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: 24
23
<< 21  22  23    25  26  27 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 5 2012 @ 12:17 PM
link   
reply to post by OutKast Searcher
 




Red cross is just not about donating money, people donate blood as well for people who are in need of blood. So you can say that people do put in charitable contributions before the situation at hand...




posted on Mar, 5 2012 @ 12:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by Patriotsrevenge

Originally posted by BellaSabre
I saw and heard him on "Candy Crowlely, State of the Union" on CNN this morning.

This is *exactly* what he said. There should be no funds for states who have had a catastrophe. Even.. "They have their own National Guards".
I disagree strongly with that position. Good lord, what would have happened during Katrina if it hadn't been for federal intervention?


You guys go ahead, just don't move to California, Florida, Texas, Louisiana or anywhere else prone to disasters, and the way things have been going lately, good luck with that.
edit on 3/4/2012 by BellaSabre because: (no reason given)


Your just missing the point of what he is trying to say. The states should have all the resources they need to take care of the problem, not the FED! He should have started with the FED is a disaster itself and our tax dollars should not be supporting FEMA. Homeland Security has stolen our State officers and now makes them powerless to address these critical state issues. Unless FEMA does everything right then people are SCREWED!


I have read through this thread with great interest, and wherever you stand on Ron Paul this conversation needs to be had. Giving FEMA federal funds, to distribute how they see fit and "supreme" authority in the event of a disaster should "give us all pause", The conflict of interest with FEMA being directed (by whom?) to build over 800 "interment camps" in the event of civil unrest, stockpiling plastic coffins (yup, we're footing the bill for those too! ) that fit more than one body by the way, are the people we want coming into "help" us?!

As we watch the people being killed and displaced due to the horrible tornados happening here in the US, anyone with a heart would agree that they need help, and it's been my experience, having lived through horrible earthquake in CA, that people can and do come together, and maybe as we have this discussion we should consider "IF" the model Ron Paul suggests would "ultimately" work to correct the economy and restore the constitutional rights we see being eroded, is that not worthy of consideration?

It's unfortunate , and some might say was "insensative" that Ron Paul didn't clarify more clearly how at THIS point and time, with FEMA already in place, how exactly do we transition into state reponces to disaster when so many states are bankrupted, and many of thier citizens are uninsured and barely making ends meet? It's a VERY complicated issue, and as I understand Ron Paul's vision for America if we quit becoming involved in these "insane" wars "disquised as "humane intervention" to further enable the agenda of corrupt, morally bankrupt tyrants "highjacking" this country, that WE would all be better off and could come up with much better solutions to address our problems in the US, then war, martial law and "unrealistic" spending that further "feeds" the Federal reserve and wallstreet. and OUR debt and OUR CHILDRENS dept to them is craziness!

Somethings gotta give here to effect any change, and Ron Paul is an important part of that discussion. Obama SOLD US out, he promised to repeal the "Patriot Act" and then kept it in place. He promised to withdraw troops from Iraq, then increased them, AND, under the guise of NATO and the UN, injected us in to war against Libya, a soverign nation who is now devastated, under control of Al Quida TERRORISTS we sponsered and MURDERED thier leader. He has members of his "choosen" cabinet that are directly involved in Monsanto's higher ranks. Something is TERRIBLY WRONG with this picture!

God Bless the people living through the "Hell" caused by these storms and tornados, we need to "dig deep" here to make sence of this nightmare and effect change. I see Ron Paul as a beacon of "common sense, and we shouldn't fear OUR ability to take control of this mess without "Big Brother", a mean, bully big brother infact, that needs his azz kicked to get the message!



posted on Mar, 5 2012 @ 12:19 PM
link   
reply to post by resist2012
 


The state does deal with it and track it.

The state pays for it first and then applies for reimbursement.



posted on Mar, 5 2012 @ 12:20 PM
link   
One of Ron Paul's points is that, if we stop letting the bureaucracies waste a ton of monies--that the people will have more money to spend, which is only fair. If you work for one of the crony capitalists or for the Gubment, that might not be good news for you; and, I can see why you might like Obama.

