UnThreaded | Threaded | Whole Thread (111) | Ignore Thread Prev Thread | Next Thread
Author: March24th Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: of 753067  
Subject: GoofyHoofy Date: 8/29/2011 4:54 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 31
http://blog.heritage.org/2010/05/10/federalization-of-disast...

FEMA is just like the FDIC, Amtrak, PBGC, SS, Medicare, etc.... BANKRUPT!!! Yet according to you (apparently), we should never inquire as to the costs, or if the government is the most efficient and effective way of accomplishing a given goal.

Why is it wrong to ask these questions?
Print the post Back To Top
Author: March24th Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 582070 of 753067
Subject: Re: GoofyHoofy Date: 8/29/2011 4:59 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 10
Another one

http://blog.heritage.org/2011/08/10/obamas-fema-breaks-disas...

Keep in mind: During Obama’s time in office, not one hurricane has struck the United States (as of the date of this article), and not one earthquake of a 7 or higher reading on the Richter scale has occurred. As we have pointed out many times, the U.S. is federalizing more and more natural disasters that were handled by states and localities from 1787 to 1992. The federalization trend since 1993 gets larger with each presidential Administration.

This is the nature of government: grow, and grow, and grow, and grow. So what's the end game GoofyHoofy? At what point have we done "enough"?

Print the post Back To Top
Author: wolverine307 Big funky green star, 20000 posts Top Recommended Fools Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 582074 of 753067
Subject: Re: GoofyHoofy Date: 8/29/2011 5:14 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 2
Sic 'em fella.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: fleg9bo Big funky green star, 20000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 582075 of 753067
Subject: Re: GoofyHoofy Date: 8/29/2011 5:28 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 27
This is the nature of government: grow, and grow, and grow, and grow. So what's the end game GoofyHoofy? At what point have we done "enough"?

See the film "Lives of Others," which won the Academy Award for best foreign film a few years back. It depicts life in communist East Germany and the danger people were in for wanting freedom. That's the progressive vision of "enough."

--fleg

P.S. I saw the film with Goofy. He cried when the regime fell.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: crassfool Big funky green star, 20000 posts Feste Award Nominee! Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 582115 of 753067
Subject: Re: GoofyHoofy Date: 8/30/2011 2:12 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 15
fleg says

P.S. I saw the film with Goofy. He cried when the regime fell.

That wasn't Goofy. That was your imaginary friend, the Imaginary Liberal.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: zathrus1 Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 582126 of 753067
Subject: Re: GoofyHoofy Date: 8/30/2011 8:21 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 50
http://blog.heritage.org/2010/05/10/federalization-of-disast......

FEMA is just like the FDIC, Amtrak, PBGC, SS, Medicare, etc.... BANKRUPT!!! Yet according to you (apparently), we should never inquire as to the costs, or if the government is the most efficient and effective way of accomplishing a given goal.

Why is it wrong to ask these questions?


It's not wrong to ask questions, provided they are honest questions, and you've got the intellectual integrity to seek honest answers.

Since a newly spawned dopple saw fit to ask the questions, I have to figure the integrity is in pretty short supply. Business as usual.

Zath

Print the post Back To Top
Author: 2828 Big funky green star, 20000 posts Top Recommended Fools Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 582132 of 753067
Subject: Re: GoofyHoofy Date: 8/30/2011 8:45 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 19
Since a newly spawned dopple saw fit to ask the questions, I have to figure the integrity is in pretty short supply. Business as usual.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Someone from PA complaining about dopples, fascinating.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: telegraph Big funky green star, 20000 posts Top Recommended Fools Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 582144 of 753067
Subject: Re: GoofyHoofy Date: 8/30/2011 10:10 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 1
Just read today in the WSJ that the Federal Flood insurance program is already way way in the red, and of course, the recent flooding in New England and NJ and NY will require them to run to Congress for scads more money to stay 'solvent'

ANother government run boondoggle.

"The flood damage from Hurricane Irene raises pressure on Congress as it debates how to overhaul the government's debt-strapped flood-insurance program, but lawmakers remain unlikely to thrash out a long-term agreement before the program is due to expire Sept. 30, insurance and real-estate industry lobbyists said. "

http://financialnewsnow.info/future-still-cloudy-for-flood-i...




t.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: ziggy29 Big funky green star, 20000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 582145 of 753067
Subject: Re: GoofyHoofy Date: 8/30/2011 10:20 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
>> Just read today in the WSJ that the Federal Flood insurance program is already way way in the red, and of course, the recent flooding in New England and NJ and NY will require them to run to Congress for scads more money to stay 'solvent'

ANother government run boondoggle.
<<

The problem is that when "too big to fail" financial institutions like banks and insurers are in trouble, they can run to the government for their bailout money.

Who can the government run to?

#29

Print the post Back To Top
Author: JLC Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 582164 of 753067
Subject: Re: GoofyHoofy Date: 8/30/2011 11:55 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 2
Who can the government run to?

#29


The rich.

Please keep up you knuckle dragging non-progressive neanderthal.

JLC

Print the post Back To Top
Author: feedmeNOWhuman Big funky green star, 20000 posts Old School Fool CAPS All Star Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 582167 of 753067
Subject: Re: GoofyHoofy Date: 8/30/2011 12:01 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 13
Since a newly spawned dopple saw fit to ask the questions, I have to figure the integrity is in pretty short supply. Business as usual.



Conservatives are spawning doppels all over TMF. They can't win an argument on facts, so they create phony accounts to disrupt the board.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: 2828 Big funky green star, 20000 posts Top Recommended Fools Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 582169 of 753067
Subject: Re: GoofyHoofy Date: 8/30/2011 12:04 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
Conservatives are spawning doppels all over TMF. They can't win an argument on facts, so they create phony accounts to disrupt the board.
----------------------------------------------------------------
O.M.G!

Print the post Back To Top
Author: arrete Big funky green star, 20000 posts Top Recommended Fools Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 582170 of 753067
Subject: Re: GoofyHoofy Date: 8/30/2011 12:20 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 2
Conservatives are spawning doppels all over TMF. They can't win an argument on facts, so they create phony accounts to disrupt the board.
----------------------------------------------------------------
O.M.G!
================

Disrupt what board? The Best of... ? I guess new conservatives have no right to make Best of ...

arrete

Print the post Back To Top
Author: wolverine307 Big funky green star, 20000 posts Top Recommended Fools Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 582173 of 753067
Subject: Re: GoofyHoofy Date: 8/30/2011 12:31 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 1
Disrupt what board? The Best of... ? I guess new conservatives have no right to make Best of ...

I'm not following this. If Poster A makes a point, he/she makes a point. Trying to determine if the poster is a newbie or a doppel is sorta irrelevant, doncha think? Why not focus on the argument?

Print the post Back To Top
Author: ziggy29 Big funky green star, 20000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 582175 of 753067
Subject: Re: GoofyHoofy Date: 8/30/2011 12:47 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 6
>> I'm not following this. If Poster A makes a point, he/she makes a point. Trying to determine if the poster is a newbie or a doppel is sorta irrelevant, doncha think? Why not focus on the argument? <<

Easy, and straight out of the textbook for Political Demagoguery 101: If you can't defeat the argument, discredit the intelligence and motivations of the opponent who presents it.

#29

Print the post Back To Top
Author: wolverine307 Big funky green star, 20000 posts Top Recommended Fools Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 582178 of 753067
Subject: Re: GoofyHoofy Date: 8/30/2011 12:53 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 2
Conservatives are spawning doppels all over TMF. They can't win an argument on facts, so they create phony accounts to disrupt the board.

Says the guy who comes over here just to argue and flame.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: Goofyhoofy Big funky green star, 20000 posts Top Favorite Fools Top Recommended Fools Feste Award Nominee! Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 582185 of 753067
Subject: Re: GoofyHoofy Date: 8/30/2011 1:49 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 138
Yet according to you (apparently), we should never inquire as to the costs, or if the government is the most efficient and effective way of accomplishing a given goal.
Why is it wrong to ask these questions?


Please point where I said you should "never" ask these questions.

Indeed, it's not wrong at all to ask these question. It would stupid not to ask these questions, just as it would be stupid to call for the destruction of an agency without knowing anything about it. You wouldn't not anybody who fits in that latter category, would you?

Keep in mind: During Obama’s time in office, not one hurricane has struck the United States (as of the date of this article), and not one earthquake of a 7 or higher reading on the Richter scale has occurred. As we have pointed out many times, the U.S. is federalizing more and more natural disasters that were handled by states and localities from 1787 to 1992.

It's a wonderful piece from the oh-so-highly respected and impartial Heritage Foundation. Somehow they seem to have skipped over the largest wildfire in the history of Texas, the midwest flooding in North Dakota, South Dakota, Missouri, Missisippi, Minnesota, Tennessee, and Alabama, the flash floods in Tennessee, Arkansas, Iowa, and Kentucky, the mud flows in California, the tailings dam collapse in Tennessee, flooding in Vermont, and tornadoes throughout most of the mid-west last spring.

Why would that be? Are they being dishonest? Or is the person who quoted it being dishonest? Or are we to pretend that the only things that count are "earthquakes" and "hurricanes." (Given that we've had a major one of each in the last month, let's add those to the list to, shall we? Somebody be sure to send a note to the Heritage Foundation, which seems to be a little late with the news.)

I notice that now, for the third time, you have ignored the simple question: what do we do? Leave these people to wait on rooftops for the Home Depot helicopter to come rescue them? Hope that the local Baptist church has a crane big enough to lift a collapsed house off the people inside?

I also notice that you haven't bothered thinking any of this through. Nearly all of the states listed above have Republican governors, Republican legislatures, and yet somehow they keep asking for FEMA help, probably because they're not equipped to deal with everything themselves. Why should Maryland be ready for an earthquake when it hasn't had one in 100 years? Why should any state have to prepare for every possible eventuality - so we have 50 states all preparing for the same thing at some exorbitant cost.

This is the Republican dream? No, I think it is the nutter's dream, so beautifully captures and personified by the cheerleading squad on this board, who, like the mindless kids in short skirts on the sidelines don't really understand anything about the game, but go on yelling sis-boom-bah to the equally clueless fans in this tiny little dysfunctional corner of the Fool.

