Ron Paul: No Federal Financial Aid for Tornado Victims

Originally posted by Bugman82

So if there is a disaster, and hospitals are overwhelmed, filled with your community that has been hurt, what do you do then?
Because I can tell you, the doctors, nurses, EMT won't have a thing to do with you unless its life threatening.

Then the national guard has the ability and capacity to move in and offer relief. Also, under Ron Paul's plan the states would have their money and not the government, so they would have their own organizations for relief.

The Red Cross mobilized and was responsible for much of the aid that went to Indonesia during the tsunamis that killed hundreds of thousands of people. Why not allow non-profit organizations like them to be responsible for national relief? I just wonder, what could people do if they were given the opportunities to care for one another? However, government has changed the mindset of humanity through its strong-arm of dependency that I highly doubt we will ever truly be strong communities ever again. Communities used to work together, know one another, support one another, and be there for each other in the face of struggle. Now, the government takes care of it all so we can just sit back and wait and lose our sense of care and empathy.

We are enslaved by our government and its teat continues to flow with rich and addictive milk that one can hardly resist. God save us.

Now you are just swapping out one agency for another.

The states do have their money. Not to mention, the states front the money and then FEMA reimburses the state.

The red cross always shows up.

So the state receives money for preparedness, then if there is a disaster, FEMA remiburses the state 75% of the disaster costs.

It is not the state paying FEMA to show up.

reply to post by hdchop

Can You not read - RP states that it isour money and states money NOT FED money that they "Stole" from us - In Other words - He is saying it's our own money were recieving back... And he is correct....

The problem with this thinking is that there are times when there is a disaster that is so large, that the State uses all funds they have available, they take in all the money that they have paid out to the federal government...and yet...they still have need for more aid.

What do you do then in Ron Paul's world?

What happens in Ron Paul's world when a State has a huge disaster and has exhausted all their resources and all volunteer help and aid? What then?

That is the biggest problem with a Ron Paul world...there are no safety nets...if you fall...you die.

reply to post by nixie_nox


People would not be standing in the rubble without aid. Both of us are proponents of state government rather than Federal. State relief agencies, charitable relief agencies, and people who cared for one another (because they were community working together for the betterment of all and not just relying on the governments help) would all be there much more quickly than FEMA ever could. They would be much better organized, their sense of empathy would be much more powerful,

Also, I agree with Ron Paul and the constitution. There are several purposes behind the federal government but they mostly revolve around national defense. I would argue that for most of the things you listed, private organizations could be responsible.

Oh, and Ron Paul, who lives in a coastal county ran on the platform of abolishing FEMA, near Galveston. I wonder why the people of a coastal region would so despise federal aid? Many say that FEMA simply got in the way of them helping one another and slowed work down because they came in and acted like they should run the place. This included strict guidelines that prevented aid workers and charitable organizations from being as effective.

Originally posted by nixie_nox
So my diabetic grandmother is supposed to sit on a pile of rubble, waiting for for an insurance check to come in so she can get her insulin?
I suppose she can get a cab to the hospital with all the money she has on her.

She won't need money on her as long as she has **Insurance**

So by your own admission:

you will never call a police officer
you will never use fire fighters or ambulance services
and you won't drive on state roads.
You will never receive mail.
You local restaurants will never be inspected, leaving owners to do as they please.

Can I get it in writing that you will NEVER use any of these government funded services?

Funny how people pick and choose what services they like.


And as for a response to both of you, more then half the people on this thread have proven they don't even have the first clue on how the government works, much less make a decision on whether they need it or not.

And you still need to answer my question.

When people are staring at the rubble of their houses, wondering what to do and where to go next, what do you think should happen?

I'm all for Local and State Government. I'm not holding my breath believing some delusional fantasy that the 'Federal Government' is actually going to come in and save the day. One word should sum this up... "Katrina".

reply to post by OutKast Searcher

Who's going to clear roadways of debris?

the state

Who is going to bring in emergency medical help?

the state

Who is going to bring in clean water and food?

the state

Who is going to repair water towers, bridges, dams, and levies?

the state

Who is going to lead and fund search and rescue efforts?

the state

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.

The States are each granted their own government. As long as it falls within the constitution, and does not infringe upon people's rights guaranteed by the federal constitution, they are free to do what they want. Or, at least they should be. So if the states were free to run things how they wanted, and truly free, they would be in a better position to flourish. They would have more money. This being said, in the situation where all states were actually succeeding, THEY would be in a better position to help other states out that have suffered a disaster, if the state in which the disaster occurred could not help it self out. No state would need any federal assistance.

