Ron Paul says tornado victims should not get aid

[Jarhead]

I get what Ron Paul is saying. Thats what a Hardcore Libertarian would say.

But the rest of us are thinking about the people that do not have insurance and/or need help right now.

If they don't have insurance then they suffer the consequences of their stupidity. Actions have consequences, although the government is doing everything it can these days to try and eliminate the negative ones. The problem is when you subsidize bad behavior you get more bad behavior. If you want to live in a free country then that means accepting you have the freedom to fail as well as the freedom to succeed.



Family, friends, charities. How the hell did we do it all before??

I know, you get into your pickup and drive over to the next town--if you can find your damn pickup!!

I know, you can come up with a thousand excuses to also explain away your abdication of personal responsibility.

Is not relying on Family, friends, and charities an abdication of personal responsibility as well?

You tell me.

relying is not the appropriate word.

Conservative ideology is simple.

I will always be there to help my neighbor.....and my neighbor will always be there to help me. But neither of us feel it is each others job to do it. We just do it becuase giving comes naturally to a conservative.

 

[Late2TheParty]

Im sorry but I agree with him. The people should have insurance. RENTAL insurance is cheap like 200 a year or less.. IF you own a house you should have insurance.. No excuses..

I used to rent and had rental insurance. Please explain to me how rental insurance gets you clothing, water, food, shelter, transportation, etc. right NOW, when these people need it the most?

Why can't the state provide it? Why does it have to be the feds?

You know, Katrina wouldn't have been 1/10th of the disaster it was if state and local people relied on themselves rather than running to daddy Federal Government. And we know how that turned out.

I think the whole thing was some massive bystander effect.
Bystander effect - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The bystander effect or Genovese syndrome is a social psychological phenomenon that refers to cases where individuals do not offer any means of help in an emergency situation to the victim when other people are present. The probability of help has in the past been thought to be inversely related to the number of bystanders; in other words, the greater the number of bystanders, the less likely it is that any one of them will help. The mere presence of other bystanders greatly decreases intervention. This happens because as the number of bystanders increases, any given bystander is less likely to interpret the incident as a problem, and less likely to assume responsibility for taking action.[1]

Once you accustom the states to the Feds help in an emergency, they all stand there doing nothing until big brother comes along. IT HAS TO STOP.

 

[VaYank5150]

Im sorry but I agree with him. The people should have insurance. RENTAL insurance is cheap like 200 a year or less.. IF you own a house you should have insurance.. No excuses..

I used to rent and had rental insurance. Please explain to me how rental insurance gets you clothing, water, food, shelter, transportation, etc. right NOW, when these people need it the most?

It likely wont.
But I bet not one would go hungry or without a roof if government WAS NOT expected to help out.
Government gets in the way...Americans help Americans....we always had.

Now?

Governemnt red tape gets in the way.

REALLY? SO, why did we have 131,000 homeless veterans in the 2011 data? Aren't our service personnel especially near and dear to the hearts of the right? Do you have one living with you yet? If not, why not?

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

What he said - and emergency aid would not supersede the insurance policy and usually is simply a low interest loan.

Federal property, however, would be up to the federal government, state property to the state government, and local property to the local government. He's talking about private citizens.

Ron Paul: No Federal Financial Aid for Tornado Victims - John Aloysius Farrell - NationalJournal.com

Rep. Ron Paul, R-Texas, stood by his libertarian beliefs on Sunday, saying that victims of the violent storms and tornadoes that have battered a band of states in the South and Midwest in recent days should not be given emergency financial aid from the federal government.

"There is no such thing as federal money," Paul said, on CNN’s State of the Union. "Federal money is just what they steal from the states and steal from you and me."

Paul is more interested in his "states rights" issue even after a "national" disaster.

I don't see how anything you've posted disproves what I said.

 

[Jarhead]

What he said - and emergency aid would not supersede the insurance policy and usually is simply a low interest loan.

Federal property, however, would be up to the federal government, state property to the state government, and local property to the local government. He's talking about private citizens.

Ron Paul: No Federal Financial Aid for Tornado Victims - John Aloysius Farrell - NationalJournal.com

Rep. Ron Paul, R-Texas, stood by his libertarian beliefs on Sunday, saying that victims of the violent storms and tornadoes that have battered a band of states in the South and Midwest in recent days should not be given emergency financial aid from the federal government.

"There is no such thing as federal money," Paul said, on CNN’s State of the Union. "Federal money is just what they steal from the states and steal from you and me."

Paul is more interested in his "states rights" issue even after a "national" disaster.

How is it a "national" disaster?

If only one state was hit yet as much damage and death took place, would it no longer be a "national disaster" in your eyes?

Do you know what a republic is?

Do you have any idea why we are referred to as the "Unites States"?

 

[GuyPinestra]

Isn't it interesting how Libertarians' desire for "freedom" correspond so neatly with skinflints who don't want to give ANYONE, ANYTHING.

