U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies > Elections
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 03-05-2012, 02:04 AM
 
Location: Texas
26,735 posts, read 11,229,010 times
Reputation: 6152

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by banjomike View Post
When we lose our sense of mercy and helpfulness toward our fellow Americans, we are lost.
I would rather see our government spend a million dollars on a small town's recovery than see that money go into another needless piece of military hardware any day.

I think Ron is way off the mark on this. When it comes to natural disasters, we're all in this together.
Ron Pauls policy which says bring the troops home and stop being the policemen of the world, stop all foreign aid and use that money to take care of the commitments promised to Americans. But address the issues of the failed system or entitlements will vanish altogether.
Am I correct saying you agree with this?

You disagree with Ron Pauls policy of letting the states use that money to take care of their problems? Why?

Maybe you don't know what his policies are? Listen to what comes out of his mouth not the twisted agenda of the media and the uninformed on city data forums.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 03-05-2012, 02:13 AM
 
Location: Fargo, ND
1,034 posts, read 1,094,529 times
Reputation: 325
Quote:
Originally Posted by Loveshiscountry View Post
The only "proof" I have is how could LA do any worse? If they locals did a bad job they'd be out of a job. That is what motivates politicians.
Who knows more about the wants and needs of your area? The ones on your area of the ones far away in Washington DC?

Which Federal Agency does a good job? Not the Dept of Education where our standing compared to the rest of the world has gone down since the D of E was implemented.
Surely not the Veterans Administration where many who are waiting to receive benefits they qualify for don't get them until years later and a few die while waiting. They deserve so much better.
Surely not Congress that passed Housing rules that bypassed the free market and ruined the economy.
The workers in the Federal Government have no competition so of course they are not going to try as hard since they are not as motivated as others who have something to loose. They're people like you and me after all. It's human nature for many, coast when we can.
Katrina was an $80 billion disaster, yeah I think that might be a bit much to heap onto a state. That is three times the state budget, it is something no state can really prepare for.

FEMA has done a good job in handling other disasters, the agency has its place.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-05-2012, 02:21 AM
 
8,758 posts, read 8,866,306 times
Reputation: 1429
Quote:
Originally Posted by calipoppy View Post
Timing makes no difference because that is exactly what he believes. He does not believe that any aid should be given to the unfortunate trailer park residents who lost so very much when the tornadoes rolled through their area. Ron Paul says f' em. They should have had better insurance, tough luck.


I am not sure why you keep referring to trailer parks when you speak of this. These tornadoes wiped out entire towns....schools, churches, fire departments, the mansion on the hill as well as the shack on the country road...just about everything. It's not about rebuilding just homes, it's about rebuilding entire towns. I understand what Ron Paul is saying and maybe he is even right to some extent, but right now is bad timing to use this horrific event to make a political statement. It makes me question his emphathy for others.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-05-2012, 02:22 AM
 
Location: Texas
26,735 posts, read 11,229,010 times
Reputation: 6152
Quote:
Originally Posted by FargoBison View Post
Katrina was an $80 billion disaster, yeah I think that might be a bit much to heap onto a state. That is three times the state budget, it is something no state can really prepare for.

FEMA has done a good job in handling other disasters, the agency has its place.
Which disaster did they handle well?
Do you think government could or should have loaned the money to the state instead and otherwise stayed out? Would the state have lowered that cost much?

personal question If you lived there and loved the area so much would you rebuild the same type of house or something to withstand nature?

Last edited by Loveshiscountry; 03-05-2012 at 02:31 AM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-05-2012, 02:29 AM
 
Location: Texas
26,735 posts, read 11,229,010 times
Reputation: 6152
Quote:
Originally Posted by dixiegirl7 View Post
I am not sure why you keep referring to trailer parks when you speak of this. These tornadoes wiped out entire towns....schools, churches, fire departments, the mansion on the hill as well as the shack on the country road...just about everything. It's not about rebuilding just homes, it's about rebuilding entire towns. I understand what Ron Paul is saying and maybe he is even right to some extent,
whaaaa? who is this???

