Aa
Romney says Shut Down Federal Disaster Agency
Mitt Romney In GOP Debate: Shut Down Federal Disaster Agency, Send Responsibility To The States
During a CNN debate at the height of the GOP primary, Mitt Romney was asked, in the context of the Joplin disaster and FEMA's cash crunch, whether the agency should be shuttered so that states can individually take over responsibility for disaster response.
"Absolutely," he said. "Every time you have an occasion to take something from the federal government and send it back to the states, that's the right direction. And if you can go even further, and send it back to the private sector, that's even better. Instead of thinking, in the federal budget, what we should cut, we should ask the opposite question, what should we keep?"
"Including disaster relief, though?" debate moderator John King asked Romney.
"We cannot -- we cannot afford to do those things without jeopardizing the future for our kids," Romney replied. "It is simply immoral, in my view, for us to continue to rack up larger and larger debts and pass them on to our kids, knowing full well that we'll all be dead and gone before it's paid off. It makes no sense at all."
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/10/28/mitt-romney-fema_n_2036198.html
During a CNN debate at the height of the GOP primary, Mitt Romney was asked, in the context of the Joplin disaster and FEMA's cash crunch, whether the agency should be shuttered so that states can individually take over responsibility for disaster response.
"Absolutely," he said. "Every time you have an occasion to take something from the federal government and send it back to the states, that's the right direction. And if you can go even further, and send it back to the private sector, that's even better. Instead of thinking, in the federal budget, what we should cut, we should ask the opposite question, what should we keep?"
"Including disaster relief, though?" debate moderator John King asked Romney.
"We cannot -- we cannot afford to do those things without jeopardizing the future for our kids," Romney replied. "It is simply immoral, in my view, for us to continue to rack up larger and larger debts and pass them on to our kids, knowing full well that we'll all be dead and gone before it's paid off. It makes no sense at all."
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/10/28/mitt-romney-fema_n_2036198.html
So far, this storm is far less than was forecasted. Airports opening today, and it was what, almost 2 weeks or longer before civilian air travel after Katrina?
lol
http://thinkprogress.org/election/2012/10/28/1102471/romney-ryan-disaster-relief/?mobile=nc
I just copied and pasted Mike's link in case you didn't read it the first time.
Here is something to think about while we watch Hurricane Sandy morph into a perfect storm, what if there was no federal disaster relief? What if states were left to fend for themselves?
These questions may sound absurd right now, but they won’t be if Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan are elected next Tuesday. In June 2011, Romney went on the record as opposing federal disaster relief, “Every time you have an occasion to take something from the federal government and send it back to the states, that’s the right direction. And if you can go even further and send it back to the private sector, that’s even better. [...] We cannot — we cannot afford to do those things without jeopardizing the future for our kids. It is simply immoral, in my view, for us to continue to rack up larger and larger debts and pass them on to our kids, knowing full well that we’ll all be dead and gone before it’s paid off. It makes no sense at all.” Romney also wants to privatize the Federal Emergency Management Agency.
"That was mentioned, generally speaking, in related to people not being prepared, and yes, not being accountable. You've taken it to a new level."
No, those statements are innuendos meant to detract from the need for Federal assistance and to water down Obama's effectiveness.
I am focused on this disaster for OBVIOUS reasons-what we are going to talk about the need something not pertinent, while the Hurricane is bearing down on the East?
Not off base at all.
So the promises the President promised back on the trail in 2008 are acceptable? Completely excusable? I got it...
And Bush w/ Katrina....? Everyone here knows that was a debacle. We gad damned well better have learned something from Katrina... I bet you this, rivll..... there are people in FEMA that were there during the Bush administration. You'd better run and hide..... FEMA was so bad under Bush, and there are still people with FEMA that were there when Bush was in, that your life is in jeopardy. No, not from this storm, but for the fact that Bush era FEMA employees still exist....
RUN FOR THE HILL'S ALL AMERICANS.....ALL AMERICANS AND CANADIANS ON THEIR EAST COST.... BUSH ERA FEMA EMPLOYEES ARE GONNA KILL US ALL!!!! RUN!!!!