Ask all the questions you want. When you get an answer, try thinking about things before you come back and make a fool of yourself.

Oh, and thanks for putting my name in the post title. I always appreciate the publicity, because lord knows, using my name to get yourself a few cheap recs is a great way to introduce yourself to the larger Fool community. Fair warning: most of them will have a lower, not higher opinion of you afterwards, especially if you continue asking such elementary questions and posting such dishonest tripe.

Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Print the post Back To Top
Author: 2828 Big funky green star, 20000 posts Top Recommended Fools Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 582191 of 753067
Subject: Re: GoofyHoofy Date: 8/30/2011 2:15 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 24
Oh, and thanks for putting my name in the post title. I always appreciate the publicity, because lord knows, using my name to get yourself a few cheap recs is a great way to introduce yourself to the larger Fool community. Fair warning: most of them will have a lower, not higher opinion of you afterwards, especially if you continue asking such elementary questions and posting such dishonest tripe.
--------------------------------------------------------
Man, are you arrogant. Why i have no idea.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: wolverine307 Big funky green star, 20000 posts Top Recommended Fools Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 582192 of 753067
Subject: Re: GoofyHoofy Date: 8/30/2011 2:21 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 1
Oh, and thanks for putting my name in the post title. I always appreciate the publicity, because lord knows, using my name to get yourself a few cheap recs is a great way to introduce yourself to the larger Fool community. Fair warning: most of them will have a lower, not higher opinion of you afterwards, especially if you continue asking such elementary questions and posting such dishonest tripe.

I assume that the above came from The Goofster.

"Dishonest tripe" is posting an article indicating that FEMA is going down the bankruptcy road and perhaps, just perhaps, some rethinking is necessary to our current way of doing things. That is dishonest?

I just wonder what The Goofster considers honesty?

Print the post Back To Top
Author: MadCapitalist Big funky green star, 20000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 582193 of 753067
Subject: Re: GoofyHoofy Date: 8/30/2011 2:25 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 13
Oh, and thanks for putting my name in the post title. I always appreciate the publicity, because lord knows, using my name to get yourself a few cheap recs is a great way to introduce yourself to the larger Fool community. Fair warning: most of them will have a lower, not higher opinion of you afterwards, especially if you continue asking such elementary questions and posting such dishonest tripe.
--------------------------------------------------------
Man, are you arrogant. Why i have no idea.


You forgot ugly, lazy, and disrespectful.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: wolverine307 Big funky green star, 20000 posts Top Recommended Fools Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 582194 of 753067
Subject: Re: GoofyHoofy Date: 8/30/2011 2:31 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 1
Man, are you arrogant. Why i have no idea.

You forgot ugly, lazy, and disrespectful.

I must admit that I do find his recitaton of history to be entertaining.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: 2828 Big funky green star, 20000 posts Top Recommended Fools Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 582196 of 753067
Subject: Re: GoofyHoofy Date: 8/30/2011 2:33 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 5
I just figured out why they're more unhinged than usual. I just checked the Best Of and there are about 10 RECF posts there. For the first time ever we have more posts there than Political Asylum, so of course out come the accusations of dopples. They must think everyone is as attention hungry as them and needs to create doppels like Goofy and Knudsen did. Sorry, we aren't that nuerotic <g>.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: wolverine307 Big funky green star, 20000 posts Top Recommended Fools Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 582198 of 753067
Subject: Re: GoofyHoofy Date: 8/30/2011 2:41 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 6
I just figured out why they're more unhinged than usual. I just checked the Best Of and there are about 10 RECF posts there. For the first time ever we have more posts there than Political Asylum, so of course out come the accusations of dopples. They must think everyone is as attention hungry as them and needs to create doppels like Goofy and Knudsen did. Sorry, we aren't that nuerotic <g>.

Liberalism is a rigid dogma. It tolerates no dissent from The One True Faith. Liberals are good at sitting on the sidelines and sniping at the injustices of the world and calls for Utopia, but not much else.

I think our resident libs see the writing on the wall for the Welfare State and it angers them. Since liberal failure is never the fault of the theology.

I think that the 2012 election is gonna set an all-time record for demonization and cheating. They cannot win on their ideas, so they'll revert to what they do best: lie, cheat, and steal.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: Jim2B Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 582229 of 753067
Subject: Re: GoofyHoofy Date: 8/30/2011 4:59 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 4
I just figured out why they're more unhinged than usual. I just checked the Best Of and there are about 10 RECF posts there. For the first time ever we have more posts there than Political Asylum, so of course out come the accusations of dopples. They must think everyone is as attention hungry as them and needs to create doppels like Goofy and Knudsen did. Sorry, we aren't that nuerotic <g>.

They had better get used to it. The country is fed up with their kind and they're going to start seeing more vocal opposition then they are used to.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: lowstudent Big funky green star, 20000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 582231 of 753067
Subject: Re: GoofyHoofy Date: 8/30/2011 5:02 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 2
They had better get used to it. The country is fed up with their kind and they're going to start seeing more vocal opposition then they are used to.
_________________

From your keyboard to God's inbox!

Print the post Back To Top
Author: 2828 Big funky green star, 20000 posts Top Recommended Fools Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 582237 of 753067
Subject: Re: GoofyHoofy Date: 8/30/2011 5:18 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 3
Irony, Goofy wrote:

No, I think it is the nutter's dream, so beautifully captures and personified by the cheerleading squad on this board, who, like the mindless kids in short skirts on the sidelines don't really understand anything about the game, but go on yelling sis-boom-bah to the equally clueless fans in this tiny little dysfunctional corner of the Fool.

His post has 14 recs right now and is on the Best Of <g>.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: wolverine307 Big funky green star, 20000 posts Top Recommended Fools Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 582241 of 753067
Subject: Re: GoofyHoofy Date: 8/30/2011 5:26 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 12
No, I think it is the nutter's dream, so beautifully captures and personified by the cheerleading squad on this board, who, like the mindless kids in short skirts on the sidelines don't really understand anything about the game, but go on yelling sis-boom-bah to the equally clueless fans in this tiny little dysfunctional corner of the Fool.

I am always amazed, however, that if you point out the failings of the Welfare State AND. THAT. WE. HAVE. NO. MORE. MONEY. we somehow lack their sophistication and genius.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: BermudaKenn Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 582242 of 753067
Subject: Re: GoofyHoofy Date: 8/30/2011 5:26 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 21
His post has 14 recs right now and is on the Best Of <g>.

Even if his post falls short of the goal-line, you gotta give him credit for managing that many dopples.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: alchook Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 582245 of 753067
Subject: Re: GoofyHoofy Date: 8/30/2011 5:40 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 7
Liberalism is a rigid dogma. It tolerates no dissent from The One True Faith.

When asked if a deficit-reduction plan offering $10 in spending cuts for every $1 in tax increases would be acceptable, all 8 Republican Presidential candidates said no.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: TheDope1 Big funky green star, 20000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 582246 of 753067
Subject: Re: GoofyHoofy Date: 8/30/2011 5:41 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 20

I'm not following this. If Poster A makes a point, he/she makes a point. Trying to determine if the poster is a newbie or a doppel is sorta irrelevant, doncha think? Why not focus on the argument?


Easy. Because none of the lib PA'ers have any game whatsoever. Flames are the currency over there.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: wolverine307 Big funky green star, 20000 posts Top Recommended Fools Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 582247 of 753067
Subject: Re: GoofyHoofy Date: 8/30/2011 5:43 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 1
When asked if a deficit-reduction plan offering $10 in spending cuts for every $1 in tax increases would be acceptable, all 8 Republican Presidential candidates said no.

That was a trap and they know it. Any GOP candidate that goes into primary season endorsing tax increases is toast.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: ziggy29 Big funky green star, 20000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 582248 of 753067
Subject: Re: GoofyHoofy Date: 8/30/2011 5:46 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 5
>> That was a trap and they know it. Any GOP candidate that goes into primary season endorsing tax increases is toast. <<

Which is part of the reason pledges are stupid, like "zero tolerance" laws. They lock you into situations that defy common sense sometimes. Better to get a 10-for-1 deal than some "grand commission" which is just going to keep kicking the can and repeatedly give us this "debt ceiling crisis" every few months.

#29

Print the post Back To Top
Author: 2828 Big funky green star, 20000 posts Top Recommended Fools Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 582249 of 753067
Subject: Re: GoofyHoofy Date: 8/30/2011 5:48 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 2
Which is part of the reason pledges are stupid, like "zero tolerance" laws. They lock you into situations that defy common sense sometimes. Better to get a 10-for-1 deal than some "grand commission" which is just going to keep kicking the can and repeatedly give us this "debt ceiling crisis" every few months.

#29
-----------------------------------------------
The thing i fear about a 10 for 1 deal is the tax hikes will be real but the cuts with be ether, like that last stand-off before the debt ceiling stand-off.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: 2828 Big funky green star, 20000 posts Top Recommended Fools Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 582250 of 753067
Subject: Re: GoofyHoofy Date: 8/30/2011 5:58 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 1
Which is part of the reason pledges are stupid, like "zero tolerance" laws. They lock you into situations that defy common sense sometimes. Better to get a 10-for-1 deal than some "grand commission" which is just going to keep kicking the can and repeatedly give us this "debt ceiling crisis" every few months.

#29
-----------------------------------------------
The thing i fear about a 10 for 1 deal is the tax hikes will be real but the cuts with be ether, like that last stand-off before the debt ceiling stand-off.
-----------------------------------------------
Another problem i have is that it's a spending problem we have, not a revenue problem. It's the equivalent of giving the Jones family that spent $16,000 more than they took in another credit card. When you think of it that way it makes no sense. They need to get their house in order and show they can live within their means before there's talk of giving them more money.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: ziggy29 Big funky green star, 20000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 582254 of 753067
Subject: Re: GoofyHoofy Date: 8/30/2011 6:28 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 2
>> Another problem i have is that it's a spending problem we have, not a revenue problem. It's the equivalent of giving the Jones family that spent $16,000 more than they took in another credit card. When you think of it that way it makes no sense. They need to get their house in order and show they can live within their means before there's talk of giving them more money. <<

I agree with that in principle, but since I think what we did get is more kicking the can (and a "commission" that's going to get paralyzed by partisanship), maybe a bird in the hand instead of two in the friggin' bush (or in this case, 10 birds in the hand instead of 11 in the friggin' bush) might have been worthwhile if there was some mechanism for enforcing spending cuts (big if, I'll grant you that). But by drinking the Grover Norquist Kool-Aid, nothing less than absolute purity would suffice.

