Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
questionmark

A Big Storm Requires Big Government

53 posts in this topic

Most Americans have never heard of the National Response Coordination Center, but they’re lucky it exists on days of lethal winds and flood tides. The center is the war room of the Federal Emergency Management Agency, where officials gather to decide where rescuers should go, where drinking water should be shipped, and how to assist hospitals that have to evacuate.

Disaster coordination is one of the most vital functions of “big government,” which is why Mitt Romney wants to eliminate it. At a Republican primary debate last year, Mr. Romney was asked whether emergency management was a function that should be returned to the states. He not only agreed, he went further.

“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.” Mr. Romney not only believes that states acting independently can handle the response to a vast East Coast storm better than Washington, but that profit-making companies can do an even better job. He said it was “immoral” for the federal government to do all these things if it means increasing the debt.

Read more

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, I know from the experience of living in New Orleans that people here always expect the government to bail them out as it were. Many people didn't evacuate for Katrina because they believed they'd be rescued by the Coast Guard or other military entity. Hands were out the minute Hurricane Isaac was a done deal in August, too.

3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, I know from the experience of living in New Orleans that people here always expect the government to bail them out as it were.

Big Surprise there, coming from Nagin's "Chocolate City".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't agree with Romney on that. If a state is in the middle of an emergency like a hurricane or devastating earthquake you need outside help and that's where the federal government comes in. If your state is heavily damaged how are you going to do much that is helpful.

A lot of people don't evacuate because they are poor, maybe don't even own a car and have no place to go except what is provided by the government.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, I know from the experience of living in New Orleans that people here always expect the government to bail them out as it were. Many people didn't evacuate for Katrina because they believed they'd be rescued by the Coast Guard or other military entity. Hands were out the minute Hurricane Isaac was a done deal in August, too.

I don't agree with Romney on that. If a state is in the middle of an emergency like a hurricane or devastating earthquake you need outside help and that's where the federal government comes in. If your state is heavily damaged how are you going to do much that is helpful.

A lot of people don't evacuate because they are poor, maybe don't even own a car and have no place to go except what is provided by the government.

I agree with Hilander here. If you think people are sitting around because they know the government will come help them, you are out of your damn mind.

I am going to go on a little rant here...This is exactly the kind of crap I cannot stand about Repubs. They want government out of everything and want to privatize everything. They talk about "defense" spending to keep our people safe, but "defense" spending does nothing of the sort. It is simply a way to make rich people richer. If they really cared about keeping people safe, they would actually try and do that...They do not want to help people out in the cases of natural disaster and do not want the government to help out. They feel that spending money on subs and aircraft carriers is better than natural disaster relief. Katrina was a perfect example of this...

They call Katrina a neo-liberal disaster because it shows what happens when the government is not prepared to help people in the state of emergancy. The government basically let the people fend for themselves. The rich had houses on the hills, in no real danger but the poorer people were stuck in the areas that were hit hardest. These people were too poor to evacuate, just as Hilander suggested. It is not that they sat around because they knew they would get rescued...These people were put in this situation and the government refused to help them when they needed it. When they did send the national guard to help them, the national guard did nothing of the sort. The NG protected the business from being looted. They did not offer aid.

This is the same kind of thing we see when firefighters sit there and watch a house burn down because it was not in their "zone" or the people had not paid their 20 dollar service charge. These kinds of things should not be privatized and no one should be making a profit off of them. Hell, ancient Rome had firefighters and put out fires regardless of who it was or where it was...we are struggling to catch up with ancient Rome...

People claim America is great. How the hell is it great? It cannot even help those in need when natural disasters strike and the little we can do is trying to be eliminated by the Repubs. When I am looking for a great country, I look for a country that can, and especially tries, to help it's people...not make a profit off of them in times of disaster. We did nothing to help those in NO. The Repubs want to privatize everything and take away social programs just so that they can spend more on "defense." We have starving kids in this country. We do not need to spend more on "defense." If you think for one second that any country is going to screw with our military, you are wrong.

Our government should serve the people, not let them fend for themselves in times of disaster. They at least need to be given a chance. Telling people in NO to evacuate is like telling someone without legs to get up and walk...they were not capable of doing so and the government did not provide them the means. I think some people really need to rethink what "defense" means and what good it actually does while our own people dying and starving.

Edit: And how dare that piece of scum Romney use the word "immoral." It is immoral to help people if it costs money? What better way is there to spend money than by helping your own people?

Edited by HuttonEtAl
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, I know from the experience of living in New Orleans that people here always expect the government to bail them out as it were. Many people didn't evacuate for Katrina because they believed they'd be rescued by the Coast Guard or other military entity. Hands were out the minute Hurricane Isaac was a done deal in August, too.

My husband and I went to New Orleans not long after Katrina and that was what most of the people working there said. They said the worst of the worst stayed behind when told to evacuate. They were having a really hard time because the tourist industry was way down, which meant very few tips, but they still came back to help pick up the pieces for the love of the city.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For the love of the chocolate city, it receives subsidies from the other chocolate city (with the marshmallow center) because poor people must be subsidized to live in a bowl-shaped city below sea level surrounded by inadequate walls that no insurance company on the free market would touch with a ten foot pole without the guarantees, subsidies, bailouts, rescues and cleanups....err... the "love"...of government.

Do we really want to save peoples' lives and keep costs down or not? If we do, let the market decide who lives in an under-sea bowl-shaped disaster area waiting to happen. I'm sure the home insurance premiums will be priced accordingly.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My husband and I went to New Orleans not long after Katrina and that was what most of the people working there said. They said the worst of the worst stayed behind when told to evacuate. They were having a really hard time because the tourist industry was way down, which meant very few tips, but they still came back to help pick up the pieces for the love of the city.

