The main thing for me, the government's horrible services are, imo, due to their main goal being to protect corporate interests. When they are suddenly asked to provide for the people they are supposed to protect, they appear clueless. If we elected the kind of people who have the people's interests first on their agenda then I think we would see a drastic change in the efficiency of all programs provided. Things can be fixed given proper leadership.
The problem is to far entrenched. Like I said when the foundation of a house is shot you need to tear down the whole house.
"When one gets in bed with government, one must expect the diseases it spreads." - Ron Paul
The problem is to far entrenched. Like I said when the foundation of a house is shot you need to tear down the whole house.
I see it more like a roach infestation. Get rid of the corrupt roaches and the house is still fine. It'd be a pity to abandon a perfectly good house just because some roaches are messing it up.
If you want to tell people the truth, make them laugh, otherwise they'll kill you.
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
I see it more like a roach infestation. Get rid of the corrupt roaches and the house is still fine. It'd be a pity to abandon a perfectly good house just because some roaches are messing it up.
Well at least we can both agree that there is a severe problem with our government.
"When one gets in bed with government, one must expect the diseases it spreads." - Ron Paul
When it comes to diseaster reliefs, I'll use Katrina and 9/11 as an example, how many thousands of millions of dollars where collected through charitable organizations. How many well off individuals took the initiative, especially during Katrina, to provide aid on their own. We don't need the federal government for this. We have all been spoon fed since birth that we need the government, but the truth of the matter is that for a few exceptions we don't need the federal government or their inept and over bloated programs.
Let's imagine that there is no federal emergency response, and that charities and private organizations are responsible for the cleanup and recovery after a natural disaster. What about the local charities? I would imagine that they would be damaged along with everything else in the area, so they wouldn't be of much help. By definition, the charity response would have to come from other communities but, again, most charities are small and tied to their local communities, and not designed to export their help. Fund raisers that happened with Katrina and 911 are always a big help. But these things usually take place a while after the fact.
If thousands of independent, local charities from all across the nation tried to help out the victims of Hurricane Katrina, the resulting confusion, duplication of effort and the lack of a clear, overall strategy would waste much of their time and effort. In this respect, the federal government has a huge advantage over thousands of isolated, disparate charities. It can draw on deep strategic reserves and allocate them according to an organized plan. Furthermore, the operations required to fight a national disaster are far different from the ones required to fight local neighborhood problems. Small charities are not suited for these different mission requirements.
That said, our gov't did not handle Katrina very well. Like abook mentioned, this is due to the individuals 'running the show'. Another point that comes to mind, in order for us to replace welfare with charity, our society would have to boost its charitable giving tenfold. Do you think that folks who are so bitter about social programs will turn around and happily surrender an equal amount of money to a charity?
This is getting long, but one more point: What about the matter of accountability. Private charities are notorious for spending a large percent of their revenues on administrative costs. Also what about fraudulent charities? The federal government is held much more strictly accountable for its actions. The media can be quite relentless. Look at the heat FEMA took in the wake of Katrina. Gov't failures tend to be brought to light and focused on more by the media. And under the intense glare of the national media, reforms occurred.
The greatest obstacle to discovery is not ignorance,
but the illusion of knowledge.
~Daniel Boorstin
Only a life lived for others is worth living.
~Albert Einstein
i think, if he is being short-sided, it is in the fact that he doesn't acknowledge the fema players in the current field. and, i think he could at least acknowledge something like, that, in the face of an overwhelming catastrophe, like katrina, that would and could decidely call in favor of federal aid.
Let's imagine that there is no federal emergency response, and that charities and private organizations are responsible for the cleanup and recovery after a natural disaster. What about the local charities? I would imagine that they would be damaged along with everything else in the area, so they wouldn't be of much help. By definition, the charity response would have to come from other communities but, again, most charities are small and tied to their local communities, and not designed to export their help. Fund raisers that happened with Katrina and 911 are always a big help. But these things usually take place a while after the fact.
If thousands of independent, local charities from all across the nation tried to help out the victims of Hurricane Katrina, the resulting confusion, duplication of effort and the lack of a clear, overall strategy would waste much of their time and effort. In this respect, the federal government has a huge advantage over thousands of isolated, disparate charities. It can draw on deep strategic reserves and allocate them according to an organized plan. Furthermore, the operations required to fight a national disaster are far different from the ones required to fight local neighborhood problems. Small charities are not suited for these different mission requirements.
That said, our gov't did not handle Katrina very well. Like abook mentioned, this is due to the individuals 'running the show'. Another point that comes to mind, in order for us to replace welfare with charity, our society would have to boost its charitable giving tenfold. Do you think that folks who are so bitter about social programs will turn around and happily surrender an equal amount of money to a charity?
This is getting long, but one more point: What about the matter of accountability. Private charities are notorious for spending a large percent of their revenues on administrative costs. Also what about fraudulent charities? The federal government is held much more strictly accountable for its actions. The media can be quite relentless. Look at the heat FEMA took in the wake of Katrina. Gov't failures tend to be brought to light and focused on more by the media. And under the intense glare of the national media, reforms occurred.
Who organized American relief and charities after the tsunami in Indonesia, et al?
Who organized American relief and charities after the tsunami in Indonesia, et al?
A Better question would be how was diseaster relief handled prior to FEMA. As Ron Paul stated in the interview. Back in the 1960's Galvaston, TX was nearly wiped off the map. Their was no FEMA back then. The state of Texas managed the whole process on their own. The Town was rebuild along with a sea wall that is still standing strong today.
