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
Okay, now I'm getting the idea of Romney's plan.
Stop Obama's health care, send it back to the states.
Abolish the federal disaster agency, send it back to the states.
Right, send it all back to the states, then, um, why do we need the federal government ??
Stop Obama's health care, send it back to the states.
Abolish the federal disaster agency, send it back to the states.
Right, send it all back to the states, then, um, why do we need the federal government ??
Oh Lord...FEMA. Don't get me started.
He wants states to be PRIMARILY responsible to run and manage things, with help and GUIDANCE from the top, not control. It makes perfect sense to me.
He wants states to be PRIMARILY responsible to run and manage things, with help and GUIDANCE from the top, not control. It makes perfect sense to me.
Ok, in all seriousness.
TRY to take the Romney factor out of this for a second...wouldn't you feel that your state could properly handle a LOT (if not MOST things), and since the state gov't is closer, and has more "invested" per se (being citizens of that state themselves) interest in what happens, they would do a good job?
It's just so sensible. I don't agree that EVERY little thing should be state run, but I think a LOT of it could be...and the states would still have to answer to the feds. They have to play by a basic set of rules, it's not like a free for all. That would take a lot of the burden of the federal gov't, freeing them up to deal with the bigger things, like foreign policy.
I would feel a deeper sense of "intimacy" if the people dealing with whatever issue I had were down the street, versus someone in DC, with a stack of papers from all 50 states in front of them.
TRY to take the Romney factor out of this for a second...wouldn't you feel that your state could properly handle a LOT (if not MOST things), and since the state gov't is closer, and has more "invested" per se (being citizens of that state themselves) interest in what happens, they would do a good job?
It's just so sensible. I don't agree that EVERY little thing should be state run, but I think a LOT of it could be...and the states would still have to answer to the feds. They have to play by a basic set of rules, it's not like a free for all. That would take a lot of the burden of the federal gov't, freeing them up to deal with the bigger things, like foreign policy.
I would feel a deeper sense of "intimacy" if the people dealing with whatever issue I had were down the street, versus someone in DC, with a stack of papers from all 50 states in front of them.
Let me clarify too...that obviously, there would be circumstances where the federal gov't would have to be involved, like in the Katrina disaster. That's a no brainer.
Romney has said as much...that the states should be allowed to handle what they can, before the big guns need called out.
Romney has said as much...that the states should be allowed to handle what they can, before the big guns need called out.
States barely have enough funding as it is....Let's all remember Katrina. If New Orleans had not received Government funding, they would be GONE...This dude is really something...Why in the world would you cut the disaster fund? It is NEEDED and will help SAVE LIVES..He just wants the states to take care of everything and the government do NOTHING......I can't.......
"Romney has said as much...that the states should be allowed to handle what they can, before the big guns need called out."
Yea, wait until its too late then call the government...Romney is and IDOT!!!
"Romney has said as much...that the states should be allowed to handle what they can, before the big guns need called out."
Yea, wait until its too late then call the government...Romney is and IDOT!!!
*an IDIOT
Let's remember Katrina..... people are still complaining about FEMA and its inability to get things done.
"Let's remember Katrina..... people are still complaining about FEMA and its inability to get things done."
TRUE! But that was mainly in part to a slow responding Government no?! The state didn't have the means to curb the situation now did it?...This is why Romney's Idea of leaving it up to the states IMO is ridiculous....
TRUE! But that was mainly in part to a slow responding Government no?! The state didn't have the means to curb the situation now did it?...This is why Romney's Idea of leaving it up to the states IMO is ridiculous....
That's the point, MrsP. The government and its inability to handle things like this. FEMA's effort was extremely unorganized and inefficient.
A good buddy of mine who lives in New Orleans called the whole thing, the day before Katrina hit. First off he said, people will not leave their homes for any number of reasons, but the main one is that New Orleans has been threatened with hurricanes all of the time, and rarely widely affected. The state of Louisiana is ill prepared to handle an emergency situation. (This is from a guy in law enforcement in New Orleans.) An organized evacuation plan on any level did not exist, so when the people who want to evacuate try to evacuate at the last minute, you'll have every highway, road way, interstate completely jammed with traffic that should have been moving 1,2,3 days ahead of when it actually started moving.
Another very important thing this guy said was, individual responsibility to listen to, process, and act on sound advice to evacuate is simply not there.
