REAL WORLD EVENT DISCUSSIONS

Republican view of disaster assistance

POSTED BY: NIKI2
UPDATED: Thursday, June 2, 2011 17:30
SHORT URL:
VIEWED: 1729
PAGE 1 of 1

Wednesday, May 25, 2011 11:17 AM

NIKI2

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...


Essentially "We'll pray for you, but don't ask US for help":
Quote:

Republican lawmakers have been quick to rush to the assistance of disaster victims with that priceless commodity, prayer, but when it comes to tangible assets, they've been a bit less spirited.

An email circulated by the office of Rep. Randy Neugebauer (R-Tex.) asked lawmakers to co-sponsor H. Res 254, a straightforward measure encouraging Congress and the American public to pray for the victims of the recent disasters in the United States. The message was signed by Neugebauer, as well as Reps. Stevan Pearce (R-N.M.) and Spencer Bachus (R-Ala.)

All three lawmakers voted for the House FY 2011 continuing resolution, which included significant cuts to funding for the federal response to weather, climate and natural disasters.

For example, funding for the Federal Emergency Management Agency's state and local programs was slashed $783.3 million below FY 2010 levels. The FEMA Pre-Disaster Mitigation Grant Program lost $35 million. The part of FEMA's budget for emergency food and shelter was cut $100 million, and Assistance to Firefighter Grants lost $510 million. (Under the best-case scenario, the disaster relief fund will essentially run dry before the end of the year. That means sometime in mid- to late summer, FEMA will have to freeze its recovery operations and only fund what they call `immediate need,' That means recovery, rebuilding and general assistance will stop.)

The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration lost $454.3 million in the House's continuing resolution. In March, the agency warned that insufficient funds budgeted for its next generation of polar orbiting satellites could potentially weaken the accuracy of its weather forecasting, especially pertaining to severe events such as blizzards and hurricanes.

The National Weather Service, which is part of NOAA, lost $126 million from FY 2010 levels in the House bill.

"This is the congressional equivalent of having a mortgage lender take your house and then tell all his friends how bad he feels for you," said a Democratic operative who used to work in Congress. "The fact that these guys have no sense of irony or shame is just revolting."

Neugebauer's office declined comment, and Pearce and Bachus did not respond.

Not only that, they want any assistance going to tornado victims to be paid for with MORE cuts:
Quote:

House Majority Leader Eric Cantor said Monday that if Congress passes an emergency spending bill to help Missouri's tornado victims, the extra money will have to be cut from somewhere else. "If there is support for a supplemental, it would be accompanied by support for having pay-fors to that supplemental," Mr. Cantor, Virginia Republican, told reporters at the Capitol.
Of course, that excludes ANY cuts to the military, and no doubt even consideration of asking the ultra-rich to share the burden of anything... Let's just cut more out of FEMA and NOAA.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, May 25, 2011 11:30 AM

KANEMAN


For the record more money is donated by people who are registered republicans than by anyone on EARTH....true fact look it up. Now "lawmakers" should not be donating money....good for them...just sayin

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, May 25, 2011 11:35 AM

NIKI2

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...


I would posit that's only because Republicans HAVE more money...how many poor people are Republicans? When you got it to spare, it doesn't hurt to share...and then one has to ask, how many of the rich donate for tax write-offs?

All of which has NOTHING to do with how they're legislating our tax dollars to do precisely what libertarians, Tea Partiers and others claim government is only good for: helping its citizens in war or disaster.


Hippie Operative Nikovich Nikita Nicovna Talibani,
Contracted Agent of Veritas Oilspillus, code name “Nike”,
signing off



NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, May 25, 2011 11:41 AM

KANEMAN


Quote:

Originally posted by Niki2:
I would posit that's only because Republicans HAVE more money...how many poor people are Republicans? When you got it to spare, it doesn't hurt to share...and then one has to ask, how many of the rich donate for tax write-offs?

All of which has NOTHING to do with how they're legislating our tax dollars to do precisely what libertarians, Tea Partiers and others claim government is only good for: helping its citizens in war or disaster.


