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.


Romney for Disbanding FEMA and Having Private Sector Handle Disaster Response

page: 3
<< 1  2   >>

log in


posted on Nov, 1 2012 @ 01:06 AM

Originally posted by camaro68ss
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.

To claim that military service is not a job is complete nonsense. Soldiers, sailors, aviators and officers are trained and paid for their work/service. Is being a policeman, fireman, paramedic, nurse, doctor, etc. (or police woman, etc.) not a job because it provides a service to the community? A job is something you get paid to do. Because it is military in nature does not keep it from being a job. You really expect people to take you seriously if you make such a ridiculous claim? You refuse to acknowledge that military positions are jobs because it would totally refute the original claim you made that the government cannot create long-term jobs. This is the level of intellectual dishonesty that the small-government folks must make to try to win their arguments. Not impressed.

The country was not bankrupted by the deficit spending during the Depression and WWII. The US came out of WWII as the most powerful and economically vibrant country in the world and it helped its ruined allies and former enemies get back on their feet as well. The US was bankrupt in 1945? What then explains the massive economic boon the US had from then through the 60's? The US can't go bankrupt because it can print money and/or borrow money. And what happens with this money it borrows? It creates jobs or continues to pay for already created jobs, and the people in these jobs buy products and services, which then spurs the economy more, and provides a larger tax base as well as more tax revenue. Deficit spending, when spent within the country on useful public works, jobs and services is an investment.

As to print more money, how do you think the US's money supply increased in the first place? Back in 1786, when the US government formally began, do you think the US was worth as much and as much cash was flowing as there is now? Of course not. Money was created out of thin air -- actually paper and metal -- that was then provided to people and companies to use as a form of non-material bartering. Instead of having to exchange eggs for wood or for some service, money is exchanged, and it can be used for anything. Money also doesn't go bad -- but is, of course, subject to the effects of inflation. When does inflation occur? When too much money is introduced into the system. What is too much money? More money than is needed by society to efficiently trade goods and services as needed. How much is that? I'd say enough so that everybody is able to procure the services and goods they need.

Currently the US is under employed, so people are without work and without pay, and consequently they are buying less. Hence businesses aren't doing that well because their business is down. If the federal government were to borrow/print more money and create jobs for the unemployed, then these people added to the work force would buy more and spur growth in the economy. Why do you think the US saw economic prosperity after WWII? It is exactly because of this. Keynesian economics deniers are as wrong headed as flat-earthers.

You acknowledge that you are self-taught in economics. I recommend you get a good text book on macroeconomics and read it to better understand how things work on a large scale. You seem to have your personal finances well in hand, but large-scale economics are a whole other matter. Politicians and pundits who like to analogize the country's economy to a household's are making a false comparison and doing great harm to society's understanding of large-scale economic matters.

posted on Nov, 1 2012 @ 01:12 AM
FEMA has proven to be a waste of money and corrupt. The need to be disbanded immediately. Katrina was a huge failure. Billions are spent for FEMA just to pay for the executives luxury lifestyle. They are a waste of space. Let private business handle catastrophe. Private business have proven to be much more successful than anything ran by the government because all people really want to do is get a free paycheck and not work for it.

posted on Nov, 1 2012 @ 01:25 AM

Originally posted by sensfan
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

Nice find, sensfan! So, Obama/FEMA bashers and actual Romney supporters -- if there are any, what have you got to say now? The guy who last spring/early summer said that he would disband FEMA is now singing its praises. What do you make of the character of a guy who says one thing at one point and the complete opposite a couple of months later? I'd call him a slimy, flip-flopping dirt bag with ZERO personal integrity. It's not like FEMA all of a sudden became a good agency that does needed work. Either it was worthless back during the Republican primary debates or it wasn't. It hasn't magically become useful and relevant all of a sudden; it's just that its purpose is once again made manifestly clear with Hurricane Sandy's arrival on the scene.

THIS WAS THE OCTOBER SURPRISE. Government serves a purpose, and Romney is now having to do contortions, i.e. FLIP FLOP, to attempt to be politically relevant. Read it and weep, Teabaggers, libertarians, right-wingers, small-government fans, and all-around general Obama haters. Huzzah!

posted on Nov, 1 2012 @ 01:40 AM

Originally posted by amfirst1
FEMA has proven to be a waste of money and corrupt. The need to be disbanded immediately. Katrina was a huge failure. Billions are spent for FEMA just to pay for the executives luxury lifestyle. They are a waste of space. Let private business handle catastrophe. Private business have proven to be much more successful than anything ran by the government because all people really want to do is get a free paycheck and not work for it.

