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: 20
23
<< 17  18  19    21  22  23 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 5 2012 @ 08:50 AM
link   
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.




posted on Mar, 5 2012 @ 08:52 AM
link   
reply to post by antonia
 


That is just it. people need help immediately after a diaster. People need medicines and food and blankets.

Insurance companies can take months to pay out.

Sometimes a disaster can be on such a level that it exceeds state income and capability.



posted on Mar, 5 2012 @ 08:54 AM
link   

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.


And if the government funded fire department hadn't come, you would of completely lost your house.



posted on Mar, 5 2012 @ 08:55 AM
link   

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?


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.



posted on Mar, 5 2012 @ 09:01 AM
link   
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"



posted on Mar, 5 2012 @ 09:04 AM
link   

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.


This may be true but once called in they take over like a hoard of bureaucratic locusts who subordinate everything and everyone in their path to their whims.



posted on Mar, 5 2012 @ 09:06 AM
link   
reply to post by Golf66
 


I admire your position.



posted on Mar, 5 2012 @ 09:07 AM
link   
reply to post by liejunkie01
 

I live in Joplin, Missouri and lost most everything I had to the F5 that rolled through here, taking 1/2 our town with it. My wife's a charge-nurse at St John's Hospital, ( the one that got blasted by that F5) and right after the storm her and friends set up first aid stations in certain areas to help the wounded. This went on for days, them working around the clock doing first-aid, handing out food, or just being there for those who were (for the lack of a better term) shell-shocked.

Then in comes FEMA, and everything went to hell. One of the first directives given where to shut-down any medical establishment that was not sanctioned by FEMA, and if they were found giving any medical treatment they would be arrested and charge with violations. These were the same people who for days had been taking care of strangers, friends, family, giving everything they have to the people and town they love and here they were being threaten with arrest for doing so.

Next, people who lived in the destruction zone were told to say out, which only broaden the scope of looting that took place since people were not allowed to stay with their belongings. I would say a good portion of the looting were done by those who were trusted to watch it, hell we had fireman who got arrested for looting all the while FEMA was suppose to make sure this didn't take place.

I can't begin to tell you how many surrounding towns showed up to help us, most of which left as soon as FEMA came into the picture. It was no longer about just helping your fellow man, now it was about procedures, protocol, and doing what you were told or you would be arrested.

IMO, it was not worth it to have FEMA come in. They accomplished very little, unless you count pissing the locals off by suspending searches for people because Uncle Obama was in town.



posted on Mar, 5 2012 @ 09:13 AM
link   
Having read the article and some of the posts the following can be stated:

I remember when some of the Hurricanes that devastated the region of the gulf coast hit, and they do tend to hit on a regular basis. Those areas are pretty and unique, giving a different perspective to life. Many people enjoy living in those regions, having homes and families, being part of a culture or a community, some of which goes back hundreds of years. But the down side is some of those areas are prone to natural disaster on a regular basis. Some parts of the country are prone to wildfires, others to earthquakes, some to tornados, hurricanes, drought’s, flooding, heavy snow falls, and other natural disasters, that can make life either unbearable or interesting to say the least.

I have family that lived, and still does live, down in the southern part of Louisiana. They bought a home, and had some insurance on it. The problems that they had when dealing with the federal government to get assistance was pretty much ridiculous, and down right irritating. You see the federal government runs off of redundancy , where you have to file things in triplicate, or have to countless times over, do the exact same thing. They never do the same thing twice, and often the right hand does not know what the left hand is doing. To that end, the problem that the people who survived Katrina found out that it is taking longer to get any kind of assistance from the government than it should. The system is bloated, where the federal authorities can not act unless it is at the invitation of the state, and the state government in an attempt not to appear to be lacking, does not want to admit that it can not handle a situation. It stinks all around, and reeks of rotting material at times. In the case of my relatives, what the main problem is that for every step forward they took to get things situated, and a new home, they had to take three steps back. My aunt, quickly decided to make copies of every thing that was asked for and when she had to start over, had everything read from the point of having to start over. Compounded with the fact that every time they got a step forward, they had to deal with someone new, and that got old real quick. In any other situation this would have been funny, but to the people it is no laughing matter. They eventually got everything in and was able to get the funds for a new home.

Ultimately, the main problem that also came out was a matter of terminology and what the insurance policies covered. I know, I paid attention and when I had to put insurance on where I lived, I made sure to learn from the mistakes of others, to ensure that the home that I live in is covered for all sorts of problems, especially the natural disasters that occur in this region of the country. Yes there is a drought, and I do live in tornado alley. I pay for a large insurance policy on my home, to cover for not only the wind damage, and water, but also fire and act of god. The act of god part I wanted to cover anything that was natural and was not covered in the original policy.

Dr. Paul is right, people rely too heavily on the federal government, a bloated system that is full of redundancies, and not enough on themselves. They tend to expect the federal government with all of its people and agencies to pick them up and give hand outs, when it should be there for the people to get a hand up, and to start over. It can be hard when there is a disaster, but if the people rely too heavily on the federal government there are way too many problems that they will encounter faster than anything else. So to that end he is also correct, people need to get the insurance that is going to cover what all could happen. The term, “What if” is a powerful one, as it should make people pause. If a person lives near the water, why they would not have insurance to cover water and wind damage, makes one think. If they live in a area that is prone to say wildfires, would it not be wise to have coverage to protect themselves and their assets against going up in flames and smoke?

