myiW Current Conditions and Forecasts Community Forums Windsurfing Videos Buy and Sell Services
 
Hi guest · myAccount · Log in
 SearchSearch   ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   RegisterRegister 
FEMA under Romney
Goto page 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    iWindsurf Community Forum Index -> Politics, Off-Topic, Opinions
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
feuser



Joined: 29 Oct 2002
Posts: 1395

PostPosted: Mon Oct 29, 2012 4:17 pm    Post subject: FEMA under Romney Reply with quote

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2012/10/politics-of-fema-mitt-romney-suggested-less-federal-involvement-paul-ryan-budget-scrutinized/

[...] Paul Ryan’s budget proposal, which passed the House but not the Senate, envisioned a 41 percent cut next year for the section of the federal government that includes FEMA. In addition, Ryan’s committee specifically pointed out that President Obama has declared a record number of disasters during his term. Here is that exchange from the June debate between Romney and CNN’s John King:

KING: What else, Governor Romney? You’ve been a chief executive of a state. I was just in Joplin, Mo. I’ve been in Mississippi and Louisiana and Tennessee and other communities dealing with [disaster], whether it’s the tornadoes, the flooding and worse. FEMA is about to run out of money, and there are some people who say, ‘Do it on a case-by-case basis,’ and some people who say, you know, ‘Maybe we’re learning a lesson here that the states should take on more of this role.’ How do you deal with something like that?

ROMNEY: Absolutely. 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. Instead of thinking in the federal budget, what we should cut — we should ask ourselves the opposite question. What should we keep? We should take all of what we’re doing at the federal level and say, what are the things we’re doing that we don’t have to do? And those
things we’ve got to stop doing, because we’re borrowing $1.6 trillion more this year than we’re taking in. We cannot–

KING: Including disaster relief, though?

ROMNEY: We cannot afford to do those things without jeopardizing the future for our kids. It is simply immoral, in my view, for us to continue to rack up larger and larger debts and pass them on to our kids, knowing full well that we’ll all be dead and gone before it’s paid off. It makes no sense at all.

_________________
florian - ny22

http://www.windsurfing.kasail.com/
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
mac



Joined: 07 Mar 1999
Posts: 5337

PostPosted: Mon Oct 29, 2012 4:35 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Treme has it just right on the Re-thugs. Great job Brownie. Oh, and by the way, the cover-up on the poor job by the Corps in constructing the levees? Run by Bush, out of the White House. We have seen what the private sector does--in New Orleans.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
feuser



Joined: 29 Oct 2002
Posts: 1395

PostPosted: Sat Nov 03, 2012 9:11 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Sad, to see what my friends on LI and Queens are going through: http://youtu.be/sgkVdnxyGDk
_________________
florian - ny22

http://www.windsurfing.kasail.com/
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
mac



Joined: 07 Mar 1999
Posts: 5337

PostPosted: Thu Mar 06, 2014 7:54 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

This may not be a perfect fit--but this is what the so-called fiscally responsible Republicans do when there is heat from the middle class--with big support from the Democrats:

Quote:
WASHINGTON -- The House Tuesday voted to approve legislation that sponsors say will avert unaffordable flood insurance premiums for the vast majority of the program's 5.5 million policyholders.

The bill, which required a two-thirds vote for passage, received more than 75 percent of the votes, with a final tally of 306-91. Voting yes were 180 Democrats and 126 Republicans; 86 Republicans voted no, along with five Democrats.

The question now is whether the Senate, which passed legislation delaying most of the premium increases for four years, will pass the House bill, or seek to negotiate differences between the two bills.

After the vote, Reps. Steve Scalise, R-Jefferson; Bill Cassidy, R-Baton Rouge, and Cedric Richmond, D-New Orleans, urged the Senate to act quickly to pass the House bill to provide peace of mind to hundreds of thousands of people worried whether they'll be able to continue to afford flood insurance.


Now to refresh our memory, currently FEMA only generates about 1/3 of what it pays out in claims. This will get worse as sea level continues to rise. The mapping efforts that established the flood rates do not consider 1) sea level rise; 2) wave run-up, or 3) long term erosion.

Under the so-called socialist President, FEMA had proposed a series of modest reforms that would increase flood rates by 15% per year until they actually reflected the actual risk. The House action includes a grandfathering for all who were once mapped as out of the flood zones--no matter how accurate those maps might have been.

So these modest reforms were blocked to prevent increasing flood insurance rates during an election year.

