If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Huffington Post)   Romney in CNN debate: Get rid of FEMA, let states handle disasters. Romney campaign now that there's a major emergency: We need to make sure states "have the resources and assistance they need"   (huffingtonpost.com) divider line 122
    More: Amusing, Mitt Romney, FEMA, GOP, hurricane warning, United States, Ocean City, Hilton Head Island, Hurricane Irene  
•       •       •

7717 clicks; posted to Main » on 29 Oct 2012 at 3:06 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



Voting Results (Smartest)
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


Archived thread
2012-10-29 12:44:54 AM
11 votes:
Romney could walk into the middle of a park, shoot a dog in the head, and immediately condem everyone for letting him shoot that dog, and 40% of this country would still vote for him. This changes nothing.
2012-10-29 04:51:37 AM
8 votes:
images2.sina.com

Don't be suprised if Romney wins. THIS guy was re-elected.

Think about that. 

The whole nation can be informed of their candidates GROSS unsuitability to hold office. Doesn't matter. Half the nation WILL vote for them if they have an -R after their name. 

You could have thousands of Americans die because of the deliberate inaction of a candidate. Twice. It STILL wouldn't mean a thing. They're voting GOP. 

/ But seriously, a Missile Shield would solve everything.
2012-10-29 12:52:44 AM
7 votes:
An honest question for conservatives or Republicans: without referencing Obama or the Democrats, can you please explain how you reconcile voting for a man who has such a careless disregard for consistency of any kind? How do you know what he believes in or what he will do when president?
2012-10-28 11:53:09 PM
7 votes:
FTA: Mitt Romney was asked, in the context of the Joplin disaster and FEMA's cash crunch, whether the agency should be shuttered so that states can individually take over responsibility for disaster response. "Absolutely," he said. "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.

UPDATE: "Gov. Romney wants to ensure states, who are the first responders and are in the best position to aid impacted individuals and communities, have the resources and assistance they need to cope with natural disasters," the Romney official said.

----

So in other words, kill FEMA and stop Federal aid.... until it's needed, and then, what? Reopen it? And then shut it down again? LOL at the logic of these fools.
2012-10-29 02:47:38 AM
6 votes:

SlappyKincaid: log_jammin: SlappyKincaid: Thanks for the info. The if the National Guard already does this at a statewide level why is FEMA needed? Is it purely coordination or do they put boots on the ground?

I follow politics pretty closely however I am lacking in understanding about FEMA. I know what the acronym means but I can't find a true reason why they are not superfluous.


resources. Bottled water, food, communications, doctors, coordinating state relief efforts with federal efforts, etc.. It's just a way to provide more than what one state can do on it's own.

Again thanks. It just seems to be that a state should be able to supply much of this, short of full devastation, without having to rely on others, especially in a populous state. I live in Chicago, IL and if we had massive damage due to Tornadoes, which we do get from time to time, I don't see why we can't send in our own doctors etc. Each state could have an army of volunteers. I would sign up and volunteer my talents in case of disaster.

I'm just trying to find a creative way to solve the problem that would also help mitigate cost to the tax payers.

For a small state like Rhode Island I think FEMA makes sense. A 50' tsumani could level pretty much all of the state. But for us larger, heavily populated states I think it should be left to us.

That's my two cents anyway. Feel free to disagree!


It's an illogical use of resources. No matter what state you're in, a certain amount of your state's funds are allocated to emergency response. And may be enough for most problems. However, to have a force capable of dealing with the extremes, those problems that only come along once every few years or decades, would require allocating money for personnel, facilities and supplies that would spend the rest of the time doing nothing. Having that "extra firepower" centralized so that it can be allocated in one state this year, another the next, spreads that cost around and allows the individual states to use their resources for other, more pressing issues.
2012-10-29 11:12:41 AM
5 votes:

SlappyKincaid: log_jammin: SlappyKincaid: Thanks for the info. The if the National Guard already does this at a statewide level why is FEMA needed? Is it purely coordination or do they put boots on the ground?

I follow politics pretty closely however I am lacking in understanding about FEMA. I know what the acronym means but I can't find a true reason why they are not superfluous.

...

Again thanks. It just seems to be that a state should be able to supply much of this, short of full devastation, without having to rely on others, especially in a populous state. I live in Chicago, IL and if we had massive damage due to Tornadoes, which we do get from time to time, I don't see why we can't send in our own doctors etc. Each state could have an army of volunteers. I would sign up and volunteer my talents in case of disaster.

I'm just trying to find a creative way to solve the problem that would also help mitigate cost to the tax payers.


As someone who has been deployed to several state/regional disasters, here's a couple of facts for everyone "just asking questions":

1) Your idea of getting a pool of volunteers together is a great one. Which is why it is already being done. If you are an engineer (especially structural or mechanical) please, please, please,contact your local or state emergency agency and tell them you'd like to help out in disasters. I promise you, they will roll out the red carpet. Same thing if you are any kind of doctor/nurse. Do this TODAY.

If you don't have those qualifications, but can swing a shovel or carry a stretcher, there's a program called CERT (Community Emergency Response Team) (pops) - these are civilians who receive some basic medical/disaster training and can be used as auxiliaries in a major event. They put on free classes and drills and you get a cool vest, helmet, and pager with which to impress the ladies. Should be in most communities of any size - ask you local emergency management agency.

The worst thing you can do, however, is to try and self-deploy. If you're in the immediate area, do what you think needs to be done for the first 24-48 hours (before response teams start arriving), and try to stay safe. That's the no-man's-land of disasters, and I won't say anything against anyone who tries to make things better before coordinated help arrives. But once a coordinated response is underway in an area, please for the love of Shiva stop running around on your own. It makes planning and coordination impossible, causes us to misallocate resources, and overall does more harm than good. The organized approach really does work better, even if it drives me crazy (SOOO much hurry-up-and-wait). 


2) So much of what you (and conservatives in general) are complaining about/wishing for already happens. We already have tiered responses. First step is local control. The local authorities are generally responsible for problems in their jurisdiction.

If they can't handle it, they will usually call nearby departments for mutual aid. If the scope of the problem exceeds their capacity, then the locals request aid from the state (which takes several hours at a minimum). Each state also has it's own version of FEMA - ours is called KEMA, and it does exactly the same stuff as FEMA on a state level. It has divided our state into districts, and allocated funding and equipment caches throughout each area. KEMA will activate the regional response team, who have (I believe) 6-12 hours to show up on scene fully equipped & ready to play. If the regional response team can't handle things, then they ask the other five regions for help.

If the resources available to KEMA aren't enough, then (and ONLY then) does the Governor ask for help from the Feds. Usually by that point, we're at least 24 hours in, and it's another 24 hours before Federal responders & equipment start showing up. So now we're 48 hours in. That's assuming that everyone plays nice together and there's no other problems with infrastructure, etc. Are you starting to see why the Feds are asking each family to have 72 hours worth of survival essentials on hand?

FEMA does NOT swoop in and take over. Disaster responsibility is inherently a state responsibility, and for a bunch of constitutional reasons, the Federal Government cannot just brush the locals aside and take over. The local/state officials have to formally request federal help first. That was one of the many reasons that Katrina was so farked up, the Louisiana Governor (Blanco?) dicked around for far too long. There's usually a 48-72 hour lead time before federal resources can get deployed. Gonna be interesting to see if Christie got New Jersey in under the wire this time around.


3) If you really care about saving taxpayers $$$, FEMA is absolutely the way to go. For the same reason it's cheaper for everyone to pool the risk in an insurance company, than to try and have each person save up for the cost of chemotherapy on their own.

Lets say there is a 10% chance of a particular type of disaster that will cost $5 billion to respond to, taking place in a given time frame (numbers pulled from my colon for purposes of poopy illustration).
Does it make sense for each state to try to stockpile those resources separately?
$5billion x 50 states = $250 billion total spent by US taxpayers


Or might it make more sense to pool the money?
$5 billion / 50 states = $100 million per state per event.
At a 10% chance/state = Average 5 events for the country
5 events x $100 million/event = $500 million contribution from each state.
Multiply that times 50 states, and you end up with $25 billion dollars spent by US taxpayers.


So for that illustration, the cost of FEMA is 10% the cost of each state going it alone.


4) The dirty little secret of US disaster response is that most of the times, when things are going badly, it's because the Federal (and even State) officials are working in an advisory capacity to the local yokels, who too often ignore sound advice and help until they have their noses rubbed in the fumble-farking job they have been doing. At which point, it takes the FEMA guys a while to dig their way out of the mess they have been handed. By which time news cameras have started to arrive on scene and everyone blames the federal response efforts.