Hippie Operative Nikovich Nikita Nicovna Talibani,
Contracted Agent of Veritas Oilspillus, code name “Nike”,
signing off






I've made a vow to not call anyone names anymore, however....you should actually look at the libertarian point before you speak...let the people fix and help others...we do it all the time...think Haiti, fuck any disaster....humans help one another much more than Gov......I'm out

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, May 25, 2011 11:47 AM

NIKI2

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...


Comments on this question, by the way, from "Yahoo Answers":

I'd like to see some stats on this. The Republicans I know, only give (monetarily) if they get to use it as a tax deduction."

"This is not really a Democrats or Republican issue, but more charity is given in so called "Red States". This is most likely due to the fact that there are more poor and needy in the "Red States", so more charity is needed."

"Depends on how you think of giving. If a middle class family with 6 kids donates $100 to a charity that more than a rich person giving a $1000, when they never even feel any money loss."

Then there's the question of "what is charity?" If government subsidies (reads again: our taxes) are charity, then yup, Republicans want it to go to Big Oil, corporations, agribusiness and Big Pharma.

By the way, I've noticed "I've made a vow to not call anyone names anymore"--it's a wonderful change, I hope you can keep it up. No reason we can't disagree, and we can CONVERSE this way, at least.

I still believe the above answers need to be taken into consideration rather than just flatly stating "Republicans give more" as if it were purely a matter of selflessness.

I may have gotten the libertarian belief wrong. But I thought they believed one of the few LEGITIMATE jobs of the government was to help out in disasters and war. Is that some other group?


Hippie Operative Nikovich Nikita Nicovna Talibani,
Contracted Agent of Veritas Oilspillus, code name “Nike”,
signing off



NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, May 25, 2011 1:30 PM

KWICKO

"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." -- William Casey, Reagan's presidential campaign manager & CIA Director (from first staff meeting in 1981)


Quote:

Originally posted by kaneman:
For the record more money is donated by people who are registered republicans than by anyone on EARTH....true fact look it up. Now "lawmakers" should not be donating money....good for them...just sayin




Cites?

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, May 25, 2011 1:34 PM

NIKI2

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...


Don't think he can prove "than anyone on EARTH"...but it certainly sounds good. Feels good too, maybe?


Hippie Operative Nikovich Nikita Nicovna Talibani,
Contracted Agent of Veritas Oilspillus, code name “Nike”,
signing off



NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, May 25, 2011 1:36 PM

KWICKO

"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." -- William Casey, Reagan's presidential campaign manager & CIA Director (from first staff meeting in 1981)


The GOP stance is this:

Billions of gov't money for Big Oil.

Billions of gov't money for Big Farms.

Trillions of gov't money for Big War.

Billions of gov't money for Big Pharma.

Pennies - or less - for Big Disaster.



I'm with Bill Maher: I understand why the top 1% of wealthiest Americans would vote for Republicans; I just can't understand where they get the other 49%.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, May 25, 2011 2:15 PM

GEEZER

Keep the Shiny side up


Quote:

Originally posted by Niki2:
I would posit that's only because Republicans HAVE more money...



Nope. Not per Arthur C. Brooks, in "Who Really Cares: The Surprising Truth About Compassionate Conservatism." QUoting from a review by George Will...

Quote:

-- Although liberal families' incomes average 6 percent higher than those of conservative families, conservative-headed households give, on average, 30 percent more to charity than the average liberal-headed household ($1,600 per year vs. $1,227).

-- Conservatives also donate more time and give more blood.


http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/03/conservatives_more_l
iberal_giv.html


We had a pretty good discussion about this book here a while ago.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, May 25, 2011 2:21 PM

KWICKO

"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." -- William Casey, Reagan's presidential campaign manager & CIA Director (from first staff meeting in 1981)


Quote:

-- Conservatives also donate more time and give more blood.




It's just not their blood that they're "donating"...

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, May 25, 2011 3:31 PM

PIRATENEWS

John Lee, conspiracy therapist at Hollywood award-winner History Channel-mocked SNL-spoofed PirateNew.org wooHOO!!!!!!


The local FEMA Nazis in Joplin are turning away rescue volunteers, just like during Katrina.

