• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Privatizing FEMA Proves Once Again to Be a Bad Idea

I'll go listen to it again if you will do the same. I'm hearing something completely different than you are. I do NOT hear FEMA being returned to the states. I hear FEMA starting the topic and THEN he pushes for deciding what to KEEP, not what to ELIMINATE.

I'm not quite sure how that part was missed. Maybe you can quote the part you are referring to as clarification:)

Which is really saying, let's have no viable solution to national disaster relief at all. - that's what you are saying he is saying but it ain't what he said. I can't believe I'm defending this guy but sheesh, he has enough wrong with him without creating stuff.

I've done my best to make my case. Maybe we are living in parallel universes. You said: I'm not a Romney Fan, either. But his ideas on this issue are just wacky. He's selfish but he's not wacky (any more so than his wacky partys platform anyway)

And, what did he tell you?

He clearly said what I posted in the OP: He thought it would be a far superior idea to push the entire function of disaster control back to the States. But, he did not stop there. He then said that it would be "even better" to push the entire thing into the Private Sector.

I'm not quite sure how that part was missed. Maybe you can quote the part you are referring to as clarification - but he clearly stated that his preference would be State at a minimum and Privatization as the Optimum goal. Which is really saying, let's have no viable solution to national disaster relief at all.




But, based on what FEMA does - based on its mission - what would you return to the States?




I'm not a Romney Fan, either. But his ideas on this issue are just wacky.
 
Not quite.

FEMA's response was to be measured depending on the severity of the disaster in play. Not merely a "back-up" to the state's response…
The primary purpose of FEMA is to coordinate the response to a disaster that has occurred in the United States and that overwhelms the resources of local and state authorities.

Federal Emergency Management Agency - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Sure sounds like ‘back-up’…

FEMA’s mission is to support our citizens and first responders to ensure that as a nation we work together to build, sustain, and improve our capability to prepare for, protect against, respond to, recover from, and mitigate all hazards.

‘To support’ sure sounds like “back-up” else wouldn’t they have described their mission as ‘lead’?...not quite indeed
 
Just listened again and the clip cuts off before he answers the question "what about disaster relief".
 
Just listened again and the clip cuts off before he answers the question "what about disaster relief".



Is this what you're looking for?
 
This is exactly how it should be. The states should bear most of the handling of disasters like this. However, in times of multi-state emergencies, a simple coordination is all that is needed. This could be done with a very small, efficiently organized department. FEMA goes way beyond coordination. It's a bloated organization that can not handle local issues (e.g. all the buses that could have been evacuating people, but instead, sat while New Orleans flooded).


I think the point about why FEMA exists, is being missed.

Not all States have the same resources. They don't all have the same degree of revenues to build such defenses against the fall-out from national relief. The California State GDP, is not comparable to the GDP of Arkansas, for example - therefore, the revenues to the State, won't be the same. The topography is not the same and the terrain my introduce some incredibly difficult challenge. And, the mathematical probabilities for the type and kind of disaster that is likely to occur, won't be equal across all States as well.

There are a number of very good reasons (as those cited above) for having a National base of operations that can engage in rapid deployment and rapid coordination with the United States Military when/if necessary. Each State should have its own dedicated relief plan, no doubt. Every State should do what it can. But, that is the pivotal phrase here: "what it can." And, not all States are created equal when it comes to their ability to respond. So, no State should lack the ability to respond, merely because it is not rich enough, or because its topology/terrain is to complex, or because the nature of the disaster is to overwhelming.

The other point being consistently missed here, is one of Launch Point Infrastructure. You need aircraft with various performance capabilities to respond in some cases. You may also need marine vessels of various draft requirements to respond in other cases. You may need heavy earth moving equipment that cannot be driven locally, so you will need to Air Lift that equipment into the zone of operations. There are all kinds of big strategic concepts like this that need to be thought about about, and trying to privatize all of that, is a huge step in the wrong direction.
 
Yes. This is a set-up and it's apparently a deliberately misleading one. Listen to the last 20 seconds. Now that I see it's part of a political ad, I see why it cuts off where it does.




Is this what you're looking for?
 
The US Postal Service is an independent government agency... that is supposed to be self reliant... It is a federal agency in name only...

United States Postal Service - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
"The USPS has not directly received taxpayer-dollars since the early 1980s with the minor exception of subsidies for costs associated with the disabled and overseas voters"

They did just as Romney has advocated doing with Amtrak, with PBS, with FEMA, and numerous other agencies... privitize them...

