It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable 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: 30
<< 27  28  29    31 >>

log in


posted on Mar, 6 2012 @ 12:43 AM
reply to post by liejunkie01

Oh dear god, I will try one more time to make you understand.

Do you own a big tv?
Do you own a fancy phone?
Do you have a mouth full of gold teeth?
Do you drive a fancy car?
Do you wear nice clothes?

Are you all of the above and say you can't afford insurance? If so, I am talking about you, and yes, you are an idiot because money should be spent on insurance before spending it on those things and I will not pay for your problems because you don't know how to manage money.

If the above does not describe you, then you need to turn off your computer and go to sleep because your eyes don't seem to be working or your brain doesn't seem to be understanding what your eyes are reading.

posted on Mar, 6 2012 @ 12:47 AM

Originally posted by Dare3
MOST/ALL Politicans start showing their true colors when it gets closer to elections.

You do realize that Ron Paul hasn't changed anything about his beliefs in the last 30 years. He still sticks by the Constitution. If it doesn't authorize the Federal government to do these things, but says it is a state responsibility, then he will stick by it. We would be in a lot less trouble if more men would honor their oath to the Constitution. Instead, people learn to fear the government. They become cynical, like you.

"Hope and change.. blah blah!" Well, if we're so sick of it, let's stick by the only man who hasn't changed his motto or his speeches. His votes have always been consistent. He isn't starting to show his true colors... they have been open for all to see from the very beginning.

And that is exactly why he has my support.

The states, charities, etc should support the people in a time of need.

Ron Paul Myths (on FEMA)

MYTH: Ron Paul wants to eliminate FEMA; he doesn't want to help disaster victims.

FACT: Ron Paul says natural disasters should be dealt with by state or local government, insurance, charity, and individuals.

The Constitution assigns disaster relief to the states rather than the federal government

FEMA's responsibilities should be transitioned back to the states

Insurance is more fair than government, and reduces risk more effectively

Charities and individuals can operate without red tape, know more about local conditions, and don't create dependency

There is more to it on the page but I don't want to quote it all. Check out that site though. It's packed with information.

Ron Paul is the greatest candidate we have seen in a very long time. Definitely in my lifetime.
edit on 6-3-2012 by EagleTalonZ because: (no reason given)

posted on Mar, 6 2012 @ 12:59 AM
reply to post by DrinkYourDrug

You mean to tell me that a two-bit congressman that never accomplished much is going to make a GREAT leader?

How can you be so sure?

Don't give me that spiel about how he hasn't changed his views in 30 years. Unfortunately for him, this country has changed in the past 30 years.

I don't see any of his supporters asking hard questions about his ability to lead. They just gush and gloss over his "accomplishments" while ignoring anything that challenges his legitimacy.

Oh come to think of it, the shoe would just be on the other foot if RP were elected!

posted on Mar, 6 2012 @ 12:59 AM
reply to post by EagleTalonZ

That is an awesome website, it's sad that it is necessary to keep fighting so much disinfo and outright lies....
Even more sad that most people take what the idiotbox tells them as gospel, and are too lazy to research anything.
edit on Tue, 06 Mar 2012 01:10:02 -0600 by TKDRL because: (no reason given)

posted on Mar, 6 2012 @ 01:07 AM
reply to post by The Sword

So I take it you have no further arguments in favor of coercively funded aid and have instead moved on to substanceless attacks on RP's ability to lead?

posted on Mar, 6 2012 @ 01:18 AM

Originally posted by TKDRL
reply to post by TsukiLunar

I will let you in on a little secret. Most poor people don't own homes. The landlords who own them take care of things like insurance....


