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.

(Americablog)   Romney stands by pledge to shut down FEMA, winds of change expected to make landfall within 12 hours   (americablog.com) divider line 322
    More: Followup, Mitt Romney, FEMA, John Aravosis, state of emergency, landfall, Reliable Sources, AMERICAblog, U.S. Senate  
•       •       •

12915 clicks; posted to Politics » on 29 Oct 2012 at 9:15 AM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



322 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-10-29 11:59:23 AM  

coeyagi: Hoboclown: No swing states in the path of the hurricane? Most of New England and New York vote Democrat?

He's not going to lose votes over this.

Virginia / Pennsylvania would like a word with you.


Ohio and NC are in line as well.

Don't know what affect, if any, Sandy will have on the election, but there certainly are swing states that have/will have storm damage.

I'm more curious about what happens if the power is still out next week in places where voting is done with computers.
 
2012-10-29 11:59:48 AM  
This is what Romney's plans are: Overturn every federal agency that he can so he can recreate them exactly how they are, but with his name on them. Overturn the ACA and rename it RomneyCare. Overturn FEMA and rename it REMA...
 
2012-10-29 12:01:39 PM  
(in my best bugs bunny voice) What a maroon.

I wished that I could find one thing that I liked about any of his proposed policies.
 
2012-10-29 12:02:09 PM  
Of course he does. He doesn't rely on it. He wouldn't ever be homeless, he's got numerous homes! No, FEMA is what you use when the oil hits the anus. Romney would have people die or move. He's a heartless robot and not deserving of one single vote.
 
2012-10-29 12:02:57 PM  
historynow11

I study civil defense, natural disasters, and emergency management for my dissertation. I will not claim omniscient wisdom, but yes, FEMA has problems, as do the state emergency management agencies. The system is by no means perfect, and the shift to DHS compounded old problems and revealed new ones. Nevertheless, disbanding FEMA would open a pandora's box (or Pantera if you have put your shorts on to fight evil today) of problems and present potential levels of fraud, waste, and abuse that would boggle the mind.

\ Link
\\Yes, I'm a history nerd.



Your history doesn't go back before 1979?
 
2012-10-29 12:09:52 PM  

jayhawk88: So clarification here: Is he suggesting that states shouldn't get any money from the fed to help with disasters, or simply that the fed should give money directly to the states and allow them to manage the spending/allocation of it?


Mitt Romney would like to answer your question, however before he answers it, he needs to know which answer would get you to vote for him.
 
2012-10-29 12:10:08 PM  

Granny_Panties: This is what Romney's plans are: Overturn every federal agency that he can so he can recreate them exactly how they are, but with his name on them. Overturn the ACA and rename it RomneyCare. Overturn FEMA and rename it REMA...


I sincerely think he wants to privatize any government entity he can. "Oh, you need disaster relief? Sorry, you didn't pay your FEMA bill."
 
2012-10-29 12:10:17 PM  

way south: monoski: way south: If nothing is done soon, it probably wont matter if FEMA exists as a giant sinkhole in the federal budget.

Besides if your area suffers catastrophic loss you should just borrow the money from your parents. This is how Mittens thinks

...And where are they supposed to borrow the money from?
This credit trains going to end somewhere no matter how awesome Obama is.


FEMA's budget is around $6 billion and change.

The Department of Defense budget is around $600 billion.

Now where could we possibly find the money? Where, oh where?

Hint: If we funded the DOD at FY2000 levels, adjusted for inflation, we would save just over $160 billion a year. .

Put another way, DARPA (weapons research) is $80 billion a year. Cut weapons research by 8% and you've completely funded FEMA.
 
2012-10-29 12:11:13 PM  

lennavan: jayhawk88: So clarification here: Is he suggesting that states shouldn't get any money from the fed to help with disasters, or simply that the fed should give money directly to the states and allow them to manage the spending/allocation of it?

Mitt Romney would like to answer your question, however before he answers it, he needs to know which answer would get you to vote for him.


I need polling data to say that "83% of undecided voters prefer a candidate with a gunshot wound to the head."
 
