It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Ron Paul: No Federal Financial Aid for Tornado Victims

page: 10
23
<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 4 2012 @ 08:51 PM
link   
reply to post by prisoneronashipoffools
 





The fact is if their was no FEMA, the states would have to deal with their own disasters and collect the taxes to do so and being more local then the FED it would be more effcient; first they would be on hand to see what supplies and etc are actually needed and two the tax money for the relief effort wouldn't get bleed off of by layer upon layer of fedralistic bureacratic infrastructure and red tape.


Are you sure of that?

I live in the brokest state in the union. We cannot afford to replace broken windows in the school gyms around here.

Where would the money come from? oh you mentioned taxes.

That would cost us more in the long run.




The problem many "anti constitutionalists" have is you think somehow if there were no Federal programs, then nothing would be done, it's not true, it would be done at the local and state level and with far less waste and cost and that would actually lead to people paying less in taxes.


I am far from an "anti constitutionalists".

My family came to america in the 16,00's. I will do what it takes to make sure that their struggles were not in vein.

We are in a quagmire that is unfixable by one man..

One other thing how would we be paying less taxes if new taxes would have to be imposed to pay for such programs.

The states are broke..........I know of people going to do their taxes at H&R block and they told them that there is no telling when they wouold get their money.

Illinois cannot even pay the money that is already owed......How in the world are they supposed to pay for more?




posted on Mar, 4 2012 @ 08:53 PM
link   
I am a Ron Paul supporter....for the record Santorum if Paul can't get it....but Paul is my first choice.
Now for the but....but I disagree with him partially on this matter. Yes he is correct about he federal money money vs. state money vs. insurance, etc. He is 100% correct IMHO. However the system is what it is at the moment. Dr. Paul may become president and change it. Some one else may change it. But right now the responsibility for helping out lies with the federal government and those people need help. It may be inefficient and costly but first we have to get the system changed to handle it as Dr. Paul describes, we can't just say no.!



posted on Mar, 4 2012 @ 08:55 PM
link   
I have no problem with my tax dollars going towards helping americans in need. Ron Paul is an ass!!!!

The dog eat dog mentality has KILLED america



posted on Mar, 4 2012 @ 08:57 PM
link   
When I get into a car accident, why doesn't the government give me the money for a new car and money for my hospital bills. Why?

Give me; I need; I need. That's what many you guys sound like.

The reason that you don't get a check from the government to buy you a car is because you are supposed to have insurance. Do you know what happens if you don't? You don't get anything. In fact, in the few states that it is legal to not carry insurance it's an even bigger deal to have uninsured motorist on your policy. Wanna know why? Because you won't get ANYTHING. Sure you can get a judgement for 15K and see a payment every other month of $200.00 here and $50.00 there, but the point is that the government will not help you.

We have seen the videos of the events in Seattle when it gets slick and people are driving up and down hills right?



posted on Mar, 4 2012 @ 08:57 PM
link   
reply to post by liejunkie01
 

If a state is fiscally irresponsible, and runs itself broke, why is it up to states that know how to budget properly be expected to pick up the tab? When you get punitive punishment for being prosperous, it kind of pushes people to not want to be prosperous no?

edit on Sun, 04 Mar 2012 21:00:18 -0600 by TKDRL because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 4 2012 @ 09:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by rockn82
When I get into a car accident, why doesn't the government give me the money for a new car and money for my hospital bills. Why?

Give me; I need; I need. That's what many you guys sound like.

The reason that you don't get a check from the government to buy you a car is because you are supposed to have insurance. Do you know what happens if you don't? You don't get anything. In fact, in the few states that it is legal to not carry insurance it's an even bigger deal to have uninsured motorist on your policy. Wanna know why? Because you won't get ANYTHING. Sure you can get a judgement for 15K and see a payment every other month of $200.00 here and $50.00 there, but the point is that the government will not help you.

