XShipRider
06-14-2006, 07:14 AM
http://www.cnn.com/2006/US/06/14/fema.audit/index.html
Proof is in the pudding once again that throwing money at problems does
not necessarily remedy.
FEMA needs to be dismantled, the federal government taken completely
out of disaster relief as a first responder.
The states' should be responsible with any and all relief money put forth
through state channels. The money should be on a restitution basis for
completed projects rather than an up-front money on desired projects,
all with appropriate caps of course.
We also need to clearly define "disaster." As it sits a snowstorm was deemed a
disaster. Where does it end? Next we'll be saying two towns with minor
drainage backups after a heavy rain are disasters. It's getting out of hand.
How does this fit into world politics? It too often seems the issue becomes
"how much money will it take to fix a problem?" rather than focusing on
what actions are necessary to fix a problem.
Prime example: Tsunami. Countries pledged money, some more than others.
There were immediate cries of "foul" as not enough was pledged. Even though
countries were gearing up to send logistical supplies, medical aid, aircraft,
people and other heavy equipment this was deemed inadequate in the eyes
of many as "not enough money" was pledged.
At what point in history did money become the remedy for every single problem?
Proof is in the pudding once again that throwing money at problems does
not necessarily remedy.
FEMA needs to be dismantled, the federal government taken completely
out of disaster relief as a first responder.
The states' should be responsible with any and all relief money put forth
through state channels. The money should be on a restitution basis for
completed projects rather than an up-front money on desired projects,
all with appropriate caps of course.
We also need to clearly define "disaster." As it sits a snowstorm was deemed a
disaster. Where does it end? Next we'll be saying two towns with minor
drainage backups after a heavy rain are disasters. It's getting out of hand.
How does this fit into world politics? It too often seems the issue becomes
"how much money will it take to fix a problem?" rather than focusing on
what actions are necessary to fix a problem.
Prime example: Tsunami. Countries pledged money, some more than others.
There were immediate cries of "foul" as not enough was pledged. Even though
countries were gearing up to send logistical supplies, medical aid, aircraft,
people and other heavy equipment this was deemed inadequate in the eyes
of many as "not enough money" was pledged.
At what point in history did money become the remedy for every single problem?