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: 23
23
<< 20  21  22    24  25  26 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 5 2012 @ 11:24 AM
link   
The ignorance of some of the posters here is exactly the people across the country that are going to continue to let this country go down the toilet.

Ron Paul is the only chance we've got to bring our government back to it's "LIMITED" roll per the constitution in our lives.

Where in the constitution does it say the federal government is supposed to pay for natural disasters? Oh... thats right it doesn't.

Everyone can keep their blinders on... I'm prepared... are you? Plus this is what people purchase insurance for.




posted on Mar, 5 2012 @ 11:26 AM
link   
The areas affected by seasonal tornados also contribute to the national economy in terms of employment, exports, taxes, blood (military recruitment), and in this economic down turn has its fair share of poverty stricken families and individuals who cannot afford food, let alone insurance that would be impossible to afford anyway..

Not only does "doctor" paul want people who cannot afford healthcare to let them DIE.. His "government" would also not help you in a natural disaster.. Fk you..

He wants state government to take the hit.. Soooo... What is the point of HIM or the whitehouse then?? Why elect him anyway?? Whilst he hoards the taxes the people suffer..

Clearly his America is one where ones neighbour says fk you you should have been insured against that earthquake.. Evolution... Natural selection... Your "government" just wants to deliver the mail..

If you get sick??Tough!! If you get caught in a natural disaster screw you!!

You should have remortgaged your house for that insurance hey??

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

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



posted on Mar, 5 2012 @ 11:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by KonquestAbySS
reply to post by MrWendal
 


No people don't understand instead I think what the OP was doing was just simply venting, because what he thought RP said. This thread just became more of a RANT then an actual political issue...
edit on 4-3-2012 by KonquestAbySS because: (no reason given)


No,it's not what the OP thought Ron said. It's actually what Ron said yesterday.

News sources:
www.wtam.com...

www.nationaljournal.com...

And Comedy Central points out that Ron-The-Consistent (who says all that) actually had his office helping with FEMA claims and lobbied for money for Galveston after the hurricane.
(see comedy central link and older investigative report on Ron Paul's pork barrel projects )

What it does boil down to is that he does not want any kind of Federal aid for tornado victims. I find it interesting that this story is relatively buried, too, appearing in some news sources but not splashed everywhere. I wonder if it's because the media is ignoring Ron Paul or if his supporters don't want it seen because it makes "Dr No" look like "Dr Heartless."



posted on Mar, 5 2012 @ 11:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by bigshow
Where in the constitution does it say the federal government is supposed to pay for natural disasters? Oh... thats right it doesn't.


Where in the constitution does it say we should explore space?

And..civil war sort of broke the states...it was rebuilt...by the fed...whats the issue again?

The constitution shows us how low we can go before we hit the limit...it doesn't say how high we can achieve in unity.

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



posted on Mar, 5 2012 @ 11:35 AM
link   
Alright, this is simple.

Where does the federal government get the money that they use for federal aid?
a. A pot of gold at the end of the rainbow?
b. Selling lemonade?
c. The taxpayers and the states in which they reside
d. Santa Claus?


Sooooooooooo, If it comes from the states, and their taxpayers, well, that just means that they can afford it. But here's where it matters. Some states can more easily afford this than others. You have states going broke, and still paying into this, and states who are doing well, contributing the same as the states who aren't. Why is this concept so hard to understand?

Not to mention, each state would have more control over how their money is spent, ensuring less waste and fraud. Also, it would go where they want, and not get sent to other countries, who aren't even friendly to the united states. Billions of dollars get funneled out and then lost in the process of giving "Federal Aid" especially when it comes to other countries. Trust me, In Iraq, when money was given to them, and they were audited, it was found that millions of dollars were unaccounted for. Supposedly to build schools, that now don't exist. It happened all the time. That was our states money, that could have been spent in the states or put aside by the states for their own emergency relief, or to help out someone else who needs it. AT THEIR DISCRETION.



posted on Mar, 5 2012 @ 11:37 AM
link   
I am not American but since reading end the fed,i have come greatly admired Paul,he is consistent in what he says and this is a prime example of that,he stands by what he says.If you guys over their dnt vote for him send him our way we could do with someone like that.



posted on Mar, 5 2012 @ 11:39 AM
link   
FEMA's idea of financial aid is like hmmmm. $100.00 to the Halli-bears and $15.00 to the people who actually do the work. It is called disaster capitalism(fascism). Local communities could do much better, by implementing a fair bidding system on cleanup contracts, so that local businesses do not get the crumbs, plus all of the work.



posted on Mar, 5 2012 @ 11:49 AM
link   
reply to post by resist2012
 


I'd rather GIVE my money to the federal government to set up agencies that benefit the entire country.

