We need FEMA

[doubtingmerle]

We need FEMA. We need the National Weather Service. We need NOAA. We need NASA. We need the Coast Guard and National Park Service. We need government.

We need to contribute money into a common poll, with each person having one vote, with that common money used to do things that private enterprise will not do. We call that government. And yes, the size of that government must be limited. And yes, we also need private enterprise. But we need government.

We need FEMA. We need a President who understands human need. We need Obama.

 

[grasping the after wind]

We need FEMA. We need the National Weather Service. We need NOAA. We need NASA. We need the Coast Guard and National Park Service. We need government.

We need to contribute money into a common poll, with each person having one vote, with that common money used to do things that private enterprise will not do. We call that government. And yes, the size of that government must be limited. And yes, we also need private enterprise. But we need government.

We need FEMA. We need a President who understands human need. We need Obama.

My bolds and the only phrases I agree with you on.

 

[Grizzly]

My bolds and the only phrases I agree with you on.

You don't think we need FEMA? What would you replace it with?

 

[Eric Hibbert]

We need FEMA. We need the National Weather Service. We need NOAA. We need NASA. We need the Coast Guard and National Park Service. We need government.

Nobody's arguing that we don't need government. We're arguing that we need a government that abides by its own Constitution.

Why do we need NASA? Why do we need the National Park Service? Why do we need NOAA? Why do we need the National Weather Service?

I would agree that we need FEMA, but why can't FEMA be reformed to operate as originally intended?

And yes, the size of that government must be limited.

You say we "need" Obama. The truth is, America needs Obama like Nicole "needed" O.J.

So, you say government must be limited and then you say we need Obama. What has Obama done to limit the size of government? What has Obama done to uphold the sovereignty of the states?

We need FEMA. We need a President who understands human need. We need Obama.

Does Obama understand the human need for liberty? Does he understand the human need for an honest president? Does he understand the human need for a person to be able to keep money that he's earned?

What "human need" are you referring to?

'Frankenstorm': Hurricane Sandy Seen From Space Station in NASA Video | Space.com

I see. So then, we need NASA to spend billions of dollars we don't have so we can have cool pictures of a storm? Tell me again why that's a good idea.

He got us out of Iraq.

Actually, he didn't. The plan to leave Iraq was already in place. He just happened to be president at the time. By your logic, Romney will be responsible for Obamacare, since he'll be president in 2014 when it's scheduled to take effect.

He gave states the right to decide how they will fulfill workfare requirements.

He didn't give states those rights. They already had those rights.

Second, the idea that he would "give states the right" to do anything shows a complete lack of understanding of the authority he has.

Yes.

Then why all the oppressive regulation?

Yes.

Then why all the corruption?

Yes, provided he pays for the services he receives.

But what about taxing them at a higher rate to give to those who have not earned that money?

If a person is using public roads, public police services, etc., he should be paying taxes to support them.

How do the wealthy use these things any more than anybody else?

I am talking about the things we need to do if we want to maintain a great society.

Then why isn't Obama doing those things? Our government is failing in its economy, failing in it's attempts to...just for the sake of charity, let's say "educate" our children, failing in its attempts to secure liberty for its own citizens, and failing to keep its own laws. Our government is morally bankrupt and corrupt and incompetent to an historic degree. And Obama is the worst offender. How can we maintain a great society by following this course?

To effect our safety and happiness.

And why do we need them to "effect" our safety and happiness?

No liberal ever said this and you know it.

Actually, you've made several posts in this thread stating that very thing. You said that "neighbors, local governments, and churches" don't have the resources or "complex skills" to help.

That wasn't a photo op. It was a serious survey of the damage by a governor and president, with discussion on the best response.

Why did he have to get in everybody's way and disrupt the clean up, particularly when he's the president and the Constitution doesn't give the president any authority or responsibility over storm cleanup?

Passing Obamacare does not mean he wants unlimited government.

Then why does he keep expanding the size of government? Why does he legislate by fiat?

All industrialized nations have some means of assuring healthcare to their citizens. Obama thought America should do this to. Why not?

Because we're not socialists and our Constitution doesn't allow it.

Do you not want the government to take steps to assure that all have health insurance?

No. I want the government to get out of my way, respect my God-given rights, and affirm the sovereignty of my state.

Does the Bible no longer contain the command not to bear false witness? Obama never said this.

There are a lot of things Obama doesn't say, but which are made clear by the things he does.

Incidentally, Mitt Romney never said he wanted to let the auto industry fail. Are you now accusing Obama of bearing false witness for repeatedly saying Romney did say this?

Neighbors, local governments and churches don't have enough helicopters and the complex skills needed in many situations. Government organizations can provide an extra level of help.

