• 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

PW4000

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 22, 2011
Messages
1,025
Reaction score
319
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Centrist


He said that it was "Immoral" to continue federal spending on FEMA. He said that not only would he push Natural Disaster Relief back to the States, but that it would be "Even Better" to push it into the "Private Sector."

The irony of it all is inescapable. In 2008, Candidate Obama, stood in the gap during a financial crisis and provided a calm hand in dealing with an emergency that he did not cause. In 2012, President Obama, stand in the gap once again during a natural disaster crisis to provide that same calm hand at a time of crisis.

I'm seeing a trend here: A steady hand when the country needs it most.

What did the nation get from Romney:

- "Let Detroit Fail"
- It is "Immoral" to continue spending federal tax dollars on natural disaster - we cannot afford it.

"Leadership is the art of guiding, directing and influencing people in such a way, that gains their trust, respect and commitment to achieving a common objective."
 
delivering essential emergency services is a proper role of government. the demand is inelastic, so while competition might generate some nominal savings, it's likely that the extreme demand for the service would still push the price up once multiple levels of for-profit companies were delivering services. my vote is leave FEMA the way it is.
 
Maybe we should privatize our entire government too. That would give us the option to outsource our government to China and save a few bucks.
 
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."
 
Don't take away my disaster relief welfare! NO!

Honestly, the drama is outstanding.
 
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."

Isn't that the same argument against the EPA and every other government program the right doesn't like? Overreaching is ALWAYS the theme but elimination is the goal.
 
Isn't that the same argument against the EPA and every other government program the right doesn't like? Overreaching is ALWAYS the theme but elimination is the goal.

Yes, and they conveniently forget that the reason these departments were created to begin with is that the states were not up to the job. FEMA is in effect a form of national disaster insurance that is much better suited to federal control.
 
Yes, and they conveniently forget that the reason these departments were created to begin with is that the states were not up to the job. FEMA is in effect a form of national disaster insurance that is much better suited to federal control.

Agreed. I don't think it's impossible for states to coordinate on disaster relief. But flood waters don't stop at the state border. A large disaster will likely require coordination at a level beyond any single state.
 
Agreed. I don't think it's impossible for states to coordinate on disaster relief. But flood waters don't stop at the state border. A large disaster will likely require coordination at a level beyond any single state.

It's also not especially efficient to ask 50 states to purchase all the equipment to handle a once-in-100-year disaster when we probably only need 10% of that equipment nationally to handle the need.
 
The other issue is that this storm is going to cost the tax payers billions of dollars. Where is that money coming from? I do agree that FEMA's budget grew too large because state leadership is so addled by suckling off Washington's boobies that they are unable to make any crisis decisions.
 
Isn't that the same argument against the EPA and every other government program the right doesn't like? Overreaching is ALWAYS the theme but elimination is the goal.

No, EPA is a regulatory agency. FEMA is not. So has FEMA not overreached? Sadly, its current level is brought to us by the Bush Administration which in lieu of using its abysmal failure to reform it, they just expanded to it so it'd have a better public image.
 
It's also not especially efficient to ask 50 states to purchase all the equipment to handle a once-in-100-year disaster when we probably only need 10% of that equipment nationally to handle the need.

YEAH...like Minnesota and Montana equipping to handle a hurricane...oh, never mind...:lamo
 
YEAH...like Minnesota and Montana equipping to handle a hurricane...oh, never mind...:lamo

Which differs from preparing for major tornados and flooding ... how?
 
Which differs from preparing for major tornados and flooding ... how?

Went right over your head didn't it? It makes sense for states to prepare for disasters that they specifically would typically be subjected to. Would it make sense for Florida to have a fleet of snowplows? Or Oklahoma prepared for a hurricane? But it makes more sense for the Federal Government to have the resources for ALL possible natural disasters…
 
I just watched the clip and I really did NOT hear Romney talk about FEMA. His question was what should we keep.

The answer is that FEMA and the military are most appropriate to keep at the Federal level and there are other things that could best be returned to the states. FEMA is obviously a multi-state operation.

I'm not a Romney fan and I didn't vote for him. But I try to be fair to everybody and thats what I took from this early debate.
 