But if that leads to more kicking the can, the "fix" a few years down the road will be worse than what it would be today.

#29

Print the post Back To Top
Author: MadCapitalist Big funky green star, 20000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 582255 of 753067
Subject: Re: GoofyHoofy Date: 8/30/2011 6:43 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
>> Another problem i have is that it's a spending problem we have, not a revenue problem. It's the equivalent of giving the Jones family that spent $16,000 more than they took in another credit card. When you think of it that way it makes no sense. They need to get their house in order and show they can live within their means before there's talk of giving them more money. <<

I agree with that in principle, but since I think what we did get is more kicking the can (and a "commission" that's going to get paralyzed by partisanship), maybe a bird in the hand instead of two in the friggin' bush (or in this case, 10 birds in the hand instead of 11 in the friggin' bush) might have been worthwhile if there was some mechanism for enforcing spending cuts (big if, I'll grant you that). But by drinking the Grover Norquist Kool-Aid, nothing less than absolute purity would suffice.

But if that leads to more kicking the can, the "fix" a few years down the road will be worse than what it would be today.

#29


I for one am *ecstatic* about the pledge. Republicans need to keep hammering away that *spending* is the problem. If you give Democrats an inch, they will take a light-year. You know that they will never be satisfied. The lunatics actually think 70% tax rates are a good idea! Enough is enough. By taking the pledge, Republicans are taking taxes out of the equation, and I applaud it. It's a rare display of backbone by Republicans, and I'm certainly not going to discourage it.

Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Print the post Back To Top
Author: alchook Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 582256 of 753067
Subject: Re: GoofyHoofy Date: 8/30/2011 6:59 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 6
Any GOP candidate that goes into primary season endorsing tax increases is toast.

Sounds like a rigid dogma. It tolerates no dissent from The One True Faith.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: BoredPerson One star, 50 posts Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 582287 of 753067
Subject: Re: GoofyHoofy Date: 8/30/2011 11:53 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
You forgot ugly, lazy, and disrespectful.

I guess you don't recognize the irony in that statement.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: jakalant Big red star, 1000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 582289 of 753067
Subject: Re: GoofyHoofy Date: 8/31/2011 12:19 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
Thanks for the chuckle.

Calling someone ugly and disrespectful<i/> in the same sentence.

Such displays of ridiculous incomprehension never fail to crack me up.


Print the post Back To Top
Author: hrse Big red star, 1000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 582301 of 753067
Subject: Re: GoofyHoofy Date: 8/31/2011 8:17 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 1
It's the equivalent of giving the Jones family that spent $16,000 more than they took in another credit card.

That is the Republican plan. (borrow more)

The liberal plan is to have Mrs. Jones get a job while the kids are at school. If that is not enough, then have Mr. Jones get a second job on the weekends. (raise taxes)


I am however surprised. Here Goof was called out on specific questions. He answered them, and although his post is now in the middle of the thread, all that follows is a bunch of name calling.

I thought better of this board. So should FEMA be dismantled? If so then should all communities prepare for all possible disasters? I understand the logic of those who live on the Mississippi or other flood prone waterways should be self prepared for floods, but should all parts of America be prepared for tornadoes?

Print the post Back To Top
Author: 2828 Big funky green star, 20000 posts Top Recommended Fools Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 582302 of 753067
Subject: Re: GoofyHoofy Date: 8/31/2011 8:38 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 7
You forgot ugly, lazy, and disrespectful.

I guess you don't recognize the irony in that statement.
------------------------------------------------------
I guess you don't recognize lines from the movie Breakfast Club.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: 2828 Big funky green star, 20000 posts Top Recommended Fools Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 582305 of 753067
Subject: Re: GoofyHoofy Date: 8/31/2011 8:51 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 5
It's the equivalent of giving the Jones family that spent $16,000 more than they took in another credit card.

That is the Republican plan. (borrow more)
----------------------------------------
C'mon hrse, if you don't even have a passing knowledge of what's going on don't post.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: MadCapitalist Big funky green star, 20000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 582306 of 753067
Subject: Re: GoofyHoofy Date: 8/31/2011 8:52 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 2
You forgot ugly, lazy, and disrespectful.

I guess you don't recognize the irony in that statement.


Does Barry Manilow know that you raid his wardrobe?

Print the post Back To Top
Author: JLC Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 582310 of 753067
Subject: Re: GoofyHoofy Date: 8/31/2011 9:09 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 5
Recommendations: 93

Who knew you could have so many dopples.

JLC

Print the post Back To Top
Author: MadCapitalist Big funky green star, 20000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 582311 of 753067
Subject: Re: GoofyHoofy Date: 8/31/2011 9:10 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 4
"It's the equivalent of giving the Jones family that spent $16,000 more than they took in another credit card."

That is the Republican plan. (borrow more)

----------------------------------------
C'mon hrse, if you don't even have a passing knowledge of what's going on don't post.


To hrse and his ilk, Democrats are given a free pass on massive spending because Democrats are willing to raise taxes just as massively to balance the budget, and Republicans won't give the tax increases to them. Democrats think that their mere *willingness* to raise taxes to close the gap gives them the moral high ground. It's all the Republicans' fault for not giving Democrats sufficient tax revenue to cover the full amount that they are determined to squander. I'm glad that Republicans are taking a strong stand on taxes, because if they grant the tax increase, Democrats will just increase spending more and then complain once again that Republicans just won't give them the tax revenue they need to balance the budget. It's a never-ending cycle.

The fact is that is fiscally irresponsible to spend more than the current tax law provides for. If you want to spend, get the tax revenue first. It's the same as in a person's private life. Don't start spending dramatically more now in anticipation that your income will somehow skyrocket in the near future. Wait until your income skyrockets and *then* increase your spending dramatically if you wish. But still live below your means. Maintain a positive gap so that you are saving during the good times in case something bad happens and you need to draw on those savings temporarily. It's not rocket surgery.

Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Print the post Back To Top
Author: JLC Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 582312 of 753067
Subject: Re: GoofyHoofy Date: 8/31/2011 9:13 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 1
When asked if a deficit-reduction plan offering $10 in spending cuts for every $1 in tax increases would be acceptable, all 8 Republican Presidential candidates said no.

Because the way Congress works, that $10 in spending cuts would be all hand jive, smoke and mirrors, and faux accounting. Leaving us with a $1 tax increase.

JLC

Print the post Back To Top
Author: alchook Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 582318 of 753067
Subject: Re: GoofyHoofy Date: 8/31/2011 9:30 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 2
Because the way Congress works, that $10 in spending cuts would be all hand jive, smoke and mirrors, and faux accounting. Leaving us with a $1 tax increase.

So all 8 Republican candidates rejected the idea because they assume the Democrats would outsmart them?

Print the post Back To Top
Author: 2828 Big funky green star, 20000 posts Top Recommended Fools Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 582319 of 753067
Subject: Re: GoofyHoofy Date: 8/31/2011 9:37 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 2
So all 8 Republican candidates rejected the idea because they assume the Democrats would outsmart them?
-----------------------------------------------------------
Why don't you look at what actually happened in the real world? Obama and Boehner had a deal about 800 Billion in "revenue enhancements", but Obama scuttled the deal because he wanted 400 billion more. Who was more dogmatic in that case? Considering the whole problem is a spending problem i'd say Obama is more dogmatic, i'd even go further than that, he's bordering on catmatic. Obama is so catmatic when it suited him he said you don't raise taxes in a poor economy, but then turned around and demonized rich people and suggested raising taxes in a poor economy.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: 1HappyFool Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 582322 of 753067
Subject: Re: GoofyHoofy Date: 8/31/2011 9:47 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 5
So should FEMA be dismantled?

Probably.

If so then should all communities prepare for all possible disasters?

Is there a reason that, when talk turns toward the end of a federal program, the supporters of the federal program do not see the state government as an obvious replacement?

I understand the logic of those who live on the Mississippi or other flood prone waterways should be self prepared for floods, but should all parts of America be prepared for tornadoes?

Yes, but for some states, it should be to the same extent that they should be prepared for large plane crashes, meteor strikes and sudden sinkholes swallowing their local governments.

1HF

Print the post Back To Top
Author: JLC Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 582324 of 753067
Subject: Re: GoofyHoofy Date: 8/31/2011 9:57 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 1
I guess you don't recognize lines from the movie Breakfast Club.

What your name?

Claire.

Claire?

It's a family name.

Claire is a fat girl's name.

JLC, who used to date a Claire in college.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: BermudaKenn Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 582334 of 753067
Subject: Re: GoofyHoofy Date: 8/31/2011 10:17 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 3
I hope GH gets 100 + recs for his post, dopple or not. What would be interesting is to hear from any one of GH's supporters, as to WHY FEMA is so great.

It is one thing to push the "rec" button because you hate the opposition. It is another thing to quote or cite biased media to support your hatred.

But it would be an entirely different thing altogether, if those who recced GH's post, would tell us in their own words, why they believe FEMA is so good that they had to come to this board to rec GH's post.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: alchook Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 582342 of 753067
Subject: Re: GoofyHoofy Date: 8/31/2011 10:37 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 1
Why don't you look at what actually happened in the real world?

Because it was a theoretical question. The Republicans were asked if they would agree to a deficit reduction plan that involved $10 in spending cuts for every $1 in revenue increases.

If the argument is that all spending cuts are illusory why campaign for spending cuts?

Print the post Back To Top
Author: MadCapitalist Big funky green star, 20000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 582343 of 753067
Subject: Re: GoofyHoofy Date: 8/31/2011 10:39 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 1
When asked if a deficit-reduction plan offering $10 in spending cuts for every $1 in tax increases would be acceptable, all 8 Republican Presidential candidates said no.

Because the way Congress works, that $10 in spending cuts would be all hand jive, smoke and mirrors, and faux accounting. Leaving us with a $1 tax increase.

JLC


Exactly.