It's funny you are arguing states rights...and use the Military as an example.

Do you think we should also have 50 small State armies as well?



posted on Mar, 5 2012 @ 11:51 AM
link   
reply to post by nixie_nox
 


"you have a pretty good chance of getting hit by car which is why you need car insurance but tornadoes are random events"

Yup. They came up with the name "tornado alley" for no reason whatsoever. Further, I guess "flood zones" are just random areas that were picked for fun.

Why do people not have common sense?

If you live in the Gulf, you get hurricane insurance.
If you live in the plains, you get tornado insurance.
If you live in a flood zone, you get flood insurance.

If you choose not to, why should you get a check from the taxpayers?

How can you not see the difference between a tornado striking an area it has never struck, in which case you wouldn't be able to be prepared because it was never posed a prior threat, versus living in a tornado hotbed area and not having tornado insurance??

By all means, if you live in Florida don't bother with hurricane insurance -- the taxpayers will have your back.


I have no problem with supplying shelter, food, water.,..,community assistance to those insured AND uninsured. However, I draw the line at giving checks for damages to people that OPTED not to get insurance!!

This is why we end up with so many freaking regulations. It will actually take the federal government to MANDATE that if you live in an area prone to natural disasters, you must have home insurance to cover whatever threat looms in your area.

Why must regulations be passed in order for people to have common sense?

In today's day and age, areas prone to natural disasters are well documented and readily available. We aren't talking about a solar flare out of nowhere....we are talking about an area known to have NUMEROUS tornadoes every freaking year!



posted on Mar, 5 2012 @ 11:54 AM
link   
reply to post by Indellkoffer
 


No what Ron Paul really said was taken out of context to make it sound harsh as seen on this thread. Obviously what Ron Paul said was misconstrued by many people who didn't grasp what he was saying.



I wonder if it's because the media is ignoring Ron Paul or if his supporters don't want it seen because it makes "Dr No" look like "Dr Heartless."


The media ignores Ron Paul regardless, and since when does RP supporters have the power to censor what is said on the MSM? It seems people like yourself are already ahead of calling RP Dr Heartless, but the truth hurts...
edit on 5-3-2012 by KonquestAbySS because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 5 2012 @ 11:58 AM
link   
reply to post by OutKast Searcher
 


Why do you need the government to dole out your money? Why wouldn't you be capable of donating it yourself should the need arise? Can't you help your own neighbors and community if they are in need?

You do realize that if you donate a loaf of bread yourself, those in need get the whole loaf. If you donate a loaf of bread to the government, by the time it passes through everyone's hands in order to get where it needs to go, only a few slices are actually left.

Every person that has a hand in doling out aide gets paid taking away from the actual monies needed to help people in dire straits.

The problem now is we all pay the government to handle our money for us.



posted on Mar, 5 2012 @ 11:59 AM
link   
reply to post by resist2012
 



Sooooooooooo, If it comes from the states, and their taxpayers, well, that just means that they can afford it. But here's where it matters. Some states can more easily afford this than others. You have states going broke, and still paying into this, and states who are doing well, contributing the same as the states who aren't. Why is this concept so hard to understand?


Yes...all the states combined can afford to fund FEMA.

Every state on their own would only be able to fund a very very weak form of FEMA.


For example...why doesn't every house have their own personal fire department? It's too expensive for each individual to fund their own fire department for their own house. But 1000's of people together can fund a fire department that they can all share.

Extrapolate that up, and you end up with FEMA. Each state does have their own emergency departments...but they can only handle so much...so just like with local fire departments...it is better for the states to come together collectively so they can each enjoy the benefits of their collective funding to afford better equipment and services than they could afford alone.



posted on Mar, 5 2012 @ 11:59 AM
link   
reply to post by OutKast Searcher
 


I DID specifically state that the country should not be run in the same manner, only that things work better when not micromanaged. And as for giving your money to the federal government, who can't even track where half of it goes, how does that make any sense? Keeping it on a state level allows the state to deal with it, and track it.

