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.

(USGS)   Mitt Romney didn't want to kill off FEMA and the USGS, he just wanted to turn it over to the states or the private sector. Let's see how that works   (waterdata.usgs.gov) divider line 115
    More: Followup, Mitt Romney, U.S. Geological Survey, FEMA, United States, New York, current water, private sector  
•       •       •

7421 clicks; posted to Main » on 30 Oct 2012 at 11:46 AM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-10-30 06:00:23 PM  

b0geyman: Great job selectively editing my post where the correct solution to the problem resides, numbnuts.


I wasn't selectively editing in an effort to edit out your "solution." I selectively edited to show the most short-sighted part of your post.


b0geyman: If individual states and the inhabitants thereof want to be covered against disaster then they should raise taxes on their own residents and pay into an insurance pool.


OK. So this is your solution? Because it won't work. Let's take Katrina. Disastrous hurricane hits Louisiana & Mississippi. Residents evacuate. Most of NOLA evacuees end up in Houston. Let's say in your scenario, Texas has paid their insurance, while Louisiana has blown their insurance money on hookers & booze. Now the burden is on Texas to take care of these Louisiana residents, regardless of who paid what. We can't just put them up in the Astrodome forever (actually, we probably could, but that's not important right now).

However, out here in the real world, we have a federal agency who employs professionals to handle such a situation. An agency who helps out no matter where you are. No matter if Louisiana paid $20 and Texas paid $20,000. Because helping people who have been in a disaster is beneficial to all of us. If you need me to outline why, then just let me know. However, I don't think it's a difficult concept. I mean, for those who aren't short-sighted, that is.

theorellior: You don't think that disaster recovery is covered under the "ensure domestic Tranquility", "provide for the common defence" or the "promote the general Welfare" clauses?


Also, I can't THIS this enough.
 
2012-10-30 06:02:16 PM  

Dr Dreidel: And you don't even know what I look like.


Like it even matters at this point
 
2012-10-30 08:15:30 PM  

b0geyman: Di Atribe: b0geyman: The federal government is not disaster insurance. Why should the flyover states have to underwrite shiat that only happens to the coasts

Oh hey, what did I just say about short-sightedness? Great example. Thanks, bro!

Great job selectively editing my post where the correct solution to the problem resides, numbnuts.

If individual states and the inhabitants thereof want to be covered against disaster then they should raise taxes on their own residents and pay into an insurance pool.

NOT doing that and relying on the bankrupt federal government to print more money to bail them out is the short-sighted strategy.


---

Yeah, because all natural disasters respect state boundaries. And in the 1% chance that they don't, state governments work together harmoniously and everything just clicks when a massive natural disaster occurs.

//Give me a farking break. We have a strong federal government for a reason. Otherwise we'll just be a bunch of states constantly engaged in political in-fighting. Just look at the Eurozone right now.
 
2012-10-30 08:28:55 PM  

b0geyman: The federal government is not disaster insurance. Why should the flyover states have to underwrite shiat that only happens to the coasts? If individual states and the inhabitants thereof want to be covered against disaster then they should raise taxes on their own residents and pay into an insurance pool.

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.


This. What libtards don't understand is that we are a farking republic, and the reasoning behind this is pretty simple, so that there is no consolidation of power. You make exceptions for one thing, you set precedent for the next. Look at the ridiculous amount of power Obama has given himself. The right to execute American citizens by drone strike? All of these czars? Sealing Fast and Furious documents from congress, continuing the Patriot Act etc, etc. Not saying that Bush and Clinton didn't do their own part but we need to at least give Romney a chance because at the very least he hasn't proven that he will trample all over the constitution to get what he wants like Obama has.
 
2012-10-30 08:56:09 PM  
Before we give Mitt too hard a time, it's worth noting that the federal government gave the Red Cross a gorram charter to do disaster-relief stuff.

So, in other words, the feds themselves seem to generally approve of the idea of letting private organizations take care of these things.
 
2012-10-31 12:08:01 AM  
Ah, Katrina photos that supposedly are to teach us how important FEMA is, when they actually should be teaching us how important electing competent state and city officials are.

FEMA didn't leave the schoolbusses to flood. Some local/state agency did. Blame them, not FEMA.


FEMA did spend 416,000 per capita to temporarily house people after Katrina, and the housing they put up wasn't up to snuff, but I am sure they will work better now.

And of course, the private sector is extremely fast in an emergency. anyone here biatching about Walmart or Home Depot's service? No, because they have a great motive to serve people: money.

ZERO.
 
