Ron Paul: No Federal Financial Aid for Tornado Victims

reply to post by The Sword


The answer to your question is: of course not. I know you aren't a Paul supporter, but you have at least seemed rational. I hope you don't slip over to the side of propaganda like so many of the anti-Paul trolls here.

If Paul got his way things would probably be handled much more efficiently. What part of states taking care of themselves with their money do some people not understand, I will never know.

reply to post by liejunkie01


LOL..
I think you are the one that needs to brush up a little.
Since you are so knowledgeable, what would FEMA do to help in this situation?

The federal government is notoriously bad at handling these types of things, yet insist on doing it. They take out the human touch and people get lost in the system.

reply to post by GogoVicMorrow


Do those states HAVE the money to take care of their own?

I doubt that mine could, based on population and geography alone. Yes, people can help each other on the ground but when it comes to rebuilding infrastructure?

reply to post by GogoVicMorrow


If we're going to go down that route then I think we should get rid of federal taxes and just rely on state taxes..abolish the federal government and just have state governments

More state power ah yesss

Jim Crow anyone?

How about the Virginia anti-abortion bill?

if a tornado hit my house and destroyed it, NO ONE is giving me ANYTHING,,,without insurance...not OBAMA not PAUL and the whole thing is taken out of context anyway, hes trying to get FEMA (who sucks) out of the way. These programs are going to be implemented with cheaper more efficient programs.

reply to post by prisoneronashipoffools

So, as you can see you may not agree with Ron Paul's position on federal disaster relief, but his stance is hardly a surprise since he has always claimed to be a strict constitutionalist and prior to the civil war the federal government didn't render aid unless the disaster effected the federal government directly;

I am sorry to inform you, but the Civil War ended a long, long, long time ago.

Disasters are bigger now because of more people and structures.

When a town of several hundred or thousand people get demolished by a tornado, who is supposed to help?

The neighbor that has to be at work in the morning?

See during the civil war times people could pretty much sustain themselves in a rural setting. Now it is illigal to collect rainwater and raise chickens in town. We have been groomed to be a part of the system...Why does it bother people when we live by the system?

Rp is incapable of fixing the system that has come to be....

Ron Paul... against big business, unless it's insurance companies. Against big government unless it's state level.

Oh, your state's economy is in shambles because of corporate outsourcing and you need help with disaster relief? You should have had insurance!

This will destroy any chance he once had with undecided voters.

Hey Ron, while you're digging that hole, you might as well look for some of that gold you so treasure.

I may be wrong but I believe that when disasters like this occur. The Governor of the State must declare a "State of emergency" to be eligible to receive emergency funds from the State. If the State does not have a sufficient emergency fund in place then the State can request Federal emergency funds.

The President or an appointee would then survey the disaster area and either declare it a National disaster or not. So, until this declared a National disaster by the President they are not able to receive FEMA relief funds.

Kentucky is requesting Federal aid.

www.wfpl.org...

Governor Steve Beshear is requesting a federal disaster declaration for parts of eastern and northern Kentucky hit by tornadoes last week.

The declaration would allow federal money to help with clean up and rebuilding. It will also help provide funds to affected businesses.

Beshear announced the move at a news conference today, saying that while monetary estimates of damages aren’t yet known, he’s confident the there’s enough damage to meet the $5.8 million federal threshold for assistance.

reply to post by muse7


That is a ridiculous attempt at making a point.
You are the only one who suggested abolishing the federal government so you are the only one suggesting that possibility you put forth.

Apparently you guys need to read a book or something. You limit the federal government and set it up to help in rare cases when the empowered states can't. It is the back up, and handles national security and military, supreme courts etc. It was never meant to be involved in every aspect of American lives.

reply to post by GogoVicMorrow

If Paul got his way things would probably be handled much more efficiently.

If RP got his way,

How many people would lose their jobs? Would they not be needy then?

To get rid of government spending would be the end of many things, including jobs....Jobs that are desperately need in this day and age.

There would be several more million people looking for work.

How do you think that would turn out?

There is a reason why he is not president. Get it?

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

You have it confused. Ron Paul ISN'T saying "throw those people to the wolves". He's saying the STATES should have the authority and cash to help it's people out AND it's not OK to allow insurance companies to skate out of natural disasters scott-free...or damn close to it.

If you relieve the Federal stranglehold on the States...then they all of sudden don't need any "federal" money because they have STATE money. Think about it...every drug conviction sitting in the STATE penn. is there because of FEDERAL mandatory minimum sentencing.

Last but not least...remember that the Federal apparatus which currently maintains all of our empty concentration camps and gulags is FEMA!!!

SO...WOULD YOU RATHER LOSE EVERYTHING YOU OWN IN A NATURAL DISASTER...OR BE ROUNDED UP BY THOSE NICE, HELPFUL, FEMA FASCISTS???