2012-10-29 12:14:40 PM  
This is Romney's Katrina
 
2012-10-29 12:15:42 PM  
I can't really disagree with Romney on this one. Like most government agencies FEMA just seems to get in the way, of getting things done.
 
2012-10-29 12:19:15 PM  

vpb: Of course the people who think they don't get anything from the government and shouldn't have to pay taxes will scream the loudest when they want help.


In Alabama, folks are saying just this-- that they don't need the feds and should just leave the union and take their "assets" with them. I'm blown away, as we're not an asset. We as a state get back WAY more than we put in. I'm sure the blue states that pay more than they get would happily help us pack.
 
2012-10-29 12:19:23 PM  

stuffy: I can't really disagree with Romney on this one. Like most government agencies FEMA just seems to get in the way, of getting things done.


You are absolutely correct. Because the news reports are all over it whenever FEMA does something well, which I would argue is more often than not.

Do you even understand how the media works?
 
2012-10-29 12:19:28 PM  

WTF Indeed: It's still better than Paul Ryan's plan of just allowing survival of the fittest during disasters in order to thin out the population.


I know, what does Paul Ryan expect, that people should clean up their own messes? I'm down with grass-roots - in the rhetorical sense - but, not if I have to wear cargo pants and those heavy leather gloves.

What Ryan doesn't realize is that large groups of people - left to their own devices - would fall into complete chaos. Therefore, we need a large group of people (with FEMA jackets) to manage the local populace' climb back to civility (and provide sandwiches).

I don't know about you but, I don't want to live in an America where Alaskan tax-payers aren't forced to pay for floods in Louisiana and Floridians are compelled to pay for earthquake relief in California.

The good news is that politicians rarely do what they say they'll do, unless it serves a personal or special interest; and they almost never enact policies that diminish the role of government.
 
2012-10-29 12:19:36 PM  

jayhawk88: So clarification here: Is he suggesting that states shouldn't get any money from the fed to help with disasters, or simply that the fed should give money directly to the states and allow them to manage the spending/allocation of it?


Depends, which answer would you prefer?

/He's also been a woman named Frida.
 
2012-10-29 12:25:07 PM  

Mouser: So, Romney thinks getting rid of FEMA, and leaving it to bankrupt states to figure out how to save their own citizens when we have a national disaster, is the more "moral" thing to do

As opposed to leaving it up to the bankrupt Federal government, I presume.


Please, tell me how this country is bankrupt. You do realize bankruptcy is a legal process. Exactly what court woudl that be filed in?

If you're going to falsely claim that being in debt constitutes bankruptcy, then everyone with a mortgage is bankrupt.

If you're just going to claim we're broke, are we about to default on our bonds? Are we remotely close to needing to do that? Are the markets unwilling to buy t-bills? Do you grasp that on short term treasury bills the real interest rate is *negative*?

Right now the federal debt held privately (i.e., not intergovernmental borrowing) is about 60% of GDP. In 1946, it was double that. Were we bankrupt then?

This is how you become stupid: take an actual problem, like our national debt. Apply a term, like bankruptcy, that does not describe the situation, does not have any real meaning at a national level. Then throw the term around as if it really describes the situation.

Congratulations, you have managed to sound completely stupid.
 
2012-10-29 12:30:16 PM  
(After Sandy hits): "I never said I'd shut down FEMA. What I said is that I think I bruised my femur."
 
2012-10-29 12:31:21 PM  

stuffy: I can't really disagree with Romney on this one. Like most government agencies FEMA just seems to get in the way, of getting things done.


Be fair. FEMA did much better after Katrina when that incompetent moron wasn't in charge any more. Still needs improvement.
 
2012-10-29 12:34:49 PM  
Giving each state the Fed money directly and killing FEMA means that during a hurricane several states would duplicate efforts and not be as coordinated. Does that sound like good business management? Does Walmart have a team of buyers or lawyers in each store? No, that's best handled at the corporate level, just like management of major emergencies is handled at the federal level.

And that doesn't even address the likelihood of those states taking the Fed money and using it to pay for non-emergency things, then griping when an emergency hits because they don't have the money anymore. Or refusing the funds in the first place for political reasons. Just ask Rick Perry about federal fire-fighting funds for last years wildfires in Texas.
 
