Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: tejek who wrote (264980)	12/16/2005 8:58:34 PM
From: combjelly	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 1576347

"And you wonder why there is speculation that Bush wants to kill FEMA." Not much to speculate about. He was pretty open about his belief that FEMA was just another government entitlement program that needed to be eliminated.

To: tejek who wrote (264980)	12/19/2005 2:29:43 PM
From: TimF	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1576347

Point 1......the attitude of most GOPers at least in theory is that gov't stinks, is too big, and needs to be cutback. Maybe the more libertarian 1/4th to a half of the GOP might have this attitude or something like that. I don't think it is accurate to say that most, or even the majority of the GOP has this idea. Certainly GW doesn't seem to. Also FEMA is the type of organization that the vast majority of the GOP would support. If they thought it was wasting money they might try to trim its budget, but you would have to look long and hard to find Republicans who don't support a federal role in disaster relief. At most they would want a different role or a role provided by an organization that was set up and acted differently then FEMA does. If you were looking at the Libertarian party, then maybe things would be different (but even here you wouldn't get 100% opposition to the existance of something like FEMA) Point # 2...........shortly after people began to complain about FEMA, Bush and the GOP began to float the concept of the military responding to a disaster which just about freaked everyone out. Frankly, Bush was just a little to quick with that proposal.......and withdrew it just as quickly. The though being that the military has the manpower and logistical capability to make a big difference. Bush was looking for something to add, and that was really the only source. I don't see anything wrong in using the military in disaster relief, and it was so used in Katrina, and presumably will be again in any similar sized disaster. Tim