Wimpy from Popeye used to say, "I will gladly pay you Tuesday for a hamburger today." For Democrats, it is, "I will gladly give you spending cuts 10 years from now for a tax increase today." Ten years from now it will be the same thing. "I will gladly give you spending cuts 10 years from now for a tax increase today."

Print the post Back To Top
Author: lowstudent Big funky green star, 20000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 582348 of 753067
Subject: Re: GoofyHoofy Date: 8/31/2011 10:49 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 5
To hrse and his ilk, Democrats are given a free pass on massive spending because Democrats are willing to raise taxes just as massively to balance the budget, and Republicans won't give the tax increases to them.
__________________________

And just to add, this makes even LESS sense than it appears to.

As for the Democrats, and their fiscal integrity? -- They voted FOR the spending when they knew that taxes would NOT be raised. I mean seriously, if you are a true believer that tax hikes are going to solve the problem, and that they do not negatively impact an econ0my- what possib loe excuse do you have

Then you have to consider that for two years there was NOTHING they could not do. They passed a health care bill that the Republicans fought tooth and nail and did nothing to. Did they not notice we had a budget deficit at that time?

It is impossible not to be completely FOS and be a Democrat. For they ALLLLLL went along with this and they all lauded it.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: MadCapitalist Big funky green star, 20000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 582350 of 753067
Subject: Re: GoofyHoofy Date: 8/31/2011 10:54 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
Thanks for the chuckle.

Calling someone ugly and disrespectful in the same sentence.

Such displays of ridiculous incomprehension never fail to crack me up.


It was a famous line from the movie Breakfast Club.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: BermudaKenn Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 582372 of 753067
Subject: Re: GoofyHoofy Date: 8/31/2011 12:42 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 15
I’m just going to point directly to this one particular incident, where FEMA was involved.

Katrina.

From GH’s post; I notice that now, for the third time, you have ignored the simple question: what do we do?
Leave these people to wait on rooftops for the Home Depot helicopter to come rescue them? Hope that the local Baptist church has a crane big enough to lift a collapsed house off the people inside?

First of all, FEMA sent NO helicopters (or anything else for that matter) to rescue ANYONE. Not from rooftops or basements, or overpasses, or sport facilities, or convention centers. I saw not one vehicle, not one aircraft, not one water-vessel that had “FEMA” on the side. The majority had either Coast Guard, or another branch of military on the side. Some vehicles had State Police. It wasn’t uncommon to see a private contractor’s name on the side of a boat, or to see a private owner’s swamp buggy, or personal fixed wing aircraft take part of the rescue. Entities that exist and operate outside of FEMA, and did a wonderful job in spite of FEMA.

Many doctors volunteered. Many local police assisted. Many ordinary citizens did many extraordinary things to help. FEMA was not involved. Here, but not involved. Completely useless and unable to coordinate the simplest of tasks, (except photo-ops).

Surprisingly, many of the vehicles that were part of the rebuilding after Katrina had “Catholic Charities”, or “Lowes”, or “Home Depot” (or some other religious, or building material contractor) painted on the side of their trucks and vans. None with “FEMA”, though.
____________

Here we have some stench from an individual who wholeheartedly believes FEMA is slow, and plagued with bureaucratic infighting. In other words; totally ineffective.

http://boards.fool.com/were-bush-fema-homeland-security-and-...
Were Bush, FEMA (Homeland Security), and the military slow to respond? Yes -- and they deserve to be whacked aside the head for that.


By the way, as I have suggested elsewhere, does anyone want to bet me that at least some of the delay was caused by bickering and disputes among the heads of various governmental departments (like FEMA, Homeland Security, the military, etc.) about who had "authority" to act in this crisis? Yes, THAT is where "The Boss" (President Bush) needed to whack his desk with his fist and ORDER these people to shut up and ACT -- FAST.

That poster also believes that violence is a proper response to the ineffectiveness of FEMA (and other agencies as well as individuals)
”and they deserve to be whacked aside the head for that.”
”the New Orleans Mayor deserves to be SHOT!”

I wonder if RV was part of the mad dash to rec GH’s post.

We’ll hear more about that soon, I’m sure.
_____________________________

What did FEMA do?
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB112855995016461243.html?mod=...

“the disaster-relief organization has ordered the abrupt end to a high-priority program…
“Louisiana officials expressed outrage that FEMA was shuttering what many saw as the one program that effectively got evacuees into temporary shelter and back into the work force near New Orleans.”

And just a year ago… http://www.fema.gov/news/newsrelease.fema?id=52757
“The settlement arises out of a class action lawsuit filed in 2007 that alleged that FEMA did not properly disburse housing assistance after Hurricanes Katrina and Rita.”
--------------------------------------
Here is more of what victims of Katrina faced, when dealing with FEMA (not Home Depot or the Baptist church)
Katrina Victim Sues FEMA to Fight for Fair Flood Insurance Rules
http://www.lawhelp.org/program/585/ProgramNewsArticle.cfm?ar...

FEMA’s reply; “you should have known”.
So when Goofy asks; Why should Maryland be ready for an earthquake when it hasn't had one in 100 years? Why should any state have to prepare for every possible eventuality
I say, “haven’t had one in a hundred years? Then we are due for one. Be prepared.” And when the good people directly affected by the earthquake try to make claims, they should be ready for FEMA’s reply; “you should have known”.

Love you some FEMA! They really helped here! I sincerely hope you don’t have to depend upon FEMA. I don’t know what New Orleans and the Gulf Coast would look like today if FEMA hadn’t played such an integral part in the preparation of a worst case scenario like Katrina, the protection from such a disaster like Katrina, and the mitigation of all hazards, like Katrina*

*FEMA's mission is to support our citizens and first responders to ensure that as a nation we work together to build, sustain, and improve our capability to prepare for, protect against, respond to, recover from, and mitigate all hazard

Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Print the post Back To Top
Author: gregoryvg Three stars, 500 posts Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 582378 of 753067
Subject: Re: GoofyHoofy Date: 8/31/2011 1:18 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
When asked if a deficit-reduction plan offering $10 in spending cuts for every $1 in tax increases would be acceptable, all 8 Republican Presidential candidates said no.

That's because spending cuts are imaginary.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: 1HappyFool Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 582380 of 753067
Subject: Re: GoofyHoofy Date: 8/31/2011 1:29 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 3
Love you some FEMA! They really helped here! I sincerely hope you don’t have to depend upon FEMA. I don’t know what New Orleans and the Gulf Coast would look like today if FEMA hadn’t played such an integral part in the preparation of a worst case scenario like Katrina, the protection from such a disaster like Katrina, and the mitigation of all hazards, like Katrina*

*FEMA's mission is to support our citizens and first responders to ensure that as a nation we work together to build, sustain, and improve our capability to prepare for, protect against, respond to, recover from, and mitigate all hazard


IIRC, Blanco dithered first on whether to authorize the invasion of Louisiana by the federal government. I don't really blame a governor for that, because once you let the feds in, it's darn hard to show them back out the door. They're kind of like the mentally deficient cousin who never understands the social signs that he's worn out his welcome after the first time he crapped his pants and then sat in your favorite chair.

But then she let others take the blame for not responding quickly enough and that was cowardly. And she did not do nearly enough to manage expectations or to tell people how to prepare for a few days without potable water or a few months without electricity. But I think the greater crime is that the knowledge of the existence of FEMA causes inaction. After all, if there is a federal agency that we pay to manage emergencies, then they're going to show up with expertise and lawyers, guns and money at every emergency right? It's our own damn fault for turning to the federal government to solve all of our problems.

In periods of peace, we conduct war games to maintain readiness. We create worst case scenarios, simulate them and measure the response. State governments should do that with natural and manmade disasters and should consult with other state governments and compare results. If there is a federal role, it should be to assist in the coordination of readiness training between states and then to stay out of the way when TSHTF and the state puts its emergency plans into effect. The need for states to consider worst case scenarios might cause them to rethink the design of their society and possibly to spend more to mitigate risk and less picking up the pieces.

1HF

Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Print the post Back To Top
Author: Jim2B Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 582385 of 753067
Subject: Re: GoofyHoofy Date: 8/31/2011 1:44 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 39
I understand the logic of those who live on the Mississippi or other flood prone waterways should be self prepared for floods, but should all parts of America be prepared for tornadoes?

President Obama recently announced that FEMA will pull out of the Midwest and great plains states who are still flooded 4 months after the flooding began. The reason is that he wants FEMA to concentrate on those affected by Irene.

Consider this: he is withdrawing FEMA support from mostly red states and concentrating it in mostly blue states. Same as what we saw with the response FEMA gave to Katrina in New Orleans compared with FEMA response to the flooding which lead to a dam bursting in Indiana or ice storms in Kentucky.

If you are a mostly red state, you can't count on FEMA anyway. If this federal "program" only helps those in favor with the president, doesn't it seem like it isn't a program worthy of our government?

Print the post Back To Top
Author: wolverine307 Big funky green star, 20000 posts Top Recommended Fools Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 582388 of 753067
Subject: Re: GoofyHoofy Date: 8/31/2011 1:48 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 1
If you are a mostly red state, you can't count on FEMA anyway. If this federal "program" only helps those in favor with the president, doesn't it seem like it isn't a program worthy of our government?

Yup, the responses are politically driven to either prove that you're not racist or because you want to help your own constituents. A KY redneck? Screw you. A Hoosier? Eff you too.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: alchook Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 582391 of 753067
Subject: Re: GoofyHoofy Date: 8/31/2011 2:00 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
That's because spending cuts are imaginary.

No, the spending cuts in the question weren't imaginary.

And none of the candidates said they were.

You're projecting.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: gregoryvg Three stars, 500 posts Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 582394 of 753067
Subject: Re: GoofyHoofy Date: 8/31/2011 2:09 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 1
No, the spending cuts in the question weren't imaginary.

Actually, the spending cuts in the question were imaginary, as it was a hypothetical question.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: alchook Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 582395 of 753067
Subject: Re: GoofyHoofy Date: 8/31/2011 2:14 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
Actually, the spending cuts in the question were imaginary, as it was a hypothetical question.

I can't tell if you're being serious or not.

The spending cuts hypothesized were not imaginary.

The question was not, "Would you support a deficit reduction proposal offering $10 of imaginary spending cuts for every $1 of real tax increases?"