2012-10-29 12:35:29 PM  

Philip Francis Queeg: authorizeduser: Philip Francis Queeg: [assets.nydailynews.com image 635x539]
Each state can individually handle the consequences of this with ease, right?

States have been collaborating on relief efforts long before FEMA.


And private charities would eliminate poverty if welfare was eliminated.


I hope you're not suggesting FEMA can eliminate disasters.

There is no possibility of eliminating poverty, seeing as it's a nebulous term to measure the quality of life for a community of people. While the indigent of one hundred years ago would be lucky to have shoes and indoor plumbing, families that fall under the modern poverty line often have a vehicle, cable TV and other conveniences we've become accustom to.
 
2012-10-29 12:37:22 PM  
Romney needs to appoint a better FEMA director, and I know just the man for the job:

blog.zap2it.com
 
2012-10-29 12:37:40 PM  

authorizeduser: Philip Francis Queeg: authorizeduser: Philip Francis Queeg: [assets.nydailynews.com image 635x539]
Each state can individually handle the consequences of this with ease, right?

States have been collaborating on relief efforts long before FEMA.


And private charities would eliminate poverty if welfare was eliminated.

I hope you're not suggesting FEMA can eliminate disasters.

There is no possibility of eliminating poverty, seeing as it's a nebulous term to measure the quality of life for a community of people. While the indigent of one hundred years ago would be lucky to have shoes and indoor plumbing, families that fall under the modern poverty line often have a vehicle, cable TV and other conveniences we've become accustom to.


So let's destroy the social safety net so that the poor can suffer the way they used to.
 
2012-10-29 12:38:28 PM  

sodomizer: Cythraul: Why is always a fight over Mississippi and Alabama over who is the more uneducated and poor?

Why don't we just sell off the places full of useless hipsters, like Seattle and Austin?

Mexico might pay a lot for them.


No, they want people who can actually, you know, perform work.
 
2012-10-29 12:39:19 PM  

sweetmelissa31: Romney needs to appoint a better FEMA director, and I know just the man for the job:

[blog.zap2it.com image 280x414]


1.bp.blogspot.com

Bring on the dancing horses!
 
2012-10-29 12:47:05 PM  

NateGrey: FLMountainMan:

I am sure you being a Republican had nothing to do with your attitude toward them.

/Vote Republican


No, my attitude towards them was caused by their actions. That's is how grownups behave. I didn't ask what party affiliation they were and they didn't ask mine.

Which is (D), by the way. Although people like you make for irritating tu quoques.
 
2012-10-29 12:52:01 PM  

coeyagi: authorizeduser: Oh no! How will people recover from disasters without an inept, quasi-military to provide an official ambiance and impression of organization?

Short answer: Haiti.

Long Answer: Your mom.

Longer Answer: Seriously, just go to Freepland if you want to drop this crap. FEMA may be far from perfect, but to argue that it would be better if every state had a smaller budget for disaster relief and not be able to pool their resources as easily.... is retarded.


Yes; I'm sure Haiti would be at the bottom of the ocean, if it weren't for FEMA. We already have the Red Cross for international relief efforts, which is privately funded and far more proficient with its dollars.

There is nothing preventing states from collaborating directly with one another on relief efforts; nor is there anything preventing states from maintaining a disaster relief budget that properly reflects the challenges of its geographic region. What exactly is it that you think FEMA does that is so proprietary?
 
2012-10-29 12:53:53 PM  

Philip Francis Queeg: Hunter_S_Thompson: I am not making this up. This is the exact life of *everyone* I have ever met who is on welfare. They are not bad people, they are smart, useful individuals, but they have no motivation to do anything else because they are able to "get by" doing nothing. I know a man that is illiterate, yet still manages to work doing hard labor to provide for his family and refuses assistance. They aren't well off, but they "get by". If he can do it, so can the lazy farks that only want to party, get farked up, and have no responsibility at all. I'd love to party all day and night...but I have to go to work.

Bull farking shiat.


It could be true, technically, if he only ever met one or two people who he knew were on welfare.

blog.torgodevil.com 

/The "You" in that caption should be "he," but I'm too lazy to Photoshop it
 
2012-10-29 12:56:27 PM  
Rmoney: "Federal funding for disaster relief is "immoral," and is something that should be left up to the states or, "even better," the private sector."

