Originally Posted By ecdc <a href="http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2013/05/21/james_inhofe_moore_federal_aide_oklahoma_senator_says_tornado_aide_package.html" target="_blank">http://www.slate.com/blogs/the...age.html</a> Senator Jim Inhofe of Oklahoma has stated that Moore needs federal disaster relief funds, despite voting against (and speaking out vehemently against) the Hurricane Sandy relief bill. His reasoning? This is "totally different." He feels like Sandy was just too much and apparently loaded with pork because more than one state needed the funds. But why, Oklahoma won't do that. (As the article notes, it's not clear how Inhofe will prevent any pork-laden amendments to a bill his constituents will demand pass.) This is Republican thinking at its best. Government is bad unless it can help me. When I need it, it's because I really need it, but when others need it, it's because they're a bunch of freeloading losers who can't just work hard and get ahead.
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan Pathetic. This is the kind of guy that should be voted out of office next cycle. He won't be.
Originally Posted By EdisYoda I have the perfect solution: Provide disaster relief for the area but with one provision: This guy resign from office and never hold public office again.
Originally Posted By fkurucz Yet another reason why I quit being a Republican. All the talk of fiscal responsibility is pure posturing. Like ecdc said, if it benefits their constituents, then its carte blanche. It is this pure and unadulterated hypocrisy, while claiming to be "Christians", that drove me away.
Originally Posted By Tikiduck Is it just me, or do these Republican lawmakers have an almost unnatural similarity to one another? Not just that they all look like mean old rattlesnakes, but in stone faced hypocrisy. These are your God loving conservatives, the biggest bunch of liars and bottom feeders that ever infested politics.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 <(As the article notes, it's not clear how Inhofe will prevent any pork-laden amendments to a bill his constituents will demand pass.)> This is important to understand. It was easy for non-affected senators to justify their vote against Sandy relief by saying it had too many non-Sandy things added to it. That was true, but that's unfortunately par for the course - more than ever in our broken system. The reason is that Congress can't agree on any spending bills (even more so now, post-sequester), so spending bills like Sandy relief (and now this one) are sort of the "only game in town." If you have something you want funds for - legit OR iffy, and of course one man's pork is another man's long-underfunded priority - a bill like Sandy or this upcoming tornado relief is the only vehicle with which to get it. This shouldn't be the case, of course. But it is, and Inhofe knew that full well when he voted against Sandy relief. And almost inevitably there will be non-tornado things added to this. But still, in Inhofe's view, this is "totally different." I've long thought Inhofe might just be the worst senator we have now (not that he doesn't have competition), largely because he insists louder than anyone that climate change is a "hoax" and gets low-information folks to believe that. Now just add blatant hypocrisy on top of that. Part of me almost hopes that senators from states that Sandy walloped will vote against relief here just to watch Inhofe squirm. But I'm assuming they'll take the high road and vote for it.
Originally Posted By skinnerbox And don't forget that the two OK Senators want other states across the country to cut or trim their programs in order to free up funds to repair the damage done in OK. That's the part that makes me so furious! It's bad enough these two clowns refused to approve disaster relief for Sandy. But to expect other states to cut their funds so OK can get disaster relief goes beyond the pale. I've stated it before and I'll state it again. Being a long-time resident of a very blue state that contributes far more to the Federal coffers than it extracts... I'm fed up with red state arsehats like Inhofe and Colburn who absolutely hate, HATE, HATE!! states like mine. That is, until they need our Federal tax contributions. Let their constituents finally see what life would be like without the Federal tax dollars from other states. Let these constituents suffer through natural disasters that they have to pay for THEMSELVES. Let these constituents actually feel the full effects of not having a Federal government to help them out when they need it most. Then if they continue to vote for d-bags like these two Senators, they get what they deserve. And zero sympathy from me the next time disaster strikes.
Originally Posted By DyGDisney >>>Being a long-time resident of a very blue state that contributes far more to the Federal coffers than it extracts... I'm fed up with red state arsehats like Inhofe and Colburn who absolutely hate, HATE, HATE!! states like mine. That is, until they need our Federal tax contributions.<<< Yes! I always say I wouldn't live anywhere else in the U.S. besides CA because I couldn't stand the politics (the beach and mountains are nice too.). I say we start by letting Texas secede and see how they do without federal dollars.
