logo 
spacer
  

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

If you have an opinion, you should share it! Register Now!

America's Debate hosts the best in news, government, and political debate. Register now to take part in the most civil and constructive debate on the Internet. Join the community, and get ready to be challenged!

Click here to start

> Sponsored Links

Register to remove these ads!
> Romney Said: Federal Disaster Relief Immoral, Do you agree with what he said?
Paladin Elspeth
post Oct 29 2012, 11:12 PM
Post #1


*********
I want the 10th Doctor for President!

Sponsor
August 1, 2003

Group: Sponsors
Posts: 4,987
Member No.: 721
Joined: May-10-03

From: Between 2 Great Lakes
Gender: Female
Politics: Liberal
Party affiliation: Democrat



Here is the link to a video of what Mitt Romney said during one of the Republican Primary debates:
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/10/29/1...al?detail=email
QUOTE(13 June 2011 transcript with John King)
KING: What else, Governor Romney? You’ve been a chief executive of a state. I was just in Joplin, Missouri. I’ve been in Mississippi and Louisiana and Tennessee and other communities dealing with whether it’s the tornadoes, the flooding, and worse. FEMA is about to run out of money, and there are some people who say do it on a case-by-case basis and some people who say, you know, maybe we’re learning a lesson here that the states should take on more of this role. How do you deal with something like that?

ROMNEY: Absolutely. Every time you have an occasion to take something from the federal government and send it back to the states, that’s the right direction. And if you can go even further and send it back to the private sector, that’s even better.

Instead of thinking in the federal budget, what we should cut—we should ask ourselves the opposite question. What should we keep? We should take all of what we’re doing at the federal level and say, what are the things we’re doing that we don’t have to do? And those things we’ve got to stop doing, because we’re borrowing $1.6 trillion more this year than we’re taking in. We cannot…

KING: Including disaster relief, though?

ROMNEY: We cannot—we cannot afford to do those things without jeopardizing the future for our kids. It is simply immoral, in my view, for us to continue to rack up larger and larger debts and pass them on to our kids, knowing full well that we’ll all be dead and gone before it’s paid off. It makes no sense at all.

So, was Romney right?

Were it in your power, would you refuse Federal disaster relief to the victims/survivors of Hurricane Sandy based on what he said?

Was Romney sincere, or was he pandering to one group of potential supporters?

This post has been edited by Paladin Elspeth: Oct 29 2012, 11:26 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
3 Pages V  < 1 2 3  
Start new topic
Replies (40 - 50)
Paladin Elspeth
post Oct 31 2012, 04:01 PM
Post #41


*********
I want the 10th Doctor for President!

Sponsor
August 1, 2003

Group: Sponsors
Posts: 4,987
Member No.: 721
Joined: May-10-03

From: Between 2 Great Lakes
Gender: Female
Politics: Liberal
Party affiliation: Democrat



QUOTE(AuthorMusician @ Oct 31 2012, 11:51 AM) *
QUOTE(Mrs. Pigpen @ Oct 31 2012, 08:36 AM) *
The above figures for federal tax dollars received versus dollars paid are outdated, so here are some figures that are a bit more recent. Most of the areas hit by this specific disaster "give more" than they "get back" from the federal government.

Seems to be an overlooked fact when TEA arguments meet up with reality.

Meanwhile, Colorado utility crews head to East Coast.

Why is it so hard to think of the US as a single nation rather than a loose federation of states? Oh yeah, history.

I'm sure there is more help coming from Michigan as well as these emergency service providers:

Six Muskegon-area ProMed employees deployed to New York to help with superstorm Sandy relief,

http://www.mlive.com/news/muskegon/index.s...o_med_empl.html

Americans do care about each other.

This post has been edited by Paladin Elspeth: Oct 31 2012, 04:02 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Amlord
post Oct 31 2012, 04:18 PM
Post #42


Group Icon

**********
The Roaring Lion

Sponsor

Group: Moderators
Posts: 5,884
Member No.: 572
Joined: March-4-03

From: Cleveland suburbs, OH
Gender: Male
Politics: Conservative
Party affiliation: Republican



QUOTE(Paladin Elspeth @ Oct 30 2012, 06:39 PM) *
QUOTE(AMLord)
What I've said is that states need to be prepared. Florida, for example, will be hit by a hurricane in the next five years. Don't you think it would be prudent to be prepared?
I think that it is as prudent as wearing a winter coat and gloves in the winter time.