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/10/28/1151867/-Romney-on-Eliminati n g-FEMA-Absolutely
 
2012-10-29 01:00:22 PM  

Philip Francis Queeg: authorizeduser: Philip Francis Queeg: authorizeduser: Philip Francis Queeg: [assets.nydailynews.com image 635x539]
Each state can individually handle the consequences of this with ease, right?

States have been collaborating on relief efforts long before FEMA.


And private charities would eliminate poverty if welfare was eliminated.

I hope you're not suggesting FEMA can eliminate disasters.

There is no possibility of eliminating poverty, seeing as it's a nebulous term to measure the quality of life for a community of people. While the indigent of one hundred years ago would be lucky to have shoes and indoor plumbing, families that fall under the modern poverty line often have a vehicle, cable TV and other conveniences we've become accustom to.

So let's destroy the social safety net so that the poor can suffer the way they used to.


Ask any tightrope artist: safety nets encourage reckless behavior and diminish any sense of accomplishment.
 
2012-10-29 01:01:44 PM  

authorizeduser: Philip Francis Queeg: authorizeduser: Philip Francis Queeg: authorizeduser: Philip Francis Queeg: [assets.nydailynews.com image 635x539]
Each state can individually handle the consequences of this with ease, right?

States have been collaborating on relief efforts long before FEMA.


And private charities would eliminate poverty if welfare was eliminated.

I hope you're not suggesting FEMA can eliminate disasters.

There is no possibility of eliminating poverty, seeing as it's a nebulous term to measure the quality of life for a community of people. While the indigent of one hundred years ago would be lucky to have shoes and indoor plumbing, families that fall under the modern poverty line often have a vehicle, cable TV and other conveniences we've become accustom to.

So let's destroy the social safety net so that the poor can suffer the way they used to.

Ask any tightrope artist: safety nets encourage reckless behavior and diminish any sense of accomplishment.


Of course it does. That's why we need to disband the Police and Fire Departments.
 
2012-10-29 01:04:44 PM  

stuffy: I can't really disagree with Romney on this one. Like most government agencies FEMA just seems to get in the way, of getting things done.


You can't disagree with which Romney. Today Romney or Yesterday Romney?

Follow-up. How does FEMA get in the way of Federal response efforts when they are the Federal response effort? Because, you know that by law, FEMA can't interfere with State response.
 
2012-10-29 01:09:12 PM  

historynow11: I study civil defense, natural disasters, and emergency management for my dissertation. I will not claim omniscient wisdom, but yes, FEMA has problems, as do the state emergency management agencies. The system is by no means perfect, and the shift to DHS compounded old problems and revealed new ones. Nevertheless, disbanding FEMA would open a pandora's box (or Pantera if you have put your shorts on to fight evil today) of problems and present potential levels of fraud, waste, and abuse that would boggle the mind.


www.internationalhero.co.uk
Agrees.
 
2012-10-29 01:12:26 PM  

Philip Francis Queeg: authorizeduser: Philip Francis Queeg: authorizeduser: Philip Francis Queeg: authorizeduser: Philip Francis Queeg: [assets.nydailynews.com image 635x539]
Each state can individually handle the consequences of this with ease, right?

States have been collaborating on relief efforts long before FEMA.


And private charities would eliminate poverty if welfare was eliminated.

I hope you're not suggesting FEMA can eliminate disasters.

There is no possibility of eliminating poverty, seeing as it's a nebulous term to measure the quality of life for a community of people. While the indigent of one hundred years ago would be lucky to have shoes and indoor plumbing, families that fall under the modern poverty line often have a vehicle, cable TV and other conveniences we've become accustom to.

So let's destroy the social safety net so that the poor can suffer the way they used to.

Ask any tightrope artist: safety nets encourage reckless behavior and diminish any sense of accomplishment.

Of course it does. That's why we need to disband the Police and Fire Departments.


Just privatize them. Look at how Xe's done it.
 
2012-10-29 01:12:42 PM  
This is like a repeat of Katrina and the Texas wildfires, when the proud Republicans were going to stand on their own and the feds could shove it---right up until disaster struck, when they changed their stories to "How come the feds haven't come in to save us yet, and given us all blank checks?"

