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: 28
23
<< 25  26  27    29  30  31 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 5 2012 @ 05:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by Golf66

Originally posted by OutKast SearcherThe SCOTUS has the final say over the Constitutionality of laws in the United States.


Would this be the same court who ruled that coperations are people? I'm sure they have no agenda right....


It would be the same court that the founders gave the final say to.

Now...you aren't saying you disagree with the founders and the Constitution are you???


You wouldn't be cherry picking, huh




posted on Mar, 5 2012 @ 05:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by lpowell0627
reply to post by OutKast Searcher
 


Thanks.

Went to Joplin myself....laden with supplies and a willingness to help.

Care to do the same????


Just Joplin???

What about the other communities?

And did your presence there make it so no other aid was necessary???
edit on 5-3-2012 by OutKast Searcher because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 5 2012 @ 05:59 PM
link   
reply to post by OutKast Searcher
 


The U.S Constitution is similar to the Bible.

People cherry-pick what they agree with and ignore the rest.

A true constitutionalist does not cherry-pick.



posted on Mar, 5 2012 @ 06:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by lpowell0627
reply to post by OutKast Searcher
 


Thanks.

Went to Joplin myself....laden with supplies and a willingness to help.

Care to do the same????

Edit to add: Further, when Irene came through I helped my neighbors and community that were flooded. We had no power, but were dry, and had four people sleeping on the floor.

And guess what? I don't even do half as much as I should!!

Not to mention I would have more money and supplies to donate and give to others if the freaking government didn't take more than 30% of my income.


edit on 5-3-2012 by lpowell0627 because: (no reason given)

##snipped##
To add - I for one applaud you on your efforts to help others. I too have helped those in need by offering what food and shelter I could to neighbors and families that were displaced in disasters. I agree with you that we need to come together as a community and stop relying on the Federal government to fix everything for us.

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


Go After the Ball, Not the Player!



posted on Mar, 5 2012 @ 06:33 PM
link   
reply to post by liejunkie01
 


As a liberal-minded person, of sorts (yeah, I'll go with "of sorts"), I kind of agree.

Why? Well, there's no easy answer...you can't boil this down to "help the poor people who just went through a disaster" versus "let them eat cake"...it doesn't work like that - though our political and social worldview in this country is increasingly built on a black-white dichotomy like this.

Let's start with the aid itself. It comes with strings attached, even when we send it overseas. There's always strings attached. You can quote Rahm Emanuele or Milton Friedman, but the long and short of it is that the "Never waste a good disaster" mantra still stands as status quo.

That being said, I've given to charity. I donated to the Red Cross during the Haitian Earthquake and the 2004 Tsunami disaster. I felt compelled to do so because of what I saw on the TV. However, it's one thing to give money to a NGO or other charitable organization and it's a complete other to entrust the federal government with the responsibility to dole out the cash appropriately. For starters, our hollowed out shell of a government has so many no-bid contractors that you might as well be paying some corporation to do it for you.

I'll use the pet food analogy. How many people here have pets and buy pet food for them? Show of hands? Ok, now, of those people who buy catfood, dogfood and birdseed, how many of you have actually eaten it or do so on a regular basis?

Here's my point: third party purchasing and third party services. The person who actually spends the money is not the person receiving the product or service. In other words, the federal government is paying companies to provide this that and the other thing for a third party (the victims in this series of storms). So, two bad outcomes become possible:

1. The product or service rendered is of inferior quality.
2. The product or service rendered is severely over-priced.

In actuality, those two things really are the same, because you wouldn't pay $100 for a plate of chicken satay and you certainly wouldn't pay $7.95 for crap on a stick. So, they really boil down to the same thing, just two ways to look at it.

Where does this leave us? With no accountability. You end up with government agencies who will - as with charter schools, private prisons, $15 muffins and $3 million dollar green zone hummers with DVD players - have no real oversight to the cost of the disaster service and a large amount of contractors who - being corporate entities - will be looking to maximize profit, the supreme tenet of a corporation.

This only can go wrong for those involved, maybe not on a case by case basis, but certainly in the long run when you consider Katrina and the race-based resettlement that was veiled in the guise of 21st century post-disaster "gentrification".

