Total Posts:44|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Hurricane politics

000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/29/2012 6:44:21 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
I really don't like where some people are going with this. All of a sudden the campaigns are turning into a deceitful image game, which really sucks the sincerity out of their actions. Chris Matthews suggested that Mitt Romney will likely be helping people with sand bags, and maybe Obama should pass out water. Those actions have 0 practical benefit first of all...they don't really help those in need of relief, and they don't help the candidates, because most people would frankly see it as insincere demagoguery. The commander in chief should stay in the white house, where he already is, and macromanage this crisis like he's been doing. This is an opportunity for Obama to exercise the benefit of incumbency, and if he handles this well, it could really tip things in his favor for next tuesday. He has even received praise from Chris Christie for being very responsive and open with state and local officials.
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
OberHerr
Posts: 13,062
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/29/2012 7:34:54 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Course theirs always that "He let a few people get killed by a mob when they called for help repeatedly" thing.
-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-OBERHERR'S SIGNATURE-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-

Official Enforcer for the DDO Elite(if they existed).

"Cases are anti-town." - FourTrouble

-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-
Maikuru
Posts: 9,112
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/29/2012 7:35:06 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 10/29/2012 6:54:38 PM, darkkermit wrote:
MSNBC turned the hurricane in a way to jab republicans, shocker.

What did they say? I don't see anything on their website.
"You assume I wouldn't want to burn this whole place to the ground."
- lamerde

https://i.imgflip.com...
darkkermit
Posts: 11,204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/29/2012 7:51:01 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 10/29/2012 7:35:06 PM, Maikuru wrote:
At 10/29/2012 6:54:38 PM, darkkermit wrote:
MSNBC turned the hurricane in a way to jab republicans, shocker.

What did they say? I don't see anything on their website.

Barack Obama is running FEMA much better the Bush ever did. Many republicans want to leave it to the states, and this disaster shows why they are wrong. Mitt Romney would want to get rid of FEMA which is wrong. This is why we need a strong federal government and taxes.
Open borders debate:
http://www.debate.org...
Contra
Posts: 3,941
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/29/2012 8:11:36 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 10/29/2012 7:51:01 PM, darkkermit wrote:
At 10/29/2012 7:35:06 PM, Maikuru wrote:
At 10/29/2012 6:54:38 PM, darkkermit wrote:
MSNBC turned the hurricane in a way to jab republicans, shocker.

What did they say? I don't see anything on their website.

Barack Obama is running FEMA much better the Bush ever did. Many republicans want to leave it to the states, and this disaster shows why they are wrong. Mitt Romney would want to get rid of FEMA which is wrong. This is why we need a strong federal government and taxes.

When Katrina occurred, thousands of volunteers and volunteer firefighters from around the country showed up to help. People are compassionate and want to help others - 40% of family's donated to help Japan after it's earthquakes and all of that occurring a year or two ago.

But what did FEMA do with Katrina? It told those volunteers to sit around for a few days, then sent them home. FEMA made sure that they were not ALLOWED to help, because that would undermine their bureaucratic authority. I'm not making this stuff up.

After Katrina, a mass "flotilla" of boats were also privately organized in Katrina (around 500 boats), to rescue patients from hospitals that were out of supplies and overburdened. However, tragically FEMA had by then taken over and turned them all away, while the victims suffered, stranded.

FEMA is a bureaucracy, and like all bureaucracies, it is very slow and inefficient, with the lack of a pricing mechanism and incentives it is ineffective. It only seeks to provide itself with minimal legitimacy with as little effort as possible. It routed the volunteers away so that FEMA would look like the only people available to help. Destroying FEMA, would therefore appear to be a compassionate act to take.
"The solution [for Republicans] is to admit that Bush was a bad president, stop this racist homophobic stuff, stop trying to give most of the tax cuts to the rich, propose a real alternative to Obamacare that actually works, and propose smart free market solutions to our economic problems." - Distraff

"Americans are better off in a dynamic, free-enterprise-based economy that fosters economic growth, opportunity and upward mobility." - Paul Ryan
OberHerr
Posts: 13,062
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/29/2012 8:22:21 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 10/29/2012 8:11:36 PM, Contra wrote:
At 10/29/2012 7:51:01 PM, darkkermit wrote:
At 10/29/2012 7:35:06 PM, Maikuru wrote:
At 10/29/2012 6:54:38 PM, darkkermit wrote:
MSNBC turned the hurricane in a way to jab republicans, shocker.

What did they say? I don't see anything on their website.

Barack Obama is running FEMA much better the Bush ever did. Many republicans want to leave it to the states, and this disaster shows why they are wrong. Mitt Romney would want to get rid of FEMA which is wrong. This is why we need a strong federal government and taxes.

When Katrina occurred, thousands of volunteers and volunteer firefighters from around the country showed up to help. People are compassionate and want to help others - 40% of family's donated to help Japan after it's earthquakes and all of that occurring a year or two ago.

But what did FEMA do with Katrina? It told those volunteers to sit around for a few days, then sent them home. FEMA made sure that they were not ALLOWED to help, because that would undermine their bureaucratic authority. I'm not making this stuff up.

After Katrina, a mass "flotilla" of boats were also privately organized in Katrina (around 500 boats), to rescue patients from hospitals that were out of supplies and overburdened. However, tragically FEMA had by then taken over and turned them all away, while the victims suffered, stranded.

FEMA is a bureaucracy, and like all bureaucracies, it is very slow and inefficient, with the lack of a pricing mechanism and incentives it is ineffective. It only seeks to provide itself with minimal legitimacy with as little effort as possible. It routed the volunteers away so that FEMA would look like the only people available to help. Destroying FEMA, would therefore appear to be a compassionate act to take.

I've been to Katrina, and the people there that know about FEMA hate it with a passion.
-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-OBERHERR'S SIGNATURE-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-

Official Enforcer for the DDO Elite(if they existed).

