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.

(Salon)   Mitt flips on FEMA as inconvenient timing rears its ugly head. In other news the earth still revolves around the sun and water is still wet   (salon.com) divider line 81
    More: Fail, FEMA, Ryan Grim, Somerset  
•       •       •

8186 clicks; posted to Politics » on 30 Oct 2012 at 12:05 PM (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
2012-10-30 12:24:52 PM  
4 votes:
What is more disturbing to me is not that he flip flopped, but that his mouth breathing base thought it was a good idea to disband FEMA in the first place.
2012-10-30 12:23:30 PM  
4 votes:
Governor Romney, there are times when we're fifty states and there are times when we're one country, and have national needs. And the way I know this is that Massachusetts didn't fight Germany in World War II or establish civil rights. You think states should do the governing wall-to-wall. That's a perfectly valid opinion. But your state of Massachusetts got $12.6 billion in federal money last year - from Nebraskans, and Virginians, and New Yorkers, and Alaskans, with their Eskimo poetry. 12.6 out of a state budget of $32 billion. I'm supposed to be using this time for a question, so here it is: Can we have it back, please?
2012-10-30 01:26:13 PM  
3 votes:

Noam Chimpsky: Good, then they can afford to manage their own disasters. If not, then the benefit side of the ledger doesn't balance out the risk side and they can move or deal with the consequences.


www.ncdc.noaa.gov

Wyoming, Michigan, Vermont, Massachusettes, Connecticut, Rhode Island, Maine, Hawaii and Alaska. Everybody pile in!

/ and I'm sure once that happens those states won't wind up being the most expensive disaster areas
2012-10-30 01:07:16 PM  
3 votes:
Ya'll know that old saying about not understanding history leads to repeating your failures; FEMA was developed at the request of the states to help them deal with the dilemma caused by the balanced budget constraints and the massive cost of disasters (plus continual failures to manage disasters at the state level) SO WHY WOULD WE GO BACK THIS?

Privatize? Makes no sense
2012-10-30 12:35:19 PM  
3 votes:

Pool "asked Romney at least five times whether he would eliminate FEMA as president/what he would do with FEMA." He ignored the questions.

- Sabrina Siddiqui (@SabrinaSiddiqui) October 30, 2012


Brave Sir Romney.
2012-10-30 12:10:21 PM  
3 votes:

markie_farkie: So let's see now, the only position he's consistently held since day one has been to de-fund NPR?


And PBS. And the Department of Education.

Anyone see a trend here?
Skr
2012-10-30 12:08:34 PM  
3 votes:
While I am all for people evolving their opinions and not being shackled to one doctrine... this really reeks of horse malarkey.
2012-10-30 12:07:39 PM  
3 votes:
He's very consistent at being inconstant a total douchebag.
2012-10-30 04:44:26 PM  
2 votes:

mark12A: Big organizations are inherently dangerous,

Who certifies the quality and strength of materials and fasteners that hold virtually everything together? A private organization called ASTM (American Society of Testing and Materials)

Why can't the functions of the FDA be provided by a similar organization? Who pioneered consumer safety? Not the government. Underwriters Labs (UL) did. Yeah, the little UL tag on your toaster cord.

We don't NEED the Consumer Product Safety Commission. It's a government boondoggle.


ASTM members = ~30,000
UL employees = ~10,000
CPSC employees = ~500
2012-10-30 04:42:18 PM  
2 votes:
img255.imageshack.us
2012-10-30 01:07:40 PM  
2 votes:

pxsteel: I don't see this as a flip flop.

Under the current system, Fema has to get involved.

Romney would like it to be at the state level, which is where it should be. Federal $ would still be doled out, but the operation would be handled by the state. State programs are usually more efficient than federal programs, reducing the cost.



Yes, because when I think of "more efficient" I think of 50 easier-to-corrupt-bureaucracies-that-can-no-longer-share-the-costs-of- a-larger-organization-and-must-pay-for-duplicate-items.


To put it slightly less snarky:

Every year, we can expect 3-6 hurricanes to make landfall on the united states. We are never quite sure where exactly they will land, as they can hit anywhere along the eastern seaboard. Each year, FEMA prepares logistically for 3-6 hurricanes which could fall anywhere along the border. Now, suddenly FEMA can't do that, and each state must prepare individually. So we are either left with a situation where some states always prepare for 6 hurricanes, and then the supplies are wasted when they don't hit the state that year, or where some states decide that hurricanes almost never hit them, so why bother prepare for them at all, and are completely buttfarked when a hurricane does hit.

