Politics & Current Events
Dear Community,
Our tech team has launched updates to The Nest today. As a result of these updates, members of the Nest Community will need to change their password in order to continue participating in the community. In addition, The Nest community member's avatars will be replaced with generic default avatars. If you wish to revert to your original avatar, you will need to re-upload it via The Nest.
If you have questions about this, please email help@theknot.com.
Thank you.
Note: This only affects The Nest's community members and will not affect members on The Bump or The Knot.
Our tech team has launched updates to The Nest today. As a result of these updates, members of the Nest Community will need to change their password in order to continue participating in the community. In addition, The Nest community member's avatars will be replaced with generic default avatars. If you wish to revert to your original avatar, you will need to re-upload it via The Nest.
If you have questions about this, please email help@theknot.com.
Thank you.
Note: This only affects The Nest's community members and will not affect members on The Bump or The Knot.
Privatizing disaster relief: WDYT?
"Asked by moderator John King of CNN if disaster relief efforts should be turned over to states, Romney said that "every time you have an occasion to take something from the federal government and send it back to the states, that's the right direction. And if you can go even further and send it back to the private sector, that's even better."
http://www.cnn.com/2012/10/30/politics/disaster-role-government/index.html
Thoughts?
Warning
No formatter is installed for the format bbhtml
Re: Privatizing disaster relief: WDYT?
He already tried to change his position on this. Par for the Romney course. How does anyone believe him on anything anymore?
ETA: also, I disagree with his supposed position, as that was the question.
Republicans party like it's 1899.
The fiscal conservative mindset seems to yearn a return to the days of yesteryear -- when workplace regulations were non-existent, people hid their life savings in their mattresses, corporations polluted the land, air, and water at will, unions didn't exist, and it was every man for himself when a natural disaster struck.
Mitt apparently believes that folks have only themselves to blame if they live on the Gulf Coast or eastern seaboard where hurricanes tend to make landfall, and therefore Americans have no business living in Tornado Alley -- they're just asking for trouble, and of course the Mississippi River flood plains are definitely off limits, and don't get him started on California and its earthquakes.
So unless you live in South Dakota, you are taking an unnecessary risk owning a home or business, and if a natural disaster strikes and the state or local agencies are ill-equipped to manage rescue operations and provide financial assistance, well ... IT SUCKS TO BE YOU
I know, it's so hard to talk about anything he said because he's already said the opposite! John Kerry's presidential campaign must be turning in its grave!
But his backtrack said "send it to the states" not "don't privatize" right? Because depending on how you interpret it, Mitt Romney might be consistent with Mitt Romney - or is that a stretch?
Either way, I thought we could discuss. I figured some on this board might support privatization.
Note to worry, Mitt will be all for FEMA now. Gauranteed. He's never met an issue he couldn't second-guess himself on.
I am all for giving this responsibility to the states. I am on the fence about privatization.
There have been a few prisons here in OH which have been privatized and they seem to be doing well. And yes, I know you cannot compare a prison to a natural disaster but I am thinking in the context of privatization.
How would the states be able to do this though? Would it be up to the states directly hit to fund the repairs themselves? I just don't see how this would work - you have a state with major damage to their infrastructure and they are expected to rebuild themselves and help their own citizens? Or would it be up to the surrounding states?
And it is so often the poorest states that have the frequently occuring natural disasters.
I'm not trying to be snarky I just honestly don't see how this could work but would love to hear more about ways others think it could work.
The Federal Emergency Management Agency has been responding to almost any natural disaster around the country, be it a contained three-county flood, or a catastrophe of near-epic proportions like Hurricane Katrina. As a result, many states and localities have trimmed their own emergency-response budgets, often leaving them ill prepared to handle even rain- or snowstorms without federal assistance. This leaves FEMA stretched far too thin and ill prepared to respond to grand-scale catastrophes. The "federalization of disasters" misdirects vital resources, leaving localities, states, and the federal government in a lose-lose situation. FEMA policies must be overhauled to let localities handle smaller, localized disasters, and to allow FEMA to respond fully and effectively when it is truly needed. If the status quo continues, it will be a disaster for everyone.
FEMA should operate the National Response Coordination Center, especially in a multi-state disaster such as Sandy. But FEMA should not necessarily respond to EVERY natural disaster and I feel they should stop wasting money on ineffective grants to local fire departments.
Responsibility to the states makes sense to me. I think they are best suited to know what to do in their specific regions, and how to handle a situation in their own areas. I wouldn't take away federal help entirely, but I like the idea of each state, and city for that matter, being responsible for its citizens and not relying solely on an already burdened federal government.
As for privatization, it makes sense to get them involved as private organizations are often more limber in helping and providing supplies, however, then how do they decide which areas to help first and how are the efforts coordinated?
As a side note, a MN power company where I live just sent 30 electrical employees to the East Coast to help get power back online.
Also, a lot of responsibility needs to lay with the citizens themselves in being prepared for disasters of all types. Education and outreach to them during good times to show how to prepare and what to stock should take place. I see a lot of people just relying on the governemtn to take care of them, when they could be building a stash of supplies themselves for when a time of need arises. It isn't that tough to do if you do a bit at a time. Citizens need to take more of a responsibility and stop living for just today, but to have some plan in place for self-reliance to cover their families.
OK, so that is Matt Mayer's response for reforming FEMA, and he makes it sound like FEMA just swoops in and takes over when it thinks it should. When in reality it is up to the each state to determine if the recovery costs are more than the state and local governments can handle and if they want FEMA to get involved.