I rent and have renter's insurance. It cost me $5 a month for it. If you're too poor that you can't afford that small of an amount to insure your belongings then you probably don't own the place you live that just got destroyed. You had the money to buy all that stuff but don't have the money to insure it? Give me a break! If you do own the building that got destroyed and didn't have it insured that's your stupidity and neither myself nor any other taxpayer in this country are responsible to get you a new home and stuff to fill it. I'm absolutely sick of the people in this country that rely on the government to take care of them and rely on the taxes we pay to get them all new stuff because they chose not to be insured. And, I'm sick of those that think we should be taking care of them. Ron Paul is spot on.

posted on Mar, 6 2012 @ 03:36 AM

Originally posted by illuminatislave

The dog eat dog mentality has KILLED america

Wrong! The government take care of me and give me everything so I don't have to work and provide for myself mentality has killed America!

posted on Mar, 6 2012 @ 03:39 AM

Originally posted by OutKast Searcher
And it's funny...who do you think was responsible for the whole Superdome mess? FEMA...or the State of Louisiana???

Neither. It's was the dumb asses that stayed when they were warned what was coming, and then expected the government to come save them.

posted on Mar, 6 2012 @ 07:24 AM

Originally posted by TsukiLunar
reply to post by TKDRL

I will let you in on a little secret. Most poor people don't own homes. The landlords who own them take care of things like insurance....

I will let you in on a secret too. Some poor people do have homes, however small they may be. Some people have to prioritize their money towards food and bills and stuff and by the end of every month they are barely being kept afloat.

I am "poor". I own a home in a tornado prone area. We are close enough to the coast that every other hurricane season we lose power for about a week but far enough we are not effected by flood. I've lived in a tornado area my entire life. I pay insurance on my home in case something happens although it never has. From what I'm hearing from many posters I should drop my homeowner's insurances? Let others handle that expense for me? Thanks to our dedicated taxpayers and our broke government, I no longer have to be responsible for myself and my possessions? I'm sure the rich are frothing at the mouth to support my irresponsible family.

A few years back, before Katrina, the town over was devastated by tornado. Only a few were left with homes. Students were bussed a parish away because they had no school. Anyone working in town had no jobs. Since the town was only about population 1500, FEMA did not care/assist because there was not enough $$$ worth of damages (even though only about 15 houses still stood). The local communities pulled together. Many from my town and surrounding areas offered their homes to share with families who had lost their own. These are not poor individuals who paid no taxes. Many in these small towns pay heavy taxes. They are contractors, construction workers, oilfield men, and farmers. This is Paul's objective. To make citizen's responsible for their own well being and the betterment of their communities. I hardly think that is a bad thing. Take the money away from FEMA. Allow states and local communities to assist properly.

FEMA - after Katrina, they didn't help. They loaded a bunch of trailers in my small town and places all over the south. They handed out money. Only 6 months ago there was a jar at a local gas station collecting money. Not for a sick child. For a Katrina family who says there were so negatively effected they still need the community's help to get on their feet. No matter how much BS this is, the jar was full.

posted on Mar, 6 2012 @ 07:28 AM

Originally posted by Under Water
And by the way, I live in hurricane alley. Over half of my income every month goes to insurance because I live in a high risk area. If I wanted to, I could move. Simple as that.


Why am I so angry? Because 40% of my total income goes to taxes to pay for everyone without insurance, while the majority of my 60% that's left goes to pay for my own insurance. After paying for mine and everyone else's, I have 10% to left live on. I actually have less spending money than people in poverty getting food stamps and sucking the teete of america off of my dime, because I choose to spend my money responsibly.

I agree with you completely, and don't blame you for being angry. But the problem in this lies in the way taxes are structured.

You have an incumbent now who is fighting to have this changed, but the tea-partiers are doing every thing in their power to prevent it. Not because they are rich, but because they have been eaten alive with their so-called "morality issues" and are blinded by anything else, other than wanting to punish the poor for being poor, and then the elite resist it by supporting them because they don't want anything to mess up the gravy train they've been on for decades.

You have an incumbent now who is trying to address this and other issues. If you support him, you will be advocating for yourself as well.

posted on Mar, 6 2012 @ 07:29 AM

Originally posted by Simon_Boudreaux

Originally posted by OutKast Searcher
And it's funny...who do you think was responsible for the whole Superdome mess? FEMA...or the State of Louisiana???