I can remember when small businesses thrived in small communities--before all the government rule and regulations made it near impossible for really small entrepreneurs to thrive. Local-like your neighborhood, should be strong; and, the federal government should mind it's own business.

Do we all have to work for franchises and Big Corporations? Too big to fail, means too big to compete with.


Watch this and tell me you really prefer life like this;and, that all these goons are worth paying our hard earned money for.




posted on Mar, 5 2012 @ 12:21 PM
link   
reply to post by resist2012
 


What don't you understand about a single State alone not being able to fund something like FEMA on their own.

When a large disaster strikes...a State may recieve more FEMA aid than they have ever paid into it. If they are left on their own during that disaster...once their money dries up...then what?

You expect other States that are in the same situation to freely give up all their stored up resources when they have nothing to fall back on either? What happens when the next month that State that offered aid has a disaster of their own, but now instead of being to provide some aid...they can't provide any aid. Now they have to turn to multiple states and ask them to give up their own funding?

And what about states like Wyoming? Large state...lots of land...few people. How are they supposed to provide the same level of aid and support that FEMA could provide?

You see the craziness of all this. Working together collectively is much better than lone wolfing it.



posted on Mar, 5 2012 @ 12:28 PM
link   
L

Originally posted by OutKast Searcher
reply to post by resist2012
 


What don't you understand about a single State alone not being able to fund something like FEMA on their own.

When a large disaster strikes...a State may recieve more FEMA aid than they have ever paid into it. If they are left on their own during that disaster...once their money dries up...then what?

You expect other States that are in the same situation to freely give up all their stored up resources when they have nothing to fall back on either? What happens when the next month that State that offered aid has a disaster of their own, but now instead of being to provide some aid...they can't provide any aid. Now they have to turn to multiple states and ask them to give up their own funding?

And what about states like Wyoming? Large state...lots of land...few people. How are they supposed to provide the same level of aid and support that FEMA could provide?


Be careful, if you throw the idea out there of working as a group f the benefit of all, you will soon be branded a socialist or worse.

You see the craziness of all this. Working together collectively is much better than lone wolfing it.
be careful they will call you a socialist or commie for espousing social respinsibility
edit on 5-3-2012 by openminded2011 because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 5 2012 @ 12:31 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.


That is just a media term. ARe you able to officially define it? I don't think so. Tornadoes are reported in every state. I have seen a tornadop path cross a ski slope in Conneticut.
So since tornadoes are found in all lower 48, are you suggesting that every American homeowner get tornado inusurance? Do you work for an insurance company?




Further, I guess "flood zones" are just random areas that were picked for fun.


And people get denied because their 130 year old house was built pre insurance era in a 25 year flood plain. So what is the homeowner to do then?
And don't think it happens. The insurance companies hire geologists to study this to death. Your rates shoot up and if your at risk you are denied for coverage.

But they have our best interests at heart, right???
Aren't insurance companies all noble??




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?


Why can't ATSers seperate insurance from immediate emergency need?

Why is this so complicated?


where are all these houses that the federal government bought for disaster victims?



posted on Mar, 5 2012 @ 12:37 PM
link   
The entire premise of the thread is flawed.
Why is it that ANYONE would assume that I have a financial responsibility to provide for the rebuilding of their mothers home that was destroyed in a tornado?
With all due respect thats not my problem. If your mother lived on my street and I knew her I would have no problem helping her out and contributing to her releif. I will happily donate to private organizations to provide disaster relief. I voluntarily contribute my time to Civil Air Patrol whos missions include disaster relief.
All of these have one thing in common. THEY ARE VOLUNTARY!!! I have no obligation to do any of these things yet most of you have no problem using the threat of violence to compel me to send money off to the federal or state governments to be distributed to people who did not provide for their own property. I pay my insurance which is a private contract between myself and a private entity. I do not need the government to be involved with any of those transactions. I do not have a need for the govenment to be involved with any of the post disaster recovery efforts.
I have no issue with my tax money being utilized to provide first responder and emergency services. I have no issue with FEMA existing to coordinate across boundry emergency response.
I do have an issue with my money being given away to repair private property in disaster zones. If you want it fixed do it yourself and dont ask me to pay for it.



posted on Mar, 5 2012 @ 12:37 PM
link   
As someone who lives in New Orleans, I can say I agree with Ron Paul %1,000,000. Now that the federal money piled on the city post K is going elsewhere, the city is going into a quickly spiraling decline. The federal plantation programs do nothing but create dependency and an extremely weakened citizenry.
The money should stay at the state and local level where it goes through fewer middlemen agencies and is less depleted through inefficient bureaucracy. Also, the citizenry have much more control over their own fate.
FEMA does nothing but create massive amounts of fraud and waste.

