Ron Paul Says Tough Luck Tornado Victims

[lions2011]

Ron Paul said today the Tornado victims of this past weekend should get NO Federal aide.....tough titties if you didn't have insurance.

 

[Thumb]

Ron Paul said today the Tornado victims of this past weekend should get NO Federal aide.....tough titties if you didn't have insurance.

Where's Kanye when you need him?

 

[Michchamp]

I'm guessing most of the victims - rural folk in some of the redder midwestern and southern states - are actually democrats who aren't opposed to the government intervention in markets and the government provision of goods and services in some instances, and therefore there would be nothing hypocritical here about them accepting a handout, AKA welfare, from the government for tornado relief.

 

[tsmith7559]

Ron Paul said today the Tornado victims of this past weekend should get NO Federal aide.....tough titties if you didn't have insurance.

Where's Kanye when you need him?

Kanye blew his horn and then left the brothers in NO on their own..just like a good lib. Get the spotlight...then book

 

[Thumb]

Where's Kanye when you need him?

Kanye blew his horn and then left the brothers in NO on their own..just like a good lib. Get the spotlight...then book

Yeah, and the Bush administration pretended like it never happened, because none of the people in the lower 9th ward were his constituents anyways......just like a scumbag right-winger.

 

[dannydiggler]

God hates trailer trash..

 

[lions2011]

Danny Diggler[/color]]God hates trailer trash..

so do Republicans

 

[tsmith7559]

Kanye blew his horn and then left the brothers in NO on their own..just like a good lib. Get the spotlight...then book

Yeah, and the Bush administration pretended like it never happened, because none of the people in the lower 9th ward were his constituents anyways......just like a scumbag right-winger.

Bush sent them billions...Mayor Nagin took the money and ran, like a good lib

 

[byco42]

Transcript: Insurance is a blip in his comments. The larger issue is that FEMA is inefficient and obstructive. So the Aid is Aidless and gets in the way of the recovery, but because intent is everything these days, well, FEMA is good.

CROWLEY: Let me turn you to a domestic issue. I'm sure you know that tornadoes have hit a wide swath of states, particularly in the Midwest, about 10 states. The damage is enormous.

You have frequently been critical of FEMA, the Federal Emergency Management Agency and the federal money that is given to some of these home owners and those that are also -- other victims of storms like this. Is there a role for federal money in helping all of these citizens get their lives back together?

PAUL: Not really, because it's not authorized and there is no such thing as federal money. Federal money is just what they steal from the states and steal from you and me. So there is no federal money unless you say, well, they can print it and cause internal problems.

But to say you don't support federal money doesn't mean you don't care about people, because FEMA is inefficient. I've lived on the Gulf Coast and I got re-elected constantly by criticizing FEMA because of people who had to put up with FEMA after the hurricanes, had nothing but frustration and anger with them.

And to point out, well, they might give you a home, yes, they bought a lot of trailers for Katrina, you know, and it's just so wasteful, inefficient. But, you know, the Guard units and other things within the states certainly is there. The people who live in Tornado Alley just as I live in a hurricane alley, they should have insurance for doing this.

But under major emergency, natural disasters, if there is a need, you know, for some help such as the military to come in, that is not a tragic violation, but to say that any accident that happens in the country, send in FEMA, send in the money, the government has all this money, it's totally out of control and it's not efficient.

There's a much better way of doing this and helping it. The FEMA, I was constantly told by the people of my district, they just get in the way. They take over law enforcement. They take over and they hinder the voluntary group and they hinder the state organization, exactly opposite of what we should be doing.

 

[byco42]

Ron Paul said today the Tornado victims of this past weekend should get NO Federal aide.....tough titties if you didn't have insurance.

You come across as a grade-eight teenage girl claiming that Paul McCartney was dead because you discovered all the album clues.

 

[lions2011]

Ron Paul said today the Tornado victims of this past weekend should get NO Federal aide.....tough titties if you didn't have insurance.

You come across as a grade-eight teenage girl claiming that Paul McCartney was dead because you discovered all the album clues.

I try gimp....

 

[byco42]

You come across as a grade-eight teenage girl claiming that Paul McCartney was dead because you discovered all the album clues.

I try gimp....

Nah ... it comes naturally to you. I guess all the problems in Canada are solved, which accounts for your acute interest in all things American.

 

[Michchamp]

thanks for posting the whole quote, Byco. This is where I really diverge from Ron Paul, politically, though.

As usual, the libertarian way of thinking ASSUMES a world where everyone is financially secure, well-educated, and omnipotent such that they are able to understand every risk out there, including the likelihood it might happen to them. AND of course, they are all able to buy insurance, can afford it, and aren't discriminated against by the insurance company. None of which is realistic, by the way.

