Editors Note: The logic used in political rhetoric can sometimes be truly mind numbing in it's ability to spin an agenda into a speech. Eric Cantor apparently thinks that disaster victims should only be helped if we cut federal spending.Of course if one cuts federal spending, there will be less money for disaster relief. The argument makes no sense but that doesn't really matter. As long as Cantor gets his talking points into the narrative of disaster relief then all is well and good. Who really cares it that is illogical or if achieved would have the exact opposite effect of what he implies he is trying to support.
Well, let's try to follow the bouncing ball of his logic: If one were to follow his logic to it's logical conclusions, then we should not use federal or state funds to help disaster victims until all the state and federal deficits are paid.
If this logic were actually followed, then when an actual, and unpredictable disaster (funny how these types of disaster are often unpredictable) occured, then we should just sit by and watch as people struggle to survive. No federal or state resources should have been used in the Katrina disaster, or Joplin, or the recent floods, or any of the other disaster for that matter. That may be fine if you did not have to live through those disasters. But what if a disaster happened where you live and we were under the 'Cantor Disaster Relief Rule'?
There's an old saying, disasters happen. It seems he is saying that the right thing to do is not help people in need when disasters occur while trying to imply he wants to help? And the spin goes on...