We have seen the videos of the events in Seattle when it gets slick and people are driving up and down hills right?



posted on Mar, 4 2012 @ 09:07 PM
link   
reply to post by rockn82
 


What in the hell does a car wreck and a tornado tearing a whole town apart have in common?

Your whole post is moot

edit on 4-3-2012 by liejunkie01 because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 4 2012 @ 09:15 PM
link   
reply to post by liejunkie01
 





Are you sure of that? I live in the brokest state in the union. We cannot afford to replace broken windows in the school gyms around here. Where would the money come from? oh you mentioned taxes. That would cost us more in the long run.


The states would get the money from the same place the FED gets it's money, from the people of the state. See I don't think you really understand, the fact is if there was no FEMA, then the money that currently goes to the FED for FEMA will stay in the state, then the state can get that money and deal with the disaster and I would say with far less waste then when the FED gets their grubby hands on it.



I am far from an "anti constitutionalists". My family came to america in the 16,00's. I will do what it takes to make sure that their struggles were not in vein.


Well, I am not going to call you names or try to label you, but the thing is the constitution clearly outlines the established powers of the federal government; and it's only three jobs, defending the shores and borders, coining money and establishing the value thereof, and regulating interstate commerce and thoroughfares, if someone believes the FED has more power then that, including but not limited to social programs, welfare, FEMA and etc, then they stand against the constitution, which would make them an anti constitutionalist.




We are in a quagmire that is unfixable by one man..


I agree one man won't fix the mess of this nation. It's one of the things I find funny about people railing so hard against Ron Paul, I mean he won't even get a small portion of what he want's passed, but at the same time he will be in a position to keep the same democrat and republican charlatans that got us in this financial mess from getting us in deeper, so why are they railing against him so hard I would say it's because if he gets in office for at least four years it won't be business as usual in Washington.




One other thing how would we be paying less taxes if new taxes would have to be imposed to pay for such programs. The states are broke..........I know of people going to do their taxes at H&R block and they told them that there is no telling when they wouold get their money. Illinois cannot even pay the money that is already owed......How in the world are they supposed to pay for more?


Once, again we would be paying less because if you don't have FEMA and other federal programs, the FED won't get that tax money in the first place. That money instead will stay in the peoples pockets and not go to Washington. Then instead that money goes to the state and in the end I would say the state would waste less money then the FED.

edit on 4-3-2012 by prisoneronashipoffools because: typo

edit on 4-3-2012 by prisoneronashipoffools because: typo



posted on Mar, 4 2012 @ 09:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by muse7

This is not about "I need I need I need, give me!"

This is about families whose homes have been destroyed, place of work has been destroyed needing help. Good job at spinning it the other way around though.


Having your car destroyed is exactly the point. If you can't drive to work, you will lose your job. If you lose your job you will lose your home. You can't just throw the "spinning" argument at me as I have not spun anything. I have simply made direct analogies in comparison to losing your home. Essential possessions people have make a short chain. If a link in that chain breaks then the wheels won't turn.

Now I will take this time to commend you on building my argument into the proverbial "straw man", and attempting defeat the point by simply making it look weak. The fact is you used the word "needing" in your "view" so is that not exactly what I said it was?

Look, I absolutely understand that some people get screwed in life. That's why we have welfare; for people who NEED it. But on the flip-side these people not buying insurance is not my fault. Does that mean I can cancel my insurance on my home and have you (in the sense of a taxpayer) pay for it when a tornado tears my home apart? If your answer is no then why not? If your answer is yes, then please hook me up with some payment information as spring is right around the corner and tornadoes are 'a comin. PS my home is valued at around 120K. Just in case you need the info for later when you help me out.



posted on Mar, 4 2012 @ 09:24 PM
link   
reply to post by liejunkie01
 


Paul is for personal responsibility, which is why he stated that they should have tornado insurance since they choose to live in a tornado prone area. Living in California it is prudent to have earthquake insurance, living in Florida it is prudent to have hurricane insurance.

