Hurricane Irene

[CountDeMoney]

GILFORD, N.H. -- After a lunch speech today, Ron Paul slammed the Federal Emergency Management Agency, or FEMA, and said that no national response to Hurricane Irene is necessary.

"We should be like 1900; we should be like 1940, 1950, 1960," Paul said. "I live on the Gulf Coast; we deal with hurricanes all the time. Galveston is in my district.

"There's no magic about FEMA. They're a great contribution to deficit financing and quite frankly they don't have a penny in the bank. We should be coordinated but coordinated voluntarily with the states," Paul told NBC News. "A state can decide. We don't need somebody in Washington."

[garbon]

I think Ron's position on feds in general is best summed up by that last bit - "We don't need somebody in Washington."

[Ideologue]

GILFORD, N.H. -- After a lunch speech today, Ron Paul slammed the Federal Emergency Management Agency, or FEMA, and said that no national response to Hurricane Irene is necessary.

"We should be like 1900; we should be like 1940, 1950, 1960," Paul said. "I live on the Gulf Coast; we deal with hurricanes all the time. Galveston is in my district.

"There's no magic about FEMA. They're a great contribution to deficit financing and quite frankly they don't have a penny in the bank. We should be coordinated but coordinated voluntarily with the states," Paul told NBC News. "A state can decide. We don't need somebody in Washington."

It would be pretty hilarious if he said this right before he drowned.

[11B4V]

GILFORD, N.H. -- After a lunch speech today, Ron Paul slammed the Federal Emergency Management Agency, or FEMA, and said that no national response to Hurricane Irene is necessary.

"We should be like 1900; we should be like 1940, 1950, 1960," Paul said. "I live on the Gulf Coast; we deal with hurricanes all the time. Galveston is in my district.

"There's no magic about FEMA. They're a great contribution to deficit financing and quite frankly they don't have a penny in the bank. We should be coordinated but coordinated voluntarily with the states," Paul told NBC News. "A state can decide. We don't need somebody in Washington."

He's an insipid Ass Clown

[Berkut]

Why is Paul's position at all worthy of comment? He is perfectly consistent. It would only be interesting if he came out and now said the Feds should step in and spend a pile of cash on what is a "routine" natural disaster.

I agree with him, at least in theory. The Feds should not be in the business of making good on natural disasters, that should be the job of the states to make sure they have funds necessary to handle most potential disasters. The Feds and FEMA should only be involved for stuff the states cannot handle, and Irene is small potatoes.

Now, that is all theory - given that for a couple decades the Feds have made it clear that it IS their job to manage this crap, then you cannot blame the states now for not being prepared. Of course they are going to slash their own disaster recovery funds if they know FEMA is going to be there.

[Valmy]

Why is Paul's position at all worthy of comment? He is perfectly consistent. It would only be interesting if he came out and now said the Feds should step in and spend a pile of cash on what is a "routine" natural disaster.

I agree with him, at least in theory. The Feds should not be in the business of making good on natural disasters, that should be the job of the states to make sure they have funds necessary to handle most potential disasters. The Feds and FEMA should only be involved for stuff the states cannot handle, and Irene is small potatoes.

Now, that is all theory - given that for a couple decades the Feds have made it clear that it IS their job to manage this crap, then you cannot blame the states now for not being prepared. Of course they are going to slash their own disaster recovery funds if they know FEMA is going to be there.

Obviously anybody who claims a few downed powerlines is not a natural disaster worthy of Federal intervention is an insipid ass clown.

[ulmont]

Why is Paul's position at all worthy of comment? He is perfectly consistent. It would only be interesting if he came out and now said the Feds should step in and spend a pile of cash on what is a "routine" natural disaster.

I agree with him, at least in theory. The Feds should not be in the business of making good on natural disasters, that should be the job of the states to make sure they have funds necessary to handle most potential disasters. The Feds and FEMA should only be involved for stuff the states cannot handle, and Irene is small potatoes.

Now, that is all theory - given that for a couple decades the Feds have made it clear that it IS their job to manage this crap, then you cannot blame the states now for not being prepared. Of course they are going to slash their own disaster recovery funds if they know FEMA is going to be there.

Obviously anybody who claims a few downed powerlines is not a natural disaster worthy of Federal intervention is an insipid ass clown.

Hurricane Irene's rampage through 10 states caused an estimated $7 billion to $13 billion in damage from violent winds and flooding, and left almost six million homes and businesses without power.

http://www.ibtimes.com/articles/205344/20110829/hurricane-irene-damage-hurricane-irene-cost-hurricane-damage-hurricane-irene-deaths.htm

Even the low-end $7 billion estimate seems like kind of a clusterfuck.

[Razgovory]

Why is Paul's position at all worthy of comment? He is perfectly consistent. It would only be interesting if he came out and now said the Feds should step in and spend a pile of cash on what is a "routine" natural disaster.

I agree with him, at least in theory. The Feds should not be in the business of making good on natural disasters, that should be the job of the states to make sure they have funds necessary to handle most potential disasters. The Feds and FEMA should only be involved for stuff the states cannot handle, and Irene is small potatoes.