So you agree with me. The question is should we buy people those hat and gloves so that they can save up for a big screen TV? Hats and gloves are basic survival gear in states like Ohio where I live or Michigan where you live. However, there isn't a government program to hand out hats and gloves (there are many charities that hand these items out, however).


QUOTE(Paladin Elspeth @ Oct 30 2012, 06:39 PM) *
QUOTE
It's not the fault of Florida that hurricanes will hit it, but it isn't some sort of surprise.
So would you agree with my brother? If a hurricane devastates residents' property in Florida again, is it their fault, and should they refrain from building in the state? (One good thing has come out of this, and that is more stringent residential building codes in Florida.)


They should be prepared with an emergency fund.

Florida was recently denied emergency funds for Tropical Storm Isaac. Apparently someone agree with me.

Meanwhile, however, FEMA's budget has skyrocketed in the last few years. FEMA's budget request for FY2013 is $13.5 billion dollars. That's three billion more than FY 2011 (although less than FY2012).

QUOTE(Paladin Elspeth @ Oct 30 2012, 06:39 PM) *
QUOTE
When the local preparedness is overwhelmed, only then should there be federal assistance.
Sounds reasonable to me.


Thank you.

QUOTE(Paladin Elspeth @ Oct 30 2012, 06:39 PM) *
QUOTE
Instead you have what happened in New Jersey: Governor Christie looking to the feds before the storm actually hit. This tells us that he had no money set aside for such a disaster. Granted, New Jersey isn't Florida or Louisiana or Mississippi but looking to the federal government to grant this a disaster before it even happens so that you can get access to federal funds is a disgrace for Governor Christie in my opinion.
Some would say that Christie is being proactive, and I'll bet some of them are voting for the same candidates you are. Christie knows that this is an election year, and that Obama can't very well say "no" even if "Sandy" stood to be less destructive. I don't think what he did is a disgrace; I think it's S.O.P.


Of course it is SOP. Ask for money from the Feds. This is what I have been saying. Thank you for agreeing once more.


QUOTE(Paladin Elspeth @ Oct 30 2012, 06:39 PM) *
QUOTE(Amlord)
QUOTE(Paladin Elspeth @ Oct 30 2012, 12:50 PM) *
And still others among us might protest that they don't want to be "forced" by the government to help take care of fellow Americans whom we do not know personally--that all charity should be willingly given, or there should be no charity at all. But where is the kindness toward our children and future children for which Romney appeared to be so concerned at the time he expressed it? Surely he knows that if we do not help the children who are here now who are in need, we're not taking care of future children, either. There are more children than we can count who are being affected by the weather disaster known as "Sandy" even as we are on this forum debating.


Again, nobody has said that we shouldn't help victims of natural disasters. The question is how prepared we should expect individual states to be.

And where did I ask that question in this thread? Also, where did Mitt Romney indicate that in his Presidential primary debate statements? Because I believe that 100% myself. Makes a heckuva better statement than Mitt Romney, in his "step around the question" statement, saying that federal disaster assistance was "immoral" for our children and grandchildren vis-a-vis the debt that they will be facing.


Maybe you should vote for me for President instead of the other choices. wink2.gif

QUOTE(Paladin Elspeth @ Oct 31 2012, 12:01 PM) *
QUOTE(AuthorMusician @ Oct 31 2012, 11:51 AM) *
QUOTE(Mrs. Pigpen @ Oct 31 2012, 08:36 AM) *
The above figures for federal tax dollars received versus dollars paid are outdated, so here are some figures that are a bit more recent. Most of the areas hit by this specific disaster "give more" than they "get back" from the federal government.

Seems to be an overlooked fact when TEA arguments meet up with reality.

Meanwhile, Colorado utility crews head to East Coast.

Why is it so hard to think of the US as a single nation rather than a loose federation of states? Oh yeah, history.

I'm sure there is more help coming from Michigan as well as these emergency service providers:

Six Muskegon-area ProMed employees deployed to New York to help with superstorm Sandy relief,

http://www.mlive.com/news/muskegon/index.s...o_med_empl.html

Americans do care about each other.

Yes we do. That is what is great about this country.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Paladin Elspeth
post Oct 31 2012, 04:31 PM
Post #43


*********
I want the 10th Doctor for President!

Sponsor
August 1, 2003

Group: Sponsors
Posts: 4,987
Member No.: 721
Joined: May-10-03

From: Between 2 Great Lakes
Gender: Female
Politics: Liberal
Party affiliation: Democrat



QUOTE(Amlord)
Maybe you should vote for me for President instead of the other choices. wink2.gif

I would most assuredly vote for you instead of ONE of the other choices. I trust you more. thumbsup.gif
QUOTE(Amlord)
Meanwhile, however, FEMA's budget has skyrocketed in the last few years. FEMA's budget request for FY2013 is $13.5 billion dollars. That's three billion more than FY 2011 (although less than FY2012).

