Ron Paul says tornado victims should not get aid

[eots]

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ms9uH-pIW6s]NWO Japan earthquake Relief Charity BUSH CLINTON OBAMA - YouTube[/ame]

 

[rightwinger]

what you just described is fine...

bnut completely ignored the3 question of whay I am not able to get government grants and loan interest loans...somnething you said the people of disaster areas are afforded when disaster hits...

So? Please....answer that question.

Good question. It may be a question of magnitude once again. If your house burns down, you still have your job. You still have a community structure around you.

What happens when your entire community is wiped out? Your job is gone, friends and neighbors who would have helped you before, now have their own problems. Is a bank going to help you when you don't even have a job anymore? Is a bank going to invest in a community that has been wiped out? The government will. Those loans not only help you rebuild your house but help your boss rebuild his business, help rebuild schools and bridges and roads

Personally, as a citizen, it makes me feel good to know that my government is there to help people in need. When I see US troops helping OUR people in a disaster area it makes me proud to be an American

what about what you dont see?

Like no one from the government helping the poor guy who lost his house in a hurricane...but there just wasnt enough widespread damage for the government to care about him.

Instead, the peoplke came out and helped him.

Interestingly...he was helped within hours of his house being destroyed.

If he had to wait for government, he would have waited for days.

Whatever.....I never count on governemnt and I never call on government.

FYI...Government didnt show up at the pit until 9-14-01

I was there at 6AM on 9-12 with hundreds of others volunteers.

Sure...sadly there were really no survivors....but if there were, they would have perished by 9-14.

Good job government.

Was FDNY there?

They are government

 

[Mr.Nick]

So to you, if someone sees things differently than you politically, they are a bad person...even if they do other GOOD things that has nothing to do with politics?

Kind of a pathetic position you have there.

Nah, it is pathetic of you to not realize what a Glenn Beck believer is like.

What is wrong with Glenn Beck???

 

[Foxfyre]

If you have no problem with your tax dollars going to aid them then you'd have no problem donating to them of your own free will. Not to mention that he's absolutely right that they should have insurance to cover them.

My heart goes out to the victims too, most especially those I know personally. We immediately give a little extra to private relief agencies who move in immediately to help those who have suffered property damage, injuries, or loss of loved ones. Our Mennonite friends who go to all disaster areas at their own expense and to help in any way they can are already there.

Once you take emotion out of it, however, and replace that with solid common siense, certain principles must apply for a free people:

The house that burned down in your town last night was just as devastating to the occupants as those caught in the tornados. Why is one more worthy of government rescue than the other?

If you choose to live in a place in which earthquake, hurricanes, large hail, heavy snows, tornados, land/mud slide, avalanche, devastating floods, etc. are essentially non existant--Albuquerque or Phoenix for instance--why should you be liable for risk chosen by people who do live in areas where such risk does exist?

My house is insured against fire, wind, hail and other natural or possible perils. Because we now are in an area essentially immune to flood damage and a damaging earthquake is highly unlikely in our lifetime, we do not have flood insurance or earthquake insurance. When we have lived in areas where flooding was a possibility we did have flood insurance, and if we moved into an earthquake prone area, we would expect to acquire earthquake insurance. It is what responsible people do. My loss should not be your responsibility to take care of.

Homeowners and business owners should be responsible to insure their property or take their chances. If they don't have insurance and sustain severe loss, they will be out the money or they will be at the mercy of family or charities. But then Americans are among the most generous of people on Earth and the outpouring of help is amazing when others are in trouble, most especially in major disasters. Chances are, somebody set up a fund or central agency to collect money and furniture or whatever for even that family who lived in the house that burned down.

It would be appropriate for the federal government to go into large disaster areas to help clear roads and administer necessary immediate emergency aid when local communities or states are overwhelmed. But that should be it. They should not assume the responsibilities that the Homewowners should have assumed in return for the privilege of home ownership.

And thus why I asked this question earlier...but no one wanted to answer:


if my house is struck by lightening and burns down....

Why am I not afforded the government grants and low cost loans?

How does "widespread" affect anyone individually more than "one home affected"?