After the event, he told me that people of all socioeconomical classes made it out and left when advised. Because of that, a lot of their personal belongings and their lives were saved. These people understood what was going to happen and acted reasonably. The ones who didn't are the ones who are complaining.
A good buddy of mine who lives in New Orleans called the whole thing, the day before Katrina hit. First off he said, people will not leave their homes for any number of reasons, but the main one is that New Orleans has been threatened with hurricanes all of the time, and rarely widely affected. The state of Louisiana is ill prepared to handle an emergency situation. (This is from a guy in law enforcement in New Orleans.) An organized evacuation plan on any level did not exist, so when the people who want to evacuate try to evacuate at the last minute, you'll have every highway, road way, interstate completely jammed with traffic that should have been moving 1,2,3 days ahead of when it actually started moving.
Another very important thing this guy said was, individual responsibility to listen to, process, and act on sound advice to evacuate is simply not there.
After the event, he told me that people of all socioeconomical classes made it out and left when advised. Because of that, a lot of their personal belongings and their lives were saved. These people understood what was going to happen and acted reasonably. The ones who didn't are the ones who are complaining.
TRUE! But that was mainly in part to a slow responding Government no?! The state didn't have the means to curb the situation now did it?...This is why Romney's Idea of leaving it up to the states IMO is ridiculous.... .
You can look at that both ways. If the states had more control, they wouldn't have had to "wait" for help at all.
He's not saying that the federal gov't should not be involved, he's saying they should take a less "primary" role.
The federal gov't screwed peopple in NOLA. They couldn't have botched that any worse. If the states were allowed to lead more, maybe that wouldn't have been as bad as it was.
I would MUCH rather know that help was coming, from right down the street, rather than waiting for something to happen from the big guys in DC.
Yea, wait until its too late then call the government...Romney is and "IDOT!!!"
Who said anything about waiting until it's too late??? There would be processes in place!! You're so quick to shoot an idea down, without even TRYING it.
FEMA is a freaking joke. FEMA needs a major overhaul. If our system we have in place is bad, why not be WILLING to at least TRY something new? Let the states try to run themselves! Sounds like you have very little faith in the ability of your state gov't to run things properly.
Gov't is gov't, but it SURELY makes a lot more sense for each individual state to run things according to their UNIQUE needs. EVERY state is not the same...FAR from it....their needs are vastly different, from healthcare, to education, to disater relief needs. Right now, the federal gov't is handling them all the same, a cookie cutter approach. Doesn't make a lick of sense.
You can look at that both ways. If the states had more control, they wouldn't have had to "wait" for help at all.
He's not saying that the federal gov't should not be involved, he's saying they should take a less "primary" role.
The federal gov't screwed peopple in NOLA. They couldn't have botched that any worse. If the states were allowed to lead more, maybe that wouldn't have been as bad as it was.
I would MUCH rather know that help was coming, from right down the street, rather than waiting for something to happen from the big guys in DC.
Yea, wait until its too late then call the government...Romney is and "IDOT!!!"
Who said anything about waiting until it's too late??? There would be processes in place!! You're so quick to shoot an idea down, without even TRYING it.
FEMA is a freaking joke. FEMA needs a major overhaul. If our system we have in place is bad, why not be WILLING to at least TRY something new? Let the states try to run themselves! Sounds like you have very little faith in the ability of your state gov't to run things properly.
Gov't is gov't, but it SURELY makes a lot more sense for each individual state to run things according to their UNIQUE needs. EVERY state is not the same...FAR from it....their needs are vastly different, from healthcare, to education, to disater relief needs. Right now, the federal gov't is handling them all the same, a cookie cutter approach. Doesn't make a lick of sense.
"You can look at that both ways. If the states had more control, they wouldn't have had to "wait" for help at all."
I Disagree states barely have FUNDING NOW!!!!!
"Yea, wait until its too late then call the government...Romney is and "IDOT!!!"
Who said anything about waiting until it's too late??? There would be processes in place!! You're so quick to shoot an idea down, without even TRYING it."
People's lives would be at stake. I don't think we should "try it"..Never again, should we have another New Orleans..Obviously The state pf Louisiana didn't have the resources as a State to take care of such a disaster....
As for FEMA, I do agree they need a MAJOR overhall....
I Disagree states barely have FUNDING NOW!!!!!
"Yea, wait until its too late then call the government...Romney is and "IDOT!!!"
Who said anything about waiting until it's too late??? There would be processes in place!! You're so quick to shoot an idea down, without even TRYING it."