I guess this is why I tend to side more with the liberal way of thinking; at least that attempts to accept the world as it is, rather than as it should be, and legislate for that.

also, Paul is wrong that there is no such thing as federal money. I don't know how he can make a statement like that. the constitution expressly provides that the legislature can tax and spend for the "general welfare." There are no qualifications in this clause, except for what is otherwise expressly prohibited elsewhere in the Constitution (e.g., congress can't tax and spend the funds to establish a religion).

 

[msuspartan]

thanks for posting the whole quote, Byco. This is where I really diverge from Ron Paul, politically, though.

As usual, the libertarian way of thinking ASSUMES a world where everyone is financially secure, well-educated, and omnipotent such that they are able to understand every risk out there, including the likelihood it might happen to them. AND of course, they are all able to buy insurance, can afford it, and aren't discriminated against by the insurance company. None of which is realistic, by the way.

I guess this is why I tend to side more with the liberal way of thinking; at least that attempts to accept the world as it is, rather than as it should be, and legislate for that.

also, Paul is wrong that there is no such thing as federal money. I don't know how he can make a statement like that. the constitution expressly provides that the legislature can tax and spend for the "general welfare." There are no qualifications in this clause, except for what is otherwise expressly prohibited elsewhere in the Constitution (e.g., congress can't tax and spend the funds to establish a religion).

Libertarians do not assume everyone is well educated. Libertarians simply believe the federal government is not responsible to solve everyone's problems.

If someones house is wiped out by a natural disaster 10 times and my house in another state isn't once, should I pay for that other person to rebuild their house 10 times? How is this logic fair? This demonstrates how there is no such thing as federal money. Money has to come from somewhere, another state for example.

I am sympathetic towards everyone who lost something or someone in these storms, but if power was returned to the states things would be more effective and efficient than anything the federal government could accomplish.

 

[Michchamp]

thanks for posting the whole quote, Byco. This is where I really diverge from Ron Paul, politically, though.

As usual, the libertarian way of thinking ASSUMES a world where everyone is financially secure, well-educated, and omnipotent such that they are able to understand every risk out there, including the likelihood it might happen to them. AND of course, they are all able to buy insurance, can afford it, and aren't discriminated against by the insurance company. None of which is realistic, by the way.

I guess this is why I tend to side more with the liberal way of thinking; at least that attempts to accept the world as it is, rather than as it should be, and legislate for that.

also, Paul is wrong that there is no such thing as federal money. I don't know how he can make a statement like that. the constitution expressly provides that the legislature can tax and spend for the "general welfare." There are no qualifications in this clause, except for what is otherwise expressly prohibited elsewhere in the Constitution (e.g., congress can't tax and spend the funds to establish a religion).

Libertarians do not assume everyone is well educated. Libertarians simply believe the federal government is not responsible to solve everyone's problems.

If someones house is wiped out by a natural disaster 10 times and my house in another state isn't once, should I pay for that other person to rebuild their house 10 times? How is this logic fair? This demonstrates how there is no such thing as federal money. Money has to come from somewhere, another state for example.

I am sympathetic towards everyone who lost something or someone in these storms, but if power was returned to the states things would be more effective and efficient than anything the federal government could accomplish.

nothing you said refutes anything I said.

the libertarian way of thinking is predicated on individual liberty producing fair outcomes without the need for government intervention, which just doesn't work. In REAL LIFE individuals are subject to the market power of large insurers who may decide to charge prohibitively expensive premiums, or not insure anyone. they've often discriminated against people based on race and socio-economic status.

people also have no idea how risky their decision to live somewhere is. No one says to a home buyer "Hey, if you live here, there is a 42% chance your home may be destroyed by a tornado, a 5% chance of an earthquake, and here's how much it costs to insure against that risk..." it just doesn't happen.

and there is such a thing as federal money. Paul is wrong, his analysis is incomplete, it's expressly authorized in the constitution.

This way of thinking - what Paul is doing here - is typical of people who never understood the big picture of how the world works.

they limit themselves to a couple Econ 101 lessons, a quote from Adam Smith about the free market (taken out of context), and decide to ignore decades of human experience and evidence to the contrary when making their policy recommendations.

 

[redandguilty]

I guess this is why I tend to side more with the liberal way of thinking; at least that attempts to accept the world as it is, rather than as it should be, and legislate for that.

...the constitution expressly provides that the legislature can tax and spend for the "general welfare.&quot...

What does that get us? discontented, lazy rabble instead of a thrifty working class. And all because a few starry-eyed dreamers like MichChamp stir them up and fill their heads with a lot of impossible ideas.

