• 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!

Should Congress Fund Disaster Aid for Northeast

Should Congress Fund Disaster Aid for the Northeast

  • Yes

    Votes: 26 68.4%
  • No

    Votes: 12 31.6%

  • Total voters
    38
  • Poll closed .
You do realize that you just contradicted yourself right? Also providing for the general welfare and common defense of the US doesn't always entail useing guns you know. And as I've said before, major disasters often have far reaching consequences that can affect the entire US and not just to the area hit directly by a disaster.

I didn't contradict myself. I explained what is meant by general welfare and how it can be used and nothing else. I didn't think I needed to explain common defense, so I didn't. Regardless, you are forgetting that the power has to be granted and no such power is granted that you are talking about.

If I must explain to you common defense I will, but it seems a bit obvious.
 
Taking money:lamo from someone using force and then giving it to someone else, without the power to do so, is indeed tyranical. :2wave:Get a clue.

Oh please. How else do you think the government is going to provide its services to the people that it serves? Conjure things out of thin air? When you learn how the government works and how it is suppose to accomplish what they do then get back to me. Until then I am done with you.
 
I didn't contradict myself. I first explained what it meant by the general welfare said how it can be used. I didn't think I needed to explain common defense. Regardless, you are forgetting that the power has to be granted and no such power is granted that you are talking about.

General welfare and common defense. Not just common defense. The power is there.
 
The country is based on a system of law, not values and qualities. Law is what seperates from dictatorship.

A nation's and its society success depend on much more than "law".
Values and qualities do matter.
I am reminded of Charles Dickens line , "are there no workhouses, are there no prisons".
 
General welfare and common defense. Not just common defense. The power is there.

Which I already explained to you what general welfare means. Try harder.
 
The country is based on a system of law, not values and qualities. Law is what seperates from dictatorship.

Where do you think law comes from if not values and qualities?

BTW, a dictatorship is also run by laws. The laws of one person yes. But there are still laws.
 
A nation's and its society success depend on much more than "law".
Values and qualities do matter.
I am reminded of Charles Dickens line , "are there no workhouses, are there no prisons".

..........
I wish to be left alone. Since you ask me what I wish sir, that is my answer.
 
Absolutely, of course, but there is the high cost..

In truth, some places are more risky than others...IMO, some are so risky (California mudslides for one) that NO aid should ever be given and that NO intelligent man would choose to live....this is common sense....people should use this now and again...
I think that it is good economic sense to dredge our rivers, have strong buildings, and protect our coasts..
I am leery of insurance in general - all too often, this leads to corruption/stealing (Medicare as an example)

I would like to add to this post that New Orleans is 4-8 feet below sea level. I believe in disaster relief, but would not have authorized rebuilding anything below sea level. The city needs to be raised 8 feet first. After that, start planning for Global Warming seal level increases. Common sense and reason should always be the first step, irregardless of how sympathetic we are to the plight of citizens affected by huge disaster.
 
I would like to add to this post that New Orleans is 4-8 feet below sea level. I believe in disaster relief, but would not have authorized rebuilding anything below sea level. The city needs to be raised 8 feet first. After that, start planning for Global Warming seal level increases. Common sense and reason should always be the first step, irregardless of how sympathetic we are to the plight of citizens affected by huge disaster.

They can't very well raise the city eight feet.
 
The country is based on a system of law, not values and qualities. Law is what seperates from dictatorship.

I agree. Intelligent, consistent, pragmatic, and fair laws are essential for the improving and security of a country or nation. However, I think if you read through what I posted I had stepped back and generalized to civilization as a concept for a society of human beings.
 
I think something not being appreciated is that ports, ports, places that unload ships which import and export vital resources to and from the US and the rest of the world would be nonviable according to the narrow focus and views I see put forth as solutions. Venice sure is in trouble, they need to lift the city up more than 8 feet. Shared resources to protect and guard the citizens in adversity on an extreme scale is just what the Unity of the States is for.
 
Last edited:
Im referring to H.R. 1 which, which in addition to spending 650 billion on defense, adds another 60 billion in specific funding related to natural disasters. My answer is no. First off, the federal govt does not have the power to spend money on flood insurance, transportation other than post roads, housing, flooding or small business loans. Second, it is individuals responsibility first to avoid risk from nature, and if deciding to take that risk, to cover their losses when damages occur (with local govt or charity if they choose). Third, the country is already borrowing a trillion dollars a year. If people want it to spend money on this, they should raise the revenue seperately through a special tax or cut spending to cover the additional spending. Fourth, this should not be bundled with the defense appropriations. It is not germane and it puts pressure on representatives to play political games.