The 'widespread' part does affect how much private emergency services might be able to handle, so again I have no problem with the Federal government moving in to help clear roads and provide initial immediately emergency aid and transportation to help folks get out of the area. That same Homeowners insurance that repllaces the loss also pays for additional living expense for a reasxonable time if a home is rendered uninhabitable from an insured peril.

And I don't think anybody objects to the government helping fight major fires, etc. In the most recent violent and widespread New Mexico fires, facilities at Kirtland AFB here in Albuquerque and their water supply was made available to the air tankers fighting the fires. That is an appropriate function of government. It is not the taxpayers' responsibility to pay for structures and other property lost in the fires however. The homeowner or renter should have acquired insurance to cover that.

Sometimes a major disaster is even beneficial to those who are insured. When a major forest fire took out hundreds of homes in Los Alamos in 2000, the homes that burned were older, rather cheaply constructed government housing built when Los Alamos was still a closed government compound. (The housing was subsequently sold to folks as private housing.) But because the smart homeowner buys a replacement cost policy for his/her property, all those houses were rebuilt at the insurance cvompany's expense as large, modern homes far nicer that those that were destroyed. The folks around there who didn't have fire damage felt cheated.

Should the tax payer have been on the hook to take care of the folks in the Los Alamos fire? Or should the folks have taken the responsibility to ensure themselves against such loss? (Which all but one did, and the community got that family back up and running. I bet they have insurance now.)

 

[MeBelle]

Good question. It may be a question of magnitude once again. If your house burns down, you still have your job. You still have a community structure around you.

What happens when your entire community is wiped out? Your job is gone, friends and neighbors who would have helped you before, now have their own problems. Is a bank going to help you when you don't even have a job anymore? Is a bank going to invest in a community that has been wiped out? The government will. Those loans not only help you rebuild your house but help your boss rebuild his business, help rebuild schools and bridges and roads

Personally, as a citizen, it makes me feel good to know that my government is there to help people in need. When I see US troops helping OUR people in a disaster area it makes me proud to be an American

what about what you dont see?

Like no one from the government helping the poor guy who lost his house in a hurricane...but there just wasnt enough widespread damage for the government to care about him.

Instead, the peoplke came out and helped him.

Interestingly...he was helped within hours of his house being destroyed.

If he had to wait for government, he would have waited for days.

Whatever.....I never count on governemnt and I never call on government.

FYI...Government didnt show up at the pit until 9-14-01

I was there at 6AM on 9-12 with hundreds of others volunteers.

Sure...sadly there were really no survivors....but if there were, they would have perished by 9-14.

Good job government.

Was FDNY there?

They are government

FDNY is local government.
You moved the goal posts from Fed to local.

 

[Avatar4321]

This says it all about you.

Of course Glenn Beck is a good person. he puts his money and his actions where his mouth is.

It does say alot about Nick to realize that. Im not sure what you think it says about him though.

You realize posting emoticons really isnt an argument or point right?

 

[Avatar4321]

Of course Glenn Beck is a good person. he puts his money and his actions where his mouth is.

It does say alot about Nick to realize that. Im not sure what you think it says about him though.

So to you, if someone sees things differently than you politically, they are a bad person...even if they do other GOOD things that has nothing to do with politics?

Kind of a pathetic position you have there.

Sure is. I dislike things Jimmy Carter has done to this nation politically, but I admire alot of his personal service.

Just because you dont like someones politics doesnt mean they dont do good.

 

[Avatar4321]

So to you, if someone sees things differently than you politically, they are a bad person...even if they do other GOOD things that has nothing to do with politics?

Kind of a pathetic position you have there.

Nah, it is pathetic of you to not realize what a Glenn Beck believer is like.

And it's kind of sad you are trying to prejudice people as a group rather than look at individuals isn't it?

 

[Avatar4321]

What is wrong with Glenn Beck???

He can't refute him

 

[Jarhead]

Good question. It may be a question of magnitude once again. If your house burns down, you still have your job. You still have a community structure around you.

