Ron Paul: No Federal Financial Aid for Tornado Victims

reply to post by OutKast Searcher


WOW. really? god, this is the problem with liberal thinking.

The founding fathers, not all were slave owners. Most actually had indentured servants. It was a practice not uncommon around the world. The constitution was not written to exclude anyone. It says any free person. Meaning those who are not in prison. As far as women went, It wasn't that they weren't allowed to partake in politics, it is just that in those times, women didn't vote. Their concerns were not with politics, they were concerned with matters within the home.

The constitution has nothing to do with either of those points. It was written with the following intentions.

-To limit the power and the authority of any one person in the federal government. and of the government itself and divide responsibilities.
-To guarantee freedoms of the individual, given to them by god, (not awarded to them by the federal government) that the states can not take from the individual nor infringe upon them.
-To defend the country against invading forces.
-And to create an environment where the economy can flourish.

It's hilarious seeing all these comments of "wow.. and I thought he was different" or "now his true colors come out".. Anybody who is surprised that this is his stance on the matter is a moron and hasn't been paying attention at all along the way. Ron Paul is a libertarian, this means very little to no federal intervention with nearly ANYTHING. Are you trying to tell me you were going to vote for him without knowing the most basic things about his policies and political philosophy?

reply to post by openminded2011


You are free to throw that baseball anyway you like. Too bad for the rest of us we're gonna get hit by it.

I'll keep looking to the sort of people who have survived for much longer than Western Civilization without sowing the seeds of their own destruction for inspiration on how to live well in a world. It's just a shame we've sowed the seeds of their own destruction too, though they'll be fine when we're done shooting ourselves in the face.

Namaste

Originally posted by resist2012
reply to post by nixie_nox

 

They don't get to track it. It is taken by the federal government, then dispersed by them. After that, the state has no control, and no knowledge of where it goes exactly. They don't know how much of the money that was taken to them went to building houses, building schools, water treatment, or what. Not to mention, FEMA employees are PAID(quite well). Where does that money come from? The states. But it is known only to FEMA and the federal government, how every dime of a states money is spent.

*laughs* your funny.
And it is kinda endearing.
You do know FEMA is a small agency with only 8k employees and a budget of a few billion?

It works two ways.
Money is granted to the states by DHS, FEMA, CDC , and other alphabets for emergency preparedness. States can have funding ripped away from them if not spent properly. It is also the state's jobs to funnel it to the locals, who are the boots on the ground emergency workers.



Then if there is a disaster, the state involved totals up the bill and gives it to FEMA.ONly the state can gather the information locally to give to FEMA.

FEMA works by a formula. AS simple as that.

Guess what, you can look it up on the internet!

If you have trouble sleeping, then I suggest reading it.

FEMAs job is to reimburse states disaster funds, and they do it willingly.

The state hands the bill to FEMA, FEMA applies the formula, meetings are held if there are questions.FEMA pays 75% of the bill. It is as simple as that.

And I can tell you to trust me that there is nothing more fierce then a government agency who is owed money. Especially with all these budget cuts.

reply to post by muse7

As long as the federal government takes taxes from your paycheck, they should provide a safety net for people in case of natural disasters.

Yes they should, right down to stubbed toe insurance, but they don't and never have. That money actually goes to the Federal Reserve, and if we get rid of it, we will no longer have any need for Federal Income Tax, which would amount to an average increase in incomes for salaried employees of 35%.

Enough to buy insurance with. See how that works?

Originally posted by resist2012
reply to post by OutKast Searcher

 

WOW. really? god, this is the problem with liberal thinking.

The founding fathers, not all were slave owners. Most actually had indentured servants. It was a practice not uncommon around the world. The constitution was not written to exclude anyone. It says any free person. Meaning those who are not in prison. As far as women went, It wasn't that they weren't allowed to partake in politics, it is just that in those times, women didn't vote. Their concerns were not with politics, they were concerned with matters within the home.

The constitution has nothing to do with either of those points. It was written with the following intentions.

-To limit the power and the authority of any one person in the federal government. and of the government itself and divide responsibilities.
-To guarantee freedoms of the individual, given to them by god, (not awarded to them by the federal government) that the states can not take from the individual nor infringe upon them.
-To defend the country against invading forces.
-And to create an environment where the economy can flourish.

Now your demoted to an uneducated ass. If you don't even know the human condition at the time, you have no right bringing up the founding fathers.

Half the founding fathers were slave owners.
Women weren't given the right to vote till the early 1900s.

From Abigail to John Adams:

"I long to hear that you have declared an independency. And, by the way, in the new code of laws which I suppose it will be necessary for you to make, I desire you would remember the ladies and be more generous and favorable to them than your ancestors.

1776

Though the love story of a lifetime, John Adams brushed her request off.

Women were not even allowed an education at the time, much less allowed to vote.

By the way, any free person, means that slaves were not "free" and therefor excluded.
It was a deliberate mechanism to exclude slaves. Not those in prison.

