Watch the hypocrits beg for money.

Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13235
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Watch the hypocrits beg for money.

Sandy has caused tons of damage and it will require money to rebuild, but if we go by the rethuglican platform, they shouldn't get a fucking dime. Governor Crisspy Kreamer is now on TV talking about the devistation, and will certainly take any federal money to rebuild. He is a lying sack of shit that government always bad.

What rethuglicans realy mean by "government bad" is when they don't get what they want.

So to any rethuglican politician who might read this, STFU! Unlike you we don't mind giving help when it is needed, you simply side with big money, we side with ANYONE in need, not just those with money.

Ok Beyond please chime in with "when business owners get help that's fine but screw the poor and non business owner". Just be honest and tell the truth "less government" means less for those you dissagree with.

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


Beyond Saving
Silver Member
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 4160
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
 I wasn't aware of anyone

 I wasn't aware of anyone launching a campaign against disaster relief spending. FEMA has been rightly criticized for being extremely bureaucratic and inefficient and I think the argument is strong that state and local governments can be much more efficient at managing and making decisions about disaster relief efforts (like they did for nearly 200 years before the creation of FEMA). As for the actual funding I have no problem using tax dollars, nor do I know anyone else who does and I hang around quite a few anti-government types.

This is simply a strawman created by the left. Just like when they accuse us of not wanting police or fire protection. The few things that we all concede are properly the province of governmental power and are also a microscopic portion of our budget. I am not an anarchist and you trying to strawman me into one is either extreme ignorance or purposeful dishonesty.  


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
Beyond Saving wrote: I

Beyond Saving wrote:

 I wasn't aware of anyone launching a campaign against disaster relief spending. FEMA has been rightly criticized for being extremely bureaucratic and inefficient and I think the argument is strong that state and local governments can be much more efficient at managing and making decisions about disaster relief efforts (like they did for nearly 200 years before the creation of FEMA). As for the actual funding I have no problem using tax dollars, nor do I know anyone else who does and I hang around quite a few anti-government types.

This is simply a strawman created by the left. Just like when they accuse us of not wanting police or fire protection. The few things that we all concede are properly the province of governmental power and are also a microscopic portion of our budget. I am not an anarchist and you trying to strawman me into one is either extreme ignorance or purposeful dishonesty.  

Essentially, disaster relief spending is an economic stimulus . Many Republicans (Christie comes to mind) were against the economic stimulus package but have their hands out when disaster strikes. Their states needed it in both cases.

 

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


Beyond Saving
Silver Member
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 4160
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
 Although on a similar

 Although on a similar subject, I think we should charge the dumb asses that stay behind despite the hundreds of warnings to evacuate and end up needing to be rescued. These dumb fucks that sit around and good people risk their lives to go pluck them out of their houses should have to pay for their rescue plus an extra fine for being a dumb ass. 

I read one article today where someone said "This isn't something you can prepare for" after having to be saved by fire fighters in a boat. Yes it is dumb ass. I am here in Ohio and I was aware of all of the evacuation orders and warnings. This storm didn't sneak up on us, the effects were widely predicted, you can prepare for it by getting your ass out of there before the storm comes. The least he could have said is "yeah, I was a dumb ass for ignoring the warnings, I am sure glad the brave fire fighters saved me." We should fine those types of idiots for the costs of their rescue and since he needs a place to stay I would recommend a nice concrete prison cell with no mattress. Those kinds of dependent pricks who don't take any responsibility for their own safety piss me off. It really pisses me off when it puts people going out there to save them at risk. 


Beyond Saving
Silver Member
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 4160
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
jcgadfly wrote:Beyond Saving

jcgadfly wrote:

Beyond Saving wrote:

 I wasn't aware of anyone launching a campaign against disaster relief spending. FEMA has been rightly criticized for being extremely bureaucratic and inefficient and I think the argument is strong that state and local governments can be much more efficient at managing and making decisions about disaster relief efforts (like they did for nearly 200 years before the creation of FEMA). As for the actual funding I have no problem using tax dollars, nor do I know anyone else who does and I hang around quite a few anti-government types.

This is simply a strawman created by the left. Just like when they accuse us of not wanting police or fire protection. The few things that we all concede are properly the province of governmental power and are also a microscopic portion of our budget. I am not an anarchist and you trying to strawman me into one is either extreme ignorance or purposeful dishonesty.  