So while libertarianism attracts people who want to be "free" it also attracts cheap assholes who don't want to pay their fair share.

Perhaps when Libertarians figure out a way to differentiate between the two, I'll vote for them.

What a disingenuous hack you are. Libertarians/Conservatives give WAAAAY more voluntarily that you do through the force of government. You cry about "paying their fair share", all the while ignoring the FACT that we voluntarily GIVE more than you propose to TAKE.

The reason you libs want to forcibly TAKE from others is that you look in the mirror and KNOW that you wouldn't GIVE of your own free will. You project YOUR shortcomings on everyone else in order to make yourselves feel better about your own tightwadery.

FUCK YOU!!

 

[amrchaos]

And?

And What?

Who is talking about Private charity? What I am talking about is funds from the government as aid. Ron Paul only compared government Aid and insurance. I talked about government aid in the case that there is no insurance.

Now what did you think I was talking about?

Your post implied that without federal money then nobody would be able to get food, and all of this other nonsense. However, private charity would still exist. Thus making your post nonsense.

You made that implication.

I implied that Government money would be helpful in a disaster and the idea that people should have insurance and government should not be used is what I was argueing against.

Remember, I am posting about Ron Pauls discussion. No mention of charities, families or friends is referenced to. I am using Ron Pauls scenario which only talks about the distinction between government aid and self-reliance through insurance.

I am not using the one you decided to add!
Even so, If you wish to include it, then help from ALL sources is needed. But then, that could be considered an abdication of personal responsiblity since I am asking for help from others--regardless if it is friends, family, a charitable organization, or even government.

 

[VaYank5150]

Federal property, however, would be up to the federal government, state property to the state government, and local property to the local government. He's talking about private citizens.

Ron Paul: No Federal Financial Aid for Tornado Victims - John Aloysius Farrell - NationalJournal.com

Rep. Ron Paul, R-Texas, stood by his libertarian beliefs on Sunday, saying that victims of the violent storms and tornadoes that have battered a band of states in the South and Midwest in recent days should not be given emergency financial aid from the federal government.

"There is no such thing as federal money," Paul said, on CNN’s State of the Union. "Federal money is just what they steal from the states and steal from you and me."

Paul is more interested in his "states rights" issue even after a "national" disaster.

How is it a "national" disaster?

If only one state was hit yet as much damage and death took place, would it no longer be a "national disaster" in your eyes?

Do you know what a republic is?

Do you have any idea why we are referred to as the "Unites States"?

Oh, so now it must have the official "National" disaster label before yo uare Ok with our Federal government helping out your fellow citizens? REALLY? Wow...

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

And What?

Who is talking about Private charity? What I am talking about is funds from the government as aid. Ron Paul only compared government Aid and insurance. I talked about government aid in the case that there is no insurance.

Now what did you think I was talking about?

Your post implied that without federal money then nobody would be able to get food, and all of this other nonsense. However, private charity would still exist. Thus making your post nonsense.

You made that implication.

I implied that Government money would be helpful in a disaster and the idea that people should have insurance and government should not be used is what I was argueing against.

Remember, I am posting about Ron Pauls discussion. No mention of charities, families or friends is referenced to. I am using Ron Pauls scenario which only talks about the distinction between government aid and self-reliance through insurance.

I am not using the one you decided to add!
Even so, If you wish to include it, then help from ALL sources is needed. But then, that could be considered an abdication of personal responsiblity since I am asking for help from others--regardless if it is friends, family, a charitable organization, or even government.

Yeah, right.

 

[amrchaos]

I have to go, see you guys on Wednesday.

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

At the time that Piyush was throwing his hissy fits, no one knew WHAT caused the leak in the Gulf, so I call bullshit on your attempt to cherry pick who gets disaster relief. And to some of your fellow "all heart" conservative brethren on here, IF charity had ever been enough, there never would have been a need for the government to create FEMA. In this sluggish economy, with unemployment hovering around 9%, charities are hurting for donations. Just ask Rick Santorum...

Why are you asking me about why Bobby Jindal did what he did? Why the fuck don't you ask him? Am I his keeper? Am I on his staff? Do I live in Louisiana? I don't give a rat's ass about Bobby Jindal or what he does. He is not my governor and I am not a supporter of his.

Furthermore, I am neither conservative nor am I cherry picking anything. I gave you a perfectly logical explanation (which is probably why you're having trouble understanding it) as to why federal involvement could be considered acceptable in the case of the Gulf Oil spill. Did I say it was necessary for them to get involved?

Lastly, your claim that FEMA was required because of a lack of charity is a false dilemma. The government grew leaps and bounds throughout the 20th century and a good deal of it was for no other reason than they could and nobody stopped them. If you have proof to offer that shows FEMA was necessary due to a lack of charity in this country please present it.

 

[BreezeWood]

Federal property, however, would be up to the federal government, state property to the state government, and local property to the local government. He's talking about private citizens.