"Cases are anti-town." - FourTrouble

-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-
Wallstreetatheist
Posts: 7,132
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/29/2012 8:24:51 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 10/29/2012 8:22:21 PM, OberHerr wrote:
I've been to Katrina, and the people there that know about FEMA hate it with a passion.

What's it like there in Katrina?
DRUG HARM: http://imgur.com...
Primal Diet. Lifting. Reading. Psychedelics. Cold-Approach Pickup. Music.
imabench
Posts: 21,230
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/29/2012 8:29:44 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 10/29/2012 7:51:01 PM, darkkermit wrote:
At 10/29/2012 7:35:06 PM, Maikuru wrote:
At 10/29/2012 6:54:38 PM, darkkermit wrote:
MSNBC turned the hurricane in a way to jab republicans, shocker.

What did they say? I don't see anything on their website.

Barack Obama is running FEMA much better the Bush ever did. Many republicans want to leave it to the states, and this disaster shows why they are wrong. Mitt Romney would want to get rid of FEMA which is wrong. This is why we need a strong federal government and taxes.

Im 99% sure thats not true
Kevin24018 : "He's just so mean it makes me want to ball up my fists and stamp on the ground"
Geogeer: "Nobody is dumb enough to become my protege."

7/14/16 = The Presidency Dies

DDO: THE MOVIE = http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org...

VP of DDO from Dec 14th 2014 to Jan 1st 2015
OberHerr
Posts: 13,062
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/29/2012 8:30:35 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 10/29/2012 8:24:51 PM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
At 10/29/2012 8:22:21 PM, OberHerr wrote:
I've been to Katrina, and the people there that know about FEMA hate it with a passion.

What's it like there in Katrina?

Oh, its much better now, though rebuilding is still going on for people who lose their houses. But part of the reason it was so bad was because its such a bureaucratic nightmare. Nothing could get done without the governments command, which, as Contra pointed out, often didn't come because it would make them look bad.
-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-OBERHERR'S SIGNATURE-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-

Official Enforcer for the DDO Elite(if they existed).

"Cases are anti-town." - FourTrouble

-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-
OberHerr
Posts: 13,062
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/29/2012 8:31:22 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 10/29/2012 8:29:44 PM, imabench wrote:
At 10/29/2012 7:51:01 PM, darkkermit wrote:
At 10/29/2012 7:35:06 PM, Maikuru wrote:
At 10/29/2012 6:54:38 PM, darkkermit wrote:
MSNBC turned the hurricane in a way to jab republicans, shocker.

What did they say? I don't see anything on their website.

Barack Obama is running FEMA much better the Bush ever did. Many republicans want to leave it to the states, and this disaster shows why they are wrong. Mitt Romney would want to get rid of FEMA which is wrong. This is why we need a strong federal government and taxes.

Im 99% sure thats not true

It's MSNBC. What does the truth got to do with it?
-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-OBERHERR'S SIGNATURE-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-

Official Enforcer for the DDO Elite(if they existed).

"Cases are anti-town." - FourTrouble

-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/29/2012 8:35:58 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 10/29/2012 6:44:21 PM, 000ike wrote:
I really don't like where some people are going with this. All of a sudden the campaigns are turning into a deceitful image game, which really sucks the sincerity out of their actions. Chris Matthews suggested that Mitt Romney will likely be helping people with sand bags, and maybe Obama should pass out water. Those actions have 0 practical benefit first of all...they don't really help those in need of relief, and they don't help the candidates, because most people would frankly see it as insincere demagoguery. The commander in chief should stay in the white house, where he already is, and macromanage this crisis like he's been doing. This is an opportunity for Obama to exercise the benefit of incumbency, and if he handles this well, it could really tip things in his favor for next tuesday. He has even received praise from Chris Christie for being very responsive and open with state and local officials.

I would love to see Obama standing in 2 feet of flood water, handing someone a bottle of water.
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
imabench
Posts: 21,230
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/29/2012 8:37:23 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 10/29/2012 8:31:22 PM, OberHerr wrote:
At 10/29/2012 8:29:44 PM, imabench wrote:
At 10/29/2012 7:51:01 PM, darkkermit wrote:
At 10/29/2012 7:35:06 PM, Maikuru wrote:
At 10/29/2012 6:54:38 PM, darkkermit wrote:
MSNBC turned the hurricane in a way to jab republicans, shocker.

What did they say? I don't see anything on their website.

Barack Obama is running FEMA much better the Bush ever did. Many republicans want to leave it to the states, and this disaster shows why they are wrong. Mitt Romney would want to get rid of FEMA which is wrong. This is why we need a strong federal government and taxes.

Im 99% sure thats not true

It's MSNBC. What does the truth got to do with it?

Valid point. Also:

http://news.yahoo.com...
Kevin24018 : "He's just so mean it makes me want to ball up my fists and stamp on the ground"
Geogeer: "Nobody is dumb enough to become my protege."

7/14/16 = The Presidency Dies

DDO: THE MOVIE = http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org...

VP of DDO from Dec 14th 2014 to Jan 1st 2015
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/29/2012 8:39:59 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 10/29/2012 8:11:36 PM, Contra wrote:
At 10/29/2012 7:51:01 PM, darkkermit wrote:
At 10/29/2012 7:35:06 PM, Maikuru wrote:
At 10/29/2012 6:54:38 PM, darkkermit wrote:
MSNBC turned the hurricane in a way to jab republicans, shocker.

What did they say? I don't see anything on their website.

Barack Obama is running FEMA much better the Bush ever did. Many republicans want to leave it to the states, and this disaster shows why they are wrong. Mitt Romney would want to get rid of FEMA which is wrong. This is why we need a strong federal government and taxes.