Neither. It's was the dumb asses that stayed when they were warned what was coming, and then expected the government to come save them.

As a Louisianian, I was well aware of what was going to happen to people who CHOSE to stay in New Orleans. No car? No legs either? People were driving to the SuperDome! That means the people "trapped" on the bridge could have walked away. Instead they waited for days, they starved, many died. (Some people truly were trapped, disabled elderly without assistant care, young children who could not leave on their own) But their perseverance paid off when FEMA came by and handed out crappy 2 bedroom trailers..... Priorities people!!

posted on Mar, 6 2012 @ 07:43 AM
I cant beleave this post, is it really that hard to understand what dr paul is saying i know there must be alot of smart people in america but untill your country as a hole can become smarter than your average 5 year old i dont see much hope for you all.I am really starting to dislike the usa you have had the best chance out of any country in the world to get someone to truley represent the people and you are letting it slip through your fingers the world is laughing at you.

posted on Mar, 6 2012 @ 10:33 AM

Originally posted by resist2012
reply to post by nixie_nox

Now your demoted to an uneducated ass.

I think you meant "you're" as in, YOU are demoted to an uneducated ass.

The laws of the government set by the constitution are timeless, The only thing ever up for debate and clarification was the rights of women and blacks.
Please don't tell me you actually think the founding fathers were debating the rights of women and blacks. They didn't have rights, they were a non issue. I know you would love to paint the founding fathers as patriarchs without blemish, but the fact is they were men of their time. They owned slaves, they didn't educate women, period.
But good thing the Constitution can be changed.

No where did it say that they were not entitled these rights.
It certainly doesn't say they should.

In fact John Adam's response to Abigail when she asked him to remember the women in the Constitution:

"Depend upon it. We know better than to repeal our masculine systems,"

Try educating yourself on the content of the constitution, as well as its creation, and how the federalist papers are important.

Follow your own advice. If you can't tell the difference between "free" people and prisoners, and you don't know when women started voting, and you insist that the founding fathers were thinking of women's rights. Which I just proved to they didn't.

Because your the one lacking honey, not me.

posted on Mar, 6 2012 @ 10:42 AM
reply to post by DrinkYourDrug

I don't have to present any further arguments.

You on the other hand, need to ask tougher questions of Ron Paul.

Otherwise, you come off as highly naive by trusting in him based on all the glossy, mushy stuff you've heard about him.

In other words, you need to VET him first.

posted on Mar, 6 2012 @ 11:10 AM
reply to post by The Sword

Two-bit congressmen? I find that extremely laughable. A Veteran, an Obstetrician, and a multi-term congressmen. And you call him two-bit?
thanks for the laugh. By these standards, you must be in the negative bit category.

What you fail to understand is that, when we pay the gov't to do something, it will ALWAYS cost more than if we were do it ourselves.

Point one: Gov't Budget Office: Federal Employees get Paid more than private sector
So when we pay for federal employees to do something for us, it will cost us more than using private sector workers. Federal workers also have some of the best pension packages that are around And a LOT of our taxes go towards paying off those obligations.

Point two: US Gov't gives tax-payers a lot of overlap and inefficiency for their tax dollars
This is because an entity as large as our gov't is very hard to maintain and control EFFICIENTLY. Do you think some bureaucrat in DC is going to have a better idea of recovery costs than say, a state or county official who lives in that area? NO.

As in 82 separate programs to improve teaching, all with their own budgets, adding up to $4 billion and nobody in charge of making sure they don't overlap.

As in 47 programs to fight unemployment, 62 to help the "transportation-disabled," 56 to cure financial illiteracy and 20 to attack homelessness.

There are 18 programs that spend $62.5 billion to provide food and nutritional assistance, including one run by, of all places, the Department of Homeland Security. Take that, Osama!