I have personally seen the city police chief and county sheriff refuse to even meet in the same room to coordinate, during an active evacuation while flood waters are still rising, all because the police chief arrested the sheriff's brother-in-law a decade ago, and refused to drop the charges. This picayune bullshiat happens at all levels, and significantly hampers response in the hours where it is needed most.
2012-10-29 01:17:22 AM
5 votes:
So taking money from California to provide disaster relief to Missouri is now socialism. Except when it goes to Massachusetts.

Obama needs to just troll the fark out of him by demanding that defense spending be handed over to the states.
2012-10-29 12:34:14 AM
5 votes:
Romney: "The Federal agency that I don't believe in better not screw up its response to a storm strengthened by a global warming phenomenon that I also don't believe in."
2012-10-29 03:28:30 AM
4 votes:

SlappyKincaid: Shouldn't the National Guard of each state be prepared, and supplied, to handle emergencies such as this?

I understand we've chosen to centralize our disaster response with FEMA but wouldn't it make sense to allow the states to be the first responders given they will know the area, it's population and it's needs better than a central agency who has never dealt there before?

I think it would be simple to train them for this and probably also defray cost in the long run as transports, fuel and a massive bureaucracy cost quite a bit!


Here's the problem: natural disasters cross state lines. You need coordination across all affected areas, and the areas adjacent to them, in order to effectively respond. State-by-state planning is a horrible model for that. Political and jurisdictional boundaries work against a reasonable response to anything that doesn't care about such things.
2012-10-29 12:54:36 AM
4 votes:

coco ebert: An honest question for conservatives or Republicans: without referencing Obama or the Democrats, can you please explain how you reconcile voting for a man who has such a careless disregard for consistency of any kind? How do you know what he believes in or what he will do when president?


None of that matters with a blah man in the White House.
2012-10-29 12:14:22 AM
4 votes:
This is Jindal's volcano gaffe all over again. "Fark FEMA! ...Holy shiat, we need FEMA!"
2012-10-29 05:07:57 AM
3 votes:

propasaurus: coco ebert: An honest question for conservatives or Republicans: without referencing Obama or the Democrats, can you please explain how you reconcile voting for a man who has such a careless disregard for consistency of any kind? How do you know what he believes in or what he will do when president?

Romney has been consistently white and not Obama.


Amen. If Obama were a full bred white man they would love him, he has moved the dems significantly to the right, aside from his commendable stance on gay rights. He practically out Regans Regan in forigen policy. He saved GM & help make sure the great recession did not become the greater depression, with lots more guns & death. Yet, nothing he has ever done has been right. Why? He is 1/2 black. I am utterly disgusted by the small minded, egomaniacal bigotry.
2012-10-29 03:53:18 AM
3 votes:

cman: Like Bush was with Katrina, right? Two can play that game


My thoughts there have always been... never attribute malice to that which can be explained by ignorance.

I genuinely believe that most of the federal agencies were completely and totally unprepared to deal with as many people who live in abject poverty as we have in New Orleans. I think there was some assumption that they had more resources than they did.

You almost have to live there for awhile to really get how many people in that city have almost nothing.
2012-10-29 03:48:34 AM
3 votes:
Of course, when he says the states should have the resources and assistance they need, he means the all-benevolent and community-loving private corporations, who will be happy to discount the prices on their emergency goods so they only make a 10% profit rather than their usual 30%. This is, of course, because the big bad EEEEEEEEEEBIL gubmint can't do anything right.
2012-10-29 03:33:23 AM
3 votes:

katfairy: cman:

I dunno about you, but I dont want some Texas hick who has no concept of the culture I was raised in having significant power to control what goes on in my neck of the woods. I dont want some racist Mississippian being able to tell me "You cant do that" for something that is acceptable for here in Maine.

Down there they can't even figure out when Patriots' Day is supposed to be, let alone how to live in a state that actually has real seasons.



You know, I'm pretty stoked about my impending move to New England. I've lived in Louisiana, Georgia, and now Texas. It'll be nice to live somewhere where I'm an average liberal instead of a crazy liberal.
2012-10-29 03:21:02 AM
3 votes:

propasaurus:
Y'know what? What's wrong with a central government? We're one country. One big-ass country. Why do we need 50 sets of rules and regulations? You're an American, not a Georgian or Californian or Texan. Same rules apply to everyone.


I see nothing wrong with a central government! I just don't think every little thing needs to be filtered through there. I am indeed an American and enjoy the rights and privileges bestowed on me as a result. That said being critical of our government isn't a bad thing.

I'm always looking for a better way to do things. In this case I'm now fairly convinced FEMA is a good thing to have, though after now reading up on it, I'm not sure if it should be under the Department of Homeland Security. I can see why they did that but I think it would be better if it was free of military obligation.



abb3w: SlappyKincaid: I follow politics pretty closely however I am lacking in understanding about FEMA. I know what the acronym means but I can't find a true reason why they are not superfluous.

Yes, but last I checked your profile admitted you were living in the State of Denial; there may be a connection.

[a.imageshack.us image 338x156] 

Since "superfluous" implicitly requires relation to a purpose, which requires an ought-ordering of is-choices, the use of the word "true" induces me to suggest Hume's "A Treatise of Human Nature" to your attention.



LOL. I should probably update that. I don't think my profile has been updated since I joined Fark. What I was 7 years ago is not what I am now. We all learn and grow and I don't believe I'm the angst ridden 20 something I was then.

As for Hume I have not read his works but I have read Kant among others. I will check him out. Thanks!


So, independent of Fark I have now read about FEMA. As I stated above I'm not a fan of it being under DHS but I do think it is one of those agencies that is needed in a central government.

Thanks to all who answered my questions and humored me in my questions. If we're not learning, or at least trying to understand, what is the point!
2012-10-29 02:54:33 AM
3 votes:

SlappyKincaid: log_jammin: SlappyKincaid: Thanks for the info. The if the National Guard already does this at a statewide level why is FEMA needed? Is it purely coordination or do they put boots on the ground?

I follow politics pretty closely however I am lacking in understanding about FEMA. I know what the acronym means but I can't find a true reason why they are not superfluous.


resources. Bottled water, food, communications, doctors, coordinating state relief efforts with federal efforts, etc.. It's just a way to provide more than what one state can do on it's own.

Again thanks. It just seems to be that a state should be able to supply much of this, short of full devastation, without having to rely on others, especially in a populous state. I live in Chicago, IL and if we had massive damage due to Tornadoes, which we do get from time to time, I don't see why we can't send in our own doctors etc. Each state could have an army of volunteers. I would sign up and volunteer my talents in case of disaster.

I'm just trying to find a creative way to solve the problem that would also help mitigate cost to the tax payers.

For a small state like Rhode Island I think FEMA makes sense. A 50' tsumani could level pretty much all of the state. But for us larger, heavily populated states I think it should be left to us.

That's my two cents anyway. Feel free to disagree!


Maybe because if your state is wiped out in a disaster, all of your state's resources will be wiped out, too.
2012-10-29 02:39:11 AM
3 votes:

SlappyKincaid: I don't see why we can't send in our own doctors etc. Each state could have an army of volunteers. I would sign up and volunteer my talents in case of disaster.


The state can and does send it's own doctors and supplies and what ever. The simple fact is that most, if not all, the states simple do not have the resources to handle a major disaster all on their own.

There is no reason at all to do away with FEMA and make the states handle it on their own.
2012-10-29 02:31:58 AM
3 votes:

SlappyKincaid: For a small state like Rhode Island I think FEMA makes sense. A 50' tsumani could level pretty much all of the state. But for us larger, heavily populated states I think it should be left to us.

That's my two cents anyway. Feel free to disagree!


Not all states have the money and resources to properly handle emergencies. Can you imagine Louisiana or Mississippi trying to deal with a major disaster with no federal disaster relief? It was bad enough when we had help.
2012-10-29 02:24:06 AM
3 votes:
We should be 50 individual countries.
2012-10-29 12:57:14 AM
3 votes:
FTA: "And if you can go even further, and send it back to the private sector, that's even better."

Yeah, we can let Halliburton have some no-bid contracts to clean up natural disasters. Sounds like a really good idea*.