Organizations like FEMA are far more efficient at the federal level because there is no way to accurately predict the annual distribution of every single weather disaster down to the state level, thus necessitating each state individually prepare for everything, wasting an amazing amount of money, or each state hedges its bets and gets destroyed when it cannot cope.
2012-10-30 12:59:08 PM  
2 votes:

Noam Chimpsky: If this means people have to move out of hurricane and earthquake zones, tough shiat.


I always get a kick out of stupid comments like this. Where do you think people are going to go that they aren't going to be subject to the potential for some catastrophic event?
2012-10-30 12:53:55 PM  
2 votes:

Fart_Machine: States are already first responders. The whole point of FEMA is to provide them any aid if it reaches beyond what they can handle. The Romney campaign has a knack for using lots of words to say precisely nothing.


Usually. It seems in this case however, Romney saying he'll be "giving x safety net program to the states" just means he plans on gutting it or defunding it entirely on the federal level, then wiping his hands on his servant-laundered pants.

Take Medicaid for instance... he said the same thing about that, but states already handle their own state-specific programs while adhering to federal law and guidelines. "Giving it to the states" in this case just means to kill that 90% federal funding. Medicaid would then be dead in the water... under all of those shiny new battleships.

What his supporters don't seem to understand is that, instead of the government figuratively holding you at gunpoint for this money, the would-be recipients might step in with a more literal role if things get desperate enough for them. I can easily see large groups of displaced people take matters into their own hands if they are lacking basic necessities, funds to move/rebuild, and somewhere to go in the meantime.

Of course, all of this would have to get through the legislative branch first. The scary thing is, if there's a Republican majority in both the house and senate for whatever odd reason, there is no telling how much damage will be done.
2012-10-30 12:42:50 PM  
2 votes:
As I mentioned in the other thread on this topic:

[Romney's] infamous changes of stance are not little wispy ideological alterations of a few degrees here or there - they are perfect and absolute mathematical reversals, as in "I believe that abortion should be safe and legal in this country" and "I am firmly pro-life." Yet unlike other politicians, who at least recognize that saying completely contradictory things presents a political problem, Romney seems genuinely puzzled by the public's insistence that he be consistent. "I'm not going to apologize for having changed my mind," he likes to say. It's an attitude that recalls the standard defense offered by Wall Street in the wake of some of its most recent and notorious crimes: Goldman Sachs excused its lying to clients, for example, by insisting that its customers are "sophisticated investors" who should expect to be lied to. - Matt Taibbi

That's exactly the way I think Romney sees voters. Mitt sees the election as a game of saying anything it takes to win, and the voters are people who should expect to be lied to in exchange for their support. What policy is going to make them happy today? And if Mitt wins, he's changed his positions so many times that whatever he does, he can say it was part of his plan that he mentioned during the campaign. The sad part is that for half the country, this is working.
2012-10-30 12:35:25 PM  
2 votes:

pxsteel: I don't see this as a flip flop.

Under the current system, Fema has to get involved.

Romney would like it to be at the state level, which is where it should be. Federal $ would still be doled out, but the operation would be handled by the state. State programs are usually more efficient than federal programs, reducing the cost.


Explain to me how state programs are more effective when they're right smack in the middle of the disaster.
2012-10-30 12:30:40 PM  
2 votes:
"Cross our hearts and hope to die, we believe in all these things; but we do not like the way the present Administration is doing them. Just turn them over to us. We will do all of them-we will do more of them, we will do them better; and, most important of all, the doing of them will not cost anybody anything."
2012-10-30 12:29:13 PM  
2 votes:
One the most obvious things in the narrative of this election is "No one actually wants Romney in charge". I've seen lots of support for the character and actions of Obama, but no one actually seems to like Romney. Even the die hard Republican supporters tend to speak about the negatives of Obama, never the positives of Romney.

That's not surprising, as he's clearly the "best we had to offer" for this election, but it's telling all the same.
2012-10-30 12:26:58 PM  
2 votes:

papatex: I, for one, would love less government control. If this means less help when in bad times, well, so be it.

Anyway to cut costs.

