Ron Paul on Natrual Disasters, Forest fires/Hurricanes/Katrina
I have recently been introduced to the good doctor. I like his stance on most issues, but not everything. Being from New Orleans, Louisiana I am concerned about his stance on natural disasters. I can look past it but if I am to spread the message to fellow Louisianans they might be concerned. America is Katrina fatigued, I know, but the storm really messed up our area as well as Mississippi. How would Ron Paul have responded? How would he have responded to the forest fires in California?
I have been doing a little google research, and he has voted against supporting flood protection, or Katrina related funding. I know that congress likes to include a lot of pork into the bills, but help was needed and still is needed.
While he promotes private market donations, and local government help, he doesn't seem to want to let the federal government help. In an extraordinary situation in which Americans are in trouble, or needing help because of a disaster the government needs to help sometimes.
While congress can vote for support, will Ron Paul be leading the charge to help rebuilding from natural disasters, or vetoing Congress. He has been quoted as saying, "Is bailing out people that chose to live on the coastline a proper function of the federal government?" he asks. "Why do people in Arizona have to be robbed in order to support the people on the coast?" He basically says, "oh well, you decided to live on the coast!" Millions of Americans live along the US coast.
After Ron Paul says something like that on the flip side a commercial says that we will be saving billions of dollars bringing home the troops, and can right "our house," and help our people. Why does it seem like he doesn't think the government should help in a national disaster, or help subsidize coastal restoration. Sometimes the government needs to step in and help.
I know he doesn't believe in waste, and FEMA was nothing but waste, but would he have supported some form of help, other than relying on private and state/local funds? I also know he doesn't believe in welfare or babying people, but we did need government funds at that time. Even if FEMA was wasteful the government was still able to do something.
I have a man crush on Ron Paul, and I want to spread the love to my family and friends/coworkers. What do I tell them when it comes to this issue? If Congress votes to help will Ron Paul support Congress and the will of the American public in times of national crisis (natural disasters)?
I asked in my local meet-up forum, but nobody would answer me. Thanks for your opinions. I have heard all of the negative Katrina stuff, so please spare me. I know everyone doesn't agree with how it all went down, but this is a major issue. If he's elected will our natural disasters go unnoticed by the executive branch? Will he just say, "they shouldn't have lived there?"
Hurricane Camille
I just recently read a couple books about Hurricane Camille. One of them was entitled "The Lessons We Didn't Learn From Hurricane Camille. (1969) This was written after the Katrina Disaster. Camille struck the coast of MISS (complete decimation) and actually devastated Nelson County, Virginia with over 27 inches of rain in 6 hours. A little over 1 percent of the County perished. The common theme that was brought up by survivors in MISS and VA was that when the Federal Agencies arrived it made things a lot worse. Hundreds of people in both States all gave similar accounts of how Federal involvement actually slowed or prevented recovery efforts. When will we learn?
I too was sensitive on Katrina until I read more
I'm from Louisiana originally also.
It's easy for people to say people shouldn't live near the coast – blah blah. The gulf coast area affected was not an area of rich folks with ocean front homes. This is where they are from and have lived for hundreds of years. It’s easy to just say get up and leave. It’s not realistic despite the moral arguments or any other reason.
Ron Paul was indeed against big Katrina relief with a federal bailout through the bureaucracy of FEMA and Homeland Security. This made me hesitant to support him despite my love for everything else he stands for. This was a biggie for me too. But then I read more and listened more and understood his stance on it. He was against a big federal bailout due to mismanagement which has proven and continues to prove true but instead was FOR making New Orleans a tax free zone for a period of say 5-10 years which would allow the community to heal itself. He stood nearly alone on this view.
I believe that had his idea taken shape, New Orleans and the gulf coast would be well on its way to a prosperous recovery. Certainly it couldn’t be any worse than it is right now. The whole region is still suffering. The media has mostly gone away as expected but the problems are still very much a reality for the vast majority of the people living in the area.
I wish Ron Paul would speak more about what he is FOR as opposed to what he is against. His “abolish this dept and that dept.” shocks most people but if he was given the opportunity and was able to explain what he was FOR I think his ideas would be more popular with the average voter. He has gotten better at it and I hope more people make the connection with what he is FOR rather than getting hung up on what he is against.