What happens when your entire community is wiped out? Your job is gone, friends and neighbors who would have helped you before, now have their own problems. Is a bank going to help you when you don't even have a job anymore? Is a bank going to invest in a community that has been wiped out? The government will. Those loans not only help you rebuild your house but help your boss rebuild his business, help rebuild schools and bridges and roads

Personally, as a citizen, it makes me feel good to know that my government is there to help people in need. When I see US troops helping OUR people in a disaster area it makes me proud to be an American

what about what you dont see?

Like no one from the government helping the poor guy who lost his house in a hurricane...but there just wasnt enough widespread damage for the government to care about him.

Instead, the peoplke came out and helped him.

Interestingly...he was helped within hours of his house being destroyed.

If he had to wait for government, he would have waited for days.

Whatever.....I never count on governemnt and I never call on government.

FYI...Government didnt show up at the pit until 9-14-01

I was there at 6AM on 9-12 with hundreds of others volunteers.

Sure...sadly there were really no survivors....but if there were, they would have perished by 9-14.

Good job government.

Was FDNY there?

They are government

I expected them to be there. They are local government. They are paid by NYC tax payers to service the needs within NYC.

We were debating federal government.

Focus RW....focus!

 

[rightwinger]

what about what you dont see?

Like no one from the government helping the poor guy who lost his house in a hurricane...but there just wasnt enough widespread damage for the government to care about him.

Instead, the peoplke came out and helped him.

Interestingly...he was helped within hours of his house being destroyed.

If he had to wait for government, he would have waited for days.

Whatever.....I never count on governemnt and I never call on government.

FYI...Government didnt show up at the pit until 9-14-01

I was there at 6AM on 9-12 with hundreds of others volunteers.

Sure...sadly there were really no survivors....but if there were, they would have perished by 9-14.

Good job government.

Was FDNY there?

They are government

FDNY is local government.
You moved the goal posts from Fed to local.

No I didn't. I have been talking about disaster relief moving up from local to state to federal. Each has it's own role. FDNY is city government and they were on site since the planes hit. Federal Government did not have assets or personnel staged in New York and it took them longer to arrive

The Federal Government played a major role in the rebuilding of lower Manattan after 9-11.......we could not have relied on private charities

 

[rightwinger]

what about what you dont see?

Like no one from the government helping the poor guy who lost his house in a hurricane...but there just wasnt enough widespread damage for the government to care about him.

Instead, the peoplke came out and helped him.

Interestingly...he was helped within hours of his house being destroyed.

If he had to wait for government, he would have waited for days.

Whatever.....I never count on governemnt and I never call on government.

FYI...Government didnt show up at the pit until 9-14-01

I was there at 6AM on 9-12 with hundreds of others volunteers.

Sure...sadly there were really no survivors....but if there were, they would have perished by 9-14.

Good job government.

Was FDNY there?

They are government

I expected them to be there. They are local government. They are paid by NYC tax payers to service the needs within NYC.

We were debating federal government.

Focus RW....focus!

It was the Mayor and Governor of New York who requested federal assistance. They evidently felt the job was beyond the capability of FDNY.

 

[Jarhead]

Was FDNY there?

They are government

FDNY is local government.
You moved the goal posts from Fed to local.

No I didn't. I have been talking about disaster relief moving up from local to state to federal. Each has it's own role. FDNY is city government and they were on site since the planes hit. Federal Government did not have assets or personnel staged in New York and it took them longer to arrive

The Federal Government played a major role in the rebuilding of lower Manattan after 9-11.......we could not have relied on private charities

Actually, I questioned you as to why you feel it is OK for the federal government to offer individuals grants and low interest loans when in a wide spread disaster and not offer the same to individuals who suffer similar losses but not in a widespread event.,

You never answered...you went inmto something about the need to clear roads, re build schools, etc.....things I DIDNZT question.

But when it came to what I questioned?

Nada.

So answer my question. A man who works in a city 30 miles away, loses his ho,e to a tornado that rips uyp the town he lives in. He still has a job becuase the city was unaffected...but he lost his home.

Becuase it was widespread, he gets a low interest loan.

In the meantime, a man who works from hoime loses his home to a fire caused by lightening.

Now he not only lost his home, but he lost his place of business.