Hard as it is to swallow, the government of the last 50-ish years has been so corrupt that we must dismantle these institutions....even if it is at great civilian expense. We are past the point of no return.

reply to post by liejunkie01


Based on what? You have no basis for this belief.
They are all personal "facts" belonging only to you.

reply to post by milominderbinder


No, everyone apparently wants to let corruption run rampant and let things get to the worst scenario possible as long as the government does a half ass job saving face and holding everyone's hand through trying times.

They haven't really seen disaster until they have seen a government out of control.

Originally posted by GogoVicMorrow
reply to post by muse7

 

That is a ridiculous attempt at making a point.
You are the only one who suggested abolishing the federal government so you are the only one suggesting that possibility you put forth.

Apparently you guys need to read a book or something. You limit the federal government and set it up to help in rare cases when the empowered states can't. It is the back up, and handles national security and military, supreme courts etc. It was never meant to be involved in every aspect of American lives.

Go ahead and tell me how Louisiana would have managed the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina. Keep in mind Louisiana is the 5th poorest state in the nation.

Maybe YOU should be the one to do some research, and realize that some states in the Union are too poor to handle big natural disasters without the help of the Federal government.

When states suffer natural disasters they usually declare a state of emergency and THEY are the ones that request federal funds, the fact that they are the ones requesting the money should tell you that without federal money there would be no help.

So nobody has a problem with the government forcefully taking tax dollars from the masses & dishing it out as they please? In theory this sounds reasonable because you're putting something into the system & "getting something out". Yet nearly all the [stolen] funds they accumulate is spent inefficiently, transfers to the wealthy class, or goes to bombing innocent people overseas. Yet you don't mind all that so long as there's a little bit left for your disaster funds?? Maybe if people used their brain for a moment they'd realize nearly all of the money is being thrown away or given to the rich. The difference is Ron Paul actually thinks. Assesses this disaster of a system we're coping with & puts forth solutions.

For people (Obama supporters) like Outkast, the federal government is a godsend. Reveling in insanity until the bitter end.

reply to post by GogoVicMorrow

You have no basis for this belief.

But I am supposed to believe that a knight in shining armor named Ron Paul will come save us?

Based on what? His opinion? Your opinion.

You are the one that said it would run more efficiently, not me.

Originally posted by liejunkie01
reply to post by prisoneronashipoffools

 

So, as you can see you may not agree with Ron Paul's position on federal disaster relief, but his stance is hardly a surprise since he has always claimed to be a strict constitutionalist and prior to the civil war the federal government didn't render aid unless the disaster effected the federal government directly;

I am sorry to inform you, but the Civil War ended a long, long, long time ago.

Disasters are bigger now because of more people and structures.

When a town of several hundred or thousand people get demolished by a tornado, who is supposed to help?

The neighbor that has to be at work in the morning?

See during the civil war times people could pretty much sustain themselves in a rural setting. Now it is illigal to collect rainwater and raise chickens in town. We have been groomed to be a part of the system...Why does it bother people when we live by the system?

Rp is incapable of fixing the system that has come to be....

Oh your going to inform me of something? LMAO, first you need to inform yoursel, otherwise it's the blind trying to lead the blind.

The fact is prior to the civil war the FED didn't give money for disaster relief, because it was "UNCONSTITUTIONAL" the reason they did after the civil war had nothing to do with the size of disasters or "the system" which you seem to equate to urbanization from your description, it was in fact because Lincoln established a federalist democracy and pretty much shredded the constitution, the same federalist democracy we have today.

And the fact is the same problems that made the founding fathers not put an aid clause in the constitution still exist today, the FED is situated in Washington therefore far away from most disasters and they also, always knew the FED wastes money through bureaucracy.

The fact is if their was no FEMA, the states would have to deal with their own disasters and collect the taxes to do so and being more local then the FED it would be more efficient; first they would be on hand to see what supplies and etc are actually needed and two the tax money for the relief effort wouldn't get bleed off of by layer upon layer of fedralistic bureacratic infrastructure and red tape.

The problem many "anti constitutionalists" have is you think somehow if there were no Federal programs, then nothing would be done, it's not true, it would be done at the local and state level and with far less waste and cost and that would actually lead to people paying less in taxes.

The over all point of my post still stands. why are you and others surprised at Ron Paul's consistent position, he has always claimed to be a constitutionalists, so I didn't really need your thread or even the news story to know what his position on Federal Aid would be, mainly because I am informed of what the constitution says and what constitutionalists believe, apparently unlike you.

reply to post by liejunkie01


If past experiences are indicative of future results..

You think the system is plugging along fine as it is?

reply to post by muse7


LOL..
OH YEAH. The government did a great job there.
Put them in a foot arena where they were at just as much risk as being on the street, where they were murdered and raped. This of course is after days/weeks went by with no response despite the state begging for it (had the state had their own system and funding this wouldn't have happened). Then they used martial law, and closed the city off trapping people inside to die/be murdered, THEN put them in little toxic trailers for years.

That was a freebie. I can't believe you used that example. The worst example in probably US history for federal intervention.