While his choice of words may not have been the best, they are the truth of the matter, and ultimately we should be thinking on how we can survive and not just rely on the government agency to protect us.



posted on Mar, 5 2012 @ 09:18 AM
link   
To all home owners ... be a responsible head of household and buy home-owners insurance for your home.

To all renters ... be a responsible head of household and buy renter's insurance for your home.

Don't be irresponsible and expect the Federal government to swoop in and replace all your family heirlooms when they burn up in an unexpected fire. Or, in this case, get swept away in a tornado.

BTW, the federal government is NOT going to buy you a new home. Sorry, I don't know when you got off thinking that any sort of disaster relief from the federal government would go towards replacing your belongings. ??? Seriously?



posted on Mar, 5 2012 @ 09:22 AM
link   
reply to post by tyranny22
 


What do you guys not understand that it isn't just about property insurance?

Who's going to clear roadways of debris? Who is going to bring in emergency medical help? Who is going to bring in clean water and food? Who is going to repair water towers, bridges, dams, and levies? Who is going to lead and fund search and rescue efforts?

It isn't just about what home insurance will cover...disaster relief isn't just a bunch of lazy people wanting the federal government to buy them a new home like Ron Paul and his supporters are suggesting.



posted on Mar, 5 2012 @ 09:24 AM
link   

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.


Ummm, he does.

Last year he gave back some $70k. It wasn't all of it, but it was a lot. Also, he's said he'd only accept a presidential pay of about $39k/yr if elected (rather than the $400k). That's the amount the average American makes.

BTW, he's also declined the congressional pension. So, he won't be retiring off the tax payer's money.

Know any other politicians doing this? Didn't think so.



posted on Mar, 5 2012 @ 09:26 AM
link   
reply to post by OutKast Searcher
 


The people that get paid to do that?

That'd be my guess.

Also, there are lots of volunteers heading up there to help. My community group is volunteering on Thursday, rather than holding Bible Study.

My point is, we're all big boys and girls around here. We'll live through this. With or without the help of Big Brother. We don't need a bunch of politicians swooping in and acting like they're saving the day. FEMA can stay home. We got this.
edit on 5-3-2012 by tyranny22 because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 5 2012 @ 09:27 AM
link   
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?



posted on Mar, 5 2012 @ 09:30 AM
link   
whoops
edit on 5-3-2012 by nixie_nox because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 5 2012 @ 09:32 AM
link   
reply to post by tyranny22
 


You seem to have no idea about the amount of funds and effort it takes to recovery from a major disaster.

All volunteers help...state aid helps...but SOMETIMES, that is just not enough.

What then? Screw em? Too bad...shouldn't have lived where a major disaster just happened?


What is your solution when volunteers and the State just can't handle the scale of the disaster???



posted on Mar, 5 2012 @ 09:38 AM
link   

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"

reply to post by resist2012
 


1. The MRE are really good now and people are happy with them.The self heating mechanism is pretty cool.
2. How many houses has the federal government built and for whome?
3. The states get a lot of funding, which gets funneled down to the lowest levels of government.
4. The postal service is a huge success, that beats anything a company can provide. They deliver to 350 million americans and to others around the world in a matter of 2 days.
I used to do 500k in shipping a year, I would go USPS before Fedex and I wouldn't trust UPS with a cinder block.
5. The states and locals maintain a lot of the roads. If you don't know how your taxes work, you shouldn't even be commenting



posted on Mar, 5 2012 @ 09:43 AM
link   

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?


First off, comparing tornadoes to car accidents is pretty silly.

You have a pretty good chance of being hit by a car, which is why most states mandate car insurance.

And that is caused by another driver.

A tornado is an act of nature that randomly picks where it will land without any predictability.

No one is saying these people don't have insurance. But poeple need immediate assistance, a place to stay, a place to eat, a place to shower, and some clothes.

That is where emergency services comes in.

Insurance does not:
take you to the hospital
take your body to the morgue
reuinite you with lost family members
wash your clothes
provide medications



posted on Mar, 5 2012 @ 09:47 AM
link   

And if the government funded fire department hadn't come, you would of completely lost your house.


Actually, it was a volunteer fire department. So, try again. Where I live, most people agree with my line of thinking. They help others because it is good and moral to do so. Just don't tell us that we have to help. The people here, for the most part, are God fearing, honest, hard working and responsible people. You do not have to ask for help, people just pitch in and help. Look at the response from all the communities in Alabama that help the other communities when the tornadoes hit last April. It took FEMA 5 days to get setup. However, the churches were mobilized in hours. As a matter of fact, the churches and citizens have handled the majority of the recovery in Alabama. We do not need the government to hold our hands!



posted on Mar, 5 2012 @ 09:48 AM
link   
People have th have home owners insurance to cover their losses. Now town cities and school systems may need federal help but just from a logistics standpoint



new topics

top topics



 
23
<< 17  18  19    21  22  23 >>

log in

join