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.

 

Romney for Disbanding FEMA and Having Private Sector Handle Disaster Response

page: 2
12
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 31 2012 @ 09:50 AM
link   
reply to post by GeorgiaGirl
 


I have never been in a disaster, so this is a genuine question....
when affected by a disaster, who are the boots on the ground people who is actually delivering the services??

got a feeling the answer for most would be...
RED CROSS...
who is supported mainly by donations...
so, in essence, we are paying twice,...
once through taxation, for the gov't to do it's job,
and then again, to the red cross...when the gov't fails to do most of the job...




posted on Oct, 31 2012 @ 09:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by camaro68ss

Originally posted by grey580
reply to post by MrInquisitive
 


I thought the government doesn't create jobs.
What's Romney thinking?


In the long run government doesn't create jobs. Government must first take money from produces through taxation to hire a government employee. It takes something like 3.4 privet sector workers to fund 1 government worker. This government work then uses his time to burnden the tax payers even more without even "creating" a good or service.

To create a good or service you must first make something out of nothing. when you make something out of nothing you create weath and grow the economy. The problem with government is it cant create anything without taking from someone else. This is not growth. This is wealth distribution, taking from one hand and giving to the other.


edit on 31-10-2012 by camaro68ss because: (no reason given)


So we should get rid of the military if government workers burden tax payers. Let's get rid of the FBI and all government regulators -- particularly of food, drugs, the environment and the financial markets.

Have you ever taken an economics class? Every government worker gets paid, and he/she spends money on stuff and services just like everybody else, so they make business for the private sector. Why do you think states like to have military bases? Because it makes for many secondary, private-sector jobs to provide services to the troops. The same is true for any government agency. States and local governments love to have federal agencies within their boundaries. They also like companies that build stuff on federal contracts. It all means that you will have more people requiring good and services and these people will have a pay check to pay for them, thereby spurring on the economy.

In the long run the government has created many jobs. How can you claim otherwise? We have a standing military as well as a large civilian civil government. These are long-term jobs. The government spends money on basic research that pays for academics and which will develop new technologies that give rise to new products and markets. The US government paid for the development of what became the internet. Are you claiming jobs have not been created because of the internet? The government has also sponsored most all of the basic research in computers and electronics? No jobs created in these fields either?

Government got us out of the Great Depression by providing public works and then developing the war economy in WWII. The public works created roads, schools, court houses, bridges, dams (which then generate power), ports and airports, amongst other things. These things don't produce long term jobs? Are you kidding?

But we digress here, friend. The point of this thread is about how Romney would handle disaster response and relief, and it should make EVERYONE SHUDDER that there is a possibility that this guy might become president. Just look at the news for the next week and see how the federal disaster response goes -- and compare that to how it went under Bush II with Katrina, and how it may go if we go and privatize it or put it all in the hands of local government.

You might ask yourself also, why don't we put the all of the military in the hands of local government. Shouldn't states be able to do that better than the federal government too? Not likely, huh? Well I submit to you and like-minded individuals that the same can be said of disaster response operations. As it is, FEMA provides logistics and resources to local governments, so it isn't like the federal government is in charge of everything. But it seems like a permanent, professional disaster relief agency that can help each and every state is a good idea. FEMA also spends money on disaster mitigation; that includes seismic, geologic, hydrological and atmospheric research to minimize natural hazards. Would it be better for each state to dole out the money for this research, or have one unified agency doing it for the entire country. I think the latter.



posted on Oct, 31 2012 @ 09:58 AM
link   
Not even a real hurricane this year but a 100 year storm and he wants to get rid of FEMA. Sounds like a smart move to me let the states figure out how to get it done with Federal money bribes and corruption. The American way



posted on Oct, 31 2012 @ 09:58 AM
link   
Why does this not surprise me? If he gets elected let’s just change the country’s name to Corporate America then maybe we can exploit some loopholes paying back China.

He wants to privatize everything including foreign aid. Is anyone else envisioning a future where everything is owned by Taco Bell? (Movie reference)



posted on Oct, 31 2012 @ 10:03 AM
link   
reply to post by camaro68ss
 


Yeah, why talk about the Bushes when they were the last two Republican presidents, who by the way didn't do so good with disaster responses? And why talk about how poorly the last son of a wealthy politician did as president when another one is running now, and he makes the last one look downright honest and and almost competent in comparison? Gee, I don't know why I would bring these up. MAYBE BECAUSE IT IS RELEVANT and seems like a good indication of what to expect of another rich guy's son as president.