Think about it. States are almost sovereign countries, with a few rules that come from a body a 'little' higher than them, whose only job is to ensure the peoples rights are protected, and to provide defense of our nation. Look at the economy of the united states, and how we flourished (at least prior to the federal government trying to run EVERYTHING) We were doing better than the rest of the world. which is why people were leaving their own country to come here. Now WE are providing federal aid for THE REST OF THE WORLD. now, we could have been doing this on a state level, so that STATES NOT THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT could have been providing disaster aid for those who really couldn't provide for them selves.

If a state is so corrupt that they couldn't provide for themselves, people are free to leave there, And people have the power to remove the people in office who are screwing up.

What happens in Ron Paul's world when a State has a huge disaster and has exhausted all their resources and all volunteer help and aid? What then?

That is the biggest problem with a Ron Paul world...there are no safety nets...if you fall...you die.

Then states help one another and you examine the models of what made the relief efforts in Indonesia and their tsunamis so successful. Was it FEMA that rushed to the rescue in Indonesia or the Red Cross? When one allows people to see their charitable giving work through organizations like Red Cross it encourages giving, empathy, and community.

There is only so much the govt can do. If the govt takes care of your home, your health care, your job options, your food, your retirement, well, that's communism folks, and the govt wants to rule your lives cradle to grave. Ron Paul is the only candidate dispensing the hard truth that to get govt out of our lives we have to take personal responsibility.

The old camel in the tent story applies here. If we let the govt do this, then we say well if it does this, why not let it do that. The govt says oh you need us to take care of you when this or that happens. The more the people want from govt the more they will demand. The more govt gives the more it takes away.

reply to post by resist2012


Thanks for your Post! Haha... it's pretty ridiculous that some people on this thread can't seem to grasp the idea that people's individual 'State' is actually very capable of taking care of it's own people and will do a BETTER JOB!!

Again, it's a lot better then having the 'Federal Government' send out Blackwater to come and take your guns after a major disaster when you will probably need it most. It's absolutely appalling what they did after Hurricane Katrina.

reply to post by OutKast Searcher


When state and volunteer help isn't enough then (and only then) it's time to figure out another way. The problem is we set up bureaucracy around this concept. Millions of taxpayer's dollars go to this each year. And most times it's not actually used for disaster relief.

I'd rather figure out a solution after it happens (much like we're doing now in IN and KY) than have thousands of FEMA shacks sitting somewhere in storage. BTW there are NO FEMA shacks here now (thanks God) to replace the houses people lost. Most are staying with friends or families or in shelters set up by local (state & county) government.

I get what you're saying. I just hate seeing 1/3 of my paycheck taken each and every paycheck. It's unnecessary. The government could take 1/8 of my paycheck and still operate every essential function. FEMA is not one of them. The War on Terror is not one of them. The Federal Reserve is not one of them. The Board of Education is not one of them. Need I go on?

The fact Ron Paul stated this makes me respect him even more than before! He could have easily retracted his belief and told the people what they wanted to hear just to get the votes. Ron is telling it how it is and we the people should appreciate for once that a guy is trying to do nothing but keep it real.

reply to post by hero_25


People need to read the constitution. Along with the Federalist Papers, which is what the constitution was based off of. Each state is allowed to govern itself. They are supposed to be able to flourish or fail, and set examples of what to do and not to do, "In Order To Form A More Perfect Union". Lessons learned from others are more valuable and less costly to the individual, than lessons he learned from himself.

Lead by inspiration and example. Not by force.

Libertarians are more radical than Republicans.
If you think all the deregulation in modern history has been disasterous for the U.S. economy you wouldn't want to see a Libertarian take it to new lows.
These minds still think we're in the old days where most people grew and hunted their own food, pumped their own water, made their own clothes and treated their own illnesses.
Sure, corporate and social welfare, foreign aid, and gov't spending as is needs a complete overhaul (at all levels of gov't) but there needs to be a fundamental emergency/safety net for those in dire straits due to reasons beyond their control - primarily by Local and State Gov't. And those who think otherwise will change their mindset in a hurry when and IF it happens to them!
That's why many believe, rightly, that Ron Paul is a joke.

reply to post by resist2012


And that is the philosophical difference between us.