I know that Ron Paul's ideology is not for everyone and that's fine, but I have been seeing a awfull amount of half-truths and misinformation being spread about the man by people who's candidate maybe isn't getting the attention Ron Paul is. I can understand that this being a pretty important election and all, but instead of focusing on the issues they have decided to take this route. It's a bit Karl Rove-ish if you ask me and funny how when Bush did it in both of his campaigns it was frowned upon, but the same tactic is being employed by the very same people who criticized Bush.
"When one gets in bed with government, one must expect the diseases it spreads." - Ron Paul
A Better question would be how was diseaster relief handled prior to FEMA. As Ron Paul stated in the interview. Back in the 1960's Galvaston, TX was nearly wiped off the map. Their was no FEMA back then. The state of Texas managed the whole process on their own. The Town was rebuild along with a sea wall that is still standing strong today.
I know that Ron Paul's ideology is not for everyone and that's fine, but I have been seeing a awfull amount of half-truths and misinformation being spread about the man by people who's candidate maybe isn't getting the attention Ron Paul is. I can understand that this being a pretty important election and all, but instead of focusing on the issues they have decided to take this route. It's a bit Karl Rove-ish if you ask me and funny how when Bush did it in both of his campaigns it was frowned upon, but the same tactic is being employed by the very same people who criticized Bush.
Yeah, FEMA is unecessary. Too much government. We'll always have the national guard, if that sort of aid is needed. And the Guard can be deployed at the whim of the Governor of a State.
that interview was pretty good. I learned a lot about Ron Paul..and I have to say...he's shot to the top of my Republican's list...(although...i'd never vote republican in the upcoming election).
voted against Iraq and the Patriot act as a republican....at least he has a spine!
“Kept in a small bowl, the goldfish will remain small. With more space, the fish can grow double, triple, or quadruple its size.”
-Big Fish
Comments
The problem is to far entrenched. Like I said when the foundation of a house is shot you need to tear down the whole house.
I see it more like a roach infestation. Get rid of the corrupt roaches and the house is still fine. It'd be a pity to abandon a perfectly good house just because some roaches are messing it up.
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
Well at least we can both agree that there is a severe problem with our government.
Let's imagine that there is no federal emergency response, and that charities and private organizations are responsible for the cleanup and recovery after a natural disaster. What about the local charities? I would imagine that they would be damaged along with everything else in the area, so they wouldn't be of much help. By definition, the charity response would have to come from other communities but, again, most charities are small and tied to their local communities, and not designed to export their help. Fund raisers that happened with Katrina and 911 are always a big help. But these things usually take place a while after the fact.
If thousands of independent, local charities from all across the nation tried to help out the victims of Hurricane Katrina, the resulting confusion, duplication of effort and the lack of a clear, overall strategy would waste much of their time and effort. In this respect, the federal government has a huge advantage over thousands of isolated, disparate charities. It can draw on deep strategic reserves and allocate them according to an organized plan. Furthermore, the operations required to fight a national disaster are far different from the ones required to fight local neighborhood problems. Small charities are not suited for these different mission requirements.
That said, our gov't did not handle Katrina very well. Like abook mentioned, this is due to the individuals 'running the show'. Another point that comes to mind, in order for us to replace welfare with charity, our society would have to boost its charitable giving tenfold. Do you think that folks who are so bitter about social programs will turn around and happily surrender an equal amount of money to a charity?
This is getting long, but one more point: What about the matter of accountability. Private charities are notorious for spending a large percent of their revenues on administrative costs. Also what about fraudulent charities? The federal government is held much more strictly accountable for its actions. The media can be quite relentless. Look at the heat FEMA took in the wake of Katrina. Gov't failures tend to be brought to light and focused on more by the media. And under the intense glare of the national media, reforms occurred.
but the illusion of knowledge.
~Daniel Boorstin
Only a life lived for others is worth living.
~Albert Einstein
damn, he's good.
i think, if he is being short-sided, it is in the fact that he doesn't acknowledge the fema players in the current field. and, i think he could at least acknowledge something like, that, in the face of an overwhelming catastrophe, like katrina, that would and could decidely call in favor of federal aid.
all posts by ©gue_barium are protected under US copyright law and are not to be reproduced, exchanged or sold
except by express written permission of ©gue_barium, the author.
Who organized American relief and charities after the tsunami in Indonesia, et al?
all posts by ©gue_barium are protected under US copyright law and are not to be reproduced, exchanged or sold
except by express written permission of ©gue_barium, the author.
A Better question would be how was diseaster relief handled prior to FEMA. As Ron Paul stated in the interview. Back in the 1960's Galvaston, TX was nearly wiped off the map. Their was no FEMA back then. The state of Texas managed the whole process on their own. The Town was rebuild along with a sea wall that is still standing strong today.
I know that Ron Paul's ideology is not for everyone and that's fine, but I have been seeing a awfull amount of half-truths and misinformation being spread about the man by people who's candidate maybe isn't getting the attention Ron Paul is. I can understand that this being a pretty important election and all, but instead of focusing on the issues they have decided to take this route. It's a bit Karl Rove-ish if you ask me and funny how when Bush did it in both of his campaigns it was frowned upon, but the same tactic is being employed by the very same people who criticized Bush.
Yeah, FEMA is unecessary. Too much government. We'll always have the national guard, if that sort of aid is needed. And the Guard can be deployed at the whim of the Governor of a State.
all posts by ©gue_barium are protected under US copyright law and are not to be reproduced, exchanged or sold
except by express written permission of ©gue_barium, the author.
voted against Iraq and the Patriot act as a republican....at least he has a spine!
-Big Fish