But it was not widespread, so he does not get federal assiatnce.

Why si that OK with you?

Why do you hate people that work in their own home?

 

[Foxfyre]

It is a question of magnitude

Your house burns down, you, your insurance and local charities are capable of providing temporary housing, food, clothing and assistance to get you back on your feet

Let's look at a disaster the size of Katrina. You may have lost your house and your insurance can pick up the tab. But local charities are overwhelmed, there is no electricity, the hospitals are closed, roads are blocked, the place you used to work is gone. The state has it's own budget and it is overwhelmed by a catastropy of this magnitude

We need a strong government disaster relief in theses cases. Food, water, medical assistance, communications, emergency power, temporary housing for thousands of refugees. Entire communities need to be rebuilt. Schools, Bridges, power grids, hospitals.

Sorry, but your local charities cannot handle this.....neither can the Red Cross

what you just described is fine...

bnut completely ignored the3 question of whay I am not able to get government grants and loan interest loans...somnething you said the people of disaster areas are afforded when disaster hits...

So? Please....answer that question.

Good question. It may be a question of magnitude once again. If your house burns down, you still have your job. You still have a community structure around you.

What happens when your entire community is wiped out? Your job is gone, friends and neighbors who would have helped you before, now have their own problems. Is a bank going to help you when you don't even have a job anymore? Is a bank going to invest in a community that has been wiped out? The government will. Those loans not only help you rebuild your house but help your boss rebuild his business, help rebuild schools and bridges and roads

Personally, as a citizen, it makes me feel good to know that my government is there to help people in need. When I see US troops helping OUR people in a disaster area it makes me proud to be an American

If you had a job, you probably have unemployment insurance to tide you over until your job comes back or you can find another one. If you were self employed and you were responsible, you have a rainy day fund put back just to cover this kind of situation,. Six nmonths' of living expenses is recommended to keep in reserve and that is plenty of time to rebuild your shop or replace your tools or relocate or whatever to get back into business or you acquired businness owner's coverage with loss of income coverage in it. If you had insurance, your house and belongings will be replaced by the insurance company and you will be provided reasonable living expenses long enought to make whatever other arrangements are necessary. All of this applies no matter how widespread the damage area. I would have no problem with the government providing some low interest loans, similar to college loans, to help people get their businesses back up and running.

It's all in the choices we make. It is int taking responsibility for our own fate and destiny and not developing a sense of entitlement that we are somehow owed what other people have just because we made irresponsibile or bad choices. None of that prevents others from helping us out of the goodness of their hearts. But unless there is a pre-arranged mutual agreement, nobody, no matter what their circumstances, should ever be entitled to what somebody else has earned or lawfully obtained.

 

[rightwinger]

FDNY is local government.
You moved the goal posts from Fed to local.

No I didn't. I have been talking about disaster relief moving up from local to state to federal. Each has it's own role. FDNY is city government and they were on site since the planes hit. Federal Government did not have assets or personnel staged in New York and it took them longer to arrive

The Federal Government played a major role in the rebuilding of lower Manattan after 9-11.......we could not have relied on private charities

Actually, I questioned you as to why you feel it is OK for the federal government to offer individuals grants and low interest loans when in a wide spread disaster and not offer the same to individuals who suffer similar losses but not in a widespread event.,

You never answered...you went inmto something about the need to clear roads, re build schools, etc.....things I DIDNZT question.

But when it came to what I questioned?

Nada.

So answer my question. A man who works in a city 30 miles away, loses his ho,e to a tornado that rips uyp the town he lives in. He still has a job becuase the city was unaffected...but he lost his home.

Becuase it was widespread, he gets a low interest loan.

In the meantime, a man who works from hoime loses his home to a fire caused by lightening.

Now he not only lost his home, but he lost his place of business.

But it was not widespread, so he does not get federal assiatnce.

Why si that OK with you?

Why do you hate people that work in their own home?

Personally.....I agree with you and would have no problem with individual homeowners who suffer a catastrophic loss being eligible for low cost loans or tax write-offs. I believe our right wing and Dr Paul would go ballistic though

As to why we differentiate...I did give you a potential rationale

.Good question. It may be a question of magnitude once again. If your house burns down, you still have your job. You still have a community structure around you.