BTW, we DO have 50 small armies, national guard? not to mention the countless militias.



posted on Mar, 5 2012 @ 12:02 PM
link   
reply to post by lpowell0627
 


You do understand that "Tornado Insurance" does not exist...right???



posted on Mar, 5 2012 @ 12:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by lpowell0627
reply to post by nixie_nox
 


"you have a pretty good chance of getting hit by car which is why you need car insurance but tornadoes are random events"

Yup. They came up with the name "tornado alley" for no reason whatsoever. Further, I guess "flood zones" are just random areas that were picked for fun.

Why do people not have common sense?

If you live in the Gulf, you get hurricane insurance.
If you live in the plains, you get tornado insurance.
If you live in a flood zone, you get flood insurance.

If you choose not to, why should you get a check from the taxpayers?

How can you not see the difference between a tornado striking an area it has never struck, in which case you wouldn't be able to be prepared because it was never posed a prior threat, versus living in a tornado hotbed area and not having tornado insurance??

By all means, if you live in Florida don't bother with hurricane insurance -- the taxpayers will have your back.


I have no problem with supplying shelter, food, water.,..,community assistance to those insured AND uninsured. However, I draw the line at giving checks for damages to people that OPTED not to get insurance!!

This is why we end up with so many freaking regulations. It will actually take the federal government to MANDATE that if you live in an area prone to natural disasters, you must have home insurance to cover whatever threat looms in your area.

Why must regulations be passed in order for people to have common sense?

In today's day and age, areas prone to natural disasters are well documented and readily available. We aren't talking about a solar flare out of nowhere....we are talking about an area known to have NUMEROUS tornadoes every freaking year!




so...if you live in a mobile home making 8 bucks an hour part time...what do you use to purchase all this insurance, because, as you know, insurance is soooo cheap these days, just ask the people that have health insurance.



posted on Mar, 5 2012 @ 12:06 PM
link   
reply to post by lpowell0627
 


If you wait to donate money until after a disaster strikes...you are already too late.

You are free to donate as much money to Red Cross as you want...if people are as charitable as you claim...the Red Cross should be overflowing with money.

But in reality...people aren't as charitable as you claim...so unfortunately we have to "tax" people to get donations.

But if you really want to do away with FEMA...the best way to do it is to build volunteer organizations like the Red Cross up so much that there is no need for FEMA.

FEMA filled a need...they didn't just do it for fun...there was a lack of disaster releif and people actually asked the government to help. If people were as kind hearted as you claim, or if the states were able to handle this themselves...they should have done that PRIOR to the federal government having to step in.



posted on Mar, 5 2012 @ 12:09 PM
link   
reply to post by OutKast Searcher
 


so why can't each state have their own funds? That they can put what they can into it? Instead of having a federal fund, that isn't regulated, isn't tracked, and thrown all over the world? Money that is taken from the states through taxes. Money that the states generated. Other states would help out, but it would be better for them to help out and track the spending of their money.

The way it is set up now is, our states give up money, it is then thrown around, then of that money, a smaller fund is made, then that fund is sent all over the world, isn't tracked, and when we actually need it back home, the fund is diminished and requires loans from the fed, or increase in taxes from states. The efficiency of funding for emergency relief would be greater when those actually giving money that they generated through revenue and commerce and trade were in control of how that money were to be spent.

The federal government looks at its aid budget as a magical money bin that refills itself when they aren't looking. as if it is an endless supply, and they can just throw it at any country who has something happen, and even every state.

The politicians do not have any concept of how revenue is generated, except taxes, and when that revenue runs dry, they simply raise the taxes. there. problem solved. You aren't getting the fact that the money is taken from the states against their will, then distributed poorly, and not tracked. Because the federal government doesn't know how to make money aside from just taking it from people and throwing less back at them than they took.



posted on Mar, 5 2012 @ 12:11 PM
link   
reply to post by liejunkie01
 


Yeah, that would be socialism, right Ron? I wrote a post a while back outlining why I wouldn't vote for him and was harshly criticized by rp supporters. Well, I still stand by my position, and this is a good illustration of why.



posted on Mar, 5 2012 @ 12:14 PM
link   
reply to post by Bonkrh
 

And even if there is help that can be provided, it should be done on a STATE level.

We dont need this all powerful federal government sucking up all our resources in order to justify its own bureaucratic existence.



posted on Mar, 5 2012 @ 12:14 PM
link   
reply to post by jimmyx
 


I am surprised they have not outlawed any house without a basement in tornado prone areas. It sounds like playing russian roullette to me living in a mobile home, in an area that is known for tossing trailers around like confetti.



new topics

top topics



 
23
<< 20  21  22    24  25  26 >>

log in

join