What do you mean by the "worst of the worst?"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What do you mean by the "worst of the worst?"

The looters, the people that won't get off their ass to even look for a job and wouldn't lift a finger to help a neighbor in need.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The looters, the people that won't get off their ass to even look for a job and wouldn't lift a finger to help a neighbor in need.

Hmmm so it sounds like they stayed back just to loot then? So they figured the government would just rescue them? I wonder how many people that actually was though...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hmmm so it sounds like they stayed back just to loot then? So they figured the government would just rescue them? I wonder how many people that actually was though...

Since there is no way to know, I assume that was a rhetorical question. I can assume, just like we know a lot of the deadbeats and thieves around our town, the people that actually live there would know better than I.

Edited by Michelle

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Chocolate city .....unbelievable .

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Chocolate city .....unbelievable .

Wasn't that a name Ray Nagin coined? I'm STILL waiting for the indictments to come down for those who misappropriated about a billion dollars over a few decades that had been earmarked for those levees....
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wasn't that a name Ray Nagin coined?

Yeah, Ray Nagin New Orlean's mayor at the time coined it himself during the Katrina aftermath, and he's black as well. Probably not the best of times to say something like "Chocolate City" considering all of the things people were going through.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, Ray Nagin New Orlean's mayor at the time coined it himself during the Katrina aftermath, and he's black as well. Probably not the best of times to say something like "Chocolate City" considering all of the things people were going through.

I don't recall that . I was too busy crying watching the devastation . It makes me puke a little if I attempt to say it for some reason .

For me ,Willy Wonka lives in chocolate city ,not New Orleans constituents. It's just my own idiosyncratic malfunction .

Edited by Simbi Laveau

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You dont need "big Government" to be prepared for a storm. States need to stop living like the fed is always gonna bail them out. The people in each state need to be smart enough to elect people who would prepare well ahead of time. This isnt rocket science. Nor is it something only the federal government can handle. Its extremely sad that anyone would think otherwise. Why have you let them take away your ability to rise above a situation? Once I saw that Sandy left my house intact, I moved on to help the nieghbors. Worked my ass off all day yesterday. Why? Cause this is MY neighborhood. Thats how we do.

Then again, maybe you are right. Maybe most people are just that pathetic.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Can't we put all the backward Republicans in their own little state? So when a natural disaster hits they can be on their own or just pay whatever private corporation does rescues there?

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Can't we put all the backward Republicans in their own little state? So when a natural disaster hits they can be on their own or just pay whatever private corporation does rescues there?

What we need to do is put all the backward Us vs Them mentalities in a box, lock the box, cover the box in concrete, and sink it at the bottom of the ocean.

Rich vs Poor

Right vs Left

Republican vs Democrat

Black vs White

etc vs etc

It is ridiculous. A kingdom divided against itself cannot stand.

8 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What we need to do is put all the backward Us vs Them mentalities in a box, lock the box, cover the box in concrete, and sink it at the bottom of the ocean.

Rich vs Poor

Right vs Left

Republican vs Democrat

Black vs White

etc vs etc

It is ridiculous. A kingdom divided against itself cannot stand.

But it is divided...there are those that want a strong United States and those that want a bunch of little states...

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Can't we put all the backward Republicans in their own little state? So when a natural disaster hits they can be on their own or just pay whatever private corporation does rescues there?

Meh, just divide the country up like it was during the civil war. The south can have their Confederate States of America...I will take the United States of America.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Meh, just divide the country up like it was during the civil war. The south can have their Confederate States of America...I will take the United States of America.

But where will that leave all the yankees that don't think exactly like you do? What are you going to do...run them all down south?

You sound a lot like Bush...if you aren't with us, you are against us type of mentality.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But where will that leave all the yankees that don't think exactly like you do? What are you going to do...run them all down south?

You sound a lot like Bush...if you aren't with us, you are against us type of mentality.

People do have the right to move in this country don't they? I mean isn't that one thing Repubs preach? If you don't like you situation work harder or move? I imagine the folks in Wisconsin that have confederate flags would prefer to move down south since it will be run more how they like...

Or just allow gays to get married...then they will go running...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

People do have the right to move in this country don't they? I mean isn't that one thing Repubs preach? If you don't like you situation work harder or move? I imagine the folks in Wisconsin that have confederate flags would prefer to move down south since it will be run more how they like...

Or just allow gays to get married...then they will go running...

I don't know all Republicans so I don't know what each and every one of them thinks or preaches. I am capable of seeing the difference in the people that are willing to compromise and work together and the ones that clearly wouldn't. It's the extremists on both sides of the coin that worry me the most.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't know all Republicans so I don't know what each and every one of them thinks or preaches. I am capable of seeing the difference in the people that are willing to compromise and work together and the ones that clearly wouldn't. It's the extremists on both sides of the coin that worry me the most.

Well right, but you can get a good idea of the general opinion based on what they vote for and the policies they put in place. For example, if you are pro life and against gay marriage, you are probably a Republican. If you are pro choice and for gay marriage, you are a Democrate. This works most of them time, though younger Repubs are more Liberal socially. But once again, if you want a less regulated or free market economy, with a small national government you are a Repub or Libertarian. If you want more regulation and a larger national goverment, you are a Democrat.

You can generalize about the parties to an extent. People can come to agreement. I have come to agreement with many Repubs on here. The difference is who is willing to actually listen to the arguments of the other party. Many will not listen at all and many just will not change their stance.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Isn't that interesting...my husband is almost a sixty year old Rebulican that is pro choice and pro gay marriage. If you made the same stereotypical remarks about blacks or other ethnic groups you would be considered a racist. Isn't it odd how it's totally okay to villinize one group of people and not another?

I'm sure some people think it is you that will not listen, is uncompromising and needs to change his stance.

Edited by Michelle
2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.