Obama's plan for "defense" you work for free - Page 6

Reverend_Hellh0und · 07-17-08, 03:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by the makeout hobo

That's because there wasn't enough organization to harness their energy. My best friend went to NOLA after the storm and he told me that the Red Cross didn't have the staff to handle all the volunteers.

So lets put more money if we are going to throw money at the problem into the red cross.

Quote:

FEMA was very effective under Clinton. It stopped being effective when George Bush appointed a man to run it that had no background in disaster relief. It all depends on who is running the show.

Where was fema tested under clinton as it was under bush. I think that is a stretch.

Quote:

Look at NOLA again. FEMA was so busy managing everything else, like the evacuaees, that they didn't have the resouces to spend on managing volunteers that they needed.

So if we are going to throw money at the problem why start another beuravcracy? just task them to do it and give them the resources.

Quote:

You yourself said there was a problem with too many volunteers in NOLA. This makes much more sense than turning them back.

Not if they are not needed. there is such thing as too many cooks in the kitchen.

Quote:

Whos going to coordinate all the volunteer FDs?

FEMA.

FEMA: Volunteer Agencies Play An Important Part In Unmet Needs

the makeout hobo · 07-17-08, 03:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Reverend_Hellh0und

So lets put more money if we are going to throw money at the problem into the red cross.

Take that up with the RC.

[qutoe]
Where was fema tested under clinton as it was under bush. I think that is a stretch.
[/quote]
Andrew.

Quote:

So if we are going to throw money at the problem why start another beuravcracy? just task them to do it and give them the resources.
[/qutoe]
What makes you think its going to be a bloated bueracracy?

[qutoe]
Not if they are not needed. there is such thing as too many cooks in the kitchen.

NOLA still isn't fixed. You know that, right?

[qutoe]
FEMA.
[/qutoe]
It's be easier to let FEMA focus on everything else they do, and let a new group do this.
[/quote]

rivrrat · 07-17-08, 03:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by the makeout hobo

FEMA was very effective under Clinton. It stopped being effective when George Bush appointed a man to run it that had no background in disaster relief. It all depends on who is running the show.

Look at NOLA again. FEMA was so busy managing everything else, like the evacuaees, that they didn't have the resouces to spend on managing volunteers that they needed.

Hmm..I have to disagree on some level. I speak as someone who worked on a contract with FEMA for approximately 2 years. We were tasked with fixing their claim system. It was not designed to handle something as big as Katrina. Much of the failure of FEMA claim handling was a direct result of the department overestimating their systems, underestimating the extent of a major disaster, and not keeping up with technology.

This would have happened no matter who the head of FEMA was since the Head of FEMA would be completely ignorant of something as mundane as what kind of claims processing software they were using, how it worked, and what sort of load it could handle.

The new system we developed for them was finally put to use in the recent midwest flooding. Something I can actually now point at and say, "I actually helped with that! I did something good and significant that is helping to assist a number of people."

rsixing · 07-17-08, 07:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Reverend_Hellh0und

Yes we can. There is such a thing as too many volunteers.

Take a look at NOLO, a lack of volunteers was not the issue. They turned people back. Remember the news telling people NOT to go there to help?

I don't think another government program is the answer. I think it will be FEMA II, and just as effective.

And why can't FEMA (remember what the M stands for?) MANAGE these volunteers?

Well simple, cause then Obama can't pretend he's doing something

How about Homeland Security managing them.

Anyhoo...

IMO FEMA is so outdated and mismanaged now how could we ever have confidence in them to manage what most likely will be a very large pool of on-call volunteers? That said the way I see this is rather then volunteers just showing up there will be a call-up, such as we used to receive for activations, and those called will respond on that basis. Seems like a very wise management system particularly given your cogent point above.

Ethereal · 07-18-08, 01:15 AM

Quote:

Same spirit, but the exact opposite of the libertarian ideology no?

In what way? I'm not trying to be obtuse but I don't see anything about this that would controvert libertarian ideology. Is this program going to be at the expense of the tax-payers or is it, as it says, purely voluntary?

Hatuey · 07-18-08, 02:14 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Reverend_Hellh0und

I clearly stated in the 1st sentence that "IN Obama's plan" which indicates it is not.

And what does this have to do with your misleading title?

Quote:

nor have I ever lead one to believe that in this thread.

Quote:

Obama's plan for "defense" you work for free

Quote:

But thank you for proving my point. Typical Obama supporter, hiding from the issues.

Just admit you created a misleading title.

Reverend_Hellh0und · 07-18-08, 08:46 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hatuey

And what does this have to do with your misleading title?

Just admit you created a misleading title.

Jeesh. Just imagine if you put this much effort into debate as you do with title policing.

***** MODS******

Please add the words "Part of" in front of my thread title. Thank you.

Reverend_Hellh0und · 07-18-08, 08:55 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ethereal

In what way? I'm not trying to be obtuse but I don't see anything about this that would controvert libertarian ideology. Is this program going to be at the expense of the tax-payers or is it, as it says, purely voluntary?

No, no see. "volunteer" does not mean "Free". While the "volunteers" would work for free. Who do you think would pay for the Government program?

Government programs are not the domain of Libertarian ideology, wouldn't you agree?

Reverend_Hellh0und · 07-18-08, 08:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rsixing

How about Homeland Security managing them.

Anyhoo...

Not the same, as one FEMA manages disasters, including coordinating the locals.

Quote:

IMO FEMA is so outdated and mismanaged now how could we ever have confidence in them to manage what most likely will be a very large pool of on-call volunteers? That said the way I see this is rather then volunteers just showing up there will be a call-up, such as we used to receive for activations, and those called will respond on that basis. Seems like a very wise management system particularly given your cogent point above.

So should we disband FEMA and start from scratch? Or just disband them altogether?

My point in this thread is that evey president it seems not just obama wants to start the next "peace corp". To me it is pathetically transparent and just adds bloat for legacy building.

Why do we need a federal agency to essentially do what is a state issue?

rsixing · 07-18-08, 12:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Reverend_Hellh0und

Not the same, as one FEMA manages disasters, including coordinating the locals.

It was a joke. Ergo the "laughing" smilie...

Quote:

So should we disband FEMA and start from scratch? Or just disband them altogether?

No we should, if possible, fix FEMA.

Quote:

My point in this thread is that evey president it seems not just obama wants to start the next "peace corp". To me it is pathetically transparent and just adds bloat for legacy building.

Our society is fluid and the development of a volunteer organization to respond to crisis' reaches beyond the peace corp.

Quote:

Why do we need a federal agency to essentially do what is a state issue?

We already have state National Guard's. Why not have a federal agency overseeing a corp of national volunteers?