The prize is they're out of work if they don't perform... I know government backers have trouble with this, since their unions protect them when performing piss poor... but most people will do everything they can to keep their jobs... it does wonders for motivation...


The USPS is a government agency. It funds itself. That doesn't make it psuedo private. It is a government agency.

The prize has to be a goal. If there is no profit. What is the prize to be earned and where does it come from? You've never said it was a charity and if it's not a charity then it has to be government funded.. unless you think people will throw oodles of cash into a business that makes no profit.

What you are designing with this is another really crappy industry like the insurance industry where when they are needed, they do all they can not to provide services because that cuts into their profits... except this industry has no purchasable service so therefore no income.
 
Federal Emergency Management Agency - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Sure sounds like ‘back-up’…



‘To support’ sure sounds like “back-up” else wouldn’t they have described their mission as ‘lead’?...not quite indeed


Post Number #55, explains the Strategic nature of what a good national response would need to include at a minimum.

I don't like the current arrangement of FEMA. I do not agree with all of the strategic thought process and I wish, I had an opportunity to fix some of the problems that FEMA will face, is the perfect configuration of multiple natural disasters occurs. So, I want to see FEMA improved, not abolished and sold to the highest bigger - so to speak.
 
I hear FEMA starting the topic and THEN he pushes for deciding what to KEEP, not what to ELIMINATE.


The question is about how spend the tax dollars of U.S. Citizens, relative to how we respond to natural disasters. FEMA is the only thing that exists for such purposes on the Federal level. They are talking about the spending of Federal tax dollars. Therefore, they can't be talking about anything other than FEMA.

Romney, is saying that he'll "push back to the States." A politician running for Federal office, is not going to talk about pushing anything back to the States, unless it has something to do with a Federal Program and/or Agency and/or Function.

Clearly, he's talking about ultimately privatizing FEMA. He's giving you his optimal desire - if we lived in a Romney World. He wants National Disaster Response to be a function of a Private Corporation, and at a minimum handled by the States - which means, no Federal Response to National Disasters. Because, why have both a Private solutions and a Public solution at the same time. That is not what he's suggesting. He's saying, make it private and get it out of the Federal government because it is "immoral" to spend tax payers money on such things that we don't really need and that only blow-up the national debt.

He clearly, tied the spending of money on national disaster relief, to the national debt and to that being an "immoral" act, because in his words, we end up passing that debt onto to future generations.

I'm 100% certain this is what he said and what he truly meant. And, it fits perfectly with who Mitt Romney, is and what he's all about. He could care less about the 47% and this statement sort of dove-tails directly into that sentiment. It is that nonchalant, devil may care but I don't attitude, that comes out even when he's talking about national relief to natural disasters.

So, you should not be shocked by his words. It fits his I-could-care-less MO perfectly.

Besides, in Romney's world, I get the feeling that only the slackers get hit with natural disasters anyway, right? So, if you are out there working hard, paying your taxes and playing by the rules, you will neeeeeeeeeever have to worry about a Natural Disaster coming your way.

Romney, never ceases to amaze me in his shallowness.
 
Post Number #55, explains the Strategic nature of what a good national response would need to include at a minimum.

I don't like the current arrangement of FEMA. I do not agree with all of the strategic thought process and I wish, I had an opportunity to fix some of the problems that FEMA will face, is the perfect configuration of multiple natural disasters occurs. So, I want to see FEMA improved, not abolished and sold to the highest bigger - so to speak.

I understand your point (I think) but disagree. I also disagree with the premise in the OP of ‘privatizing’ FEMA but would rather see it ‘de-federalized’. FEMA’s response is to show up with a checkbook. The states can handle natural disaster response but as you state have funding limitations. There is no reason they couldn’t acquire loans/grants for the funding shortfalls. Ultimately I have a problem with folks in Nebraska having to foot the bill for those who lose their ‘McMansion’ built 100 yrds from the Gulf. I have a problem with folks in Texas having to foot the bill when those who build multistory structures in seismic zone 4. Yes, people should know better and I am not all in on this ‘shared sacrifice’ when I have to share in one’s foolish choice…
 
my reponse to a series of ignorant comments...

That's probably what Romney will be saying after Frankenstorm gets through with Massachussetts!
Frankenstorm was rather mild here in MA... the Patriots even landed at Logan Airport during it, which remained open through the storm...

We had FAR worse storms when Romney was Governor, and he didn't panic in any of them, and handled disaster recovery quite well...

BTW if Romney was so GREAT as governor of Massachusetts, why is he losing his own state by such a HUGE margin? Perhaps it was all of the vetos and veto over-rides that it took to get anything done while he was governor.

