Comments on: Ron Paul speaks on Federal Aid for Tornado Victims.

By: Karizmata

Karizmata — Sun, 18 Mar 2012 07:21:02 +0000

In my opinion, the Feds just want a piece of the pie. The American people are the most generous in the world. Charity is going worldwide from even poor and middle class families. There is a tax deduction for giving to these charity orgs and churches who are there to help needy, rebuild,and restore. But if the Feds are in charge of the money, and the medical treatments, and all other services, then there is no more tax break for the givers, their pocketbooks bleeding out for every state and local agency, some of those do not spend wisely and are not easily accountable. Let the people give of their own hearts, and give them a tax deduction dollar for dollar, just don’t let the Feds run everything like it’s a benevolent dictatorship.

By: Xavier

Xavier — Thu, 08 Mar 2012 23:25:29 +0000

Heres an interesting question: If FEMA and insurance companies didn’t provide help to people who live in areas consistently prone natural disasters…would they still be living there after the 17th time their house is destroyed?…

By: ARealEngineer

ARealEngineer — Wed, 07 Mar 2012 14:52:37 +0000

There are three levels of morality:

1. Those who give out of their own pocket to those in need
2. Those who do not give to those in need out of greed
3. Those who do not give to those in need and force others to give out of their pockets, while claiming to be the benevolent ones

The whole concept of a Federal Safety Net is preposterous. What if the government was broke? What if there were a string of natural disasters and there were no more resources for those last affected? Would a homeowner with a $300k home get money to rebuild if their home were destroyed?

Media has reinforced 2 misconceptions:
1. Those affected by natural disasters are poor and/or have no insurance
2. There are offices of infinitely well equipped, caring relief workers sitting Washington waiting for a call for help

By: faiz ahmed

faiz ahmed — Wed, 07 Mar 2012 10:07:36 +0000

What a stupid article. Seriously, are you trying to lose credibility? I believe that helping people should be done by choice. If the government did not take my hard earned money away from me, i would be in a position to make a donation for the victims. If the government and the banking system did not corrupt the market, my wages would be high enough for me to make a donation.

It is absurd, to force people to pay for others. Charity should be a choice not a mandatory expense. It is one thing to have your religion tell you to give charity. It is entirely different to have a government deny you full wages.

By: seldDisteuct

seldDisteuct — Wed, 07 Mar 2012 07:36:05 +0000

This is just another example of why this man needs to be I charge. He is no bull shit. You always know where he stands.

By: Cam

Cam — Wed, 07 Mar 2012 07:12:34 +0000

Attempts to use snippets of Dr. Paul in order to make him look bad is the biggest mistake a media outlet can do. The internet is powerful, and news organizations lose credibility every time they try to spin a story because the consumer can instantly research the accusations for themselves. No longer will yellow journalists trying to sell a headline make it in this business. They’re actually going to have to be *gasp* objective and honor the real truth! Or fear the repercussions of the consumers on these comment boxes

By: Nicholas

Nicholas — Wed, 07 Mar 2012 02:37:59 +0000

How will we insure that food is safe and sanitary?
How will we insure that our airports and air traffic in operated safely?
Can the states protect our borders and seaports?
What about building and maintaining our roads and bridges?
Who should regulate our natural resources?
There are somethings a state or local communities cannot afford to operate without Federal subsidies like.

By: Mike Blevins

Mike Blevins — Wed, 07 Mar 2012 02:07:02 +0000

Americans are so accustomed to depending on federal aid for practically everything, their brains go into vapor lock whenever somebody suggests another way of doing things.

People who choose to live in disaster prone areas should have sufficient insurance to cover potential losses and not depend on the feds to bail them out.

By: Eve Marie

Eve Marie — Tue, 06 Mar 2012 23:38:36 +0000

Furthermore, here is a good article written by Dr. Paul that helps explain it a little more in depth than the soundbite for the article.

This seems shocking to those who have never been subjected to the secondary disaster that is the arrival of FEMA on the scene of a catastrophic event. But explaining FEMA’s ineptness is not the same thing as saying no one should help people affected by disasters. Quite the opposite.

Victims of disasters should get any and all help possible, and there is virtually no limit to the generosity and compassion of good American people after devastation hits. One only need to remember the outpouring after Katrina to know this is true. FEMA, however, did more to get in the way of relief than to actually provide and facilitate it.

The examples are numerous. When the call was put out for volunteer firefighters, they volunteered by the thousands. It was FEMA, for reasons of control and bureaucratic ineptitude, who made sure they were not, in fact allowed to actually help. When a group of firefighters arrived from Houston, instead of being put immediately on the job, they were told to sit around and wait. After waiting for two days doing nothing, they were simply sent home. One thousand volunteer firefighters were sent to Atlanta to undergo sexual harassment training while fires actively raged in the city. The ones that remained through this stupidity were sent to escort the president around or to distribute fliers instead of putting out fires. Computer engineer Jack Harrison was told his skills were needed to rebuild technological infrastructure. After being given the runaround for about two weeks, he was misallocated as head of security on the cruise ship FEMA had leased, when he should have been using his skills to help. All manner of help was turned away or mismanaged by FEMA while people suffered and waited. Even the Red Cross had its hands tied by FEMA.
Continue reading: http://blog.chron.com/txpotomac/2011/09/ron-paul-explains-why-fema-shouldnt-help-with-wildfires-or-anything-else/

By: Eve Marie

Eve Marie — Tue, 06 Mar 2012 23:35:30 +0000

Do I agree with Ron Paul- YES!
Should we help others- YES!

What you are failing to mention is how inept FEMA is. If you need a reminder, just view some of the old Katrina videos on youtube. Ah, Bush’s fault, right? Well then, look at the recent wildfires in Texas. Thousands of volunteer fire fighters showed up to help and what did FEMA do? Get in the way!

Furthermore, living on the beach must be an awesome experience. Or living in Hawaii. But, I wouldn’t buy a house in either of them. They are high risk. More power to the people who chose to do so, but it’s not for me. I don’t want to have the threat of the ocean or hot lava wiping out my house. And, I don’t want to be forced to pay for someone living in a “high risk” area.

What is the answer? For local government to handle it and for American’s to keep being the kind and caring individuals that they are. Does anyone remember how much money we sent to Haiti? If the federal government would get out of our pockets and out of our way, we could do so much more. I don’t like being “forced” to help with my tax dollars. The federal government is to inept to handle them properly and responsibly.