And Bush w/ Katrina....? Everyone here knows that was a debacle. We gad damned well better have learned something from Katrina... I bet you this, rivll..... there are people in FEMA that were there during the Bush administration. You'd better run and hide..... FEMA was so bad under Bush, and there are still people with FEMA that were there when Bush was in, that your life is in jeopardy. No, not from this storm, but for the fact that Bush era FEMA employees still exist....
RUN FOR THE HILL'S ALL AMERICANS.....ALL AMERICANS AND CANADIANS ON THEIR EAST COST.... BUSH ERA FEMA EMPLOYEES ARE GONNA KILL US ALL!!!! RUN!!!!
Now he's not cutting funds...LOL..This guy is something else!....
Would Romney abolish FEMA? His campaign says no
http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/romney-abolish-fema-campaign-says-no-202301419--election.html?_esi=0&nopharma=1
DAVENPORT, Iowa—As Hurricane Sandy bears down on the East Coast, Mitt Romney's campaign is pushing back against suggestions that he wants to abolish the Federal Emergency Management Agency—insisting that he would simply prefer to see states take a greater role in disaster relief.
At a GOP primary debate in June 2011, Romney, when asked about FEMA's budget woes and how he would deal with it, had said, "Every time you have an occasion to take something from the federal government and send it back to the states, that's the right direction. And if you can go even further and send it back to the private sector, that's even better."
During that debate, the moderator, CNN's John King, had gone on to ask if that included "disaster relief." Romney suggested it did.
The Center for American Progress, a liberal group, called attention to Romney's remarks in an email to reporters on Sunday.
Asked for clarification today, Romney spokeswoman Amanda Henneberg said the GOP nominee wasn't implying he would get rid of FEMA, but rather that he simply wants states to play a greater role in disaster response.
"Gov. Romney believes that states should be in charge of emergency management in responding to storms and other natural disasters in their jurisdictions," Henneberg said. "As the first responders, states are in the best position to aid affected individuals and communities, and to direct resources and assistance to where they are needed most. This includes help from the federal government and FEMA."
[Related: Get your local weather forecast]
Romney has proposed a budget that includes across-the-board cuts on federal programs, with the exception of defense and entitlement programs, as a way of curbing the growing federal deficit. But he has not said specifically where those cuts would be. Asked if FEMA's budget could be on the list for potential cuts, Henneberg did not comment.
Romney has publicly supported a House GOP budget bill drafted by his running mate, Rep. Paul Ryan, that called for greater efficiency in federal disaster relief spending.
The debate over FEMA funding could be revived in coming days amid predictions that Hurricane Sandy could cause massive power outage and damage in its path.
Would Romney abolish FEMA? His campaign says no
http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/romney-abolish-fema-campaign-says-no-202301419--election.html?_esi=0&nopharma=1
DAVENPORT, Iowa—As Hurricane Sandy bears down on the East Coast, Mitt Romney's campaign is pushing back against suggestions that he wants to abolish the Federal Emergency Management Agency—insisting that he would simply prefer to see states take a greater role in disaster relief.
At a GOP primary debate in June 2011, Romney, when asked about FEMA's budget woes and how he would deal with it, had said, "Every time you have an occasion to take something from the federal government and send it back to the states, that's the right direction. And if you can go even further and send it back to the private sector, that's even better."
During that debate, the moderator, CNN's John King, had gone on to ask if that included "disaster relief." Romney suggested it did.
The Center for American Progress, a liberal group, called attention to Romney's remarks in an email to reporters on Sunday.
Asked for clarification today, Romney spokeswoman Amanda Henneberg said the GOP nominee wasn't implying he would get rid of FEMA, but rather that he simply wants states to play a greater role in disaster response.
"Gov. Romney believes that states should be in charge of emergency management in responding to storms and other natural disasters in their jurisdictions," Henneberg said. "As the first responders, states are in the best position to aid affected individuals and communities, and to direct resources and assistance to where they are needed most. This includes help from the federal government and FEMA."