What are these "complex skills" that neighbors, local governments, and churches don't have? Isn't the federal government made up of people who are neighbors and members of churches?

Fox, if you are going to cut budgets, the supplies aren't going to be there when needed.

Why not? Why is FEMA the only way to deliver supplies?

Or it could make the case for a strong federal agency that is well funded and is able to respond when needed.

Reminds me of the quote, "A government big enough to give you all you want is also big enough to take all you have".

 

[grasping the after wind]

You don't think we need FEMA? What would you replace it with?

I wouldn't replace it. It is not an effective use of the funds that are allocated for it. Instead I would simply put those funds into an emergency response fund and send the money that would have been spent on FEMA administration salaries etc. directly to the affected area's local governments to allow those that actually know the area and the local concerns and idiosyncrasies to respond with enough money to do the job properly. From what I have seen over the last few years, those local governments seem to be the reason that FEMA is either credited with success or blamed for failure anyway so I see no reason to waste money on what is essentially an excuse for federal politicians to take advantage of a photo op.

 

[doubtingmerle]

I would simply put those funds into an emergency response fund and send the money that would have been spent on FEMA administration salaries etc. directly to the affected area's local governments to allow those that actually know the area and the local concerns and idiosyncrasies to respond with enough money to do the job properly.

I see. So if disaster strikes, if people are clinging unto the roof to stay alive, if people are stuck with no way out, you would send the area...dollar bills? What are they going to do with those dollars? Swim to the WalMart and use your dollars to buy a boat?

Wouldn't it be better to have a federal emergency team that is prepared, that is fully stocked with supplies, that has the equipment needed to quickly move those supplies where needed, is staffed with trained people who know how to respond, and already has the links to local governments to work in a cooperative effort to respond to an emergency that is too big for the local government?

 

[doubtingmerle]

You don't think we need FEMA? What would you replace it with?

Can you believe it? A major hurricane is about to hit the Northeast days before the election and these guys are here arguing that we don't need FEMA!

 

[doubtingmerle]

Why do we need NASA?

'Frankenstorm': Hurricane Sandy Seen From Space Station in NASA Video | Space.com

 

[Grizzly]

I wouldn't replace it. It is not an effective use of the funds that are allocated for it. Instead I would simply put those funds into an emergency response fund and send the money that would have been spent on FEMA administration salaries etc. directly to the affected area's local governments to allow those that actually know the area and the local concerns and idiosyncrasies to respond with enough money to do the job properly. From what I have seen over the last few years, those local governments seem to be the reason that FEMA is either credited with success or blamed for failure anyway so I see no reason to waste money on what is essentially an excuse for federal politicians to take advantage of a photo op.

But oftentimes local governments are either wiped out or are severely impacted by the disaster themselves. I don't think they would have the resources to handle it. I don't think air-dropping crates of money would help much (at least in the beginning stages of the problem).

 

[ThatRobGuy]

We need FEMA. We need the National Weather Service. We need NOAA. We need NASA. We need the Coast Guard and National Park Service. We need government.

We need to contribute money into a common poll, with each person having one vote, with that common money used to do things that private enterprise will not do. We call that government. And yes, the size of that government must be limited. And yes, we also need private enterprise. But we need government.

We need FEMA. We need a President who understands human need. We need Obama.

The two I have in bold don't jive...

Obama hasn't done anything to limit the size of government.

Whether or not he understands human need is up for debate as well. He might be able to identify if someone is in need, but his strategy for addressing that need is what most of us question.

If we see a person who's broke, we all agree they have a need...but the difference is that while some of us think that person needs an education to get a job, others think they need a check in the mail on the 1st & 15th.

For someone like Obama (who brags about how much he invests in education), he sure doesn't show it by how he spends.

I'll show some numbers on his spending compared to other presidents.

Obama 2011 -
Government Revenue: $2.5 Trillion
Welfare Spending: $500 Billion
Education Spending: $100 Billion
----------------------------------------
% of budget allocated to welfare: 20%
Welfare to education ratio..... 5:1
Unemployment Rate: 8%



Bush 2006 -
Government Revenue: $2.4 Trillion
Welfare Spending: $300 Billion
Education Spending: $100 Billion
----------------------------------------
% of budget allocated to welfare: ~12%
Welfare to education ratio..... 3:1
Unemployment Rate: 4%



Bill Clinton 1998 -
Government Revenue: $1.7 Trillion
Welfare Spending: $200 Billion
Education Spending: $100 Billion
-----------------------------------------
% of budget allocated to welfare: ~12%
Welfare to education ratio..... 2:1
Unemployment Rate: 4%



How does the children's song go??? "One of these things is not like the other"

 

[SimplyMe]

I see. So if disaster strikes, if people are clinging unto the roof to stay alive, if people are stuck with no way out, you would send the area...dollar bills? What are they going to do with those dollars? Swim to the WalMart and use your dollars to buy a boat?