Print the post Back To Top
Author: ziggy29 Big funky green star, 20000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 582396 of 753067
Subject: Re: GoofyHoofy Date: 8/31/2011 2:17 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 1
>> The spending cuts hypothesized were not imaginary. <<

Were they *real* cuts or Washington-speak spending cuts? By "Washington-speak spending cut" I mean "we were going to increase spending by 8% but now we'll only increase it 3%, so it's a 5% spending cut."

#29

Print the post Back To Top
Author: JLC Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 582398 of 753067
Subject: Re: GoofyHoofy Date: 8/31/2011 2:31 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 10
Having had a small peak to the inner workings of government, I'll commment.

IIRC, Blanco dithered first on whether to authorize the invasion of Louisiana by the federal government.

You had a black mayor in NO and a white governor of LA. Even though they were of the same party, you bet the race card would be played by somebody at some point. And then don't forget that Bush was in the opposite party. Too many people trying to play games for their advantage.

Both were too worried about the economic impact of having NO "empty" of visitors for a few days. Penny wise and pound foolish.

And she did not do nearly enough to manage expectations...

But she did manage her image. She showed up every day wearing a simple shirt, blue jeans, and boots. Like she was going to work on a farm. Like she was ready to get dirty and do some heavy lifting. What a joke.

The major image I was left with was a deer in the headlights.

It's our own damn fault for turning to the federal government to solve all of our problems.

At a minimum everyone should be ready/able to take care of things for 3 days. IIRC, that was one of the take home points, it takes FEMA about 3 days to BEGIN to actually help people.

My town got flooded (pun slightly intended) with Katrina refugees. Many docs and nurses I work with volunteered at shelters. Most were turned off by the experience. People could remember their cell phone charger and pack of smokes but couldn't remember to pack their insulin or baby formula. Heck, some of the hospitals had to go into lock down mode (only one set of doors to get in) because of people coming in and stealing things.

JLC

Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Print the post Back To Top
Author: 1HappyFool Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 582399 of 753067
Subject: Re: GoofyHoofy Date: 8/31/2011 2:49 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
If this federal "program" only helps those in favor with the president, doesn't it seem like it isn't a program worthy of our government?

Consider this. The Army Corps of Engineers spent a lot of money making it safe for people to live all along the Mississippi watershed. I crack myself up sometimes.

1HF

Print the post Back To Top
Author: alchook Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 582400 of 753067
Subject: Re: GoofyHoofy Date: 8/31/2011 2:50 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
Were they *real* cuts or Washington-speak spending cuts?

You tell me. Here's the question, word for word:

“I’m going to ask a question to everyone here on the stage. Say you had a deal, a real spending cuts deal, 10-to-1, as Byron said, spending cuts to tax increases…. Who on this stage would walk away from that deal? Can you raise your hand if you feel so strongly about not raising taxes, you’d walk away on the 10-to-1 deal?”

Eight out of eight candidates raised their hands.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: BermudaKenn Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 582408 of 753067
Subject: Re: GoofyHoofy Date: 8/31/2011 3:12 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 2
1HF, hey.
Blanco made it quite clear before, during, and after Katrina made landfall that no local or state authorities would fall under federal management. Bush asked, but Blanco refused. No local authorities, no local police, no state police, not even the 12,000 LA national guard.
I think that was her shining moment. She said no. We can manage our own resources. We had help from the Coast Guard as well.
I do agree she went too far. She, or state authorities wouldn't allow the Red Cross come in with water and aid.

FEMA had more than 900 people here, doing what I don't know. They certainly weren't managing the rescue efforts. I think they set up a couple "Tent-Cities" where storm victims could contact their insurance agents, and fill out forms for $$$ relief such as hotel vouchers and food stamp card, but the corruption and abuse was nauseating.
I do have a snippet...don't know how true...that claims that FEMA rescued 350 people, out of approx 18,000. The Coast Guard is listed separately, rescuing more than 4,000.
I guess Michaels Chertoff and Brown paddled a boat around the lower 9, and forced people to leave.

I wonder if most folks realize that FEMA conducted a test, or trial run about a year earlier. Hurricane "Pam"
http://www.fema.gov/news/newsrelease.fema?id=13051
And they still got it wrong.
Now, FEMA has put a freeze on the rebuilding efforts here in New Orleans,
And I am reminded of GH's quip ...I also notice that you haven't bothered thinking any of this through. Nearly all of the states listed above have Republican governors, Republican legislatures, and yet somehow they keep asking for FEMA help,...
Just like New Orleans, those Republican led states can expect a real "FEMA" from 0bama's admin.

http://www.columbiamissourian.com/stories/2011/08/30/fema-fr...

Somehow they seem to have skipped over the largest wildfire in the history of Texas, the Midwest flooding in North Dakota, South Dakota, Missouri, Mississippi, Minnesota, Tennessee, and Alabama, the flash floods in Tennessee
And so has FEMA

Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Print the post Back To Top
Author: decath Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 582409 of 753067
Subject: Re: GoofyHoofy Date: 8/31/2011 3:18 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 2
alchook
“I’m going to ask a question to everyone here on the stage. Say you had a deal, a real spending cuts deal, 10-to-1, as Byron said, spending cuts to tax increases…. Who on this stage would walk away from that deal? Can you raise your hand if you feel so strongly about not raising taxes, you’d walk away on the 10-to-1 deal?”

Eight out of eight candidates raised their hands.


Thanks for posting the entire question as I've reserved comment until now since I did not see the debate.

I respect all 8 candidates for raising their hands. Sure, they have to play politics because they know that if they did not, the media and other compains would hang them for it, taking the question out of context and implying the candidate is a big taxer. They'd be toast. So of course they raised there fraking hands.

You'd be calling them idiots instead of rigid.

If their motives were pure, I respect them more for not wanting to raise taxes. Period. Taxes are high enough. Top income earners already pay a marginal rate over 1/3 of their income. Why is that not enough for liberals? For every $ they make, they get to keep 65 cents. And that's not including state and local taxes. In the end, they generally keep about 1/2 their income. I just don't see a problem with that. The problem is spending, not revenue. What do you want? To keep only 2/5's of their income? Ya, that would really help out the ecomony and boost job growth.

Has nothing to do with your original post about them being rigid. I think you used a very bad example. It might fly on the leftist infested PA board.

Not here.

decath

Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Print the post Back To Top
Author: alchook Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 582410 of 753067
Subject: Re: GoofyHoofy Date: 8/31/2011 3:25 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 3
If their motives were pure, I respect them more for not wanting to raise taxes. Period.

The political reality, of course, is that there will be no entitlement reform without tax increases.

So you need to decide whether entitlement reform has any value. If it has value, you will likely need to pay something to get it.

If you don't think it's worth paying for you must not think it very important.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: telegraph Big funky green star, 20000 posts Top Recommended Fools Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 582413 of 753067
Subject: Re: GoofyHoofy Date: 8/31/2011 3:31 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
"alchook
“I’m going to ask a question to everyone here on the stage. Say you had a deal, a real spending cuts deal, 10-to-1, as Byron said, spending cuts to tax increases…. Who on this stage would walk away from that deal? Can you raise your hand if you feel so strongly about not raising taxes, you’d walk away on the 10-to-1 deal?”"


Why take that deal?

Lt us say they are talking 1 billion in 'new revenue' and 10 billion in cuts.....

Just go for no increase in taxes and do the reduction that would only by 9 out of the 10....... a 9 billion cut....

Win win all around.

So instead of increasing taxes by a BILLION now!......you would chop spending by 9 billion .......... and not force taxpayers to pay more!



Duh....!


t.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: telegraph Big funky green star, 20000 posts Top Recommended Fools Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 582416 of 753067
Subject: Re: GoofyHoofy Date: 8/31/2011 3:37 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
"So you need to decide whether entitlement reform has any value. If it has value, you will likely need to pay something to get it."


IT might have value. You might decide you cannot afford it.

Current Medicare and Medicaid will take 100% of the budget in not too many decades.

WHile you might find them 'essential', you might not have any taxpayers willing to fund it.......


And, of course, 'value' to the recipient is a lot more than to those paying for it!



t.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: bighairymike Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 582422 of 753067
Subject: Re: GoofyHoofy Date: 8/31/2011 4:16 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 3
Because the way Congress works, that $10 in spending cuts would be all hand jive, smoke and mirrors, and faux accounting. Leaving us with a $1 tax increase.

JLC


------------------------------

$10 in cuts no problem, first plan a $25 spending increase, then apply a whopping 40% spending cut... voila, a $10 cut to spending...

Easy peasy.... just like that diet I am on...

Print the post Back To Top
Author: 1HappyFool Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 582423 of 753067
Subject: Re: GoofyHoofy Date: 8/31/2011 4:17 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
The political reality, of course, is that there will be no entitlement reform without tax increases.

If poison has to come along with something good, I say do nothing until that changes. There's no point in further alienating the people who have money. Now if these tax increases were on the people who pay none now...

1HF

Print the post Back To Top
Author: alchook Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 582425 of 753067
Subject: Re: GoofyHoofy Date: 8/31/2011 4:32 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
Current Medicare and Medicaid will take 100% of the budget in not too many decades.

Which is why I think entitlement reform is critical.

The political reality, however, is that entitlement reform will not happen without tax increases. We may find that unfortunate, but it is the situation.

So a decision needs to be made as to how much value one assigns to entitlement reform. The current crop of Republican Presidential candidates is officially on record as maintaining that it isn't worth a dime of tax increases.

Which tells me, as a swing voter, that it will not happen with a Republican in the White House.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: 2828 Big funky green star, 20000 posts Top Recommended Fools Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 582427 of 753067
Subject: Re: GoofyHoofy Date: 8/31/2011 4:39 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 1
Current Medicare and Medicaid will take 100% of the budget in not too many decades.

Which is why I think entitlement reform is critical.
---------------------------------------------------
Tell non-dogmatic Nancy Pelosi:

“It is a flag we’ve planted that we will protect and defend. We have a plan. It’s called Medicare.”

LOLcats.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: alchook Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 582436 of 753067
Subject: Re: GoofyHoofy Date: 8/31/2011 4:58 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
Tell non-dogmatic Nancy Pelosi:

Well, for the first time I can remember a Demcratic President opened the door to entitlement reform.