Do you have any insurance policies in your name? If so, why? You clearly would rather cut costs then be prepared for catastrophes. Federal aid for disasters is like a country wide insurance policy. Its always easy to say "cut costs for emergencies" until you're the one that needs help.
2012-10-30 12:25:12 PM  
2 votes:
A friend of mine referred to a new theory called "Quantum Romneyism". It proposes that Mitt Romney holds a superposition of all political opinions which, when observed, collapse based on the audience.
2012-10-30 12:24:21 PM  
2 votes:

doyner: If Romney wins then this country is essentially getting what it deserves: The lasting, painful effects of willful ignorance.


The GOP's stonewalling of Obama is just as much a continuation of such ignorance, and unfortunately
if Obama wins they will continue their reprehensible treason.
2012-10-30 12:23:56 PM  
2 votes:
i.imgur.com
2012-10-30 12:20:38 PM  
2 votes:
People don't understand, funding FEMA is immoral! It's immoral! See we should let the state's decide how to do it, that way it's not immoral.

You see how that works?

Federal Emergency Management Agency = immoral
State Emergency Management Agency = moral

See, states can do everything. They are magical AND moral. Except invading Iran. Then we will ask states to send their people to other countries to die for us. Which is absolutely the moral thing to do.

That's what people just don't understand in America. We are America! We live in a country that is made up of tiny countries! A union of tiny countries into one country that's the same country! It's brilliant, really. And we don't have to help each other out except to attack other countries. I mean sure, we mostly all speak the same language. And sure, we have the same currency. And our businesses are intertwined all over the country. And our systems of roads, bridges, and waterways span across different states, sure. Oh and people can move between countries and often do a lot. But we should let states each invent totally different rules so that we're confused by each state's rules and therefore we no longer function as a country but a set of independent countries where rape babies are OK in some places. That's how it works, people! America! Freedom! Eagles! Rape Babies!
2012-10-30 12:20:13 PM  
2 votes:
All this article shows is that the gop house is holding our country back and they need to be voted out of office. The big stuff that Romney wants is the same crap that Dubya got and look at the result of that.
2012-10-30 12:16:13 PM  
2 votes:
States are already first responders. The whole point of FEMA is to provide them any aid if it reaches beyond what they can handle. The Romney campaign has a knack for using lots of words to say precisely nothing.
2012-10-30 12:14:53 PM  
2 votes:
See, now I fear that Obama may be one of the few relics left who actually believes in "tactful" politics. Personally, I got that beaten out of me sometime around the 100th demand for his birth certificate. So I'm all for him politicizing this and turning Romney's original position against him via TV ad bomb.

He won't, but I wish he would.
M-G
2012-10-30 12:13:41 PM  
2 votes:
Obama campaign needs to hammer VA with ads of Mitt's quote about getting rid of FEMA. Sure, the right-wing pundits will cry foul, but they're going to biatch about whatever he does anyway.
2012-10-30 12:08:48 PM  
2 votes:
So let's see now, the only position he's consistently held since day one has been to de-fund NPR?
2012-10-30 12:08:07 PM  
2 votes:
latinorebels.com
2012-11-01 08:47:20 PM  
1 votes:

Skeptos: Noam Chimpsky: If Yellowstone goes off, we won't be financing a rebuild. The fact that disasters can happen everywhere is non sequitur since no one ever claimed they couldn't happen anywhere. If I say an alcoholic with 10 DUI should pay more in auto insurance than a careful driver with no DUI, the fact that "anyone can have a car accident!" would be a liberal and very lame response.

While 9/11-scale terrorist attacks can happen anywhere, they are more likely to happen in places with large concentrations of people, i.e., cities. Why should I, living in a rural area, have my taxes go to fund counter-terrorism operations, post-attack relief and reconstruction, or legal/military action against the perpetrators? Cities can surely afford these things on their own. If not, then cities fail the cost/benefit equation. People who don't like it can move to the country.


This is what teatards actually believe. Traitors to their republic, and ignorant of the social contract they benefit from, as well as short sighted and narrow minded.
2012-10-30 07:31:27 PM  
1 votes:
There is at least one huge problem with devolving emergency response to the states:

Many of them must legally balance their budgets each year. They cannot deficit spend to recover from disasters. The federal government does that.

Also, states are not required to ask for federal assistance. They can try and handle it on their own if they want to.
2012-10-30 01:58:58 PM  
1 votes:

Skeptos: Noam Chimpsky: If Yellowstone goes off, we won't be financing a rebuild. The fact that disasters can happen everywhere is non sequitur since no one ever claimed they couldn't happen anywhere. If I say an alcoholic with 10 DUI should pay more in auto insurance than a careful driver with no DUI, the fact that "anyone can have a car accident!" would be a liberal and very lame response.