Ron Paul 2008
Ron Paul 2008
Great responses
I now have a lot of good ammunition when I talk to people about Dr. Paul. At first glance I know several people in my area would jump to the conclusion that he doesn't care about our recovery, etc. I have been reassured by you guys, and feel even better about my decision to support Paul.
The storm was very difficult for this area. Just my city (New Orleans) is nowhere near recovered, but everybody is working to get there. I truly appreciate all the help America provided when we were in need. I hope I never have to return the favor, and we don't have a disaster like it again.
Thanks for all the excellent responses, and hopefully we can all take Ron to the victory circle.
Dr. Paul touch on Katrina
briefly tonight in his speech from SC, saying we need to bring the power back to the local level. See Dr. Vieira's link below about "Ron Paul and the Militia".
The issue one must understand.
Centralized, command, single, one size fits all solutions to problems do not work. The federal government does not have the flexibility, or even the ability to handle these issues as well as the states themselves.
The disaster in LA, and FEMA's abysmal performance, was the result of this. The Bush admin got roasted, and the real reason is that one central overspending government dept run by political appointees cannot effectively deal with disasters in all 50 states. If there is a disaster in a state, who is best suited to handle it? The people who KNOW the state, or hundreds of Washington staff who may have never set foot in the state in their lives?
Would the governor of LA ordered LA citizens to give up their guns to protect their homes? I think not. The feds sent in TROOPS to disarm law abiding citizens trying to protect their property.
To make matters worse in LA, the organizations that were best in a position to help, had their HANDS TIED by the federal government. No brainer decisions that individuals on the ground could have made had to wait while "Washington" had to be involved.
What is worse now, is that we have entire generations of citizens that watch a disaster and sit back and "wait for the government" to handle it, and they are the WORST at it. Every move requires some official to approve it, from 1500 miles away. it's no accident that the organizations that produced the most success in LA were ordinary citizens along with church groups, and the American Red Cross. Everything the feds touched got bungled.
America is sick, call a doctor! Dr. Ron Paul.
For 250 year...
"We the People" had an institution in America to take care of natural disasters such as Hurricane Katrina, forrest fires,and other threats to our SECURITY. It was our colonial and state Militias. If the "Militia of the several states" had been trained and functioning before Katrina hit, they would had the levies secure, being train in first aid, they would have been able to give immediate help to their neighbors,etc. Instead we have become dependent "FEMA" and "Dept. of Homeland Security" for our security. I have been working with a few state legislators in NH addressing this issue.We need to revitalize the Constitutional State Militias. Constitutional attorney, Dr. Edwin Vieira has written a number of excellent articles on this topic. His most recent ,"Ron Paul and the Militia". www.newswithviews.com/Vieira/edwinA.htm
Again --- read the essay by Dr. Edwin Vieira on the Militia
The militia was all men over 18. The officers would have been elected within the local community -- and the militia would have helped in any natural disaster -- more probably, they would have worked to keep the community strong in advance, wherever possible.
google search on "ron paul katrina" gave these
http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul275.html
http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul305.html
analogy, anyone?
Isn't there a famous analogy with Davy Crockett or someone of that sort wherein he regretted giving money to fire victims in Georgetown because of the precedent it set? Maybe it wasn't Crockett... anyone?
"Only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry can compel the proper meshing of the huge industrial and military machinery of defense with our peaceful methods and goals, so that security and liberty may prosper together."
-Dwight D. Eisenhower
"Only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry can compel the proper meshing of the huge industrial and military machinery of defense with our peaceful methods and goals, so that security and liberty may prosper together."
-Dwight D. Eisenhower
Yeah
http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig4/ellis1.html
http://www.jimmyliberty.com loves Ron Paul
When it come to Natural Disasters where will Ron Paul Be?