Love your comment about it being pointless to try to explain economics to close-minded individuals. Have you ever taken an economics course? Are you aware of what privatizing portions of the military has done and the waste and corruption that has ensued? Do you know how poorly private contractors pay their employees (I'm not talking mercenaries, but people who do lowly jobs) are usually paid? Companies are out to make money. They will cut corners whenever possible. It's you who are divorced from reality with respect to economics.



posted on Oct, 31 2012 @ 10:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by GeorgiaGirl
Where does everyone think FEMA gets money for disaster relief? Obama's stash?

The states send money to Washington where the federal government divvies it up, usually based on political expediency.

So these states are essentially asking for their own money back.

Romney's point, which I agree with, is that the states should keep their money to begin with. Then in case of a disaster, they have the funds to take care of whatever is needed.

This idea that the federal government should gather as much of our money as it can, and then make decisions about how it's spent, is why we are in this mess.

Anyone who thinks a bunch of politicians in Washington should be trusted with all of our money hasn't been paying attention.


So each state should provide its own disaster fund completely, huh? Well I am sure all the poor, Red states in the South -- particularly the ones along the Gulf -- wouldn't like that so much. Never mind that it is an efficient use of resources to have each state set aside what is essentially a big insurance fund for when disaster strikes every so often. Seems it makes more sense for the federal government to maintain one fund and overseeing organization that can be used/dispatched where and when it is needed.

I guess you are also for each state having its own defense forces and doing away with the US military, given your philosophy. If this is not the case, then why should it be done for disaster response and relief?



posted on Oct, 31 2012 @ 10:11 AM
link   
In Romney's world, I hope all the people on the east coast would have kept up on their Disaster Premiums, or else the for-profit private disaster relief companies might just not come help you.

Romney is trying to dodge this question like the plague.
edit on 31-10-2012 by Taiyed because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 31 2012 @ 10:20 AM
link   
reply to post by MrInquisitive
 


Check the Constitution. National defense is in there.



posted on Oct, 31 2012 @ 10:41 AM
link   
reply to post by NavyDoc
 


And who's going to pay for that more effective government service?
No private entity is going to do this unless they are making a profit and hiring employees to provide this service.

This is why, for the most part, Disaster/Emergency services are mostly governmental agencies.



posted on Oct, 31 2012 @ 10:42 AM
link   
reply to post by GeorgiaGirl
 


ya...let the flood waters come and wreck havoc like katrina did, let the coffins get washed up, let the bodies lie buried, let the sewage leak, and let's let is all sit around because it happened in a poor state like alabama...
and then, when the plagues and diseases spread across the country with the refugees, let's see just how fast it becomes a national security problem!!!!

what I don't get is what is the difference if it's the gov't holding the reigns or one of the insurance companies??
they are both top heavy bureaucracies following stupid rules designed to save money by finding any and every reason possible to break promises made?? we give money, with the expectation that if this or that happens, they will be there for us...and often times, they just aren't there for us...

don't get what the difference is between the state and federal either, really...except that there are plenty of poorer states that would be left out in the cold in a katrina event if it wasn'jt for the more affluent states pitching in to help out!!



posted on Oct, 31 2012 @ 10:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by GeorgiaGirl
reply to post by MrInquisitive
 


Check the Constitution. National defense is in there.


So are well-regulated state militias. Why can't all the defense be done through these militias like the National Guard? Wouldn't it be more efficient, according to you? In addition, the Constitution gives Congress the power to raise an army and navy, and to declare war, and the President conducts war, but it doesn't lay out how the military is to be organized. Why not have every state build its own part, which Congress can pay for, and then the President commands these parts and put them together when necessary?

Nothing about the FBI or CIA though. Shouldn't they be done by each state too? How about the FAA? Should there be a separate one for each state? Why should some of these agencies by done by the federal government, but not FEMA?

I'd argue that there is something to be said for central organization of these agencies as well as economies of scale. The same holds true for FEMA. Given that the federal government can purdee much count on having to buy a certain amount of disaster relief materials each year, doesn't it make sense that it does this regular purchasing in massive bulk, rather than have individual states do it on a need-to basis and in smaller amounts? It seems that vendors would also prefer to have regular, yearly federal contracts for good rather than having to deal with this, that and the other state from year to year and have these states only make big purchases from time to time. Businesses want steady customers.

