Axe FEMA, Romney Says — as Sandy Looms

Really? The fraud and corruption are all over the web. Do a search. Google it!

 

yes, really

 

Actually that is how it sort of works now but FEMA gets in the way many times. FEMA is a lazy 800 pound gorilla that lays in the way of progress. It is much an authority issue.

Think of the US and nothing more than the EU with better organization at the upper level.

Show me the lies in this statement. Prove I lied! You brought it up so back it up!

 

I don't find it odd that you run from your own logic when the fallacy of it was shown.

 

And yet he can't explain why then we shouldn't have one big national fire department, one big national police department, one big nation EMT department. Imagine all those thousands of departments running so much more efficiently as one if we are to believe his logic.

 

Originally Posted by Yosh Shmenge
What reasoning? You've merely asserted, over and over again, that one massive bureaucratic agency is better than individual state agencies. If that's true, and there is no reason to believe it is, then you haven't shown why.

The distinction being what?

 

Balony! A fire sweeps across Montana and into Idaho (let's suppose). How are Montana's goals, needs, strategies going to be significantly different than Idaho's?
They aren't! They both have a common goal that they both will be working towards in nearly identical ways.

That's the way it is now, isn't it? Every state has it's own emergency responder agencies. With FEMA gone these states will
merely be empowered to do more of what it is they already do.

That's not my premise at all and in fact I've already posted about mutual cooperation between states where disasters ignore state boundries and how it will be in Montana's best interests to aid neighbors fighting a mutual threat. Start looking it up.

Every state will lead...it's own efforts in it's own state.
I hardly think there will be anywhere that will miss the sort of confused incompetence we saw in New Orleans by FEMA and with billions of dollars tied up in a bungling bureaucracy that could be sent instead to states and put to better use I fail to see where FEMA, save for the money they hold hostage from the states, would be missed at all.

 

And following FEMA we can also cut Homeleand Security, TSA, and funding to useless organizations like planned parenthood, PBS, and a whole host of others that can get private funding or go the (*)(*)(*)(*) away.

 

And then multi-millionaires and billionaires and trust fund babies will have more money to stick in the secret offshore accounts. Yay!

 

Na, the cons have plans for that money....WWIII.

 

Well, I see you never had any experience with organizational management before. Ah well, lets expand your premise then. A fire starts in Western Montana. Now Montana as a state has x number of resources. Lets also say that Montana has more resources than Idaho. And then you have meterological factors such as how strong the wind is blowing, whether or not there are chances of rain in the forecast and so forth. We have wind blowing approximately 15 to 20 mph in a westerly by northwesterly direction. Let us also say that the fire started approximately 75 miles north by northwest of Helena. Now Montana has a budget of x dollars to cope with emergency disasters while Idaho has a much lower budget of y dollars. Furthermore, because Montana has more resources than Idaho, Montana has more options in case of emergencies like a fire. Paying for fire equipment is expensive and that is something that is not within Idaho's budget for emergency management.

As the fire grows and sweeps across western montana, Montana will want to make sure that it does very little damage to its territory. Montana has little concern and interest on how it will affect other states since that is not within the jurisdiction of Montana. The resources used will meet the goal of montana to quelch the fire within montana even though no one has control of the weather or direction of the fire. When the fire sweeps into the Idaho panadle, Idaho's resources would be to let the fire die out natually whereas Montana took a more active, and more expensive approach to move the fire away from Montana Soil. Then enter Washington State which now is threatened by the fire in its northeastern corner of the state. Now you have a third state that might be affected by the fire because you have two different set of criteria from two different states.

In the example under your premise, each state has a different set of priorities, different budget, and different methods of handling a fire that was sweeping across the northern plains. Lets take it a step further. If we took each state and their priorites on emergency management, some states might have a high priority, like Florida, while some states have a low priority like Idaho. If we assume that the ranking of priorities is the amount of money available, then you can see that every state has different resources to cope with whatever disaster that might happen. A fire in montana or idaho will only come in late spring to early fall. But these state's priorities for emergency management is not fire, but winter storms with both states having sparse populations in rual areas but one state, Montana, having more valuable property, those oil and natural gas fields to protect. Idaho's panhandle has no such claim, nor does the state in any great quantity. .

Actually it is Yosh

First you state that each state has the same goal with emergency management and then you state that every state will lead, which presumes that every state will do its own thing, have its own goals, priorities, budgets, etc. Can you make up your mind?

