you evidently don't know that Conservatives do not like Christie- he is a darling of the Establishment Republicans, not Conservatives

I wouldn't vote for Christie for dog catcher

The 'establishment' republicans bailed long ago, leaving the extremists in charge.

Gee... Look at this republican telling disaster victims to hurry up and die. He must be a tea party member to be this heartless.

Hey, where was Obama when half the state of Oklahoma burned along with peoples farms,crops, feed animals, pets and family members burning to death ?

They never even helped put out the flames, and the lefties on here were all telling them to go screw themselves. Then, Oklahoma residents received zero funding or even loans to rebuild, let alone temporary housing.

When New Yorks 9/11 happened, the entire country jumped to their aid, then they got a brand new sky scraper, and Obama gave them a pool that cost $700,000,000, and will cost $60,000,000 for us taxpayers to come up with as our government's broke. That pool will cost nearly a billion and a half dollars over this decade., Yet they want a hand out when a wealthy area of New York gets flooded, and nobody seems to even have insurance ?

Think about that !

Wrong, River#2. OK received FEMA funds for the wildfires.

http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/article.aspx?subjectid=12&articleid=20120806_12_0_TheFed964628

http://www.fema.gov/news-release/cleveland-and-creek-county-residents-receive-more-115-million-disaster-assistance

All the deaths from those wildfires appear to be related to the heat wave that accompanied the wilfires, and seem to number between 3-8. I couldn't find any fatalities directly due to the fires. The fires caused at least $400 million in damages and destroyed at least 120 homes and 52,000 acres. It was a terrible summer for Oklahoma, to be sure. Not as bad is it was in Texas the year before, when we lost over a thousand homes and 115,000 acres and 4 lives, but still pretty awful.

Let's compare this to Hurricane Sandy. At least 131 deaths occurred in 9 separate states on the East coast; the storm inflicted severe damage across 24 states. Damage is estimated at over $63 billion. Thousands of homes were destroyed, millions were left without power, some for months. I'm not going to total up all the people that were affected by this storm, but I will note that the population of New York city alone is over 8 million. The entire population of Oklahoma is about 3.8 million people.

So, yeah, Hurricane Sandy got more of a response than the OK wildfires. Because it was a much bigger disaster, affecting millions more people.

Look - it's a tea party poster child! Does your mother know you're online?

firefighters, police, teachers and nurses have nothing to do with the Federal budget. Those are state and local budget issues.

I'd love to see all Federal disaster relief, medicaid, medicare, and Social Security ended.

No doubt yo would love it. You're one of those "I don't give a f*ck about anyone but myself Christians" that makes Jesus so proud.

still suffering from liberal disabilities- reading comprehension

Those are state and local budget issues.

I was talking about the Social Security you ignorant piece of pig sh*t!

larry....

like i said last week............please take your avatar down. you are a disgrace to the uniform and to our country. please take it off. have a nice day.

O I C Y - that's a great idea, but since the repubs already started down that road a while back, it's time to sit back and watch it play out.

I wouldn't cut their SS though - maybe somebody down there actually had a job long enough to qualify.

i pay into social security so i expect that to be there, and i believe it should be according to how much i've paid, as with any other retirement plan. however the rest of it should go...it is ridiculous that people who refuse to work, or can't support themselves and the children they keep having i keep having to pay for, and they get better health care than i do. ridiculous

of course they can happen anywhere, but it's not the role of the Federal Govt- there is no authority in the Constitution

"Charity is no part of the legislative duty of the government."
-- James Madison

"I can find no warrant for such an appropriation in the Constitution, and I do not believe that the power and duty of the General Government ought to be extended to the relief of individual suffering which is in no manner properly related to the public service or benefit."
-- President Grover Cleveland vetoing a bill for charity relief (18 Congressional Record 1875 [1877]

"I cannot find any authority in the Constitution for public charity. [To approve the measure] would be contrary to the letter and spirit of the Constitution and subversive to the whole theory upon which the Union of these States is founded."
-- President Franklin Pierce's 1854 veto of a measure to help the mentally ill.

Yep... Gay as Dorothy, Heartless as the Tin Man, Brainless as the Scarecrow, and as cowardly as the lion. You must be a tea party christian.

OICY- I give more each year and do more each year to help the needy than you will in your entire life. But I don't need to steal from tax payers to do it.

You're a liar! You don't give sh*t! It isn't in a scumbucket like yourself's nature to lift a finger to help anyone other than yourself!

Larry, being a Reverend I'm sure you're familiar with following the teachings of the bible.

What would Jesus do?