Ron Paul: No Federal Financial Aid for Tornado Victims - John Aloysius Farrell - NationalJournal.com

Rep. Ron Paul, R-Texas, stood by his libertarian beliefs on Sunday, saying that victims of the violent storms and tornadoes that have battered a band of states in the South and Midwest in recent days should not be given emergency financial aid from the federal government.

"There is no such thing as federal money," Paul said, on CNN’s State of the Union. "Federal money is just what they steal from the states and steal from you and me."

Paul is more interested in his "states rights" issue even after a "national" disaster.

I don't see how anything you've posted disproves what I said.

He's talking about private citizens.


Are you saying private citizens are not the purview of the US Gov't ???

 

[Jarhead]

I used to rent and had rental insurance. Please explain to me how rental insurance gets you clothing, water, food, shelter, transportation, etc. right NOW, when these people need it the most?

It likely wont.
But I bet not one would go hungry or without a roof if government WAS NOT expected to help out.
Government gets in the way...Americans help Americans....we always had.

Now?

Governemnt red tape gets in the way.

REALLY? SO, why did we have 131,000 homeless veterans in the 2011 data? Aren't our service personnel especially near and dear to the hearts of the right? Do you have one living with you yet? If not, why not?

you dont know me well enough to make that assumption.

I share a mortgage on a home that I have never lived in nor do I collect rent on it.
I have been paying 1400 a month for 8 years for it...that incluides real estate taxes.
I have never net the folks that live there...I am anaonymous...my attorney handles everything.
The foiks that live there are veterans and their families.

Sure...you can say "it is an investment"...and in a way, it is.......for when the time comes, I will sell it off.

But for now, people are enjoying the conmfort of a roof over their head.

FYI....there was a lien put on the property because the people did not pay their water bill for 4 years.....so I paid it without questioning.

So what do you do for your fellow man?

Just criticize them for being like you?

 

[Wry Catcher]

I have to wonder how may of those who claim that the survivors will not go hungry, be cold (it has snowed on the victims, BTW) because everything including their warm clothes are gone or have a safe place to sleep have opened their homes, sent their warm coats and groceries to the afflicted?

I'm sure some will say they have.

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

Is not relying on Family, friends, and charities an abdication of personal responsibility as well?

You tell me.

No, that is what they are there for.

 

[Jarhead]

Paul is more interested in his "states rights" issue even after a "national" disaster.

How is it a "national" disaster?

If only one state was hit yet as much damage and death took place, would it no longer be a "national disaster" in your eyes?

Do you know what a republic is?

Do you have any idea why we are referred to as the "Unites States"?

Oh, so now it must have the official "National" disaster label before yo uare Ok with our Federal government helping out your fellow citizens? REALLY? Wow...

Dont be a dick.....

I simply asked why it was labelled as a national disater.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Paul is more interested in his "states rights" issue even after a "national" disaster.

I don't see how anything you've posted disproves what I said.

He's talking about private citizens.


Are you saying private citizens are not the purview of the US Gov't ???

I'm saying that it's not the U.S. government's responsibility to give money to those hit by natural disasters.

 

[Wry Catcher]

Isn't it interesting how Libertarians' desire for "freedom" correspond so neatly with skinflints who don't want to give ANYONE, ANYTHING.

So while libertarianism attracts people who want to be "free" it also attracts cheap assholes who don't want to pay their fair share.

Perhaps when Libertarians figure out a way to differentiate between the two, I'll vote for them.

What a disingenuous hack you are. Libertarians/Conservatives give WAAAAY more voluntarily that you do through the force of government. You cry about "paying their fair share", all the while ignoring the FACT that we voluntarily GIVE more than you propose to TAKE.

The reason you libs want to forcibly TAKE from others is that you look in the mirror and KNOW that you wouldn't GIVE of your own free will. You project YOUR shortcomings on everyone else in order to make yourselves feel better about your own tightwadery.

FUCK YOU!!

One more example of a callous conservative. Who was it that claimed libealism was a mental disease? Oh yeah, Michael Weiner, a conservative radio host whose rants are reflective of the the anger expressed by GuyP.

 

[Mr.Nick]

Im sorry but I agree with him. The people should have insurance. RENTAL insurance is cheap like 200 a year or less.. IF you own a house you should have insurance.. No excuses..

I used to rent and had rental insurance. Please explain to me how rental insurance gets you clothing, water, food, shelter, transportation, etc. right NOW, when these people need it the most?

Apparently you don't pay attention to what people post..

Private charities are down there making sure people get what they need.

As one poster pointed out - restaurants are handing out free food, local stores are supplying free gloves, hard hats, people are going down there to volunteer, people are donating money to fund the effort..

The federal government is NOT needed - they are NOT the only solution.

When people need help - the help comes from good people - not the ugly federal government.

Besides, we don't need politicians throwing money at a community while they scratch their bellies then say; "remember me in November - you owe me."

 

[Paulie]

Consistent.