Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Nobody is saying to deny the people Federal aid. The problem is that Rand has balked at it for other states in the past without it having being pulled from somewhere else. i don't hear him saying anything about offsetting the funds this time. They should get all of the money they need with this disaster, but don't ever question another state's need for funds.
for the umpteenth time, there is FEMA aid in very year's budget. May surprise some, but some years it doesn't all get spent. But it's there, for disasters just like this.
What Rand Paul has said in the past was essentially "OK, there was this really bad event. We need an extra $10B in aid. What other areas of the budget are we going to take that from?"
Think about it this way. You budget $1K a year for car repairs and $5K every year towards buying a new car in 5 years. An illegal alien wrecks into you and you don't have uninsured driver coverage. Car repair is $8K. Your car repair budget is gone, and so is part of your new car budget. Are you going to act like the repair never occurred, and still go buy a new car?
for the umpteenth time, there is FEMA aid in very year's budget. May surprise some, but some years it doesn't all get spent. But it's there, for disasters just like this.
What Rand Paul has said in the past was essentially "OK, there was this really bad event. We need an extra $10B in aid. What other areas of the budget are we going to take that from?"
Think about it this way. You budget $1K a year for car repairs and $5K every year towards buying a new car in 5 years. An illegal alien wrecks into you and you don't have uninsured driver coverage. Car repair is $8K. Your car repair budget is gone, and so is part of your new car budget. Are you going to act like the repair never occurred, and still go buy a new car?
So because a disaster happened during a certain year where the budget was exhausted it's ok for him to vote against relief funds going to that state? I highly doubt that if the FEMA budget had been used he would be saying the same thing this time.
So because a disaster happened during a certain year where the budget was exhausted it's ok for him to vote against relief funds going to that state? I highly doubt that if the FEMA budget had been used he would be saying the same thing this time.
I highly expect he would say "and we need to take $10B from foreign aid over the next 10 months".
I also expect that he's well aware that "disaster relief" will pass with an ample # of votes, so for him to stand on his principles, and make a speech that says "we can't just spend extra money every time it's needed. We need to find it elsewhere in the budget", that he knows his vote won't make a difference in the outcome.
Perhaps for those who want to try and make something out of the story, you should research the "Sandy bill" for example, and see if it was for 100% legitimate need, or if there was any slipped-in pork.
Off the top of my head, I know there was some - NYC got some millions for "flood control pumps" that were non-operational/unused a couple of months ago during the storm that hit the city.
So because a disaster happened during a certain year where the budget was exhausted it's ok for him to vote against relief funds going to that state? I highly doubt that if the FEMA budget had been used he would be saying the same thing this time.
He was voting against the pork in the bill. What does a fish hatchery have to do with a disaster in New Jersey?
And you don't give out all the money at once without over sight.
Every location on earth has the probability of some sort of weather disaster.
I think Paul is a hypocrite for asking aide for his state when he did vote against it for others.
But IDK why everybody hit with a weather disaster needs federal aid. People decide what they will risk when they decide where to live.
IMO, we need to do away with FEMA. Flooding. tornadoes, fires etc need to be calculated into living expenses. Governments need contingency funds for such disasters.
The federal flood insurance program just enabled more building in places that flood.
Oh look another "conservative" who wants to tear down America rather than 'conserve' anything.
FEMA is there for a reason- because Americans take care of each other. Even ungrateful myopic "conservatives" who hate their fellow Americans.
If only all Senators behaved like Rand Paul. Then the country could see the failings of his and his father’s libertarian leaning ideology and then those ideas could go on the rubbish heap of history where they belong.
Kentucky suffered a horrible natural disaster Friday with the tornadoes that ravaged many towns and killed upwards of 100 persons. I myself am glad that the federal government has quickly offered aid and help to these fellow Americans in their time of need. I however find Kentucky Senator Rand Paul to be a hypocrite. He is supporting federal aid for his state yet he voted against disaster aid bills to many other places in the last decade hit by hurricanes - NY (Sandy), PR (Maria), and TX (Harvey). It seems aid is only supported by him when it applies to the state that he represents.
Rand PAul's opposition is mostly fake news. I don't think he has been against aid but when it a pork filled boondoggle above emergency aid like after Hurrican Sandy then he is against. I live in Long Island and there was a lot of wasted money in that aid package.
Status:
"Smartened up and walked away!"
(set 20 days ago)
11,767 posts, read 5,781,921 times
Reputation: 14186
Quote:
Originally Posted by odinloki1
If only all Senators behaved like Rand Paul. Then the country could see the failings of his and his father’s libertarian leaning ideology and then those ideas could go on the rubbish heap of history where they belong.
Actually - the world would be a better place as we wouldn't have all these blow hard politicians lining their own pockets - they'd be reporting to the people who elected them.
Haters going to hate but deep down you know we're right -
Actually - the world would be a better place as we wouldn't have all these blow hard politicians lining their own pockets - they'd be reporting to the people who elected them.
Haters going to hate but deep down you know we're right -
He agrees with Citizens United. Seems perfectly happy to line his pockets. Yes he makes some talk about campaign finance reform, but that will not happen with the current SCOTUS.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
