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.
Location: In a Galaxy far, far away called Germany
4,301 posts, read 4,413,296 times
Reputation: 2397
Advertisements
Quote:
Originally Posted by slackjaw
Point was you are saying fed govt shouldn't provide aid because it isn't in the constitution, that the state should handle aid. However if it isn't in the state constitution then what?
It is inherent in every state's constitution. It doesn't explicitly explaining natural disasters, but it is implied in the protection and well-being portions (of it's citizenry). To what end and to what means may be debated though (state by state). It would make for an interesting public debate in each state though.
Point was you are saying fed govt shouldn't provide aid because it isn't in the constitution, that the state should handle aid. However if it isn't in the state constitution then what?
Amend the state constitution to add it, or let the private sector handle it. It's a state decision best left to the folks of the state.
I am sure I am one of those Republicans you are referring to: just because some of us believe in smaller government does not believe in seeing everyghing cut out or cut back. Getting some help for natural disasters does not mean "welfare queens" by anymeans. I think you need to look up the meaning of the term.. Answer this question: if your home was distroyed by a natural disaster would you use government funds to help rebuild..?? I will also ask you if your area has ever been damaged by floods, earthquakes, tornadoes or hurricanes?
Nita
I do not believe the poster was saying the ones involved in this disaster are welfare queens just the ones who believe in getting continuous aid are.
Your question is easy to answer. I have insurance but if I didn't have it and money was offered I'd take it in a heart beat. Always look out for number one and family first when it comes to the basics imo. You can't help others if you're not in a position to help yourself.
Have you had you house destroyed or damaged by a natural disaster? I hope not but if so did you rebuild it just like it was before?
It is inherent in every state's constitution. It doesn't explicitly explaining natural disasters, but it is implied in the protection and well-being portions (of it's citizenry).
Who decides it is inherent in every state's constitution, and why wouldn't that apply at the federal level for protecting the well-being of the citizenry?
I keep seeing people saying if something isn't explicitly written in the constitution the fed government can't do it and should be handled at state level, but state constitutions are usually fairly basic frameworks just like the US Constitution.
Quote:
Originally Posted by moving_pains
Amend the state constitution to add it, or let the private sector handle it. It's a state decision best left to the folks of the state.
So you are saying Kentucky shouldn't offer aid either since they don't explicitly spell out in their state constitution amendments for disaster aid? And as needs/society evolves they should amend their constitution for everything the state government does or spends money on?
Location: In a Galaxy far, far away called Germany
4,301 posts, read 4,413,296 times
Reputation: 2397
Quote:
Originally Posted by slackjaw
Who decides it is inherent in every state's constitution, and why wouldn't that apply at the federal level for protecting the well-being of the citizenry?
I keep seeing people saying if something isn't explicitly written in the constitution the fed government can't do it and should be handled at state level, but state constitutions are usually fairly basic frameworks just like the US Constitution.
Each state's Supreme Court would have to weigh in, but I think they already have as there hasn't been any recorded evidence of a state not helping it's citizenry out during a natural disaster. As a matter of fact, they usually do even after FEMA has chipped in.
Since he's a federal employee, that makes him a thief by his own reasoning. Why do people listen to this clown?
Quote:
Originally Posted by JPD
So, the federal government, who built those levees, should have turned their backs on the damage caused by those shoddily maintained levees? Nice.
Hey smart guy, did you ever pay attention to how Katrina was handled? About how sheriff Harry Lee in Jefferson Parish had to threaten to shoot on sight any FEMA agents who were found cutting phone lines to keep people from calling out of the city and telling others how the situation was being handled?
Remember the trailer fiasco?
Here is a small list of the failures of FEMA in that emergency ... Your inflated tax doillars at work in the hands of the government.
The more i read what you people write on this forum, the more satisfied i am of how much you all deserve everything that is coming, just like the morons who were warned to leave New Orleans but decided to stay ... I certainly wont be happy to watch you all suffer the consequences, but i will feel very vindicated when it finally happens.
Last edited by Ironmaw1776; 03-05-2012 at 11:02 AM..
We have had the occasional tornadoes and hurricanes, but is not a very disaster prone area. Even if it is, I don't want the federal government stealing money from you so that I can continue to build in disaster prone areas. When the government has a monopoly on something, then we have no choice but to use it, but what I am advocating is to destroy that monopoly, so that other, more efficient options exist.