FEMA under George W. Bush, a Republican and a son of a rich politician, was a failure. The problem isn't with FEMA, it is with Republican political leadership. Tell Governor Christie and all New Jerseyans and New Yorkers that FEMA is a waste of money. I think they will disagree with you. And I am guessing you're also a Romney supporter -- so you want to put another Republican son of a rich politician into the White House? Great idea.

Let private business handle catastrophes, huh? I guess private business don't have executives with luxury lifestyles. Guess private businesses never try to cheat the government out of money. Are you aware of all the waste, corruption, mismanagement and dangerous working and living conditions that have resulted from the Pentagon using private contractors in Iraq and Afghanistan? Apparently not, and apparently you haven't bothered to read through this thread before posting your tired, specious, small-government/privatization talking point that you've likely been spoon fed by FOX and other portions of the right-wing echo chamber.

YES, FEMA under Bush II was horrendous. It was run by a guy who raised racing horses for a living. Obama hired Jeb Bush's former disaster management guy from Florida to become the head of FEMA because he was the best person for the job and had the most experience handling disasters. The waste and incompetence of the military under Bush II was staggering as well. The Department of Justice under Bush was also a criminal, partisan travesty. One needs good leadership and accountability for government. It's not a matter of doing away with government.

posted on Nov, 1 2012 @ 08:32 AM

Originally posted by jjkenobi
I agree, get the federal government out of it. They waste more then they help. Also FYI Obama is going to cut 900 million from FEMA.
edit on 31-10-2012 by jjkenobi because: (no reason given)

We have a tradition in this country of doing everything the long hard way.

Money travels though a lot of hands before it even reaches those disaster victims and needless to say by the time it gets to them it is pennies on the dollar. Sometime drastic change is needed to remove those "traditional" blood suckers, leeches and administrative thieves from the line of supply. This is what Obama is trying to do. Kick out the useless money grabbers promoting fraud and waste. It is about time. We can run these programs effectively and for the benefit of disaster victims if there were not such a long line of administrators cutting into that line and grabbing the cash.

posted on Nov, 1 2012 @ 09:07 AM
Why is nobody bringing up how completely FEMA bungled joplin?
Yet Katrina, Katrina, Katrina, every other post...
Bush is gone, stop blaming him!

Of course maybe, just maybe, an agency works a little better when it's head is actually competent in what it does. Like, for example a former state emergency response coordinator instead of a horse-judge.

posted on Nov, 1 2012 @ 04:15 PM
I'm sorry, but I'm confused...

Is FEMA good? We need it just in case of a disaster - to be able to coordinate the relief and rescue efforts...


Is FEMA evil? FEMA camps and coffins and all that is bad...


Is it just fun to use in a political argument in a time of need and then it goes back to being the center of all that is evil?

posted on Nov, 1 2012 @ 05:32 PM
While I agree with Romney's sentiments a point.. I think he's low class in this case for his timing in saying it. This is a slap in the face and a kick to the family jewels to men and women alike who are OUT THERE, right NOW, wading through debris, fetid and dangerous water as well as every other hazard following a major disaster to help people the best they can.

Way to go on that one, Mitt.

There absolutely should be a debate on FEMA's role and future..if any...but talk about topics for AFTER the very peak of need and work by the very agency being slapped.
Boooo! Hiss! Boooo!

posted on Nov, 1 2012 @ 08:04 PM
Yeah, like Louisiana and Mississippi state governments could have done all the cleanup and rescue work themselves without any fed help. Only the National Guard, a few million bucks and some overwhelmed locals who might not even have houses left themselves...

This is what federal government can do and should do for the people, more than anything else except wage war. Romney just wanted to privatize national disaster work because 1: that would make his job as President easier and 2: there would be profit in it.

He's scum, and his behavior as a teenager stalking that kid and cutting off his hair, and later impersonating a police officer is everything we need to know about him. He's a sociopath raised by good people but without a clue what life is like for most people. The people who worked with him in Mass. said that he only wanted to *be* governor as a stepping stone to the Presidency. Inside of two years, he was campaigning and ignoring the job. There's a reason the guy has a 30% approval rating in that state and that he's not even contesting losing there.