There are 1,500 people still buried dead or alive in Joplin...

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, May 26, 2011 1:57 AM

GEEZER

Keep the Shiny side up


Quote:

Originally posted by Kwicko:
"-- Conservatives also donate more time and give more blood."

It's just not their blood that they're "donating"...



Cites?

"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, May 26, 2011 1:26 PM

KWICKO

"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." -- William Casey, Reagan's presidential campaign manager & CIA Director (from first staff meeting in 1981)


Quote:

Originally posted by Geezer:
Quote:

Originally posted by Kwicko:
"-- Conservatives also donate more time and give more blood."

It's just not their blood that they're "donating"...



Cites?

"Keep the Shiny side up"



Hundreds of thousands of dead Iraqis and Afghan "donated" their blood to our wars, courtesy of "conservatives" like Dubya, Cheney, and Rummy. So when you claim that conservatives give more blood, you're not really LYING, but your omitting the fact that it's not THEIR blood they're "donating" when they spill the blood of innocents all over the world.

"Although it is not true that all conservatives are stupid people, it is true that most stupid people are conservatives." - John Stuart Mill

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, May 27, 2011 1:39 AM

GEEZER

Keep the Shiny side up


Quote:

Originally posted by Kwicko:
Hundreds of thousands of dead Iraqis and Afghan "donated" their blood to our wars, courtesy of "conservatives" like Dubya, Cheney, and Rummy. So when you claim that conservatives give more blood, you're not really LYING, but your omitting the fact that it's not THEIR blood they're "donating" when they spill the blood of innocents all over the world.



Sorry, but spilling other's blood has always been a bi-partisan exercise. Iraqis and Afghans are still bleeding on the Dem's watch (as are Libyans) and the Iraq, Afghan, and Libyan involvements by the U.S. were all overwhelmingly supported by Democrats in Congress. Both parties managed to bleed a lot of folks in South-east Asia in the 60's and 70's, and WWII was exclusively under Democratic administrations. Wilson was a Democrat, and Lincoln, although a Republican, was the more liberal of the choices in 1860.

All this, of course, has nothing to do with refuting Niki's claim that conservatives are less charitable than liberals. I'd be interested in discussing that.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, May 27, 2011 6:45 AM

KANEMAN


Quote:

Originally posted by Kwicko:
The GOP stance is this:

Billions of gov't money for Big Oil.

Billions of gov't money for Big Farms.

Trillions of gov't money for Big War.

Billions of gov't money for Big Pharma.

Pennies - or less - for Big Disaster.



I'm with Bill Maher: I understand why the top 1% of wealthiest Americans would vote for Republicans; I just can't understand where they get the other 49%.




All pols are in bed with these industries....I say no money for any of them, let 'em pay tax..end endless wars...and then maybe I could go along with the state doing more on the homefront, however we can't do it all....just can't.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, May 27, 2011 6:48 AM

KANEMAN


Quote:

Originally posted by Kwicko:
Quote:

Originally posted by kaneman:
For the record more money is donated by people who are registered republicans than by anyone on EARTH....true fact look it up. Now "lawmakers" should not be donating money....good for them...just sayin




Cites?



I'd love to but I can't show you..i think it was at a lecture at real art ways in Hartford, ct last year....I know it was said by a professor from CCSU....


EDIT I see Geezer found something...maybe that is where the Proffersor got it...who knows? I think it is based off of tax write offs.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, May 27, 2011 1:12 PM

KWICKO

"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." -- William Casey, Reagan's presidential campaign manager & CIA Director (from first staff meeting in 1981)


Quote:

EDIT I see Geezer found something...maybe that is where the Proffersor got it...who knows? I think it is based off of tax write offs.



Problem with that is, according to the IRS, I donated NOTHING to charity last year, because I don't write off charitable contributions, or take deductions from them. For me, "charity" means giving freely, without expectation of return, just for the good it will do for those in need.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, May 28, 2011 1:02 AM

GEEZER

Keep the Shiny side up


Quote:

Originally posted by Kwicko:
"EDIT I see Geezer found something...maybe that is where the Proffersor got it...who knows? I think it is based off of tax write offs.
"
Problem with that is, according to the IRS, I donated NOTHING to charity last year, because I don't write off charitable contributions, or take deductions from them. For me, "charity" means giving freely, without expectation of return, just for the good it will do for those in need.