He'll probably be there helping out . Where do you think he'll be? Fema was in New Orleans not to help out but to "secure the area." They "secured" it by taking people's guns away from them; driving people out of their homes, and preventing real help from the "freemarket" from getting to those in need of food, water and medicine. Look what Theodore Roosevelt did during the earthquake in San Francisco. He sent ships to wait out on the Harbor. He had no authority to force the federal troops in their without the State of California asking for help. So he waited. Guess what? People help people who are in trouble. They damn sure don't need to wait for "disaster relief" from the feds. They just go out there and do it! The size of the central government wasn't as big during the 19 teens when Teddy was President. The States were for the most part running the show. During Katrina the Fed moved in and did what oversized government tend to do- they pushed their way into a position of power. Helping the victims wasn't their concern. Hell, Ron Paul will keep the stupid feds in check and allow the state that is hit by a disaster to do its job. Private companies will assist without interference from the thugs at FEMA. Hell, even neighboring States will pitch in. It's really funny how freedom works. Even during natural disasters! Look, son. You've got history to look at to see that the Feds were the last to help out during the Oklahoma City bombing. They showed up late during the 9-11 attack, and Katrina. Wow, Man. It was their job to begin with in getting the Corp of Engineers to fix those levies. Bush sent the money with Congress's approval to blow up bridges in the middleast. Would Ron Paul do something that crazy?
archtoplee
I volunteered in biloxi MS
I watched the Katrina saga from my apartment in Vegas for almost a month.I tried to find volunteer groups to help.I have 20 years experience in construction,every gruop I contacted referred me to the red cross.The red cross wanted to train me for 2 weeks,they wanted me to solicit donations.
I bought a greyhound ticket to Jackson,MS.From there I got to Biloxi.
For some reason I thought I would be welcomed.My mind thought the Gulf coast beaches could be made into tent cities(flat,easy to clear accessible to roads and boats,public property,and it`s like 80 miles long).
But the beaches were off limits.There was concertina wire running down the railroad tracks.The National Guard was patrolling the beach and they could SHOOT TO KILL if you were between the beach and the RR after 11 PM.
It could be argued that looting was a problem,but the only places protected by the GUBMENT was ocean front property and CASINOS.
I personally witnessed hundreds of CARPETBAGGERS working at the BEAU RIVAGE for 15$ an hour,living in motels and apartments that were paid for by ....I saw hundreds of hispanics living in warehouses at the Gulfport CB`s base working for KBR........while the locals were scrambling for ice and water.
I arrived in MS 1 Month after Katrina.I stayed 9 Mos.I took cold showers for weeks.I can tell you the people that were most helpful were:
Salvation army(food ice,lasted longer than RC),Red cross(provided food and shelter,but cut and run before Xmas),HANDS ON . (.ORG? the hands on guys were gutting houses full of rotten food,muddy EVERYTHING,and were still there REBUILDING)....GRASSROOTS.ORG(same as Hands On...I have pix of these kids rebuilding a house from the inside)
I respect the Methodist community for their number of supporters,there were MANY volunteers from everywhere,they were enthusiastic and they put their money and effort in the right places...they just don`t understand that a new shingle roof weighs 5 to 8 times more than tin(you need headers over windows and doors,that is a lot more weight for a house resting on a stack of cinder blocks).
I don`t see how the federal Gov`t helped ANYTHING after hurricane Katrina.
walter whitt
Yes,but....
I have heard Ron Paul say that we need to fix our bridges and levees here at home. You may want to try approaching folks from that angle: the PREVENTATIVE measures he would emply,to ensure that disasters do not occur to begin with....and then whatever you can add about non-FEMA related assistance to beef up your argument,great.
I have also heard him say that FEMA is wasteful,but that he supports other approaches. AND,he frequently says that certain programs are: 1)not on the top of the list to 'get rid of' [even though he personally does not agree with it-student loans,certain social service programs,etc.-sorry,you will have to look them up,people,I am going from memory here].,and 2) He constantly says he will need a 'consensus' to do anything (get rid of a program,for example),and will have to work with congress,and will not be able to do it by himself,etc,etc,etc....
Amazing how people do not hear this,and instead assume that a president has a mandate to pass whatever he wants,dismantle what he wants,etc. We have alot of de-programming to be done around leadership.
My point is: that is part of the issue you are dealing with-people hear his ideas and think that in January,2009,suddenly all of these programs will be gone. *POOF*. But,it will all be gradual and transparent,and only with consent. [This includes FEMA and other disaster programs].
Duh. He's not a dictator!
Duh. He's not a dictator! Unless he leaves all those powers in place that Bush left there! He said he'd use the executive order to nullify all the other executive orders though! They're un-constitutional. EO 11110 is good though. Look it up. JFK started printing silver backed dollars a couple months before he bought the farm...he died, the dollars stopped printing....