I also wanted to mention a little bit about how maybe, despite the fact that even I have given to the Red Cross, we need to kind of stick to ourselves. Not necessarily isolationism. It's to the larger framework of globalization that I refer. In globalization, there is no real "good" to be had, whether through "aid" with strings attached or regime change for "democratization" and "free market values". None of this will benefit the 3rd world or, in our case, Middle America, very well. And this whole idea of "aid" with strings attached, whether external or internal, seems to just mask the problem: live and let live. Down here in South Florida we could be wiped off the map by a massive hurricane this summer (knock on wood). Seattle could be incinerated by Mt. Rainier. New York, apparently, could be shaken to rubble. The Southwest could go up in the flames of a firestorm. Disasters are ever present and their is no permanent mistake. We're just lying to ourselves that we can always shift around the resources and solve, cure or prevent every negative outcome of living. In the end, the greatest, truest aspect of living is death. You'll never escape that.

OK, well, that last paragraph is a rushed summary of what I wanted to talk about. I've run out of time here and globalization is, again, not a black and white issue and I don't want to derail the thread with so many tangentials. I'll try back to see if I can clear up what I mean for those of you who are confused or disagree.



posted on Mar, 5 2012 @ 06:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by Ittabena
reply to post by nixie_nox
 





He said why should someone elses tax dollars pay for them?


Correct.

But what I have been maintaining throughout still stands. The Federal Government never has bailed out people from natural disasters.

They have said that they do, but this is just a lie. The money that goes to relief is devoured before it ever gets to help the victims. I speak from personal experience on this. The system is corrupt and does not do what it says it does. It is a LIE.

And yet you guys are defending a lie that isn't functional - that isn't functioning - that never has functioned and blaming Ron Paul for wanting to do away with the dysfunctional charade.

You can either fix the broken system - good luck on that - or do away with it. If there is no water running under the bridge, you don't need the bridge and you may as well burn it, or make it a landmark.

"Come one, come all, see the bridge that never worked..."

Makes no sense. Buy insurance or quit whining.


You are correct, sir. As someone who lived in New Orleans before and after Katrina, the only ones who really benefit from the federal government are contractors and politicians. Of course, the welfare dependents are taken care of, but only so long as they remain in their slave status, so I'm not sure I'd call that a "benefit".
As the routine disasters mount up the costs, the less sustainable will this become. Along with all the other completely irrational government expenses, the system WILL collapse, if it's not already in the process of doing so. Hurricane Andrew FEMA costs weren't fully paid for until 2004. Katrina costs won;t be processed until 10-15 years from now. At this point, they are already taking funds from 1 disaster and moving them to another and leaving more and more gubment IOUs. The system WILL fail. Be prepared. And if you are depedent on the federal government, prepare to be a zombie.



posted on Mar, 5 2012 @ 06:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by OutKast Searcher

Originally posted by Golf66

Originally posted by OutKast SearcherThe SCOTUS has the final say over the Constitutionality of laws in the United States.


Would this be the same court who ruled that coperations are people? I'm sure they have no agenda right....


It would be the same court that the founders gave the final say to.

Now...you aren't saying you disagree with the founders and the Constitution are you???


You wouldn't be cherry picking, huh


So the SCOTUS justices from the early republic period were living in the late 19th century when corps were ruled citizens? Otherwise, it obviously would not be the "same court". They must be vampires, I'm guessing?


The Founders were so far superior to anything we've had as far as an excuse for leadership in the last 150 years, it is mind boggling.

And I don't think anyone said they were perfect as individuals. Merely that they established by far the greatest system in human history, which has been dismantled by the inferiors who came behind them.



edit on 5-3-2012 by pierregustavetoutant because: adding emoticons, baby!!!!



posted on Mar, 5 2012 @ 06:47 PM
link   
reply to post by MidnightTide
 


It's no use. The people arguing against Ron Paul on here, all think that the federal government has to take our money and give it to other people. Doing the same thing the states could do, but at a higher cost and lower efficiency. That is what we are being bred to think now days, that when we move out of mommy and daddy's home, that our new mommy and daddy are the federal government. That we can't do things for ourselves and they have to do it for us. Because as we can all clearly see, they do such a great job when they do.