Are some states paying in more than they're getting back? Of course. But I don't see the alternative for states like Oklahoma that have a smaller tax base but a much larger proportion of natural disasters.
I would refer you to MommyLiberty's post:
As for privatization, it makes sense to get them involved as private organizations are often more limber in helping and providing supplies, however, then how do they decide which areas to help first and how are the efforts coordinated?
Also, a lot of responsibility needs to lay with the citizens themselves in being prepared for disasters of all types. Education and outreach to them during good times to show how to prepare and what to stock should take place. I see a lot of people just relying on the government to take care of them, when they could be building a stash of supplies themselves for when a time of need arises. It isn't that tough to do if you do a bit at a time. Citizens need to take more of a responsibility and stop living for just today, but to have some plan in place for self-reliance to cover their families.
I fail to see how privatizing disaster relief would not simply lead to screwing over the poorest areas affected by [whatever disaster] while said 'relief' gets funneled to the people who can pay the most for it, whether or not they need it the most.
Whether or not disaster relief is handled by the state or federal (or local, for that matter) government, I really do think it important that it remain a government function. The private sector exists to make money and not everything should be a capitalist enterprise.
And because we love using fictional characters/scenarios to make points, here's a line from West Wing (but really is just here because I love the show):
There are times when we're fifty states and there are times when we're one country, and have national needs. And the way I know this is that Florida didn't fight Germany in World War II or establish civil rights. You think states should do the governing wall-to-wall. That's a perfectly valid opinion. But your state of Florida got $12.6 billion in federal money last year - from Nebraskans, and Virginians, and New Yorkers, and Alaskans, with their Eskimo poetry. 12.6 out of a state budget of $50 billion. I'm supposed to be using this time for a question, so here it is: Can we have it back, please? -Pres. Bartlet
or watch it here, starting around 2:10- http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VyqzPu5pX6U
But that is how it works. The states evaluate and order evacuations, and get Nat'l Guard units on standby. Maybe there could be more resources available at the state level to begin with, but response starts with the states, they don't sit back and wait for FEMA to swoop in and save the day.
Sure, people need to be prepared. But how much good does it do someone to stock up on food and water, and a generator and batteries, and all that jazz... and then be told they have a mandatory evacuation because their island/town is about to be inundated? When their house is washed away or entirely uninhabitable as a result of flooding? When an entire neighborhood in NYC is devastated in a fire, because flood waters prevented emergency personnel from reaching them in time?
Some things are beyond reasonable expectation for people to necessarily handle via 'some plan in place for self-reliance to cover their families.' Some people just might need a little extra help due to unimaginably unforeseen circumstances, and I don't think we can condemn them for that.
Great point! Seriously. There is an answer for that question. It is called a 72-hour bag. GOOGLE it. It ties in with a list of supplies a family would gather quickly if they had 1-2 hours to evacuate...financial records, IDs, photos, valuable items/collections that fit in a vehicle and also supplies that they may need like food, water/water purification means, something to cook with, etc.
Our family has a list broken down by room in our home to grab if we need to leave quickly... things ranging from memory sticks containing pictures to kids' scrapbooks, to our 72 hour bags and to outdoor gear like coats , etc. It also lists odds and ends of reminders like to turn off water and electricity, lock doors and windows, etc.
I have nothing against aiding people, nothing whatsoever, but people CAN and should be expected to take on some level of responsibility for their own well-being and for the preservation of their family. It isn't that hard to do. Really, it isn't. You just plan and organize - it's easy. And, you figure out what you need in your emergency to-go stores. Now, beyond that what fits in your car to get you "out of Dodge," you can and do rely on aid to rebuild, etc.
This. The only reason a private company would take this responsibility on would be if it could make money off of it, and frankly, the idea of making money off of people's suffering like this makes me skeeved out.
Private prisons are just about the most terrible idea ever. Why would you want to give a group of people a financial incentive to put others in prison??
http://www.cnbc.com/id/44762286
Our country already puts more of our people in prison than both China and Russia COMBINED. And it's not because we're somehow just worse people than anyone else in the world.
This is true; however, why is it true? Is it because less people break laws in those countries or is it because they more frequently utilize the death penalty and therefore have lower rates of occupancy in prisons? It's one of those two reasons.
As for the underlined, actually, I think we are worse than many countries in the world. We are more selfish, prone to violence, and greedier (I love the USA, but I do recognize its problems). Also, With great prosperity comes great depravity, which we have here. And making that worse is that in many cases depravity is laughed about, lauded, and sometimes outrightly encouraged.
1) Our skewed incarceration rates could be more due in many cases (probably not China & Russia for obvious reasons) to other countries having a less prison-based legal system, more so than a quantity or proportion of population that commits crimes.
2) wonder where mass gun ownership comes into play there and whether that holds true to other countries of similar wealth and industrialization but with strict gun control laws...
3) I disagree. Vigorously. Disenfranchisement, extreme poverty and inequality, and cultures of uneducated/unemployed youths breed extremism (which is what I would call depravity) and violence. Not money.
edited for clarity, 'cuz I cannot articulate lately.
Or it's a third reason, that we have a system that allows certain people to profit from the incarceration of others thus giving them an incentive to push for laws that incarcerate as many people as possible, and one that criminalizes even the most minor of drug use or possession, thus essentially creating reasons to put people in prison even though it doesn't benefit society.
I'll just preemptively ditto Lexi and Geraldo for the remainder of this ribbon.
What good is a 72-hour bag to a family whose home was completely destroyed? What are they supposed to do after 72 hours?