-11 votes

FEMA - one thing I think the government should be responsible for...

Do I think that there is plenty of beuracracy and fat that should be trimmed from FEMA and that they can do a much better and more organized job? Absolutely. But I completely think that disaster relief is one of the things I am proud my tax dollars go to and happy to contribute them to it(let the bashing begin). call me biased (i live in NY) if you want but I felt the same way during katrina, and any other national disaster. How do you expect a state, whose entire infrastructure may have been destroyed, to be solely responsible for its own recovery if they are the ones that are destroyed and don't have the capacity to do so. This should be inherently one of the benefits to having each state be part of a larger country, for help in situations like these from neighboring states and the federal gov't. Otherwise why not just have each state be its own country. I know this is heresay on a site like this, but its my opinion and im sticking to it. There are many, many things I think the Fed Gov should stay out of. Disaster relief is in no way one of them. Despite all of the problems and negatives with our current system, Its one of the things that still make me proud to be an American. That in an even like a large scale natural disaster, in which no one has any control over, we can come together as a country with our hands and dollars to help our fellow man. This in no way makes me a flaming liberal, i do not think the gov't should be handing out money for bailouts, or food stamps, or student loans or most other things.... Just thinking out loud

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

I apologize for posting a

I apologize for posting a forum topic and not being around to respond for a couple days, I had to run out to get my 85 year old landlord who has no heat and no where to go some coffee and soup and help my brother with his destroyed house.

I do indeed 100% think that much of the relief effort in these events is best done by friends and neighbors on a local level, and that FEMA has its problems. However that doesn't mean that any additional assistance possible isn't a good thing. Especially if those friends and neighbors also have their cars and homes and lives destroyed. Its sad to say, they have enough to worry about and fix on their own to have the capacity to help others. The way this country works currently, I am forced to pay multiple forms of taxes. All I am saying is I am much more o.k. with those taxes going towards disaster relief, that no one can predict but destroys my countryman's lives, whether it be for neighbors or someone in Wyoming I've never met, than to go towards bank bailouts, foreign affairs, subsidies, and election fundraisers. Do I think the army core, and red cross, and churches and neighbors do as much as they can in these times? Of course. But sometimes large scale disasters need additional assistance on a nationwide scale. As many of you have said "why should someone in phoenix be foreced to give his hard earned money to some rich guys beachhouse on the Jersey Shore?" Because that rich guy is forced to give to you as well should something devastating happen. Because that is a benefit and the drawback to living in a nation of states that are supposed to look out for one another. Because in real times of unprovoked disaster (not the fabricated times all the media makes up) you dont have time to start fundraisers and charity events, there needs to be a piggy bank and organization set up and waiting to help immediately. Because if we all just picked and choosed who we helped in times like these, than many would say 'oh ive been to Missouri and didnt really like it, so I'll help when another place that I like better gets a tornado" and thats not what living in a country is. If you feel this way than you should lobby to have your state secceed from the nation so you can only be concerned with it. I am very aware that this is a very liberal perspective, but on this one specific issue, and not much else, I guess maybe I am liberal and thats fine with me.

After Katrina, several thousand Americans

drove on their own time and with their own funds to help recovery efforts, including buying and distributing food, rebuilding, etc. My husband was one of them. We don't need the government to steal from one person and give to another. We can help each other as individuals. Government only RUINS things.

Christians should not be warmongers! http://www.lewrockwell.com/vance/vance87.html

Please realize....

The sentiments you express are not necessarily heresy around here, I don't think. Coming together and all that is all good and well as far as most of us are concerned. But that is not what is happening with FEMA.

The big question around here is: How do you justify the involuntary confiscation of labor (slavery) that funds the outscourcing of "charity" through government, and the resulting destruction of real charity and real coming together to help others?

Please look at the society around you and recognize that what you are advocating is not producing the concern for fellow men that you imagine it is.

The problem is not being a (flaming) liberal per se, the problem is being a proponent of a violent system of slavery.