People's lives would be at stake. I don't think we should "try it"..Never again, should we have another New Orleans..Obviously The state pf Louisiana didn't have the resources as a State to take care of such a disaster....
As for FEMA, I do agree they need a MAJOR overhall....
Obviously The state pf Louisiana didn't have the resources as a State to take care of such a disaster....
Of course they didn't. Something like that, the big dogs would HAVE to be involved, no doubt. That's not even a question.
The states barely have funding now because of the cookie cutter approach. There are geographical areas that, because of mather nature, are always going to have more disaster needs...like the folks in tornado alley for example. I can guarantee that our area wouldn't even come CLOSE to ever needing the kind of annual relief they need.
What we're doing now isn't very effective, and you're right, lives ARE at stake. If something like NOLA happened here, God forbid, I would NOT have faith that the federal gov't, as it is now, would be equipped to deal with it properly.
So, if we don't allow the states to have more control, and rely on the federal gov't less, then HOW do we fix something like FEMA?
Here's the thing...as it is now, some states get MORE relief than they need, and others, not enough. The states would know what their needs are, and could ask for a more accurate amount of funding.
That's how our country was designed to run. Over the decades, and centuries, the federal gov't has taken more and more power away from the states. If it's necessary, that's one thing, but it certainly hasn't always been necessary.
The educational needs of states vary greatly, yet, they all get basically the same "help" from big brother. That leaves some struggling, and others with cash in their pocket to spend on who knows what!
Of course they didn't. Something like that, the big dogs would HAVE to be involved, no doubt. That's not even a question.
The states barely have funding now because of the cookie cutter approach. There are geographical areas that, because of mather nature, are always going to have more disaster needs...like the folks in tornado alley for example. I can guarantee that our area wouldn't even come CLOSE to ever needing the kind of annual relief they need.
What we're doing now isn't very effective, and you're right, lives ARE at stake. If something like NOLA happened here, God forbid, I would NOT have faith that the federal gov't, as it is now, would be equipped to deal with it properly.
So, if we don't allow the states to have more control, and rely on the federal gov't less, then HOW do we fix something like FEMA?
Here's the thing...as it is now, some states get MORE relief than they need, and others, not enough. The states would know what their needs are, and could ask for a more accurate amount of funding.
That's how our country was designed to run. Over the decades, and centuries, the federal gov't has taken more and more power away from the states. If it's necessary, that's one thing, but it certainly hasn't always been necessary.
The educational needs of states vary greatly, yet, they all get basically the same "help" from big brother. That leaves some struggling, and others with cash in their pocket to spend on who knows what!
If this country had a collective brain, something like Katrina would never happen again. But instead of waiting for the federal government to do EVERYTHING, the states should do all they can to prepare themselves of situations like this. And this does not necessarily mean the state government, but its inhabitants... individuals have a specific amount of responsibility for their own safety and Katrina was the perfect example of people, and the government, not being prepared and all waiting for the other to do something.
Peoples lives are at stake right now with Sandy rolling in, and I commented somewhere here today that the local governments are actively rescuing people who thought "they would ride the storm out". This is precisely what I am talking about. The individual responsibility... as an individual, you need to do all you can to protect yourselves. These people neglected to do that and are driving up the cost of this event, even before it hits!!!!
Peoples lives are at stake right now with Sandy rolling in, and I commented somewhere here today that the local governments are actively rescuing people who thought "they would ride the storm out". This is precisely what I am talking about. The individual responsibility... as an individual, you need to do all you can to protect yourselves. These people neglected to do that and are driving up the cost of this event, even before it hits!!!!
Some of the States don't have plans in place, because they know the Federal government will step in do everything for them.
People were warned about Katrina and Brice is right, the responsible ones heeded the warnings and got out while the getting was good; now it's the ones who refused to leave that complain the loudest.
He may not represent your way of thinking, but Romney is anything but an "idiot". In my opinion, calling people/things derogatory names makes the poster seem very intolerant of other people's views, and I don't really think anyone in this group is that way, deep down.
I must say, I'm actually beginning to feel very sorry for President Obama, because he's been put on such a high pedestal, it's really going to hurt when he falls off. Nobody can be as perfect as he's been made out to be; that's got to be a huge load for him to carry.
People were warned about Katrina and Brice is right, the responsible ones heeded the warnings and got out while the getting was good; now it's the ones who refused to leave that complain the loudest.