Could it be, perchance, because there have been more natural disasters over recent years? I'm sure of it, and I can come up with a link if I try, and if you want me to.

This post has been edited by Paladin Elspeth: Oct 31 2012, 04:38 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Hobbes
post Oct 31 2012, 05:19 PM
Post #44


Group Icon

**********
No More Mr. Nice Guy!

Group: Committee Members
Posts: 5,312
Member No.: 1,155
Joined: September-8-03

From: Dallas, TX
Gender: Male
Politics: Conservative
Party affiliation: Independent



QUOTE(JohnfrmCleveland @ Oct 30 2012, 07:37 PM) *
The only deep pockets with a true interest in fixing broken things belong to the government.


What makes you think they do? The government is famous for all the broken things it continues. Look at all our aging infrastructure, for example. It is just about the last place I would expect to go about fixing broken things. They certainly have no true interest in fixing them.

What the government has is a true interest in propogating itself. That is nature of a bureacracy. Always has been. Always will be.

This post has been edited by Hobbes: Oct 31 2012, 05:20 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
vsrenard
post Oct 31 2012, 05:48 PM
Post #45


********
vsrenard

Sponsor
September 2008

Group: Sponsors
Posts: 1,065
Member No.: 5,438
Joined: September-6-05

From: SF Bay Area
Gender: Female
Politics: Slightly Liberal
Party affiliation: Other



So, was Romney right?

That building up a debt for our kids is immoral? No. (Im)morality lies with what choices you make given the options you have. If we deny citizens services that are available now to save potential dollars in the long run, we not be serving our citizens today. I understand there are consequences for choices, but 'immoral' is not the word to describe that.

Were it in your power, would you refuse Federal disaster relief to the victims/survivors of Hurricane Sandy based on what he said?

No, but I don't really think Romney would either. These are the words of a candidate who likes to pander to his base and speak in sound bites. It sounds all well and good in the hypothetical that we should cut Federal expenses and "give power back to the states." But what does that means, exactly? I'm not sure what Romney thinks it means because he has chosen not to explain his remarks further. Realistically though, we like to talk about states being prepared and I don't think anyone is going to say that is a bad idea. But how do we deal with states who choose not to be as prepared as others? Do we fine them when they are already in a state of emergency? Do we cut their federal assistance later, risking the chance they may not be financially poised to add resources in the future? In CA, we used to have a rainy day fund, an issue that is on the ballot gain this year. Is that enough to show good faith that we have tried to prepare for disasters? If not, what is? This is what I want to see candidate Romney address before I even entertain the idea of cuts to FEMA.

The other side of his comments that isn't talked about much is his desire to see disaster response privatized. Given that a company's first interests is to serve its business agenda/stockholders, can we really expect them to put their people in the kind of dangerous situations that often arise to save a few individuals? If they don't, what happens? Does FEMA wait on standby in case the private company fails? Or do we say, well, they'd do better next time or, we'll bid on someone else next time.

I'm not saying privatization is not an option, but we haven't really discussed the details of what Romney is thinking. And that is why I think he is a hack. He throws out lines that feed his base, but is lean on details, and those details matter.

I think it is very important that we invest in our country's infrastructure in a huge way. It's a lot like preventive health care. But no one seems vested in spending a lot of money now to save more money, and lives, in the long run.

Was Romney sincere, or was he pandering to one group of potential supporters?

See above.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Dingo
post Oct 31 2012, 06:28 PM
Post #46


**********
Elite Senior Contributor

Group: Members
Posts: 5,065
Member No.: 225
Joined: November-3-02

From: Monterey Bay, Calif.
Gender: Male
Politics: Independent
Party affiliation: Private



QUOTE(Hobbes @ Oct 31 2012, 10:19 AM) *
What the government has is a true interest in propogating itself. That is nature of a bureacracy. Always has been. Always will be.

Do I hear 3 strikes and you're out and prison guards?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Hobbes
post Oct 31 2012, 06:31 PM
Post #47


Group Icon

**********
No More Mr. Nice Guy!

Group: Committee Members
Posts: 5,312
Member No.: 1,155
Joined: September-8-03

From: Dallas, TX
Gender: Male
Politics: Conservative
Party affiliation: Independent



QUOTE(Dingo @ Oct 31 2012, 01:28 PM) *
QUOTE(Hobbes @ Oct 31 2012, 10:19 AM) *
What the government has is a true interest in propogating itself. That is nature of a bureacracy. Always has been. Always will be.