When Katrina occurred, thousands of volunteers and volunteer firefighters from around the country showed up to help. People are compassionate and want to help others - 40% of family's donated to help Japan after it's earthquakes and all of that occurring a year or two ago.

But what did FEMA do with Katrina? It told those volunteers to sit around for a few days, then sent them home. FEMA made sure that they were not ALLOWED to help, because that would undermine their bureaucratic authority. I'm not making this stuff up.

After Katrina, a mass "flotilla" of boats were also privately organized in Katrina (around 500 boats), to rescue patients from hospitals that were out of supplies and overburdened. However, tragically FEMA had by then taken over and turned them all away, while the victims suffered, stranded.

FEMA is a bureaucracy, and like all bureaucracies, it is very slow and inefficient, with the lack of a pricing mechanism and incentives it is ineffective. It only seeks to provide itself with minimal legitimacy with as little effort as possible. It routed the volunteers away so that FEMA would look like the only people available to help. Destroying FEMA, would therefore appear to be a compassionate act to take.

Government programs don't have a consciousness and so they cannot have a standard way of acting or efficiency. They are only a strong or weak, as efficient or inefficient, as the people that run them make them, just like any company.
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/29/2012 8:46:03 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 10/29/2012 8:37:23 PM, imabench wrote:
At 10/29/2012 8:31:22 PM, OberHerr wrote:
At 10/29/2012 8:29:44 PM, imabench wrote:
At 10/29/2012 7:51:01 PM, darkkermit wrote:
At 10/29/2012 7:35:06 PM, Maikuru wrote:
At 10/29/2012 6:54:38 PM, darkkermit wrote:
MSNBC turned the hurricane in a way to jab republicans, shocker.

What did they say? I don't see anything on their website.

Barack Obama is running FEMA much better the Bush ever did. Many republicans want to leave it to the states, and this disaster shows why they are wrong. Mitt Romney would want to get rid of FEMA which is wrong. This is why we need a strong federal government and taxes.

Im 99% sure thats not true

It's MSNBC. What does the truth got to do with it?

Valid point. Also:

http://news.yahoo.com...

Of course he's going to say that at the current situation. In June 2011, however, he said that he believes that FEMA should be greatly reduced on a federal level and most power transferred to the states.

And Ryan's budget bill included a 41% cut to FEMA.

Romney in June 2011 - "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?"

John 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."

http://2012election.procon.org...
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
Contra
Posts: 3,941
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/29/2012 8:48:18 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 10/29/2012 8:39:59 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 10/29/2012 8:11:36 PM, Contra wrote:
At 10/29/2012 7:51:01 PM, darkkermit wrote:
At 10/29/2012 7:35:06 PM, Maikuru wrote:
At 10/29/2012 6:54:38 PM, darkkermit wrote:
MSNBC turned the hurricane in a way to jab republicans, shocker.

What did they say? I don't see anything on their website.

Barack Obama is running FEMA much better the Bush ever did. Many republicans want to leave it to the states, and this disaster shows why they are wrong. Mitt Romney would want to get rid of FEMA which is wrong. This is why we need a strong federal government and taxes.

When Katrina occurred, thousands of volunteers and volunteer firefighters from around the country showed up to help. People are compassionate and want to help others - 40% of family's donated to help Japan after it's earthquakes and all of that occurring a year or two ago.

But what did FEMA do with Katrina? It told those volunteers to sit around for a few days, then sent them home. FEMA made sure that they were not ALLOWED to help, because that would undermine their bureaucratic authority. I'm not making this stuff up.

After Katrina, a mass "flotilla" of boats were also privately organized in Katrina (around 500 boats), to rescue patients from hospitals that were out of supplies and overburdened. However, tragically FEMA had by then taken over and turned them all away, while the victims suffered, stranded.

FEMA is a bureaucracy, and like all bureaucracies, it is very slow and inefficient, with the lack of a pricing mechanism and incentives it is ineffective. It only seeks to provide itself with minimal legitimacy with as little effort as possible. It routed the volunteers away so that FEMA would look like the only people available to help. Destroying FEMA, would therefore appear to be a compassionate act to take.

Government programs don't have a consciousness and so they cannot have a standard way of acting or efficiency. They are only a strong or weak, as efficient or inefficient, as the people that run them make them, just like any company.

You have to be kidding. I meant the "consciousness" of the program directed by the director in charge of the program. And my point remains, about the lack of a price mechanism, a lack of incentives, and an incentive to actually harm people to improve their power hurts the common welfare. And it uses tax revenues, so there is another negative.
"The solution [for Republicans] is to admit that Bush was a bad president, stop this racist homophobic stuff, stop trying to give most of the tax cuts to the rich, propose a real alternative to Obamacare that actually works, and propose smart free market solutions to our economic problems." - Distraff

"Americans are better off in a dynamic, free-enterprise-based economy that fosters economic growth, opportunity and upward mobility." - Paul Ryan
Wallstreetatheist
Posts: 7,132
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/29/2012 8:58:01 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 10/29/2012 8:30:35 PM, OberHerr wrote:
At 10/29/2012 8:24:51 PM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
At 10/29/2012 8:22:21 PM, OberHerr wrote:
I've been to Katrina, and the people there that know about FEMA hate it with a passion.

What's it like there in Katrina?

Oh, its much better now, though rebuilding is still going on for people who lose their houses. But part of the reason it was so bad was because its such a bureaucratic nightmare. Nothing could get done without the governments command, which, as Contra pointed out, often didn't come because it would make them look bad.

lol, I love you.
DRUG HARM: http://imgur.com...
Primal Diet. Lifting. Reading. Psychedelics. Cold-Approach Pickup. Music.
Noradrenergic
Posts: 12
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/29/2012 9:00:38 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
What do you mean 'all of a sudden campaigns are turning into a deceitful image game'?

I have been watching the US presidential election run ups for some time over here in New Zealand, and have seen nothing but deceitful rubbish and show ponying from all parties involved since day 1.