2012-10-31 12:45:31 AM  

bdub77: Mitt Romney is an ass of epic proportions.


Constitution of the United States of America, 10th Amendment thereto --

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.


/done
 
2012-10-31 01:24:05 AM  

Dr Dreidel: The goal of government - especially as relates to disaster planning/recovery - is not to maximize revenue, it's to provide for its citizens.
The goal of government - especially as relates to disaster planning/recovery - is not to maximize revenue, it's to provide for its citizens.
The goal of government - especially as relates to disaster planning/recovery - is not to maximize revenue, it's to provide for its citizens.
The goal of government - especially as relates to disaster planning/recovery - is NOT to maximize revenue, it's to provide for its CITIZENS.


This goes for almost ALL government services we pay taxes for at all lavels, and cannot be repeated enough for the farking dickheads who don't get it.
 
2012-10-31 01:45:13 AM  
Always nice to add a new troll to the farky list.
 
2012-10-31 01:53:05 AM  

elysive: A
Because many of those services are being closely monitored and regulated, you probably aren't being price gouged. Things are just expensive and the economy sucks. Oh, and bureaucracy does drive up the cost of doing business.


Here's an idea - instead of whining like a little crybaby about the evil boogyman called "bureaucracy" and his equally evil cousin "red tape", why not just do what you're supposed to do in the first place?
If there's a regulation that makes it so that an insurance company doesn't fu(k people over for pre-existing conditions, why not... refuse to fu(k them over for pre-existing conditions? If there's some evil regulation that restaurant bathrooms must be handicap accessible, why not just... make the bathrooms handicap accessible?

See how easy that is? Most of us, at least those with any home training whatsoever, know what is right and what is wrong. Unfortunately, the more money people make the less likely they are to listen to that inner voice which tells them "this isn't right".

See, if you look at most regulations that businesses have to deal with, including insurance companies, utility companies, cell phone and internet companies, banks and the like, you will see the reasons for those regulations written right into the regulation itself. They are to make sure that these businesses do what they are supposed to be doing in the first place but don't because doing the right thing to do would eat into their profits.

And yes, we still are being gouged, though not as deeply as if there were no regulations. This is because corporations have more of a hand in writing these regulations than ever before, with former legislators lobbying for them in DC and on the local level every single day, and present legislators being promised fat jobs as lobbyists when their terms end. There are plenty of loopholes and get-arounds they use, because they wrote the the loopholes and get-arounds, and this is why they continue to make gajillions in profits in spite of all the "regulations" and "monitoring".
 
2012-10-31 03:41:22 AM  
rewind2846: You make some valid points, but the issue here is that the government should be a referee to make sure there is an even playing field so that no one can profit more than anyone else by doing an injustice towards someone or cutting corners or creating monopoly. Our government inevitably fixes the game, gives unsportsman like conduct penalties to its enemies and extra points to its friends.

There is a free market counter argument that is equally as simple. If you don't like a restaurant not being handicap accessible, don't eat there. If you don't agree with a Catholic hospital not giving you birth control, don't go there. If a product harms you, sue the company. Of course there are certain situations such as the pre-existing medical condition problem, but I don't think anyone in their right mind is asking for a completely free market, just a more sensible system that is easier to understand for the businesses and the consumers and limits the power that government has over certain industries (look at the coal industry's raping by the hands of Obama)
 
2012-10-31 12:20:03 PM  

rewind2846: elysive: Because many of those services are being closely monitored and regulated, you probably aren't being price gouged. Things are just expensive and the economy sucks. Oh, and bureaucracy does drive up the cost of doing business.

Here's an idea - instead of whining like a little crybaby about the evil boogyman called "bureaucracy" and his equally evil cousin "red tape", why not just do what you're supposed to do in the first place?
If there's a regulation that makes it so that an insurance company doesn't fu(k people over for pre-existing conditions, why not... refuse to fu(k them over for pre-existing conditions? If there's some evil regulation that restaurant bathrooms must be handicap accessible, why not just... make the bathrooms handicap accessible?

See how easy that is? Most of us, at least those with any home training whatsoever, know what is right and what is wrong. Unfortunately, the more money people make the less likely they are to listen to that inner voice which tells them "this isn't right".

See, if you look at most regulations that businesses have to deal with, including insurance companies, utility companies, cell phone and internet companies, banks and the like, you will see the reasons for those regulations written right into the regulation itself. They are to make sure that these businesses do what they are supposed to be doing in the first place but don't because doing the right thing to do would eat into their profits.