"Fear not, for mommy n daddy government will take care of you. Don't worry about preparing yourself, We will do it for you. And when things go bad, we will make your boo boos all better. How? oh, we will just take the money that states generate and throw it all around. and pay tons of people what we want to with your money, to manage these things poorly, as we always do."



posted on Mar, 5 2012 @ 07:30 PM
link   
reply to post by resist2012
 


I am going to resurrect an old adage that I am willing to bet most people on here have never heard: ITS A FREE COUNTRY. That's what we used to say when someone disagreed with us, instead of trying to ideologically eviscerate them. I guess we used to say that because back then it WAS a free country, you were allowed to have your own opinion, and amazingly sometimes people even listened to you. But it no longer applies because the landscape is extremist and mean spirited, on both sides of the aisle. It would be good if some level of civility could return to the discourse. If you have something to disagree on, explain why, instead of accusing someone of being stupid or a "troll".



posted on Mar, 5 2012 @ 07:31 PM
link   
reply to post by liejunkie01
 


Im not an American and I hate to see people suffer however, it may sound bad what he is putting forward but it really isnt. I agree and you should to with what he is saying. Hes saying insurance companies ( the real frauds ) should pay there buckets of money forward to people in need that are, insured! for these types of things. Its only right. Why have your federal reserve direct money from one area to another while insurance companies hold all the money. They should tighten the laws on insurance companies to pay up! and not allow them to dip and dive paying money to those affected and the money created by taxes go to support hospitals and places that can restore order for these people who lost so much.

Your just being blatantly close minded and seeing this as a threat rather then something that helps. Thats always the case when Ron speaks when in actual fact, hes talking sense.



posted on Mar, 5 2012 @ 07:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by liejunkie01

Rep. Ron Paul, R-Texas, stood by his libertarian beliefs on Sunday, saying that victims of the violent storms and tornadoes that have battered a band of states in the South and Midwest in recent days should not be given emergency financial aid from the federal government.

"There is no such thing as federal money," Paul said, on CNN’s State of the Union. "Federal money is just what they steal from the states and steal from you and me."

"The people who live in tornado alley, just as I live in hurricane alley, they should have insurance," Paul said.

Paul said there was a role for the National Guard to restore order and provide care and shelter in major emergencies, but that the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) led to nothing but "frustration and anger.".

news.yahoo.com/ron-paul-no-federal-financial-aid-tornado-victims- 102533838.html

I would rather my tax money be handed out to my fellow americans, then to be thrown overseas..... lets help out the friggin world but not our own country.....

I thought that Ron Paul was for the people?

Oh, I get it,,,,,,,,,he is, only if you have insurance.......

You people are duped..........Paul is a crony just like the rest of the rich............

My mother went through the FEMA thing,,,,,they helped her out after a tornado tore her mobile home apart with my sister in it..................

I have no complaints with FEMA.............only rich jerks that want to rule everything......

For the people


Politicians of every make and model suck


Selective hearing. I think you just heard what you wanted to hear. Having insurance is how you protect yourself from such things.



posted on Mar, 5 2012 @ 07:56 PM
link   
reply to post by resist2012
 


You pay taxes, right?

Don't you want to get something out of it?

Well, I do.

I'm giving the federal government a decent chunk of my measly sub-$30k a year salary. I'd rather keep it but if I had a choice, I'd want it back if my house was destroyed by a natural disaster. I'd rather get it back or keep it than watch it sent overseas to fuel the military industrial complex.

You see, Ron Paul has the right idea with withdrawing our troops but the completely wrong idea when it comes to disaster aid.

Unless he aims to let me keep more of my money, I don't see him as a viable leader.



posted on Mar, 5 2012 @ 08:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by OutKast Searcher
reply to post by lpowell0627
 



But OUR country?
OUR neighbors?

We should be doing the recovery and assistance ourselves!


Then do it, and prove there is absolutely no need for FEMA.

I imagine that you are on your way to the tornado ravaged areas right now as we speek...right?


Do you think FEMA is a god thing or bad thing? You always seem to critisize but never offer YOUR views.



posted on Mar, 5 2012 @ 08:22 PM
link   
reply to post by The Sword
 


But that is exactly what he wants to do.

Reduce the size of government therefore less revenue required to run it, if the government needs less revenue (taxes) then you keep more of your money to do with what YOU want.



posted on Mar, 5 2012 @ 08:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by OutKast Searcher

It would be the same court that the founders gave the final say to.

Now...you aren't saying you disagree with the founders and the Constitution are you???


If you can't understand the difference between a law, which is made by accountable representatives and regulations created by alphabet agencies I don't think we can even have a conversation about the constitution.

Again, I am all for law and the rule of it - it is rule by the creation of agencies and appointed (unaccountable) bureaucrats that I am against.

So many agencies and departments have been created by fiat and decree over the years that their existence is accepted - that doesn't make them legal or justified in what they do.

If the agency isn't involved any of the enumerated powers the federal government has no authority to finance it at taxpayer expense.

in The US Constitution is the supreme law of the land in the Unites States. The Federal Government has some enumerated powers.