Um... hello... because Taxachusetts is one of the most liberal states of the Union... In fact, most Democrats win by 25pts or more... with a state that's 70% liberal and 30% conservative... many liberals even throw their votes away on third party candidates that they know have no chance of winning, but the Democratic candidate doesn't need their help winning either...

In fact, Romney has closed the 25pt gap down to 14, 15, 16, and 17 in the last few polls... for an average of 15.5... That's the best any Republican has done in a head to head race MA since Reagan's 2nd term... and it'll be the first election since Perot split the vote in 92 to prevent the Democrats from winning by more than 20pts... so he's doing quite well...

If you want an indication of how well he did as Governor... Deval Patrick has continued and even expanded on many of Romney's policies, and even recommended them to the President to follow...

Romney thinks that Privatizing Fema, just like privatizing medicare and social security are good ideas!
He probably also wants to privatize our military.

Your lack of knowledge on these matters continues to alert its presence...

MUCH of what the military does is already Privitized... Raytheon, DuPont, Boeing, Lockhead Martin, etc. all make up what has become fearing regarded as the military industrial complex... But, what said military industrial complex does is the hard work of inventing, innovating, manufacturing those weapons that make our military and that of our allies to be the most advanced in the world, with less risk on the federal government when those projects go awry...

Also, the private security firms like Blackwater, and mercenary soldier groups do play a big part in the covert nature of how many of our wars are won, and how many of our allies are left unorganized and in disarray...

Getting rid of FEMA and putting states in control of their own disaster recovery. I guess I am the only one here who remembers how local and state government handled hurricane Katrina when that hit. They had the chance to evacuate people early and waited until the last moment to evacuate. Granted, this isn't about FEMA, but you can see my point about what happens when you leave it up to the state to handle their own issue. I still don't think we learned our lesson from that fiasco.

Actually... Katrina is where Brownie proved an inadequacy and ineptitude of letting federal agencies like FEMA take control of such things rather than equiping the state and local authorities... since it was FEMA's delayed response which prevented state officials from being able to force evacuations...
 
my reponse to a series of ignorant comments...


Frankenstorm was rather mild here in MA... the Patriots even landed at Logan Airport during it, which remained open through the storm....

Clearly if Romney was president he would have diverted the storm with the sheer force of his charisma and strong jaw line. Basically the same plan he has for the economy.
 
Anyone remember volunteer fire departments?

yeah...great fire of london. after that, they realized the government. and not volunteers, was better protection. I mean, its not like you even need to see that happen to know that the govt will provide better action, just like a financed, equipped and trained govt army protects far better than volunteers. You dont need to see that happen to know that, but you apparently do have to watch people die first before some people realize that, oh crap, it really could happen to me!

history repeats itself:
During the Civil War, 1642–1651, the City of London had been a stronghold of Republicanism, and the wealthy and economically dynamic capital still had the potential to be a threat to Charles II, as had been demonstrated by several Republican uprisings in London in the early 1660s.
They were determined to thwart any similar tendencies of his son, and when the Great Fire threatened the City, they refused the offers Charles made of soldiers and other resources. Even in such an emergency, the idea of having the unpopular Royal troops ordered into the City was political dynamite. By the time Charles took over command from the ineffectual Lord Mayor, the fire was already out of control. -wiki
 
Last edited:
my reponse to a series of ignorant comments...


Frankenstorm was rather mild here in MA... the Patriots even landed at Logan Airport during it, which remained open through the storm...

I'm glad it's not too bad, and while I hate Tom ****ing Brady, I wouldn't wish death on him. Only knee injuries. :mrgreen:

The point is that so often we see the same people who go on about "We don't need no federal government" turn around and wonder where their FEMA check is. Then they talk about how they never got government assistance. Romney being a natural flipper, it wouldn't be hard to imagine him being one of them.
 
Problem is, FEMA has morphed into something it was never intended to be. Its intention was to assist State's responses, particularly in the dispensing of emergency funds. It was never meant to be a "boots on the ground, first responder."

I guess that was Bush's belief too, "let 'em drown Brownie"
Is there no end to insensitivity on the Right today? Are you determnined to make us a 3rd world country?
 
I guess that was Bush's belief too, "let 'em drown Brownie"
Is there no end to insensitivity on the Right today? Are you determnined to make us a 3rd world country?

New Orleans strayed from evacuation plan - Houston Chronicle
The mayor's mandatory evacuation order was issued 20 hours before the storm struck the Louisiana coast, less than half the time researchers determined would be needed to get everyone out.