...mostly a quote there...

 

[msuspartan]

Libertarians do not assume everyone is well educated. Libertarians simply believe the federal government is not responsible to solve everyone's problems.

If someones house is wiped out by a natural disaster 10 times and my house in another state isn't once, should I pay for that other person to rebuild their house 10 times? How is this logic fair? This demonstrates how there is no such thing as federal money. Money has to come from somewhere, another state for example.

I am sympathetic towards everyone who lost something or someone in these storms, but if power was returned to the states things would be more effective and efficient than anything the federal government could accomplish.

nothing you said refutes anything I said.

the libertarian way of thinking is predicated on individual liberty producing fair outcomes without the need for government intervention, which just doesn't work. In REAL LIFE individuals are subject to the market power of large insurers who may decide to charge prohibitively expensive premiums, or not insure anyone. they've often discriminated against people based on race and socio-economic status.

people also have no idea how risky their decision to live somewhere is. No one says to a home buyer "Hey, if you live here, there is a 42% chance your home may be destroyed by a tornado, a 5% chance of an earthquake, and here's how much it costs to insure against that risk..." it just doesn't happen.

and there is such a thing as federal money. Paul is wrong, his analysis is incomplete, it's expressly authorized in the constitution.

This way of thinking - what Paul is doing here - is typical of people who never understood the big picture of how the world works.

they limit themselves to a couple Econ 101 lessons, a quote from Adam Smith about the free market (taken out of context), and decide to ignore decades of human experience and evidence to the contrary when making their policy recommendations.

Wouldn't it be better if each state in a disaster area had its "own FEMA"? The less federal government the better. Look how great of a job FEMA did for Hurricane Katrina.

"General welfare" in the Constitution was not intended to rebuild homes and entire lives. If you believe so then that is a very progressive style of thought. Unless I've repeatedly missed it where is it explicitly states so in the Constitution, please provide evidence.

On a side note, if all Paul supporters limited themselves to Econ 101 lessons they would be Keynesian .

 

[redandguilty]

nothing you said refutes anything I said.

the libertarian way of thinking is predicated on individual liberty producing fair outcomes without the need for government intervention, which just doesn't work. In REAL LIFE individuals are subject to the market power of large insurers who may decide to charge prohibitively expensive premiums, or not insure anyone. they've often discriminated against people based on race and socio-economic status.

people also have no idea how risky their decision to live somewhere is. No one says to a home buyer "Hey, if you live here, there is a 42% chance your home may be destroyed by a tornado, a 5% chance of an earthquake, and here's how much it costs to insure against that risk..." it just doesn't happen.

and there is such a thing as federal money. Paul is wrong, his analysis is incomplete, it's expressly authorized in the constitution.

This way of thinking - what Paul is doing here - is typical of people who never understood the big picture of how the world works.

they limit themselves to a couple Econ 101 lessons, a quote from Adam Smith about the free market (taken out of context), and decide to ignore decades of human experience and evidence to the contrary when making their policy recommendations.

Wouldn't it be better if each state in a disaster area had its "own FEMA"? The less federal government the better. Look how great of a job FEMA did for Hurricane Katrina.

"General welfare" in the Constitution was not intended to rebuild homes and entire lives. If you believe so then that is a very progressive style of thought. Unless I've repeatedly missed it where is it explicitly states so in the Constitution, please provide evidence.

On a side note, if all Paul supporters limited themselves to Econ 101 lessons they would be Keynesian .

I don't think entry level econ gets you to Keynes.

 

[msuspartan]

Wouldn't it be better if each state in a disaster area had its "own FEMA"? The less federal government the better. Look how great of a job FEMA did for Hurricane Katrina.

"General welfare" in the Constitution was not intended to rebuild homes and entire lives. If you believe so then that is a very progressive style of thought. Unless I've repeatedly missed it where is it explicitly states so in the Constitution, please provide evidence.

On a side note, if all Paul supporters limited themselves to Econ 101 lessons they would be Keynesian .

I don't think entry level econ gets you to Keynes.

Economics 202: Introduction to Macroeconomics at MSU is full of it. The professor doesn't have to come out at use the word Keynes to introduce Keynesian philosophy. When they teach macro they have to teach based on one type of theory or the class wouldn't exist.

 

[redandguilty]

I don't think entry level econ gets you to Keynes.

Economics 202: Introduction to Macroeconomics at MSU is full of it. The professor doesn't have to come out at use the word Keynes to introduce Keynesian philosophy. When they teach macro they have to teach based on one type of theory or the class wouldn't exist.

But entry level econ is usually microeconomics, isn't it?