I wouldn't live in a country of 50 loosely affiliated "states" that are all like mini-countries. It seems Ron Paul supporters are idealist who don't look at the reality of the world. If I am the Governor of a state, and another state just got hit with a huge disaster that is leaving their state in ruin and their residents dying...the last thing I am going to do is send them money from taxpayers in my state...I am going to re-evaluate my state so that MY residents are secure.

You guys seem to want to take huge steps backwards.

I will never support Ron Paul because of issues like this...he is old thinking...he needs to move ahead with the rest of the population and stop living in the past.

I'm not alone...Ron Paul doesn't have a reputation for being crazy just by chance.

reply to post by tyranny22

I get what you're saying. I just hate seeing 1/3 of my paycheck taken each and every paycheck.

And if you shift the responsibility all on the State...you will see a whole lot more than 1/3 of your paycheck gone.

Do you honestly think that the State can provide all the services the Federal government can at a cheaper price? The Federal Government has the ability to have one agency to cover all 50 states. If you shift it onto the state, each state is going to have to provide the same capability that one agency does...but instead of 50 states funding it...it will only be one state funding it.

Originally posted by ThirdEyeofHorus
There is only so much the govt can do. If the govt takes care of your home, your health care, your job options, your food, your retirement, well, that's communism folks, and the govt wants to rule your lives cradle to grave. Ron Paul is the only candidate dispensing the hard truth that to get govt out of our lives we have to take personal responsibility.

The old camel in the tent story applies here. If we let the govt do this, then we say well if it does this, why not let it do that. The govt says oh you need us to take care of you when this or that happens. The more the people want from govt the more they will demand. The more govt gives the more it takes away.

edit on 5-3-2012 by ThirdEyeofHorus because: (no reason given)

please look up the word "communism"...america has as much chance of turning "communist" as does a snowballs chance in hell. we, in america, are the top capitalist and militerist country in the world. america services the wealthy and the corporate to the direct detriment to the rest of its people. the wealthy and the corporate have had their taxes cut for the last 3 decades. since the 1920's, the wealth disparity between the haves and the have-nots has never been greater...your old tired arguements are simply not backed up by the facts.

reply to post by TypeSH2001


You are right. Libertarians ARE radicals. AND SO WERE THE FOUNDING FATHERS!!!!! The difference between republicans and libertarians is this.

Republicans slowly moved left and abandoned the those who stood for the constitution. The Libertarianism isn't a party. It is an idea. The idea that the founding fathers had the right idea. That the constitution is timeless. It lays out the regulations and responsibilities of the federal government and the freedoms of the individual. It states that NO MAN is higher than another because of his position. The president was barely paid, as were members of congress. The states were free, and the people were too.

The constitution is Law, those who go against it, are in violation of their oath and of the law of government.

Originally posted by OutKast Searcher
reply to post by resist2012

 

And that is the philosophical difference between us.

I wouldn't live in a country of 50 loosely affiliated "states" that are all like mini-countries. It seems Ron Paul supporters are idealist who don't look at the reality of the world. If I am the Governor of a state, and another state just got hit with a huge disaster that is leaving their state in ruin and their residents dying...the last thing I am going to do is send them money from taxpayers in my state...I am going to re-evaluate my state so that MY residents are secure.

You guys seem to want to take huge steps backwards.

I will never support Ron Paul because of issues like this...he is old thinking...he needs to move ahead with the rest of the population and stop living in the past.

I'm not alone...Ron Paul doesn't have a reputation for being crazy just by chance.

Okay, lets just keep moving **Forward** and become fully integrated into a One World Order (as George H.W. Bush and many others have called for). You've got me convinced now, I've realized by your comment about Ron Paul that I too am an 'Old Thinker'. We should just allow a bunch of 'Off Shore' banking interest continue to run everything and not worry about taking care of ourselves.

reply to post by OutKast Searcher

I wouldn't live in a country of 50 loosely affiliated "states" that are all like mini-countries. It seems Ron Paul supporters are idealist who don't look at the reality of the world. If I am the Governor of a state, and another state just got hit with a huge disaster that is leaving their state in ruin and their residents dying...the last thing I am going to do is send them money from taxpayers in my state...I am going to re-evaluate my state so that MY residents are secure.

So you would rather the federal government TAKE your money, and give it to them. Making it harder for you to be able to secure your state. There are 48 other states that could help out. You are saying that you would rather have the federal government micro-manage everything?