Wouldn't it be better to have a federal emergency team that is prepared, that is fully stocked with supplies, that has the equipment needed to quickly move those supplies where needed, is staffed with trained people who know how to respond, and already has the links to local governments to work in a cooperative effort to respond to an emergency that is too big for the local government?

But oftentimes local governments are either wiped out or are severely impacted by the disaster themselves. I don't think they would have the resources to handle it. I don't think air-dropping crates of money would help much (at least in the beginning stages of the problem).

OTOH, there are typically private, non-profit groups that have truckloads of supplies ready to go when the disaster hits. The Red Cross typically gets volunteers and supplies in quickly, various churches, etc. And if, rather than depending solely on donations, these groups could get some of the government money from this fund, they likely could do as good (and possibly a better job) than FEMA at responding to disasters.

Also, much of the money FEMA spends is on longer term concerns, such as providing money to homeowners to repair/rebuild or providing temporary housing. In most cases, the state government would be far better at responding to these needs than the federal government.

I'm not saying this is necessarily the answer but it does show that FEMA isn't necessarily the answer.

 

[Jeffwhosoever]

The two I have in bold don't jive...

Obama hasn't done anything to limit the size of government.


Obama 2011 -
Government Revenue: $2.5 Trillion
Welfare Spending: $500 Billion
Education Spending: $100 Billion
----------------------------------------
% of budget allocated to welfare: 20%
Welfare to education ratio..... 5:1
Unemployment Rate: 8%



Bush 2006 -
Government Revenue: $2.4 Trillion
Welfare Spending: $300 Billion
Education Spending: $100 Billion
----------------------------------------
% of budget allocated to welfare: ~12%
Welfare to education ratio..... 3:1
Unemployment Rate: 4%

All that spending, and now our debt has grown more in 4 years under Obama than 8 years under Bush.

And what did we get for that $5T of new debt?

 

[Douger]

If government was limited to the examples in the OP, I doubt there would be very much talk of the government being too big.

 

[Illuminaughty]

What about the super secret FEMA concentration camps?

 

[Jeffwhosoever]

What about the super secret FEMA concentration camps?

I thought you were joking, so I did a 5 second search, and found this.

Secret Obama New World Order Fema Martial Law Concentration Camps in America 2009-2012 - YouTube

 

[Illuminaughty]

Yeah, FEMA concentration camps are an old tinfoil hat subject that goes way back. Bush was going to send us to them and before that Clinton was too. They just never got around to it apparently. They know for sure Obama will do it this time though. This time it's for real. If not they will say it about the next president.

 

[doubtingmerle]

If government was limited to the examples in the OP, I doubt there would be very much talk of the government being too big.

And yet the very first reply here says we don't need FEMA, the National Weather Service, NOAA, NASA, or the National Park Service. What gives? If nobody wants to cut back these programs, why are people here saying we don't need them?

So please don't tell me these guys are on the same page as me. Please don't tell me that if we give Paul Ryan an office in the White House, that the cutbacks will be unnoticable (other than Big Bird learning to live on a limited budget). We are talking about major cuts to needed programs. We are talking about cutting grandma back to vouchers. We are talking about dropping the only plan on the table to help the uninsured, with no plan that will keep them from dying as they do now. If Romney and Ryan are put in the White House, there will be drastic cuts to needed programs.

Wake up, people. This election is so vitally important.

 

[Jeffwhosoever]

I disagree. Romney was discussing having States do more of things they can do themselves. Clearly, we can't have a state run NASA for each of the 50 states. You cannot extrapolate Romney's comment in the direction you are attempting.

 

[SimplyMe]

I disagree. Romney was discussing having States do more of things they can do themselves. Clearly, we can't have a state run NASA for each of the 50 states. You cannot extrapolate Romney's comment in the direction you are attempting.

But the point is that we don't need NASA. That isn't to say that it doesn't have value, or that it shouldn't be funded, but we don't "need" it. The country won't stop operating without it, it won't effect our food supply or our defense capabilities (the military, specifically Vandenberg AFB, has launch abilities) -- the country will continue just fine without NASA.

I think Romney had an interesting idea, you go through the programs and decide if it is worth borrowing money from the Chinese to fund the program. In many ways, it isn't that much different than what most of us do in our household budgets. I think the key point is that different political philosophies will have different ideas of what is worth borrowing money to fund.

 

[usexpat97]

We need a government who is prepared for emergencies, but more importantly we need an HONEST government, who prepares for emergencies, and...well...everything. That's where the rub is.