Originally Posted By utahjosh I won't defend the actions of these Senetors, but.. Speaking of hate...(Post 7)
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan Note also that all talk of "offsets" (paying for disaster aid through cuts elsewhere in the budget) suddenly is of no interest to hardline Republicans now that the disaster is in the heartland. That was supposedly the "principled" stand that some of these jerks took during Sandy. >>“Finding some way to offset is not the priority,” said Sen. Roy Blunt (R-Mo.), a member of Senate GOP leadership who opposed the $50.5 billion Sandy aid package at the beginning of the year. “Meeting the known and immediate needs as quickly as possible is the priority.”<< <a href="http://www.politico.com/story/2013/05/oklahoma-tornado-republicans-budget-offset-91701.html#ixzz2U34d7wK1" target="_blank">http://www.politico.com/story/...U34d7wK1</a> And all said without the slightest bit of embarrassment, or irony, or anything. Shameless.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 In (partial) defense of the other GOP senator from OK, Tom Coburn, he actually IS calling for offsets here. He has a bit more integrity and a bit less hypocrisy than Inhofe. But so does a sphagnum moss. (Sphagnum moss reference in direct homage to a famous animator. Bonus points if you know who.)
Originally Posted By SingleParkPassholder Yep. Coburn won't approve funding unless there are cuts elsewhere. Whattta guy. <a href="http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2013/05/21/oklahoma-sen-coburn-tornado-relief-funds-must-be-offset-with-spending-cuts/" target="_blank">http://www.rawstory.com/rs/201...ng-cuts/</a>
Originally Posted By SingleParkPassholder "Speaking of hate...(Post 7)" You really think their constituents appreciate the politics employed here and DON'T hate them for it?
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan How about we cut Coburn's and Inhofe's salaries? That'd be a good place to offset.
Originally Posted By skinnerbox <<Speaking of hate...(Post 7)>> Get off your high horse, Josh. You and other Republican supporters on these boards are constantly whining and complaining about the severe lack of "personal responsibility and accountability" in ordinary citizens' lives. Well, guess what? Elections have consequences. BIG ONES! And consistently electing d-bags like the GOP Senators from Oklahoma certainly SHOULD have consequences for their constituents. (Heaven knows the rest of us feel the fallout of those elections when they go to D.C.) These politicians run on Tea Party memes of hatred for progressives and minorities and immigrants and gays and women's contraceptive rights and on and on. And they especially tout on the stump the NEED to shrink the Federal government, including a reduction in disaster relief because "we can't afford it." So when disaster hits THEIR state and they subsequently stick out their hands to get the Federal government to help... I'm sorry, but the correct response in this situation should be to shut them down: "Sorry, but no. You're here in D.C. because an overwhelming majority of your voters back home expect you to reduce Federal spending while you're serving in Congress. Well, let the reduction in said spending begin NOW." Time for these constituents to get a taste of their own medicine. They expect every other state to stop asking for help from the Federal government. "Personal responsibility and accountability" and all that jazz. Well... what about themselves? If they don't want Federal assistance to go to victims of Hurricane Sandy, then they shouldn't expect ANY assistance for themselves when a massive tornado flattens their neighborhood. What's good for the goose...
Originally Posted By utahjosh I wasn't defending these Senator's actions. I was just pointing out your continued spewing of hate for anyone who disagrees with you.
Originally Posted By ecdc >>I was just pointing out your continued spewing of hate for anyone who disagrees with you.<< I don't see any hate. Passion. Anger. Maybe even over-the-top. But no hate. I try hard to moderate myself here (not always successfully) but frustration with low-information or hypocritical conservative voters is certainly something I can relate to. You also characterize this as a "disagreement." I don't see any disagreement. It seems pretty clear-cut: Senators from conservative red states (Inhofe certainly isn't the first) will gladly take federal funds when there's an impact in their state, but they vote against it for others, even though their state contributes far less federal income tax. What's the disagreement there? That it's okay to be a total hypocrite?
Originally Posted By fabshelly I'd love to see a law that all of these proposals be separate; that nothing can be attached to them. I don't see that happening because of voter apathy. Most Americans care more about their sports team or their reality show participants than they do about the people who actually have control over their quality of life. Yesterday's LA Mayor's election had less than a 25% turnout of eligible voters, according to the LA Times. That's pathetic. We have met the enemy and he is us.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 <If they don't want Federal assistance to go to victims of Hurricane Sandy,> Just to be fair to the good folks in Oklahoma... I'm going to guess a lot of them, perhaps most, were fine with federal assistance going to victims of Sandy. The trouble is a lot of voters really don't think things through. They have a general idea that the government spends too much, and they elect senators who say they'll cut spending. But ask them about specifics... Do you think we spend too much on Medicare? No! Don't cut Medicare. Too much on disaster relief? No! We have to take care of people in time of need. Too much on infrastructure? No! We should spend more on these crumbling roads around here. Too much on the military? No! We need a strong defense. So many people who think we spend too much have no idea of the specifics. They favor cutting abstractions like "waste" - of course there's some waste, but it's a relatively small drop in the bucket - and the number one specific thing that people think we should cut, year after year is... wait for it... foreign aid. Which is a REAL drop in the bucket. But most people don't know that. Yes, there are people who think we spend too much on things like food stamps and unemployment... until they need them themselves, of course. But most folks don't like the idea of cutting disaster relief. Most people aren't that malicious. But yes, point taken - there's a huge disconnect when they elect senators who would do just that.