While 9/11-scale terrorist attacks can happen anywhere, they are more likely to happen in places with large concentrations of people, i.e., cities. Why should I, living in a rural area, have my taxes go to fund counter-terrorism operations, post-attack relief and reconstruction, or legal/military action against the perpetrators? Cities can surely afford these things on their own. If not, then cities fail the cost/benefit equation. People who don't like it can move to the country.


For the same reasons cities subsidize all the flyover-country roads, bridges, phone service, rail service, bus service, and pretty much everything else?
2012-10-30 01:52:04 PM  
1 votes:
Romney hasn't flipped on FEMA (yet). The statement in TFA comes from one of his advisers. Romney himself is talking to the press pool right now, and flat out refusing to answer any questions about whether or not he would eliminate FEMA. https://twitter.com/SabrinaSiddiqui 

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/10/30/mitt-romney-fema_n_2044213.h t ml?1351617484
2012-10-30 01:45:28 PM  
1 votes:
Ignoring the flip flop for the moment(We focus to much on these, and we forget to look at his actual "policies", at least the ones he has today), the problem with the whole 'Get rid of FEMA' mantra is that no state has consistent disasters. Sure, places like Florida have regular hurricanes, but some do significantly more damage than others. Then you have AZ, which has two FEMA requests, wildfires throughout the summer, and then a 10 year flood cycle. Otherwise, AZ's pretty quiet. The problem is when AZ has two years with flooding and two really big wildfire seasons. Suddenly they've gone through 8 or 10 years' worth of disasters in two. Where does the extra money come from? Make it a federal thing, and there's money there. Unless 25states are having disasters at the same exact time, they can get money and resources where they need it. You break it down to the states, and you'll have states with small budgets not recover from a flood ever. An entire city could just be left to rot because the state doesn't have the money.

Disasters are too random to narrow down the recovery funding like that. If Mitt actually listened to financial people, or stopped to think while waiting for the car elevator to bring up his SUV, he'd know this.
2012-10-30 01:38:11 PM  
1 votes:

CeroX: huh... weird, fark stripped my link
here it is: http://www.freedomfiles.org/war/fema.htm



Once again the people who complain most about government are the ones sucking the government's teat the hardest.
2012-10-30 01:36:45 PM  
1 votes:

Skeptos: I'm going to echo what others have said recently: if this slimy, glad-handing bullsh*tter wins the election, the country deserves what it's going to get.


I seriously do not want to live in a country where Romney/Ryan can get elected. Either by fair means or foul.
2012-10-30 01:31:59 PM  
1 votes:
i449.photobucket.com
2012-10-30 01:31:22 PM  
1 votes:

stonicus: Republican mantra to disaster relief:

*right hand is crushed in an accident*
Right hand: Aggggh!!! Help!!!
Left hand: dude, will you shut up already? And no, you can't have any of my blood, you had your own!
Right hand: come on leftie, I'm gonna die if you don't help me! My death will cause trouble for the entire body and will result in suffering for all other body systems and organs, including you.
Left hand: stop being a mooch and asking for a handout!
*later, as leftie is rotting away from gangrene*
Left hand: stupid right hand! I win!!!
Left hand: stupid gangrenous right hand! This is all your fault! I was doing great until you got me all diseasy! You better help me out of this mess, you stubby sumbiatch!


FTFY
2012-10-30 01:18:55 PM  
1 votes:
Mr. Right: If you weren't a rabid partisan hack, you'd know that FEMA was no more effective under Clinton - it was never tested as severely. Nor was it gutted by Bush. Way to dodge criticism of a bureaucracy with partisan snark.

From the Wikipedia article on FEMA:

President Bush appointed Michael D. Brown as FEMA's director in January 2003. Brown warned in September 2003 that FEMA's absorption into DHS would make a mockery of FEMA's new motto, "A Nation Prepared", and would "fundamentally sever FEMA from its core functions", "shatter agency morale" and "break longstanding, effective and tested relationships with states and first responder stakeholders". The inevitable result of the reorganization of 2003, warned Brown, would be "an ineffective and uncoordinated response" to a terrorist attack or a natural disaster.
2012-10-30 01:13:01 PM  
1 votes:

Mr. Right: Romney is in favor of getting rid of FEMA. But, since we are in a crisis, the disaster has hit, and we have trained the entire country to rely on the federal government for everything, he is supporting their efforts now. It would be like changing the rules after the game has begun.