/probably been said a few times...have to read thread now.
 
2012-10-29 01:16:58 PM  
Romney is probably dancing a jig right now because of Sandy. It'shiatting in Obama's stronghold and it's going to hit hard. This will suppress voter turnout next week.
 
2012-10-29 01:17:37 PM  

FLMountainMan: NateGrey: FLMountainMan:

I am sure you being a Republican had nothing to do with your attitude toward them.

/Vote Republican

No, my attitude towards them was caused by their actions. That's is how grownups behave. I didn't ask what party affiliation they were and they didn't ask mine.

Which is (D), by the way. Although people like you make for irritating tu quoques.


Oh my mistake, I must have you mistaken for another FLMountainMan who posts such Democratic views such as this:

FLMountainMan 2008-07-10 09:44:50 AM
Ah, the ever-tolerant left, basking in the ideological diversity that is America.
 

FEMA bad!
 
2012-10-29 01:23:44 PM  

authorizeduser: coeyagi: authorizeduser:

There is nothing preventing states from collaborating directly with one another on relief efforts; nor is there anything preventing states from maintaining a disaster relief budget that properly reflects the challenges of its geographic region. What exactly is it that you think FEMA does that is so proprietary?


The several states have already established an agreement to provide mutual aid and collaborative disaster relief. It's called the federal government. Why should they make additional, redundant regional agreements when a national structure is already in place?
 
2012-10-29 01:27:02 PM  

authorizeduser: coeyagi: authorizeduser: Oh no! How will people recover from disasters without an inept, quasi-military to provide an official ambiance and impression of organization?

Short answer: Haiti.

Long Answer: Your mom.

Longer Answer: Seriously, just go to Freepland if you want to drop this crap. FEMA may be far from perfect, but to argue that it would be better if every state had a smaller budget for disaster relief and not be able to pool their resources as easily.... is retarded.

Yes; I'm sure Haiti would be at the bottom of the ocean, if it weren't for FEMA. We already have the Red Cross for international relief efforts, which is privately funded and far more proficient with its dollars.

There is nothing preventing states from collaborating directly with one another on relief efforts; nor is there anything preventing states from maintaining a disaster relief budget that properly reflects the challenges of its geographic region. What exactly is it that you think FEMA does that is so proprietary?


Get money.
Spend money.

/but not for you
 
2012-10-29 01:27:10 PM  

karnal: Carn
karnal: FEMA SUCKS.
It should be handled at a state level.
Right now, it is a top heavy bureaucracy that most times has neither the desire nor the information needed to effectively coordinate a kid's birthday party let alone a major relief effort.....and when the power to control the relief funds has federal policymakers using it to to help reelection campaigns by spending money on key political districts, it loses any effectivenessit might have had.

So it's your belief that state governments are not beauracracies. That's cute.

The state level would be less top heavy....less corrupt (unless you are from Virginia). FEMA has historically been slow to act - Red Cross and the National Guard would have a better reponse time and in most incidences, FEMA has complicated relief efforts instead of providing help.


Why have the feds involved at all?

The Katrina recovery cost about $80 billion. I'm sure Louisianans would have been OK with a massive tax increase to pay for that/
 
2012-10-29 01:38:31 PM  

SlappyKincaid: We had a very interesting conversation in the other thread about Sandy. Originally I was thinking it's possible for the states to coordinate their own disaster relief and I think in some cases that is true but when something truly major hits the combined resources of the non-affected states is an excellent thing to have. Farkers made some excellent points I had not considered.
I believe Romney is wrong on this one.


What kind of a thoughtful, well-reasoned comment is that? You're not even giving us anything to attack here.

We don't care for your kind 'round these parts.
 
2012-10-29 01:39:23 PM  

authorizeduser: coeyagi: authorizeduser: Oh no! How will people recover from disasters without an inept, quasi-military to provide an official ambiance and impression of organization?

Short answer: Haiti.

Long Answer: Your mom.

Longer Answer: Seriously, just go to Freepland if you want to drop this crap. FEMA may be far from perfect, but to argue that it would be better if every state had a smaller budget for disaster relief and not be able to pool their resources as easily.... is retarded.