Let people and their communities keep their own money and invest it how they see fit. Either through local taxation (where they can keep a much tighter eye on it), or through private efforts.

I understand, firsthand, the horrors of a debilitating natural disaster. But one of the problems in the metro area is that housing was not built to match the geography. This is largely due to federal programs and to false confidence in the levee system, propagated by federal entities. If you build a home on the ground in an area that is below sea level, you are an idiot. And I personally know many who did just that.

When common sense existed, before the federal plantation had its grounds managers and foreman controlling the population, people built in higher areas on raised housing.

When the feds get involved, common sense goes waaaaaay out the window. Kind of like when the Oil Spill happened and the state was ready to stop incursion into the marshes. The feds did their best to stop land bridges from being built and vacuum barges from operating because it didn't go through the proper "environmental reviews". Because, you know, oil getting deep into fragile marshes isn't an environmental concern. Thankfully, the Governor directed the National Guard and other state entities to do it anyway.

The feds help a lot less than percieved in the short run and do grave longstanding damage in the long run.

As someone who once supported federal disaster efforts, I say "GEAUX RON PAUL!!!!!"


edit on 5-3-2012 by pierregustavetoutant because: correction

edit on 5-3-2012 by pierregustavetoutant because: punctuation



posted on Mar, 5 2012 @ 12:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by TKDRL
reply to post by jimmyx
 


I am surprised they have not outlawed any house without a basement in tornado prone areas.


Because they're on unstable Blackland Prairie soils. This kind of soil develops huge cracks when there's no rain and is prone to shifting and moving when there is rain. That's why we don't commonly have houses with basements (though there are some, yes) here in North Texas and why we have a lot of foundation repair bills.

It's a complex situation. Simple solutions (like that one) aren't available everywhere for a lot of reasons. Some trailer parks have storm shelters -- the problem being maintenance when there's no storms (there's some big issues there, too, that I won't go into.) In general, we took shelter at large public buildings when there was enough time (bank garage, hospital, etc) and enough of a warning.

Been there. Did that. Saved us, but did nothing for the folks who watched their homes blown away. As to "community solutions" -- charities are being hit by "giving exhaustion" and their donations are down (news story here) Food banks to help the hungry are suffering from lack of donations (I had spent time last spring helping a very impoverished family get food) and the states aren't much help.



posted on Mar, 5 2012 @ 12:52 PM
link   
reply to post by liejunkie01
 


Ron Paul is a hypocrite of the highest order. This is absurd to assert that taxpayers who pay taxes on their income and virtually everything they purchase have no right to seek aid from the system as it has been setup. This why I stopped supporting Paul years ago.

He's libertarian when it suits him.



posted on Mar, 5 2012 @ 12:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by OutKast Searcher
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?


the same thing that happened on 9/11, the rest of the country will pitch in and help.

you think without big brother, the nation will fall apart and become isolationist too i bet...



posted on Mar, 5 2012 @ 12:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by nixie_nox
reply to post by resist2012
 


The state does deal with it and track it.

The state pays for it first and then applies for reimbursement.


I am really not informed enough to comment on "how" money changes hands in these situations. I would ask the question if the cost exceeds the states resources, is a "loan" issued by the federal government to that state? If so, what is the interest rate? Does that have anything to do with why states are "selling" off infrastructure, bridges, highways, etc. (paid for by tax payer dollars, with no disclosure, anyone can understand anyways without a law degree ) to pay off debts they now have with federal government?