Let's see what this might cost. Payouts are 4 billion a year, and rising. So the fiscally conservative Tea Party took $8.7 billion out of the food stamp program--and just gave about $3 billion of it back to middle class homeowners. Tell me again that there isn't a war on the poor.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
stevenbard



Joined: 11 Nov 1993
Posts: 4209

PostPosted: Thu Mar 06, 2014 10:14 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Well then, let Obama veto it, and stand on his pedestal and get it shot down. If they get more than 67% again....well then, Obama did his best. I doubt whether he's that brave.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
mac



Joined: 07 Mar 1999
Posts: 5337

PostPosted: Fri Mar 07, 2014 4:48 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Bard--I actually doubt you missed my point. If many Congressional Democrats are cowards on this, and there is a 2/3 margin, I wouldn't expect Obama to disagree. He has, from his perspective, more important--and possible--things on his plate.

My point was that the tea Party is very selective about when it wants to be fiscally responsible. Hammer the poor that don't vote in large numbers? Great. Hammer the middle class--there are more of them and they turn out in much greater numbers--ain't gonna happen.

I wonder if those so-called free market people--especially contractors working on people's houses--have given any thought to amount of Federal subsidy that goes into home ownership. I'm not saying that home ownership is not good for the economy overall--but there are huge direct subsidies and tax benefits not available to the poor.

But then George Bush thought he was a baseball manager based on his skill, not on his daddy's connections.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
techno900



Joined: 28 Mar 2001
Posts: 1492

PostPosted: Sat Mar 08, 2014 9:18 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

I am on the side of - you choose to live in a flood plane, you pay the full cost of flood insurance. There is no reason for the government to share in the costs.

Damn, I agree with mac.

When you look at the passage of the bill (to keep government subsidies in flood insurance), a huge majority of Democrats supported the bill, which is no surprise (they don't worry about debt). A much smaller percentage of the Republicans supported the bill, which I suspect was done to minimize pissing off the voters (those living on the coast) to help with the mid-term elections.

Personally, I would rather see politicians stand by their basic principals rather than playing games with upcoming elections. Many may not like the tea partiers, but they do stick to their principals.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
techno900



Joined: 28 Mar 2001
Posts: 1492

PostPosted: Sat Mar 08, 2014 9:37 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

mac said:
Quote:
But then George Bush thought he was a baseball manager based on his skill, not on his daddy's connections.


If you check, you will find that George Bush was a baseball owner, not the manager. "manager" meaning the coach, for those that don't know anything about baseball.

Just to keep you informed with the facts to balance Mac's disparaging remarks:

Quote:
April, 1989: Bush helps arrange a syndicate to purchase controlling interest in the Texas Rangers for $89 million. He borrows $500,000 to buy a small stake in the team and convinces the investor group to make him managing general partner. Bush becomes the public face of the team, while co-general partner Rusty Rose assumes control over the financial side. He receives a reported salary of $200,000 and begins lobbying for a new stadium for the club, which plays in a renovated minor-league facility, Arlington Stadium.

He did increase his investment to $606,302 in the following three years.

Quote:
June 1998 - Tom Hicks purchases the Rangers for $250 million, the second-most ever paid for a Major League Baseball team. With his 10 percent escalator bonus, Bush receives $14.9 million for investment.


Maybe more skill than meets the eye!!! And by the way, "daddy" had nothing to with front office/ownership management.

from: http://static.espn.go.com/mlb/bush/timeline.html
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
stevenbard



Joined: 11 Nov 1993
Posts: 4209

PostPosted: Sat Mar 08, 2014 10:56 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Obama did give some lectures and hung posters on telephone polls prior to becoming prez.

Mac, both sides are afraid of losing the next election. Neither wants to put the breaks on spending.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
frederick23



Joined: 24 Dec 2013
Posts: 430

PostPosted: Sat Mar 08, 2014 11:19 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

It's shortly after 9/11, I'm driving on the near South side Chicago with my wife. We see an inexpensive black and white yard sign with no picture saying OBAMA for Senate. Having never heard of the guy, I say to my wife, "no chance that guy could win with a name like Obama. Sounds like Osama". Of course I was stereotyping. A few years later the guy is President of the United States! I would assume the republicans will have similar success with an now unknown as long as they are smarter than Palin. I don't think the current "same old" players other than a Christie type are electable.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    iWindsurf Community Forum Index -> Politics, Off-Topic, Opinions All times are GMT - 5 Hours
Goto page 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6  Next
Page 1 of 6

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You cannot download files in this forum

myiW | Weather | Community | Membership | Support | Log in
like us on facebook
© Copyright 1999-2007 WeatherFlow, Inc Contact Us Ad Marketplace

Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group