Yes; I'm sure Haiti would be at the bottom of the ocean, if it weren't for FEMA. We already have the Red Cross for international relief efforts, which is privately funded and far more proficient with its dollars.

There is nothing preventing states from collaborating directly with one another on relief efforts; nor is there anything preventing states from maintaining a disaster relief budget that properly reflects the challenges of its geographic region. What exactly is it that you think FEMA does that is so proprietary?


Gee, I don't know, it has more experience and can coordinate with the states and other national resources. Do you think states are going to be individually more capable of coordinating resources from the Red Cross than the federal government?

No, of course you don't, you just can't take your mouth off of RON PAUL's dick for 3 seconds and come to grip with reality.
 
2012-10-29 01:48:27 PM  

coeyagi: authorizeduser: coeyagi: authorizeduser: Oh no! How will people recover from disasters without an inept, quasi-military to provide an official ambiance and impression of organization?

Short answer: Haiti.

Long Answer: Your mom.

Longer Answer: Seriously, just go to Freepland if you want to drop this crap. FEMA may be far from perfect, but to argue that it would be better if every state had a smaller budget for disaster relief and not be able to pool their resources as easily.... is retarded.

Yes; I'm sure Haiti would be at the bottom of the ocean, if it weren't for FEMA. We already have the Red Cross for international relief efforts, which is privately funded and far more proficient with its dollars.

There is nothing preventing states from collaborating directly with one another on relief efforts; nor is there anything preventing states from maintaining a disaster relief budget that properly reflects the challenges of its geographic region. What exactly is it that you think FEMA does that is so proprietary?

Gee, I don't know, it has more experience and can coordinate with the states and other national resources. Do you think states are going to be individually more capable of coordinating resources from the Red Cross than the federal government?

No, of course you don't, you just can't take your mouth off of RON PAUL's dick for 3 seconds and come to grip with reality.


To go one step further, isn't the definition of FEDERAL GOVERNMENT "states collaborating directly with one another [and] maintaining a budget that properly reflects the challenges of their geographic regions"?

We should get rid of the federal government because states can recreate a ... federal government?
 
2012-10-29 01:48:52 PM  
rufus-t-firefly

karnal: Carn
karnal: FEMA SUCKS.
It should be handled at a state level.
Right now, it is a top heavy bureaucracy that most times has neither the desire nor the information needed to effectively coordinate a kid's birthday party let alone a major relief effort.....and when the power to control the relief funds has federal policymakers using it to to help reelection campaigns by spending money on key political districts, it loses any effectivenessit might have had.

So it's your belief that state governments are not beauracracies. That's cute.

The state level would be less top heavy....less corrupt (unless you are from Virginia). FEMA has historically been slow to act - Red Cross and the National Guard would have a better reponse time and in most incidences, FEMA has complicated relief efforts instead of providing help.

Why have the feds involved at all?

The Katrina recovery cost about $80 billion. I'm sure Louisianans would have been OK with a massive tax increase to pay for that/



Federal money would be needed, especially in the poorer states....but the states would decide how and where the relief money is used.
 
2012-10-29 01:53:26 PM  

Cythraul: Elegy: Mr. Coffee Nerves: Where are all the private citizens flying their C-130s into the eye of the storm to help us predict the path? Their profit motive and the free market will deliver a TRUE forecast.

I won't believe he's a REAL businessman until he proposes selling our poorest-performing branch office -- MIssissippi -- to Mexico in order to save costs to the company.

As a former Mississippian, I resent that comment, sir.

Alabama is clearly the low performer. We have both Tunica and Biloxi.

Why is always a fight over Mississippi and Alabama over who is the more uneducated and poor?


Cuz FARK YOU, man, that's why!!!
 
2012-10-29 01:58:05 PM  

cryinoutloud:
What kind of a thoughtful, well-reasoned comment is that? You're not even giving us anything to attack here.

We don't care for your kind 'round these parts.


lol Sorry! Just being honest! It was a good and informative thread!
 