Our ministry feeds hundreds of thousands of people every year. After Katrina we sent a team to New Orleans with triage nurses, bottled water, food, blankets, and vitamin nutrition.

We send cargo containers of food and medicine to third world countries every month.

I have gone to South Africa, the Philippines and Central America to help the needy. We have run food operations in South Central Los Angeles and Las Vegas for more than 20 years.

I left corporate America and a high 6 figure job for the ministry over 20 years ago.

Larry likes to pick and choose which parts of the bible he needs to follow.. And which parts he demands everyone else follow.

Personally I think before Larry tells anyone else to obey any part of his bible he needs to obey every word of the bible.

I can tell you are a real christian by all the hate you post Larry!

oicy- you really are an ignorant bigot-

From our Mission Statement

We believe in the commandment of the Lord Jesus, given in Matthew 25:34-41 and Isaiah 58:6-14, that we are called as His body to declare and minister His hope and compassion to all mankind. To reach all peoples, in all nations with the gospel of the kingdom of the living God according to Matthew 24:14 and Matthew 28:19,20.

And since most of you don't actually read the Bible- from Isaiah 58

“Is this not the fast that I have chosen:
To loose the bonds of wickedness, To undo the heavy burdens,
To let the oppressed go free, And that you break every yoke?
⁷ Is it not to share your bread with the hungry, And that you bring to your house the poor who are cast out; When you see the naked, that you cover him,

If you extend your soul to the hungry And satisfy the afflicted soul,
Then your light shall dawn in the darkness, And your darkness shall be as the noonday.
¹¹ The Lord will guide you continually, And satisfy your soul in drought,
And strengthen your bones; You shall be like a watered garden,
And like a spring of water, whose waters do not fail.

And from Matthew 25

Then the King will say to those on His right hand, ‘Come, you blessed of My Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world: ³⁵ for I was hungry and you gave Me food; I was thirsty and you gave Me drink; I was a stranger and you took Me in; ³⁶ I was naked and you clothed Me; I was sick and you visited Me; I was in prison and you came to Me.’

³⁷ “Then the righteous will answer Him, saying, ‘Lord, when did we see You hungry and feed You, or thirsty and give You drink? ³⁸ When did we see You a stranger and take You in, or naked and clothe You? ³⁹ Or when did we see You sick, or in prison, and come to You?’ ⁴⁰ And the King will answer and say to them, ‘Assuredly, I say to you, inasmuch as you did it to one of the least of these My brethren, you did it to Me.’

I feel real pity for you both- you can only find vitriol and hate for those who help others from their heart, rather than the hand of govt.

It's great that you're helping people, Larry, but the fact is that charity just cannot fully take the place of the government, which has an economy of scale and expertise advantage that's hard to beat. My tax money is not "stolen" from me by the government to go to storm relief; I give it willingly, knowing that government storm relief efforts will be able to go where I cannot. (Unlike the amount of my tax money that went to pay for us to invade Iraq, which I gave very reluctantly).

I give money to my church for disaster relief as well, and have aided in their storm relief efforts. But they could not do what FEMA did, for instance -- hand out much needed ice and water 2 days after a hurricane -- because the church didn't have the ability to pre-position supplies in huge quantities right before the storm, then get it out to people afterwards. (although my church did help hand it out, in a great private-public partnership). That's just one example, but there's many more. having an agency dedicated to disaster relief all over the country just makes good sense and saves lives.

There is NO Constitutional Authority for the Federal Govt to be involved in so-called disaster relief. That is the role for States, local govts, community organizations including churches and other non-profits and the citizens themselves.

Just because something seems good doesn't make it legal.

The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

Article 1 Section 8 - US CONSTITUTION - Read it and weep Larry. General Welfare of the United States gives the Federal Gov all the authority it requires.

I am sure you voted for Romney. Whom first was against FEMA... but then a week before the election, he flip flopped and supported it. Also, how un christian to not offer support to those in need.

P.S. Why do you think these agencies exist? Because we are no longer restrictive to the white american male's form of charity and obtuse requirements.

why are liberals so ignorant-

The general welfare clause has nothing to do with the general well being of the citizenry. It was carried over from the Articles of Confederation and relates to the general welfare of the Republic-the nation, not the people themselves. It is about the general stability and functionality of the govt itself, as the clause states “The General Welfare of the United States”, not the citizenry. The sentence clearly states that the taxing power is for the purposes of the common defense and general welfare of the United States. There is a reason for conjunctions in a sentence.

