• 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!

Republicans vs. FEMA: GOP Politicians Advocate Cutting Disaster Relief (VIDEO)

Muddy Creek

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 9, 2006
Messages
3,103
Reaction score
699
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Republicans vs. FEMA: GOP Politicians Advocate Cutting Disaster Relief (VIDEO)

s Hurricane Sandy began its path of destruction along the East Coast on Monday night, Republican governors of Virginia, Pennsylvania and New Jersey praised federal relief efforts that helped their states prepare for the massive storm. But in the past, Republican politicians haven't been quite so supportive of the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). As Politico points out, hurricane relief has been a contentious issue on Capitol Hill as recently as last year.
Rep. Eric Cantor (R-Va.) notoriously said federal disaster aid should be met with budget cuts, while presidential nominee Mitt Romney appeared to suggest during a debate in June that FEMA should be shuttered in favor of individual states taking on disaster relief management.

. . .

Cutting funds for embassies and consulates and now cutting low cost loans for Americans to recover from disasters.

Wow...sure a lot of smug wealthy republicans in congress, IMHO.
 
Ahh yes, the sweet, sweet stench of compassionate conservatism rears its deformed head yet again.
 
Republicans vs. FEMA: GOP Politicians Advocate Cutting Disaster Relief (VIDEO)



Cutting funds for embassies and consulates and now cutting low cost loans for Americans to recover from disasters.

Wow...sure a lot of smug wealthy republicans in congress, IMHO.

Third thread today. I'm beginning to think Romney has a better chance than I thought.

First, Romney wanted/wants to send the money to the states. Secondly, FEMA's budget has more than doubled since 2003. If the sequester takes place, FEMA would lose $878 million in funding. Whose idea is the sequester? Obama’s fanciful claim that Congress ‘proposed’ the sequester - The Washington Post
 
Too bad we are reduced to voting for one of two people...neither of which deserve the presidency...in my humble opinion. I read and hear so many people say they'll do anything to vote Obama out...even if it was with a candidate who isn't anymore qualified than the current president. Sad...
 
Ahh yes, the sweet, sweet stench of compassionate conservatism rears its deformed head yet again.

Compassion and Conservatism have NOTHING to do with each other. They never have and never will. NOR SHOULD THEY.
 
Compassion and Conservatism have NOTHING to do with each other. They never have and never will. NOR SHOULD THEY.

And they don't...and is pretty evident. I think the conservatives have done a great job at making that same point clear. Good post, Tigger! Thanks for bringing out the truth.
 
Last edited:
And they don't...and is pretty evident. I think the conservatives have done a great job at making that same point clear. Good post, Tigger! Thanks for bringing out the truth.

It's just the reality of the situation. Conservatism is about people taking care of themselves and those people they care about because they WANT to, and/or because they will get something out of it, not just because there is a need. It's about helping the people who deserve to be helped and leaving those who don't to fend for themselves. Build a city on a massive fault line, or below sea level on the coast, and that's YOUR problem with the ground starts to dance or the sea chooses to reclaim the low-lying land.
 
It's just the reality of the situation. Conservatism is about people taking care of themselves and those people they care about because they WANT to, and/or because they will get something out of it, not just because there is a need. It's about helping the people who deserve to be helped and leaving those who don't to fend for themselves. Build a city on a massive fault line, or below sea level on the coast, and that's YOUR problem with the ground starts to dance or the sea chooses to reclaim the low-lying land.

Alrighty then...
 
It's just the truth. Nothing more and nothing less.

Uh huh...okay...I know because you said its the truth...then by God it's the truth, nothing but the truth. I get it, Tigger...
 
Third thread today. I'm beginning to think Romney has a better chance than I thought.

First, Romney wanted/wants to send the money to the states. Secondly, FEMA's budget has more than doubled since 2003. If the sequester takes place, FEMA would lose $878 million in funding. Whose idea is the sequester? Obama’s fanciful claim that Congress ‘proposed’ the sequester - The Washington Post

Yeah, that's what the right wing pundits are all saying from the known liar Breitbart to the above.

Here's another take on the issue
\
Calls For Cutting FEMA Are Not Coming From Inside The White House | Blog | Media Matters for America

As Hurricane Sandy bears down on the east coast, Breitbart.com is reporting that President Obama's "proposal for the upcoming budget sequester would cut nearly $900 million from the Federal Emergency Management Agency, including disaster relief, food and shelter, and flood management at both the federal and state levels." This is absolutely false: the report they characterize as the White House's "sequester proposal" is actually a legally required estimate of how scheduled automatic budget cuts will impact discretionary spending, and inveighs strongly against allowing those cuts to take effect.