Essentially, disaster relief spending is an economic stimulus . Many Republicans (Christie comes to mind) were against the economic stimulus package but have their hands out when disaster strikes. Their states needed it in both cases.

 

No, disaster relief spending is repairing things that were damaged in a disaster. When you wreck your car and buy a new car of identical value you are not wealthier, you are simply replacing what was lost in the accident so you have the same material, but you have less money. Stimulus was redistributing money with the idea that it would make the economy wealthier, it didn't. Our country will be poorer because of this disaster, even though according to the Keynesian models that led to stimulus would predict that the economy would be wealthier.

Disaster relief doesn't improve the economy, it simply improves the material condition of people who suffered from the disaster at the expense of those who pay the bill. For the economy at large it is a loss, just like for the economy at large stimulus was a loss even though for certain people with political connections it was a boon. The difference is that relieving people trying to recover from a large natural disaster is worth taking a loss for, padding the pockets of DC's butt buddies is not.    


digitalbeachbum
atheistRational VIP!
digitalbeachbum's picture
Posts: 2647
Joined: 2007-10-15
User is offlineOffline
It all goes back to the

It all goes back to the rhetoric they push out about "you built your company" and "we don't need fed's helping us". They are in trouble now so they want the feds to pay.

Also, did any one catch the comment Romney made about the FEMA/Emergency Response services from the federal government? He said that it should be left up to the states to handle all those responsibilities. So what happens if a state like Hawaii has a natural disaster? Who responds? Hawaii? Does California, Alaska help out? Who the hell things Hawaii is going to be able to respond to a natural disaster with out the help of outside services?

Also Romney said "and if not, it should be privatized". WTF? Oh, ok. So when their is a tornado and we need help we must show our ID card to get help? Do we need to know our policy number before they take us to the hospital or give us first aid? WTF.

I didn't like Romney much in the first place but is comments about FEMA being disbanded is one of the stupidest things I've ever heard from that lame brain of his; what a fucking douche. They guy has his head so far up his ass that he doesn't know which way is up or down.

 

Brian37 wrote:

Sandy has caused tons of damage and it will require money to rebuild, but if we go by the rethuglican platform, they shouldn't get a fucking dime. Governor Crisspy Kreamer is now on TV talking about the devistation, and will certainly take any federal money to rebuild. He is a lying sack of shit that government always bad.

What rethuglicans realy mean by "government bad" is when they don't get what they want.

So to any rethuglican politician who might read this, STFU! Unlike you we don't mind giving help when it is needed, you simply side with big money, we side with ANYONE in need, not just those with money.

Ok Beyond please chime in with "when business owners get help that's fine but screw the poor and non business owner". Just be honest and tell the truth "less government" means less for those you dissagree with.

Free will is an illusion. People always choose the perceived path of greatest pleasure.

-Scott Adams


digitalbeachbum
atheistRational VIP!
digitalbeachbum's picture
Posts: 2647
Joined: 2007-10-15
User is offlineOffline
Beyond Saving wrote: I

Beyond Saving wrote:

 I wasn't aware of anyone launching a campaign against disaster relief spending. FEMA has been rightly criticized for being extremely bureaucratic and inefficient and I think the argument is strong that state and local governments can be much more efficient at managing and making decisions about disaster relief efforts (like they did for nearly 200 years before the creation of FEMA). As for the actual funding I have no problem using tax dollars, nor do I know anyone else who does and I hang around quite a few anti-government types.

This is simply a strawman created by the left. Just like when they accuse us of not wanting police or fire protection. The few things that we all concede are properly the province of governmental power and are also a microscopic portion of our budget. I am not an anarchist and you trying to strawman me into one is either extreme ignorance or purposeful dishonesty.  

The entire problem with FEMA was Bush's administration.

And yes... Romney has made comments about disbanding FEMA and sending the responsibilities to the states or privatizing the services.

DOH!

Free will is an illusion. People always choose the perceived path of greatest pleasure.

-Scott Adams


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
Beyond Saving wrote:jcgadfly

Beyond Saving wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:

Beyond Saving wrote:

 I wasn't aware of anyone launching a campaign against disaster relief spending. FEMA has been rightly criticized for being extremely bureaucratic and inefficient and I think the argument is strong that state and local governments can be much more efficient at managing and making decisions about disaster relief efforts (like they did for nearly 200 years before the creation of FEMA). As for the actual funding I have no problem using tax dollars, nor do I know anyone else who does and I hang around quite a few anti-government types.