People like you fail to comprehend that removing a function from the FEDERAL government doesn't mean that you will never get that service. It can be handled by the states/private sector.
I'm sorry, but advocating for welfare from the government, which is either taxed, printed or borrowed, qualifies for a "welfare queen".
Are there ANY spheres of life or economy which couldn't use some "help" from the government? No, there isn't. Money doesn't grow on trees for the federal government to "help" everyone for everything.
Are there ANY difference between you RINOs and the liberals? You think this needs some "help from the government". Liberals can name something else which needs "help from the government". In the end, government is "helping" everyone with taxpayer money.
If anyone is wondering why we never shrink government even when Republicans are in power, people like you are the answer.
P.S: Government doesn't actually "help", but just wastes money, but we already know that, right?
When my neighbor needs help and my money is used to help them, I do not consider them stealing from me, but obviously you do.
Of course most of us realize money is wasted by the government, but we are not talking about the single mom who has 5 illegitament kids and gets help for all of them or the illegal that walks into the emergancy room because they have a cold, we are talking about natural disasters.
Here is a situation that actually did happen to us and others in our community in No Texas a about 12 years ago: strong winds and hail damaged our roof. We had a $1000 deductable like most people do. We paid the deductable and less than a year later we lost another roof due to hail damage. We again, paid our $1000 but what about the senior citizens or the truely disabled who can not come up with $1000 at the drop of a hat all the time? Have you thought about some of those people, who have lived in their houses for 30 years, are trying to keep a roof over their heads and are trying not to depend on the government? There are many like that, what would you do with them?
Do you really think, because I or some others think there is a time when the government needs to step in we think the feds should help everyone for everything? If you do think that, you are sadly mistaken. There is a difference between disasters and stupidity or laziness. if you can't see that, there is nothing anyone will do to change your mind and this probably explains why Paul will never be elected as Pres or get the nomination.
Well, the Obama haters can't have it both ways. Its considered a hand-out when disaster victims are in New Orleans (and Black) yet somehow when the disaster strikes in your backyard its America's duty to provide federal aid.
This is how a Ron Paul would handle any and all disasters that happen over the course of a presidency...turning his back. Better that you guys know now then when a tornado hits your trailer park with a Ron Paul in the White House.
Have you seen any of the tornado victims taking advantage of the tragedy by looting? Has the military been called in yet to deal with the violence?
After the earthquake and nuclear meltdown in Japan, did people loot Wal-Mart's or did they get together to fix the situation?
Good job bringing race into the equation, as the people of New Orleans didn't exactly show "honor" and "integrity" following the hurricane. Also, I'm sure those affected by these tornadoes weren't given explicit instructions to evacuate days in advance.
Rep. Ron Paul, R-Texas, stood by his libertarian beliefs on Sunday, saying that victims of the violent storms and tornadoes that have battered a band of states in the South and Midwest in recent days should not be given emergency financial aid from the federal government.
"There is no such thing as federal money," Paul said, on CNN’s State of the Union. "Federal money is just what they steal from the states and steal from you and me."
Dr. Paul does not want people to suffer. He simply wants the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT to do what, constitutionally, they are supposed to do. The money would still be available for help, but it would be state money instead of government money.
Before you criticize a great man, you need to find out what he is about and understand his platform.
I do not believe the poster was saying the ones involved in this disaster are welfare queens just the ones who believe in getting continuous aid are.
Your question is easy to answer. I have insurance but if I didn't have it and money was offered I'd take it in a heart beat. Always look out for number one and family first when it comes to the basics imo. You can't help others if you're not in a position to help yourself.
Have you had you house destroyed or damaged by a natural disaster? I hope not but if so did you rebuild it just like it was before?
no, that person said I was one for believing the way I do or that Republicans in general, unless they are Paul supporters and agree with his view, which I do not happen to agree with.
Read my latest postings, no we have not lost our house thank God, but we have had serious damage from tornedos, earthquakes and hail. Had we lost a house completely, of course we would not rebuild it exactly. This doesn't mean the government should never step in to help those who need help after a disaster. It also doesn't mean people should not carry insurance.
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.
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.
No, there isn't. Money doesn't grow on trees for the federal government to "help" everyone for everything.