Now, that is all theory - given that for a couple decades the Feds have made it clear that it IS their job to manage this crap, then you cannot blame the states now for not being prepared. Of course they are going to slash their own disaster recovery funds if they know FEMA is going to be there.

I disagree with you both in theory and practice.

[DGuller]

GILFORD, N.H. -- After a lunch speech today, Ron Paul slammed the Federal Emergency Management Agency, or FEMA, and said that no national response to Hurricane Irene is necessary.

"We should be like 1900; we should be like 1940, 1950, 1960," Paul said. "I live on the Gulf Coast; we deal with hurricanes all the time. Galveston is in my district.

"There's no magic about FEMA. They're a great contribution to deficit financing and quite frankly they don't have a penny in the bank. We should be coordinated but coordinated voluntarily with the states," Paul told NBC News. "A state can decide. We don't need somebody in Washington."

Yeah, we should be like 1900 in Galveston.  What an ideologically inflexible moron.

[Berkut]

Why is Paul's position at all worthy of comment? He is perfectly consistent. It would only be interesting if he came out and now said the Feds should step in and spend a pile of cash on what is a "routine" natural disaster.

I agree with him, at least in theory. The Feds should not be in the business of making good on natural disasters, that should be the job of the states to make sure they have funds necessary to handle most potential disasters. The Feds and FEMA should only be involved for stuff the states cannot handle, and Irene is small potatoes.

Now, that is all theory - given that for a couple decades the Feds have made it clear that it IS their job to manage this crap, then you cannot blame the states now for not being prepared. Of course they are going to slash their own disaster recovery funds if they know FEMA is going to be there.

Obviously anybody who claims a few downed powerlines is not a natural disaster worthy of Federal intervention is an insipid ass clown.

Hurricane Irene's rampage through 10 states caused an estimated $7 billion to $13 billion in damage from violent winds and flooding, and left almost six million homes and businesses without power.

http://www.ibtimes.com/articles/205344/20110829/hurricane-irene-damage-hurricane-irene-cost-hurricane-damage-hurricane-irene-deaths.htm

Even the low-end $7 billion estimate seems like kind of a clusterfuck.

$7 billion through ten states? Small potatoes. What is the damage cost in infrastructure? Presumably the vast majority of private damage is covered by insurance?

[Razgovory]

GILFORD, N.H. -- After a lunch speech today, Ron Paul slammed the Federal Emergency Management Agency, or FEMA, and said that no national response to Hurricane Irene is necessary.

"We should be like 1900; we should be like 1940, 1950, 1960," Paul said. "I live on the Gulf Coast; we deal with hurricanes all the time. Galveston is in my district.

"There's no magic about FEMA. They're a great contribution to deficit financing and quite frankly they don't have a penny in the bank. We should be coordinated but coordinated voluntarily with the states," Paul told NBC News. "A state can decide. We don't need somebody in Washington."

Yeah, we should be like 1900 in Galveston.  What an ideologically inflexible moron.

Presumably he means this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1900_Galveston_hurricane

The hurricane caused great loss of life with the estimated death toll between 6,000 and 12,000 individuals;[3] the number most cited in official reports is 8,000, giving the storm the third-highest number of deaths or injuries of any Atlantic hurricane, after the Great Hurricane of 1780 and 1998's Hurricane Mitch. The Galveston Hurricane of 1900 is to date the deadliest natural disaster ever to strike the United States.

[Syt]

What Spiderman thinks:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zsb8AVK2n1M

[DGuller]

$7 billion through ten states? Small potatoes. What is the damage cost in infrastructure? Presumably the vast majority of private damage is covered by insurance?

I wouldn't call a $7 billion storm small potatoes, whether it goes through 1 state or 10.  I also imagine that a large chunk of the damage is due to flooding, in which case it's a federal insurance program that covers it at subsidized rates.

[Berkut]

$7 billion through ten states? Small potatoes. What is the damage cost in infrastructure? Presumably the vast majority of private damage is covered by insurance?

I wouldn't call a $7 billion storm small potatoes, whether it goes through 1 state or 10.  I also imagine that a large chunk of the damage is due to flooding, in which case it's a federal insurance program that covers it at subsidized rates.

Well, the federal flood insurance program already exists - obviously it needs to be funded adequately to cover its obligations. Is that what we are talking about though?

$7 billion is a meaningless number for purposes of this discussion. What is the federal bill, and what is it for?

Who should be responsible for paying for infrastructure damage, and for private damage that is not covered by insurance, to the extent that anyone should be responsible for paying it?

That is the question Paul is raising. I find it interesting that the answer is immediately "the feds". Note that this is not a question of whether the damage should be covered, but simply by whom, and the only acceptable response is that it MUST be the highest possible level of government. So this is strictly an argument that the Federal government should be as large as possible, rather than letting the states handle themselves. Why is the instinctive response always whatever justifies expanding the federal government the most?

[Razgovory]

Apparently Dguller took Christie's advice and didn't go to work today.