2012-10-29 01:58:55 PM  

Hunter_S_Thompson: verbaltoxin: doubled99: vpb Are you dense? Do you not understand the difference between people who are lifelong welfare/assistance recipients solely because it enables them live without care and government providing basic infrastructure (as it should)?

I know enough of these saps. Seriously. They sleep until at least 1:00 PM every day. They then watch daytime TV until around 5:00 when their kids (that their grandmothers and roommates got up and off to school) get home and then they hope that either someone else cooks some dinner or they piss some money away on fast food. They spend a few hours lounging around the house, then around 9 or 10 when their friends with fast-food jobs and the like are getting off work they start their day.

They then spend the rest of the evening deciding where/with whom they are going to use drugs and/or alcohol (which I have *absolutely* no problem with if you are supporting yourself), then proceed to get torn up until 4:00 AM, whence they either stumble into their bed, go to bed with a stranger they've been partying with (which I also have no problem with unless it nets illegitimate children I have to support through my taxes), or drive under the influence back to their home, so they can sleep until 1:00 again the next day.

I am not making this up. This is the exact life of *everyone* I have ever met who is on welfare. They are not bad people, they are smart, useful individuals, but they have no motivation to do anything else because they are able to "get by" doing nothing. I know a man that is illiterate, yet still manages to work doing hard labor to provide for his family and refuses assistance. They aren't well off, but they "get by". If he can do it, so can the lazy farks that only want to party, get farked up, and have no responsibility at all. I'd love to party all day and night...but I have to go to work.

But yeah, since I drove to work on a highway to contribute something to society, I am slurping and derping. Give me a god damned break.


One, that little fantasy you have probably doesn't describe even 1 in 100 of the "welfare queens" out there. I'm guessing that by saying it describes "everyone" you've ever met, the list of people on welfare you've met can be counted on one finger. But keep farking that chicken. It's so easy to judge when you have a job, an education, disposable income, and other things that make life nice, isn't it? Must be nice to not have to worry about feeding yourself or keeping a roof over your head, and still doing it with your pride intact.

Two, you're an absolute disgrace to your name. Perhaps you should actually read some of the late, great Hunter S. Thompson's work before espousing views under his name.
 
2012-10-29 02:00:08 PM  

karnal: rufus-t-firefly

karnal: Carn
karnal: FEMA SUCKS.
It should be handled at a state level.
Right now, it is a top heavy bureaucracy that most times has neither the desire nor the information needed to effectively coordinate a kid's birthday party let alone a major relief effort.....and when the power to control the relief funds has federal policymakers using it to to help reelection campaigns by spending money on key political districts, it loses any effectivenessit might have had.

So it's your belief that state governments are not beauracracies. That's cute.

The state level would be less top heavy....less corrupt (unless you are from Virginia). FEMA has historically been slow to act - Red Cross and the National Guard would have a better reponse time and in most incidences, FEMA has complicated relief efforts instead of providing help.

Why have the feds involved at all?

The Katrina recovery cost about $80 billion. I'm sure Louisianans would have been OK with a massive tax increase to pay for that/


Federal money would be needed, especially in the poorer states....but the states would decide how and where the relief money is used.


You mean like this??? HOLY shiat THERE'S A POST-KATRINA PROCESS?!?!?!

http://stateimpact.npr.org/new-hampshire/2011/08/31/how-do-states-ge t- fema-disaster-relief-money-after-irene/

We spoke with Jeanne Gallagher to find out. She's the Recovery Director for FEMA Region 1, based in Boston, and she broke down for us how the process works:

Step 1: The Pre-Disaster Emergency Delcaration: When something predictable, like a hurricane or tropical storm, looks like it might do damage beyond what the state can pay for, it's the governor's responsibility to send a letter to the President-by way of the regional FEMA office administrator. Gallagher says in this case, New Hampshire Governor John Lynch sent President Obama a letter last week, asking for a Presidential Emergency Declaration, "And in that emergency declaration, what he asked the president to do is grant him direct federal assistance, which would activate some federal teams, if he needed them, and emergency protective measures, which would reimburse th estate 75 percent for anything they spent protecting the public in advance of the storm." Basically, Gallagher says, it's kind of like state disaster insurance from the feds.