What happens when your entire community is wiped out? Your job is gone, friends and neighbors who would have helped you before, now have their own problems. Is a bank going to help you when you don't even have a job anymore? Is a bank going to invest in a community that has been wiped out? The government will. Those loans not only help you rebuild your house but help your boss rebuild his business, help rebuild schools and bridges and roads

Personally, as a citizen, it makes me feel good to know that my government is there to help people in need. When I see US troops helping OUR people in a disaster area it makes me proud to be an American

In any case, when major disaster strikes, I am happy that the American people are there to help those in need

 

[Foxfyre]

No I didn't. I have been talking about disaster relief moving up from local to state to federal. Each has it's own role. FDNY is city government and they were on site since the planes hit. Federal Government did not have assets or personnel staged in New York and it took them longer to arrive

The Federal Government played a major role in the rebuilding of lower Manattan after 9-11.......we could not have relied on private charities

Actually, I questioned you as to why you feel it is OK for the federal government to offer individuals grants and low interest loans when in a wide spread disaster and not offer the same to individuals who suffer similar losses but not in a widespread event.,

You never answered...you went inmto something about the need to clear roads, re build schools, etc.....things I DIDNZT question.

But when it came to what I questioned?

Nada.

So answer my question. A man who works in a city 30 miles away, loses his ho,e to a tornado that rips uyp the town he lives in. He still has a job becuase the city was unaffected...but he lost his home.

Becuase it was widespread, he gets a low interest loan.

In the meantime, a man who works from hoime loses his home to a fire caused by lightening.

Now he not only lost his home, but he lost his place of business.

But it was not widespread, so he does not get federal assiatnce.

Why si that OK with you?

Why do you hate people that work in their own home?

Personally.....I agree with you and would have no problem with individual homeowners who suffer a catastrophic loss being eligible for low cost loans or tax write-offs. I believe our right wing and Dr Paul would go ballistic though

As to why we differentiate...I did give you a potential rationale

.Good question. It may be a question of magnitude once again. If your house burns down, you still have your job. You still have a community structure around you.

What happens when your entire community is wiped out? Your job is gone, friends and neighbors who would have helped you before, now have their own problems. Is a bank going to help you when you don't even have a job anymore? Is a bank going to invest in a community that has been wiped out? The government will. Those loans not only help you rebuild your house but help your boss rebuild his business, help rebuild schools and bridges and roads

Personally, as a citizen, it makes me feel good to know that my government is there to help people in need. When I see US troops helping OUR people in a disaster area it makes me proud to be an American

In any case, when major disaster strikes, I am happy that the American people are there to help those in need

So am I and millions of us do help those in need. The American people are hands down the most unselfish and most generous people in the world. But it is a dangerous thing to give the government power to confiscate what you have to help somebody else, most especially when it is the government who chooses who will be helped and who will not.

 

[Mr.Nick]

What is wrong with Glenn Beck???

He can't refute him

I suppose it is difficult to refute ideas based on emotions.

 

[Mr.Nick]

No I didn't. I have been talking about disaster relief moving up from local to state to federal. Each has it's own role. FDNY is city government and they were on site since the planes hit. Federal Government did not have assets or personnel staged in New York and it took them longer to arrive

The Federal Government played a major role in the rebuilding of lower Manattan after 9-11.......we could not have relied on private charities

Actually, I questioned you as to why you feel it is OK for the federal government to offer individuals grants and low interest loans when in a wide spread disaster and not offer the same to individuals who suffer similar losses but not in a widespread event.,

You never answered...you went inmto something about the need to clear roads, re build schools, etc.....things I DIDNZT question.

But when it came to what I questioned?

Nada.

So answer my question. A man who works in a city 30 miles away, loses his ho,e to a tornado that rips uyp the town he lives in. He still has a job becuase the city was unaffected...but he lost his home.

Becuase it was widespread, he gets a low interest loan.

In the meantime, a man who works from hoime loses his home to a fire caused by lightening.

Now he not only lost his home, but he lost his place of business.

But it was not widespread, so he does not get federal assiatnce.

