PDA

View Full Version : Ron Paul: no reason for FEMA in hurricane relief?



Soflasnapper
08-26-2011, 06:51 PM
I have often cited Libertarianism as a perfectly coherent, logical and consistent political point of view that is, unfortunately, quite mad. (When it goes beyond the 80% or so I agree with, anyway.)

Here's an example par excellance from Rep. Ron Paul, a fine man, who is just a touch mad.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> Political Animal
Blog
August 26, 2011 3:50 PM Ron Paul rejects FEMA role in hurricane response

By Steve Benen

And to think, Ron Paul struggles to be taken seriously as a presidential candidate.

After a lunch speech today, Ron Paul slammed the Federal Emergency Management Agency, or FEMA, and said that no national response to Hurricane Irene is necessary.

“We should be like 1900; we should be like 1940, 1950, 1960,” Paul said. “I live on the gulf coast, we deal with hurricanes all the time. Galveston is in my district.

“There’s no magic about FEMA. They’re a great contribution to deficit financing and quite frankly they don’t have a penny in the bank. We should be coordinated but coordinated voluntarily with the states,” Paul told NBC News. “A state can decide. We don’t need somebody in Washington.”

To be sure, this isn’t exactly surprising. It’s consistent with everything we know about Ron Paul and his ideology.

But for the record, let’s take a moment to note just how misguided his worldview really is.

As a factual matter, natural disasters hit American communities in 1900, and in time, they’d recover. But “in time” is the key part of that sentence — families and communities would struggle for a very long time to get back on their feet before federal agencies played a role in disaster response. FEMA isn’t “magic,” but so long as we overlook 2001 to 2008, it is an efficient, effective agency that’s proven itself very capable of providing much-needed assistance to hard-hit areas. If Galveston is ever hit again by hurricane, I suspect Ron Paul’s constituents be very glad to see FEMA on the scene.

What’s more, voluntary coordination among states is a recipe for one outcome: failure. Cash-strapped states barely have the resources for schools and law enforcement; the notion that they’ll be able to prepare and respond to a natural disaster, and rebuild in its wake, without any federal role whatsoever, is ridiculous.

If Mississippi, which is not at all a wealthy state, gets hits by a hurricane, will it have the financial wherewithal to provide for the affected areas? For that matter, would Mississippi, Alabama, and Louisiana — none of which is wealthy — be able to effectively put together a “voluntary coordination” plan in the event of a natural disaster?

As Jay Bookman explained a few months ago, “A state suffering destruction on such a scale cannot be told to suck it up and pull itself up by its own bootstraps. After all, it is moments such as these that put the ‘United’ in the United States. We are not self-contained human units each out to maximize individual wealth and consumption; we are Americans, and we help each other out.”

On the list of things Americans can and should expect from the federal government, “disaster relief” should be one of the few responsibilities that the left and right can endorse enthusiastically. It’s something people can’t do for themselves; it’s something states can’t afford to do; and struggling communities can’t wait for the invisible hand of the free market to lift them up, especially since it’s a market private enterprise isn’t eager to enter.

“We should be like 1900”? No thanks.</div></div>

LWW
08-26-2011, 09:30 PM
So why, exactly, do you disagree?

Qtec
08-27-2011, 04:31 AM
"..and Jesus said "let them eat cake."...or was that somebody else? /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/grin.gif

First Cantor the Slimeball and now RP. These politicians are so far removed from ordinary life they have lost the ability to see a situation from the working man's point of view. The ability to look through the eyes of someone else and empathise with their situation, much like many here.

Imagine, first you lost your job because of Wall St fraud and now your house is gone- with all your possessions - through no fault of your own, it must be devastating.
<span style='font-size: 14pt'>Its also a slap in the face when Cantor insists you will get no help until Obama bows to Cantor's demands.</span>



When they need bodies to go fight one of their wars, then its 'all for one' and USA, USA, USA , Freedom Fries" etc etc etc.

When the USA - the 98% - needs help, they don't want to know.

Q

LWW
08-27-2011, 04:42 AM
So from the working man's POV, they feel the gubmint should levy taxes against them to reward the millionaires and billionaires who built their coastal manse in an area where hurricane insurance could not be obtained?

What kind of lunatic makes such illogical conclusions?

Sev
08-27-2011, 06:32 AM
I noticed how well FEMA worked its Magic with Katrina.
I can imagine how the country survived with FEMA prior to 1979.

Its nothing more than a money funnel for states.
They arent contractors, engineers or demolition crews.
The are not masons, framers, electricians, plumbers or roofers.
The only thing they do in these area's is supply bureaucratic experts.