Gods, where do you live??

reply to post by liejunkie01


Ron paul is for the people, however you have to be intelligent enough to work out what he means.
Why should the federal govt use our tax dolkars to pay for them? Your esseantially stealing money from people whove chosen not to live in a hurricane/tornado prone area, to pay for the people who still want to. No one forces you to live in tornado alley. Why should i have to pay for you to do so? If you live in an area prone to extreme weather, then get insurance for it, dont expect everyone else to fund the fact you want to live in tornado alley.

reply to post by bacci0909

It's hilarious seeing all these comments of "wow.. and I thought he was different" or "now his true colors come out".. Anybody who is surprised that this is his stance on the matter is a moron and hasn't been paying attention at all along the way. Ron Paul is a libertarian, this means very little to no federal intervention with nearly ANYTHING. Are you trying to tell me you were going to vote for him without knowing the most basic things about his policies and political philosophy?

No. I am telling you I am voting for him precisely for these reasons. You can't pick and chose what Government intervention you want and what you don't, you have to take it all or nothing.

I AM voting for NO Federal Government Intervention because they are inept, incapable and merely a bureaucratic waste machine, not too mention corrupt.

Yes, I know what I am supporting. I though about it for a long time. Maybe some more of us should spend some time thinking instead of reacting. Reaction never requires thought, action always does.

Originally posted by openminded2011
reply to post by ErgoTheConfusion

 

I disagree with his stance because I can think critically and as far as not thinking ahead, it's what I observe in a lot of his supporters. His ideas sound good, until you ask yourself "how does that work?" and you realize it won't turning all responsibility over to the states won't work because the states are broke.And let's not forget the golden rule, that those with the gold rule. It's a lot easier to buy off state governments than federal govt. what would happen in Ron Paul's America is feudalism, the nobles and the serfs, out in the open , and yes we are nearly there now, but he will finish it. Why do you think the far right hates the govt so much to begin with? It's the only think left protecting the serfs to some degree giving then some semblance of a social safety net. They want to remove that obstruction to total fascism and feudalism So in that respect he is on same page as the Koch brothers.

edit on 5-3-2012 by openminded2011 because: (no reason given)

The states are broke because the Federal government extracts all the money, rapes their natural resource royalties, and has made them as dependent as a crack whore welfare queen. Get the feds out of the picture, and citizens will be much closer to and have more control over their own fate.
"it's easier to buy off state governments?" How so? have you read up on U.S. Congress? Are you aware of how much more "bought off" they are than any state reps, who are directly answerable to their citizens?

If I am a Congressman from New York, who is making a decision about something in New Mexico, I am much more easily bought off on that issue than if I am a New Mexico Congressman who has to go home and face his constituents.

Federalism and the move toward globalization we are making is much more similar to feudalism, with big corps and centralized government elites dictating and using humans as resources.

I dont care for the Koch brothers, but they have become the go-to bogeyman for leftists. And, in case you haven't noticed, the candidate that elites and corporations hate the most is Ron Paul. Ever wonder why that is? Because he is, by far, the biggest threat to them and to creating dependent, pliable, human resources.

reply to post by resist2012

The constitution was not written to exclude anyone. It says any free person. Meaning those who are not in prison. As far as women went, It wasn't that they weren't allowed to partake in politics, it is just that in those times, women didn't vote. Their concerns were not with politics, they were concerned with matters within the home.

Ok, let's try again.

Do you know WHY women weren't allowed to vote????

Because it was left up to the STATES OMG...who does that sound like???

The Constitution had to be amended to PROTECT women because the STATES took away their right to vote.



But you are right...leaving everything up to the States is a much better set up

reply to post by OutKast Searcher


When we lost our garage and most everything surrounding our home in 2009 (may 8th derecho)..state farm cleaned up everything. Ron paul is right..I don't expect people (taxpayers) from Alaska to help clean up my yard in Illinois. People should have insurance..if not the city, county, state should help them NOT other states or Feds. I mean I guess other states could help if they wanted to and had a budget surplus...

I don't see your point? When you say you want the feds to help..people would NEVER see that money for clean up/rebuilding...the city would probably confiscate the monies and do whatever they please..

Originally posted by bacci0909
It's hilarious seeing all these comments of "wow.. and I thought he was different" or "now his true colors come out".. Anybody who is surprised that this is his stance on the matter is a moron and hasn't been paying attention at all along the way. Ron Paul is a libertarian, this means very little to no federal intervention with nearly ANYTHING. Are you trying to tell me you were going to vote for him without knowing the most basic things about his policies and political philosophy?

I am fully aware of his philosophy, stances, and values and that is precisely why am voting for him.

Originally posted by OutKast Searcher
reply to post by resist2012

 

The constitution was not written to exclude anyone. It says any free person. Meaning those who are not in prison. As far as women went, It wasn't that they weren't allowed to partake in politics, it is just that in those times, women didn't vote. Their concerns were not with politics, they were concerned with matters within the home.