*if you're a retard
2012-10-29 12:33:12 AM
3 votes:

shower_in_my_socks: It'll be fun watching Romney attempt to criticize Obama's Federal response to a disaster after demanding that the Feds shouldn't respond at all.


It is a guaranteed certainty. There is absolutely no question at all that Romney and the GOP will be screaming about Obama's cuts to FEMA and how they're hurting the disaster response.
2012-10-29 12:13:26 AM
3 votes:
If it's left up to states to handle disasters, what state will be chosen to handle his campaign?
2012-10-29 12:12:38 AM
3 votes:
Reading between the lines: I'm attacking the President for an inadequate response to a disaster that hasn't happened yet.

It's the same thing as Libya. He's can't even bother to wait for the facts to come in, he's already attacking. Hell, he's attacking before the disaster.

Lionel Mandrake: [i159.photobucket.com image 294x300][i159.photobucket.com image 294x300]


Seriously, that might give me nightmares. Why?
2012-10-29 12:07:09 AM
3 votes:
i159.photobucket.comi159.photobucket.com
2012-10-29 08:19:54 AM
2 votes:
If Obama hadn't shrunk the Navy down to the size of Bolivia's we wouldn't have to worry about this shiat. President Romney would just line up his thousand one-mile long Freedom Class Carriers into a wall like a Spartan phalanx that would not only prevent the hurricane from hitting the United States, but would deflect it onto Europe and wipe out all the socialist there.
2012-10-29 08:05:35 AM
2 votes:

heavymetal: Another thing not mentioned and Republicans blasted President Obama as being a "big spender" for. President Obama actually factored the projected cost of emergency relief for diasters in his budget. Previous POTUSs didn't as an accounting trick to make the budgets appear smaller.



Yeah it was unfortunate Obama just took it on the chin every time Romney tried to paint him as a big spender during the debates. Additional spending has increased at the slowest rate in nearly 50 years under Obama. The deficit increased not because Obama was irresponsible, but because he actually was responsible and put things on the budget that needed to be there. All existing things the government already was paying for before he came into office. Furthermore he was faced with drastically reduced revenue, which made the deficit worse.

The thing is Romney knows all this and dare I say even understands, but he is just intellectually dishonest enough to beat the straw man to death.
2012-10-29 07:08:18 AM
2 votes:
FTFA: "Absolutely," he said. "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 the opposite question, what should we keep?"

"Including disaster relief, though?" debate moderator John King asked Romney.

"We cannot -- we cannot afford to do those things without jeopardizing the future for our kids," Romney replied. "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."


Spin: A Romney official sought to clarify the former governor's remarks Sunday evening.

"Gov. Romney wants to ensure states, who are the first responders and are in the best position to aid impacted individuals and communities, have the resources and assistance they need to cope with natural disasters," the Romney official said.


Yes, but just like with his economic plan he fails to say "how". Looking back at his statement during the primaries it is a legitemate question to know how he plans to reconcile the two. The part that bothers me the most is: "and send it back to the private sector".

The last thing people need during a time of disaster is figuring out how to pay for emergency services. A "for profit" emergency managment program makes about as much sense as a healthcare system based on maximaizing profits rather than healing the sick.
2012-10-29 05:54:19 AM
2 votes:

WorldCitizen: Gee, Romney is now saying something completely opposite of something he just recently said? I am SHOCKED!

Apparently, lying isn't one of the morals Republicans are concerned about.


As stated in another thread, the GOP lies and cheats because winning is more important than the pedestrian morals they espouse.
2012-10-29 05:47:27 AM
2 votes:
Yeah I'm giving SlappyKincaid a nice green colour, just so I know that when he asks a question in the future he's actually curious and not deliberately obtuse.
2012-10-29 04:52:00 AM
2 votes:

log_jammin: SlappyKincaid: I don't see why we can't send in our own doctors etc. Each state could have an army of volunteers. I would sign up and volunteer my talents in case of disaster.

The state can and does send it's own doctors and supplies and what ever.


Which state has its own doctors? Last I looked virtually every doctor in my home state are in private practice. Are you thinking about forcing them to practice under threat of arms?
2012-10-29 04:50:30 AM
2 votes:

SlappyKincaid: log_jammin: SlappyKincaid: Thanks for the info. The if the National Guard already does this at a statewide level why is FEMA needed? Is it purely coordination or do they put boots on the ground?

I follow politics pretty closely however I am lacking in understanding about FEMA. I know what the acronym means but I can't find a true reason why they are not superfluous.


resources. Bottled water, food, communications, doctors, coordinating state relief efforts with federal efforts, etc.. It's just a way to provide more than what one state can do on it's own.

Again thanks. It just seems to be that a state should be able to supply much of this, short of full devastation, without having to rely on others, especially in a populous state. I live in Chicago, IL and if we had massive damage due to Tornadoes, which we do get from time to time, I don't see why we can't send in our own doctors etc. Each state could have an army of volunteers. I would sign up and volunteer my talents in case of disaster.

I'm just trying to find a creative way to solve the problem that would also help mitigate cost to the tax payers.


Okay then. Who is going to pay for the medication, shelters, food, water, transportation, etc.? Speaking of the medication, let's not forget all that goes under that label: anesthetics, antibiotics, sterilization of instruments --- oh wait! Who is going to provide the instruments, facilities, etc.? Who will pay for all of that?

Is all of this just going to fall free form the skies like manna?

That was one derptastic suggestion, d3wd.
2012-10-29 04:34:29 AM
2 votes:

AdrienVeidt: Absolute pureed bullshiat, sweetheart. I read an article in Scientific American several years prior to Katrina that described the exact thing that happened and how horrible it would. Lots of people knew, the people in charge didn't care.


I don't overly care for being called sweetheart- probably because I read it in a New Jersey accent. *shudder*

But aside from that, I understand your point as well. I just know I've read about it quite a bit, and I know a lot of people that lived through it, and I think there was just a chain of major screw ups. Some from incompetence, but you're right- some because people didn't care.

 I just try not to lose sight of how complicated the disaster response to that storm was and I try not to lay all the blame in one place.
2012-10-29 03:58:32 AM
2 votes:

SlappyKincaid: So it was the governor that delayed FEMA and other agencies from responding quickly to the disaster? I knew there was delays but I always thought it was, in part, the Bush Administration's fault. If the local state doesn't invoke a state of emergency or request FEMA, I guess that means the federal government's hands are tied, which is what others said earlier in posts.

If anything, that answers my question then.

Very good to know! Thanks!



Honestly- it was a combination of a lot of failures by a lot of people. This is actually a pretty decent summary: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_government_response_to_Hurr i cane_Katrina

 
2012-10-29 03:52:22 AM
2 votes:
There is an easy out for Rmoney.

"Yes, I want to kill FEMA and turn it over to the States, but that will be with block grants to the States so that they can more efficiently manage their disasters. But until you elect me President, that is not yet possible."

I'll bet you $10,000 that is his answer.
2012-10-29 03:41:17 AM
2 votes:

brigid_fitch:
Nope--the state has to declare a state of emergency and request assistance from FEMA. In fact, that was a contributing factor to the Katrina fiasco. Gov. Blanco didn't declare a state of emergency soon enough, delaying aid. Granted, the entire situation still managed to get royally botched from there, but the delay in requesting additional aid certainly didn't help them any.

By contrast, the MS governor declared it a day before LA did and FEMA was already standing by at the first hint of problems.


True. I remember at the time being stunned at how long it was taking the state government of LA to do anything, and being flat-out flabbergasted on reading that Bush actually called them to ask them what the hell they were doing. I wonder how much lower the death toll would have been if the governor had acted sooner.
2012-10-29 03:34:38 AM
2 votes:

SlappyKincaid: brigid_fitch:

I understand and actually appreciate that you're asking intelligent questions about it instead of going all WHARBARBL about Big Government. Look at FEMA like insurance. All the states pay into it but hope they never have to use it. However, it's there if they need it. And, just like you have the option of going to the doctor if you decide that maybe you're a little sicker than you thought & you need something more than bedrest and Nyquil, governors have the option of calling in FEMA.

That is indeed a good way to look at it. I'm just curious to know, and I haven't found it in my reading yet, if the federal government can supersede the state if they deem something a disaster beyond what the state can handle by itself even if the state disagrees.


Nope--the state has to declare a state of emergency and request assistance from FEMA. In fact, that was a contributing factor to the Katrina fiasco. Gov. Blanco didn't declare a state of emergency soon enough, delaying aid. Granted, the entire situation still managed to get royally botched from there, but the delay in requesting additional aid certainly didn't help them any.

