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.

 

Republican Hypocrisy on Federal Disaster Help

page: 2
4
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 11 2012 @ 08:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by MrInquisitive

Originally posted by phroziac
Fema probably should be eliminated for the most part. Give the funding to states for emergencies.

Whatd you expect from republicans anyway?


Thanks for not bothering to read much of the OP. According to the congressman and local citizenry, the local municipal utility is not cutting it in this matter. You've responded before to threads involving federal disaster relief/help and your stock answer is get rid of FEMA. You're a broken record.

Thanks for assuming. i infact read the whole op. And i dont remember ever saying to get rid of fema before? I did see that the local utilities werent getting it done. I think each state should have essentially a mini fema, federally fund it. But since its not run by the feds...ah nevermind. Nobody gives a # what i say. Ill stop being a broken record after making my second #ing post on the matter.




posted on Nov, 12 2012 @ 01:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by badgerprints

The fact that Republican senators want to revamp fema has no bearing on the fact that Fema is paid for by all taxpayer money. It is not "Hypocricy" to utilize the system that is in place at present to deal with emergencies.

Fema does need to be revamped. It is a big government money hog that is poor on results but it's what we have to work with until improvements are made.



It is hypocrisy when you want to cut the agency's funding and say the agency's work should be taken over by local and state agencies, and private businesses, but then in the next breath ask the federal government to take a lead role in a matter that is already completely handled by local authority and private business.

I completely understand the notion of taking advantage of government programs that one doesn't approve of, but might as well use because the money is there and one has already partly paid for it. That is not what I am calling hypocrisy on. It is the fact that the congressman is calling for the federal government to take a lead role in the restoring power task, when it is the responsibility of LIPA and the sub-contracted business to handle it. This acknowledges that the federal government can likely do a better job than these other agencies and private businesses when an overwhelming catastrophe happens.

If, as Republicans and libertarians claim, the federal government is less efficient and more incompetent at handling most such matters (funny that no one makes this claim about the military or FBI, amongst government agencies), why are they now calling on the federal government to take a lead role in this matter? If this isn't a double standard, then I don't know what one is.



posted on Nov, 12 2012 @ 02:22 AM
link   
reply to post by beezzer
 


Thanks for your reply, I think. The bottom paragraph of the article you post/link to says:

"Bottom line, it appears now that Decatur Utilities wrongly assumed they would have to agree to the union contract before traveling to New Jersey to help with recovery efforts. The IBEW said in times of crisis, help is welcomed from union and non-union utility workers."

So, non-union workers were not turned down, but rather there was some confusion -- and confusion from a source in Alabama no less, rather than New Jersey or New York. And you appear to be acknowledging this. Hail and well met, if this is indeed the case.

For the record, it is not my getting my hate on, but rather getting my annoyance and frustration on. I create a post about the fact that Republican congressmen are calling for the federal government to take a lead role in restoring power, which is the purview of a local municipal authority and a contracted company, when it has been the GOP calling for the federal government to get out of the disaster response business and leave control to local authorities and businesses. Then I get a comment from you, saying that the local power authority is having problems because it is turning away no-union workers -- even though this has nothing to do with the point of my thread. You want to misdirect attention away from the point of the thread and start talking about the horrors of unions.

So I do due diligence and check into your claim -- even though it has nothing to do really with my original point, which by the way you have yet to address, i.e. that Republicans have been calling for the federal government to get out of disaster relief and leave it to local government and private companies UNTIL the rubber meets the road, as in the case of Hurricane Sandy. And as it turns out, your tangential anti-union claims are unfounded, so I've wasted my time fact-checking this false claim of yous, which doesn't really have to do with the point of my thread anyway, just to clear any possible aspersions to the purpose/point of the thread I created.

This is why I get fed up with trying to discuss matters with conservatives, and my frustration is manifestly evident in my tone. This happens over and over, and certainly not just with you.

Given that I dispensed with your non-sequitur anti-union argument as it pertains to the point of this thread, what have you to say about Rep. Peter King's and other Republicans' hypocrisy in the matter at hand? Do you acknowledge that their calling for the feds to a lead role in restoring power undermines their political rhetoric about getting the feds out of the disaster relief biz and leaving it to local and state government and private companies? That is the point of this thread after all, not the pro's and cons of unions.



posted on Nov, 12 2012 @ 05:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by phroziac

Thanks for assuming. i infact read the whole op. And i dont remember ever saying to get rid of fema before? I did see that the local utilities werent getting it done. I think each state should have essentially a mini fema, federally fund it. But since its not run by the feds...ah nevermind. Nobody gives a # what i say. Ill stop being a broken record after making my second #ing post on the matter.


Hey, phroziac,

Looks like I misspoke. I looked through your recent post listing, and could not find a thread in which you would likely have made any such anti-FEMA statement. For some reason I was identifying your avatar with someone else who had made several such "get rid of FEMA" comments. I apologize and stand corrected for that incorrect statement and the associated belittling comment. Very sorry about about that.