I know the article in Salon referenced all the wonderful work and coordination that occurs when the federal government is in charge and they try to make you believe that only the federal government can perform that. If you have studied a little history, you may recall that the San Francisco earthquake of 1906 occurred prior to any federal relief programs, as did the Great Chicago Fire. In both instances, the devastation was incredible. In both instances, the relief came from private individuals, bank loans, private investment and even foreign countries. In neither case was there a FEMA. In both cases, rebuilding was fairly quick and robust.

Compare that to Katrina in New Orleans and the wonderful work of FEMA. You may recall that private companies (even the hated Wal-Mart) and relief agencies were quicker on the scene. You may recall that, even though there was advanced warning (notably lacking in San Francisco or Chicago) the city was unprepared because the mayor and governor had the option of ignoring warnings and advice and exercised that option. Rebuilding has been incredibly slow, in large part because of all the red tape surrounding FEMA. Note: the red tape isn't a poltical issue. It is an immutable law of too-large bureaucracies. Which is why FEMA should be phased out and control increasingly put on states and private insurance companies.



So you chose to ignore that in the entire history of FEMA it has always been helpful and efficient, and focus on the one gigantic failure it has experienced in its lifetime- a failure perpetrated by Republicans appointing their friends to these agencies instead of anyone actually qualified.

Congratulations. You just made a good case for why noone in their right minds should ever vote Republican.

/Republican motto is "Look at how Government fails", when in reality it should be "Look at how we made a formerly-operating Government fail intentionally so we can get away with looting its corpse".
2012-10-30 01:02:08 PM  
1 votes:
I like how conservatives' alternative to FEMA is empowering states and private entities to do what they're already doing, minus the national level structure FEMA provides.

Did I say "I like it?" Wait, I don't. It's fundamentally stupid and pointless. I also have yet to see among the gales of butthurt* among the right any drive to donate to the Red Cross, become trained in CPR or First Aid, or anything else in the form of a solution. Nope it's all, "durr 0bama!" as usual.

/*Copyright GardenWeasel
2012-10-30 12:57:46 PM  
1 votes:

Cletus C.: Vodka Zombie: Cletus C.: Has Obama declared this an act of nature yet?

Or is he blaming it on some incendiary hurricane-chasing youtube video?

You're trying too hard. Go to bed.

Perhaps you're right. This is no time to joke. Businesses Obama built are being destroyed.


i301.photobucket.com
2012-10-30 12:51:34 PM  
1 votes:

pxsteel: I don't see this as a flip flop.

Under the current system, Fema has to get involved.

Romney would like it to be at the state level, which is where it should be. Federal $ would still be doled out, but the operation would be handled by the state. State programs are usually more efficient than federal programs, reducing the cost.


That is what happens already. FEMA only steps in when states request them to. FEMA also offers the coordination that is needed when there is a multi-state event. What Mitt is proposing would create another Katrina. Also you need to leave the private sector out of disaster management, there is no moral grounds for them to make a profit and cost the government even more during events.
2012-10-30 12:49:56 PM  
1 votes:

pxsteel: I don't see this as a flip flop.

Under the current system, Fema has to get involved.

Romney would like it to be at the state level, which is where it should be. Federal $ would still be doled out, but the operation would be handled by the state. State programs are usually more efficient than federal programs, reducing the cost.


So we should fragment national programs and have to increase the administrative overhead, introduce more complex communication protocols and funding. Poor states will have a non-functioning system, richer states will respond more effectively, etc.

Imagine the Interstate highway system, the FAA, the FDA, the USDA, etc. all being locally controlled. That will add to the amount of government overhead and costs. Then imagine how complex it would be for businesses to comply with each state's ideosyncratic changes to standard processes.

Balkanization rarely has benefits other than benefit local power-hungry government fiefdoms. Now watch your state taxes and fees skyrocket.

If "States' Rights" were really a GOP goal, they'd allow each state to decide on medical pot and marriage freedom...but they don't.

They only want more state control ONLY when they're not in power, then when they are in power they increase the Federal budget and payroll with unqualified morons to encourage dysfunction and failure so that their marketing department has something to point to.