He may not represent your way of thinking, but Romney is anything but an "idiot". In my opinion, calling people/things derogatory names makes the poster seem very intolerant of other people's views, and I don't really think anyone in this group is that way, deep down.
I must say, I'm actually beginning to feel very sorry for President Obama, because he's been put on such a high pedestal, it's really going to hurt when he falls off. Nobody can be as perfect as he's been made out to be; that's got to be a huge load for him to carry.
"He may not represent your way of thinking, but Romney is anything but an "idiot". In my opinion, calling people/things derogatory names makes the poster seem very intolerant of other people's views, and I don't really think anyone in this group is that way, deep down"
Fair enough but I still stick to it..and YES I am intolerant of Romney's Views because IMO they make no sense and are not right for this country....
Fair enough but I still stick to it..and YES I am intolerant of Romney's Views because IMO they make no sense and are not right for this country....
"Some of the States don't have plans in place, because they know the Federal government will step in do everything for them."
I'm ALL FOR states having plans in place, but they can't do anything if FUNDING is CUT! IMO They can't/shouldn't bear the majority of the responsibility when it comes to Natural Disasters. State Funding for programs are getting cut all over the country..IMO there should be more funding to the states in case of natural disasters cus you NEVER KNOW!
I'm ALL FOR states having plans in place, but they can't do anything if FUNDING is CUT! IMO They can't/shouldn't bear the majority of the responsibility when it comes to Natural Disasters. State Funding for programs are getting cut all over the country..IMO there should be more funding to the states in case of natural disasters cus you NEVER KNOW!
Hmmm -- guess I was wrong.
About funding... I'm not sure I am following you. I would partially agree that the FED has some responsibility to the individual states, since they and their inhabitants all pay taxes. But it should not be all on the FED to take care in the event of a natural disaster.
In regards to funding cuts, natural disasters don't happen all of the time.... so the FED cuts things there. Look at the infrastructure.... we have cut road and highway funding, essential for evacuation in the event of natural disasters.
Locally, we had a land slide that impacted 2 counties. The slide cut off a major artery into the town that I work in. Because of local efforts, this slide got handled in a manner and fashion that was fiscally responsible, but we did have the local (state) funding available. (That said, we've since cut a ton of money from the infrastructure budget in the state)
I certainly don't have the answers, but I honestly believe that so much of this relies upon individual responsibility. Regarding the event described above, my commute which is normally 1 hour became a 2.25 hour commute. I had to make some plans for that, and that included budgeting issues. I needed more fuel, so I adjusted things in my budget to help accommodate the need for more fuel.... hell, we all jostle our budgets to make ends meet and the FED isn't helping us. I don't think we can place sole responsibility on the FED for disasters either.
In regards to funding cuts, natural disasters don't happen all of the time.... so the FED cuts things there. Look at the infrastructure.... we have cut road and highway funding, essential for evacuation in the event of natural disasters.
Locally, we had a land slide that impacted 2 counties. The slide cut off a major artery into the town that I work in. Because of local efforts, this slide got handled in a manner and fashion that was fiscally responsible, but we did have the local (state) funding available. (That said, we've since cut a ton of money from the infrastructure budget in the state)
I certainly don't have the answers, but I honestly believe that so much of this relies upon individual responsibility. Regarding the event described above, my commute which is normally 1 hour became a 2.25 hour commute. I had to make some plans for that, and that included budgeting issues. I needed more fuel, so I adjusted things in my budget to help accommodate the need for more fuel.... hell, we all jostle our budgets to make ends meet and the FED isn't helping us. I don't think we can place sole responsibility on the FED for disasters either.
"But it should not be all on the FED to take care in the event of a natural disaster"
You right. I think it should be 50-50
"In regards to funding cuts, natural disasters don't happen all of the time.... so the FED cuts things there. Look at the infrastructure.... we have cut road and highway funding, essential for evacuation in the event of natural disasters."
They don't happen all the time but they HAPPEN..So therefore the States should have plenty of funds to take care of it so the government won't have to step in. The government shouldn't cut the Disaster agency because of that same reason. They should have it there just in case. Leave it alone. As far as infrastructure goes, I think its a complete shame that there are cuts to all of those programs. the President wants to invest in all of those things which will create jobs however since congress can't play nice with each other, the jobs bill is just sitting there collecting dust..