From what I remember, the figures Brooks used come from a private survey, or surveys. The IRS provides all sorts of info from it's Statistics of Income area, but has no way of knowing the political affilliation of taxpayers, so couldn't report on that.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, May 30, 2011 11:40 AM

NIKI2

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...


Quote:

Although liberal families' incomes average 6 percent higher than those of conservative families
I don’t get that. There are far more liberals than conservatives in the “poor” class and far more conservatives in the “ultra-rich” class, so I’d like to know where they got that conclusion. Just doesn’t sound right to me.

I freely admit that everything I find indicates conservatives give more, but some of the reasons that have been offered here make sense to me, especially that charitable contributions make great tax deductions. I know we’re like Mike; we don’t bother with tax write-offs, we just GIVE, and nobody knows what our political affiliations are. How do they track that, I’d like to know? All of us who just donate to various organizations, or give to Goodwill/St. Vincent de Paul/etc., or help out at our local shelter or (in my case) nonprofit dog park, and never mention our politics?? How do you gauge that to come up with that result?

In other words, if it comes from tax writeoffs, it don’t mean squat to me, given one of the things rich people do is give to gain tax breaks. And how do they determine who gives more blood and time? I’ve given blood; nowhere does it ask for my political affiliation, nor has any nonprofit I’ve EVER worked for. I spent years working for MMC and while, yeah, the guys I worked for knew my politics and I knew theirs, nobody in charge knew or kept track, so...?

I don’t buy it, now that I’ve thought about it a bit. I’d need to know where they got their “facts” and how they made the determination in order to accept it.


Hippie Operative Nikovich Nikita Nicovna Talibani,
Contracted Agent of Veritas Oilspillus, code name “Nike”,
signing off



NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, May 30, 2011 2:05 PM

GEEZER

Keep the Shiny side up


Quote:

Originally posted by Niki2:
There are far more liberals than conservatives in the “poor” class and far more conservatives in the “ultra-rich” class, so I’d like to know where they got that conclusion.


Any stats or data to back this assertion up?

Quote:

All of us who just donate to various organizations, or give to Goodwill/St. Vincent de Paul/etc., or help out at our local shelter or (in my case) nonprofit dog park, and never mention our politics?? How do you gauge that to come up with that result?

You do surveys and polling. You ask a sample of people their political stand, their income, their contributions in time and money, and how much goes to what type of charity.

Quote:

In other words, if it comes from tax write-offs, it don’t mean squat to me, given one of the things rich people do is give to gain tax breaks.
Any stats or data to back this assertion up?

Quote:

And how do they determine who gives more blood and time?

They do polling and surveys.

Quote:

I don’t buy it, now that I've thought about it a bit. I’d need to know where they got their “facts” and how they made the determination in order to accept it.

You could start by going to your public library and checking out "Who Really Cares: The Surprising Truth About Compassionate Conservatism." by Arthur C. Brooks, which I mentioned earlier. He gives details on how the data he used was collected.

Its interesting that you make assertions about conservatives being richer that liberals, and that the rich (which you assume are all conservatives) only give to charity for tax breaks, without any backup, but demand the same for anything you disagree with.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, May 30, 2011 2:32 PM

1KIKI

Goodbye, kind world (George Monbiot) - In common with all those generations which have contemplated catastrophe, we appear to be incapable of understanding what confronts us.


Isn't this a really old topic? And wasn't it discussed that conservatives donate to churches (which may not be doing actual charitable work) and that that accounts for the 'charitable' (your mileage may vary) donations? And wasn't it mentioned that liberals may be donating to causes to try and make the world a better place - Sierra Club for example - that don't count as charities?

Why are we on this all over again?

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, May 30, 2011 2:32 PM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


To get away from the discussion about who is more generous, and back to the original topic...