If I may, back to your original comment then, about getting rid of FEMA and using the money to instead 50 state mini-FEMAs: This would seem to be an inefficient use of resources, with the duplication of resources and logistics 50 times over. Given that bad disasters tend to only befall a fraction of th states each year, it seems more efficient to have one federal agency that can deploy where needed, and which, since it deals with disaster relief each year, would have more experience than a state agency that might go several or many years between disasters. Also think about the money doled out to such state agencies in year that they don't require it. If you have a federal mobile response agency force, it makes sense to have a portion of workers full time because there will always be disasters to deal with during a given year.

Also, some FEMA funds go to disaster mitigation, which involves research (for EQ's, tsunamis, landslides, tornados, hurricanes, etc.) as well as actual infrastructure retro-fitting. For the research aspect, it makes much more sense to have a central funding agency than to have the states again doling out money for them and likely duplicating effort.

In addition, the US and state budgets are handled differently. The federal government can borrow or print more money, states can't without passing bond measures, so states can't easily expand and contract their budgets for emergencies, unlike the federal government. If states are having bad budget years, one can imagine that they would cut into their mini-FEMA budget to pay for other more pressing matters and then get caught flat-footed when disaster strikes.

Furthermore, part of the argument put forth by the GOP and libertarians is that local government can do things better than the federal government. The last time I checked, local and state governments can be just as wasteful with money as the federal government. Ever see 8 city workers standing around pylons in the street, when only one or two are actually doing anything? The federal government at least has a modicum of inspectors general and oversight of federal funding -- not that it's perfect -- but often times state and local governments don't, so handing over all the disaster response funds to local and state government could, in some cases, be stuffing it down a rat hole.



posted on Nov, 12 2012 @ 05:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by phroziac

Originally posted by MrInquisitive

Originally posted by phroziac
Fema probably should be eliminated for the most part. Give the funding to states for emergencies.

Whatd you expect from republicans anyway?


Thanks for not bothering to read much of the OP. According to the congressman and local citizenry, the local municipal utility is not cutting it in this matter. You've responded before to threads involving federal disaster relief/help and your stock answer is get rid of FEMA. You're a broken record.

Thanks for assuming. i infact read the whole op. And i dont remember ever saying to get rid of fema before? I did see that the local utilities werent getting it done. I think each state should have essentially a mini fema, federally fund it. But since its not run by the feds...ah nevermind. Nobody gives a # what i say. Ill stop being a broken record after making my second #ing post on the matter.


Thye dont care what you say because all they really want to do is run the republicans down anyway they can. That comes first on this guys thread.....above all else.



posted on Nov, 12 2012 @ 06:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by MrInquisitive
reply to post by beezzer
 




Given that I dispensed with your non-sequitur anti-union argument as it pertains to the point of this thread, what have you to say about Rep. Peter King's and other Republicans' hypocrisy in the matter at hand? Do you acknowledge that their calling for the feds to a lead role in restoring power undermines their political rhetoric about getting the feds out of the disaster relief biz and leaving it to local and state government and private companies? That is the point of this thread after all, not the pro's and cons of unions.


The republicans are not a monolithic political block for one thing. These republicans may be doing the same thing that some dems do under stress.....the defelect attention off themselves and toss the blame ball to the administration if it happens to be another party. At least their not saying that Obama blew up the dikes yet or anything. Or that Obama laughed when he saw bodies floating in the water while riding over in marine 1.



posted on Nov, 12 2012 @ 06:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by MrInquisitive

Originally posted by badgerprints

The fact that Republican senators want to revamp fema has no bearing on the fact that Fema is paid for by all taxpayer money. It is not "Hypocricy" to utilize the system that is in place at present to deal with emergencies.

Fema does need to be revamped. It is a big government money hog that is poor on results but it's what we have to work with until improvements are made.



That is not what I am calling hypocrisy on. It is the fact that the congressman is calling for the federal government to take a lead role in the restoring power task, when it is the responsibility of LIPA and the sub-contracted business to handle it. This acknowledges that the federal government can likely do a better job than these other agencies and private businesses when an overwhelming catastrophe happens.



I can go along with that.
They need to provide funds to supplement the work going on with more people, but no, they don't need to be in charge of that facet of the recovery.

I wouldn't call it hypocrisy though.
Bumbling and annoying ?
Yes.



posted on Nov, 12 2012 @ 06:26 AM
link   
reply to post by FlyersFan
 


Well, we wouldn't have to be building over there, if we didn't go and blow it up in the first place. We have our own problems to deal with for sure, I agree with that.

Imagine how great things would be, if instead of spending trillions blowing up, then rebuilding other countries, all that had been spent here? Sickening to think of to be honest.



posted on Nov, 12 2012 @ 07:07 AM
link   
The OP is somewhat hypocritical by suggesting its only Rep. King calling for Federal help. A few other points to made that have not been covered is the fact that LIPA is an invention of Dem party decisions in the first place and the help being asked for is from Army Corps of engineers not FEMA which essentially has bungled the response.


Senate Majority Leader Dean Skelos, who yesterday was in blame-deflecting mode, too — demanding that Washington initiate a more aggressive response to what he called “a Katrina-style disaster.”