You right. I think it should be 50-50
"In regards to funding cuts, natural disasters don't happen all of the time.... so the FED cuts things there. Look at the infrastructure.... we have cut road and highway funding, essential for evacuation in the event of natural disasters."
They don't happen all the time but they HAPPEN..So therefore the States should have plenty of funds to take care of it so the government won't have to step in. The government shouldn't cut the Disaster agency because of that same reason. They should have it there just in case. Leave it alone. As far as infrastructure goes, I think its a complete shame that there are cuts to all of those programs. the President wants to invest in all of those things which will create jobs however since congress can't play nice with each other, the jobs bill is just sitting there collecting dust..
They can't/shouldn't bear the majority of the responsibility when it comes to Natural Disasters.
WHY can't they/shouldn't they?
State Funding for programs are getting cut all over the country..IMO there should be more funding to the states in case of natural disasters cus you NEVER KNOW! .
This is EXACTLY right!!! WHY is this happening? Because the FEDERAL gov't has the reigns. They are trying to apply a principle accross the board when each situation varies greatly. Your answer is "we need more funding". This is precisely the "Obama" way of thinking...print some more money and send it to the states. That's not the answer.
And brice, I couldn't agree more with you!!! There is NO sense of personal responsibility anymore. While Katrina was a devastating tragedy, MANY people were to blame for their own situation....then, when things went horribily bad...they were ready for someone else (the gov't) to fix it.
Relying on the gov't like that fosters dependency, and decreases accountability.
Barb, goodness, you're so right. That man has a LONG way to fall. He can literally do no wrong in the eyes of many. And, while people may not like Romney, or what he stands for, damn, how sad it is that people don't feel the need to show some level of respect. This isn't a football game, this is the presidency of our country. He's been a public servant for a long time and he HAS done a lot of good for his constituents, he deserves at least, some level of respect.
At LEAST half the country agrees he's the "better" man for the job.
WHY can't they/shouldn't they?
State Funding for programs are getting cut all over the country..IMO there should be more funding to the states in case of natural disasters cus you NEVER KNOW! .
This is EXACTLY right!!! WHY is this happening? Because the FEDERAL gov't has the reigns. They are trying to apply a principle accross the board when each situation varies greatly. Your answer is "we need more funding". This is precisely the "Obama" way of thinking...print some more money and send it to the states. That's not the answer.
And brice, I couldn't agree more with you!!! There is NO sense of personal responsibility anymore. While Katrina was a devastating tragedy, MANY people were to blame for their own situation....then, when things went horribily bad...they were ready for someone else (the gov't) to fix it.
Relying on the gov't like that fosters dependency, and decreases accountability.
Barb, goodness, you're so right. That man has a LONG way to fall. He can literally do no wrong in the eyes of many. And, while people may not like Romney, or what he stands for, damn, how sad it is that people don't feel the need to show some level of respect. This isn't a football game, this is the presidency of our country. He's been a public servant for a long time and he HAS done a lot of good for his constituents, he deserves at least, some level of respect.
At LEAST half the country agrees he's the "better" man for the job.
"That man has a LONG way to fall"
HA! He's not falling anytime soon...
HA! He's not falling anytime soon...
"That man has a LONG way to fall
HA! He's not falling anytime soon... " Everyone falls eventually and since he's WAY up there on that pedestal, he really does have a long way to fall.
ng - I agree that, while people might not like Romney or his policies, he, at least, deserves some respect. I don't like Obama's policies and he isn't the best one to represent me (neither is Romney), but I refuse to be intolerant of his views and am not calling him names every time I turn around, because like Romney, he is far from being an idiot or a moron. He's a very intelligent person and if he wins again, we'll have to deal with him for another 4 years, so why get worked up into a frenzy?
"While Katrina was a devastating tragedy, MANY people were to blame for their own situation....then, when things went horribily bad...they were ready for someone else (the gov't) to fix it."......... so true!!
HA! He's not falling anytime soon... " Everyone falls eventually and since he's WAY up there on that pedestal, he really does have a long way to fall.
ng - I agree that, while people might not like Romney or his policies, he, at least, deserves some respect. I don't like Obama's policies and he isn't the best one to represent me (neither is Romney), but I refuse to be intolerant of his views and am not calling him names every time I turn around, because like Romney, he is far from being an idiot or a moron. He's a very intelligent person and if he wins again, we'll have to deal with him for another 4 years, so why get worked up into a frenzy?
"While Katrina was a devastating tragedy, MANY people were to blame for their own situation....then, when things went horribily bad...they were ready for someone else (the gov't) to fix it."......... so true!!