And yes, we still are being gouged, though not as deeply as if there were no regulations. This is because corporations have more of a hand in writing these regulations than ever before, with former legislators lobbying for them in DC and on the local level every single day, and present legislators being promised fat jobs as lobbyists when their terms end. There are plenty of loopholes and get-arounds they use, because they wrote the the loopholes and get-arounds, and this is why they continue to make gajillions in profit ...


So are you saying the problem is or isn't with the government? It seems to me that the modern lobbying and padding politicians' pockets should just be illegal. I thought price fixing was illegal or else companies like insurers would be competing for our business. I know I did price comparisons when shopping for health insurance and we shopped around for car insurance. Never felt that gouged or pressured into a specific price. The only time I felt a captive audience was with our utilities...where I believe pricing is more heavily regulated anyway.

I do understand why insurers have used the pre-existing conditions thing...I truly do. It's like getting into a car accident and calling to buy car insurance while sitting in the wreckage. If you know you have repairs that need fixin' before you buy the coverage, your risk and cost to the insurer goes up substantially.

That said, changing insurers is such a pain in the ass. I moved states and quit my job and HAD to get new insurance, but one insurer wanted to deny me prescription coverage altogether because I had used prescription coverage too much in the past and one insurer wanted to deny me all mental health coverage. Both of those are ridiculous. For instance if a person is depressed in the past, do you think it is acceptable that an insurance company can or should remove their future safety net because mental health coverage represents a cost to them? And can anyone afford to buy medication out of pocket? It seems unfair and maybe dangerous to me, but I recognize that insurance is a business and they are balancing the real and present costs of doing business. The problem I had was I couldn't just offer to pay more for these services and every company I went to seemed to have some bizarre condition. So I appreciate Obamacare regulations...but I probably do cash in a lot of my premiums in prescription benefits, so maybe that one insurance company was onto something.

If I don't go through a private provider then it becomes my tax dollars that are absorbing the cost of a poorly managed service. The customer/taxpayer pays either way.

And when I mentioned bureaucracy, I didn't mean "zomg I have to follow the rules?" I meant filling out forms every time you need to wipe your ass. When rules become that convoluted in offices they often hire extra people just to fill out paperwork or they just increase prices to cover worker overtime. I worked in a place where they did not hire extra people and it was a clusterfark. I got to work overtime for no extra pay and then I quit. Woohoo!

I'm sure that most businesses with customers will happily make themselves handicap accessible and will raise prices (or do tax write offs) if they must do so to afford the upgrade. I don't recall complaining about regulations. The only difference is when a private business does something like this, you pay through price increases. When the public builds a handicap ramp, your tax dollars pay. When politicians do stupid things, your tax dollars pay. At least the private business owner is not compelled to drive his customers away with price hikes unless absolutely necessary.
 
2012-10-31 01:41:24 PM  
I'm seriously sick of Mitt & every other GREEDY Republican's SELFISH hatred of every beneficial good-will program.
As if the world is some limited sum game where if someone else is benefiting then THEY must be losing out somehow.
It's like they can do NOTHING but think of THEMSELVES, and oppose anything that helps OTHER people.

The GOP's motto should be; "Why think FOR yourself, when you can just think OF yourself."
 
2012-11-01 01:24:36 AM  

elysive: And when I mentioned bureaucracy, I didn't mean "zomg I have to follow the rules?" I meant filling out forms every time you need to wipe your ass. When rules become that convoluted in offices they often hire extra people just to fill out paperwork or they just increase prices to cover worker overtime. I worked in a place where they did not hire extra people and it was a clusterfark. I got to work overtime for no extra pay and then I quit. Woohoo!



Which goes back to my original premise... why do the regulations exist in the first place? Is it because some politician woke up one bright and early morning, reached deeply into his/her gaping anus, and pulled out a steaming pile of regulations? I know that's what some people who believe that nothing should be regulated, as least if that nothing has anything to do with them or what they want to do, but that is not the case.
Regulations, laws and other government and societal constructs exist for one reason: somebody farked up.

A good example - traffic laws that don't permit people to drive through red lights. Reason for those laws: obvious. People can die if they aren't obeyed, and people did die before they were enacted. They farked up, and new laws were written to make the fark-ups fewer and further between.

Another good example: pollution regulations. Wasn't too long ago (less than 50 years) that factories poured millions of gallons of who-knows-what-the-fark into lakes, streams, the ocean, even into underground aquifers and pits under suburbs and housing developments. Whole neighborhoods and towns became unlivable, dozens of people developed cancers and other diseases on just one block, and some areas still haven't been cleaned up - and may never be - well enough for people to be allowed to even WALK on the ground there, lest they take those poisons out on their shoes.
Got so bad a whole new agency had to be formed, the EPA (by a republican president!) to put a stop to it. Even today there are STILL companies that do this dumb sh*t, even though it's been outlawed for decades.
They farked up, and new laws were written.