By contrast, the MS governor declared it a day before LA did and FEMA was already standing by at the first hint of problems.
2012-10-29 03:31:39 AM
2 votes:

SlappyKincaid: That is indeed a good way to look at it. I'm just curious to know, and I haven't found it in my reading yet, if the federal government can supersede the state if they deem something a disaster beyond what the state can handle by itself even if the state disagrees.



Not that I know of. Honestly? The political pressure on a governor who tried to pull that one would be enormous. People tend not to appreciate ideological purity when their homes have been destroyed and they need food.

I honestly don't know because there's never been a case where that needed to happen.
2012-10-29 03:12:07 AM
2 votes:

SlappyKincaid: I'm looking up FEMA now.


You might also look up the New Madrid earthquake, and it's relation to FEMA and predecessors.
2012-10-29 03:09:12 AM
2 votes:

SlappyKincaid: brigid_fitch:

It's ALWAYS left to the state. FEMA can't be brought in unless a state declares a state of emergency and asks for federal aid. I think that's why Christie waited as long as he did to declare it (3pm today, as opposed to the rest of the East Coast states who declared it on Saturday). He's gunning for a 2016 presidential election and doesn't want to be seen relying on the Feds. However, when you've got a huge Frankenstorm bearing down on you, ready to make landfall right in the middle of your state, you look at your resources and decide if you can handle it or not. NJ can't handle this on its own. The ...

Oh I see. FEMA is not an automatic response. The state has the power to envoke them or too refuse them.

That's good to know. Thanks!

In a case like Sandy, I think everyone in those states can use all the help they can get, assuming it's going to be as crazy as predicted.

I'm not really pro-central government, in case that wasn't clear, but there are times when the central government is needed and this may be one of them.


Y'know what? What's wrong with a central government? We're one country. One big-ass country. Why do we need 50 sets of rules and regulations? You're an American, not a Georgian or Californian or Texan. Same rules apply to everyone.
2012-10-29 01:37:36 AM
2 votes:

coco ebert: An honest question for conservatives or Republicans: without referencing Obama or the Democrats, can you please explain how you reconcile voting for a man who has such a careless disregard for consistency of any kind? How do you know what he believes in or what he will do when president?


I tried that. The answer was various forms of, "No politician ever does what he promises to do during the campaign!"

While somewhat true, it still doesn't account for the ridiculous platform (or non-platform, depending on what day it is) Romney is campaigning with. Any further questioning in order to clarify their answer just spirals down into further levels of derp.
2012-10-29 01:13:21 AM
2 votes:

propasaurus: shower_in_my_socks: It'll be fun watching Romney attempt to criticize Obama's Federal response to a disaster after demanding that the Feds shouldn't respond at all.

It is a guaranteed certainty. There is absolutely no question at all that Romney and the GOP will be screaming about Obama's cuts to FEMA and how they're hurting the disaster response.


I'm guessing they will start slamming Obama for the disaster response before Sandy makes landfall. Hell I will go out on a limb and predict that some right wing arsehole accuses the Obama administration of with holding much needed relief from New Jersey deliberately to get back at Gov. Chris "sausage fingers" Christie. One of the usual trolls in the media will be "asking questions" before noon. Rush will compare it to the events in Benghazi by mid week.

The election has already started. It's on baby. Reality has been suspended for the next 9 days.

It will not show up on the radar for TWC but Frankenstorm is going to collide with election 2012 Derpstorm. I'm frightened by that. Don't stare into that abyss too long folks. It can't be good for you.
2012-10-29 12:56:07 AM
2 votes:

coco ebert: An honest question for conservatives or Republicans: without referencing Obama or the Democrats, can you please explain how you reconcile voting for a man who has such a careless disregard for consistency of any kind? How do you know what he believes in or what he will do when president?


Romney has been consistently white and not Obama.
2012-10-29 12:55:00 AM
2 votes:
I can't wait for the shills to get here with their rationalizations for this. Talking points are being distributed right about now.
I'm sure it'll be something about bloated federal government stealing tax money from citizens/states and the states could do better without burdensome federal FEMA/EPA regulations, but since FEMA hasn't been abolished yet we deserve to get back all the tax money we've paid into the failed bureaucracy and Obama failed to respond in time because he's punishing red states for not voting for him.
And something something Benghazi.
2012-10-29 12:34:23 AM
2 votes:
Gee, Romney is now saying something completely opposite of something he just recently said? I am SHOCKED!

Apparently, lying isn't one of the morals Republicans are concerned about.
2012-10-29 12:16:07 AM
2 votes:
Meanwhile, Chris Christie canceled a trip to campaign for Romney to go back to NJ and tell the press that Obama is awesome for his response to the storm so far.

/facepalm Mittens
2012-10-29 12:04:23 AM
2 votes:
Would someone please stop taking Schrödinger's candidate out of his box?
2012-10-28 11:55:42 PM
2 votes:
To be fair, in a flood situation, flip-flops will substitute for oars quite nicely.
2012-10-29 11:22:57 AM
1 votes:

SlappyKincaid: log_jammin: SlappyKincaid: Thanks for the info. The if the National Guard already does this at a statewide level why is FEMA needed? Is it purely coordination or do they put boots on the ground?

I follow politics pretty closely however I am lacking in understanding about FEMA. I know what the acronym means but I can't find a true reason why they are not superfluous.


resources. Bottled water, food, communications, doctors, coordinating state relief efforts with federal efforts, etc.. It's just a way to provide more than what one state can do on it's own.

Again thanks. It just seems to be that a state should be able to supply much of this, short of full devastation, without having to rely on others, especially in a populous state. I live in Chicago, IL and if we had massive damage due to Tornadoes, which we do get from time to time, I don't see why we can't send in our own doctors etc. Each state could have an army of volunteers. I would sign up and volunteer my talents in case of disaster.

I'm just trying to find a creative way to solve the problem that would also help mitigate cost to the tax payers.

For a small state like Rhode Island I think FEMA makes sense. A 50' tsumani could level pretty much all of the state. But for us larger, heavily populated states I think it should be left to us.

That's my two cents anyway. Feel free to disagree!


Here is an example from close to your Home. It was the great Flood of 93' and I was in the Illinois national guard thowing sand bags trying to save Cahokia, IL. This fllood was also affecting every northern state that touched the Mississipi and it's tributaries. Had there not been a coordinated Federal response, states would act in their own interests screwing over other states. Also FEMA helps coordinate communication, relief aid and various nongovermental agencies. With out that coordination your flood of good meaning volunteers becomes either a hindernce to relief efforts and at worst victims.
2012-10-29 09:45:54 AM
1 votes:

born_yesterday: Romney: Keeping it real.

Or not. He hasn't decided. How do you want him to keep it?


To himself?
2012-10-29 09:36:58 AM
1 votes:

As usual, the difference is pretty clear.

oi45.tinypic.com
2012-10-29 09:30:43 AM
1 votes:

brigid_fitch: Nope--the state has to declare a state of emergency and request assistance from FEMA. In fact, that was a contributing factor to the Katrina fiasco. Gov. Blanco didn't declare a state of emergency soon enough, delaying aid. Granted, the entire situation still managed to get royally botched from there, but the delay in requesting additional aid certainly didn't help them any.



Revisionist History (actually, a botched article from the Washington Post that screwed up the time line for Katrina which has lead to this continuing INCORRECT portrayal of events.)

In fact, Gov Blanco declared a statewide state of emergency Sept 26 and requested that the Federal Govt (FEMA) forward her the official papers to request Federal assistance. Those were sent to her on Sept 27, she signed them and returned them immediately, and the Bush administration (FEMA) authorized FEMA to assist with disaster relief. (Which in affect, put them in control) The Gov took those steps nearly immediately upon learning from the National Weather service that the storm would landfall in Louisiana. Also, it should be noted that Federal troops and assistance, were actually dispatched, or in the process of being transported to Louisiana on the 26th, as soon as the Gov declared a state of emergency and notified the local FEMA office of same.

The real damage from Katrina (over flowing levies) really didn't happen until the 30th.

There was no more delay in requesting FEMA assistance from the Gov of Louisiana, than the governor's requesting proactive assistance in regard to Sandy this time around. A convenient scapegoat and excuse for the Bush Administration's handling of Katrina and its aftermath, but not one based on reality.
2012-10-29 08:57:56 AM
1 votes:
He will blame the president for closing the stock markets today, resulting in the slowed growth of american business.