“If Congress can employ money indefinitely to the general welfare, and are the sole and supreme judges of the general welfare, they may take the care of religion into their own hands; they may appoint teachers in every State, county and parish and pay them out of their public treasury; they may take into their own hands the education of children, establishing in like manner schools throughout the Union; they may assume the provision of the poor; they may undertake the regulation of all roads other than post-roads; in short, every thing, from the highest object of state legislation down to the most minute object of police, would be thrown under the power of Congress… Were the power of Congress to be established in the latitude contended for, it would subvert the very foundations, and transmute the very nature of the limited Government established by the people of America.”

– James Madison, Letter to Edmund Pendleton, January 21, 1792

James Madison who wrote most of the Constitution stated in Federalist #45:

"The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce; with which last the power of taxation will, for the most part, be connected. The powers reserved to the several States will extend to all the objects which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties, and properties of the people, and the internal order, improvement, and prosperity of the State."

James Madison letter in 1830 on General Welfare Clause

Dear Sir,--I have received your very friendly favor of the 20th instant, referring to a conversation when I had lately the pleasure of a visit from you, in which you mentioned your belief that the terms "common defence and general welfare," in the eighth section of the first article of the Constitution of the United States, were still regarded by some as conveying to Congress a substantive and indefinite power, and in which I communicated my views of the introduction and occasion of the terms, as precluding that comment of them; and you express a wish that I would repeat those views in the answer to your letter.

In tracing the history and determining the import of the terms "common defence and general welfare," as found in the text of the Constitution, the following lights are furnished by the printed journal of the Convention which formed it:

The terms appear in the general propositions offered May 29, as a basis for the incipient deliberations, the first of which "Resolved, that the articles of the Confederation ought to be so corrected and enlarged as to accomplish the objects proposed by their institution, namely, common defence, security of liberty, and general welfare." On the day following, the proposition was exchanged for, "Resolved, that a Union of the States merely Federal will not accomplish the objects proposed by the Articles of the Confederation, namely, common defence, security of liberty, and general welfare."

The inference from the use here made of the terms, and from the proceedings on the subsequent propositions, is, that although common defence and general welfare were objects of the Confederation, they were limited objects, which ought to be enlarged by an enlargement of the particular powers to which they were limited, and to be accomplished by a change in the structure of the Union from a form merely Federal to one partly national; and as these general terms are prefixed in the like relation to the several legislative powers in the new charter as they were in the old, they must be understood to be under like limitations in the new as in the old.

But admitting the distinction as alleged, the appropriating power to all objects of "common defence and general welfare" is itself of sufficient magnitude to render the preceding views of the subject applicable to it. Is it credible that such a power would have been unnoticed and unopposed in the Federal Convention? in the State Conventions, which contended for, and proposed restrictive and explanatory amendments? and in the Congress of 1789, which recommended so many of these amendments? A power to impose unlimited taxes for unlimited purposes could never have escaped the sagacity and jealousy which were awakened to the many inferior and minute powers which were criticised and combated in those public bodies.

“The distinction between a pecuniary power only, and a plenary power "to provide for the common defence and general welfare," is frustrated by another reply to which it is liable. For if the clause be not a mere introduction to the enumerated powers, and restricted to them, the power to provide for the common defence and general welfare stands as a distinct substantive power, the first on the list of legislative powers; and not only involving all the powers incident to its execution, but coming within the purview of the clause concluding the list, which expressly declares that Congress may make all laws necessary and proper to carry into execution the foregoing powers vested in Congress.”

But admitting the distinction as alleged, the appropriating power to all objects of "common defence and general welfare" is itself of sufficient magnitude to render the preceding views of the subject applicable to it. Is it credible that such a power would have been unnoticed and unopposed in the Federal Convention? in the State Conventions, which contended for, and proposed restrictive and explanatory amendments? and in the Congress of 1789, which recommended so many of these amendments? A power to impose unlimited taxes for unlimited purposes could never have escaped the sagacity and jealousy which were awakened to the many inferior and minute powers which were criticised and combated in those public bodies.

http://tinyurl.com/rduzz3

In Federalist 41 Hamilton argued that the “general welfare” clause could not be used to expand the federal government beyond what was intended.

