It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by NoSoup4U
I am perfectly fine with this. I live in Alabama. As a matter of fact, I live about 3 miles from where the Tuscaloosa tornado came through.
I will use myself as an example: This past October we had a chimney fire. The fire department came out and tried to put it out with hand held water tanks. To minimize the damage. That didn't work so they used the hose! Over 50% of our house had smoke damage and our 60 year old hard wood floors were soaked with water.
Being that we paid our insurance on the house, we had our floors completely refinished and 4 rooms re-sheet rocked/sanded/painted. Literally, we paid zero dollars out of pocked except the deductible.
Here is the question...... If I wasn't responsible enough to buy insurance and keep it up to date and this fire still happen, should the government help me? I think not. This is rewarding irresponsible behavior. Should the government give survivors money for loosing a loved one in the tornadoes? I think it is important to hold people responsible and accountable to their right to "Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness". Everyone gambles every day in so form or fashion concerning their lives. Whether it be driving a vehicle or eating at a buffet. There are risks that are taken.
Some will say this line of thinking is harsh. However, I contend that we should let people lives their lives however they choose too. If they make a decision that turns out bad, then they should bear the result. At the end of the day, a person should not be required to help another person. It should be their own decision to do so.
So, Ron Paul is right. The correct thing to do is let the chips fall where they may concerning these people.
Originally posted by DIDtm
Originally posted by liejunkie01
reply to post by jazzguy
The issue is..........
Our tax money should be used to help us out,,,,,,,,,,,
Not the Africans, Asians, Middle Eastern's, or any other non US citizen.........
What is the problem with that?
Is it ok to tax the crap out of us and then turn a cold shoulder when we are in need?
But we sure will send billions to Israel
Pretty sure that Ron Paul wants to cut off ALL foreign aid.
Along with a host of other pointless, useless spending.
Do you even know what you are complaining about?
Originally posted by nixie_nox
It is, they can't get involved until the state says they can.
You know who has the the most power in emergenices? The local governments.
Originally posted by jimmyx
if ron paul is so against government aide, he should immediately give back all his "congressional" income" and volunteer his congressional services. apparently sacrfice has nothing to do with his $160,000.00 income from his "government job"...if you talk the talk, then you must walk the walk.
Originally posted by resist2012
Ok, so, what exactly is "federal aid"? Is it
a. Sending armed mercenaries to a state do disarm the people? Causing an increase OVERNIGHT in violent crimes.
b. Sending money (the federal government DOESN'T have to a state to pay for things that Insurance companies
(whose job it is to do so) could have done, had the "victims" had insurance?
c. Building bigger houses for the victims than the ones that they previously owned, costing more money?
d. Giving M.R.E's to people, then when they aren't good enough for people (even though soldiers LIVE on them for
weeks to months at a time) They shell out MORE money so that they can eat better than they have in years?
Or how about
e. Ripping off the states, making it hard for the states to have their OWN emergency relief funding, Ripping off the people in taxes, so that they can't afford home owners insurance, Ripping off companies who rent homes, hiking their taxes so that they can't afford to insure THEIR properties?\
The federal government can't even run a postal service or maintain roads, and you think THEY should be in charge of providing relief after disasters? Yeah, that went REAL well in 2005.
If the federal government actually did what it was designed to do, it wouldn't need such a large budget to pay for all of its unconstitutional practices, Therefore it wouldn't require such high taxes, to pay for the programs STATES should be paying for.
The greatest part about our country is the 10th amendment, granting states more power than the federal government, to run their states how they choose. This is so great because now you have 50 experimental governments trying their own thing (at least when the federal government is out of the way) allowing for smaller messes when things go wrong, but also finding out what works. Setting examples for Other states to follow, "IN ORDER TO FORM A MORE PERFECT UNION"
Originally posted by lpowell0627
Nobody thinks about the fact that there are responsible homeowners that purchase and PAY for insurance, including general homeowners, flood, hurricane, tornado, etc. Why should the people that CHOSE not to have insurance -- which is a gamble --receive Federal money, a.k.a. Taxpayer money-- when the rest of the people affected purchased insurance?
When you get into a car accident and choose not to have insurance, should you get Federal money for that too?
People need to take responsibility for themselves. If you want to gamble with your car, your health, your house -- it's your choice. It's called freedom to choose. However, when you lose that gamble, and the flood comes, why should you just say -- whoops...ok...give me my money even though I saved from paying premiums every month and then send the bill to the taxpayers? The same taxpayers paying their premiums!!
Government aide in the way of FEMA should be for events that one can't prepare for: terror attack, gas explosion, grid failures, water supply disruption, etc. NOT for things that insurance is designed to cover.
Why would anyone pay for insurance if they knew that by not doing so they would end up getting the money anyway all the while not having to pay monthly premiums?
It's tough to realize that one has to make actual decisions in life and then be willing to be accountable in the future, now isn't it?
And if the government funded fire department hadn't come, you would of completely lost your house.