Analyzing your argument
Your argument seems to only be "sometimes the federal government needs to help." You need to back that up. It doesn't stand on it's own.
Ron Paul's position is that it's a violation of a person's inalienable rights to take their money and give it someone else. No different than welfare. And it's unconstitutional. At least it was according to James Madison.
And Davy Crocket gave a famous speech about Government charity. http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig4/ellis1.html
There are other ways to help out people in trouble than through government force.
http://www.jimmyliberty.com loves Ron Paul
Government is just bad service
Btwilli1,
Ron Paul knows that the government is simply bad at providing emergency services, because it has no accountability. His reasoning for not wanting the Federal Government to get involved is that if everyone were allowed to keep their money and have it more locally, and if government got out of the emergency service business and didn't regulate it, we would all find MUCH better, faster, cheaper, and more efficient answers to natural disasters. If people were not waiting around for FEMA to help, then there might have been all sorts of solutions cropping up. He makes the same point about airline security.
However, he understands that people have been lulled into a false sense of security, which is why he voted for the funding - "it was taken from them in the first place, so we might as well give it back now."
Don't forget
We are spending a lot of money overseas. He want's that money at home for our levies and bridges...basicly to do good for our infrastructure. If we had been focused more on the U.S. and not thrown our money overseas, there might have been a better levy. I don't know for sure . I didn't read the reports, but I'm sure someone(of importance) said the levy wasn't rated for what took place.
If the Federal
government stopped subsidising the pharmacutical industrial complex, there could be higher competition, and therefore lower prices on medication. This, coupled with the fact that people would have twice as much money from not being taxed as much would mean that people would be able to afford insurance on their homes... and donating to charities... and saving up money which could potentially be used in the case of a disaster.
"Trade with all nations, alliance with none, should be our policy"
-Thomas Jefferson
"Trade with all nations, alliance with none, should be our policy"
-Thomas Jefferson
pharmaceutical industrial complex
When the fruits of our labor is looted and taken to Washington, those with deep pockets can afford to go to Washington to get their money back. Money in the hands of politicians politicize every penny spent with no regard towards the effort put towards making that money.
It isn't just the pharmaceutical-industrial complex... it's everything the government has its greedy hands in.
PeterSchiffSays.COM
He'd not tax you
so you could take that extra cash and go buy some insurance.
Donations would pour into charity groups that help out victims.
Profit-seeking entrepreneurs are there in droves setting up businesses to earn your dollars.
Gas prices would rise to $7/gallon to ensure that the first guy who gets there doesn't get to fill up his tank at $3/gallon and everyone else is left in the cold.
The levies would be sold to private companies who fortify them according to capital asset allocations determined to come at the lowest cost to the beneficiaries.
Insurance premiums would adjust higher to prices, thereby incentivizing individuals who could not afford it to move to higher-ground.
Business who don't want that risk would relocate and take their jobs to safer places.
PeterSchiffSays.COM
I am sorry that your community was destroyed
during hurricane Katrina. I live on an island and could be hit with a tsunami.
The thing is, I do agree with Ron Paul. It is not the responsibility of the federal government to take care of anyone for any reason. People have insurance, I do. There are also thousands of charities out there to help.
See if people were not getting taxed so much then they would be contributing to charities more. These charities would then have more funds to help with these situations.
The government should also not take care of the poor it is the churches/charities job. They have food pantries, clothes drives and find shelter for people.
There were many charities helping after Katrina, the Red Cross and Christian charities. I heard many people didn’t have insurance.
Don’t forget about the state, if that state is in a “natural disaster” area then the people of that state should be taxed to go into a fund to pay if anything happens.
Emergency Fund
Instead of the Government, why not fund organizations that specialize in this sort of thing? The American Red Cross for example. We should have an emergency fund set aside for major crisis where a large portion of a state is wiped out.
However, if States were properly funded, maybe they would have more money to build their infrastructure, fix their levies, bridges, dams, etc.
The way Ron puts it, is if the Government is in charge, they are expected to be there when it takes a lot more time for the Federal Government to get in place than a local Army reserve.
If the people in LA want to live there, they really should take in to consideration that they live below sea level and they are gambling when a storm comes. This was a wakeup call to really all of America. If we continue to spend overseas and don't fix our local issues. America will be wiped out.
-----
A great empire, like a great cake, is most easily diminished at the edges. - Ben Franklin