[Related: Get your local weather forecast]
Romney has proposed a budget that includes across-the-board cuts on federal programs, with the exception of defense and entitlement programs, as a way of curbing the growing federal deficit. But he has not said specifically where those cuts would be. Asked if FEMA's budget could be on the list for potential cuts, Henneberg did not comment.
Romney has publicly supported a House GOP budget bill drafted by his running mate, Rep. Paul Ryan, that called for greater efficiency in federal disaster relief spending.
The debate over FEMA funding could be revived in coming days amid predictions that Hurricane Sandy could cause massive power outage and damage in its path.
Wow.
I didn't realize this thread was strictly about the current situation, I thought it was about FEMA and handling disaster relief in general, which is what we discussed.
I'll say it out loud, because it seems, that us NOT saying it was presumed to mean something very sinister.
I am pleased that the gov't officials, including Pres Obama seem to have a good handle on how they are approaching this disaster, and I wish them nothing but success in doing so, and I pray for the people who will be affected by this. I don't care who's in office, I pray for them during these difficult times.
For the record:
I am speaking of how Obama has worked on FEMA and how they seem to be doing a really good job preparing the folks for this disaster.
will rally behind my President without apology. I know that the people here are good people but that too is beside the point.
I don't know why it is so hard for someone to say something like "I am for Romney but I am happy that Obama seems on top of this" or "I am so glad that I will have some help if my insurance doesn't cover the tree that just went through my house"
Obviously, YOU assumed this thread was all about this current disaster. Maybe I'm blind, but really, until your comments, none of us, on either side were really referencing Sandy.
You've taken great offense to us not saying anything like you've mentioned above. This thread was a general discussion, not about this specific situation, and if you think any of us would wish anything but the above, then you're REALLY wrong. REALLY wrong.
Yeah, yeah yeah- we all know some ppl don't take things seriously-geez like the poor people caught in Katrina who lost their homes...stupid ppl for living there in the first place, right?
Stop looking for reasons to blame the "slackers" for everything on God's green earth that goes wrong and I will be a little nicer about Romney wanting to throw a huge segment of the population under the bus. .
That was mentioned, generally speaking, in related to people not being prepared, and yes, not being accountable. You've taken it to a new level.
Sorry rivil, but you're way off base here.
I didn't realize this thread was strictly about the current situation, I thought it was about FEMA and handling disaster relief in general, which is what we discussed.
I'll say it out loud, because it seems, that us NOT saying it was presumed to mean something very sinister.
I am pleased that the gov't officials, including Pres Obama seem to have a good handle on how they are approaching this disaster, and I wish them nothing but success in doing so, and I pray for the people who will be affected by this. I don't care who's in office, I pray for them during these difficult times.
For the record:
I am speaking of how Obama has worked on FEMA and how they seem to be doing a really good job preparing the folks for this disaster.
will rally behind my President without apology. I know that the people here are good people but that too is beside the point.
I don't know why it is so hard for someone to say something like "I am for Romney but I am happy that Obama seems on top of this" or "I am so glad that I will have some help if my insurance doesn't cover the tree that just went through my house"
Obviously, YOU assumed this thread was all about this current disaster. Maybe I'm blind, but really, until your comments, none of us, on either side were really referencing Sandy.
You've taken great offense to us not saying anything like you've mentioned above. This thread was a general discussion, not about this specific situation, and if you think any of us would wish anything but the above, then you're REALLY wrong. REALLY wrong.
Yeah, yeah yeah- we all know some ppl don't take things seriously-geez like the poor people caught in Katrina who lost their homes...stupid ppl for living there in the first place, right?
Stop looking for reasons to blame the "slackers" for everything on God's green earth that goes wrong and I will be a little nicer about Romney wanting to throw a huge segment of the population under the bus. .
That was mentioned, generally speaking, in related to people not being prepared, and yes, not being accountable. You've taken it to a new level.
Sorry rivil, but you're way off base here.
7 % is huge.
On now Rivil dear, do you consider 47% huge ???
I am not talking about the 2008 election. You are off topic.
I am talking about right now, what is happening with the hurricane and the President's response to it.