These powers include the power to levy taxes, borrow money and make laws for the following purposes:

For The General Welfare:

1. International and interstate commerce (trade)
2. Naturalization
3. Bankruptcy
4. Coin Money, establish its value
5. Weights and Measures
6. Punish counterfeiting
7. Postal Service
8. Issue patents and copyrights
9. Establish Federal Courts
10. Govern District of Columbia
11. Purchase real estate for necessary buildings

For the Common Defense:

1. Define and punish Maritime and international Crimes
2. Declare War
3. Make rules for, and fund Military Services

This list represents the sum total of the functions the federal government is constitutionally authorized to fund and regulate. The limitation on Congress by the Constitution is further emphasized in Amendment Ten of the Bill of Rights.

“The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.” ~Amendment 10, U.S. Constitution

I think this is very specific in nature...

There are no provisions for the funding or management of energy, education, charity (welfare, food stamps, unemployment, housing assistance, etc.) or many of the other nonsense departments and roles the government currently fills; when limited to the enumerated powers and the funding of them the relative tax burden would necessarily be very small.



posted on Mar, 5 2012 @ 08:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by The Sword

You pay taxes, right?

Don't you want to get something out of it?

Well, I do.



Originally posted by The Sword

I'm giving the federal government a decent chunk of my measly sub-$30k a year salary.


At least now we know where you get your political ideas – perhaps you feel entitled because you need a better job.

Anyway, I would hardly call the 15% tax rate that income a "good chunk". I doubt 15 percent of anything is a “good chunk” A bite or nibble perhaps… I would say 15% is about what any and every American should pay - no more/no less.

Even if you are single you get a standard deduction - whatever the standard deduction is now days.

I would guess most people who make under 30K don't actually have a tax burden at all (or very little of one) after deductions unless someone else is claiming them as a dependant or they are single.



posted on Mar, 5 2012 @ 08:59 PM
link   
reply to post by Golf66
 



Again, I am all for law and the rule of it - it is rule by the creation of agencies and appointed (unaccountable) bureaucrats that I am against.


Then grab a lawyer (many will do it for free...try Orly Taitz) and present your argument to the courts that what they are doing is unconstitutional.

Let me know the outcome.



posted on Mar, 5 2012 @ 09:02 PM
link   
reply to post by Golf66
 


Perhaps you should learn how to read before you make asinine comments.

You missed the whole point I was trying to make.

If WE pay taxes, we should get something out of it or why bother?



posted on Mar, 5 2012 @ 09:30 PM
link   
reply to post by Golf66
 


Great Post. And purely factual.

The 10th amendment, which has been degraded and ignored pretty much since 1865, needs a massive revival. Which should happen, considering it is supreme the law of the land and being duly ignored by the dimwits in the federal government.
Centralized authority in the US enjoyed a brief golden age that was based more on post WWII global conditions (US being the only nation in the world not economically destroyed). As time progressed, the true nature of this faulty system came to pass. It is ultimately based on decimation of the middle class to the benefit of a technocratic/corporate elite and the creation of easily manipulated, mindless dependents. Human resources that believe they have freedom of choice.

One question I have for those that claim Ron Paul is against "the common man", is this:
Why are the corporations and their media servants so dead set against the man? If his ascending to power would be such a boon for big corporations and so terrible for normal folks, why is it that his supporters are middle class joes and his biggest detractors fat cats?

It is because the federal government and the biggest corps are mutually dependent, tyrannical entities that love and need and feed off each other.
It doesn't take more than a few minutes of being unplugged from the matrix to see this obvious reality. The federal government is the biggest enemy of the middle class and poor.

The problem is people naive enough to believe that forcing others into dependent, pathetic state of humanity that does not offer a chance at basic dignity or self respect is somehow "compassionate."

Funny thing Ive also noticed, regarding a post above. Those who pay little to no taxes are VERY generous with other people's money. Go figure.



posted on Mar, 5 2012 @ 09:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by The Sword
Perhaps you should learn how to read before you make asinine comments.


You mad? I read above grade level actually - I think I got it.


Originally posted by The SwordYou missed the whole point I was trying to make.


Well, in communication there are several factors the sender (you) the recover (me) and the message to name a few. You perhaps failed to make your "point" or perhaps I failed to get it either way if you wanted to communicate a message to me you should make it in a manner I can understand it.

What I got out of it was - you think that 15% of something is a "big chunk".

You think paying your taxes makes you entitled to some kind of kickback that personally benefits you and that if you see no personal reward you feel no reason to pay taxes.



new topics

top topics



 
23
<< 25  26  27    29  30  31 >>

log in

join