I was in a flood once years ago.
The first response was local. But afterwards the National Guard came in to help clean things up.
Again, if we weren't spending so much money on wars overseas, we could use our resources for helping our own people.
The states and the federal government both have a responsibility in helping those in disasters such as the one hitting the east coast right now.
What bothers me is Romney's plans seem to all say the same thing, "I'll turn it over to the states."
That's not a plan, that's a cop out.
The first response was local. But afterwards the National Guard came in to help clean things up.
Again, if we weren't spending so much money on wars overseas, we could use our resources for helping our own people.
The states and the federal government both have a responsibility in helping those in disasters such as the one hitting the east coast right now.
What bothers me is Romney's plans seem to all say the same thing, "I'll turn it over to the states."
That's not a plan, that's a cop out.
What bothers me is Romney's plans seem to all say the same thing, "I'll turn it over to the states."
That's not a plan, that's a cop out. .
That's not a cop out...that's letting this country run the way it was designed to, otherwise, we're not really a true democracy, are we?
"Again, if we weren't spending so much money on wars overseas, we could use our resources for helping our own people. "
This is a place I'll agree with you on, but I also agree, our presence elsewhere in these wars is necessary for our own survival, resource wise just only as one example.
As far as the wars go, let's not forget that that's one of Obama's biggest 2008 campaign promise that he broke...we had no business being in the middle east, bring ALL of our troops home. He didn't...and you know what? I support him on that...I think he did what he had to do.
That's one of those areas that seems to still get laid ALL on Bush. Obama has maintained a lot of the same military policies that Bush started...that's HIS to own. I personally think most of his moves were necessary, but it bothers me greatly that he isn't held to the same standard in that regard. The "wars on a credit card" are VERY much Obama's responsibility as well.
Just like how he wanted to point the finger (in the last debate) at Romney for still wanting troops in Iraq...Romney called him out, stating that Obama was in agreement as well. Obama denied that, but Obama was wrong. He agreed with the troops remaining in Iraq.
Take for example a large family. You have the grandmother, she is the matriarch of the family. There are say, 10 families, her descendants, spread out all over the country.
Is each family going to turn to her each time they have to go to the doctor? Or, apply for college? Would each family have to wait until grandma mailed the insurance cards and the money for the co-pay?
Grandma mails each of them a monthly check, for the same amt, yet one family doesn't really NEED the money, while another is hurting badly. Wouldn't it make sense to let each family handle their own issues, and turn to grandma if they were in need of help, or if they couldn't handle a situation? Grandma should be there to support, and guide, and step in if necessary, not to run each family....as if they were all the same.
That's not a plan, that's a cop out. .
That's not a cop out...that's letting this country run the way it was designed to, otherwise, we're not really a true democracy, are we?
"Again, if we weren't spending so much money on wars overseas, we could use our resources for helping our own people. "
This is a place I'll agree with you on, but I also agree, our presence elsewhere in these wars is necessary for our own survival, resource wise just only as one example.
As far as the wars go, let's not forget that that's one of Obama's biggest 2008 campaign promise that he broke...we had no business being in the middle east, bring ALL of our troops home. He didn't...and you know what? I support him on that...I think he did what he had to do.
That's one of those areas that seems to still get laid ALL on Bush. Obama has maintained a lot of the same military policies that Bush started...that's HIS to own. I personally think most of his moves were necessary, but it bothers me greatly that he isn't held to the same standard in that regard. The "wars on a credit card" are VERY much Obama's responsibility as well.
Just like how he wanted to point the finger (in the last debate) at Romney for still wanting troops in Iraq...Romney called him out, stating that Obama was in agreement as well. Obama denied that, but Obama was wrong. He agreed with the troops remaining in Iraq.
Take for example a large family. You have the grandmother, she is the matriarch of the family. There are say, 10 families, her descendants, spread out all over the country.
Is each family going to turn to her each time they have to go to the doctor? Or, apply for college? Would each family have to wait until grandma mailed the insurance cards and the money for the co-pay?
Grandma mails each of them a monthly check, for the same amt, yet one family doesn't really NEED the money, while another is hurting badly. Wouldn't it make sense to let each family handle their own issues, and turn to grandma if they were in need of help, or if they couldn't handle a situation? Grandma should be there to support, and guide, and step in if necessary, not to run each family....as if they were all the same.
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.
