like_that;1869412 wrote:Alright now that I slept on it, I can say COA and I let that get out of control. It's no secret we have similar personalities. Hands up I will take responsibility in that shit fest. I think we addressed enough about the sources, and I am just going to agree to disagree, however I would like to readdress Cruz's criticism now that I actually had time to dig deeper into it.
You can look at the GOP primary thread. I think Cruz is a needledick, and it is no shocker to me that he always rubs people the wrong way. It is a shame, because he actually holds beliefs that TRUE conservatives and right moderates could get behind. Overall though, I think the criticism regarding this bill is not justified(and that goes to the others who voted against it). Wapo and CO are not telling the whole story.
No matter how much I hate a politician on either side, it's hard for me to see any of them blatantly voting against something such as a bill to help people in dire need after a national disaster. None of them are THAT stupid. If someone voted against a bill that prevented people from murdering puppies, knowing how the game is played in DC, my first thought wouldn't be "wow this guy is a piece of shit," my first thought about be "what else was in the bill." If you actually look at the bill itself and take a look at how much and what they actually spent money on, here are some facts to consider:
-The bill was advertised as an "urgent" bill to provide relief for hurricane sandy. This is very important considering how the funds were/are appropriated.
-The budget control act (2011) already provided a loophole for emergency situations allowing congress to spend above appropriated funding for disasters for that specific fiscal year.
-This bill was considered urgent, yet nearly a year later 74% of the bill remained unspent. The funds from that bill still have not been spent in its totality. How is that urgent?
-$8M went to Homeland Security (an already bloated department) to buy cars and equipment. Isn't that what the Department of Homeland Security's original budget is meant for? How was this $8M used for urgent relief?
-$16B to block grants. I am not going to open pandora's box on block grants, but a lot of them end up being bullshit and do nothing to help anybody. How was this 16B used for urgent sandy relief again?
-$11B to mitigation projects. Very vague (like most of our spending bills) and just like any other "project," we most likely will never get to see the results.
-$150M to alaskan fisheries. Why?
-$41M to military bases. Again, the DoD is the most bloated department. Why do they need extra funding for this? Are you telling me the DoD has a yearly budget of 500B+ and they haven't set aside funds for a "rainy day" situation such as this? Also I know a couple people who worked at McGuire AFB (one of the closer bases that would be affected by Sandy), and neither said significant damage was done.
-$5.2M to the DOJ. Why is the DOJ getting funding for national disaster purposes?
-$4M to the Kennedy Space center in Florida. lolwut?
-$2M to the Smithsonian institution in DC. Living in DC, I don't recall Sandy hitting DC that hard at all. Sure as hell not hard enough to cost the Smithsonian $2M in damages.
Did Cruz exaggerated when he said 2/3 of the bill was pork? Probably. Was he wrong when he said the bill was full of pork when you consider it was an "urgent" bill for sandy? I don't think so consisdering where the money went and they didn't even spend all the money within a year. It comes down to the classic game that is played by Capitol Hill, where they advertise bills in a certain way that it would make any representative/senator look terrible on the surface for voting against it.
I hate bills that are proposed and then they tie other shit to it that is outside the scope of the purpose of the bill. It is bush league politics and it is big reason why our government spends our tax dollars irresponsibly and why we are 20T in debt. I wish ever politician would vote against bills that try to tie in other bullshit. We all would be much better off.
tl;dr: Cruz exaggerated, but he isn't wrong the bill was filled with bullshit. I don't think Cruz voting against the bill makes him a piece of shit.
To your first part, I agree and also admit to throwing fuel on the shitfest essentially making my own thread unreadable.
As for your second part, this was a solid A+ post, would read again. I would love to have a continued intelligent discourse. When I get some time tonight, I'll look into this. Assuming it's true (I have no reasons to assume you made up BS, not your MO) why the fuck can't Cruz message this better? Christ, doesn't he have a PR/Marketing person on his team?