The debt-limit deal passed in 2011 (with the support of over two-thirds of House Republicans, including GOP vice presidential candidate Paul Ryan) required both parties to find a way to cut the deficit by $1.2 trillion, or face steep, automatic cuts across the board starting in January 2013 -- the sequester. On August 7, President Obama signed into law the Sequester Transparency Act, which required the White House to "submit to Congress a detailed report on the sequestration" that provides "an estimate for each category of the sequestration percentages and amounts necessary to achieve the required reduction."

The White House Office of Management and Budget released that report in September. Contrary to Breitbart.com's misreading, the report does not propose cuts to FEMA or any other agency but rather enumerates the cuts that are required by the statute. The introduction to the report makes this clear (emphasis added):

The percentage cuts in this report, and the identification of exempt and non-exempt accounts, reflect the requirements of the laws that the Administration is applying. With the single exception of military personnel accounts, the Administration cannot choose which programs to exempt, or what percentage cuts to apply. These matters are dictated by a detailed statutory scheme. The Administration does not support these cuts, but unless Congress acts responsibly, there will be no choice but to implement them.

So no, the White House is not "propos[ing]" FEMA cuts through the sequester. And that should come as a relief to FEMA, given the many enthusiastic calls for cutting its budget it's seen coming from Republicans lately

Just doesn't jive with the responsibilities of Congress, your story.
 
Third thread today. I'm beginning to think Romney has a better chance than I thought.

First, Romney wanted/wants to send the money to the states. Secondly, FEMA's budget has more than doubled since 2003. If the sequester takes place, FEMA would lose $878 million in funding. Whose idea is the sequester? Obama’s fanciful claim that Congress ‘proposed’ the sequester - The Washington Post

Not my understanding at all.

Romney wants to send the cost plus the management responsibility to the states.
It simply relocates the cost from federal level to state level.
It is simply semantics, like a shell game, or a dangerous game of Where's Waldo.
 
Romney wants to send the cost plus the management responsibility to the states.
It simply relocates the cost from federal level to state level.
It is simply semantics, like a shell game, or a dangerous game of Where's Waldo.

No. it's not semantics.....

The US Constitution does not allow for the US Government to be involved in this sort of thing. Article 1, Section 8 does not allow for the US Government to legislate or spend money on domestic or international disaster relief. It never has. Combine that with the Tenth Amendment, and all responsibility and capability for dealing with domestic disaster relief falls on the States and the People, NOT the Federal Government.
 
No. it's not semantics.....

The US Constitution does not allow for the US Government to be involved in this sort of thing. Article 1, Section 8 does not allow for the US Government to legislate or spend money on domestic or international disaster relief. It never has. Combine that with the Tenth Amendment, and all responsibility and capability for dealing with domestic disaster relief falls on the States and the People, NOT the Federal Government.



Im sorry, the constitution gets pushed aside while the government aids its people.
 
Im sorry, the constitution gets pushed aside while the government aids its people.

NO. That is not the way it works. At least that is not the way it was intended to work. If it was, then what is the point of law to begin with?
 
NO. That is not the way it works. At least that is not the way it was intended to work. If it was, then what is the point of law to begin with?

Sorry Tig, human lives are more important than a old piece of paper at this moment. Wold you rather see humans suffer/die so can follow that piece of paper?

You dont have to answer that. We all ready know your answer.
 
Not my understanding at all.

Romney wants to send the cost plus the management responsibility to the states.
It simply relocates the cost from federal level to state level.
It is simply semantics, like a shell game, or a dangerous game of Where's Waldo.

Maybe the states could deploy their aircraft carriers to the coast to aid in rescue and recovery?
 
Sorry Tig, human lives are more important than a old piece of paper at this moment. Wold you rather see humans suffer/die so can follow that piece of paper?

You dont have to answer that. We all ready know your answer.

I'm going to answer it anyway.... Follow the Piece of Paper. That's what we call the Rule of Law, and without it there is no society worth anything.
 
I'm going to answer it anyway.... Follow the Piece of Paper. That's what we call the Rule of Law, and without it there is no society worth anything.


Like i said, you''d rather see people suffer/die.
 
Like i said, you''d rather see people suffer/die.

It's not about what I'd rather see. It's about the way the system was intended to work. Law & Order is the highest calling of society.
 
It's not about what I'd rather see. It's about the way the system was intended to work. Law & Order is the highest calling of society.

Tig,

it's rather clear what you want to SEE. No need to elaborate anymore.
 
Back
Top Bottom