It has been urged and echoed, that the power “to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts, and excises, to pay the debts, and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States,” amounts to an unlimited commission to exercise every power which may be alleged to be necessary for the common defense or general welfare…But what color can the objection have, when a specification of the objects alluded to by these general terms immediately follows, and is not even separated by a longer pause than a semicolon?…For what purpose could the enumeration of particular powers be inserted, if these and all others were meant to be included in the preceding general power? Nothing is more natural nor common than first to use a general phrase, and then to explain and qualify it by a recital of particulars. But the idea of an enumeration of particulars which neither explain nor qualify the general meaning, and can have no other effect than to confound and mislead, is an absurdity

"The care of every man's soul belongs to himself. But what if he neglect the care of it? Well what if he neglect the care of his health or his estate, which would more nearly relate to the state. Will the magistrate make a law that he not be poor or sick? Laws provide against injury from others; but not from ourselves." —Thomas Jefferson

[T]he States can best govern our home concerns and the general government our foreign ones. I wish, therefore... never to see all offices transferred to Washington, where, further withdrawn from the eyes of the people, they may more secretly be bought and sold at market.

Thomas Jefferson, letter to Judge William Johnson, June 12, 1823

Show me one US Supreme Court Case Ruling in which the Federal Government cannot provide aid during a national disaster. Show me one US Supreme Court Ruling that says it is not protected under the General Welfare Clause.

Until then, it is Constitutional.

Rev. Larry -

You proved this scripture:

"And when you pray, do not be like the hypocrites, for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and on the street corners to be seen by men. I tell you the truth, they have received their reward in full." - Matthew 6:5

Sounds like the common defense and general welfare statement is something that, using your examples Larry, you would apply to an external threat. How does a hurricane affecting almost half the country not qualify as that?

Guess I'll counter your Madison with some Alexander Hamilton:

The terms "general Welfare" were doubtless intended to signify more than was expressed or imported in those which Preceded; otherwise numerous exigencies incident to the affairs of a Nation would have been left without a provision. The phrase is as comprehensive as any that could have been used; because it was not fit that the constitutional authority of the Union, to appropriate its revenues shou'd have been restricted within narrower limits than the "General Welfare" and because this necessarily embraces a vast variety of particulars, which are susceptible neither of specification nor of definition. It is therefore of necessity left to the discretion of the National Legislature, to pronounce, upon the objects, which concern the general Welfare, and for which under that description, an appropriation of money is requisite and proper.

When are you libertarians going to get your heroin legalized?

try learning to read OICY- I provided the link to the Senate Bill

Tell me doper... Do you smoke crack, too?

I wouldn't try to educate larry on anything... We are all used to his rants. Always amusing though, instead of even identifying a solution, always whine, cry, blame, and complain. Course he says he is a christian too, and judging from this last msg.... he doesn't believe in HELPING those who are less fortunate or in need.

The less fortunate are the people Larry fleeces out of their money in his church.

so why don't both you marxists explain to us why all the spending on this bill for the military, and for billions that have nothing to do with disaster relief is such a good thing?

And we don't take any money from the ministry for ourselves. All of it goes to help the needy. That's why I'm self supporting with my own businesses.

All it does is go to help those you think are 'worthy' to receive it. Which means, it comes with conditions.... Hence why we have to have federal programs to balance the discrimination

with a clear mandate

Red state, blue state. It doesn't matter. When it comes to government handouts, the whole country is like a nest full of baby birds with their beaks wide open while they loudly peep More! More! More!

Actually, the republican controlled house passed budgets in 2011 and 2012. Had the senate chosen not to ignore these, they could have formed the basis for budgets that could have avoided the fiscal cliff and possibly the upcoming debt ceiling debacle.

Lets not forget the 30 bills the House passed in 2012 and 17 Bills the House passed in 2011, that Harry Reid Pocket vetoed.

I believe I remember something about "turnabout is fair play".

Why should you expect the House to take up or vote on bills passed by the Senate when the Senate is disrespectful to the House and refuses to take any action on bills the House passed?

TalkingPoint completely neglects the fact that the House didn't vote on it Last Night because they spent the entire night Dealing with the "cliff" because the Senate didn't do anything about it until the last moment, even though they knew about it for over a year, and the House passed a bill last may to deal with it.

While that may be true, how many of them were Jobs Bills, and How much PAIN DID THEY INFLICT on the General Public in Deference to the Favorite Group of GOP/TEA, the Rich?

As someone I used to work with said often "I don't know why they call it common sense, it's not that common"

Don't forget southern California. All the houses that didn't burn up last summer will soon be tobogganing down the hills.

So what do you call all of the gulf coast for begging for welfare after hurricanes and an oil spill???

Just about every part of the country is prone to some kind of disaster, and we all get bailed out sometime, like when tornadoes destroy entire cities in my area. Regarding the "we're better than you" thing - don't feel so inferior. Part of the reason that New Yorkers have an attitude is because their city is pretty awesome, and they probably outnumber you.