There are many issues about both men we can agree and disagree about. I am speaking of how Obama has worked on FEMA and how they seem to be doing a really good job preparing the folks for this disaster.
I am talking about how I agree with the way Obama actually works on solutions rather than making huge cuts to services that can be life saving.
I will rally behind my President without apology. I know that the people here are good people but that too is beside the point.
Mrs P is correct that one cannot always be nice when it comes to politics.
I don't know why it is so hard for someone to say something like "I am for Romney but I am happy that Obama seems on top of this" or "I am so glad that I will have some help if my insurance doesn't cover the tree that just went through my house"
Yeah, yeah yeah- we all know some ppl don't take things seriously-geez like the poor people caught in Katrina who lost their homes...stupid ppl for living there in the first place, right?
Stop looking for reasons to blame the "slackers" for everything on God's green earth that goes wrong and I will be a little nicer about Romney wanting to throw a huge segment of the population under the bus.
I am talking about right now, what is happening with the hurricane and the President's response to it.
There are many issues about both men we can agree and disagree about. I am speaking of how Obama has worked on FEMA and how they seem to be doing a really good job preparing the folks for this disaster.
I am talking about how I agree with the way Obama actually works on solutions rather than making huge cuts to services that can be life saving.
I will rally behind my President without apology. I know that the people here are good people but that too is beside the point.
Mrs P is correct that one cannot always be nice when it comes to politics.
I don't know why it is so hard for someone to say something like "I am for Romney but I am happy that Obama seems on top of this" or "I am so glad that I will have some help if my insurance doesn't cover the tree that just went through my house"
Yeah, yeah yeah- we all know some ppl don't take things seriously-geez like the poor people caught in Katrina who lost their homes...stupid ppl for living there in the first place, right?
Stop looking for reasons to blame the "slackers" for everything on God's green earth that goes wrong and I will be a little nicer about Romney wanting to throw a huge segment of the population under the bus.
" I have long thought that folks that ignore warnings, refuse to evacuate, etc. should be held accountable for that."
In Arizona they enacted the stupid motorist law. Road there often have flash floods which are caused from the desert's poor ability to absorb water and rain coming down so fast. The law says, if you drive around a sign warning you not to enter due to flash floods and you need to be towed, you have to pay.
Makes sense to me.
In Arizona they enacted the stupid motorist law. Road there often have flash floods which are caused from the desert's poor ability to absorb water and rain coming down so fast. The law says, if you drive around a sign warning you not to enter due to flash floods and you need to be towed, you have to pay.
Makes sense to me.
Numbers... like all of the numbers these candidates are fudging up? Sure... why not.
Anecdotal evidence is using your personal experiences and stories to illustrate your point. Empirical evidence is measured, unbiased, and replicable. Yes, numbers can lie, especially if you mess up the calculations, but making conclusions based off one person’s anecdotal evidence is just dangerous.
Anecdotes are fine, just have the numbers to back them up.
http://benparr.com/2010/02/anecdotal-evidence/
Anecdotes are fine, just have the numbers to back them up.
http://benparr.com/2010/02/anecdotal-evidence/
I've got a couple of buddies that worked with FEMA in a law enforcement capacity. Neither of them had anything nice to say about the organization. So many of the trailers/emergency housing units were never used and whats worse is that most not used were destroyed.
It's waste like this that can be stopped.
Personally, each state should have a system...call it FEMA if it makes you feel better, that could be funded both on the state and federal level.
It's waste like this that can be stopped.
Personally, each state should have a system...call it FEMA if it makes you feel better, that could be funded both on the state and federal level.
As you know, I am 100% about helping those in need. People come first, always. But I have learned that the absolute best way to help someone is to assist them in becoming self sufficient, and sometimes that means facing painful lessons like being held accountable. It does not help someone to keep them dependent on the system - not ever. Now, I could not take it as far as the official Republican platform does, but as usual, I find positive elements in both your parties positions on a lot of things. Gov't should be there to help it's people....always. I see that as part of a function of gov't. But it should enable people to achieve their goals, first and foremost. So to assist people in developing an attitude of "do whatever you choose, gov't will be there" doesn't help. Don't shoot me for this...lol....I do see the Democratic Party as doing more in that direction, but that does not mean I don't see positive things in the Republican Platform either. I think the answer is probably somewhere in the middle.