In the military, we have a chain of command. a structure that guarantees no one is in control of more than 5 men. from division level, 1 man, in charge of 3-4 brigades, but has one man from each run them, and report to him, while he manages them. The brigades are divided up into battalions, each with one man leading, with 3-4 companies under them, with 3-4 platoons, with 3-4 squads, with 2 teams, consisting of about 4-5 soldiers.
Each echelon is responsible for itself, with minimal involvement from the person over them. When it works like this, things run smoothly, instead of having 1 general dictation things to 20,000 soldiers. Even when a Platoon Sgt would try to run things on an individual level, things would get chaotic real quick.

Now, I don't think that the country should be run like the military, but the principle is the same. Let leaders lead, and get out of their way. When the states are free to flourish or fail, those running the states will take things more seriously, and compete with other states. Competition drives progress and leads to success. This government renders state governmental bodies useless, since they are always undermined anyway.

Originally posted by TypeSH2001
Libertarians are more radical than Republicans.
If you think all the deregulation in modern history has been disasterous for the U.S. economy you wouldn't want to see a Libertarian take it to new lows.
These minds still think we're in the old days where most people grew and hunted their own food, pumped their own water, made their own clothes and treated their own illnesses.
Sure, corporate and social welfare, foreign aid, and gov't spending as is needs a complete overhaul (at all levels of gov't) but there needs to be a fundamental emergency/safety net for those in dire straits due to reasons beyond their control - primarily by Local and State Gov't. And those who think otherwise will change their mindset in a hurry when and IF it happens to them!
That's why many believe, rightly, that Ron Paul is a joke.

edit on 5-3-2012 by TypeSH2001 because: Rephrase statements

Libertarianism has taught me responsibility and wisdom financially and socially. Here are a few ways it has changed me. I wonder how people can perceive these in a negative light?

-I have become a saver instead of a spender as a result of fiscal Libertarian principles. I now save approximately 50% of my income for retirement investment (and I'm only 29). I used to spend money unwisely on going out to eat, on things that would become obsolete, on new fashion trends, and in so many other wasteful ways. I cook for myself, and I don't allow myself to buy into the material world spending more than I make. I have an emergency fund that I could survive off of for 12 months if I'd lose my job outside of my other investments. Now that I understand financial responsibility I am going to build wealth in order to be prepared and so that I can give it away later. I have a 15 year old tv, 2 Honda accords (1999 with 177,000 miles, 2005 with 195,000 miles), no smart phone or data plan (just a simple cell phone), and very little other expenses outside of home, food, and gas. I am 100% debt free.

-I have become more concerned for my neighbors and the plight of my community. I have begun to recognize the value of each human being where as before I was more concerned with myself and what I could take.......from the government and from others. Realizing that I should not put my life into the governments hands has also helped me to care about life, people, and the simple things.

-I have become prepared.......I have safety nets for my assets. I have plans in place if something disastrous would occur. I have future that I realize I need to look out for and this means being educated and prepared to provide for myself entirely. This also gives me excess ability to help others. I will not rely on the government to provide for me and this sense of responsibility is very freeing. I have knowledge and assets that would be extremely valuable in times of distress. I have such excess that I would probably be able to devote much to helping others who were not as prepared (just imagine if everyone became educated and prepared).

-Lastly, I am not dependent on the government teat so the government has no influence over my ideology. I don't have to skirt my convictions and tie myself into pretzels trying to argue for ridiculous things that the government should pay for. I am free from the addictive milk that flows from the teat and am nearly 100% self-sufficient. I am free to pursue other things other than trying to figure out how I can always get more. I've found that getting more is a responsibility that falls on me and is most effectively done by consuming less, being educated, and doing more for myself. The government cannot gain my support because I have no vested interest in it.

This is not an exhaustive list, but this is how Libertarianism and its ideals have changed me over the past decade. Oh, the horror of what I've become. Oh, how radical and dangerous I am. Oh, what a threat to society the above ideals are. Oh, how they would tear apart our country.
-

It's obvious the OP has a bias against Paul.

There is no place for FEMA, and we shouldn't be handing out "federal money" to anyone. The 10th Amendment needs to apply here. The states, however being broke, will not invoke the 10th Amendment. They would rather take the handouts from the govt. The problem with that is once the states accept the money, it becomes much harder for them to invoke the 10th Amendment on other issues, since it would be a hypocritical position.


FEMA needs to be at the very least broken up. Or what I would really prefer is if FEMA was liquidated completely. Sell all of it's assets, and be done with it.