It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by popsmayhem
Some of you are forgetting.
If a disaster like a big earthquake
california in this example, how does
a bankrupt state pay the aide fees?
Well, it does seem a little unfair...
If one state pays for all their aid
and has to tighten their belt
and the state next to them gets
to keep getting money and not
have to tighten the belt. Well one
can see where the problem lies..
Paul is right, although I find it senseless
to make the states *pay their bills*
then have to *sit down and shut up
when feds are sent in to trump their
states rights, and laws.
So in a perfect world Pauls proposal works
but not the way things are now.edit on 4-3-2012 by popsmayhem because: (no reason given)
The Big Corporations and Banks need to be on their own as well, with no power to dictate policy in Washington to their benefit.
If people can not afford the proper insurance, then there are almost limitless other areas in our vast country to live that are less prone to twisters, earthquakes, and or hurricanes. People always MAKE EXCUSES on why they don't have the insurance, but really there is no excuse. IF YOU LIVE IN A DISASTER PRONE AREA IT IS YOUR DUTY TO HAVE INSURANCE. Not having insurance is a risk. It's less costly in the mean time, but as we can see here it can turn around and bite you.
Originally posted by jazzguy
so what's the issue here?? it's how it should be. the states should be providing relief and help, not the gov't.
thats all he is saying
they have once again taken him out of context.edit on 4-3-2012 by jazzguy because: (no reason given)