Axe FEMA, Romney Says — as Sandy Looms

Educate me? You are saying the entire financial crisis in Greece is related to government providing healthcare and a social safety net and you need to educate me?

 

Greece hit the skids because nobody wanted to pay taxes.
Sound familiar?

 

Indeed it does. We have the same bottom feeding losers here insisting on continuing to get a free ride at the expense of others, like Greece.

Thanks for pointing that out, excellent point.

 

No it doesn't, the state and local authorities are far better trained and equipped and organized to handle such matters. Emergency funds are fine but then the feds come in and try to run things and that is where they get screwed up. Barber and Riley both did fantastic jobs in our states.

 

Not before the Democrats start claiming Sandy will be the reason Obama loses the election.

 

And there he goes again with his misrepresentation of the facts.

And hit bottom the month he moved over to the White House and began rebounding. The recession ended in June of 2009, here it is July of 2012 and the economy is still horrible and unemployment is still horrible.

Neither at acceptable levels to grow the economy and grow the labor market, GDP is falling, lower than last year and last year lower than the year before.

Still below the preivious high when he was a Senator in a Democrat controlled congress.

He didn't the military and the intelligences did, now his bragging about it has cost lives.

23 million Americans without jobs or underemployed in the worst period of unemployment since the depression.

The military and the intelligence agenices got them.

Led from behind and the country is a disaster now with our Ambassador killed and the administration in an cover up and lying about it to the American people.

Vote against the last Republican/Bush budget with a deficit of only $161 billion, supported and voted for the Pelosi/Reid budget of 2008 and supported and voted for the 2009 budget and signed it into law as President. First President to have TRILLION dollar deficits, more that twice as high as any Bush/Republican deficit and has had them all 4 years of his term as President.

Bush won the war with Iraq and Obama followed his lead to get the rest of the troops out.

And still hasn't reached the peak during Bush's term.

Not even enough to keep up with population growth and the worse unemployment record of any President since the depression.

It that weren't so laughable, or foreign policy is in shambles and the Administration is up to it's eyeballs in a cover up.

On private lands with nothing to do with Obama, down 14% on public land.

Costing each family an additional $2400 a year and no meaningful decline in the uninsured.

Unemployment rate climbed from 4.5% to over 10% after Obama and the Democrats took over Congress, climbed from 7.5% to over 10% after he moved to the White House, stayed at over 8% for over 40 months and real rate still over 10% when accounting for the numbers who have just given up.

That has created even bigger banks to big to fail and has done nothing to grow the economy.

Supported and voted for and signed the biggest increase in spending in our history, voted for that budget and the one before it which had the previous record.

Because of the economic slump and declining incomes. Gas prices hitting record highs, price doubled since taking office.

Redundant, see above.

Yes, ask the wealthy to pay some more to the treasury. I asked why he hasn't done this already and you keep dodging it.

 

I disagree.

Having multiple state level agencies trying to coordinate with each other in addition to taking care of disaster relief add a level of unnecessary work. One agency coordinating it seems to be the more logical approach.

 

Exactly. Especially at a time the Govt is $16 trillion in debt, it is outrageous that guys like Romney pay only 14% in taxes, less than a typical middle class family, at the expense of others. Like Greece.

Thanks for pointing that out, excellent point.

 

And once again, you've failed to prove one fact I cited is wrong.

 

I disagree from decades of experience. The feds are the outsiders, they don't know the people, they don't know the places, they don't have the resource on site, they don't have the trained manpower on site.

Why is it liberals always think the federal government workers and better than state and local government workers. The states don't need the feds getting in-between them and slowing the process and dictating things they are not equipped to dictate.

 

Sure I have, such as

o Turned around an economy that was tanking at a -9% rate and shedding 700,000+ jobs a month

The job losses bottom out the month he took office and had receded dramatically before even the first minor part of his stimulus went into effect, he "turned around" nothing and his policies have kept us out of a full recovery for almost 4 years now.

But primarily it's the context and conclusions you present that are wrong as I prove over and over and over.

And once again you can't refute what I posted to disprove your claims that he has been a successful President such as

Voted against the last Republican/Bush budget with a deficit of only $161 billion, supported and voted for the Pelosi/Reid budget of 2008 and supported and voted for the 2009 budget and signed it into law as President. First President to have TRILLION dollar deficits, more that twice as high as any Bush/Republican deficit and has had them all 4 years of his term as President.