Domestic terrorism at its finest.
2012-10-30 12:48:38 PM  
1 votes:
I guess the trees along the eastern seaboard are the perfect height now.
2012-10-30 12:45:28 PM  
1 votes:

Mr. Right: Romney is in favor of getting rid of FEMA. But, since we are in a crisis, the disaster has hit, and we have trained the entire country to rely on the federal government for everything, he is supporting their efforts now. It would be like changing the rules after the game has begun.

I know the article in Salon referenced all the wonderful work and coordination that occurs when the federal government is in charge and they try to make you believe that only the federal government can perform that. If you have studied a little history, you may recall that the San Francisco earthquake of 1906 occurred prior to any federal relief programs, as did the Great Chicago Fire. In both instances, the devastation was incredible. In both instances, the relief came from private individuals, bank loans, private investment and even foreign countries. In neither case was there a FEMA. In both cases, rebuilding was fairly quick and robust.

Compare that to Katrina in New Orleans and the wonderful work of FEMA. You may recall that private companies (even the hated Wal-Mart) and relief agencies were quicker on the scene. You may recall that, even though there was advanced warning (notably lacking in San Francisco or Chicago) the city was unprepared because the mayor and governor had the option of ignoring warnings and advice and exercised that option. Rebuilding has been incredibly slow, in large part because of all the red tape surrounding FEMA. Note: the red tape isn't a poltical issue. It is an immutable law of too-large bureaucracies. Which is why FEMA should be phased out and control increasingly put on states and private insurance companies.


Yes, let's not have a national infrastructure in place for natural disasters which stretch across regions of the United States.

Every state will have its own disaster response agencies, and private companies will donate supplies or sell them cheaply at their own discretion and benediction.

/Good job on proving why FEMA was needed and created in the first place via your second paragraph, though.
2012-10-30 12:45:06 PM  
1 votes:
MitTron must pander. Pander. Pander. MitTron must pander.


www.clivebanks.co.uk 


Seriously at this point if you don't line who MitTron claims to be, just wait five minutes.
2012-10-30 12:43:40 PM  
1 votes:

Citrate1007: What is more disturbing to me is not that he flip flopped, but that his mouth breathing base thought it was a good idea to disband FEMA in the first place.


Not to worry, if Mitt wins his base will get the chance to drown in the dark without help.
2012-10-30 12:42:07 PM  
1 votes:

zarberg: pxsteel: I don't see this as a flip flop.

Under the current system, Fema has to get involved.

Romney would like it to be at the state level, which is where it should be. Federal $ would still be doled out, but the operation would be handled by the state. State programs are usually more efficient than federal programs, reducing the cost.

Explain to me how state programs are more effective when they're right smack in the middle of the disaster.


The issue is capacity not who can do it better. If a city exceeds their response capacity, they go to the State, if the State exceed their response capacity, they go to the Feds.

I assume under Romney, the State would go directly to the UN for help.
2012-10-30 12:41:55 PM  
1 votes:

Stile4aly: In the event of a Hurricane, Mitt Romney will be sure to see which way the wind is blowing.


The fact that it's usually blowing in all directions will suit him nicely then.
2012-10-30 12:41:10 PM  
1 votes:
In the event of a Hurricane, Mitt Romney will be sure to see which way the wind is blowing.
2012-10-30 12:38:15 PM  
1 votes:

mooseyfate: So I'm pretty much voting for Obama at this point just because "Fark Mitt". Thanks, republican party. Buncha farkin douchenozzles.


You SHOULD be voting for Obama because Mitt's (and the republican party's) platform is basically "fark you".

If you aren't pulling down more than a quarter million a year and you vote for Mitt Romney, you're a gotdang moron and there's nothing more to it. The fact that either a) Obama isn't going to win with 95% of the popular vote or b) a third party candidate is going to make a very, very strong showing in the popular vote just goes to show how incredibly stupid nearly half of this country really is.
2012-10-30 12:37:50 PM  
1 votes:

steamingpile: Right now states do not have anything set up like FEMA, a few do, like NY but by and large if shiat hits the fan then local municipalities have no idea how to deal with it.


Every state - and some that aren't states, like Micronesia and the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands - has both an Office of Emergency Management (though it might be phrased differently) and a State Emergency Manager.

How do I know that? I helped track down addresses and phone numbers to create this list.

// yes, I had to call CNMI - from the East Coast - to get info
// something like a 15-year time difference over there
2012-10-30 12:35:14 PM  
1 votes:

papatex: Anyway to cut costs.