As for Katrina, it failed on every level. But just a year prior, in a state called Florida, where four hurricanes slammed into that state, FEMA did pretty well. FEMA also did well in the Mississippi flooding, and most other storms. And it appears that most states were ready when Sandy hit.

But in natural disasters, mistakes are made and that is inevitable such as Hurrican Andrew in 1992 or Hurricane Gloria, I think its gloria, in 1961. In those events, learning from those mistakes is far better than what you propose in any day of the week.

 

Well, I see you never had any experience with organizational management before. Ah well, lets expand your premise then. A fire starts in Western Montana. Now Montana as a state has x number of resources. Lets also say that Montana has more resources than Idaho. And then you have meterological factors such as how strong the wind is blowing, whether or not there are chances of rain in the forecast and so forth. We have wind blowing approximately 15 to 20 mph in a westerly by northwesterly direction. Let us also say that the fire started approximately 75 miles north by northwest of Helena. Now Montana has a budget of x dollars to cope with emergency disasters while Idaho has a much lower budget of y dollars. Furthermore, because Montana has more resources than Idaho, Montana has more options in case of emergencies like a fire. Paying for fire equipment is expensive and that is something that is not within Idaho's budget for emergency management.

As the fire grows and sweeps across western montana, Montana will want to make sure that it does very little damage to its territory. Montana has little concern and interest on how it will affect other states since that is not within the jurisdiction of Montana. The resources used will meet the goal of montana to quelch the fire within montana even though no one has control of the weather or direction of the fire. When the fire sweeps into the Idaho panadle, Idaho's resources would be to let the fire die out natually whereas Montana took a more active, and more expensive approach to move the fire away from Montana Soil. Then enter Washington State which now is threatened by the fire in its northeastern corner of the state. Now you have a third state that might be affected by the fire because you have two different set of criteria from two different states.

In the example under your premise, each state has a different set of priorities, different budget, and different methods of handling a fire that was sweeping across the northern plains. Lets take it a step further. If we took each state and their priorites on emergency management, some states might have a high priority, like Florida, while some states have a low priority like Idaho. If we assume that the ranking of priorities is the amount of money available, then you can see that every state has different resources to cope with whatever disaster that might happen. A fire in montana or idaho will only come in late spring to early fall. But these state's priorities for emergency management is not fire, but winter storms with both states having sparse populations in rual areas but one state, Montana, having more valuable property, those oil and natural gas fields to protect. Idaho's panhandle has no such claim, nor does the state in any great quantity. .

Actually it is Yosh

First you state that each state has the same goal with emergency management and then you state that every state will lead, which presumes that every state will do its own thing, have its own goals, priorities, budgets, etc. Can you make up your mind?

As for Katrina, it failed on every level. But just a year prior, in a state called Florida, where four hurricanes slammed into that state, FEMA did pretty well. FEMA also did well in the Mississippi flooding, and most other storms. And it appears that most states were ready when Sandy hit.

But in natural disasters, mistakes are made and that is inevitable such as Hurrican Andrew in 1992 or Hurricane Gloria, I think its gloria, in 1961. In those events, learning from those mistakes is far better than what you propose in any day of the week.

 

Originally Posted by Never Left
And following FEMA we can also cut Homeleand Security, TSA, and funding to useless organizations like planned parenthood, PBS, and a whole host of others that can get private funding or go the (*)(*)(*)(*) away.

How did you make that leap?

 

And there you have why con voters can't figure it out. Con voters all have the same mentality as Major Frank Burns. They think they're smart, but don't have a clue. And that's what makes them so dangerous.

 

Originally Posted by Bluesguy
Originally Posted by Never Left
And following FEMA we can also cut Homeleand Security, TSA, and funding to useless organizations like planned parenthood, PBS, and a whole host of others that can get private funding or go the (*)(*)(*)(*) away.


How did you make that leap?

So all you really have are platitudes and bromides, nothing of substance to say........................gotcha

 

This is a fact; Homeland Security is handing out cash grants all across the nation for communities to hire fire and police personnel and teachers. Obviously these are not HS responsibilities. Therefore, I can only assume that HS is basically laundering taxpayer cash to force job creation in these areas. It's 100% smoke & mirrors government management. This enables local and state governments to slack off, to not demand taxation to support government services, while the federal government uses debt money to create jobs...this is such BS I could strangle Obama and others who have zero transparency and zero accountability...

 

Wow Frank, that was really witty!