Step 2: The FEMA Liaison: This can be combined with Step 1, and is part of pre-disaster planning. Besides asking for the Presidential Emergency Declaration, Lynch also asked FEMA to send up an agency liaison. "What the state liaison does is [act as] the conduit between FEMA and the state, and see[s] if there are any unmet needs in the state, or if there's anything beyond the capability of state and local governments," Gallagher says. In New Hampshire's case, she says the state had to open emergency operations centers and deal with other logistical challenges related to crisis-management. Which led to...

Step 3: The FEMA Incident Management Team: If a state (like New Hampshire, in this case) can't handle the pre-crisis management in the run-up to a major storm, or its aftermath, the governor requests an Incident Management Team. They're the feds who help the state manage emergency protective measures before and during the disaster itself. If a state needs chainsaw crews to clear debris, food for displaced residents, or other federal help, FEMA mobilizes more teams. Gallagher says New Hampshire got a ten-person Incident Management Team. In addition to mobilizing general assistance, they also watched where and how the state was deploying its resources (aka: spending money), and helped the state gather its preliminary receipts.

Step 4: Preliminary Damage Assessment: Enter more FEMA teams. There are two major FEMA aid programs related to this step-public assistance, for things like roads and bridges, and individual/family assistance for homes. The relationship between public and private FEMA aid is complex, so for the sake of clarity, we'll be focusing mainly on public assistance. Gallagher says for this step, state emergency officials and FEMA staffers will team up and go town to town, meeting with local emergency management officers and checking out the damage in person. "They'll look at debris removal. How much is it going to cost to remove debris from public property? And emergency protective measures, how much is it going to cost with opening up all of their emergency operations centers, for bringing extra police and fire on to help with the event, and also permanent work...fixing the roofs and the bridges and the infrastructure." The preliminary damage assessment is what FEMA's working on in New Hampshire starting Thursday. The process typically takes about four or five days, depending on the damage. Once those rough numbers are compiled, state officials will work with FEMA to determine if the work is something the state can afford. If not, they'll move on to Step 5.

Step 5: Ask The President For A Major Disaster Declaration: Once the preliminary reports trickle in, usually over the course of that first week after a major storm, the state and FEMA sit down and crunch the numbers. They come up with a rough dollar amount that the state just can't pay for disaster relief. Then they'll ask the President to make a Major Disaster Declaration. That authorizes FEMA to start collecting claims from communities, and (theoretically) loosens up disaster relief fund money. This step usually happens a couple of weeks after the storm.

Step 6: First Local Applications: Once the Major Disaster Declaration comes down, damaged communities submit what amounts to a mini-application to participate in the FEMA disaster relief program. That lets them in on Step 7.

Step 7: Briefings: FEMA and state staffers will hold meetings for city and town officials, and explain what's eligible for federal assistance.

Step 8: Request Reimbursement: Since they know what they're looking for, the state, cities and towns can tally-up the Irene-related damages they think are eligible. They'll file their application for aid with FEMA. FEMA will then look through the application, and tell them what they're actually eligible to be reimbursed for.

Step 9: Last Round Of Paperwork: And now that they know exactly what will be covered, the state, cities, and towns can submit their receipts to FEMA for reimbursement.
 
2012-10-29 02:12:34 PM  

JackieRabbit: Romney is probably dancing a jig right now because of Sandy. It'shiatting in Obama's stronghold and it's going to hit hard. This will suppress voter turnout next week.


While there's no way to tell if it will affect voter turnout, this would only matter if the election were decided by popular vote.
 
2012-10-29 02:17:29 PM  

Hebalo: JackieRabbit: Romney is probably dancing a jig right now because of Sandy. It'shiatting in Obama's stronghold and it's going to hit hard. This will suppress voter turnout next week.

While there's no way to tell if it will affect voter turnout, this would only matter if the election were decided by popular vote.


Not necessarily. Most of the cities in the swing states are in the Eastern part of these states. You know, where we're about get Biblically raped.
 
2012-10-29 02:24:59 PM  

Tom_Slick: Shutting down FEMA and shifting the responsibility to other agencies could work, and I could could also get a date with Christina Hendricks.


I bet you could if you brought along a crate of tasty snack cakes.
 
Displayed 50 of 322 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report