Prove it wrong.

 

When Obama took office, the economy was tanking at a -9% real rate, losing 700,000+ jobs a month, unemployment was skyrocketing upward, and the stock markets were crashing in the worst recession in 80 years. The housing market was destroyed and the economy was headed straight for a depression.

But now the economy has been growing steadily for over three straight years, the private sector has added more jobs every month for 32 months in a row, stock markets are up over 100% from their recession lows, the unemployment rate has fallen from above 10% to 7.8%, and over 4.7 million additional private sector jobs have been added since Jan 2010.

And this despite an obstructionist Tea Party Republican party whose stated top priority is not to work with the president to improve the economy but get him out of office.

Only those invested in failure for political purposes would claim the economy didn't turn around.

 

I disagree because I have one more year of knowledge than you no matter how many years you claim, which in turn would mean my opinion of centralized coordination instead of 17 different networks makes more sense.

Sound fair?

 

The basic flaw in arguments made in this thread is assuming FEMA independently conducts operations. Quite the contrary, state governments call upon the organization in times of natural disaster. In other words, FEMA is subject to we the people, not the other way around. The problem, therefore, is reforming the agency to improve reaction time, and assistance effectiveness.

 

Parroting it doesn't disprove what I stated, try again

The job losses bottom out the month he took office and had receded dramatically before even the first minor part of his stimulus went into effect, he "turned around" nothing and his policies have kept us out of a full recovery for almost 4 years now.

See above.

See above, TARP was already in place and had stopped us from going into a depression thank you George Bush, and in almost 4 years Obama has failed to turn around the housing market and put it back into a strong growth curve.

At a horribly low rate and this year's economic growth is slower than last years, and last years slower than the year before.

Prove it wrong.

At a horribly low rate, not even enough to keep up with population grow and labor participation rates are at the lowest since the Depression.

Prove it wrong.

And still not back at the highs they were.

Prove it wrong.

Real unemployment when allotting for the numbers who have dropped out of the workforce because of a lack of jobs is still over 10% and 7.8% is still horribly high for this many months after the recession ended.

Prove it wrong.

Even if that number were true not enough to keep up with population growth and horribly low for a recovery period when unemployment hit double digits, unemployment rate still horribly high.

Civilian labor force

Jan 2009 154236
Sept 2012 155063
Net 827

And this despite an obstructionist Tea Party Republican party whose stated top priority is not to work with the president to improve the economy but get him out of office.

Only those invested in a failed President for political purposes would claim we've had a great economy and Obama's policies have produced one.

 

Typical pathetic LIB view. 'Mommy always looked after me. The Liberal Indoctrination Centers I occasionally attended when I wasn't 'loaded' (bc mommy and daddy brought me up to think that getting 'loaded' on a school day was 'Kool') taught me to believe 'we all get a trophy'. Now when the chips are down what's the first thing the LIBs do? Run to mommy's teat. AKA the Obama's government. And that my friends is why every LIB in the country is considered a loser by REPs who were raised to be self reliant.

 

It proves the economy turned around.

Completely false.

Non-response.

Prove that it had stopped us from going into a depression, and that obama's policies did not reduce the effect of the recession.

Yet since his the economy turned around, growth under Obama has been better than it averaged under Bush.

Since Obama took office, there has been a net gain of over 500,000 private sector jobs At this point in Bush's term, there was a net loss of 1.5 million private sector jobs.

What sould be far worse than "horribly"?

LOL what a joke you are. You make baseless statements and then demand others "prove it wrong". Prove you own BS.

Which Bush didn't get to until his 6th year in office.

Changing the goal post. Unemployment is not calculated that way.

The Unemployment rate is now the same as when Obama took office. At this point in Bush's term it was 1.2 percentage points higher.

What is far worse than "horribly"?

Who claimed that?

Back to fabrication again, eh?

 

Everyone needs federal disaster help; even neocons have their hands out when the midwest is devastated by tornadoes.

 

Ending FEMA means the Feds can still assist the States they just wont be in charge. Simple concept.

 

I guess my simple logic didnt leave much wiggle room for the forums spinsters. Sorry i killed the thread guys.

 

ROFL , modigying your postition? What happened to your claim that OBAMA turned it around?

Prove it.