You have yet to address any of my points substantively. So far you only have provided well-worn and tired platitudes and opnions, and your attempt at a one-line zinger citing the Constitution, which I dealt with handily.

You right-wing/small-government/FOX-viewing/Limbaugh-listening/libertarian Ayn-Rand fans have got no game.



posted on Oct, 31 2012 @ 10:47 AM
link   
The Red Cross is way more efficient and not wasteful of the money given to them through charity. I will donate to them everytime. Cutting FEMA is fine. They can start by getting rid of the $100k SUV's.



posted on Oct, 31 2012 @ 11:02 AM
link   
reply to post by MrInquisitive
 


First off military is a service to your county not a job and it’s the only thing in the constitution that is called out that government must provide. I call for smaller government not no government so naming off all there “services” and saying I don’t want them is incorrect.

Government did not get us out of the great depression without bankrupting the country. At the height of WW2 government debt to GDP was at 113% 26 years later and two more wars, Korea and Vietnam, Nixon took the USA off the gold standard and by doing so silently declaring bankruptcy. So war is not good for the economy either.

Now off the gold standard the government’s debt is larger than ever and growing by leaps and bounds. In the history of the world the average country only survived fiat currency for 40 year and later witnessed an economic collapse. We (USA) have been living on a fiat currency for 41 years now. We’re living on borrowed time.

No I did not take a collage economic class and I’m 100% self-taught in all aspects of history, economics, law, and government. My ability to teach myself has given me the advantage of purchasing my own home at the age of 22 four years ago. A feat that I can say I accomplished myself and have yet to see others my age do. Others my age are stuck in the illusion of the diploma mill colleges that only pass on propaganda and lifelong student debt, student loans and debt being a completely different topic on how government is screwing people over creating debt slaves.

Back on topic, whenever you can pass responsibility to the local level, there tends to be less fraud and abuse. I think FEMA should be a tool a state governor should have in his back pocket and released to him/her by the president, but at this point the president has direct action over FEMA.

edit on 31-10-2012 by camaro68ss because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 31 2012 @ 11:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by NavyDoc

Originally posted by grey580
reply to post by MrInquisitive
 


I thought the government doesn't create jobs.
What's Romney thinking?


The government doesn't create jobs. Romney is talking about a more efficient way to provide a government service.


no he isn't...he's talking about a profit-making disaster relief corporation....his motto would be "if you have the money, we'll help you, if not, get sick and die, you're a useless leech on society"



posted on Oct, 31 2012 @ 11:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by GeorgiaGirl
Where does everyone think FEMA gets money for disaster relief? Obama's stash?

The states send money to Washington where the federal government divvies it up, usually based on political expediency.

So these states are essentially asking for their own money back.

Romney's point, which I agree with, is that the states should keep their money to begin with. Then in case of a disaster, they have the funds to take care of whatever is needed.

This idea that the federal government should gather as much of our money as it can, and then make decisions about how it's spent, is why we are in this mess.

Anyone who thinks a bunch of politicians in Washington should be trusted with all of our money hasn't been paying attention.


States don't give money to Washington, individuals and businesses in states give money to the federal government. And if you are right about how Romney wants to handle it, he wants the federal government to be completely out of the disaster relief business, i.e. no federal funds for states for disaster relief. But since this is actually a very small portion of the US budget, don't expect federal taxes to be reduced if FEMA is done away with. So where will the states get the money? Currently just about every state has a budget crisis. You want states to tax their citizens more? Also there are richer states and poorer states, and states that get hit more often with natural disasters. As is, most of the red states -- and this includes ones along the Gulf and Atlantic coasts -- get back more in federal dollars than they pay in, so they have a net gain from federal taxation. But you want each state to take on the burden of its individual disasters rather than spread the cost around to the whole country. This doesn't seem to be the best idea because, depending on the fates, some states are going to get hit a lot harder than others, and without outside help they won't be able to recover very quickly.

