Remember When
- Thread starter NYShoreGuy
- Start date
H.R. 41 (113th): Hurricane Sandy relief bill -- House Vote #7 -- Jan 4, 2013
House Vote #7 in 2013, in the United States Congress.
www.govtrack.us
U.S. Senate: U.S. Senate Roll Call Votes 113th Congress - 1st Session
roll_call_vote.xml
Two of many Jack asses that love to grandstand and are full of hypocrisy. Also, Ted Cruz voted against Sandy relief and then asked for relief for Texas a year later after Texas go hit.
Playing with Americans who are in the midst dealing with the after affects of a natural disaster - Disgraceful
Playing with Americans who are in the midst dealing with the after affects of a natural disaster - Disgraceful
Disgraceful is not posting some words of concern for the victims (hundreds are dead) of Hurricane Ian before launching into an unresearched political attack.
With a modest bit of digging you will fine that 31% (many $billions) of the Sandy relief bill they opposed was not aimed at Sandy relief. That is what they opposed, not the relief. (Note that Cruz erroneously claimed 2/3 of the bill to be pork. The left focused more on the numerical error than the fact that there was excess in the bill)
With a modest bit of digging you will fine that 31% (many $billions) of the Sandy relief bill they opposed was not aimed at Sandy relief. That is what they opposed, not the relief. (Note that Cruz erroneously claimed 2/3 of the bill to be pork. The left focused more on the numerical error than the fact that there was excess in the bill)
Last edited:
I suspect that bill was loaded with tons of stuff unrelated to "sandy relief." That's likely why they opposed it.
just a little bit of research will show you that the pork reasoning was an after the fact lie to try to justify voting against it.
in the end 80% of funding went to Sandy relief. The other went to disaster relief somewhere else in the country. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...cane-sandy-bill-had-nothing-to-do-with-sandy/
in the end 80% of funding went to Sandy relief. The other went to disaster relief somewhere else in the country. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...cane-sandy-bill-had-nothing-to-do-with-sandy/
Did you read the article?
"The help for Sandy came in two parts — an uncontroversial vote in late 2012 for a $9.7 billion increase in the Federal Emergency Management Agency’s borrowing power for flood relief, and then a $50.5 billion package that was approved in January 2013, without the votes of Texas Republicans (or many Republicans)."
and
"This being Congress, one of course can find some eyebrow-raising provisions. In particular, there was $16 billion for the account that funds Community Development Block Grants, which were aimed at Sandy relief but also could be used for eligible disaster events in calendar years 2011, 2012 and 2013. So the main focus was Sandy, but the money could be moved to assist other disaster relief efforts over a three-year period."
Lets be real. They both voted for relief but opposed portions of the Bill that were not directly related.
Again, hundreds are dead from IAN and your first thoughts are political spin.
"The help for Sandy came in two parts — an uncontroversial vote in late 2012 for a $9.7 billion increase in the Federal Emergency Management Agency’s borrowing power for flood relief, and then a $50.5 billion package that was approved in January 2013, without the votes of Texas Republicans (or many Republicans)."
and
"This being Congress, one of course can find some eyebrow-raising provisions. In particular, there was $16 billion for the account that funds Community Development Block Grants, which were aimed at Sandy relief but also could be used for eligible disaster events in calendar years 2011, 2012 and 2013. So the main focus was Sandy, but the money could be moved to assist other disaster relief efforts over a three-year period."
Lets be real. They both voted for relief but opposed portions of the Bill that were not directly related.
Again, hundreds are dead from IAN and your first thoughts are political spin.
“ This being Congress, one of course can find some eyebrow-raising provisions. In particular, there was $16 billion for the account that funds Community Development Block Grants, which were aimed at Sandy relief but also could be used for eligible disaster events in calendar years 2011, 2012 and 2013. So the main focus was Sandy, but the money could be moved to assist other disaster relief efforts over a three-year period.
Still, it’s all related to disaster relief. In the end, moreover, $13 billion, or more than 80 percent, went to areas affected by Sandy, according to a Housing and Urban Development Department accounting.
The bill also included tribal and state clean water and pollution mitigation grants ($600 million), funds to improve weather forecasting ($25 million), and upgrades to National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration aircraft ($44.5 million). Those provisions were intended to prevent future weather-related disasters but arguably were not related to Sandy.l But that’s less than 2 percent of the total.”
If you kept reading, a grand total of 2% was not for sandy relief or disaster relief in general.
Are you really serious about R’s taking bows for voting for only 9 billion in relief when the additional 50 billion was needed?
Moreover, in my original post, politics should have no place when it comes to people dealing with natural disasters. Perhaps you didn’t read that either while you were grandstanding.
Last edited:
Everything ok with NYShoreGuy? He's been starting threads without the Twitter lately. I'm concerned. Hope all is well.
My remarks are also directed at NYSHORE DUDE.
But for the record, your OP led off with "Two of many Jack asses that love to grandstand and are full of hypocrisy."
Ok, boys and girls, today's new word is "grandstanding". Can you you all say that with me. Grandstanding.
Your post was grandstanding at its finest.
Cling to your version of the facts.
You tried to support NYSHOREDUDE's lame post with your usual ready, fire, aim.
Cruz, DeSantis and Rubio all supported Sandy relief. They opposed portions of the $50B bill. That is not being a jackass. Name calling does not help support your argument.
But for the record, your OP led off with "Two of many Jack asses that love to grandstand and are full of hypocrisy."
Ok, boys and girls, today's new word is "grandstanding". Can you you all say that with me. Grandstanding.
Your post was grandstanding at its finest.
Cling to your version of the facts.