Aside from having access to the purse strings the Red Cross could effectively do everything FEMA does.


However if you believe in the New World Order they are the ones building concentration camps for the population and will be manning the gun towers.

LWW
08-27-2011, 06:45 AM
You forgot the part about how they escort democrook congressvolk back to their homes ... leaving the hoi polloi without the help said vehicles and personnel may have given ... in order to retrieve $100K+ in bribe money from their freezer.

Soflasnapper
08-27-2011, 10:10 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body">So why, exactly, do you disagree? </div></div>

How could anyone agree?

It's not hard to understand the argument against the position he takes.

Sure, perhaps theoretically speaking, things ought to be taken care of at the lowest feasible level of government organization it can be. (And they are, mainly, in normal circumstances.) So if a city has a problem it cannot handle, then the county it's in needs to step up. If the county cannot handle it, then the state should step in. If a state cannot handle it, other neighboring states ought to help.

However, if a 400 mile across hurricane hits, or something else causes wide-spread destruction of life, property and equipment to respond, the neighboring states will be likewise devastated and perhaps themselves need help in their own states, and have nothing to share with their neighbors.

Besides, all states (but one, I believe) must balance their budgets by their constitutional requirements, even in the face of dire emergency threat of widespread starvation, dehydration, disease and death of their citizens from sudden disasters. That is still a greater impediment to providing unbudgeted for aid that costs money to people NOT living in that state, but in a neighboring state.

By the very pattern I describe above, the logical and necessary policy is to bring federal assets and personnel to bear as needed. It needn't be FEMA, but whichever agency or program is used, it would be at the federal level.

Paul's argument may be nothing more than that the federal involvement leads to deficit spending. Yes it may, and the federal government's ability to deficit spend if required to address large scale disasters is exactly the same key point of why the states alone are inadequate to the task.

LWW
08-27-2011, 03:52 PM
You, as usual, miss the point by a country kilometer.

Nearly everyone can get insurance against tragedy. Those who can and don't made a bet and lost.

Those who would but can't are the issue. There is a reason that monster homes weren't built on the shorelines a century ago ... hurricanes would destroy them every generation or so.

In it's terminally flawed judgement, the state decided to transfer wealth from the responsible to the irresponsible.

Soflasnapper
08-28-2011, 09:48 AM
You have missed the point by close to 1,000 miles, according to this showing of the location of Joplin, MO, a city recently nearly-leveled by multiple tornadoes, and a current recipient of FEMA aid.

Google maps, I had to zoom out 4 or 5 times to even see the Gulf Coast. (http://maps.google.com/maps?q=joplin+missouri&oe=utf-8&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a&um=1&ie=UTF-8&hq=&hnear=0x87c86537eae4d3eb:0x981637362835a30e,Joplin ,+MO&gl=us&ei=D2BaTo-4G4LI0AGh67yUCQ&sa=X&oi=geocode_result&ct=title&resnum=1&ved=0CB8Q8gEwAA)

It is not true that people only began living close to the coasts recently. They have always lived near the coasts, and major rivers, because of the ease of commerce. Look at the concentrations of major cities and the bulk of the population along the two coastlines.

Earthquake damage and tornado damage, and severe precipitation events of rain or snow or sleet, can occur almost anywhere, even if hurricanes are more localized (or not, in this current case). Even if one had insurance, that would not ensure emergency relief needed to prevent further loss of life, the preventable spread of disease from the contamination of water sources, etc.

I doubt your philosophy of benign neglect goes so far as to say people in need shouldn't be helped by their family, their neighbors, their church or community, or city, county or state. What is the difference between commonality of future interests resulting in cooperation in emergency at these lower levels, and the federal level? To me, it is a necessary continuum at all these levels upwards.

LWW
08-28-2011, 11:14 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">It is not true that people only began living close to the coasts recently. They have always lived near the coasts, and major rivers, because of the ease of commerce.</div></div>

Your Alinsky skills are, again, quite lame.

Nobody said otherwise now, did they?

But, to advance your agenda, you must claim that they did and then expect someone to walk into your trap and begin attempting to defend a statement they in fact never made.

Yet another epic fail.

Soflasnapper
08-28-2011, 03:20 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">It is not true that people only began living close to the coasts recently. They have always lived near the coasts, and major rivers, because of the ease of commerce.</div></div>

Your Alinsky skills are, again, quite lame.

Nobody said otherwise now, did they?

But, to advance your agenda, you must claim that they did and then expect someone to walk into your trap and begin attempting to defend a statement they in fact never made.

Yet another epic fail. </div></div>

Your Alinsky skills are, again, quite lame.