If Hurricane Irene and its subsequent operational analysis didn’t move the governor to make any governance changes whatsoever at LIPA, the only reasonable conclusion is that he just didn’t care.



Calling the policy shots is LIPA’s 15-member board of directors — whose members are all non-utility professionals and are named by the governor and two legislative leaders.



For years, the agency has neglected such critical tasks as maintaining rotting poles and trimming trees around power lines.


NY Post

Seems a one dimensional picture is being painted by the OP when much more revolves around the issue.



posted on Nov, 12 2012 @ 11:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by Logarock


The republicans are not a monolithic political block for one thing. These republicans may be doing the same thing that some dems do under stress.....the defelect attention off themselves and toss the blame ball to the administration if it happens to be another party. At least their not saying that Obama blew up the dikes yet or anything. Or that Obama laughed when he saw bodies floating in the water while riding over in marine 1.


Given the lock-step voting pattern of Republicans, I think it is safe to say that they have been a monolithic political block for some time. Perhaps that will change now, let's hope, but I'm not counting on it. And don't make the claim that Democrats also lock-step vote. There are conservative, blue dog Democrats. Democrat's caucuses have split their votes on issues in which they have gone along with the Republicans. Democrats also have never used the filibuster in the Senate the way Republicans have.

The GOP congress supported the Paul Ryan budget, which slashed FEMA, and they supported Mitt Romney for president, who wanted to do away with FEMA -- at least until Hurricane Sandy happened. Now one of the arch conservative congressmen, Rep. Peter King, has changed his tune as well all of a sudden when it behooves him to do so. This is hypocrisy. You can argue all you want otherwise, but it doesn't change the fact of the matter.

And not sure what your comment about "at least their [sic] not saying Obama blew up the dikes...or laughed when he saw dead bodies floating in the water." Are you insinuating that Democrats said this about George W. Bush II? If so, please supply a link; otherwise you are just making a specious strawman argument, impugning Democrats/liberals.



posted on Nov, 12 2012 @ 11:11 AM
link   
I remember the Bush years on this forum, I think this is a form of Democrat hypocrisy, lol

I remember the FEMA post

I wasn't involved,

Plus, just because I don't like Obama's or many liberal policies doesn't make me automatically a republican.
I think for myself.



posted on Nov, 12 2012 @ 11:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by Phoenix
The OP is somewhat hypocritical by suggesting its only Rep. King calling for Federal help. A few other points to made that have not been covered is the fact that LIPA is an invention of Dem party decisions in the first place and the help being asked for is from Army Corps of engineers not FEMA which essentially has bungled the response.


Senate Majority Leader Dean Skelos, who yesterday was in blame-deflecting mode, too — demanding that Washington initiate a more aggressive response to what he called “a Katrina-style disaster.”



Calling the policy shots is LIPA’s 15-member board of directors — whose members are all non-utility professionals and are named by the governor and two legislative leaders.


Seems a one dimensional picture is being painted by the OP when much more revolves around the issue.



Nice redirection of my point. I never said Democrats also weren't asking for help from the Feds. The point was that it has been the Republicans who want to do away with Federal disaster help and that local government and private business should be responsible for it, and here is an arch conservative, Peter King, saying he wants the federal government to take a lead role in it. I am not being hypocritical all, nor are the Democrats; we both realize that in big emergencies the federal government needs to step in to help. Or perhaps you don't know what the word hypocrisy means...

And sure, LIPA was formed by the NY state legislature and governor in 1985. I know the governor then was a Democrat, but I doubt both state houses were; in addition, this agency has been around under Pataki, a Republican governor for many years, and I imagine the legislature houses have changed majorities over the year. In any case, IT IS THE LOCAL AUTHORITY FOR POWER on Long Island, and the Republicans' and Romney's mantras has been, regarding FEMA, that its functions should all be handled by local and state government and private businesses. Did you read where LIPA subcontracts power maintenance to a private company?

But let's say, for the sake of argument, that it was all the evil, incompetent local/state Democrats who are responsible for LIPA's woes -- along with the contracted private company that does the work. It is the national Republicans who want to hand all authority over to such local and state government and private business. I'd imagine there are also states with less than stellar Republican-controlled local and state government, and that their utilities are no better run.

By the way, you linked to a NY Post editorial, not a news story, so that doesn't quite cut it as a good news source. Moreover, the NY Post is a notoriously conservative and reactionary paper, so it is quite biased, so I take this editorial with a grain of salt -- actually a big rock of salt.

You claim FEMA has bungled the response. Please explain and cite evidence. As for whether it is FEMA, the US Army Corps of Engineers or other US government agencies, your NY POST article says nothing about it, nor did Rep. King's press release; King solely as that the federal government take a lead role in power restoration. As to the efficacy and competence of the USACoE, it has a checkered record at best with regard to New Orleans; a number of university studies, as well as the Corps' own inspector general reports, have shown that pump failure in the New Orleans levies and poor levy construction were the primary causes of the flooding in the city proper during Katrina. And given the privatizing of some construction services of the US Army by the Bush II administration, I'd imagine that the USACoE has had its personnel and resources cut back, so it's not the stellar organization it was once.




top topics



 
4
<< 1   >>

log in

join