City officials had 550 municipal buses and hundreds of additional school buses at their disposal but made no plans to use them to get people out of New Orleans before the storm, said Chester Wilmot, a civil engineering professor at Louisiana State University and an expert in transportation planning, who helped the city put together its evacuation plan.

Instead, local buses were used to ferry people from 12 pickup points to poorly supplied "shelters of last resort" in the city. An estimated 50,000 New Orleans households have no access to cars, Wilmot said.


Oh yeah, it's ALWAYS Bush's fault........:doh

At least TRY and be intellectually honest.
 
Problem is, FEMA has morphed into something it was never intended to be. Its intention was to assist State's responses, particularly in the dispensing of emergency funds. It was never meant to be a "boots on the ground, first responder."

It only became the first responder because the States failed on that account. States have been cutting first responder and emergency resources for years.. look at Texas.. it cant even battle wild fires anymore without asking for federal help and then has the balls to complain that they are not getting enough help... and that is a freaking red state!
 
Clearly if Romney was president he would have diverted the storm with the sheer force of his charisma and strong jaw line. Basically the same plan he has for the economy.

What's a matta poor Adam... are you upset people have figured out that Obama doesn't walk on water... and no longer feel that way about him?

Or is it the general pissyness that people are now excited about the prospect of a Romney win and new leadership in Washington that can break up the partisan gridlock and get something accomplished?
 
Why do people always lie to make a point? He never said any such thing.

Why are all of these Romney supporters lying?

1. Michigan Rep. Fred Upton, Republican: In February, Upton told Western Michigan University’s WMUK radio that only the government could have saved the auto industry. “There was no one that was willing to come up not only with the cash to keep them afloat but also to serve the warranties of everyone, you and I that drive all these cars,” Upton said. “There was no one that could have picked up those pieces other than the federal government.” He also contradicted Romney’s claim that the rescue was a bailout of auto unions, saying it was “bi-partisan from the get-go.” Without the bailout, Upton said, Michigan “would have hit 40 percent unemployment rates.”

2. Michigan Rep. Thad McCotter, Republican: “There was no choice” but to use government funds to save the auto industry, McCotter told MSNBC in February. “So to my fellow Republicans I’ll simply remind them, if you were in Congress at the point in time or if you were President Bush, you could leave all $700 billion of taxpayers hard-earned money with the Wall Street people, or you could take some back to Main Street to keep America a balanced, vibrant economy,” McCotter said. “To me there was no choice.”

3. Michigan Gov. Rick Snyder, Republican: In November 2011, Snyder urged Republicans to stop second-guessing the auto rescue, even if they disagreed with how it was done, because it had delivered incredible results for Michigan and the auto industry. “I would have had some differences on how they did it, but I’m not going to second-guess it,” Snyder told the New York Times. “The more important thing is the results. And the auto industry is doing very well today.”

4. Auto Industry Task Force member Harry Wilson, Republican: Wilson, a member of Obama’s Auto Industry Task Force who has run for office as a Republican in New York, criticized Romney’s view of the bailout last week. “I’m, as you know, a Republican who supports the governor. But I think on this issue, I think he’s really mishandled it,” Wilson told Bloomberg. “He came out both in 2008 and earlier in 2012, in a piece in one of the Detroit newspapers, and said he wouldn’t have supported any government capital because private capital was available. That’s simply not true.”

5. The Detroit News editorial board: A self-described “conservative newspaper,” the Detroit News endorsed Romney for president last week. But in its endorsement editorial, the paper blasted Romney for his “wrong-headedness on the auto bailout.” Romney “was wrong in suggesting the automakers could have found operating capital in the private markets,” the editors wrote. “Romney suggested government-backed loans to keep the companies afloat post bankruptcy. But what GM and Chrysler needed were bridge loans to get them through the process, and the private credit markets were unwilling to provide them.”

6. Ex-Chrysler CEO Lee Iaccoca, Republican: Iaccoca has endorsed Romney, but he also has praised the auto bailout for its rescue of the industry. “Two years ago, it looked like Detroit and Michigan and the car business was in the toilet,” Iacocca told the Detroit News this month. But after the bailout, he said, “things have turned out pretty well.” And even if Iaccoca has criticisms of pieces of the bailout, the paper said he “praised the government actions over the past two years that gave two of Detroit’s Big Three automakers another chance.”
 
Last edited:
Does any Romney basher on here understand the concept of "limited government" (which is entirely different than "no government")? From what I'm reading, I'd say the answer is "NO".
 
Back
Top Bottom