Are you cutting costs by removing the space between "any" and "way"?
2012-10-30 12:35:10 PM  
1 votes:

pxsteel: I don't see this as a flip flop.

Under the current system, Fema has to get involved.

Romney would like it to be at the state level, which is where it should be. Federal $ would still be doled out, but the operation would be handled by the state. State programs are usually more efficient than federal programs, reducing the cost.


i see you have no idea how fema operates. Fairly comon for conservatives, who though putting a guy in charge of horse shows in as it's boss was a good idea.

The states always dot the command parts, fema just coordinates the federal stuff so they don't have to.
2012-10-30 12:32:48 PM  
1 votes:

Spare Me: When FEMA, once again, proves its uselessness, I'm sure you all will offer your apologies for your stupidity.


You're going to be disappointed. FEMA does okay when it isn't headed by a man whose only meaningful job experience was managing horse shows.
2012-10-30 12:30:52 PM  
1 votes:

Vegan Meat Popsicle: I really want to vote for Mitt Romney


And here we have the first time someone has ever uttered this sentence in the history of ever.
2012-10-30 12:30:10 PM  
1 votes:
Romney is in favor of getting rid of FEMA. But, since we are in a crisis, the disaster has hit, and we have trained the entire country to rely on the federal government for everything, he is supporting their efforts now. It would be like changing the rules after the game has begun.

I know the article in Salon referenced all the wonderful work and coordination that occurs when the federal government is in charge and they try to make you believe that only the federal government can perform that. If you have studied a little history, you may recall that the San Francisco earthquake of 1906 occurred prior to any federal relief programs, as did the Great Chicago Fire. In both instances, the devastation was incredible. In both instances, the relief came from private individuals, bank loans, private investment and even foreign countries. In neither case was there a FEMA. In both cases, rebuilding was fairly quick and robust.

Compare that to Katrina in New Orleans and the wonderful work of FEMA. You may recall that private companies (even the hated Wal-Mart) and relief agencies were quicker on the scene. You may recall that, even though there was advanced warning (notably lacking in San Francisco or Chicago) the city was unprepared because the mayor and governor had the option of ignoring warnings and advice and exercised that option. Rebuilding has been incredibly slow, in large part because of all the red tape surrounding FEMA. Note: the red tape isn't a poltical issue. It is an immutable law of too-large bureaucracies. Which is why FEMA should be phased out and control increasingly put on states and private insurance companies.
2012-10-30 12:27:08 PM  
1 votes:
Getting Romney's to settle on a position is like trying to nail Jello to a tree.
2012-10-30 12:26:42 PM  
1 votes:
I'll repost what I saw on GMA this morning since we're talking FEMA:

I just saw Chris Christie (on Good Morning America) praise Obama, the Administration, and FEMA for their performance working with NJ regarding Sandy.

My first thought:
"A nationally-known Republican who may well run in 2016 is praising Obama's job performance a week before the election on a nationally broadcast morning show?!" (I think in long, comma-free sentences)

I can't remember the last time a well-known Republican who is still active in politics praised Obama for anything. Well, except for Mitt at the last debate saying Obama's foreign policy was what he'd do, but he'd do it better. Not sure if that counts....
2012-10-30 12:25:49 PM  
1 votes:
*YARN*

If Mitt does win, this country deserves him.
2012-10-30 12:25:44 PM  
1 votes:

DjangoStonereaver: You just know that the rabid right-wing conspiracy nuts (AKA the GOP's base) are now thinking that the
ZOG has got to Rmoney and implanted him with the Mark of the Beasttm brain control chip.


Actually, the GOP base is thinking, "I have no idea what any of Romney's policies really will be, but would check a box labeled 'Someone Else' when the other box is next to a black guy."
2012-10-30 12:25:43 PM  
1 votes:
crooksandliars.com
2012-10-30 12:25:37 PM  
1 votes:

Fart_Machine: States are already first responders. The whole point of FEMA is to provide them any aid if it reaches beyond what they can handle. The Romney campaign has a knack for using lots of words to say precisely nothing.