Why si that OK with you?

Why do you hate people that work in their own home?

Personally.....I agree with you and would have no problem with individual homeowners who suffer a catastrophic loss being eligible for low cost loans or tax write-offs. I believe our right wing and Dr Paul would go ballistic though

As to why we differentiate...I did give you a potential rationale

.Good question. It may be a question of magnitude once again. If your house burns down, you still have your job. You still have a community structure around you.

What happens when your entire community is wiped out? Your job is gone, friends and neighbors who would have helped you before, now have their own problems. Is a bank going to help you when you don't even have a job anymore? Is a bank going to invest in a community that has been wiped out? The government will. Those loans not only help you rebuild your house but help your boss rebuild his business, help rebuild schools and bridges and roads

Personally, as a citizen, it makes me feel good to know that my government is there to help people in need. When I see US troops helping OUR people in a disaster area it makes me proud to be an American

In any case, when major disaster strikes, I am happy that the American people are there to help those in need

I love how you progressively can be pushed into conservative or even classical liberal ideas and then the next day you rest yourself like a watch and we do it again...

It's almost like you're a closeted conservative...

 

[Mr.Nick]

FDNY is local government.
You moved the goal posts from Fed to local.

No I didn't. I have been talking about disaster relief moving up from local to state to federal. Each has it's own role. FDNY is city government and they were on site since the planes hit. Federal Government did not have assets or personnel staged in New York and it took them longer to arrive

The Federal Government played a major role in the rebuilding of lower Manattan after 9-11.......we could not have relied on private charities

Actually, I questioned you as to why you feel it is OK for the federal government to offer individuals grants and low interest loans when in a wide spread disaster and not offer the same to individuals who suffer similar losses but not in a widespread event.,

You never answered...you went inmto something about the need to clear roads, re build schools, etc.....things I DIDNZT question.

But when it came to what I questioned?

Nada.

So answer my question. A man who works in a city 30 miles away, loses his ho,e to a tornado that rips uyp the town he lives in. He still has a job becuase the city was unaffected...but he lost his home.

Becuase it was widespread, he gets a low interest loan.

In the meantime, a man who works from hoime loses his home to a fire caused by lightening.

Now he not only lost his home, but he lost his place of business.

But it was not widespread, so he does not get federal assiatnce.

Why si that OK with you?

Why do you hate people that work in their own home?

I don't believe most progressives even understand the difference between the state and federal government.

Most are too fucking stupid to hold a job - what makes anyone believe they could rationalize the constitution or even the Bill of Rights.

Progressives are like gigantic babies...

"ma, ma" "government, government"

 

[rightwinger]

No I didn't. I have been talking about disaster relief moving up from local to state to federal. Each has it's own role. FDNY is city government and they were on site since the planes hit. Federal Government did not have assets or personnel staged in New York and it took them longer to arrive

The Federal Government played a major role in the rebuilding of lower Manattan after 9-11.......we could not have relied on private charities

Actually, I questioned you as to why you feel it is OK for the federal government to offer individuals grants and low interest loans when in a wide spread disaster and not offer the same to individuals who suffer similar losses but not in a widespread event.,

You never answered...you went inmto something about the need to clear roads, re build schools, etc.....things I DIDNZT question.

But when it came to what I questioned?

Nada.

So answer my question. A man who works in a city 30 miles away, loses his ho,e to a tornado that rips uyp the town he lives in. He still has a job becuase the city was unaffected...but he lost his home.

Becuase it was widespread, he gets a low interest loan.

In the meantime, a man who works from hoime loses his home to a fire caused by lightening.

Now he not only lost his home, but he lost his place of business.

But it was not widespread, so he does not get federal assiatnce.

Why si that OK with you?

Why do you hate people that work in their own home?

I don't believe most progressives even understand the difference between the state and federal government.

Most are too fucking stupid to hold a job - what makes anyone believe they could rationalize the constitution or even the Bill of Rights.

Progressives are like gigantic babies...

"ma, ma" "government, government"

It is the STATE Government that is asking the FEDERAL Government for disaster aid. The Federal Government has resources that are not available at the state level