Why do I have to repeat once again the fact that the recession ended in June, the month the first provision of his stimulus went out, the small rebate checks. The job losses as you know bottomed out and turned around the month he took office and had a major improvement BEFORE the above mentioned rebates went out. He turned around nothing as you falsely claimed, he has hindered if not down right prevented a full economic recovery and a jobs recovery. People are suffering because of his policies.

Prove that by the shear power of his taking the oath of office caused the economy to turn around and that we didn't go into a depression.

Prove it then, prove that after the economy turned around under Bush the economy grew slower than under Obama. Prover that the unemployment rate has been lower. Prove that we have taken in substantially more revenues and that revenues have increased more since the Bush turn around and the Obama turn around. I mean don't you think that if you are going to baseline Obama at the point of the turnaround you should do the same for Bush?

Prove the unemployment rate has been lower under Obama than Bush. Prove more people are working now than when Bush was President. Prove people are on unemployment for shorter terms. Prove incomes are up.
Explain why it is better to have high unemployment so you have to create a lot of new jobs rather than to have full employment so you don't have to create a lot of new jobs? Why do you support Obama's way, the former, over the Bush way, the latter?

I repeat at a horribly low rate, not even enough to keep up with population grow and labor participation rates are at the lowest since the Depression. Why do you believe that is a success?

Yep you couldn't refute it

Yes he came it at the beginning of his slowdown and recession and then got hit with 9/11 9 months in. Obama came in on the end of his and no 9/11.

Bush, highest deficit $400B highest unemployment 6.5%
Obama highest deficit $1,400B over three times as much - highest unemployment 10% almost twice as high.

Bush hit $400 then borought down for the next three years to a measly $161B.
Obama hit $1,400B brought it down to $1,300B and kept it at $1,300B

And you claim Obama was more successfully, how laughable.

One of the measures is, but you can't deny lots of economist make the calculation and if it were not for the numbers of people who have given up looking the rate would be over 10%. You know the Obama unemployment policy, just put people on government assistance and don't count them anymore. What folly.

Me>> Even if that number were true not enough to keep up with population growth and horribly low for a recovery period when unemployment hit double digits, unemployment rate still horribly high.

Civilian labor force

Jan 2009 154236
Sept 2012 155063
Net 827

And since it is because so many have stopped looking why do you present that as a success? And so much for your claim about new jobs.
. At this point in Bush's term it was 1.2 percentage points higher.

I did, like you made your claim.

ROFL, how does one fabrication what they themselves say................you are making no sense.

 

Romney makes a good point and the timing is all due to democrats that are using this natural disaster to make political points. Who is surprised? If he changed his view of course you would be kicking him for flip flopping. So who is fooled by this?

Seems sensible. How did we ever survive before FEMA? It seems like a mystery to me.

I imagine Massachusetts
would best manage their own business and so would Maine, North Carolina, W. Virginia etc. do likewise.

What's utterly and stupidly left out of all this is the context of Romney's comments...a national government that is absolutely out of money. Could not West Virginia shepard and direct their money from the dismemberment of FEMA much better than the massive and
bureaucracy happy federal government (as exemplified by FEMA)?

BINGO!
"Imperfect" hardly captures the wasteful, inefficient Keystone Cops mismanagement we saw during Hurricane Katrina. But this gives an idea: http://www.wanttoknow.info/femafailureskatrina

Of course! FEMA under Bush...bad. FEMA under Obama...good. It's so simple.
The pictures of empty lined up buses and FEMA trailers, row after row just sitting there during Katrina...these were widely ridiculed
when Bush was in office. Now FEMA has miraculously transformed itself somehow. Implausible is the word.

This is what the election is all about! Finally agreement.

Barack Obama believes in limitless power and wealth concentrated in the hands of Big Centralized Government (to the point that we are out of money and borrow most of what we spend). Romney sees the foolishness in this and the limitations that even Big Government must acknowledge.
Like it or not, Romney's vision of delegating power back to the states is the wave of the future, by absolute necessity.

 

I disagree entirely.

One agency overseeing it is much more efficient than 51 different agencies.

 

There's more than one way to get things done. Some beleive the best way is the federal gov't and some believe the best way is state and local. I see nothing wrong with considering another way.....IF it can be proven it's the better way.

 

yea, the idea that 51 individual plans is better then 1 overarching one is ridiculous on its face. Add to that theDiplomats post about FEMA shows that their are a few people on here who seem to be arguing for the sake of pushing the OBAMA BAD narrative.