If you want to gripe about regulations being too "convoluted", blame lawyers for this. They are one of the biggest reasons why bills and laws like ACH are so long... because for every bill, law, rule, regulation or even suggestion, there will be a lawyer somewhere going over every word, every paragraph, every period trying to find a loophole so their client doesn't have to follow that bill, law, rule, regulation or even suggestion. Every eventuality and "what if?" must be covered, and in excruciating detail, so that the weasels can't destroy it because of a missing apostrophe on page 469, paragraph B, sub-paragraph G.

This also is why tax forms can sometimes be complicated... they need to cover any and all "what if's?" that people have in their lives which deal with money, and there are many, many, many different circumstances. Tax lawyers will find the holes. It's their job.
To cover everyone you can either have a few forms with many possible answers, or many many many forms with simple answers. Which do you think will cost more?
 
2012-11-01 11:46:49 AM  

rewind2846: elysive: And when I mentioned bureaucracy, I didn't mean "zomg I have to follow the rules?" I meant filling out forms every time you need to wipe your ass. When rules become that convoluted in offices they often hire extra people just to fill out paperwork or they just increase prices to cover worker overtime. I worked in a place where they did not hire extra people and it was a clusterfark. I got to work overtime for no extra pay and then I quit. Woohoo!

Which goes back to my original premise... why do the regulations exist in the first place? Is it because some politician woke up one bright and early morning, reached deeply into his/her gaping anus, and pulled out a steaming pile of regulations? I know that's what some people who believe that nothing should be regulated, as least if that nothing has anything to do with them or what they want to do, but that is not the case.
Regulations, laws and other government and societal constructs exist for one reason: somebody farked up.

A good example - traffic laws that don't permit people to drive through red lights. Reason for those laws: obvious. People can die if they aren't obeyed, and people did die before they were enacted. They farked up, and new laws were written to make the fark-ups fewer and further between.

Another good example: pollution regulations. Wasn't too long ago (less than 50 years) that factories poured millions of gallons of who-knows-what-the-fark into lakes, streams, the ocean, even into underground aquifers and pits under suburbs and housing developments. Whole neighborhoods and towns became unlivable, dozens of people developed cancers and other diseases on just one block, and some areas still haven't been cleaned up - and may never be - well enough for people to be allowed to even WALK on the ground there, lest they take those poisons out on their shoes.
Got so bad a whole new agency had to be formed, the EPA (by a republican president!) to put a stop to it. Even today there are STILL compan ...


I have no problems with the existence of most rules, laws, regulations or the other and I wasn't complaining about regulations on these industries (yet you still seem to be going at me like I'm an evil adversary)...but are you seriously defending lawyers and the gaping anuses of our grand politicians? One can be okay with the existence of laws without agreeing with every implementation thereof and seriously...there are plenty of stupid implementations! For instance, I am okay with red lights and even yellow lights, but when cities use traffic studies to tune their yellow light times to hand out more tickets rather than increase public safety, then they are being jackasses and aren't following the spirit of the law. Red lights are no longer about "someone farking up", they are about revenue and making paper. Sorry to burst your bubble.

And I never defended companies who polluted shiat (nor did I ever defend any company's outright wrongdoing against the public). It's just that a company filling out a form stating that they disposed of waste in a safe/alternative way does not guarantee that they aren't still abusing the environment. Unethical people aren't suddenly going to become ethical when completing official paperwork. People can lie all day on their paperwork. Companies do it. Cops lie in their reports. I've seen government employees lie on forms about having completed things when they were too lazy to actually do the tasks. There's nothing new about lying. But the more paperwork you give people that is irrelevant to actually accomplishing their assigned tasks, the more I believe you see people BS'ing it. I even hated filling out the eight forms I had to fill out going to a new eye doctor and the three forms I had to fill out returning to my ob/gyn this year and I had to resist skimming the forms. I know some of those forms are for safety but most are because they don't want to get sued...so I'll ask again. You really want to defend lawyers??? Maybe you aren't, but I can't tell if lawyers help write law in your mind. Btw, I didn't know you had to be a lawyer to read and find a way to cheat.

So the guiding message of your post seems to be that all private businesses are evil, politicians are all good and we should be thankful for even the most idiotic laws enacted to counter malicious acts of individuals. Bureaucracy will cure the moral ills of the private sector.
 
Displayed 15 of 115 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report