To put it another way, if the govt succeeds in raising taxes on the rich, that additional revenue will already be spent by this one bill.

I get all that but president has been set at this point. Its unfair to North Easterners if we turn our backs on them when we helped Katrina and other storm victims. Plus, the North East pays a disproportionate amount of money to the federal government in taxes due to concentration of higher tax revenue coming in from that part of America. IMHO its only fair. They helped when other parts of the country needed assistance, its time to return the favor. Gosh, I just wish we had more funding available as a nation and individually.
 
Sorry, precedent. I'm the king of typos. :screwy
 
I get all that but president has been set at this point. Its unfair to North Easterners if we turn our backs on them when we helped Katrina and other storm victims. Plus, the North East pays a disproportionate amount of money to the federal government in taxes due to concentration of higher tax revenue coming in from that part of America. IMHO its only fair. They helped when other parts of the country needed assistance, its time to return the favor. Gosh, I just wish we had more funding available as a nation and individually.

You have to start somewhere. I choose this event, or the next one, or the last one. I argue the same thing every time. Disaster aid is unconstitutional and unnecessary.
 
You have to start somewhere. I choose this event, or the next one, or the last one. I argue the same thing every time. Disaster aid is unconstitutional and unnecessary.

Getting an education helps. Still that doesn't offer aid in " Act of God" events. A comprehensive federal response does.
 
Hurricane Sandy was a tragic disaster that killed many people, destroyed homes and businesses. If the money went to them I would support aid, however that's never the case with FEMA. Federal agencies are never reliable with helping these people, and shouldn't be rewarded.

Any definite proof that FEMA is not relieable.??...Or is this just another opinion thing...parroting RL, H of Fox and the ilk.
And why should FEMA be "rewarded" or not rewarded ??
Its their job to distribute funds..
A thank you would suffice.
 
You have to start somewhere. I choose this event, or the next one, or the last one. I argue the same thing every time. Disaster aid is unconstitutional and unnecessary.

When the Constitution was written, NOT ONE WORD as to disasters, one way or the other...
Un-necessary ??
Tell that to the ones who lost everything, including wives and children..
Or do you believe that the Church should handle all of this charity work ??
 
When the Constitution was written, NOT ONE WORD as to disasters, one way or the other...
Un-necessary ??
Tell that to the ones who lost everything, including wives and children..
Or do you believe that the Church should handle all of this charity work ??

I choose to tell the ones who lost everything that illegaly taking money from citizens to pay them is no better than not leaving them to their own devices. As I said in the op, your property is your problem, not mine or anyone elses.
 
When the Constitution was written, NOT ONE WORD as to disasters, one way or the other...
Un-necessary ??
Tell that to the ones who lost everything, including wives and children..
Or do you believe that the Church should handle all of this charity work ??

Well apparently you're on the side of the aisle who attacked Mitt Romney for trying to gather up stuff to send to people.....I bet people who lost all their possession wouldn't mind some more clothes now, but hey, the Red Cross (which is a charity) and FEMA will take care of it is what we were told.
 
Any definite proof that FEMA is not relieable.??...Or is this just another opinion thing...parroting RL, H of Fox and the ilk.
And why should FEMA be "rewarded" or not rewarded ??
Its their job to distribute funds..
A thank you would suffice.

I would encourage any support going to the victims, my school even took a trip to give aid by cleaning houses. When it comes to FEMA, I never said they wouldn't help I said they aren't reliable. FEMA easily runs short of funding and resources, and didn't even prioritize Sandy over the zombie prevention convention in San Diego. By rewards, I mean government funding.
 
I would encourage any support going to the victims, my school even took a trip to give aid by cleaning houses. When it comes to FEMA, I never said they wouldn't help I said they aren't reliable. FEMA easily runs short of funding and resources, and didn't even prioritize Sandy over the zombie prevention convention in San Diego. By rewards, I mean government funding.

Not to mention the federal flood insurance program that many of these home owners bought into cant even afford to pay out. So I guess the govt insurance program needs insurance against itself.
 
Back
Top Bottom