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.
"Vermont" is not a person. Who in Vermont? And more to the point, who bears the expenses when states "help"? Is this like getting charity to pay for your health care?
I imagine the state has some people who work for their government that could coordinate efforts.
Many cities have reciprocal agreements for fire fighting for a certain amount of time. Why can't states create those agreements with each other?
People conveniently ignore the very logical points he is making so they can instead sensationalize the sound byte and take the argument out of context. Here is what he is saying:
1. The Federal Government literally cant afford to continue doing this. Eventually (and likely soon) there will be no FEMA to help in a disaster because they wont have the money to put gas in the trucks, helicopters, and boats that come to rescue everyone. Simply put, we act as though there is an unlimited money supply to support this.
2. It encourages people to take unhealthy risk by making it easier to live in areas that have historically shown that they are dangerous and not suitable for daily life without great risk. If insurance companies cant find a way to charge a reasonable premium to provide coverage, that means that the cost of living there greatly exceeds the resources (time, money, and people) required to sustain life there.
3. If we drastically reduce our global military footprint, you could easily address the need for more money and human resources to support disasters, while slowly weening cities and states off of their reliance of the Federal Government. This would also allow them to slowly set up their own localized/specialized programs and agencies to support their specific needs.
I cant give good reasons or prove it, but I have a feeling that #3 above would actually force local communities to be more proactive and be better prepared for disasters.
People conveniently ignore the very logical points he is making so they can instead sensationalize the sound byte and take the argument out of context. Here is what he is saying:
1. The Federal Government literally cant afford to continue doing this. Eventually (and likely soon) there will be no FEMA to help in a disaster because they wont have the money to put gas in the trucks, helicopters, and boats that come to rescue everyone. Simply put, we act as though there is an unlimited money supply to support this.
Oh, BS! Shouldn't taking care of our own citizens be the highest priority for funding, instead of tax breaks to corporations, foreign aid out the Kazoo (I am not opposed to all FA, however), and so forth.
2. It encourages people to take unhealthy risk by making it easier to live in areas that have historically shown that they are dangerous and not suitable for daily life without great risk. If insurance companies cant find a way to charge a reasonable premium to provide coverage, that means that the cost of living there greatly exceeds the resources (time, money, and people) required to sustain life there.
Again, BS! Some of these housing patterns are based on ancient ideas, and Vermont isn't even close to the ocean, nor is my friend in New Hampshire. Shall we just move everyone into bunkers? There is no area of the country that is at zero risk for a natural disaster.
3. If we drastically reduce our global military footprint, you could easily address the need for more money and human resources to support disasters, while slowly weening cities and states off of their reliance of the Federal Government. This would also allow them to slowly set up their own localized/specialized programs and agencies to support their specific needs.
Well, perhaps, but that is not the thread topic.
I cant give good reasons or prove it, but I have a feeling that #3 above would actually force local communities to be more proactive and be better prepared for disasters.
You think they're not? The governors of most of the eastern states were very proactive in encouraging in the strongest way for people right on the coast to evacuate. No one could have predicted the devastation in VT.
Well, if Illinois and New Hamshire are helping Vermont (whew!) who is supposed to pay the bill? There will always be a need for a "middle man" to co-ordinate.
Isn't that something that Vermont, Illinois and NH should work out? So far the FEMA middleman has proven to be very inefficient and usually adds to delays and costs.
"Vermont" is not a person. Who in Vermont? And more to the point, who bears the expenses when states "help"? Is this like getting charity to pay for your health care?
Maybe, just maybe the VERMONT OFFICE OF EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT.
States officials are subject to corruption too. If states manage natural disasters (basically) on their own I'm sure there will be plenty of no-bid contracts among cronies in each state...And I doubt that everyone will stand up and cheer if they wind-up having to pay higher and higher taxes to their state...Some ideas sound great on paper (and in "theory") but implementing them is another story...Passing the "buck" over to the states might open-up a "can of worms" that could be just as bad or worse...I try not to be too idealistic or gullible when I listen to politicians talk because I don't want to get "burned" or disillusioned or "taken to the cleaners!"...I am open to "new ways of doing things." But I want hard and concrete proof that the "new ways" will work out better in the long-run.
We already have hard and concrete proof that FEMA doesn't work out better in the long run. Having FEMA does nothing to benefit the states but having FEMA benefits the government and costs the states more money for the same response. Of course there is corruption at every level of gov. but if FEMA is run by a non-elected figure head how do we work to fix that problem? Having it on the state level is a better way for states to take their own emergency management into their own hands. We're not talking about passing the buck as if states don't want this, many are begging to get out from under the burden of FEMA and other gov. agencies that do nothing but waste tax dollars on talking heads.
You think they're not? The governors of most of the eastern states were very proactive in encouraging in the strongest way for people right on the coast to evacuate. No one could have predicted the devastation in VT.
If you want funding for taking care of our citizens to be our first priority why do you support taxing Vermont citizens, sending that money to DC, them taking a percentage for the management fees to run FEMA then Vermont has to ask the Feds for some of their money back when a hurricane hits? Do you see how screwed up that logic is?
Oh and for your information, plenty people could and did predict the devastation in VT. It doesn't take NASA to predict that flooding will take place if you get 15" of rain in 24 hours.