The Republicans slammed it shut.

Democrats will not go along with entitlement reform without tax increases, as everyone knows.

So the question is do you want entitlement reform or do you want to be right?

Print the post Back To Top
Author: 2828 Big funky green star, 20000 posts Top Recommended Fools Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 582439 of 753067
Subject: Re: GoofyHoofy Date: 8/31/2011 5:01 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 1
Well, for the first time I can remember a Demcratic President opened the door to entitlement reform.

The Republicans slammed it shut.
-----------------------------
Gimme a break, he said it was on the table and gave no plan whatsoever. He was waiting for someone to then put something out there from across the aisle so he could have his surrogates bludgeon the republicans with it, like Pelosi and Reid did. He's not serious, you know he's not serious.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: MadCapitalist Big funky green star, 20000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 582442 of 753067
Subject: Re: GoofyHoofy Date: 8/31/2011 5:09 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 12
Well, for the first time I can remember a Demcratic President opened the door to entitlement reform.

The Republicans slammed it shut.

-----------------------------
Gimme a break, he said it was on the table and gave no plan whatsoever. He was waiting for someone to then put something out there from across the aisle so he could have his surrogates bludgeon the republicans with it, like Pelosi and Reid did. He's not serious, you know he's not serious.


Exactly. Obama opened the door to entitlement reform kind of like Lucy held the football for Charlie Brown.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: alchook Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 582443 of 753067
Subject: Re: GoofyHoofy Date: 8/31/2011 5:12 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 1
He's not serious, you know he's not serious.

Since the Republicans rejected the concept out of hand, no I don't know that.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: 1HappyFool Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 582444 of 753067
Subject: Re: GoofyHoofy Date: 8/31/2011 5:13 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
Democrats will not go along with entitlement reform without tax increases,

I'm guessing that's because they refuse to compromise.

1HF

Print the post Back To Top
Author: spookysquid Big funky green star, 20000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 582445 of 753067
Subject: Re: GoofyHoofy Date: 8/31/2011 5:17 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 3
Easy. Because none of the lib PA'ers have any game whatsoever. Flames are the currency over there.

You think Goofy uses dopples? There are certain posters that are prolific in their dopple use, but I've never counted Goofy among them. Most, that I've personally seen, were trolls on the AF board or PA, and typically they were right wing. JoshRandal, MonteCFO, some guy who used to troll AF and even admitted to starting a new dopple just because he wanted to clear up his history a bit (i.e. sucker any newcomers), menachem, a few others. What dopples do you suspect were Goofys?

From my perspective, someone who posts as frequently and verbosely as Goofy probably doesn't even have time for a dopple. But, I could be wrong.

-spookysquid

Print the post Back To Top
Author: 2828 Big funky green star, 20000 posts Top Recommended Fools Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 582451 of 753067
Subject: Re: GoofyHoofy Date: 8/31/2011 5:37 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 4
You think Goofy uses dopples? There are certain posters that are prolific in their dopple use, but I've never counted Goofy among them.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Yeah, goofy uses dopples, we busted him right here, he posted as someone else, i can't remember the name, may have been, "shouldknowbetter", some phrase like that, and he signed off as himself. Totally completely busted. Then he admitted having more than one account over at the Improve The Fool board. It takes a special kind insecure freak to use more than one moniker to artificially enhance your rec totals.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: decath Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 582454 of 753067
Subject: Re: GoofyHoofy Date: 8/31/2011 5:43 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
The political reality, of course, is that there will be no entitlement reform without tax increases.

So you need to decide whether entitlement reform has any value. If it has value, you will likely need to pay something to get it.

If you don't think it's worth paying for you must not think it very important.


Although I was specifically refering to fed income taxes, I'd raise the retirement age and reduce benefits. No more increase in FICA taxes. 15.3% is too high as it is.

I still remember Bob Dole's speech during the 96 elections, bragging that they fixed SS back in the 1980's. BS. They raised taxes on the poor, middle class and wealthy. They did not fix jack. Just poured more $ into our socalled "entitlements".

decath

Print the post Back To Top
Author: decath Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 582456 of 753067
Subject: Re: GoofyHoofy Date: 8/31/2011 5:47 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 2
alchook
Well, for the first time I can remember a Demcratic President opened the door to entitlement reform.



All I heard is the same thing I hear from democrats 100% of the time and 50% of the time from Republicans in days gone by.

"Let's raise taxes. That'll fix it."

Thang God for the tea party. They are finally forcing the Republicans to take a stand before it all starts caving in.

See Europe and the rioting for the beginnings of the cave in.

decath

Print the post Back To Top
Author: alchook Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 582457 of 753067
Subject: Re: GoofyHoofy Date: 8/31/2011 5:47 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 2
I'm guessing that's because they refuse to compromise.

A compromise would be trading entitlement reforms for tax increases. That's been rejected by the Republicans.

I guess, as someone in the political center, I have two problems with the Tea Party.

The original Tea Party took place in 1773. If I recall correctly, they eventually got a somewhat workable governing arrangement about 16 years later.

I'm not familiar with your situation, but I simply don't have that kind of time frame.

My other problem is that the instigators of the original Tea Party probably had the most to lose, what with penalties for treason and all.

The current leaders aren't in quite the same boat. If we have to survive a couple of decades of economic devastation to meet their goals, while my financial situation will likely be ruined and I'll be scrounging through garbage cans for food, they'll be living nicely off of their fat Congressional pensions.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: lowstudent Big funky green star, 20000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 582460 of 753067
Subject: Re: GoofyHoofy Date: 8/31/2011 6:27 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
If you are a mostly red state, you can't count on FEMA anyway. If this federal "program" only helps those in favor with the president, doesn't it seem like it isn't a program worthy of our government?
--------------------

Jim,

You have to visit PA more often.

Programs by government are hated by all Republicans, in fact they wish there was no government. Therefore they really should not pay Red States, which do not really want the money. They should only pay blue states. The only exception of course, is where unions may be involved in Red States.

Worthy of government? It takes from the hypocrites and gives to the actual needy and Democratic. A worthy function of government

Print the post Back To Top
Author: 1HappyFool Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 582461 of 753067
Subject: Re: GoofyHoofy Date: 8/31/2011 6:31 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 2
>>I'm guessing that's because they refuse to compromise.<<

A compromise would be trading entitlement reforms for tax increases.

Insisting that you get to be the one who defines what an acceptable compromise is is not compromising. The Tea Party would gladly compromise on how quickly the huge spending cuts have to come. It would also compromise on the issue of new tax cuts. So who's not compromising?

I guess, as someone in the political center,

Painting those who disagree with you as the extremists doesn't help your credibility.

I have two problems with the Tea Party.

The original Tea Party took place in 1773. If I recall correctly, they eventually got a somewhat workable governing arrangement about 16 years later.

I'm not familiar with your situation, but I simply don't have that kind of time frame.


And you think is a problem with the Tea Party rather than a problem with the Democrats who are playing chicken with them? That's convenient.

My other problem is that the instigators of the original Tea Party probably had the most to lose, what with penalties for treason and all.

The current leaders aren't in quite the same boat. If we have to survive a couple of decades of economic devastation to meet their goals, while my financial situation will likely be ruined and I'll be scrounging through garbage cans for food, they'll be living nicely off of their fat Congressional pensions.


I doubt any of the leaders of the Tea Party are in Congress. Those are only people who will be abandoned by the Tea Party if they accept a business-as-usual solution. They may think they can keep the support of the Tea Party if they accept tax hikes, but I think the real Tea Party will gladly squash them and let the country implode or explode (and take you and me with it) rather than endorse more bad medicine. This is not a situation where moral relativism will be acceptable. The Tea Party accepts the striking by the people with money as a necessary and moral withholding of what we need (investment) because we haven't earned it by containing the greed of the unentitled.

1HF

Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Print the post Back To Top
Author: bighairymike Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 582462 of 753067
Subject: Re: GoofyHoofy Date: 8/31/2011 6:35 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
But I think the greater crime is that the knowledge of the existence of FEMA causes inaction. After all, if there is a federal agency that we pay to manage emergencies, then they're going to show up with expertise and lawyers, guns and money at every emergency right? It's our own damn fault for turning to the federal government to solve all of our problems. - 1HF

----------------------

It seems that disaster decalarations are become routine in order to tap those federal coffers. Any govenor that handles his own problems in-state is leaving money on the table.

I thought this article put it pretty well.


.... This trend, says Mayer, shows a federalization of natural disasters, in which costs for damages are shifted from the state in which they occur to the rest of the states and taxpayers in each. "We are incenting mayors and governors to defund emergency management, and we're making FEMA an agency, as a routine, that has little time for the catastrophic," he says. "There's an enormous pressure for FEMA to prove that it's fixed what was not working during Katrina, so that's why there's this overhyping to jump the gun on that. For the president, he's looking at poll numbers, and he has to be seen as a leader and in charge. This was a good opportunity for him to do that, and he did."

... more at link

http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2011/08/30/12-states-wit...


Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Print the post Back To Top
Author: 1HappyFool Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 582468 of 753067
Subject: Re: GoofyHoofy Date: 8/31/2011 7:08 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 1
It seems that disaster declarations are become routine in order to tap those federal coffers. Any governor that handles his own problems in-state is leaving money on the table.

Couple that with political fallout if they are perceived as not asking for help fast enough and the political price of not crawling to the feds (and accepting whatever strings are attached) is high, especially if you're in the same party as the pres. A few Republican governors can get away with turning down federal money, but probably not during a natural disaster.

1HF

Print the post Back To Top
Author: hrse Big red star, 1000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 582499 of 753067
Subject: Re: GoofyHoofy Date: 8/31/2011 8:54 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 2
That is the Republican plan. (borrow more)
----------------------------------------
C'mon hrse, if you don't even have a passing knowledge of what's going on don't post.


I am willing to learn.

Which was the Republican administration or congress that ended its term borrowing less then it started?

Thanks,
Mark

Print the post Back To Top
Author: hrse Big red star, 1000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 582503 of 753067
Subject: Re: GoofyHoofy Date: 8/31/2011 9:13 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
Is there a reason that, when talk turns toward the end of a federal program, the supporters of the federal program do not see the state government as an obvious replacement?