Excuse me if I'm missing something.
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/29/2012 9:02:37 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 10/29/2012 8:48:18 PM, Contra wrote:
At 10/29/2012 8:39:59 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 10/29/2012 8:11:36 PM, Contra wrote:
At 10/29/2012 7:51:01 PM, darkkermit wrote:
At 10/29/2012 7:35:06 PM, Maikuru wrote:
At 10/29/2012 6:54:38 PM, darkkermit wrote:
MSNBC turned the hurricane in a way to jab republicans, shocker.

What did they say? I don't see anything on their website.

Barack Obama is running FEMA much better the Bush ever did. Many republicans want to leave it to the states, and this disaster shows why they are wrong. Mitt Romney would want to get rid of FEMA which is wrong. This is why we need a strong federal government and taxes.

When Katrina occurred, thousands of volunteers and volunteer firefighters from around the country showed up to help. People are compassionate and want to help others - 40% of family's donated to help Japan after it's earthquakes and all of that occurring a year or two ago.

But what did FEMA do with Katrina? It told those volunteers to sit around for a few days, then sent them home. FEMA made sure that they were not ALLOWED to help, because that would undermine their bureaucratic authority. I'm not making this stuff up.

After Katrina, a mass "flotilla" of boats were also privately organized in Katrina (around 500 boats), to rescue patients from hospitals that were out of supplies and overburdened. However, tragically FEMA had by then taken over and turned them all away, while the victims suffered, stranded.

FEMA is a bureaucracy, and like all bureaucracies, it is very slow and inefficient, with the lack of a pricing mechanism and incentives it is ineffective. It only seeks to provide itself with minimal legitimacy with as little effort as possible. It routed the volunteers away so that FEMA would look like the only people available to help. Destroying FEMA, would therefore appear to be a compassionate act to take.

Government programs don't have a consciousness and so they cannot have a standard way of acting or efficiency. They are only a strong or weak, as efficient or inefficient, as the people that run them make them, just like any company.

You have to be kidding. I meant the "consciousness" of the program directed by the director in charge of the program. And my point remains, about the lack of a price mechanism, a lack of incentives, and an incentive to actually harm people to improve their power hurts the common welfare. And it uses tax revenues, so there is another negative.

It doesn't need a price mechanism, nor incentives. The natural incentives of a free market are designed to maximize profit, or greatest gain for minimal effort. It all depends on what the ultimate goal is. If someone is in charge just for power, then the problem is the person, not the program. Just like if a company has a CEO that is only interested in power and not profit, the problem is the CEO, not the company has a whole.

If the right people are in charge, who have the priority of helping people, then they too have to balance that vs cost (just like someone in the freemarket would do). However, when they are responsible to tax payers, vs shareholders, they can go above and beyond because their is less of a force saying "don't do that much help, it costs too much."

The notion that harming people is beneficial to the organization is clearly false, since when it does a poor job, there is a spike of people wanting to cut or re-organize/re-structure it.
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/29/2012 9:04:06 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 10/29/2012 9:00:38 PM, Noradrenergic wrote:
What do you mean 'all of a sudden campaigns are turning into a deceitful image game'?

I have been watching the US presidential election run ups for some time over here in New Zealand, and have seen nothing but deceitful rubbish and show ponying from all parties involved since day 1.

Excuse me if I'm missing something.

It's been like that since at least the 90's... the 1790's.
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
Contra
Posts: 3,941
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/29/2012 9:16:22 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 10/29/2012 9:02:37 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 10/29/2012 8:48:18 PM, Contra wrote:
At 10/29/2012 8:39:59 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 10/29/2012 8:11:36 PM, Contra wrote:
At 10/29/2012 7:51:01 PM, darkkermit wrote:
At 10/29/2012 7:35:06 PM, Maikuru wrote:
At 10/29/2012 6:54:38 PM, darkkermit wrote:
MSNBC turned the hurricane in a way to jab republicans, shocker.

What did they say? I don't see anything on their website.

Barack Obama is running FEMA much better the Bush ever did. Many republicans want to leave it to the states, and this disaster shows why they are wrong. Mitt Romney would want to get rid of FEMA which is wrong. This is why we need a strong federal government and taxes.

When Katrina occurred, thousands of volunteers and volunteer firefighters from around the country showed up to help. People are compassionate and want to help others - 40% of family's donated to help Japan after it's earthquakes and all of that occurring a year or two ago.

But what did FEMA do with Katrina? It told those volunteers to sit around for a few days, then sent them home. FEMA made sure that they were not ALLOWED to help, because that would undermine their bureaucratic authority. I'm not making this stuff up.

After Katrina, a mass "flotilla" of boats were also privately organized in Katrina (around 500 boats), to rescue patients from hospitals that were out of supplies and overburdened. However, tragically FEMA had by then taken over and turned them all away, while the victims suffered, stranded.

FEMA is a bureaucracy, and like all bureaucracies, it is very slow and inefficient, with the lack of a pricing mechanism and incentives it is ineffective. It only seeks to provide itself with minimal legitimacy with as little effort as possible. It routed the volunteers away so that FEMA would look like the only people available to help. Destroying FEMA, would therefore appear to be a compassionate act to take.

Government programs don't have a consciousness and so they cannot have a standard way of acting or efficiency. They are only a strong or weak, as efficient or inefficient, as the people that run them make them, just like any company.

You have to be kidding. I meant the "consciousness" of the program directed by the director in charge of the program. And my point remains, about the lack of a price mechanism, a lack of incentives, and an incentive to actually harm people to improve their power hurts the common welfare. And it uses tax revenues, so there is another negative.

It doesn't need a price mechanism, nor incentives. The natural incentives of a free market are designed to maximize profit, or greatest gain for minimal effort. It all depends on what the ultimate goal is. If someone is in charge just for power, then the problem is the person, not the program. Just like if a company has a CEO that is only interested in power and not profit, the problem is the CEO, not the company has a whole.