Thank you! There's a good reason for that.

This Alinsky to whom you refer? I've never read him, unlike yourself, you has admitted reading him, and using his techniques.

I don't use techniques. I speak my mind frankly, and try to respond to things actually said, or to what things said clearly imply, in my view. Unlike your mendacious and tendentious paraphrasing of what people have said, which tactic shows up at least in every other thread you're on, or more often that that.

If you wish now to claim that 'monster homes on the coast' are somehow different from a claim about people living NEAR the coast, I disagree. Perhaps you are pointing at the 'monster homes' part, but even there you'd be mistaken.

People without much money have lived in modest homes around the shore so long that they didn't need much money to buy those small homes or apartments. Richer people have had their homes around there for a long time as well (in other neighborhoods).

I've lived in SoCal and SoFla, and I'm familiar with the kinds of dwellings you find in those coastal areas.

eg8r
08-29-2011, 07:51 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">You, as usual, miss the point by a country kilometer.
</div></div>What country are you in, here in the US it is a country mile. /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/smile.gif

eg8

LWW
08-29-2011, 08:08 AM
I was being kind.

Gayle in MD
08-30-2011, 10:36 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> I have often cited Libertarianism as a perfectly coherent, logical and consistent political point of view that is, unfortunately, quite mad. (When it goes beyond the 80% or so I agree with, anyway.)

Here's an example par excellance from Rep. Ron Paul, a fine man, who is just a touch mad.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> Political Animal
Blog
August 26, 2011 3:50 PM Ron Paul rejects FEMA role in hurricane response

By Steve Benen

And to think, Ron Paul struggles to be taken seriously as a presidential candidate.

After a lunch speech today, Ron Paul slammed the Federal Emergency Management Agency, or FEMA, and said that no national response to Hurricane Irene is necessary.

“We should be like 1900; we should be like 1940, 1950, 1960,” Paul said. “I live on the gulf coast, we deal with hurricanes all the time. Galveston is in my district.

“There’s no magic about FEMA. They’re a great contribution to deficit financing and quite frankly they don’t have a penny in the bank. We should be coordinated but coordinated voluntarily with the states,” Paul told NBC News. “A state can decide. We don’t need somebody in Washington.”

To be sure, this isn’t exactly surprising. It’s consistent with everything we know about Ron Paul and his ideology.

But for the record, let’s take a moment to note just how misguided his worldview really is.

As a factual matter, natural disasters hit American communities in 1900, and in time, they’d recover. But “in time” is the key part of that sentence — families and communities would struggle for a very long time to get back on their feet before federal agencies played a role in disaster response. FEMA isn’t “magic,” but so long as we overlook 2001 to 2008, it is an efficient, effective agency that’s proven itself very capable of providing much-needed assistance to hard-hit areas. If Galveston is ever hit again by hurricane, I suspect Ron Paul’s constituents be very glad to see FEMA on the scene.

What’s more, voluntary coordination among states is a recipe for one outcome: failure. Cash-strapped states barely have the resources for schools and law enforcement; the notion that they’ll be able to prepare and respond to a natural disaster, and rebuild in its wake, without any federal role whatsoever, is ridiculous.

If Mississippi, which is not at all a wealthy state, gets hits by a hurricane, will it have the financial wherewithal to provide for the affected areas? For that matter, would Mississippi, Alabama, and Louisiana — none of which is wealthy — be able to effectively put together a “voluntary coordination” plan in the event of a natural disaster?

As Jay Bookman explained a few months ago, “A state suffering destruction on such a scale cannot be told to suck it up and pull itself up by its own bootstraps. After all, it is moments such as these that put the ‘United’ in the United States. We are not self-contained human units each out to maximize individual wealth and consumption; we are Americans, and we help each other out.”

On the list of things Americans can and should expect from the federal government, “disaster relief” should be one of the few responsibilities that the left and right can endorse enthusiastically. It’s something people can’t do for themselves; it’s something states can’t afford to do; and struggling communities can’t wait for the invisible hand of the free market to lift them up, especially since it’s a market private enterprise isn’t eager to enter.

“We should be like 1900”? No thanks.</div></div> </div></div>

For all of the Libertarian Bravado, when the energency hits, they all have their hands out just like any other citizen of any other civilized, industrial nation.

I never thought I would live to see such unconscionable statements made by politicians, or citizens, living in America.

Yet, they claim to be the chosen ones. That's the part that really shows their humongous hypocrisy.

G.

Sev
08-30-2011, 11:37 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">You have missed the point by close to 1,000 miles, according to this showing of the location of Joplin, MO, a city recently nearly-leveled by multiple tornadoes, and a current recipient of FEMA aid.

