Help me out here .. I must be missing something here, but I don't understand why the Repubs in Congress are so dead-set against aid to state and local gov'ts. It would seem...

whitnebrat Loc: In the wilds of Oregon

I must be missing something here, but I don't understand why the Repubs in Congress are so dead-set against aid to state and local gov'ts. It would seem counterproductive for forcing state & local gov'ts to cut back essential services like police, fire, and emt, since this would hurt a lot of Repub-controlled government entities as well. In addition, it cripples the v*****e distribution, because they can't afford the people and services to do it. Can someone explain the logic of this stand?

American Vet

whitnebrat wrote:

I must be missing something here, but I don't understand why the Repubs in Congress are so dead-set against aid to state and local gov'ts. It would seem counterproductive for forcing state & local gov'ts to cut back essential services like police, fire, and emt, since this would hurt a lot of Repub-controlled government entities as well. In addition, it cripples the v*****e distribution, because they can't afford the people and services to do it. Can someone explain the logic of this stand?

My first concern is the lions share of any aid to 'local communities' will go to democrat mis-managed cities like NYC..who is already asking for "aid".

BigMike Loc: yerington nv

whitnebrat wrote:

I must be missing something here, but I don't understand why the Repubs in Congress are so dead-set against aid to state and local gov'ts. It would seem counterproductive for forcing state & local gov'ts to cut back essential services like police, fire, and emt, since this would hurt a lot of Repub-controlled government entities as well. In addition, it cripples the v*****e distribution, because they can't afford the people and services to do it. Can someone explain the logic of this stand?

Easy. The Democrats, mostly, but plenty of Republicans too, have twisted the frelling system into something that doesn't do what we intend it to do and now everyone suffers... which is what happens when we allow ourselves to be taken advantage of by soulless shirts, talking heads and international monkeyshines.

It's gonna hit Dems controlled areas the hardest, though, since they're the most frelled up.

I guess we shouldn't "pursue happiness' to the point we fail to notice what's really going on, eh?

whitnebrat Loc: In the wilds of Oregon

American Vet wrote:

My first concern is the lions share of any aid to 'local communities' will go to democrat mis-managed cities like NYC..who is already asking for "aid".

So you're willing to sacrifice more lives to C***D because they can't afford to distribute the v*****e?

BigMike Loc: yerington nv

whitnebrat wrote:

So you're willing to sacrifice more lives to C***D because they can't afford to distribute the v*****e?

Who can't?

BigMike Loc: yerington nv

American Vet wrote:

My first concern is the lions share of any aid to 'local communities' will go to democrat mis-managed cities like NYC..who is already asking for "aid".

Whoever can have mine. I'd advise them against taking it, though.

American Vet

whitnebrat wrote:

So you're willing to sacrifice more lives to C***D because they can't afford to distribute the v*****e?

Not a bit. They can divert some of their other funding for the v*****es.

Then they need to address their out of control spending on non-essential entitlement programs.

BigMike Loc: yerington nv

American Vet wrote:

Not a bit. They can divert some of their other funding for the v*****es.

Then they need to address their out of control spending on non-essential entitlement programs.

My ma doesn't want hers, if that helps.

Canuckus Deploracus Loc: North of the wall

whitnebrat wrote:

I must be missing something here, but I don't understand why the Repubs in Congress are so dead-set against aid to state and local gov'ts. It would seem counterproductive for forcing state & local gov'ts to cut back essential services like police, fire, and emt, since this would hurt a lot of Repub-controlled government entities as well. In addition, it cripples the v*****e distribution, because they can't afford the people and services to do it. Can someone explain the logic of this stand?

Continuously throwing money at problems might not be the best way to solve them...

State and local government should be encouraged to operate within their means...

lpnmajor Loc: Arkansas

whitnebrat wrote:

I must be missing something here, but I don't understand why the Repubs in Congress are so dead-set against aid to state and local gov'ts. It would seem counterproductive for forcing state & local gov'ts to cut back essential services like police, fire, and emt, since this would hurt a lot of Repub-controlled government entities as well. In addition, it cripples the v*****e distribution, because they can't afford the people and services to do it. Can someone explain the logic of this stand?

Such aid would go to blue States and treasonous swing States as well, and we can't have that now can we.

Strycker Loc: The middle of somewhere else.

whitnebrat wrote:

So you're willing to sacrifice more lives to C***D because they can't afford to distribute the v*****e?

There is money in there for v*****e distribution. Just not for unfunded political promises and pensions.

BigMike Loc: yerington nv

Canuckus Deploracus wrote:

Continuously throwing money at problems might not be the best way to solve them...

State and local government should be encouraged to operate within their means...

And their frelling authority as well.

BigMike Loc: yerington nv

Strycker wrote:

There is money in there for v*****e distribution. Just not for unfunded political promises and pensions.

That seems simple enough. Oh...and they can't get them by selling out to China, either.

F.D.R.

whitnebrat wrote:

I must be missing something here, but I don't understand why the Repubs in Congress are so dead-set against aid to state and local gov'ts. It would seem counterproductive for forcing state & local gov'ts to cut back essential services like police, fire, and emt, since this would hurt a lot of Repub-controlled government entities as well. In addition, it cripples the v*****e distribution, because they can't afford the people and services to do it. Can someone explain the logic of this stand?

Hey genius, they don't have to cut aid to ESSENTIAL services. What they have to cut is their over blown salaries and money given i******s, reduce money to welfare recipients who don't NEED flat screen TV's, cell phones, etc. and their other wasteful spending.

Smedley_buzkill

whitnebrat wrote:

I must be missing something here, but I don't understand why the Repubs in Congress are so dead-set against aid to state and local gov'ts. It would seem counterproductive for forcing state & local gov'ts to cut back essential services like police, fire, and emt, since this would hurt a lot of Repub-controlled government entities as well. In addition, it cripples the v*****e distribution, because they can't afford the people and services to do it. Can someone explain the logic of this stand?

Most of the locales in most need of this aid have been mismanaged by Democraps for decades. Now, their own chickens are come home to roost. What do they need all that money for? They're already defunding police, and not allowing them to do their jobs when they don't defund them. These cities have been owned by and run by Progressive Democrats for decades and they have the gall to blame Republicans for the mess they created.