Ok.

If the right people are in charge, who have the priority of helping people, then they too have to balance that vs cost (just like someone in the freemarket would do). However, when they are responsible to tax payers, vs shareholders, they can go above and beyond because their is less of a force saying "don't do that much help, it costs too much."

This part I disagree with. You can have a compassionate person in charge, but if you let others, namely volunteers who want to help the victims of natural disasters, it undermines your program. Then, your program is in threat of being terminated, as well as your job. That's why bureaucracies exist still today - to protect their power, not solving any problems.

There is only a vague connection between the program and the taxpayers, meaning that the person in charge isn't likely to make a good connection between the two. Anyway, any central force trying to deal with natural disasters in ineffective and harmful, as shown by FEMA, and private volunteers are a much better alternative, as they are flexible, fast to respond, and genuinely care about these people instead of making sure their power and wealth is protected.

The notion that harming people is beneficial to the organization is clearly false, since when it does a poor job, there is a spike of people wanting to cut or re-organize/re-structure it.

See what I said above. If volunteers are allowed to help, it undermines the power of the bureaucracy. A power struggle- which threatens the bureaucracy itself. Why must banks have FDIC insurance mandated? Why must restaurants adhere to all regulations from the Dept. of Commerce regulating what size the mirrors in the bathroom will be? Why must local lemonade stands be destroyed because they are not licensed (true story, by the way).

The free market can regulate these things without a bureaucracy imposing its power on others. If a consumer is dissatisfied, they can go to another business, and businesses will be forced to improve the quality of their goods or services to stay in business. Most of the time, gov't isn't needed in this respect.
"The solution [for Republicans] is to admit that Bush was a bad president, stop this racist homophobic stuff, stop trying to give most of the tax cuts to the rich, propose a real alternative to Obamacare that actually works, and propose smart free market solutions to our economic problems." - Distraff

"Americans are better off in a dynamic, free-enterprise-based economy that fosters economic growth, opportunity and upward mobility." - Paul Ryan
darkkermit
Posts: 11,204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/29/2012 9:19:26 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 10/29/2012 9:02:37 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 10/29/2012 8:48:18 PM, Contra wrote:
At 10/29/2012 8:39:59 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 10/29/2012 8:11:36 PM, Contra wrote:
At 10/29/2012 7:51:01 PM, darkkermit wrote:
At 10/29/2012 7:35:06 PM, Maikuru wrote:
At 10/29/2012 6:54:38 PM, darkkermit wrote:
MSNBC turned the hurricane in a way to jab republicans, shocker.

What did they say? I don't see anything on their website.

Barack Obama is running FEMA much better the Bush ever did. Many republicans want to leave it to the states, and this disaster shows why they are wrong. Mitt Romney would want to get rid of FEMA which is wrong. This is why we need a strong federal government and taxes.

When Katrina occurred, thousands of volunteers and volunteer firefighters from around the country showed up to help. People are compassionate and want to help others - 40% of family's donated to help Japan after it's earthquakes and all of that occurring a year or two ago.

But what did FEMA do with Katrina? It told those volunteers to sit around for a few days, then sent them home. FEMA made sure that they were not ALLOWED to help, because that would undermine their bureaucratic authority. I'm not making this stuff up.

After Katrina, a mass "flotilla" of boats were also privately organized in Katrina (around 500 boats), to rescue patients from hospitals that were out of supplies and overburdened. However, tragically FEMA had by then taken over and turned them all away, while the victims suffered, stranded.

FEMA is a bureaucracy, and like all bureaucracies, it is very slow and inefficient, with the lack of a pricing mechanism and incentives it is ineffective. It only seeks to provide itself with minimal legitimacy with as little effort as possible. It routed the volunteers away so that FEMA would look like the only people available to help. Destroying FEMA, would therefore appear to be a compassionate act to take.

Government programs don't have a consciousness and so they cannot have a standard way of acting or efficiency. They are only a strong or weak, as efficient or inefficient, as the people that run them make them, just like any company.

You have to be kidding. I meant the "consciousness" of the program directed by the director in charge of the program. And my point remains, about the lack of a price mechanism, a lack of incentives, and an incentive to actually harm people to improve their power hurts the common welfare. And it uses tax revenues, so there is another negative.

It doesn't need a price mechanism, nor incentives. The natural incentives of a free market are designed to maximize profit, or greatest gain for minimal effort. It all depends on what the ultimate goal is. If someone is in charge just for power, then the problem is the person, not the program. Just like if a company has a CEO that is only interested in power and not profit, the problem is the CEO, not the company has a whole.

If the right people are in charge, who have the priority of helping people, then they too have to balance that vs cost (just like someone in the freemarket would do). However, when they are responsible to tax payers, vs shareholders, they can go above and beyond because their is less of a force saying "don't do that much help, it costs too much."

The notion that harming people is beneficial to the organization is clearly false, since when it does a poor job, there is a spike of people wanting to cut or re-organize/re-structure it.

Its not as If they're purposely screwing up. However, there is less incentives in the private sector vs. the public sector. In the private sector, companies can go bankrupt. In the public sector, programs almost never go away no matter how poorly managed and ill effectively they are.
Open borders debate:
http://www.debate.org...
thett3
Posts: 14,378
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/29/2012 10:18:40 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
If I were in charge of either campaign I would immediately move all the staff that was willing to assist with the cleanup/rebuilding efforts. I guarantee that would getmore votes that campaigning in swing states for these final few days
DDO Vice President

#StandwithBossy

#UnbanTheMadman

#BetOnThett

"Don't quote me, ever." -Max

"My name is max. I'm not a big fan of slacks"- Max rapping

"Walmart should have the opportunity to bribe a politician to it's agenda" -Max

"Thett, you're really good at convincing people you're a decent person"-tulle

"You fit the character of Regina George quite nicely"- Sam

: At 11/12/2016 11:49:40 PM, Raisor wrote:
: thett was right
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/29/2012 10:18:56 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 10/29/2012 9:16:22 PM, Contra wrote:
At 10/29/2012 9:02:37 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 10/29/2012 8:48:18 PM, Contra wrote:
At 10/29/2012 8:39:59 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 10/29/2012 8:11:36 PM, Contra wrote:
At 10/29/2012 7:51:01 PM, darkkermit wrote:
At 10/29/2012 7:35:06 PM, Maikuru wrote:
At 10/29/2012 6:54:38 PM, darkkermit wrote:
MSNBC turned the hurricane in a way to jab republicans, shocker.