Do I hear 3 strikes and you're out and prison guards?


???
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Bikerdad
post Oct 31 2012, 07:27 PM
Post #48


*********
Advanced Senior Contributor

Group: Members
Posts: 2,830
Member No.: 715
Joined: May-8-03

Gender: Male
Politics: Undisclosed
Party affiliation: Undisclosed



In yesterday's New York Times

QUOTE
So emergency and disaster response should be, as much as possible, pushed down to the state and local level. A national effort should be reserved for truly catastrophic events. Indeed this preference for "local first, national second" can be found in the legislation authorizing the Federal Emergency Management Agency.

But just the opposite has been happening in recent decades. There were, according to a Heritage Foundation analysis, 28 FEMA declarations a year during the Reagan administration, 44 during Bush I, 90 during Clinton, 130 during Bush II, and 153 so far during Obama's term. The result is federal emergency response effort stretched thin in its capabilities to deal with major disasters.


Sorry Dingo, but even AGW can't account for a five fold increase in "disasters". The Feds are too deeply involved, using money that will have to be paid back by our grandchildren.

(JFC, if you could either start a thread or point me to the thread where you discuss your perspective on the illusory nature of the debt, I'd appreciate it.)

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Amlord
post Oct 31 2012, 07:36 PM
Post #49


Group Icon

**********
The Roaring Lion

Sponsor

Group: Moderators
Posts: 5,884
Member No.: 572
Joined: March-4-03

From: Cleveland suburbs, OH
Gender: Male
Politics: Conservative
Party affiliation: Republican



QUOTE(Bikerdad @ Oct 31 2012, 03:27 PM) *
(JFC, if you could either start a thread or point me to the thread where you discuss your perspective on the illusory nature of the debt, I'd appreciate it.)

There's a 97 Page thread here: What's so bad about the deficit?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
amf
post Oct 31 2012, 07:41 PM
Post #50


********
Millennium Mark

Group: Members
Posts: 1,372
Member No.: 1,540
Joined: October-23-03

From: Atlanta, GA
Gender: Male
Politics: Moderate
Party affiliation: Independent



QUOTE
Sorry Dingo, but even AGW can't account for a five fold increase in "disasters".


If you consider that the states MUST balance their budgets, but the Feds don't have to... much state spending since 2008 has been put on the Uncle Sam's credit cards. Instead of expecting the states to somehow come up with extra money that everyone knows they don't have right now, it's just easier to let FEMA cover it when mother nature strikes.

And if you look at the underlying paper, it doesn't explain the money involved (is it more money per declaration or less? can't be sure), but it's clear the Obama number jumped last year (after declining every year since 2009) because of all the drought-related fires last year.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Dingo
post Oct 31 2012, 09:51 PM
Post #51


**********
Elite Senior Contributor

Group: Members
Posts: 5,065
Member No.: 225
Joined: November-3-02

From: Monterey Bay, Calif.
Gender: Male
Politics: Independent
Party affiliation: Private



QUOTE(Bikerdad @ Oct 31 2012, 12:27 PM) *
QUOTE
There were, according to a Heritage Foundation analysis, 28 FEMA declarations a year during the Reagan administration, 44 during Bush I, 90 during Clinton, 130 during Bush II, and 153 so far during Obama's term. The result is federal emergency response effort stretched thin in its capabilities to deal with major disasters.


Sorry Dingo, but even AGW can't account for a five fold increase in "disasters". The Feds are too deeply involved, using money that will have to be paid back by our grandchildren.

I'm sure the public demand for FEMA involvement has increased beyond the earlier triggers. However increased global warming is a factor and between you guys pooh poohing it and getting us into expensive unneeded wars and obsessing on the rights and privileges of private wealth rather than finding better energy alternatives no doubt FEMA expenses will probably eventually swamp us. It appears whether it is local or national coming to the rescue we are seriously going to relearn a commonly used word from earlier times - triage or perhaps worse - every man and woman for themselves. ph34r.gif

This post has been edited by Dingo: Oct 31 2012, 09:53 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

3 Pages V  < 1 2 3
Reply to this topicStart new topic
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 

  
Go to the top of the page - Simple Version Time is now: August 19th, 2018 - 10:47 PM
©2002-2010 America's Debate, Inc.  All rights reserved.