I understand the need for each state to have and maintain it's own police force. There is a predictable and constant need for the service. The same goes for local police, when the need arises for increased police presence state police can aid and assist the local force.

But there is no local need for FEMA's services in most communities. In fact the exact opposite argument is made by businesses all the time. Let us get really really big and our costs will go down. How does that logic not apply to this situation?

Thasnk,
Mark

Print the post Back To Top
Author: 1HappyFool Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 582515 of 753067
Subject: Re: GoofyHoofy Date: 8/31/2011 10:06 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
>>Is there a reason that, when talk turns toward the end of a federal program, the supporters of the federal program do not see the state government as an obvious replacement?<<

I understand the need for each state to have and maintain it's own police force. There is a predictable and constant need for the service. The same goes for local police, when the need arises for increased police presence state police can aid and assist the local force.

You haven't really answered the question, but I didn't really think you would. Aren't you forgetting the state's militia? The civil air patrol? SAR? The tremendous network of forest firefighters?

But there is no local need for FEMA's services in most communities.

Arguably, there is no need for FEMA's services at any level. It's a made up entity whose main jobs are to make the federal government look like it cares and to direct spending to where the politicians can get the most votes from. Without it, states would find other alternatives. Let's not forget (however much you want to) each state is sovereign territory.

In fact the exact opposite argument is made by businesses all the time. Let us get really really big and our costs will go down. How does that logic not apply to this situation?

What situation are you referring to? All FEMA really does is move money between states. Sometimes it moves it one way and other times it moves it back.

I'll repeat what I said in another post. In periods of peace, we conduct war games to maintain readiness. We create worst case scenarios, simulate them and measure the response. State governments should do that with natural and manmade disasters and should consult with other state governments and compare results. If there is a federal role, it should be to assist in (not manage) the coordination of readiness training between states and then to stay out of the way when TSHTF and the state puts its emergency plans into effect. The need for states to consider worst case scenarios might cause them to rethink the design of their society and possibly to spend more to mitigate risk and less picking up the pieces.

1HF

Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Print the post Back To Top
Author: CairnDad Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 582518 of 753067
Subject: Re: GoofyHoofy Date: 8/31/2011 10:09 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 1
Consider this: he is withdrawing FEMA support from mostly red states and concentrating it in mostly blue states. Same as what we saw with the response FEMA gave to Katrina in New Orleans compared with FEMA response to the flooding which lead to a dam bursting in Indiana or ice storms in Kentucky.

If you are a mostly red state, you can't count on FEMA anyway. If this federal "program" only helps those in favor with the president, doesn't it seem like it isn't a program worthy of our government?


If Bush had put red states ahead of blue states for FEMA help, the left would have cried bloody murder. When the shoe is on the other foot, they are very quiet.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: wolverine307 Big funky green star, 20000 posts Top Recommended Fools Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 582519 of 753067
Subject: Re: GoofyHoofy Date: 8/31/2011 10:17 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 1
If Bush had put red states ahead of blue states for FEMA help, the left would have cried bloody murder. When the shoe is on the other foot, they are very quiet.

Odd that.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: BermudaKenn Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 582522 of 753067
Subject: Re: GoofyHoofy Date: 8/31/2011 10:46 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 1
I saw this the first time, 1HF, and I hope you don't think I was glossing over the points you were making.

I'll repeat what I said in another post... In periods of peace, we conduct war games to maintain readiness...If there is a federal role, it should be to assist in (not manage) the coordination of readiness training between states and then to stay out of the way when TSHTF...
*extra emph...mine.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: crassfool Big funky green star, 20000 posts Feste Award Nominee! Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 582528 of 753067
Subject: Re: GoofyHoofy Date: 9/1/2011 12:56 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
wolverine says

I'm not following this. If Poster A makes a point, he/she makes a point. Trying to determine if the poster is a newbie or a doppel is sorta irrelevant, doncha think? Why not focus on the argument?

Duh, because the "argument" is, well, pffffttt.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: crassfool Big funky green star, 20000 posts Feste Award Nominee! Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 582529 of 753067
Subject: Re: GoofyHoofy Date: 9/1/2011 1:02 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 1
Wow. Goofyhoofy gets to be the subject line of a 96-post (and counting) thread on the RightWingNutCircleYerk board.

Classy!

Print the post Back To Top
Author: jakalant Big red star, 1000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 582546 of 753067
Subject: Re: GoofyHoofy Date: 9/1/2011 2:39 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
you go goofY!

Print the post Back To Top
Author: SpeedBump13 Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 582576 of 753067
Subject: Re: GoofyHoofy Date: 9/1/2011 11:01 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 1
President Obama recently announced that FEMA will pull out of the Midwest and great plains states who are still flooded 4 months after the flooding began. The reason is that he wants FEMA to concentrate on those affected by Irene.

Why is there no link? Because this is a bold-faced lie. FEMA has simply run short of cash.

"Iowa officials don't expect the Federal Emergency Management Agency's decision to freeze disaster aid in the wake of Hurricane Irene to affect the state's recovery from flooding along the Missouri River.

FEMA announced it would freeze disaster aid to parts of the country recovering from tornadoes, drought, flooding and wildfires. ...FEMA has enacted similar restrictions when disaster relief funds dipped below $1 billion.
...John Benson, legislative liaison for Iowa Homeland Security and Emergency Management, said state officials are monitoring the situation but that they "do not anticipate it having a negative impact on the recovery operation."
...These restrictions will not impact the aid that any disaster survivors are receiving from FEMA,
...The freeze does apply to "longer-term repair, rebuilding and mitigation projects for previous and current disasters that have not already been submitted by states," according to FEMA.

If Congress replenishes the disaster fund when it returns from recess next month, the restrictions can be lifted." http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/chi-ap-ia-femaassistance-...

Who controls FEMA's purse strings in Congress? It isn't Obama.

Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Print the post Back To Top
Author: hrse Big red star, 1000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 582577 of 753067
Subject: Re: GoofyHoofy Date: 9/1/2011 11:15 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
>> Is there a reason that, when talk turns toward the end of a federal program, the supporters of the federal program do not see the state government as an obvious replacement?<<

You are right, I did not directly answer this question.

When talk turns to the end of a federal program, the attack is ussually phrased as 'Goverment should not be doing this'. It is not ussualy, 'The Federal goverment should not be doing this'. Mostly it is a mix of voices, some that want no level of goverment doing it, and others that only want the Fed to get uninvolved. The most obviouse example to me is the Department of Education. Many want the Fed to get uninvolved, some want it left to the individual to educate their own.

So the reason supporters of the federal program do not see the state goverment as an obvious replacement, (and I don't pretend to talk for all supporters of federal programs) is that the argument was not phrased as a state's right issue. It was phrased as GET GOVERMENT OFF MY ________!!! The fed was just the target.

each state is sovereign territory.

I am not a laywer, but I understand that this is 100% incorrect.
What definition of sovereign are you using?

Print the post Back To Top
Author: 1HappyFool Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 582585 of 753067
Subject: Re: GoofyHoofy Date: 9/1/2011 12:04 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
So the reason supporters of the federal program do not see the state goverment as an obvious replacement, (and I don't pretend to talk for all supporters of federal programs) is that the argument was not phrased as a state's right issue. It was phrased as GET GOVERMENT OFF MY ________!!! The fed was just the target.

So the supporters of the federal program are either stupidly or intentionally selecting the option that gives the voter the least control what government provides and gives other societies the most advantage over the US in global competition (by eliminating meaningful competition between states) because the opposition doesn't present the logical alternative (which is the default alternative by 10th Amendment)?

Since almost nobody is arguing that no government should provide disaster relief and since this discussion is centered around the article entitled "Federalization of Disasters Bankrupting FEMA", isn't it far more likely that supporters of the federal program are simply power hungry and see the federal government as the favored path because it does the most to eliminate state and individual choice?

What definition of sovereign are you using?

I'm assuming we both have the same definition of sovereign and I'm not interested in semantic wanking. I'm more interested in delineating boundaries in responsibility and authority. By what right can the people of one state claim a share of revenue taken from other states for the sake of relief from a natural disaster? Isn't that, in effect, using the force of federal government to secure a competitive advantage over other states?

1HF

Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Print the post Back To Top
Author: hrse Big red star, 1000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 582595 of 753067
Subject: Re: GoofyHoofy Date: 9/1/2011 1:09 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
So the supporters of the federal program are either stupidly...
I'm not interested in semantic wanking
Wanking? really.

To suggest that states are sovereign would suggest that the Federal goverment has no power over them. This is wrong. Thats not semantics. We are the UNITED STATES of AMERICA. Attack one and we all respond. If a disaster strikes one state the resources of all will respond.

By what right can the people of one state claim a share of revenue taken from other states for the sake of relief from a natural disaster?

I think I misunderstand your point of view. Do you believe that the people of Vermont are asserting a right to take revenue from other states for its desaster relief? Or do you think the Federal goverment is moving resources?

It does not happen that way. How could you think it does?

If your argument had any strength to it, the extention would be "By what right do the people in South Town claim a share of revenue taken from North Town for the sake of relief from a natural disaster?"

Once that battle was won, then it would turn to individuals.


Just to be clear, I am not a strong supporter of all Federal programs. I think many can be cut. I would have no problem with an audit of FEMA where they need to justify their existance and how we are better off with them than without. To suggest that just because the F is in the name, that it must be dismantled is reacting without evaluating.

Mark.

Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Print the post Back To Top
Author: spookysquid Big funky green star, 20000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 582615 of 753067
Subject: Re: GoofyHoofy Date: 9/1/2011 2:05 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 3
You think Goofy uses dopples? There are certain posters that are prolific in their dopple use, but I've never counted Goofy among them.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Yeah, goofy uses dopples, we busted him right here, he posted as someone else, i can't remember the name, may have been, "shouldknowbetter", some phrase like that, and he signed off as himself. Totally completely busted. Then he admitted having more than one account over at the Improve The Fool board. It takes a special kind insecure freak to use more than one moniker to artificially enhance your rec totals.
--------------------------------------------------------------

Wow, color me surprised.