It is not the government's responsibility, nor do they have the authority to provide for individuals who had the opportunity to provide for themselves. The flip side to that coin is that the Federal Government should not be taking any where near the amount of taxes that they are and I don't believe Ron Paul is advocating one course of action without the other as well. He thinks that they should be personally responsible for themselves and that their liberty should be restored, including the non-taking of taxes at the exorbitant rate that they currently are.

Jaden



posted on Mar, 4 2012 @ 09:25 PM
link   
reply to post by muse7
 



This is not about "I need I need I need, give me!"

This is about families whose homes have been destroyed, place of work has been destroyed needing help.

The point being, if you live in tornado alley, get insurance instead of relying on coercively funded relief from those who don't live in tornado alley (perhaps because they can't afford the higher insurance premiums there).


Good job at spinning it the other way around though.

I don't see much spin placed on it by rockn82. Both were natural disasters which property owners should be insured against if they expect to have their property replaced.

edit on 4-3-2012 by DrinkYourDrug because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 4 2012 @ 09:29 PM
link   
reply to post by GogoVicMorrow
 


True.

And as for the states rights advocates?

If you think it's ok for one state to deny people the right to do something, then why not split off from the United States? Seriously, go form your own nation so the federal government can eventually annex it.


I was half-kidding there. What's stopping the states rights advocates this time? Oh right, the South will never rise again.



posted on Mar, 4 2012 @ 09:31 PM
link   
reply to post by Masterjaden
 


Paul doesn't understand that there are people who absolutely, cannot afford to pack up and leave. If it were that easy, more people would have by now.

You see, people have a sense of place. They're tied to it in more ways than one. When Katrina hit, there were people who didn't want to leave. I'm sure many of them perished but you can see where I'm coming from, right?


edit on 4-3-2012 by The Sword because: Added another word



posted on Mar, 4 2012 @ 09:33 PM
link   
reply to post by texas thinker
 


Santorum is worse than Paul.

This is one of the dangers of party-line thinking.



posted on Mar, 4 2012 @ 09:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by muse7
reply to post by GogoVicMorrow
 


If we're going to go down that route then I think we should get rid of federal taxes and just rely on state taxes..abolish the federal government and just have state governments


I sort of agree with this, but will stop short of totally abolishing the Federal Government. I'll explain below...

-Mini Rant (generalized; not singling out quote post's author)

If we can retrograde it's powers to those defined within the Constitution and move back towards a true republic then we do need a centralized government to facilitate our republic. The trick would be imposing safeguards from having another Centralized Government run amok. The Federal Government duties today are a far cry from what was originally intended to be, so much so, that we are coming face to face with the realization that we are not a republic or a democracy, but a corrupted oligarchy.

The realization is when a disaster occurs, our states currently can not handle the burden, so our centralized government must step in. This is a symptom of a larger virus.

It's important to note, in the original context that the Federal Government was created, state governments were supposed to have more power then the Federal Government. The Federal Government was assigned it's initial small scale duties to hinder its growth, but again after it's inception it's power evolved and now vastly dwarf what was intended. The smallest (Centralized) governments, when left unchecked or manipulated, usually grow into the largest centralized governments. As it's grown it's attracted the power hungry and corrupt. This is just a natural occurrence with positions of power, especially when the majority hand over power to a very select minority. Cliched, but power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely. It's happened before in history, and it's happened here, and will probably happen over and over again until we die off as a species.

Everyday the federal government oversteps it's boundaries, grows a little bit larger, and the people are clueless to the fact. It's a clever ruse.

The problem is so many generations have sat ideally by as power was relocated, that beyond a revolution or civil war, there's virtually no going back. I guess you can say we reached an event horizon. The idealist in me fights this reality but at the same time I accept it, but will voice my opposing opinion as such, for as long as I live.

Trillions of dollars are used by the Federal Government in the name of defense, nation building and so forth, but just imagine what would have happen if those trillions of dollars were used within out own boarders for our own good. Each American man woman and child hypothetically owes 10s of thousands of "dollars" in debt spent by the Federal Government on fruitless endeavors, and for what? We owe so much in debt, spent by an oligarchy in the name of an empire, but our nation is simultaneously decaying.