Study the Hurricane of 1900 in Galveston

Local's not only cleaned it up, they RAISED the Island. Back then a free market allowed prosperity and PEOPLE had resources to help their local communities.

In 1947 there was a horrible explosion in Texas City. It was handled by local groups.

Begging FEMA to steal your money, hoping to get some back in case of a disaster is feeding a VERY unaccountable program and thinking it's an insurance policy.

San Francisco earthquake 1906

Same thing. They did not mope around either. Even the cafes and theaters re-opened after a couple of days, in tents.

The one thing I would want a government to do is to keep other governments from forming.

Ĵīɣȩ Ɖåđşŏń

"Fully half the quotations found on the internet are either mis-attributed, or outright fabrications." - Abraham Lincoln

A closer look at what happened in the aftermath

Of the San Francisco earthquake, may just be one of the biggest conspiracies of the century. Like floods, earthquakes were excluded under property insurance policies of the day, the exact verbiage is and was, "unless fire ensues". Many of the wood framed building were beyond any possible repair, what could city officials and property owners do? The word went out and the city burned, fires were set all over the city. The insurance coverage was then able to kick in and the city was rebuilt. The whole affair was handled discretely by city officials, property owners and the insurance companies, not until years later were the facts brought out.

Rome, London, Chicago, San Francisco - Finanncial Redevelopment.

Instant redevelopment agency. Just add fire... Easy on the water.

Rome Burns. Nero rebuilds imperial & financial center.
http://www.history.com/topics/nero Includes animated short film.

Perhaps the most infamous of Rome's emperors, Nero Claudius Caesar (37-68 A.D.) ruled Rome from 54 A.D. until his death by suicide 14 years later. He is best known for his debaucheries, political murders, persecution of Christians and a passion for music that led to the probably apocryphal rumor that Nero “fiddled” while Rome burned during the great fire of 64 A.D.

Emperor Nero Blames the Christians for the fire, then rebuilds: The Artist and the Fire

Following his mother's death, Nero gave himself fully to his longstanding artistic and aesthetic passions. At private events beginning in 59, he sang and performed on the lyre and encouraged members of the upper classes to take dancing lessons. He ordered public games to be held every five years in Rome and trained as an athlete himself, competing as a charioteer. His most lasting artistic legacy, though, was his re-creation of Rome following the fire that destroyed most of the city.

Early in the morning of June 19, 64 a blaze broke out in the shops around the Circus Maximus and quickly spread throughout the city. Over the next nine days, three of Rome's 14 districts were destroyed and an additional seven were severely damaged. Several classical sources place Nero on the roof of his palace during the fire, dressed in stage garb and singing from the Greek epic "The Sack of Ilium." Rumors quickly circulated that the emperor had started the fire to clear land for an expanded palace complex on the Palatine Hill.

Whatever responsibility he actually bore for the disaster, Nero deflected attention by blaming members of the fledgling Christian religion for the fire. He ordered all manner of creative and brutal persecutions: Some were condemned to be dressed in animal skins and torn apart by dogs, while others were burned to death in nighttime pyres that provided light for the emperor’s garden parties.

London Burning Business Standard. http://www.business-standard.com/india/news/deepak-lal-londo...
Deepak Lal / Aug 20, 2011 / London.
London has burnt many times during its history (see Violent London: 2,000 Years of Riots, Rebels and Revolts by Clive Bloom) ...

Disclaimer: Mark Twain (1835-1910-To be continued) is unlicensed. His river pilot's license went delinquent in 1862. Caution advised. Daily Paul

Good points

Before learning about Ron Paul, I'm sure many of us would have assumed that FEMA was "necessary" in an emergency. But doing a bit of reading will lead you to see it largely as a "moral hazard." (Great term to look up and learn about if you haven't explored it.)