Ok, let's try again.

Do you know WHY women weren't allowed to vote????

Because it was left up to the STATES

OMG...who does that sound like???

The Constitution had to be amended to PROTECT women because the STATES took away their right to vote.



But you are right...leaving everything up to the States is a much better set up

While you are obviously very happy being a dependent on the Federal Plantation, not all of us are. Live in a state or other country that agrees with your values and stop being so intolerant of others. Let us live the way we want to and stop imposing by force your totalitarian policies. Thanks.

Actually

reply to post by VonDoomen

Ron paul is for the people, however you have to be intelligent enough to work out what he means. Why should the federal govt use our tax dolkars to pay for them? Your esseantially stealing money from people whove chosen not to live in a hurricane/tornado prone area, to pay for the people who still want to. No one forces you to live in tornado alley. Why should i have to pay for you to do so? If you live in an area prone to extreme weather, then get insurance for it, dont expect everyone else to fund the fact you want to live in tornado alley.

Bravo! Well said. Why can't the rest of you guys (and gals) get this? Are all you naysayers so convinced that you are helpless?

Why? Because you are not helpless, not at all. You are supposed to be Americans and our tradition is not helplessness, it is self sufficiency.

Aldous Huxley (author of Brave New World) said at a California commencement address long ago that if you can make the people enjoy their enslavement...

So I guess we have separated into the enjoyers and the non-enjoyers of enslavement. Can someone put me on the next bus to the 50s please.

I also liked the poster who commented that Ron Paul's policies will put us in feudal era conditions. Maybe you should look around, we are damn near there without him already, and somehow I don't think he did that.

All most of us are saying is that it is time for us to be weened off the Government teet, the bankers and corps have sucked it dry already anyway, and all because we were enjoying too much and not paying enough attention.

Originally posted by OutKast Searcher
reply to post by resist2012

 

The constitution was not written to exclude anyone. It says any free person. Meaning those who are not in prison. As far as women went, It wasn't that they weren't allowed to partake in politics, it is just that in those times, women didn't vote. Their concerns were not with politics, they were concerned with matters within the home.

Ok, let's try again.

Do you know WHY women weren't allowed to vote????

"Red Herring" and distraction to this conversation which involves woman with the right to vote.

Because it was left up to the STATES

OMG...who does that sound like???

The Constitution had to be amended to PROTECT women because the STATES took away their right to vote.



But you are right...leaving everything up to the States is a much better set up

reply to post by VonDoomen


So...
by your logic, EVERYONE should leave the bread basket, and we can lose billions of dollars in revenue because there will be no corn or wheat farmers.

Brilliant.

Then we will have no food... no export. Nothing.

I wonder what affect that would have on the GDP of the country?

See how it works now??

reply to post by nixie_nox

So... by your logic, EVERYONE should leave the bread basket, and we can lose billions of dollars in revenue because there will be no corn or wheat farmers.

No, I think he is saying that we should buy insurance.

reply to post by Ittabena


He said why should someone elses tax dollars pay for them?

Because the world is networked and what one state does has an effect on another.

Guess what, if Florida experiences extreme drought or that affects citrus and strawberry crops, we bail the farmers out. Why? Because what happens to those crops and farmers affects the entire nation.

Soybeans and corn is the largest agricultural exports, and US is one of the top countries for producing it.

Those exports generate a lot of revenue and keep transportation companies employed.

Which all benefits the US.

So this notion that one state shouldn't have to help another is just silly, and juevanile and basically an un-educated response.

This isn't the colonies.

reply to post by pierregustavetoutant

While you are obviously very happy being a dependent on the Federal Plantation, not all of us are. Live in a state or other country that agrees with your values and stop being so intolerant of others. Let us live the way we want to and stop imposing by force your totalitarian policies. Thanks

Oh, I see. Since I advocate for a safety net and social programs for my fellow countrymen...that must mean that I am dependent on the Federal Government.

Believe it or not...I live my life by what Ron Paul suggests. But I also realize that not everyone is lucky enough to be able to do that...and despite the rhetoric of "we would donate more to charity only if we weren't taxed so much"...I don't buy it. So I advocate for the Federal government to step in and provide the services that I believe would be lost if they didn't.

We all live by the law of the land...unfortunately for you (but fortunate for me and others)...your views are in the extreme minority...so you must live by the laws that have been created until a time when you can gather a large enough majority to change it.

Sorry...that's how it works in the real world.

reply to post by nixie_nox

Now your demoted to an uneducated ass.

I think you meant "you're" as in, YOU are demoted to an uneducated ass.

The laws of the government set by the constitution are timeless, The only thing ever up for debate and clarification was the rights of women and blacks. No where did it say that they were not entitled these rights. Try educating yourself on the content of the constitution, as well as its creation, and how the federalist papers are important.