Not sure what your argument is. The fight against government from the R's is always overreach, too big, and they apply this to everything they don't like. Are you saying that is not true? You then go on to complain about FEMA overreaching and being too big... I don't really get what you're trying to prove other than the standard "less government is better government" line.
 
I just watched the clip and I really did NOT hear Romney talk about FEMA. His question was what should we keep.

The answer is that FEMA and the military are most appropriate to keep at the Federal level and there are other things that could best be returned to the states. FEMA is obviously a multi-state operation.

I'm not a Romney fan and I didn't vote for him. But I try to be fair to everybody and thats what I took from this early debate.

Clip I just saw Romney unequivocally states "whenever you can send it back to the states and better yet privatize it I support it" or something or other VERY close to that. He wants FEMA gone.
 
You're getting a different message than I am from the clip. Interesting.

He does seem to promote states and private sector but I don't hear FEMA as a specific target. Certainly would not be practical.



Clip I just saw Romney unequivocally states "whenever you can send it back to the states and better yet privatize it I support it" or something or other VERY close to that. He wants FEMA gone.
 
People may be shocked to learn that states and cities do actually reach out to help those in need without FEMA and the President ordering them to do so. Some people do actually volunteer to go work 18 hour days to help out those in need and gather and deliver food and supplies or clear roads or search for survivors and all sorts of stuff.
 
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 think when it's a mutiple state disaster like this one, FEMA could be an organizing tool to not only pull together resources but for mobilizing several state's national guards and perhaps bring in the Army Corp of engineers and Navy SeaBee's so that are working in unison with the local governments and not double-working or getting in the way.
 
I think when it's a multiple state disaster like this one, FEMA could be an organizing tool to not only pull together resources but for mobilizing several state's national guards and perhaps bring in the Army Corp of engineers and Navy SeaBee's so that are working in unison with the local governments and not double-working or getting in the way.
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).
 
delivering essential emergency services is a proper role of government. the demand is inelastic, so while competition might generate some nominal savings, it's likely that the extreme demand for the service would still push the price up once multiple levels of for-profit companies were delivering services. my vote is leave FEMA the way it is.

And, the ultimate hit to the the Working Class would be yet another Hidden Tax. Highly unlikely that the States would allow that industry to go unregulated. Airports are also being close each year in this country, so launch points would be a shrinking component of the infrastructure necessary to carryout such operation. In addition, private concerns are not keen on the concept of Redundancy, and mission critical operations require at least that much. So, the urge that any private entity would have to cut costs, would be once again, problematic for the super-structure necessary to support and deliver a national response.

I don't thin Romney, thinks things through to their logical conclusion when he's out there on the campaign trail delivering up ideas for the country.

I'm with you - improve FEMA, don't privatize the concept. This is one of the things the government can do far better than the people - and for a number of good reasons.
 
LMFAO... how has privitizing FEMA proven to be anything, since it hasn't been tried out?

This is the same nonsense of the recovery... since there was only 1 approach, we have no empirical evidence to suggest how the alternative approach would have worked... yet Democrats are insisting only their way was the right way... based off moderate results, which disappeared quickly... and failed to jumpstart the economy...

We've seen the debt piled their way has created...

Privatizing utilities has worked out thus far...

Let's also note, you don't know how well the FEMA response to this has worked yet, either... since the storm is still currently under way...
 
Last edited:
Went right over your head didn't it? It makes sense for states to prepare for disasters that they specifically would typically be subjected to. Would it make sense for Florida to have a fleet of snowplows? Or Oklahoma prepared for a hurricane? But it makes more sense for the Federal Government to have the resources for ALL possible natural disasters…

Please. That's a silly reductive argument. There are obviously supplies and equipment that are relevant to natural disasters in general and that is what FEMA takes care of in addition to what the states provide for themselves.
 
Seriously....people going to the polls in these states....and every state across the nation should be asking: When faced with a natural disaster WHO WOULD YOU RATHER HAVE SITTING IN THE PRESIDENCY....President Obama/Biden.....or Romney/Ryan (who thinks getting rid of FEMA is a fantastic idea)? The choice should be clear.
 
Back
Top Bottom