What did they say? I don't see anything on their website.

Barack Obama is running FEMA much better the Bush ever did. Many republicans want to leave it to the states, and this disaster shows why they are wrong. Mitt Romney would want to get rid of FEMA which is wrong. This is why we need a strong federal government and taxes.

When Katrina occurred, thousands of volunteers and volunteer firefighters from around the country showed up to help. People are compassionate and want to help others - 40% of family's donated to help Japan after it's earthquakes and all of that occurring a year or two ago.

But what did FEMA do with Katrina? It told those volunteers to sit around for a few days, then sent them home. FEMA made sure that they were not ALLOWED to help, because that would undermine their bureaucratic authority. I'm not making this stuff up.

After Katrina, a mass "flotilla" of boats were also privately organized in Katrina (around 500 boats), to rescue patients from hospitals that were out of supplies and overburdened. However, tragically FEMA had by then taken over and turned them all away, while the victims suffered, stranded.

FEMA is a bureaucracy, and like all bureaucracies, it is very slow and inefficient, with the lack of a pricing mechanism and incentives it is ineffective. It only seeks to provide itself with minimal legitimacy with as little effort as possible. It routed the volunteers away so that FEMA would look like the only people available to help. Destroying FEMA, would therefore appear to be a compassionate act to take.

Government programs don't have a consciousness and so they cannot have a standard way of acting or efficiency. They are only a strong or weak, as efficient or inefficient, as the people that run them make them, just like any company.

You have to be kidding. I meant the "consciousness" of the program directed by the director in charge of the program. And my point remains, about the lack of a price mechanism, a lack of incentives, and an incentive to actually harm people to improve their power hurts the common welfare. And it uses tax revenues, so there is another negative.

It doesn't need a price mechanism, nor incentives. The natural incentives of a free market are designed to maximize profit, or greatest gain for minimal effort. It all depends on what the ultimate goal is. If someone is in charge just for power, then the problem is the person, not the program. Just like if a company has a CEO that is only interested in power and not profit, the problem is the CEO, not the company has a whole.

Ok.

If the right people are in charge, who have the priority of helping people, then they too have to balance that vs cost (just like someone in the freemarket would do). However, when they are responsible to tax payers, vs shareholders, they can go above and beyond because their is less of a force saying "don't do that much help, it costs too much."

This part I disagree with. You can have a compassionate person in charge, but if you let others, namely volunteers who want to help the victims of natural disasters, it undermines your program. Then, your program is in threat of being terminated, as well as your job. That's why bureaucracies exist still today - to protect their power, not solving any problems.

It doesn't undermine the program at all. While FEMA does not have a perfect track record, there are plenty of other programs that exist along side private charities, from dealing with homelessness to diseases to even unemployment (I actually have private unemployment insurance, though it is crap compared to the government's).

The program is (FEMA in this case) would never be under threat of termination because no one believes (especially the government) that there is ever too much support for major disasters.

That is the very reason that Romney flipped his stance as the hurricane approached.


There is only a vague connection between the program and the taxpayers, meaning that the person in charge isn't likely to make a good connection between the two.

Again, they don't need to. Where a business person might say "that's enough help, this is getting too expensive" a government where cost is not a major issue (at least not as major as for a business) can go further.

Anyway, any central force trying to deal with natural disasters in ineffective and harmful, as shown by FEMA, and private volunteers are a much better alternative, as they are flexible, fast to respond, and genuinely care about these people instead of making sure their power and wealth is protected.

False. First off, FEMA, along with NWS and the NHC predicted the damages that Katrina would cause.

http://oversight-archive.waxman.house.gov...

Secondly, FEMA has had a number of successes (such as Irene recently), as have many other government agency, including those that track and predict the path of every storm so that preventative measures can be taken, not just reactive.


The notion that harming people is beneficial to the organization is clearly false, since when it does a poor job, there is a spike of people wanting to cut or re-organize/re-structure it.

See what I said above. If volunteers are allowed to help, it undermines the power of the bureaucracy. A power struggle- which threatens the bureaucracy itself. Why must banks have FDIC insurance mandated?

Banks don't have to be, they choose to be because it is stupid to not be (that would be like renting an uninsured car vs an insured one)

http://www.investopedia.com...

Why must restaurants adhere to all regulations from the Dept. of Commerce regulating what size the mirrors in the bathroom will be? Why must local lemonade stands be destroyed because they are not licensed (true story, by the way).

Cherry picking there, 99% of non-licensed lemonade stands are not destroyed. That is a clear case where it is the people that make the choices rather than the entities themselves that may or may not have problems.
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
medic0506
Posts: 13,450
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/29/2012 10:50:08 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 10/29/2012 8:35:58 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 10/29/2012 6:44:21 PM, 000ike wrote:
I really don't like where some people are going with this. All of a sudden the campaigns are turning into a deceitful image game, which really sucks the sincerity out of their actions. Chris Matthews suggested that Mitt Romney will likely be helping people with sand bags, and maybe Obama should pass out water. Those actions have 0 practical benefit first of all...they don't really help those in need of relief, and they don't help the candidates, because most people would frankly see it as insincere demagoguery. The commander in chief should stay in the white house, where he already is, and macromanage this crisis like he's been doing. This is an opportunity for Obama to exercise the benefit of incumbency, and if he handles this well, it could really tip things in his favor for next tuesday. He has even received praise from Chris Christie for being very responsive and open with state and local officials.