Ah the disconnect. It tastes rather like cake.
2012-10-29 08:48:38 AM
1 votes:

TV's Vinnie: All Team Obama needs to do now is to run an ad that shows footage of the hurricane with Rmoney's FEMA comments over it, and he could coast all the way to Victory next week.

But then again, only Rmoney likes to take political advantage of disasters that hurt people.



so much this
2012-10-29 08:40:21 AM
1 votes:

Satanic_Hamster: I think we should plant this as an idea for the far right and tea groups. Get their governors and federal reps to sign a pledge to not request federal aid for disasters.


Please. Just last year, Rick Perry was talking tough about Texas seceding, then started begging for federal money once the Texas wildfires started.

Republican governors are like teenagers who tell their parents to go fark themselves, then ask if they can borrow the car five minutes later.
2012-10-29 08:39:21 AM
1 votes:

timujin: It's an illogical use of resources. No matter what state you're in, a certain amount of your state's funds are allocated to emergency response. And may be enough for most problems. However, to have a force capable of dealing with the extremes, those problems that only come along once every few years or decades, would require allocating money for personnel, facilities and supplies that would spend the rest of the time doing nothing. Having that "extra firepower" centralized so that it can be allocated in one state this year, another the next, spreads that cost around and allows the individual states to use their resources for other, more pressing issues.


Well I suppose some states could get together and decide to spread around the risk and agree to some mutual support.
A sort of United group of States. But at all costs keep the government out of it. Right?
2012-10-29 08:23:30 AM
1 votes:

MayoSlather: JonnyG: Listen folks... For f*cks sake...

Attacking Romney is NOT an agenda!

He would want to make that clear.

I was floored when he said that...After repeatedly launching into anti-Obama diatribes, often unrelated to the subject at hand, he has the indignant cajones to whine about being attacked. What an ass.


The whole party has taken on the tone of a schoolyard bully who goes whining and crying to the teacher when one of the kids they've been picking on pops em in the mouth.
2012-10-29 08:20:09 AM
1 votes:
All Obama needs to do to win this thing is go to the White House and make a Presidential Address about how the Federal Government is there for the states that need the assistance, and he's sending help right away. Doesn't even need to be an overt dig at Rmoney, just do his job and let people see him doing it. That's all! (and next week back on the campaign trail, remind people what Rmoney said about FEMA....)
2012-10-29 08:17:17 AM
1 votes:

JonnyG: Listen folks... For f*cks sake...

Attacking Romney is NOT an agenda!

He would want to make that clear.


I was floored when he said that...After repeatedly launching into anti-Obama diatribes, often unrelated to the subject at hand, he has the indignant cajones to whine about being attacked. What an ass.
2012-10-29 08:16:15 AM
1 votes:

wongway: So just how will FEMA fix the OBAMA disaster?

25 Million out of work

16 Trillion in Debt?

Can anyone imagine whats thats going to look like if Obama get back in?

Can we all just Say Greece?


Best part...FOREVER!

Seriously, if you're going to create an alt to make it look like not everyone thinks you're an idiot, you've got to be more conspicious about it.
2012-10-29 07:56:01 AM
1 votes:

log_jammin: SlappyKincaid: I don't see why we can't send in our own doctors etc. Each state could have an army of volunteers. I would sign up and volunteer my talents in case of disaster.

The state can and does send it's own doctors and supplies and what ever. The simple fact is that most, if not all, the states simple do not have the resources to handle a major disaster all on their own.

There is no reason at all to do away with FEMA and make the states handle it on their own.


Frankly, I'm coming around to asking the obvious question: Why do we even have 50 states anymore? 50 little fiefdoms pissing away money on the same damn thing in 50 different ways is increasingly assine, IMO.
2012-10-29 07:21:36 AM
1 votes:
I believe Romney's big deficit reduction plan is to make the states pay for everything because you know, that's not a financial burden on people. It's much cheaper to create something 50 times instead of once, and it's much more simple to coordinate 50 different entities to work with each other than one...and you're almost assured to have a drastic rise in quality of service when the likes of Mississippi and Alabama create government services. To the extent Republicans believe in states rights it begs the question, why even have a USA? Just let 50 states turn into sovereign countries.
2012-10-29 07:13:09 AM
1 votes:

Launch Code: obama said he'd protect Americans but sat back and watched as 4 Americans got slaughtered then lied about the reason to protect his next day fundraising trip. obama said he'd get the unemployment rate down to 5.6% in his first term. It's now over 8% (7.8% if you cook the books).


Achievement unlocked. post a comment devoid of any facts.
2012-10-29 07:07:20 AM
1 votes:
Romney smiles when Americans die, so of course he wants to get rid of FEMA.
2012-10-29 07:05:18 AM
1 votes:

Launch Code: obama said he'd protect Americans but sat back and watched as 4 Americans got slaughtered then lied about the reason to protect his next day fundraising trip. obama said he'd get the unemployment rate down to 5.6% in his first term. It's now over 8% (7.8% if you cook the books).


Called it!
2012-10-29 06:59:34 AM
1 votes:

SlappyKincaid: Shouldn't the National Guard of each state be prepared, and supplied, to handle emergencies such as this?

I understand we've chosen to centralize our disaster response with FEMA but wouldn't it make sense to allow the states to be the first responders given they will know the area, it's population and it's needs better than a central agency who has never dealt there before?

I think it would be simple to train them for this and probably also defray cost in the long run as transports, fuel and a massive bureaucracy cost quite a bit!



I'm going to assume you really don't know many people in the country. There is a trailer park a couple of miles from my farm and the other day some yahoo decides to beat his "wife" and drive his car into a river in rage. We don't have local police here, so the rage-fest went on for quite a bit before State Troopers were able to arrive on the scene. I couldn't imagine leaving a natural disaster entirely up to the state level, not to mention the cost involved. There are just too many areas like mine, in the middle of nowhere, with absolutely no resources to deal with anything above drunks and late night barn parties gone wrong.
2012-10-29 06:57:45 AM
1 votes:

themindiswatching: coco ebert: An honest question for conservatives or Republicans: without referencing Obama or the Democrats, can you please explain how you reconcile voting for a man who has such a careless disregard for consistency of any kind? How do you know what he believes in or what he will do when president?

None of that matters with a blah man in the White House.


Just listen to the mental gymnastics that evangelical Christians are making in order to vote for Romney, and you have all the answers you possibly need.
2012-10-29 06:52:01 AM
1 votes:
So no FEMA if you're a Red State, then. Most of them have a small tax base and are usually slammed during the Autumn months due to Hurricanes. So if you're in a Republican-leaning state, Mitt Romney is telling you to suck it and die.
2012-10-29 06:43:48 AM
1 votes:

SlappyKincaid: log_jammin: SlappyKincaid: Thanks for the info. The if the National Guard already does this at a statewide level why is FEMA needed? Is it purely coordination or do they put boots on the ground?

I follow politics pretty closely however I am lacking in understanding about FEMA. I know what the acronym means but I can't find a true reason why they are not superfluous.


resources. Bottled water, food, communications, doctors, coordinating state relief efforts with federal efforts, etc.. It's just a way to provide more than what one state can do on it's own.

Again thanks. It just seems to be that a state should be able to supply much of this, short of full devastation, without having to rely on others, especially in a populous state. I live in Chicago, IL and if we had massive damage due to Tornadoes, which we do get from time to time, I don't see why we can't send in our own doctors etc. Each state could have an army of volunteers. I would sign up and volunteer my talents in case of disaster.

I'm just trying to find a creative way to solve the problem that would also help mitigate cost to the tax payers.

For a small state like Rhode Island I think FEMA makes sense. A 50' tsumani could level pretty much all of the state. But for us larger, heavily populated states I think it should be left to us.

That's my two cents anyway. Feel free to disagree!


3 problems with this:
1. What do you do about people put out of their homes by a disaster? Invite them into your home to chill while they wait to be rebuilt? I live in Mississippi; every church has their disaster response van or bus, with food, doctors and nurses ready to go relieve hurricane or tornado victims. But that does nothing for shelter.
2. In disaster relief, organization is important. It stands to reason that the more experience a disaster relief director has (or whatever their title is, doesn't matter), the better organized the response will be. Managing multiple agencies and overcoming logistical problems are specialized skills that need honing in multiple episodes. A national agency is better equipped to do so. It goes without mentioning that in a hurricane, which affects multiple states, state or sub-state level management is insufficient.
3. Order and police after a disaster: with respect to looting and other civic disorder, do you want local cops from 35 bumf--k Mississippi towns coming in to "establish order", or would you rather have an import of 82nd airborne troops (think Dade county after Andrew) who are accustomed to dealing with less-than-ideal conditions?