FEMA was founded 34 years ago, June 19, 1978.
LINK: http://iroots.org/2012/11/01/rand-paul-fema-is-inefficient/
(Rand was on CNN talking about all of this today)

National Guard

There's a reason why each state has them. Stop deploying them over seas (a.k.a not guarding the nation) and deploy them at home during disasters. Nothing wrong with other states (most likely neighboring) deploying their national guard units to aid in the effort. They aren't really currently purposed for this kind of work but it's not a wild stretch to square this kind of thing away. There's also nothing wrong with allowing them to take on civilian hands under their command for the task. I don't know why government agencies like to pretend that their weekend "training" which consists of watching PowerPoint presentations gives them some kind of super special powers that makes them better than civilians who would like to help in more direct ways than simply donating money.

And for these kinds of missions NO ARMED SOLDIERS! This is aid and rescue, not combat.

I think that's a pretty good starting point.

We could do without FEMA

and I can say this having worked as a subcontractor to FEMA during Hurricanes Katrina, Francis, and one other that I forget. First off, FEMA has a paid staff that has nothing to do when there is no catastrophe, except "prepare" for the next one. But, the problem is that you can't really plan on how to respond to a disaster. You just have to get into the trenches and go with what works that day. Secondly, when something does occur, nearly all of the ground work is accomplished by the Army Corp of Engineers, local volunteers, and paid subcontractors. The Corp could handle disasters entirely on their own, and during the non-emergency times continue on with the levy, border patrol, and other construction work they do. Believe me this organization is bloated enough to provide plenty of manpower for such an event. During my entire two months working on the FEMA trailer program during Katrina, I met two FEMA guys in the field, and their particular job was just to duplicate what I was already doing.
Let me relay just one story to you about FEMA's wonderful use of your tax dollars. There was a guy in Alabama during Katrina, living in a run down old trailer which was damaged in the hurricane. FEMA wrote him a check to cover the repairs, because I suppose he didn't have insurance and sent him a brand new FEMA trailer to live in. It was nicer than what he was living in for sure. Well after he got his new improved trailer, compliments of the Gov.,that was supposed to be temporary (he's probably still in it) he decided he'd just spend that repair money on a new four-wheeler instead, and FEMA never verified what he did with that money.

i just think it's sad

that you don't think our hands and our dollars could come together without someone pointing a gun.

"The two weakest arguments for any issue on the House floor are moral and constitutional"
Ron Paul

NOPE - The only thing the federal government should repair...

...after disasters are federal structures like freeways, bridges, military bases etc.

Otherwise it should be left to the state affected, insurance companies, charities and churches.

Why in the world should some poor guy living in a small apartment in Phoenix (which never uses federal disaster aid) have to buy some rich guy's beach house which gets destroyed in the Hamptons???

In a free society, things like that should NEVER happen.

"We have allowed our nation to be over-taxed, over-regulated, and overrun by bureaucrats. The founders would be ashamed of us for what we are putting up with."
-Ron Paul

From an economic perspective

The Federal Government is subsidizing part of the total cost of living on the coast. Like Ron Paul has pointed out before, in the free market, insurance would likely be refused, or be very expensive, for those who live in an area with high hurricane risk (the Gulf coast, in particular).

So, economically, people are able to build their houses in hurricane-prone areas in larger numbers, because the Federal Government will essentially bail them out when disaster strikes.

Also, if the true costs (via risks) were accounted for, when those houses were built, money would either be put away for disasters in the future, or insurance would cater for this possibility, whether that was at the personal, county, city, or state level.

Also, if people (or states, or businesses etc) had to 'fend for themselves' in a disaster, we might see houses being built there with more solid foundations (or the technology develop to make that possible in the first place).

A question for you:
Why should the rest of the citizens in the other States be forced to relinquish their resources, in order to subsidize the cost of someone else's lifestyle?

"Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty or give me death!" - Patrick Henry

voted down

because I dont think fema should exist. I agree that as things currently are the fed gov should help with disaster relief, but I would argue that our well equipped military ought to be the ones stepping in and doing the disaster relief. They have the equipment and man power, but unfortunately a very large part of it is over seas. As I understand it a part of the soldiers oath is to protect so it should be them stepping in for the relief. Plus soldiers are not usually some dim witted bureaucrat on a power trip, they would have a much better mind set for this sort of thing.