I don't understand this exactly, can anyone shed some light?



posted on Mar, 5 2012 @ 01:01 PM
link   
reply to post by Dragoon01
 


So are we going to become a nation of sociopaths? The whole idea of a civilization is banding together for the common good. I think the alternative, where everyone is out for themselves and no one else is what we call barbarism.



posted on Mar, 5 2012 @ 01:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by OutKast Searcher
reply to post by resist2012
 


What don't you understand about a single State alone not being able to fund something like FEMA on their own.

When a large disaster strikes...a State may recieve more FEMA aid than they have ever paid into it. If they are left on their own during that disaster...once their money dries up...then what?

You expect other States that are in the same situation to freely give up all their stored up resources when they have nothing to fall back on either? What happens when the next month that State that offered aid has a disaster of their own, but now instead of being to provide some aid...they can't provide any aid. Now they have to turn to multiple states and ask them to give up their own funding?

And what about states like Wyoming? Large state...lots of land...few people. How are they supposed to provide the same level of aid and support that FEMA could provide?

You see the craziness of all this. Working together collectively is much better than lone wolfing it.


Certainly would agree with you that we should all work collectively, BUT does FEMA represent the "spirit" of the public's best interest and what people actually believe it does?



posted on Mar, 5 2012 @ 01:11 PM
link   
reply to post by Byrd
 


Well thanks for the information, learn something new everyday! Everywhere I have lived so far, I have been lucky to have a basement and a good foundation under me. I didn't know it was less common than I thought it was



posted on Mar, 5 2012 @ 01:13 PM
link   
reply to post by SavateSambo
 


Do you even understand what libertarian and hypocrite mean?



posted on Mar, 5 2012 @ 01:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by MountainLaurel

Originally posted by OutKast Searcher
reply to post by resist2012
 


What don't you understand about a single State alone not being able to fund something like FEMA on their own.

When a large disaster strikes...a State may recieve more FEMA aid than they have ever paid into it. If they are left on their own during that disaster...once their money dries up...then what?

You expect other States that are in the same situation to freely give up all their stored up resources when they have nothing to fall back on either? What happens when the next month that State that offered aid has a disaster of their own, but now instead of being to provide some aid...they can't provide any aid. Now they have to turn to multiple states and ask them to give up their own funding?

And what about states like Wyoming? Large state...lots of land...few people. How are they supposed to provide the same level of aid and support that FEMA could provide?

You see the craziness of all this. Working together collectively is much better than lone wolfing it.


Certainly would agree with you that we should all work collectively, BUT does FEMA represent the "spirit" of the public's best interest and what people actually believe it does?


FEMA didnt exist until 30 or so years ago. There were lots and lots of disasters prior to that. People recovered fine. Don't buy into "You must live in fear and the federal government will protect you". It's what slave masters told their chattel on the plantations back in the day.

The above poster is only correct because the federal government extracts lots of tax money from the citizens and forcefully imposes itself, usually in a very ignorant and overbearingly destructive way, on local and state governments. We would be fine without our federal oppressor.
edit on 5-3-2012 by pierregustavetoutant because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 5 2012 @ 01:22 PM
link   
I want to make sure that I understand the OP: 1) A news story that quotes Ron Paul being Ron Paul (a principled constitutional libertarian). 2) OP says "I thought Ron Paul was "for the people" (ie; communist)".
Beyond OP not having a clue about who RP is, or why his supporters love his positions, I would comment that I live in a state that has a high rate of tornadoes. In fact, there was one a few miles from my town the same night as the KY twisters. Most people around here would agree with Paul. "We live where tornadoes hit, and we know they're eventually coming. Maybe we should be prepared for one."
We don't want to be coddled from cradle to coffin by the government. We want personal responsibility for everyone. And if they don't take care of themselves, then WE as INDIVIDUALS can help*.

*Actually, around here we do. Wildfires, tornadoes, etc. hit around here once in awhile... and when they do, the community (and surrounding communities) come together to help out. That's the way it should be.



posted on Mar, 5 2012 @ 01:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by openminded2011
reply to post by Dragoon01
 

I think the alternative, where everyone is out for themselves and no one else is what we call barbarism.


thats how it already is, last time i checked





top topics



 
23
<< 21  22  23    25  26  27 >>

log in

join