I would love to see Obama standing in 2 feet of flood water, handing someone a bottle of water.

He'd have to be anchored down, turds float.
Thaddeus
Posts: 6,985
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/30/2012 4:46:35 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 10/29/2012 8:24:51 PM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
At 10/29/2012 8:22:21 PM, OberHerr wrote:
I've been to Katrina, and the people there that know about FEMA hate it with a passion.

What's it like there in Katrina?

I was in Katrina a while back. I think a lot of people have been. I guess she's sort of the village bicycle around these parts.
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/30/2012 4:59:19 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 10/29/2012 8:29:44 PM, imabench wrote:
At 10/29/2012 7:51:01 PM, darkkermit wrote:
At 10/29/2012 7:35:06 PM, Maikuru wrote:
At 10/29/2012 6:54:38 PM, darkkermit wrote:
MSNBC turned the hurricane in a way to jab republicans, shocker.

What did they say? I don't see anything on their website.

Barack Obama is running FEMA much better the Bush ever did. Many republicans want to leave it to the states, and this disaster shows why they are wrong. Mitt Romney would want to get rid of FEMA which is wrong. This is why we need a strong federal government and taxes.

Im 99% sure thats not true

just a quick google search http://www.forbes.com...

"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," Romney told debate moderator John King. "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 the opposite question, what should we keep?"
When John King interrupted to clarify, "Even disaster relief?" Romney continued, "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
."
http://www.businessinsider.com...

Don't take this to mean that I support MSNBCs decision to make a wedge issue out of it in mid-hurricane crisis,......but I really don't like what you wrote, and really don't like how you said it.......freakin DINO,...or is it LINO?
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
lewis20
Posts: 5,093
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/30/2012 10:55:45 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
Need to get rid of Federal flood insurance.
"If you are a racist I will attack you with the north"- Abraham Lincoln

"Do not wear clothing woven of two kinds of material" - Leviticus 19 19

"War is a racket" - Smedley Butler
Contra
Posts: 3,941
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/30/2012 3:08:32 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 10/29/2012 10:18:56 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 10/29/2012 9:16:22 PM, Contra wrote:

It doesn't undermine the program at all. While FEMA does not have a perfect track record, there are plenty of other programs that exist along side private charities, from dealing with homelessness to diseases to even unemployment (I actually have private unemployment insurance, though it is crap compared to the government's).

It does undermine the program. If no company makes screws, and a gov't bureaucracy is set up to create and distribute screws, but then a business in the private market is formed to sell screws and other hardware supplies, it threatens the livelihood of the gov't bureaucracy. The same applies here, if private volunteers and insurance policies can protect these people, FEMA is not needed, at least not at the federal level, which threatens the integrity of FEMA, that's why they send help away as I've shown and gotten no rebuttal to.

The program is (FEMA in this case) would never be under threat of termination because no one believes (especially the government) that there is ever too much support for major disasters.

I'm sorry, double negatives are impossible for me to read. So you are saying that FEMA is under threat of termination because people believe that there is too much support for major disasters, if you reverse the negatives. Remember, Katrina got barely any help, and thousands of volunteers wanted to help. Thousands of volunteers is much more helpful than a slow bureaucracy, which took forever to arrive.

That is the very reason that Romney flipped his stance as the hurricane approached.


There is only a vague connection between the program and the taxpayers, meaning that the person in charge isn't likely to make a good connection between the two.

Again, they don't need to. Where a business person might say "that's enough help, this is getting too expensive" a government where cost is not a major issue (at least not as major as for a business) can go further.

Businesses could each voluntarily help pitch in (it would also help their public opinion ratings), but I imagine volunteers from across the country (say from local churches) going to help out.

Anyway, any central force trying to deal with natural disasters in ineffective and harmful, as shown by FEMA, and private volunteers are a much better alternative, as they are flexible, fast to respond, and genuinely care about these people instead of making sure their power and wealth is protected.

False. First off, FEMA, along with NWS and the NHC predicted the damages that Katrina would cause.

http://oversight-archive.waxman.house.gov...

It's useless if they didn't DO ANYTHING to help until after they forced thousands of volunteers home and then arrived several weeks later.

Secondly, FEMA has had a number of successes (such as Irene recently), as have many other government agency, including those that track and predict the path of every storm so that preventative measures can be taken, not just reactive.


The notion that harming people is beneficial to the organization is clearly false, since when it does a poor job, there is a spike of people wanting to cut or re-organize/re-structure it.

See what I said above. If volunteers are allowed to help, it undermines the power of the bureaucracy. A power struggle- which threatens the bureaucracy itself. Why must banks have FDIC insurance mandated?

Banks don't have to be, they choose to be because it is stupid to not be (that would be like renting an uninsured car vs an insured one)

ok, but the institution itself isn't really necessary, although it is helpful for banks to have it if it must exist.

http://www.investopedia.com...

Why must restaurants adhere to all regulations from the Dept. of Commerce regulating what size the mirrors in the bathroom will be? Why must local lemonade stands be destroyed because they are not licensed (true story, by the way).

Cherry picking there, 99% of non-licensed lemonade stands are not destroyed. That is a clear case where it is the people that make the choices rather than the entities themselves that may or may not have problems.