I agree, amanda. Totally.
With everything you said. So little accountability anymore.
With everything you said. So little accountability anymore.
You said, "How can he make promises now when he doesnt know what is going to happen?".... Does that mean that he knew what was going to happen in 2008 when he was making promises?
"Romney's words. Sending it to the private sector means you buy disaster relief. That means those who can't afford it will go without just like those who can't afford health care will go without, under Romeny's plan. "
Over and over and over, he's said about letting the states take the reigns, with help and guidance from big brother. This is the same kind of argument like the one that he'll overturn Roe v Wade. It's a stretch, in the least.
In every other quote above, he outlines it clearly....to cut down on the costs of federal disaster relief, by allowing the states more control. He mentions "private sector" once and now we have him turning his back in the midst of a major disaster. I can't see how you can come to such an extreme conclusion.
BTW, there are also a lot of ways the private sector COULD be involved that doesn't mean not helping someone in grave danger, for goodness sake. They could help in tersm of being more fiscally responsible, and purchasing their own flood insurance, rather than expecting gov't aid for cleaning/rebuilding. That's just one example, and it's a good one...back to accountability and personal responsibility. I highly doubt people are going to be forced to start their own Red Cross organizations.
Over and over and over, he's said about letting the states take the reigns, with help and guidance from big brother. This is the same kind of argument like the one that he'll overturn Roe v Wade. It's a stretch, in the least.
In every other quote above, he outlines it clearly....to cut down on the costs of federal disaster relief, by allowing the states more control. He mentions "private sector" once and now we have him turning his back in the midst of a major disaster. I can't see how you can come to such an extreme conclusion.
BTW, there are also a lot of ways the private sector COULD be involved that doesn't mean not helping someone in grave danger, for goodness sake. They could help in tersm of being more fiscally responsible, and purchasing their own flood insurance, rather than expecting gov't aid for cleaning/rebuilding. That's just one example, and it's a good one...back to accountability and personal responsibility. I highly doubt people are going to be forced to start their own Red Cross organizations.
I can tell you one thing. I have long thought that folks that ignore warnings, refuse to evacuate, etc. should be held accountable for that. Extra lives risked by first responders and of course, the huge cost associated with a major rescue operation should absolutely be the responsibility of people who ignore warning after warning. Even on a small level. In our mountains, every single year at least a dozen or so idiots have to be rescued because they ignored out of bounds signs when skiing or hiking. We are starting to charge them back financially.
As for the federal vs. state issue - it doesn't make sense to me that the feds would be able to properly mobilize and respond as quickly as locals. I don't understand the logic there? Every level of gov't should have funding for this. Heck, if you've got major flooding in one quadrant of the city, the city should be able to respond, not wait for a federal agency. To me, feds should be called in when its major and full scale, and as a back up to locals. That would have to be more efficient right?
As for the federal vs. state issue - it doesn't make sense to me that the feds would be able to properly mobilize and respond as quickly as locals. I don't understand the logic there? Every level of gov't should have funding for this. Heck, if you've got major flooding in one quadrant of the city, the city should be able to respond, not wait for a federal agency. To me, feds should be called in when its major and full scale, and as a back up to locals. That would have to be more efficient right?
""Absolutely," he said. "Every time you have an occasion to take something from the federal government and send it back to the states, that's the right direction. And if you can go even further, and send it back to the private sector, that's even better. Instead of thinking, in the federal budget, what we should cut, we should ask the opposite question, what should we keep?" "
Romney's words. Sending it to the private sector means you buy disaster relief. That means those who can't afford it will go without just like those who can't afford health care will go without, under Romeny's plan.
I saw what happened in Thailand when their PM sold government programs to the private sector. It made people poorer, except for the few who made off with billions. I can see Romney doing the same here.
Romney's words. Sending it to the private sector means you buy disaster relief. That means those who can't afford it will go without just like those who can't afford health care will go without, under Romeny's plan.