And the governor of the state must apply for such aid, have his state declared a federal disaster area, and the president must approve. Further, if the cost of amount of aid exceeds a predetermined limit, the Congress must approve a special appropriation. I don't know about the anti-government wing nuts, but I think this is a better way of spending tax dollars on disaster relief than just throwing a bag of cash at a state to do with what it wants.
2012-10-30 12:24:50 PM  
1 votes:
Since Obama still believes in responsible, effective government, when he needed an expert to run FEMA he called on Jeb Bush's hurricane expert, Craig Fugate.
Hell of a job, Craigie.
Sure beats a horsey guy political hack.
2012-10-30 12:23:03 PM  
1 votes:

soj4life: All this article shows is that the gop house is holding our country back and they need to be voted out of office. The big stuff that Romney wants is the same crap that Dubya got and look at the result of that.

Wrong thread.

Romney is only saying this now because so many states he is trying to win are effected by Sandy.
2012-10-30 12:22:51 PM  
1 votes:

m1ke: North East folks: don't forget to get your FEMA credit debit card! That shiat was dope.


You're thinking of FEMA under Mike Brown, Former Horse Show Judge. This is now FEMA under Craig Fugate, Former Director of Florida's Emergency Management Agency.

// Craig Fugate, whose nomination to his current post was held up by David Vitter (R-LA), who said he had asked FEMA some questions - unrelated to Fugate or his confirmation - and they hadn't responded timely enough for him
// Mike Brown's nomination sailed through with nary a peep about anything - confirmed by chamber voice vote
2012-10-30 12:22:46 PM  
1 votes:
2012-10-30 12:22:42 PM  
1 votes:

BravadoGT: No, Mitt Romney Doesn't Really Want to Kill Off FEMA, say right-wing nutjobs at....The Atlantic?


So what your article states is that Romney left enough wiggle room to talk out of both sides of his face again. Well that's quite an endorsement.
2012-10-30 12:19:05 PM  
1 votes:
His thinly-disguised "Charitable Food & Sundries Delivery That Really Is In No Way Politicizing This Storm™" that is going on right now in Ohio is really pissing me off. If he wanted to be truly charitable, he would have delivered all this stuff anonymously (or at least with little fanfare) to local food banks and assistance organizations, which, by the way, would have been along the lines of what he agrees with, supposedly. Start with local, then ask for state help, then federal, which, as TFA correctly points out, is EXACTLY HOW IT WORKS NOW.

Instead, he wants to politicize the act of charity and drive the narrative that Mitt knows better than what is going on right now.

I heard him say at that shindig (and I'm paraphrasing) that he remembers when Katrina refugees were sent from New Orleans to Massachusetts while he was governor, he met them and blah blah blah, and that's why he's got the experience to deal with major natural disasters.

Mitt, go fark yourself. You really know nothing about it.
2012-10-30 12:17:27 PM  
1 votes:
If Romney wins then this country is essentially getting what it deserves: The lasting, painful effects of willful ignorance.
2012-10-30 12:15:39 PM  
1 votes:
♪♫ When | tim-ing reared its | ug-ly head, ♫♪
♫♪ He | took the | opp-′site | stance in- | -stead. ♪♫
♪♫ | Brave-est of the | brave, Sir | Rom-ney! ♫♪
2012-10-30 12:15:03 PM  
1 votes:

Cletus C.: Has Obama declared this an act of nature yet?

Or is he blaming it on some incendiary hurricane-chasing youtube video?


You're trying too hard. Go to bed.
2012-10-30 12:14:35 PM  
1 votes:
Headline only needed the first two words
2012-10-30 12:14:10 PM  
1 votes:
This article went green at about 12:05. From the thread below:

President declares federal disaster area in NY in the wake of hurricane Sandy. Romney to announce his severe love for FEMA and federal disaster aid by noon today

I'll call it a win for Fark.
2012-10-30 12:13:19 PM  
1 votes:
DRINK!

i171.photobucket.com
2012-10-30 12:12:09 PM  
1 votes:
It is ugly head?
2012-10-30 12:11:25 PM  
1 votes:
Has Obama declared this an act of nature yet?

Or is he blaming it on some incendiary hurricane-chasing youtube video?
2012-10-30 12:09:14 PM  
1 votes:
Romney flip-flopped on another issue?

i.imgur.com

Well, no shiat.
2012-10-30 12:08:13 PM  
1 votes:
Romney's just shaking things up a bit:

latinorebels.com
2012-10-30 12:08:01 PM  
1 votes:
At this point I feel like the admin is adding the apostrophe just to fark with us
2012-10-30 12:07:06 PM  
1 votes:
Lets just put every politics submission on the main page for the next week. Should be fun
 
Displayed 81 of 81 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report