There are some disasters too big to even pretend that local volunteerism will do the job. It takes big technology and big money for big fixes. Take the earthquake in Haiti. Sure, people can grab shovels (assuming there are any... made of steel, tho. Not about to be made on-site!) and dig latrines, and grab some gloves and re-stack rubble into more shanties... but they're back where they started, with inadequate sanitation which spreads diseases and inadequate housing ready to tumble down again.

The bigger the disaster... the 500-year flood which washes away levees and cities, the earthquake that levels a city.... the bigger the fix. A hundred-thousand volunteers, no matter how well-meaning, aren't going to put those Humpty-Dumpties back together again.


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, May 30, 2011 2:56 PM

1KIKI

Goodbye, kind world (George Monbiot) - In common with all those generations which have contemplated catastrophe, we appear to be incapable of understanding what confronts us.


Could people
> remove the pancaked layers of an apartment building after an earthquake with their bare hands?
> dig for miners trapped deep underground?
> prevent a nuclear meltdown from hitting the water table?

There may not be enough local people. They may not have the expertise. Equipment may not be available.



At the same time people are criticizing the Japanese government for not reaching out for global expertise, equipment and help, they are saying the US Federal government should not be involved in US disasters. It really is a WTF!? moment.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, May 30, 2011 6:06 PM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


Well, I was going to bring up Fukushima, but I feel like I'm the only one talking about it. There's a disaster that not only affects the GLOBE (duh!) it also needs international assistance.

But, HEY! Let's do it the Republican way! Let's assume that TEPCO will handle it all. Or that they can drum up enough volunteers to hand-carry the rubble out. Better yet, they'll drum up volunteers with guns!

That'll work, right?

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, May 30, 2011 6:28 PM

1KIKI

Goodbye, kind world (George Monbiot) - In common with all those generations which have contemplated catastrophe, we appear to be incapable of understanding what confronts us.


re Fukushima

I can't speak for others, but I at least am depending on you to ferret out the news, use your excellent judgment to decide what's important, and bring it here. It may feel like a thankless effort, so --- THANK YOU!

You are my bell-weather. If you say RUN! I probably will.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, May 30, 2011 7:31 PM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


I have my passport.... And a spot picked out for a nice, long vacation.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, June 2, 2011 4:07 PM

RIONAEIRE

Beir bua agus beannacht


I appreciate your Fukashima updates Signe.

I think that a lot of us here can agree that cutting disaster aid is a bad idea. I think we can also agree that FIMA doesn't do its job very well and needs to learn how to handle things more officiently. My proposal is that we keep disaster aid the same as it was before this resolution and force FIMA to use money better, then people won't whinge about too much money going to disasters, thus people won't put forth bills like this to limit it.

"A completely coherant River means writers don't deliver" KatTaya

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, June 2, 2011 5:30 PM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


Oh, the peeps here who complain about FEMA will continue to complain no matter how efficient it is. That's the Republican way.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

YOUR OPTIONS

NEW POSTS TODAY

USERPOST DATE

OTHER TOPICS

DISCUSSIONS
Kamala Harris for President
Wed, November 6, 2024 22:13 - 644 posts
That didn't take long...
Wed, November 6, 2024 22:08 - 36 posts
Electoral College, ReSteal 2024 Edition
Wed, November 6, 2024 21:59 - 43 posts
Trump wins 2024. Republicans control Senate.
Wed, November 6, 2024 21:54 - 11 posts
Elections; 2024
Wed, November 6, 2024 21:46 - 4613 posts
Will Your State Regain It's Representation Next Decade?
Wed, November 6, 2024 20:54 - 111 posts
Get Woke, Go Broke
Wed, November 6, 2024 20:36 - 66 posts
Suspect arrested after attack on Paul Pelosi, American businessman, married to Nancy Pelosi Speaker of the United States House of Representatives
Wed, November 6, 2024 20:22 - 62 posts
Where are the Libertarians?
Wed, November 6, 2024 20:16 - 91 posts
Multiculturalism
Wed, November 6, 2024 20:07 - 54 posts
For the record.
Wed, November 6, 2024 20:00 - 224 posts
India
Wed, November 6, 2024 19:52 - 140 posts

FFF.NET SOCIAL