Local responses are necessary, don't get me wrong. But disasters need integrated responses to a wide range of breakdowns that local responses can't (or haven't previously proved they can) withstand.
2012-10-29 06:11:43 AM
1 votes:
He's just trying to protect Real 'Muricans from those filthy Union Thugs who risk their lives to save you when you dial 911 -- and don't even hand out a bill when they're done!
No profit, no chance to outsource!
2012-10-29 05:54:10 AM
1 votes:

cman: The GOP took a BEATING in the 2008 election. They felt like a cornered animal and they reacted. It does not matter if the President was white, black, Jew, gay, or even Reptilian, as long as there is a D next to the name it will be a bitter fight.


The point is: what did they do as a result of that beating? did they (A) try to reevaluate their positions and policies to keep up with the times, or (B) dig their heels in and double-down on their commitment to live in their own bizarro alternate reality.

... which is why I can't really respect people who try to claim that they're both moderate and reasonable, as well as republican. Sorry, but you just can't be both these days. When people like Michelle "birth-control-causes-autism" Bachmann, Donald "birth-certificate" Trump, and Sarah "don't-even-need-a-monicker" Palin become the mouthpieces of the party, you're going to have to either buy into the crazy wholesale, or leave the party.

Maybe the Pub's will eventually dump the psycho's and we can go back to having mutually respectful intellectual discussions, but I don't see that happening anytime soon.
2012-10-29 05:41:36 AM
1 votes:

log_jammin: If a troll can't make me laugh then they deserve the same fate as the real ones.


That's really rare. Fark has some really shiatty trolls.
2012-10-29 05:36:34 AM
1 votes:

orbister: Romney, a few months ago: Give the states the money and let them do disaster relief.

Romney's aide, recently: Give the states the money and let them do disaster relief.


So he wants to "spread the wealth around". Got it.
2012-10-29 05:34:02 AM
1 votes:

propasaurus: SevenizGud: ...dumbocraps...

Anyone know? Is this guy for real? It just seems like such a caricature of a troll.


Hard to tell anymore. I always assume they're real. If a troll can't make me laugh then they deserve the same fate as the real ones.
2012-10-29 05:29:55 AM
1 votes:

SevenizGud: ...dumbocraps...


Anyone know? Is this guy for real? It just seems like such a caricature of a troll.
2012-10-29 05:25:37 AM
1 votes:

0Icky0: There is an easy out for Rmoney.

"Yes, I want to kill FEMA and turn it over to the States, but that will be with block grants to the States so that they can more efficiently manage their disasters. But until you elect me President, that is not yet possible."

I'll bet you $10,000 that is his answer.


That's far too logical and coherent for the Romney campaign. If anything they'd respond by just totally denying that Romney had ever said anything of the sort (or better yet, issue a "clarification" that completely reverses his stance), and no media would bother pointing out the contradiction.
2012-10-29 05:12:52 AM
1 votes:
They were filming an episode (the pilot, I think) episode of TWCs "It Could Happen Tomorrow" in New Orleans earlier that year, and the subject was a Cat 5 hurricane hitting NOLA. They ended up delaying the release of that episode because it was supposed to air just after Katrina hit.
2012-10-29 05:04:51 AM
1 votes:

coco ebert: An honest question for conservatives or Republicans: without referencing Obama or the Democrats, can you please explain how you reconcile voting for a man who has such a careless disregard for consistency of any kind? How do you know what he believes in or what he will do when president?


"It's not so much that I'm voting for Romney, rather I'm voting against Obama who is a Kenyan born fascist, communist, socialist, apologizing, muzzlim."

TL;DR: "Because Obama is a darkie."

/Study it out, buddy.
2012-10-29 04:55:54 AM
1 votes:

AbbeySomeone: cman: AbbeySomeone: I never believed in shape shifters until I saw that man attempt to debate Obama.

I believe the political correct title is "changeling", you bigot

The preferred nomenclature is 'speciest'.


I prefer Etch-A-Sketch-American
2012-10-29 04:53:11 AM
1 votes:

AdrienVeidt: Absolute pureed bullshiat, sweetheart. I read an article in Scientific American several years prior to Katrina that described the exact thing that happened and how horrible it would. Lots of people knew, the people in charge didn't care.




This might be the article you are referring to. (reprint of article, post-Katrina.)

Drowning New Orleans
In a harrowing prediction of what would become the future, this 2001 feature notes that a major hurricane could swamp New Orleans under 20 feet of water, killing thousands

by Mark Fischetti
10/1/2001
Scientific American 
(scientificamerican.com)
2012-10-29 04:39:46 AM
1 votes:
Alright my nightly ambien has begun to kick in, so I'll take my leave before I start doing something embarassing, like writing bad poetry.

I really enjoyed talked to everyone. Have a good week.
2012-10-29 04:36:35 AM
1 votes:

T-Servo: I hear people complaining about the Hawaii tsunami warning and how it's a waste of government resources ("We can do this on our own!"), the same survivalist-cowboy crap I hear from my parents all the time.


Yep, and they're the FIRST ones to biatch when the warning DOESN'T come. Seriously, I don't understand how people can complain about being warned of a potential disaster when all of the prerequisites are in place. With something like a tsunami or a hurricane, I'd rather the government over react than under react...
2012-10-29 04:30:12 AM
1 votes:

T-Servo: /love your dog


Thank you. She's happily snoring on my feet as I post. I'll pass along the compliment.

And yea, I just don't quite know what to expect from this one. Flooding for sure. I really do think the emergecy response teams are going to be super efficient this time. And it helps that you're not dealing with some of the unique challenges the gulf coast presents.

 
2012-10-29 04:28:03 AM
1 votes:

Genevieve Marie: cman: Like Bush was with Katrina, right? Two can play that game

My thoughts there have always been... never attribute malice to that which can be explained by ignorance.

I genuinely believe that most of the federal agencies were completely and totally unprepared to deal with as many people who live in abject poverty as we have in New Orleans. I think there was some assumption that they had more resources than they did.

You almost have to live there for awhile to really get how many people in that city have almost nothing.


Absolute pureed bullshiat, sweetheart. I read an article in Scientific American several years prior to Katrina that described the exact thing that happened and how horrible it would. Lots of people knew, the people in charge didn't care.
2012-10-29 04:16:26 AM
1 votes:

T-Servo: But isn't that evil redistribution?

I would bet he says something completely illogical, like "The federal government could have responded sooner to this storm, but FEMA refused to act until the state governors asked directly. So vote for me, and we'll use the money from a decrease in capital gains tax to fund state disaster programs that would have prevented this storm. Oh, and I would have prevented the seas from rising."


I'm kind of hoping that the storm impact isn't as bad as predicted and all disaster relief efforts run according to plan, personally. That way residents of these states get the help they need quickly, and the rest of us are spared from ever having to hear that speech.

Everyone wins!
2012-10-29 04:11:29 AM
1 votes:
If you hold up a plate with two slits in it in front of Mitt Romney and place a screen behind it, you can clearly see an interference pattern on the screen, demonstrating the dual quantum nature of Romney.
2012-10-29 04:06:17 AM
1 votes:

AbbeySomeone: I never believed in shape shifters until I saw that man attempt to debate Obama.



Heh. That just reminded me of boggarts, from Harry Potter. Take the shape of whatever frightens you most.
2012-10-29 03:50:51 AM
1 votes:

sendtodave: I'm thinking that Christie is playing politics with his constituency's lives.


I honestly don't think it'll go there. Katrina taught a lot of lessons there- and I guarantee they're prepared. I doubt there will be a delay in the response.
2012-10-29 03:48:47 AM
1 votes:

brigid_fitch: sendtodave: brigid_fitch: I think that's why Christie waited as long as he did to declare it (3pm today, as opposed to the rest of the East Coast states who declared it on Saturday). He's gunning for a 2016 presidential election and doesn't want to be seen relying on the Feds.

If FEMA comes late to the party, he can blame Obama. Natch.