How much of the $3.6 trillion federal budget (including $1.6 trillion in borrowed money) is wasted? Hundreds of billions.

The solution is to lower taxes, and close all of these government agencies that are not responsibilities designated to the Fed by the constitution. Then, the people will have more money to put towards these issues that face their state. You want to have some big expensive ineffective government agency to do this for you at an exaggerated rate. Its like saying you want to pay someone to hand out your money for you, When you could just do it yourself, not pay someone to do it, and your benefactor will get more money (aide). You sound absolutely ridiculous and extremely uneducated.

posted on Mar, 6 2012 @ 12:38 PM
reply to post by liejunkie01

If you actually understand Ron Paul, you know that he feels (as did our founders) that the states are responsible for these emergencies.

The federal system has stripped the states of their true power and responsibilities.

He doesn't want to sit back and watch people suffer, he wants the proper authority to play it's intended role.

Want a smaller, less invasive central authority? Then you're going to have to stop expecting the feds to rescue everyone.

posted on Mar, 6 2012 @ 07:56 PM
reply to post by The Sword

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.

So you think that the federal government can manage your money better than you can? what happens when that money is depleted? say spent somewhere else? Like a messed up bureaucracy in charge of our education system(which they are messing up even more so) Or expanding military action in a foreign country? My taxes would be better spent if I were paying for my own insurance. Or even pay it to your state, and have more transparency. And know how your money is really being spent.

This just goes back to my point where the government pays way to many people to handle your money for these things, when if it were kept on a smaller local level, it would cost less and be more efficient.

Lets say I pay someone to go and buy a gallon of milk for me. It costs $4. Instead of me going and getting it myself, I am paying someone to do it, they don't want to do it for free, but they are doing me a "service". So I pay him $1, now costing me $5. This person hires a group of people to find "the most cost effective way to go about this. His team consists of 4 people. They need to get paid. so I dish out an additional $1 for each of them. Now I am up to $9. I should have just bought the milk myself, and pocketed the other $5.

This is how the government handles our taxes. It's just like our social security. Why can't i just invest that money how I see fit? Build MY OWN retirement fund. Taxes are so high, because all the things we can either do for ourselves, or keep on a lower level are handled by the federal government. Very poorly I might add.

posted on Mar, 6 2012 @ 09:05 PM
reply to post by VonDoomen

In the world of politics, he's a lightweight.

Deal with it.

As others have pointed out, what kind of meaningful legislation has Ron Paul written and gotten passed?

posted on Mar, 6 2012 @ 09:13 PM
it's irrelevant now

he had a stupor tuesday

he'll be out in a week if he has any sense

I know, I know, it was rigged and he was robbed

posted on Mar, 6 2012 @ 09:14 PM
reply to post by resist2012

Or even pay it to your state, and have more transparency. And know how your money is really being spent.

If I May ask.

Are you saying that there is no corruption at the state level?

Do you honestly believe that transparency exists at any level of government: federal, state, or local?

You say that the states will fix themselves without federal intervention.

I say that the states still have to operate within a budget. States budgets take into account the amount of money that is owed to the FED.

How is it that there are only a handful of states that can actually operate within their budget.

Notes: Six states, Alaska, Arkansas, Montana, North Dakota, West Virginia and Wyoming are not projecting budget shortfalls in fiscal year 2012.[/ url]


A budget (from old French bougette, purse) is a financial plan and a list of all planned expenses and revenues. It is a plan for saving, borrowing and spending.[1]

A budget is an important concept in microeconomics, which uses a budget line to illustrate the trade-offs between two or more goods. In other terms, a budget is an organizational plan stated in monetary terms.


What in the world makes everybody here actually believe that a state will actually live within its budget if the Fed is no longer available.

Will the savings fairy come and sprinkle some anti corruption dust upon the state level to get rid of all of the corruption?

The more money you make, the more you spend, especially in the state government sector.

top topics

<< 27  28  29    31 >>

log in