The wording, is just too awkward here for me to get.
"The solution [for Republicans] is to admit that Bush was a bad president, stop this racist homophobic stuff, stop trying to give most of the tax cuts to the rich, propose a real alternative to Obamacare that actually works, and propose smart free market solutions to our economic problems." - Distraff

"Americans are better off in a dynamic, free-enterprise-based economy that fosters economic growth, opportunity and upward mobility." - Paul Ryan
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/30/2012 8:54:06 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 10/30/2012 3:08:32 PM, Contra wrote:
At 10/29/2012 10:18:56 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 10/29/2012 9:16:22 PM, Contra wrote:

It doesn't undermine the program at all. While FEMA does not have a perfect track record, there are plenty of other programs that exist along side private charities, from dealing with homelessness to diseases to even unemployment (I actually have private unemployment insurance, though it is crap compared to the government's).

It does undermine the program. If no company makes screws, and a gov't bureaucracy is set up to create and distribute screws, but then a business in the private market is formed to sell screws and other hardware supplies, it threatens the livelihood of the gov't bureaucracy. The same applies here, if private volunteers and insurance policies can protect these people, FEMA is not needed, at least not at the federal level, which threatens the integrity of FEMA, that's why they send help away as I've shown and gotten no rebuttal to.

It doesn't threaten the livelihood. It may threaten the scope of the program, but not really the livelihood. That is because the free market almost never meets all demand, only the demand that has sufficient money. So there is always extra demand that the market will never fulfill, and thus there is always a role for the governmental body.

A simple hypothetical could be continued from the screws. The free market sets prices to where supply and demand balance. This has no bearing on the actual cost of making the screws, only on S&D. Let's say the screws cost $1 per 1,000 and the balance of S&D is at $5 per 1,000. There will be an amount of demand at prices $1 to $5 that still makes a profit (just not maximum profit) but is not in balance with the free market. This demand is always available for a governmental body and the free market (when acting upon desire for profit) will never fill.

As for your example, you've merely provided a cherry picked example. I provided an example where that was not the case, meaning that it isn't a rule of behavior but a single isolated event (that is tied to the person running it, rather than the program itself).


The program is (FEMA in this case) would never be under threat of termination because no one believes (especially the government) that there is ever too much support for major disasters.

I'm sorry, double negatives are impossible for me to read. So you are saying that FEMA is under threat of termination because people believe that there is too much support for major disasters, if you reverse the negatives. Remember, Katrina got barely any help, and thousands of volunteers wanted to help. Thousands of volunteers is much more helpful than a slow bureaucracy, which took forever to arrive.

And there are many instances where FEMA worked exactly as it should, from large national cases, like Hurricane Irene (which you ignored), to smaller cases like the flooding of the Yukon river just a few years ago. Katrina was an exception to the rule, not the rule. Actually, it was really a case example of how things can be done wrong, when FEMA has shown how it can be done right. I'm not arguing that FEMA is always right or that government is always right, but that it can be quite often right.


That is the very reason that Romney flipped his stance as the hurricane approached.


There is only a vague connection between the program and the taxpayers, meaning that the person in charge isn't likely to make a good connection between the two.

Again, they don't need to. Where a business person might say "that's enough help, this is getting too expensive" a government where cost is not a major issue (at least not as major as for a business) can go further.

Businesses could each voluntarily help pitch in (it would also help their public opinion ratings), but I imagine volunteers from across the country (say from local churches) going to help out.

And the free market loves to find ways to profit off of it.

http://abcnews.go.com...

We also find that Charities only spend about 63 cents per dollar given them on what you are actually giving money towards. So if you want to give $1,000 to help the victims of Hurricane Sandy, the average charity will only send $630 to them and spend the rest on their own overhead. While FEMA does a good deal better. It had a $10.5 billion budget in 2010 with an overhead of $1.1 billion, which is a 10.5% overhead ratio, or 89.5% efficiency, much better than the average charity. Of course, this isn't the only program that can boast a better efficiency.

http://www.planning.org...
http://www.fema.gov...


Anyway, any central force trying to deal with natural disasters in ineffective and harmful, as shown by FEMA, and private volunteers are a much better alternative, as they are flexible, fast to respond, and genuinely care about these people instead of making sure their power and wealth is protected.

False. First off, FEMA, along with NWS and the NHC predicted the damages that Katrina would cause.

http://oversight-archive.waxman.house.gov...

It's useless if they didn't DO ANYTHING to help until after they forced thousands of volunteers home and then arrived several weeks later.

Again, that is an issue with the person in charge, who can be replaced. No need to throw the baby out with the bath water. If a CEO is unable to do their job, do you assume that the company itself is a doomed failure that can never be successful? Would you close down an entire company because it had a bad CEO? No, you change the CEO.


Secondly, FEMA has had a number of successes (such as Irene recently), as have many other government agency, including those that track and predict the path of every storm so that preventative measures can be taken, not just reactive.


The notion that harming people is beneficial to the organization is clearly false, since when it does a poor job, there is a spike of people wanting to cut or re-organize/re-structure it.

See what I said above. If volunteers are allowed to help, it undermines the power of the bureaucracy. A power struggle- which threatens the bureaucracy itself. Why must banks have FDIC insurance mandated?

Banks don't have to be, they choose to be because it is stupid to not be (that would be like renting an uninsured car vs an insured one)

ok, but the institution itself isn't really necessary, although it is helpful for banks to have it if it must exist.

No single institution is necessary, as there will always be alternatives. That is not an argument that it must be removed.


http://www.investopedia.com...

Why must restaurants adhere to all regulations from the Dept. of Commerce regulating what size the mirrors in the bathroom will be? Why must local lemonade stands be destroyed because they are not licensed (true story, by the way).

Cherry picking there, 99% of non-licensed lemonade stands are not destroyed. That is a clear case where it is the people that make the choices rather than the entities themselves that may or may not have problems.

The wording, is just too awkward here for me to get.

It's simple really. 99% of non-licensed lemonade stands are left alone. In the rare cases where one is taken down, it is not a flaw in the system, but in the individual that made the dumb choice to take it down. Meaning, the problem is not the system, but the people in the system.
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"