As I said in another thread, if anyone--especially someone in NJ--complains that FEMA didn't act quickly enough, I'm going to beat them over the head w/a video of Christie's 2:45pm press conference. We were the last state on the East Coast to declare a state of emergency. That means FEMA had put aside resources for 7-8 states before we got added to the list.


Beat them over the head all you want, facts don't matter. Obama will be blamed for any delay in the response.

I'm thinking that Christie is playing politics with his constituency's lives.
2012-10-29 03:47:52 AM
1 votes:

SlappyKincaid: katfairy: brigid_fitch:
Nope--the state has to declare a state of emergency and request assistance from FEMA. In fact, that was a contributing factor to the Katrina fiasco. Gov. Blanco didn't declare a state of emergency soon enough, delaying aid. Granted, the entire situation still managed to get royally botched from there, but the delay in requesting additional aid certainly didn't help them any.

By contrast, the MS governor declared it a day before LA did and FEMA was already standing by at the first hint of problems.

True. I remember at the time being stunned at how long it was taking the state government of LA to do anything, and being flat-out flabbergasted on reading that Bush actually called them to ask them what the hell they were doing. I wonder how much lower the death toll would have been if the governor had acted sooner.

There was a horrible delay in response to that disaster. Just awful. I hope that never happens again.

I still don't know if the State Government can override FEMA once they are envoked, or if FEMA can override the state government. It may be a question semantics but I'm curious to know the answer!


It cost her re-election too. The vast majority of my friends are progressives, and many of them went through Katrina. (My family did, I was in school in another state)

None of them voted for her again. Several of them held  their noses and voted Republican to get rid of her.
2012-10-29 03:47:05 AM
1 votes:

SlappyKincaid: katfairy: brigid_fitch:
Nope--the state has to declare a state of emergency and request assistance from FEMA. In fact, that was a contributing factor to the Katrina fiasco. Gov. Blanco didn't declare a state of emergency soon enough, delaying aid. Granted, the entire situation still managed to get royally botched from there, but the delay in requesting additional aid certainly didn't help them any.

By contrast, the MS governor declared it a day before LA did and FEMA was already standing by at the first hint of problems.

True. I remember at the time being stunned at how long it was taking the state government of LA to do anything, and being flat-out flabbergasted on reading that Bush actually called them to ask them what the hell they were doing. I wonder how much lower the death toll would have been if the governor had acted sooner.

There was a horrible delay in response to that disaster. Just awful. I hope that never happens again.

I still don't know if the State Government can override FEMA once they are envoked, or if FEMA can override the state government. It may be a question semantics but I'm curious to know the answer!


FEMA can be overridden by state governments. Unless if there is a military rebellion, the Federal government must respect their sovereignty
2012-10-29 03:46:40 AM
1 votes:

gameshowhost: Can I ruin the thread?

MITT ROMNEY IS A CHODE


DAMN YOU GAMESHOWHOST

We are acting like grownups here!
2012-10-29 03:44:02 AM
1 votes:

SlappyKincaid:
As for Hume I have not read his works but I have read Kant among others. I will check him out. Thanks!


[facepalm.jpg]
How the fark can you believe you comprehend a critique of the philosophy of the Enlightenment - Kant's Critique of Pure Reason was an explicit refutation of Hume - if you haven't studied the actual philosophy of the Enlightenment?

PS We tried having a weak federal government. The Articles of Confederation were an abject failure.
2012-10-29 03:42:32 AM
1 votes:
Can I ruin the thread?

MITT ROMNEY IS A CHODE
2012-10-29 03:40:17 AM
1 votes:

Frederick: \looking at you Kansas


I live in kansas, and we had a severe drought this summer. I can't help but wonder who all those farmers who cashed their federally subsidized crop insurance checks are still voting for romney and tea partiers with out any hint of the irony.
2012-10-29 03:38:30 AM
1 votes:

log_jammin: Genevieve Marie: I'm afraid this battle station will be quite operational should unpleasantness arrive.

I'm not going to make a joke about your red alerts.



That's probably good. Honestly, that was just a decent excuse for a Star Wars joke. I got nothing.
2012-10-29 03:37:51 AM
1 votes:

BolloxReader:

Here's the problem: natural disasters cross state lines. You need coordination across all affected areas, and the areas adjacent to them, in order to effectively respond. State-by-state planning is a horrible model for that. Political and jurisdictional boundaries work against a reasonable response to anything that doesn't care about such things.


That is true. Often times a disaster is multiples states. I think I was looking at it from a standpoint similar to the US Interstate Highway system. The US government built the highway system then, once it was completed, it was up to each state to maintain their portion of the roads. If you've ever done any interstate traveling you can see that some states are better than others, but it's their job.

However the points made in this thread and my own reading this evening show me the benefit of a FEMA.
2012-10-29 03:37:07 AM
1 votes:

Genevieve Marie: I'm afraid this battle station will be quite operational should unpleasantness arrive.


I'm not going to make a joke about your red alerts.
2012-10-29 03:35:51 AM
1 votes:

log_jammin: DORMAMU: Genevieve Marie: log_jammin: well that was refreshing.


It was actually.

Good thread so far, folks.

U just jinxed it

screw you man. she did not!


I'm afraid this battle station will be quite operational should unpleasantness arrive.
2012-10-29 03:31:23 AM
1 votes:

cman:

I dunno about you, but I dont want some Texas hick who has no concept of the culture I was raised in having significant power to control what goes on in my neck of the woods. I dont want some racist Mississippian being able to tell me "You cant do that" for something that is acceptable for here in Maine.


Down there they can't even figure out when Patriots' Day is supposed to be, let alone how to live in a state that actually has real seasons.
2012-10-29 03:29:47 AM
1 votes:

log_jammin: well that was refreshing.



It was actually.

Good thread so far, folks.
2012-10-29 03:29:36 AM
1 votes:
Can a Romneybot explain this one thing to me?

How can this actually be a good thing? Has ANY state ever had a disaster that fit a budget and a timeline? If we have this at a federal level, then Fema can disperse funds and assistance to the state that needs it. Arizona goes on a 10 year cycle on flooding. 1983 or so, 1994 or so, and then 2010 or so. That's their biggest disasters, except for wildfires. Louisiana and Florida, on the other hand, have hurricanes hit pretty regularly. With a federal system, you can have the money and manpower sent WHERE it is needed and WHEN. At a state level, who knows what will happen with someplace with less disasters like Arizona? Will they have enough money? Will someone just shelve the entire program one year and never reinstate it? And what about the amount of money? What happens if the disaster runs over budget? With it at a federal level, more money can be sent. With it at a state level, once it's gone, it's gone. That is, unless Mitt is talking out his ass again, and he just plans to have a disaster relief unicorn in every state that shiats out funds whenever needed.

These "state's rights" people are getting annoying, they don't think a single thing through, they just parrot what they heard because the phrase "state's rights" were at the beginning. There is a reason that a lot of this stuff is done at the federal level.
2012-10-29 03:25:54 AM
1 votes:

SlappyKincaid: Genevieve Marie: SlappyKincaid: For a small state like Rhode Island I think FEMA makes sense. A 50' tsumani could level pretty much all of the state. But for us larger, heavily populated states I think it should be left to us.

That's my two cents anyway. Feel free to disagree!

Not all states have the money and resources to properly handle emergencies. Can you imagine Louisiana or Mississippi trying to deal with a major disaster with no federal disaster relief? It was bad enough when we had help.

That is true. Many states these days are over budget and in their current state many would need to rely on the federal government for help in a disaster.

I'm not saying it wouldn't take effort but why can't each state set aside a certain amount of funds that could be allocated to disaster relief, especially in states prone to natural disaster? Florida, Kansas and California come to mind, though Katrina also puts Louisiana on the list. They could earmark funds that cannot be touched except in the case of a disaster.

I look at something like Katrina or 9/11 and it was amazing to see just how many citizens pulled together to give freely of their time and energy to help others out and I wonder why states can't advertise for that.

Maybe it's the neighborhoods I've lived in but people are more than willing to help out others when things happen. I remember my parents taking in our neighbors for like 3 months when a fire pretty much demolished their home. That left an indelible mark on my perception of charity and I wish more would adopt that attitude. Self reliance and helping others when needed.

Perhaps that what FEMA is doing at it's core. I'm just not a fan of red tape! It slows down action!


U have a year without dusaster, the funds arent used, budget reduced. rinse repeat. the state beauracrats will then find things to spend it on, often before next year budget starts.

Disaster

No money/resources avail.