This is simply a strawman created by the left. Just like when they accuse us of not wanting police or fire protection. The few things that we all concede are properly the province of governmental power and are also a microscopic portion of our budget. I am not an anarchist and you trying to strawman me into one is either extreme ignorance or purposeful dishonesty.  

Essentially, disaster relief spending is an economic stimulus . Many Republicans (Christie comes to mind) were against the economic stimulus package but have their hands out when disaster strikes. Their states needed it in both cases.

 

No, disaster relief spending is repairing things that were damaged in a disaster. When you wreck your car and buy a new car of identical value you are not wealthier, you are simply replacing what was lost in the accident so you have the same material, but you have less money. Stimulus was redistributing money with the idea that it would make the economy wealthier, it didn't. Our country will be poorer because of this disaster, even though according to the Keynesian models that led to stimulus would predict that the economy would be wealthier.

Disaster relief doesn't improve the economy, it simply improves the material condition of people who suffered from the disaster at the expense of those who pay the bill. For the economy at large it is a loss, just like for the economy at large stimulus was a loss even though for certain people with political connections it was a boon. The difference is that relieving people trying to recover from a large natural disaster is worth taking a loss for, padding the pockets of DC's butt buddies is not.    

Yep, repairing things like businesses and infrastructure in order to rebuild/stimulate the economy in that region. Going from nothing to being able to make money is making them wealthier (especially since many are insured as well). You refuted yourself.

On padding pockets in DC, I agree.

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


Beyond Saving
Silver Member
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 4160
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
digitalbeachbum wrote:The

digitalbeachbum wrote:

The entire problem with FEMA was Bush's administration.

And you assume that no one as incompetent as Bush is ever going to be president again? That is even assuming that Obama is not equally incompetent, not an assumption I would buy but apparently one you do. 

 

digitalbeachbum wrote:

And yes... Romney has made comments about disbanding FEMA and sending the responsibilities to the states or privatizing the services.

DOH!

http://abcnews.go.com/ABC_Univision/Politics/romney-cut-fema-president/story?id=17589353#.UJBuSsUnFo8

 

Quote:

Gov. Romney believes that states should be in charge of emergency management in responding to storms and other natural disasters in their jurisdictions," said Romney campaign spokesman Yohana de la Torre. "As the first responders, states are in the best position to aid affected individuals and communities, and to direct resources and assistance to where they are needed most. This includes help from the federal government and FEMA.

In reality probably the closest thing to cutting FEMA that has been suggested is that any non-budgeted disaster assistance- like that for major storms- has to be offset by cuts elsewhere in the budget. Which I think is perfectly sensible. If your car breaks down and you have to unexpectedly shell out $2,000 to fix it you might cut your budget elsewhere for a few months to make up for the lost money and replenish your savings. Romney has been pretty consistent throughout the campaign with his philosophy of having states run programs even if they are federally funded. Like his plan for Medicaid which provides states block grants and allows them to manage the funds. Despite the fear mongering of the democrats, just because the federal government isn't in control does not mean that the service is not provided. You are aware that FEMA is only 34 years old and they had natural disasters before that and people still got federal aid in the worst disasters?

This is how it happens, the government creates an agency that has limited function and a few powers. 30 years later it is spending almost $6 billion before it spends a single penny on disaster relief and viewed as the only possible organization that can be in control despite its very public fuck ups.

The federal government is very good at throwing vast amounts of money at a problem. With its taxing power it is very sensible that it be considered an effective option to get large amounts of money to people who are devastated by a natural disaster. However, it is not at all good at managing that money. One of the largest problems during Katrina was that decisions were being made by bureaucrats in DC who were deluged with various requests that had to work their way through a bureaucracy to get approval. It is far more sensible in a disaster situation to put the money in the hands of a smaller organization that can make decisions quickly and prioritize efficiently. Smaller organizations are almost always more efficient than large organizations when it comes to deciding details and in a disaster situation a detail can mean the difference between life and death for people.

During a disaster is one of the times when having a dictator with absolute control over the money is better than bureaucracy, a governor can act more swiftly, with more authority and more intelligently than any bureaucracy can, so give the money to them.  

 


danatemporary
danatemporary's picture
Posts: 1377
Joined: 2011-01-12
User is offlineOffline
Brian whatever you do . . . .

 Brian whatever you do in this thread dont use the phrase 'G-e-t 0-u-t  T-h-e V-0-t-e', the Spam bots are waiting