Google maps, I had to zoom out 4 or 5 times to even see the Gulf Coast. (http://maps.google.com/maps?q=joplin+missouri&oe=utf-8&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a&um=1&ie=UTF-8&hq=&hnear=0x87c86537eae4d3eb:0x981637362835a30e,Joplin ,+MO&gl=us&ei=D2BaTo-4G4LI0AGh67yUCQ&sa=X&oi=geocode_result&ct=title&resnum=1&ved=0CB8Q8gEwAA)

It is not true that people only began living close to the coasts recently. They have always lived near the coasts, and major rivers, because of the ease of commerce. Look at the concentrations of major cities and the bulk of the population along the two coastlines.

Earthquake damage and tornado damage, and severe precipitation events of rain or snow or sleet, can occur almost anywhere, even if hurricanes are more localized (or not, in this current case). Even if one had insurance, that would not ensure emergency relief needed to prevent further loss of life, the preventable spread of disease from the contamination of water sources, etc.

I doubt your philosophy of benign neglect goes so far as to say people in need shouldn't be helped by their family, their neighbors, their church or community, or city, county or state. What is the difference between commonality of future interests resulting in cooperation in emergency at these lower levels, and the federal level? To me, it is a necessary continuum at all these levels upwards. </div></div>

Its nice of FEMA to steal the funds from Joplin.

Gayle in MD
09-14-2011, 09:59 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> I have often cited Libertarianism as a perfectly coherent, logical and consistent political point of view that is, unfortunately, quite mad. (When it goes beyond the 80% or so I agree with, anyway.)

Here's an example par excellance from Rep. Ron Paul, a fine man, who is just a touch mad.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> Political Animal
Blog
August 26, 2011 3:50 PM Ron Paul rejects FEMA role in hurricane response

By Steve Benen

And to think, Ron Paul struggles to be taken seriously as a presidential candidate.

After a lunch speech today, Ron Paul slammed the Federal Emergency Management Agency, or FEMA, and said that no national response to Hurricane Irene is necessary.

“We should be like 1900; we should be like 1940, 1950, 1960,” Paul said. “I live on the gulf coast, we deal with hurricanes all the time. Galveston is in my district.

“There’s no magic about FEMA. They’re a great contribution to deficit financing and quite frankly they don’t have a penny in the bank. We should be coordinated but coordinated voluntarily with the states,” Paul told NBC News. “A state can decide. We don’t need somebody in Washington.”

To be sure, this isn’t exactly surprising. It’s consistent with everything we know about Ron Paul and his ideology.

But for the record, let’s take a moment to note just how misguided his worldview really is.

As a factual matter, natural disasters hit American communities in 1900, and in time, they’d recover. But “in time” is the key part of that sentence — families and communities would struggle for a very long time to get back on their feet before federal agencies played a role in disaster response. FEMA isn’t “magic,” but so long as we overlook 2001 to 2008, it is an efficient, effective agency that’s proven itself very capable of providing much-needed assistance to hard-hit areas. If Galveston is ever hit again by hurricane, I suspect Ron Paul’s constituents be very glad to see FEMA on the scene.

What’s more, voluntary coordination among states is a recipe for one outcome: failure. Cash-strapped states barely have the resources for schools and law enforcement; the notion that they’ll be able to prepare and respond to a natural disaster, and rebuild in its wake, without any federal role whatsoever, is ridiculous.

If Mississippi, which is not at all a wealthy state, gets hits by a hurricane, will it have the financial wherewithal to provide for the affected areas? For that matter, would Mississippi, Alabama, and Louisiana — none of which is wealthy — be able to effectively put together a “voluntary coordination” plan in the event of a natural disaster?

As Jay Bookman explained a few months ago, “A state suffering destruction on such a scale cannot be told to suck it up and pull itself up by its own bootstraps. After all, it is moments such as these that put the ‘United’ in the United States. We are not self-contained human units each out to maximize individual wealth and consumption; we are Americans, and we help each other out.”

On the list of things Americans can and should expect from the federal government, “disaster relief” should be one of the few responsibilities that the left and right can endorse enthusiastically. It’s something people can’t do for themselves; it’s something states can’t afford to do; and struggling communities can’t wait for the invisible hand of the free market to lift them up, especially since it’s a market private enterprise isn’t eager to enter.

“We should be like 1900”? No thanks.</div></div> </div></div>

Repiglicans just blocked aid for those Americans suffering from our recent natural disasters!!!!


<span style='font-size: 20pt'>We must destroy Repiglican Fascism before it's too late! </span>