Quote:
Originally Posted by dixiegirl7 View Post
but right now is bad timing to use this horrific event to make a political statement. It makes me question his emphathy for others.
Style over substance doesn't rebuild houses. Sound policies lessen the blow, live and learn.
There is a place for people with the qualities that FDR and Obama have as far as the charisma on rallying the masses. But it is many times better to plan ahead using sound, effective, lower cost policies than having to deal with the failures down the line. Americas government is very bad as far as long term policies go.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-05-2012, 02:37 AM
 
34,399 posts, read 41,509,339 times
Reputation: 29878
Isnt this Ron Paul guy the same guy who said people with medical needs and no way to pay should just die? Now he;s saying no emergency aid to those who have been struck by disaster. I'm starting to see what this guy is all about, basically I'm all right Jack if you aint?tough.
I suppose if you want to bet that you'll never need any kind of government assistance or aid and want to abandon any form of social safety net so you can pay a little less in income tax then i guess Paul's your man..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-05-2012, 06:02 AM
 
Location: NC
1,946 posts, read 1,542,140 times
Reputation: 883
Ron Paul is right.

The Constitution does not authorize the federal government to provide universal natural disaster insurance to everyone in America. We do not have the authority, nor do we have the money. People who build in disaster-prone areas should purchase private insurance from the marketplace, and any safety net should be provided by the states and NGOs (Red Cross etc.). This way, people will be more careful in committing themselves to disaster-prone areas. While some disasters could happen in areas which are not prone to them, a majority of them happen in areas which are.

Those who berate Paul for this should consider these:

1) There is no Constitutional authority for this. Paul is following the Constitution, so if you want this to be a federal government function, amend the Constitution to make it so.

2) FEMA is a vastly inefficient bureaucracy, which does not give a good ROI, considering the amount of taxpayer dollars which goes down that black hole - $130 billion in the last 20 years.

3) Paul is technically opposed to FEMA because he is a Constitutionalist, but FEMA is way down in his priority list. Our undeclared wars are the first thing he would cut. He wants to stop wasting money overseas, and put that towards the domestic commitments. No progressive can argue with that.

Paul's position will actually result in _better_ disaster management at _lower_ cost. It's a win-win for everyone, but one needs to get out of that "government is my savior" mentality.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-05-2012, 06:18 AM
 
Location: Bella Vista, Ark
72,027 posts, read 83,688,530 times
Reputation: 41815
Quote:
Originally Posted by dixiegirl7 View Post
Could he have had worse timing? Since I am from Kentucky, one of the hardest hit states, I find that very insensitive. I don't know that anyone here is looking for a handout, but if anyone has seen any of the towns hit, it is horrific distaster. I have never really seen anything this widespread and destructive in my life.
We felt the same way when he made a similar statement last year after the flooding. No, we were pretty lucky in AR, so it didn't directly affect us but we are not far from Tn and Mississippi. Both states were hit hard and yes, now, we are getting into tornado season. We are only 35 miles from Joplin, MO, you can imagine how we felt last year when they were wiped out.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-05-2012, 06:34 AM
 
8,266 posts, read 10,715,391 times
Reputation: 4774
Quote:
Originally Posted by moving_pains View Post
The Constitution does not authorize the federal government to provide universal natural disaster insurance to everyone in America.
Quote:
Originally Posted by moving_pains View Post
1) There is no Constitutional authority for this. Paul is following the Constitution, so if you want this to be a federal government function, amend the Constitution to make it so.
Here is the state constitution of Kentucky: Constitution_intro

Does it authorize natural disaster assistance?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-05-2012, 06:42 AM
 
Location: NC
1,946 posts, read 1,542,140 times
Reputation: 883
Quote:
Originally Posted by slackjaw View Post
Here is the state constitution of Kentucky: Constitution_intro

Does it authorize natural disaster assistance?
I didn't get your point. If a state constitution provides for natural disaster assistance, then the state can/should do it, and that's totally fine. A state cannot have a clause in its constitution which can force the federal government to do something. FEMA is a federal agency.

Let me say that IF the U.S. Constitution gives the authority to do this, then I'll be TOTALLY FINE with it, and so will Paul. Constitution-----must-----be-----followed.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies > Elections
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top