Paul: FEMA revisited

[RonPaul101.com]

Labeling someone who is against FEMA as someone who is against helping people is like labeling someone who is against playing the lottery as someone who must be against being wealthy. It's true that the lottery has made many millionaires, just as FEMA has helped a lot of people in need, but at what level of efficiency? Paul believes FEMA is no more efficient at disaster relief as the lottery is at making you a likely millionaire. Instead greater efficiencies can be achieved at the state level of disaster relief.

http://news.yahoo.com/ron-paul-separating-facts-myths-210300783.html

 

[NYgs23]

The only sane election choices this time around are Paul or Green Party.

There is a pretty vast gulf between the views of Ron Paul and the views of the Green Party. They're both principled, and I assume the Green Party is, like Ron Paul, decent on war and civil liberty issues. But the economic views are as different as night and day. I think you'd better figure out whether you prefer an economy regimented by a violent monopoly or an economy built around the voluntary interactions of free individuals.

 

[Gray Fullbuster]

There is a pretty vast gulf between the views of Ron Paul and the views of the Green Party. They're both principled, and I assume the Green Party is, like Ron Paul, decent on war and civil liberty issues. But the economic views are as different as night and day. I think you'd better figure out whether you prefer an economy regimented by a violent monopoly or an economy built around the voluntary interactions of free individuals.

I meant as far as civil liberties are concerned and actually saving human lives yes.

The economic views are subjective person to person. If you are to the right, I'd advise a Paul vote, to the left, having the Green Party get more momentum. I have a nordic friend who would vote Green Party if he was in the U.S. but he still supports Paul.

 

[Student Of Paulism]

<post truncated>

Yep, it's been a big elephant in the room no one seems to want to speak on much. It's one thing to be against any kind of government policy, but another to have YOUR OWN SOLID PLAN to defend that position. This doesn't even include healthcare/welfare and some other things he rarely mentions in greater detail during speeches/events/rallies. It's thinly glossed over with a sentence or two and not enough is said to convince people just where he stands on it all, and this is definitely a big problem with the older voters. Romney panders to that bloc every damn day when he is out there campaigning, and whether or not he is truly sympathetic to them or not, its irrelevant. At least he is doing it, and that's why they side with him over Ron overwhelmingly.

And yea lol, i noticed Candy's response and tone of voice as he was finishing up his responce, she definitely sounded 'hurried' and i got an image of her just rolling her eyes or something, or thinking with a 'wtf' thought process. Some kind of shoutout to the people or a 'thoughts and prayers' thing surely couldn't have hurt either. I have to agree, it definitely came off as being a bit cold-shouldered. The average CNN viewer, you know is just not gonna find that appealing whatsoever.

Very true about what you said at the start of the campaign too, there has been plenty of time to put together a plan on all of these things--things they knew all too well would be of huge concern, and this way Ron would have had a 'script' or playbook to go off of and lead people with. Hell, there is still not even any kind of ad on social welfare/medicine/medicare, that would have gone a long way with the older folk, a demographic he usually does terrible with? Just really no excuse for that.

Anyway, im not going to get all caught up in some huge breakdown and dissection of FEMA and gov intervention. However, i will say, i can understand a bit where Cenk on YT is coming from now and then. He did a mash up piece some time back about all the stuff Ron wants to cut/eradicate, and went on to say that if its not explicitly allowed/mentioned in the constitution, then its illegal and can never be allowed. But this FEMA issue is one that is humanitarian and where the livelihood and safety of the people are concerned. Yes, FEMA is a mess, ran mostly by a bunch of anti-human scum who arent in the business of truly helping people, and wind up taking advantage of disaster relief situations and benefiting from it more than the people do. It needs to be gutted, renamed, and needs a whole new methodology of how it is funded, where a happy medium can be found. But on this issue, no, i dont think it should be ABOLISHED completely. Again, not all government intervention is bad. There are times when it IS necessary and can be of benefit...and overall, Ron's plans on this just seem VERY foggy and again, there is a large bloc out there that is just never going to go along with it, nor has Ron really laid out some detailed blueprint for them to chew on.

I think some people have allowed themselves to become way too overly indoctrinated into the whole 'government overreach is horrible' doctrine, where everything they do is bad, or where a particularly agency is bad, just for the sake of it. The PEOPLE that run and fund most of these agencies are bad, not necessarily the agency's intended platform. Ya know, the whole GUNS KILL/PEOPLE KILL argument?

 

[TheNewYorker]

If I recall.. Ron Paul thinks that people should either buy insurance or don't live in accident prone areas.

There was a toddler who survive the tornado, but his/her entire family got killed. The fact that Ron won't give aid or help... It doesn't look good. It doesn't look good at all. I don't see any easy way around it without Ron Paul looking like a heartless bastard.

The federal government robs people (and states) and gives them "disaster relief" that is much more inefficient at higher costs. If I didn't have to pay $5,000+ a year in income tax it could be put towards health care and any disaster relief I would ever need, and at the same time have money left over. Ron Paul is not terribly good at wording things. I don't think he's against disaster relief, he's against the federal government stealing our money and the states money to do disaster relief.

 

[MRK]

This is ridiculous. Anyone in Indiana knows we pay out way more to FEMA than we receive in return. I'm in Florida right now and whenever someone I meet finds out I'm from Indiana they start saying how sorry they am for me. And this is in hurricane territory! Like Indiana was the only state hit by these tornadoes, disregarding the half dozen others because they aren't the focus of the nightly stories. The reality is the media has blown this way way way out of proportion, as if Indiana was firebombed ala Dresden. We don't need federal aid, we need to keep our resources so we have the ability to take care of our own.