You tried to support NYSHOREDUDE's lame post with your usual ready, fire, aim.
Cruz, DeSantis and Rubio all supported Sandy relief. They opposed portions of the $50B bill. That is not being a jackass. Name calling does not help support your argument.
They didn’t support it. Giving peanuts is not supporting Sandy relief. And 9 billion was peanuts. You are being a fraud when you say that.
Perhaps you are not aware of the destruction of what occurred. Or perhaps you just can’t criticize people like DeSantiis, Cruz and Rubio and people of that ilk.
There you go again with the name calling.
They supported the portion of the $50B that was directly related to Sandy.
Who is being the fraud by not recognizing that?
I guess you do not understand politics.
It goes like this:
You craft a bill to feed homeless children. You add in a skate park for another district so you can get a vote. An opposition congressperson opposed that. You can now use Twitter to accuse them of not wanting to feed homeless kids. People like ShoreDude will retweet that and perhaps even protest outside their home with rhyming chants!
Unsolicited advice: Stay away from supporting ShoreDude's mindless posts. It makes you look dull.
Last edited:
Compared to the actual damage from the storm which was estimated at the time to be 50 billion (ended up closer to 70-80 billion_
Call it whatever name you want, 9 billion was not close to adequate.
Absurd. The $9B was uncontested and passed quickly. The $50B was questioned as it should have been.
Not really. The far majority of the spending (over 90%) was directly related to Sandy. No need to come here to defend them. Their opposition at the time was political assuming that people would just blindly take them at their word about all of the pork that was in the bill... which appears worked on some.
I disagree.
This time I got the correct NPR (lol):
Should the government be involved in rebuilding a vacation home that an insurance company won't insure?
Sure, you can say that is directly related to the storm. I don't think it is inhumane to think twice before you vote to fund that.
That is not the "pork" that you were referring to earlier and certainty not the pork they were voting against as that damage was still directly related to Sandy..
Second homes weren't really eligible for most of the aid anyway though.
the last 5 bills discussed here, that republicans shockingly vote against, the usual suspects cry "pork!" and then cover their ears. hasnt been pork in any of them. they just cry "pork" to continue the delusion that these republican policiticians aren terrible people.
whats the tally?
-disaster relief
-9/11 vets
-amber alerts
-contraception
all of these bills are straight kosher. gotta be a pretty bad person to vote against it. or support/defend the people who do.
Last edited:
The only time I used the word "pork" was to point out the Cruz was in error.
Right, but you’re defending their opposition to the bill.
When you look back to their comments regarding their opposition, they blamed the unrelated spending and pork.
I appreciate you’re desire to frame their argument around if we should be fixing up second homes and uninsurable areas, but that was not why they voted no.
they figured out it’s much easier to argue against everything than argue for something.
There was some pork in the bill and there was unrelated spending.
Big picture. NYSHOREDude makes a lame post while we are in the middles of a very large natural disaster. Lord Cern pipes in with the "disgraceful" line. The people he is calling out had immediately voted for aid when Sandy hit. Christi and Obama set there differences aside and rose to the occasion as have Biden and DeSantis now done. The longer term Sandy bill was debated for a long time by both sides. There were issues with larger bill. It eventually passed.
I have not reviewed every word Cruz, Rubio, or DeSantis said on the matter and I don't think you did either. I pointed out that Cruz made an erroneous statment. As I go back ShoreDude's OP I see he did not mention Cruz. His name came up later. Regardless, I think scrutiny of the larger bill was warranted. There was of course political nonsense carried it by both side at the time and I don't support that but realize it goes with the territory.
Last edited:
Not mincing words. The opposition was entirely political.
Desantis was not on my radar at the time. Reading back on his comments he said it had to do with when the money would be spent since some of it would be years later and wasn't an emergency. I would disagree with the idea that longer term funding wouldn't be required but I guess he will only request emergency funds and nothing for years down the line now that it is his state? (Doubt that very much)
Cruz and Rubio were on my radar though and both lied about what was in the bill related to their opposition with the pork and unrelated spending arguments. No reason to defend their lying or no votes here.
Just curious when Schumer flip flops on the filibuster for the 20th time in his career will we get a Remember when thread? The fact is politicians change their views on what benefits them in the current moment. Rubio and DeSantis are no different than every other politician out there. Why someone would choose to call them out and not the others is unknown to me.
Rubio vows to oppose potential Hurricane Ian aid package if lawmakers 'load it up with stuff that's unrelated to the storm' | CNN Politics
Republican Sen. Marco Rubio of Florida said Sunday that he will vote against any potential congressional disaster aid for victims of Hurricane Ian if lawmakers "load it up with stuff that's unrelated to the storm."
Sandy Aid Package Includes Millions for Smithsonian, Space Center, Forests
Get breaking national and world news, broadcast video coverage, and exclusive interviews. Find the top news online at ABC news.
Sounds like they didn't want you to hear Rubio's answer to the last question there. He seems to be going into how continue loading these bills with stupid things has an impact on future events, but they cut the clip off so perfectly right before he does.
Also it's nice that Dana read the report from 10 years ago last night so it was fresh in her head. When's the last time you think Rubio read something on Sandy? maybe 10 years ago? I'm sure if he read it last night too he would have a list of pork that was in it.
He is a politician and they prepare for how they will spin something probably more than anything they do while in office. He's had 10 years to realize that there was damage to the roof caused by Sandy. Of course he knows it was.
He just wants you to buy his spin.
The results are in here. Almost all of the Sandy funding was used for issues related to Sandy. Some additional funding for other declared disasters in 2012 which were not yet funded were also added in.