I saw what happened in Thailand when their PM sold government programs to the private sector. It made people poorer, except for the few who made off with billions. I can see Romney doing the same here.
I've read the articles, and even re-quoted them..
He proposes turning it back to the states and turning his back on the people who aren't in the upper income brackets.
Where exactly does it say that?
He proposes turning it back to the states and turning his back on the people who aren't in the upper income brackets.
Where exactly does it say that?
Romeny had not proposed any such thing. He proposes turning it back to the states and turning his back on the people who aren't in the upper income brackets.
Read the article ! It quotes Romney, if you can believe anything out of his mouth.
Read the article ! It quotes Romney, if you can believe anything out of his mouth.
Popularity isn't what I was talking about. Compassion and understanding, a willingness to work with all sides, and consider different view points, is more important than popularity in my book.
In my calmer moments I must admit I think things are not going to improve much for the majority of American's no matter who gets elected.
Things are in such a mess.
In my calmer moments I must admit I think things are not going to improve much for the majority of American's no matter who gets elected.
Things are in such a mess.
Wouldn't it make the most sense to have the response be a combination of state and federal? It seems to me that state federal disaster relief, if properly funded, would be able to reach folks first and most efficiently. I would think they would have the best understanding of how to best help, given they are more localized right? And I would think the fed gov't would be able to then provide back up where and when necessary. I always think it a mistake to put all your eggs in one basket, but maybe I'm just looking at this too simplisticly. .
Amanda, that's exactly what Romney has proposed. The big issue people are having is that he wants to cut spending within FEMA (NOT do away with it, mind you). There's always room for cuts in most agencies. He's saying take some of the burden off the federal gov't, and let the states decide what and how much they need.
It's obvious that a large scale disaster, like Katrina, or something like Sandy, which affects many states would absolutely positively require help from the federal govt.
Amanda, that's exactly what Romney has proposed. The big issue people are having is that he wants to cut spending within FEMA (NOT do away with it, mind you). There's always room for cuts in most agencies. He's saying take some of the burden off the federal gov't, and let the states decide what and how much they need.
It's obvious that a large scale disaster, like Katrina, or something like Sandy, which affects many states would absolutely positively require help from the federal govt.
He is not a perfect being and he may or may not do everything right but I can assure you he will not leave the East Coast to clean up without help. .
I'm sure he wouldn't....but yet you're so sure Romney would. He hasn'[t even won, yet you're sure he'll fail.
Why do you always take offense when someone is against Romney?
I do no such thing...I DO however get offended when I'm called "pathetic" for "defending" his policies. That's a totally different thing. You can go against Romney all you want (oh wait...you guys DO, all the time), I could care less, I'll banter back and forth, giving you my views, you give me yours, but yes, I take that kind of comment personally.
"You can say what you like about Romney but to defend him in this situation is pathetic " (by default, that's calling ME pathetic)
"I haven't found anyone else who believes like you do regarding his approach to FEMA"
I'm guessing about 50% of the country.
I'm sure he wouldn't....but yet you're so sure Romney would. He hasn'[t even won, yet you're sure he'll fail.
Why do you always take offense when someone is against Romney?
I do no such thing...I DO however get offended when I'm called "pathetic" for "defending" his policies. That's a totally different thing. You can go against Romney all you want (oh wait...you guys DO, all the time), I could care less, I'll banter back and forth, giving you my views, you give me yours, but yes, I take that kind of comment personally.
"You can say what you like about Romney but to defend him in this situation is pathetic " (by default, that's calling ME pathetic)
"I haven't found anyone else who believes like you do regarding his approach to FEMA"
I'm guessing about 50% of the country.
You must join this user group in order to participate in this discussion.
You are reading content posted in the Current Events . . . Group
A list of national and international resources and hotlines to help connect you to needed health and medical services.
Herpes sores blister, then burst, scab and heal.
Herpes spreads by oral, vaginal and anal sex.
STIs are the most common cause of genital sores.
Condoms are the most effective way to prevent HIV and STDs.
PrEP is used by people with high risk to prevent HIV infection.