Works this way at almost any lvl govt. at least federally we avg a few disasters a year
2012-10-29 03:24:37 AM
1 votes:

sendtodave: brigid_fitch: I think that's why Christie waited as long as he did to declare it (3pm today, as opposed to the rest of the East Coast states who declared it on Saturday). He's gunning for a 2016 presidential election and doesn't want to be seen relying on the Feds.

If FEMA comes late to the party, he can blame Obama. Natch.


As I said in another thread, if anyone--especially someone in NJ--complains that FEMA didn't act quickly enough, I'm going to beat them over the head w/a video of Christie's 2:45pm press conference. We were the last state on the East Coast to declare a state of emergency. That means FEMA had put aside resources for 7-8 states before we got added to the list.
2012-10-29 03:23:09 AM
1 votes:
4.bp.blogspot.com



That is all.
2012-10-29 03:23:07 AM
1 votes:

SlappyKincaid: propasaurus:
Y'know what? What's wrong with a central government? We're one country. One big-ass country. Why do we need 50 sets of rules and regulations? You're an American, not a Georgian or Californian or Texan. Same rules apply to everyone.

I see nothing wrong with a central government! I just don't think every little thing needs to be filtered through there. I am indeed an American and enjoy the rights and privileges bestowed on me as a result. That said being critical of our government isn't a bad thing.

I'm always looking for a better way to do things. In this case I'm now fairly convinced FEMA is a good thing to have, though after now reading up on it, I'm not sure if it should be under the Department of Homeland Security. I can see why they did that but I think it would be better if it was free of military obligation.


Welcome to the post-9/11 world.
2012-10-29 03:09:28 AM
1 votes:

SlappyKincaid: I follow politics pretty closely however I am lacking in understanding about FEMA. I know what the acronym means but I can't find a true reason why they are not superfluous.


Yes, but last I checked your profile admitted you were living in the State of Denial; there may be a connection.

a.imageshack.us
 

Since "superfluous" implicitly requires relation to a purpose, which requires an ought-ordering of is-choices, the use of the word "true" induces me to suggest Hume's "A Treatise of Human Nature" to your attention.
2012-10-29 02:49:22 AM
1 votes:

brigid_fitch:

It's ALWAYS left to the state. FEMA can't be brought in unless a state declares a state of emergency and asks for federal aid. I think that's why Christie waited as long as he did to declare it (3pm today, as opposed to the rest of the East Coast states who declared it on Saturday). He's gunning for a 2016 presidential election and doesn't want to be seen relying on the Feds. However, when you've got a huge Frankenstorm bearing down on you, ready to make landfall right in the middle of your state, you look at your resources and decide if you can handle it or not. NJ can't handle this on its own. The ...


Oh I see. FEMA is not an automatic response. The state has the power to envoke them or too refuse them.

That's good to know. Thanks!

In a case like Sandy, I think everyone in those states can use all the help they can get, assuming it's going to be as crazy as predicted.

I'm not really pro-central government, in case that wasn't clear, but there are times when the central government is needed and this may be one of them.
2012-10-29 02:43:55 AM
1 votes:

SlappyKincaid: log_jammin: SlappyKincaid: Thanks for the info. The if the National Guard already does this at a statewide level why is FEMA needed? Is it purely coordination or do they put boots on the ground?

I follow politics pretty closely however I am lacking in understanding about FEMA. I know what the acronym means but I can't find a true reason why they are not superfluous.


resources. Bottled water, food, communications, doctors, coordinating state relief efforts with federal efforts, etc.. It's just a way to provide more than what one state can do on it's own.

Again thanks. It just seems to be that a state should be able to supply much of this, short of full devastation, without having to rely on others, especially in a populous state. I live in Chicago, IL and if we had massive damage due to Tornadoes, which we do get from time to time, I don't see why we can't send in our own doctors etc. Each state could have an army of volunteers. I would sign up and volunteer my talents in case of disaster.

I'm just trying to find a creative way to solve the problem that would also help mitigate cost to the tax payers.

For a small state like Rhode Island I think FEMA makes sense. A 50' tsumani could level pretty much all of the state. But for us larger, heavily populated states I think it should be left to us.

That's my two cents anyway. Feel free to disagree!


It's ALWAYS left to the state. FEMA can't be brought in unless a state declares a state of emergency and asks for federal aid. I think that's why Christie waited as long as he did to declare it (3pm today, as opposed to the rest of the East Coast states who declared it on Saturday). He's gunning for a 2016 presidential election and doesn't want to be seen relying on the Feds. However, when you've got a huge Frankenstorm bearing down on you, ready to make landfall right in the middle of your state, you look at your resources and decide if you can handle it or not. NJ can't handle this on its own. The storm's too big, there are too many senior citizens (NJ has more retirees than FL, most of whom are in Ocean County, where Sandy is most likely to make landfall) who need to be evacuated, 130 miles of beaches that are going to be seriously eroded, LOTS of multi-million dollar beachfront property...and that's just off the top of my head.
2012-10-29 02:20:30 AM
1 votes:

SlappyKincaid: Thanks for the info. The if the National Guard already does this at a statewide level why is FEMA needed? Is it purely coordination or do they put boots on the ground?

I follow politics pretty closely however I am lacking in understanding about FEMA. I know what the acronym means but I can't find a true reason why they are not superfluous.



resources. Bottled water, food, communications, doctors, coordinating state relief efforts with federal efforts, etc.. It's just a way to provide more than what one state can do on it's own.
2012-10-29 02:09:52 AM
1 votes:
It's what Jindal was biatching about not too long ago. That even though Obama and FEMA responded in a timely manner, what he really wanted was for the Feds to cover ALL the costs of the cleanup and recovery. Anything les than the federal government giving LA a blank check was an abject failure on the part of the President.
2012-10-29 02:07:37 AM
1 votes:

SlappyKincaid: but wouldn't it make sense to allow the states to be the first responders given they will know the area, it's population and it's needs better than a central agency who has never dealt there before?


the states are the first responders. There is nothing to "allow" them to do that they don't do already.
2012-10-29 02:02:16 AM
1 votes:
Shouldn't the National Guard of each state be prepared, and supplied, to handle emergencies such as this?

I understand we've chosen to centralize our disaster response with FEMA but wouldn't it make sense to allow the states to be the first responders given they will know the area, it's population and it's needs better than a central agency who has never dealt there before?

I think it would be simple to train them for this and probably also defray cost in the long run as transports, fuel and a massive bureaucracy cost quite a bit!
2012-10-29 01:45:01 AM
1 votes:

propasaurus: brigid_fitch: coco ebert: An honest question for conservatives or Republicans: without referencing Obama or the Democrats, can you please explain how you reconcile voting for a man who has such a careless disregard for consistency of any kind? How do you know what he believes in or what he will do when president?

I tried that. The answer was various forms of, "No politician ever does what he promises to do during the campaign!"

While somewhat true, it still doesn't account for the ridiculous platform (or non-platform, depending on what day it is) Romney is campaigning with. Any further questioning in order to clarify their answer just spirals down into further levels of derp.

And it also negates their own talking point of 'Obama didn't do what he promised during the campaign.'


You'd think so, but that would require logic, something they clearly don't possess the faculties to handle.
2012-10-29 01:18:49 AM
1 votes:
FFS GUYS, STOP USING HIS OWN WORDS AGAINST HIM

Its farking unfair
2012-10-29 01:17:29 AM
1 votes:

APE992: SilentStrider: Fark you Mitt.

2012-10-29 01:03:55 AM
1 votes:

SilentStrider: Fark you Mitt.

2012-10-29 12:50:24 AM
1 votes:
Fark you Mitt.
2012-10-29 12:42:04 AM
1 votes:

shower_in_my_socks: Romney: "The Federal agency that I don't believe in better not screw up its response to a storm strengthened by a global warming phenomenon that I also don't believe in."


Any good conservative already knows global warming is a hoax; it's Obama's misuse of HAARP that is causing the natural disasters.
2012-10-29 12:31:52 AM
1 votes:

teto85: Mittens ist ein arseloch

Arschloch.

Aber du bist richtig
2012-10-29 12:26:47 AM
1 votes:
Mittens ist ein arseloch
2012-10-29 12:20:45 AM
1 votes:
I thought Bobby Jindal was pretty much the winner of the "predict the next natural disaster by noting what agency I propose to eliminate", but honestly, Mittens, you're just so. damn. good.
 
Displayed 122 of 122 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report