You think they're not? The governors of most of the eastern states were very proactive in encouraging in the strongest way for people right on the coast to evacuate. No one could have predicted the devastation in VT.
More sensationalized claims...can we resist the emotional hair trigger responses and deal in logic?
"Oh, BS! Shouldn't taking care of our own citizens be the highest priority for funding, instead of tax breaks to corporations, foreign aid out the Kazoo (I am not opposed to all FA, however), and so forth."
Where in the world did ANYONE (me, Ron Paul, or any of his supporters) say "We shouldn't take care of our own citizens?" Not ONE person has said this, and in fact every argument for disbanding FEMA is focused on how to BETTER help our citizens.
"Again, BS! Some of these housing patterns are based on ancient ideas, and Vermont isn't even close to the ocean, nor is my friend in New Hampshire. Shall we just move everyone into bunkers? There is no area of the country that is at zero risk for a natural disaster."
Ancient ideas and housing patterns? I don't even know what this means, so maybe you can clarify? Oceans? Who said anything about oceans? In case you didnt know, the USGS actively monitors and tracks over 70 sites with surface water in the state of Vermont alone. 70 potential places for flooding in one small state like that certainly makes me think that there must be some houses that are not located in optimal areas, and that one should expect that even just a bad storm, let alone hurricanes or tropical storms could possibly cause some damage.
Also, the emotionally charged conjecture about "bunkers" and "zero risk" has nothing to do with arguments presented here, because that is absolutely not what was being suggested as a solution, and I'm fairly certain that you know that. A vast majority of this country's land is located in areas where the risk of natural disaster is extremely minimal, and I'm willing to bet that a large percentage of us live in those areas. Its the small handful that continue to build in unsustainable areas like flood zones and beaches that add to the problem.
"Well, perhaps, but that is not the thread topic."
It absolutely is part of the topic, and you actually nailed it on your first part of your response...how do you think much of our "foreign aid" is delivered? Our military loads up boats, planes, and helicopters to deliver aid, or we station troops in areas that we think/say we are protecting with our presence.
More sensationalized claims...can we resist the emotional hair trigger responses and deal in logic?
"Oh, BS! Shouldn't taking care of our own citizens be the highest priority for funding, instead of tax breaks to corporations, foreign aid out the Kazoo (I am not opposed to all FA, however), and so forth."
Where in the world did ANYONE (me, Ron Paul, or any of his supporters) say "We shouldn't take care of our own citizens?" Not ONE person has said this, and in fact every argument for disbanding FEMA is focused on how to BETTER help our citizens.
"Again, BS! Some of these housing patterns are based on ancient ideas, and Vermont isn't even close to the ocean, nor is my friend in New Hampshire. Shall we just move everyone into bunkers? There is no area of the country that is at zero risk for a natural disaster."
Ancient ideas and housing patterns? I don't even know what this means, so maybe you can clarify? Oceans? Who said anything about oceans? In case you didnt know, the USGS actively monitors and tracks over 70 sites with surface water in the state of Vermont alone. 70 potential places for flooding in one small state like that certainly makes me think that there must be some houses that are not located in optimal areas, and that one should expect that even just a bad storm, let alone hurricanes or tropical storms could possibly cause some damage.
Also, the emotionally charged conjecture about "bunkers" and "zero risk" has nothing to do with arguments presented here, because that is absolutely not what was being suggested as a solution, and I'm fairly certain that you know that. A vast majority of this country's land is located in areas where the risk of natural disaster is extremely minimal, and I'm willing to bet that a large percentage of us live in those areas. Its the small handful that continue to build in unsustainable areas like flood zones and beaches that add to the problem.
"Well, perhaps, but that is not the thread topic."
It absolutely is part of the topic, and you actually nailed it on your first part of your response...how do you think much of our "foreign aid" is delivered? Our military loads up boats, planes, and helicopters to deliver aid, or we station troops in areas that we think/say we are protecting with our presence.
People might get inspired to change their minds about things, but there are very few transformational personas out there. Most have to make their own personal decision to learn new things and open their minds. But that is difficult. Unless you have a leader that can inspire people to change their views and feel good about it, those who believe FEMA is a good thing and Federal involvement is a good thing (many families do indeed benefit from FEMA, especially those who work for FEMA), the only way these people will change their viewpoint is to make concsious decisions to open their minds and consider unconventional (for 2011) viewpoints. No arguments on C-D will convince any pro-FEMA person to change sides. I used to be a FEMA supporter, but I changed my view by making my own decision to educate myself on the subject.
In conslusion, I agree with RoPa, FEMA should be absolutely positively abolished.
People are idiots... Ron Paul is saying FEMA should be controlled by each individual states... he has been advocating for states to take care of natural disasters within their own state for years... FEMA can't handle 50 states every year... but each state can easily handle it if they got the money to handle it which FEMA takes away instead since it funds them...
Plus the money just disappears into sinkholes. Bridges and roads are supposed to be repaired by tolls and the taxes we already pay dearly for. A good part of the gas tax is supposed to go to these causes, but it doesn't.
It's so classic that somebody starts a thread on Ron Pauls views, then quotes DailyKos. Lots of video's from Ron Paul, and his quotes, find out what he says, then we'll debate the problems with FEMA. til then this op is just trolling.
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.