Ever hear of joint stock companies? These were created during the age of exploration and colonialization, in order to spread out the risks of business ventures. If you were one person of means and bought a merchant vessel, you could make a load of money if it returned safely, but if it sunk or pirates got it, you'd be S.O.L. and broke. Whereas if a group of individuals got together and bought several merchant boats, statistically a profit-making number of them would survive, making everyone in the venture wealthier, albeit it not to the extent of windfall profit, but it did minimize risk. Essentially this is what insurance of all sorts is as well. Think of FEMA and federal disaster relief as disaster insurance for the whole country.



posted on Oct, 31 2012 @ 12:28 PM
link   
reply to post by MrInquisitive
 


There are just things you will not get certain people to understand. Government just does somethings better than private industry can ever do. Disaster relief, building and maintaining infrastructure, running prisons, the common defense and even though we do not have it in the US healthcare. Why? Because these are key areas that are or should be about serving the public interest and not producing profit. The even more hilarious part is that those that live in the red states frequently whine and cry about how the State should be doing this, that and the other. Fact is if it wasn't for the "redistribution" they fear and complain about so much they would be broke and swimming in debt. Even those with State Constitutions that require a balanced budget, balance that budget with Federal dollars from wealthier states.

There are plenty of places in this country that to this day would not have electricity if the Federal Government did not build the transmission lines to provide them with it. Because private industry would have deemed it as an unprofitable venture. These are just facts.

As to the whole mess Katrina was. Did you people bringing that failure up ever stop to consider that the reason it was such a failure was because of a President more concerned with political patronage than putting someone in that position that would take the job seriously? Who did President Obama put in as Director of FEMA? He went out and found the best man he could possibly find for the job. Jeb Bush's director of disaster relief. Government only works as well or as badly as the people put in those key positions. Put a professional in the position you get a professional response. Put in your slacker buddy from down the street you will get a slacker response.



posted on Oct, 31 2012 @ 01:08 PM
link   
Awsome!.

So,according to what is said he has already done.....

We can wait several weeks for a bunch of dudes and dudettes from china to come and render assistance when something goes awry.....

the private sector does nothing without first considering the cost/profit ratio.

That won't work,any more than privatization of ambulance services worked,or fire departments.....

Fall down,go boom,go bankrupt cuz you can't afford the cost of the ride to the hospital....

Emergency room fees have the same effect usually,if you can get yourself there and survive the waiting room to get help.

Yeah,there was a bit of sarcasm in my post,but ya know?,this is getting to be such a goddamned joke what it costs to just live anymore.

.....and some big dumbass wants to privatize emergency response on a larger scale.....

This entire system/country/government/world,is in it's death throes.

There has to be a better way.

The problem with privatization was made obvious way back in the day of the "Snake Oil" salesman.
edit on 31-10-2012 by MyHappyDogShiner because: just thought I would add.......



posted on Oct, 31 2012 @ 03:47 PM
link   
He seems to be a bit deaf to questions regarding shutting down FEMA now!!

From the Huffpost:



TV pool asked Romney at least five times whether he would eliminate FEMA as president/what he would do with FEMA. He ignored the qs but they are audible on cam. The music stopped at points and the qs would have been audible to him.

A follow-up report noted the specific questions Romney ignored, as he was collecting hurricane supplies following his event:

"Gov are you going to eliminate FEMA?" a print pooler shouted, receiving no response.
Wires reporters asked more questions about FEMA that were ignored.

Romney kept coming over near pool to pick up more water. He ignored these questions:

"Gov are you going to see some storm damage?"

"Gov has [New Jersey Gov.] Chris Christie invited you to come survey storm damage?"

"Gov you've been asked 14 times, why are you refusing to answer the question?"

edit on 31-10-2012 by Aloysius the Gaul because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 31 2012 @ 03:59 PM
link   
Privatize FEMA?

So what do people without money do? Isn't that like half or more of the country? Just roll over and die homeless?

Rich people are so out of touch with the world. Getting rid of FEMA was one of Ron Pauls "genius" ideas as well.
But he's rich too so what does he care?


edit on 31-10-2012 by 3chainz because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 1 2012 @ 12:13 AM
link   
Surprise surprise...looks like Mitt has flip flopped again. Is there any issue where he hasn't flip flopped?

Romney released a statement on Wed..


Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney has changed his tune about his promise to “absolutely” eliminate the federal agency charged with providing relief to the millions of Americans who have been devastated by Hurricane Sandy. “I believe that FEMA plays a key role in working with states and localities to prepare for and respond to natural disasters,” the candidate said. “As president, I will ensure FEMA has the funding it needs to fulfill its mission, while directing maximum resources to the first responders who work tirelessly to help those in need, because states and localities are in the best position to get aid to the individuals and communities affected by natural disasters.”


So now he is all for FEMA, after saying he would eliminate it. SIGH

Romney flip flops on FEMA



new topics




 
12
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join