard-Senate-201408.pdf
(https://i.imgur.com/EECgLdQ.png)
https://www.texasgopvote.com/comment/33581
While I sympathize with the victims of Hurricane Sandy, Congress has already authorized $9.7 billion in emergency funding. But the $50 billion bill considered today includes additional spending far beyond emergency funds for Hurricane Sandy victims. Emergency spending bills should not be a vehicle for pet projects or even important programs. Those types of spending requests should be considered separately.
https://library.cqpress.com/cqalmanac/document.php?id=cqal13-1634-93328-2627902
Almost two weeks after the House action, the Senate voted to pass the disaster bill, even though rifts remained over spending offsets and complaints about the designation of emergency spending in the bill to avoid budget caps.
Here is a quote that is more specific:
https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2014/6/1/1303536/-AR-Sen-Mark-Pryor-D-Slams-Tom-Cotton-R-For-Votes-Against-Disaster-Aid
Cotton Voted Against $50 Billion Disaster Supplemental Providing Emergency Aid to Communities Hit By Hurricane Sandy. In 2013, Cotton voted for passage of the bill that would provide about $50.5 billion for communities hit by Superstorm Sandy. Nearly all funding would be designated as emergency spending exempt from discretionary caps, except for $5.4 billion for the Federal Emergency Management Agency's Disaster Relief Fund. As amended, the bill would include about $11.5 billion for FEMA's Disaster Relief Fund, $10.9 billion for transit systems, $16 billion for Department of Housing and Urban Development community development programs, $5.4 billion for the Army Corps of Engineers, $708 million for repairs to national parks, wildlife refuges and facilities, $234 million for Veterans Affairs medical activities and construction projects, $274 million for Coast Guard projects and $520 million for Small Business Administration disaster loans. The bill passed by a vote of 241-180. [CQ; HR 152, Vote #23, 1/15/13]
All was designated as emergency funding except for 5.4 billion into the Federal Emergency Management Agency's Disaster Relief Fund.
The article also outlines specific reasons for why congressmen voted against the bill:
Cotton Argued That Much Of The Funding In The Hurricane Sandy Relief Bill Was Not Going To Natural Disaster Relief. When asked about his vote against the Sandy Disaster Relief Bill, Cotton responded: “’A lot of that money was not going to natural disaster relief. A lot of that money was to go to municipalities that were underinsured,’ Cotton said. He pointed out the amount of money requested was excessive. He said $60 billion is 12 times the budget Arkansas has to work within a year.” [The Courier, 2/18/13]
Cotton: “I Don’t Think Arkansas Needs To Bail Out The Northeast.” When asked about his vote against the Sandy Disaster Relief Bill, Cotton responded: “‘I don’t think Arkansas needs to bail out the Northeast,’ Cotton asserted. He told the audience many of the proposed relief programs were larded up by New York politicians. They were using this opportunity as a grab bag for politicians’ wish lists and for funding repairs to infrastructure that had nothing to do with weather damage.” [The Courier, 2/18/13]
The above article is actually criticizing Cotton for voting against spending bills. It is doing the same thing Rama Set is doing, criticizing anyone who is fiscally responsible as evil for opposing a spending bill. From the article:
COTTON EVEN VOTED TO ELIMINATE FUNDING FOR IMPROVED EXTREME WEATHER WARNINGS AND FORECASTING
This is a rather poor way to argue, to say the least. As if there is no such thing as improper spending. Oddly, this article quotes various reasons why Cotton opposed spending bills. Most attack articles don't bother to quote the opposition at all.
-
No I was criticizing De Santis for being a hypocrite. Try to keep up.
-
No I was criticizing De Santis for being a hypocrite. Try to keep up.
Please show where DeSantis is asking for money for future disasters unrelated to this hurricane.
-
No I was criticizing De Santis for being a hypocrite. Try to keep up.
Please show where DeSantis is asking for money for future disasters unrelated to this hurricane.
De Santis voted against funding FEMA’s deficit that would arise due to Hurricane Sandy claims because he is a shit bag and he voted against a supplemental bill to build back from hurricane damage, because he is a shit bag. He happily accepted COVID relief funding while irresponsibly spreading lies about COVID and rejecting the notion it was an emergency, because he is a shit bag.
-
No I was criticizing De Santis for being a hypocrite. Try to keep up.
Please show where DeSantis is asking for money for future disasters unrelated to this hurricane.
Umm.
What do you think the money goes to? Rebuilding infrastructure. To be more resistant to the next hurricane.
The difference is that NY and NJ doesn't get such storms every year.
Florida gets several a year.
Therefore any rebuilding is in preparation for the next storm.