-Jim2B

Print the post Back To Top
Author: 1HappyFool Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 582628 of 753067
Subject: Re: GoofyHoofy Date: 9/1/2011 2:54 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
To suggest that states are sovereign would suggest that the Federal goverment has no power over them.

I haven't suggested the federal government has no power over states. If I've suggested anything by drawing attention to the sovereignity issue, it's that the federal government should more carefully only exercise the enumerated powers.

We are the UNITED STATES of AMERICA. Attack one and we all respond. If a disaster strikes one state the resources of all will respond.

<salute>ROFLM1HFAO!</salute>

>>By what right can the people of one state claim a share of revenue taken from other states for the sake of relief from a natural disaster?<<

I think I misunderstand your point of view.

It's a question, not a POV. So, does your lack of relevant answer/understanding mean that you aren't aware of the existence of a right for the people of one state to take from the people of other states for the sake of relief from a natural disaster?

Do you believe that the people of Vermont are asserting a right to take revenue from other states for its desaster relief?

They don't have to assert that right. The federal government does that for them. The question you're not answering is whether they morally could assert the right that the federal government is asserting for them.

If your argument had any strength to it, the extention would be "By what right do the people in South Town claim a share of revenue taken from North Town for the sake of relief from a natural disaster?"

That would be a matter for the state and local societies to decide within the limits of their constitution and charters, wouldn't it? and for the state and locals societies to pay the price for if they decided irrationally, right?

To suggest that just because the F is in the name, that it must be dismantled is reacting without evaluating.

To reduce the argument to the absurd is a logical fallacy. The broader society of the US will pay one way or the other for the existence of federal programs. They will pay the most for the most irrational. Considering the perverse incentives of federal disaster relief, wouldn't we be better off if we left disaster relief efforts in the realm of charity or lower level governments?

>>isn't it far more likely that supporters of the federal program are simply power hungry and see the federal government as the favored path because it does the most to eliminate state and individual choice?<<

No answer.

1HF

Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Print the post Back To Top
Author: hrse Big red star, 1000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 582649 of 753067
Subject: Re: GoofyHoofy Date: 9/1/2011 4:54 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
To reduce the argument to the absurd is a logical fallacy.

On this I agree.

If you stop stating that the people of Vermont are asserting a right to take resources from other states, then I will stop extending that example to next cases.

The question you're not answering is whether they morally could assert the right that the federal government is asserting for them.

I did not answer it because you did not ask it. We have very different points of view on this subject. Please don't think I understand your underlying questions.

To answer the question: No. Vermont has no ability to assert any rights over resources collected in any other states. In the event that Vermont determines that the resources from FEMA are not enough, they may not start taking resources from other states.

BTW: I don't know what the taxes paid/benefits received ratio is, but my initial guess is that Vermont even with the spending related to this most recent distater is still a net contributer to the Federal budget. Do you have any idea how to check that. I do not.

>>isn't it far more likely that supporters of the federal program are simply power hungry and see the federal government as the favored path because it does the most to eliminate state and individual choice?<<

The vast majority of the supporters of federal programs do not gain any power when the federal goverment gains power. Even if only 1% of the public supported federal programs, it would still be well over 999 in 1000 people that gain no power.

So, no they are not supporters because it eliminates state and individual choice.

On the sovereignty issue. There is only one definition of sovereign that I am aware of that would apply to calling a state sovereign or not. If a goverment answers to a higher form of goverment then it is NOT sovereign.

That is why I asked what definition you were using. States are not sovereign. To suggest they are is a direct conflict to the primary meaning of the word.

I am curious to see if you have the capability to either find a defnition/use of the word that I am not aware of or admit you were wrong.

Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Print the post Back To Top
Author: 1HappyFool Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 582662 of 753067
Subject: Re: GoofyHoofy Date: 9/1/2011 6:38 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
Please don't think I understand your underlying questions.

Is there something wrong with a literal, honest and relevant answer to the question asked?

To answer the question: No. Vermont has no ability to assert any rights over resources collected in any other states. In the event that Vermont determines that the resources from FEMA are not enough, they may not start taking resources from other states.

I didn't ask what they have the ability to do or what they may or may not do, but it doesn't seem that the part that remains after dismissing those ("No.") is a complete answer to my question. I'll ask the original question again to give you another chance to provide an honest and relevant and hopefully complete answer.

By what right can the people of one state claim a share of revenue taken from other states for the sake of relief from a natural disaster?

BTW: my initial guess is that Vermont even with the spending related to this most recent distater is still a net contributer to the Federal budget. Do you have any idea how to check that.

No, but I don't see the relevance.

>>isn't it far more likely that supporters of the federal program are simply power hungry and see the federal government as the favored path because it does the most to eliminate state and individual choice?<<

The vast majority of the supporters of federal programs do not gain any power when the federal goverment gains power. Even if only 1% of the public supported federal programs, it would still be well over 999 in 1000 people that gain no power.

Did I ask whether they gained power?

So, no they are not supporters because it eliminates state and individual choice.

How did you derive this belief from your statements regarding power?

On the sovereignty issue. There is only one definition of sovereign that I am aware of that would apply to calling a state sovereign or not. If a goverment answers to a higher form of goverment then it is NOT sovereign.

What do you mean by "a higher form of government." Do you believe the states are legally bound to "answer to" the federal government but that the federal government is not legally bound to "answer to" the states? Doesn't the Constitution require both? Isn't one purpose of the USSC to constrain the federal government to keep the people and the states from having justification for dissolving the federal government?

States are not sovereign. To suggest they are is a direct conflict to the primary meaning of the word.

Perhaps we shall see whether the union can hold together with a significant percentage of the population holding that belief. Do you love your kids?

I am curious to see if you have the capability to either find a defnition/use of the word that I am not aware of or admit you were wrong.

I think the 10th Amendment guarantees that I'm right and that the state governments do not "answer to" the federal government but to the Constitution that they and the federal government derive their legal authority from. The occasional failure of states to assert their rights does not nullify their sovereignity.

1HF

Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Print the post Back To Top
Author: BermudaKenn Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 582679 of 753067
Subject: Re: GoofyHoofy Date: 9/1/2011 8:23 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
<<
Why is there no link? Because this is a bold-faced lie.
>>

There you are, Jim.
There's the standard.
No link; no truth.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: hrse Big red star, 1000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 582691 of 753067
Subject: Re: GoofyHoofy Date: 9/1/2011 9:32 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
Happy,

You are not satisfied with my answers so you pretend I did not answer them. I ask questions, and you ask that I give you a detailed and complete dissertation on the relevance of the question, seemingly because you don't see the relevance when answering if a state has a right to accept revenue from other states, if indeed that very thing is happening, or are they simply getting some of their resources back?

This is not a debate, it is you doing some H.S. level debate judo. Not answering any questions asked, and spending more time disqualifying points that don't agree with you rather then discussing them.

Because I am a masochist I will provide you with a different wording of the answers you have requested.

By what right can the people of one state claim a share of revenue taken from other states for the sake of relief from a natural disaster?

There exists no right.
Nor has there been a case where this has happened.

The states do not claim shares of revenue. The Federal government fills requests for funds.

If you change 'claim' with 'accept', you would accurately describe what is going on. I know you don't want arguing semantics, you just want to establish the words used to describe what is going on using phrases most likely to favor your side regardless of the accuracy of those terms.

then you ask Do you love your kids?

like I said, you are not interested in learning anything about what I have to say, your just interested in gaining points.

good night.

Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Print the post Back To Top
Author: 1HappyFool Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 582697 of 753067
Subject: Re: GoofyHoofy Date: 9/1/2011 11:17 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 1
>>By what right can the people of one state claim a share of revenue taken from other states for the sake of relief from a natural disaster?<<

There exists no right.

Now was that so difficult? Why did it take so long to get an honest and relevant answer? By no right can the people of one state claim a share of revenue taken from other states for the sake of relief from a natural disaster. It seems so simple and yet you could not come up with that answer for so long.

If you change 'claim' with 'accept', you would accurately describe what is going on.

Exactly. People are accepting what they have no right to. Can't blame them for that. If they had a right to what FEMA offered, FEMA wouldn't be bankrupt. The states have not voluntarily funded FEMA and neither have the people. Is any of that getting through to you?

>>Do you love your kids?<<

like I said, you are not interested in learning anything about what I have to say, your just interested in gaining points.

I am interested in learning why you make the claims you make and why you are not concerned about the consequences of holding your beliefs. Your kids will suffer if you pass your beliefs on to them, but they are likely to suffer anyway because so many others share your beliefs.

Let's go to the sovereignity issue. You dodged all my questions on that. There isn't a higher form of government over the state. State governments "answer to" a higher authority called "the consent of the governed".

Individuals own their lives. Individuals have sovereign authority over their lives.

By the consent of the governed, states supply services to their residents. By extension of authority from those individuals, states have sovereign authority over the territory within their borders.

By the consent of the governed, the federal government provides services to the citizens and to the states. By extension of authority from those individuals and the states, the federal government has sovereign authority over the international relations of the US and over the non-state territories.

Your model of authority was upside down because you assume might is synonymous with authority. Might makes right is the morality of your worldview, but live and let live is the morality of civilization.

You may not agree with any of the sovereignity assertions above, but the authority of the Constitution is derived from the consent of the governed and it covers all of that. Anything that tests the truth of those assertions threatens the union, because the individual is the final arbiter on the question of whether the union should exist.

http://oath-keepers.blogspot.com/2009/03/oath-keepers-declar...

If you love your kids, you will introduce them to these concepts and let them decide for themselves which concepts, these or yours are the most useful to them, because they live where these concepts are held as the law of the land by people who own lots of own guns and understand the meaning of ????? ?aß?.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molon_labe

1HF

Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Print the post Back To Top
Author: ariechert Big funky green star, 20000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 583059 of 753067
Subject: Re: GoofyHoofy Date: 9/3/2011 9:10 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 1
"Conservatives are spawning doppels all over TMF. They can't win an argument on facts, so they create phony accounts to disrupt the board.
------------------
Says the guy who comes over here just to argue and flame. - wolverine



Boards without conflict are boards that soon cease to exist. The main reason message boards exist are to cause duality and separation.

Art

Print the post Back To Top
UnThreaded | Threaded | Whole Thread (111) | Ignore Thread Prev Thread | Next Thread
Advertisement