Send him to Kolob, and do it now.
edit on 1-11-2012 by signalfire because: spelling

posted on Nov, 2 2012 @ 07:57 AM
reply to post by LevelHeaded

fema good...
gov't bad....
or can be at times...

fema camps could be used for good or bad...
having a supply of coffins would be a good idea, unless of course, the gov't plans on playing an active part in filling those coffins, and camps!!!

unfortunately, the gov't has proven to many to be's a problem the next ten or so presidents should address and try to fix, I say ten or so because that is probably about how long it will take to fix the problem...
corporations, unfortunately in about the same spot though, we don't trust them either.
the difference though is, that if the gov't gets too far out of handand delivers crappy service, their is a price to pay, their jobs!!
corporations can do the crappy job and they are rewarded, by higher stock prices, bigger bonuses at the top, and well bailouts by the gov't if need be!!

posted on Nov, 2 2012 @ 06:10 PM
More libertarian insanity from Mitt Romney. I am guess exactly why he wants to cut FEMA. He is thinking that letting the private sector take over disaster relief will spur growth in the economy. What he forgetting, or pretends to not understand, is that since the private sector is only about profit quality will naturally decrease in order to increase profit.

He must understand this. There is no way he can be that dense in the head...can he? Emergency services which have gone private in the past have increased the cost of people getting basic emergency services to the point in which is it sometimes better to die then live with the massive debt which follows.

A good example of this is ambulance service. I remember a time when most state run hospitals had their fleet of ambulances. You did not need to worry about getting the hospital in an emergency because the hospital would come and get you, and offer on the spot life saving services, at next to no cost to the common person. The ambulance services was usually paid for using tax dollars and everyone enjoyed the benefit of having cheap, high quality, ambulance services when they needed it. Although these days the situation tends to be very different. Many state hospitals across America have long ago sold off their ambulance service to the private...guess what happened? Prices went thought the roof and health insurance companies fight tooth and nail about paying for it.

What does Romney think will happen if disaster relief services are handed over to the private sector? The private sector will set up good old boy systems, decrease competition and lower the quality of service in order to increase profit all the while increasing cost everything chance they get. Somethings just cannot be handed over to the private sector and disaster relief is one of those things.

posted on Nov, 2 2012 @ 06:13 PM
The private sector would have been waiting in trucks a few hundred miles away and moved in as soon as the worst passed. Time to get rid of FEMA and let Americans take care of themselves

posted on Nov, 3 2012 @ 06:53 AM
reply to post by mikellmikell

how would they get there???
the transportation system was shot.
the bridges closed
the subway system gone
at least the gov't have cargo planes and navy ships off the coast!!

posted on Nov, 5 2012 @ 07:01 AM
reply to post by dawnstar

I would like to expand on your point.
It is the private sector which means they are in it for the profit. People would be paying for water and only those who paid for a emergency service plan would get help.

posted on Nov, 5 2012 @ 08:58 AM
reply to post by freedomwv

ya, picture yourself stuck on you roof, floodwaters reaching your second story windows...a boat comes up and asks for your insurance card, you may have it, but you wallet is on the first floor sitting on your you can't prove you have then they tell you it will be a $3,000 down payment for a ride to dry land, which, well, even if you had the $3,000 you checkbook is about in the same place as your wallet....
so, well you are left on the rooftop due to lack of money, lack of proof of insurance...
or worse, you are living in a very poor state, and no one comes at all...

would prove interesting...

posted on Nov, 5 2012 @ 09:20 AM

Take this case of the storm as an example.......

Seems like the private sector and ordinary citizens are doing more to help then Fema or the Red cross......

Look at the news, read twitter, look at facebook.......

Look at how much private sector has raised........who its sent in to help.........

Was it FEMA waiting and ready to help? No private organizations.......

Was it FEMA who is out there working day and night to get these people electricity? Nope Private contractors....

Whose dished out more aid here during this crisis?

Private sector made more progress in all of this, then that bloated gov entity......
edit on 5-11-2012 by ManBehindTheMask because: (no reason given)

edit on 5-11-2012 by ManBehindTheMask because: (no reason given)

<< 1  2   >>

log in