To truly understand Paul's take on sending disaster aid, you have to fully understand what the man is trying to do in terms of giving the Federal Government's power back to the hands of the people, the states. Rhetorically speaking currently a foreign billionaire has more say on what occurs in Congress then you or me. Why is this? Because the states power over the Fed has all but been eradicated.

As the giant "oligarchy run" federal government oversteps their constitutional bound duties we are technically at an impasse. The states have been neutered and are technically broke. This allows for the federal government to rush in as the savior with relief funds. Doing so, just allows further growth of the Federal Government, more national debt, and overall a weaker people who are helpless without the aid.

And yes, people will foam at the mouth when Ron Paul says "I would not send aid."

How dare he! Those poor poor people! Does he not have a heart!

The people should really turn their vocal anger at the giant centralized federal government who have weakened the states into borrowing predicaments. The proverbial whore of Babylon; That bedded with a Centralized Bank giving birth to a worthless fiat currency, that bedded with lobbyist and corporations leaving the people without true representation, that bedded with a corrupted banking industry; Truly a cancerous growth that has put us all in debt, killed off most industry, while leaving the states broke and begging for a federal takeover.

Again if the Anti- Paul critiques truly understand all of Dr. Paul's rhetoric instead of the out of context blurbs, then they would understand why he wouldn't send aid.

If the States had the power that the Fed currently hold then the States would not need a Federal handout. How hard is this to understand?



posted on Mar, 4 2012 @ 09:50 PM
link   
reply to post by squidboy
 


Bravo, that was well said.



posted on Mar, 4 2012 @ 09:52 PM
link   
reply to post by LonelyGuy
 


This story is taken out of context to provoke anger in those who read it. Seriously, please, please, please understand what you are so angry or upset about, because you are being manipulated into a reaction that is far from what Ron Paul is saying. This is not the first time Ron Paul has taken this stance and he is absolutely correct in saying it. In fact most of you would agree with it, if you only knew what he is talking about.

He's not saying, "lets not help these people". He is saying that FEMA is a complete waste of Federal money. Since Hurricane Katrina, FEMA has fell well short of helping many of those who needed the money and resources from these disasters. They promised millions to help the Joplin incident just last fall and then pulled that funding to help the East Coast floods a few weeks later. They are out of money! They have to steal from one fund to give some to another, yet FEMA should have had enough for all. They are mismanaging their resources given to them by the Federal Government which comes from all our pockets.

Ron Paul wants to de-federalize this operation and have it ran by the States through the National Guard like it was originally set up to do. We need to empower the States with the funding to help themselves out so they do not have to wait and beg the Federal Government to do what it says it will do only to pull it later once the media is no longer covering it.

So please understand where this man is coming from and where his loyalties lie, because he has been the only politician to truly care about this nation enough to tell us the truth and not sugar coat it to make him more marketable to the voters.



posted on Mar, 4 2012 @ 09:55 PM
link   
reply to post by squidboy
 


I had to give you a star for that post.

That was well thought out and typed.



I still believe that changes such as this would be a catastrophic disaster because of where we are at as a nation....


edit on 4-3-2012 by liejunkie01 because: spelling



posted on Mar, 4 2012 @ 09:58 PM
link   
reply to post by squidboy
 


The problem with your idea is that this is not the America of the late 1700s.

We are a nation of over 300 million people at this point.

Do you realize all the time and effort that would have to be put into powering down the Federal government? Who has the time or patience for such a task? And why would they do it when they can continue to get money from corporations to toe the status quo?



posted on Mar, 4 2012 @ 10:04 PM
link   
reply to post by The Sword
 


Change for the better is never easy, but in the long run it is worth it. I will take long run improvements, over short term perks anyday. Then again I am not like most people




top topics



 
23
<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in

join