FEMA May Be Eliminated(pbs.org) |
FEMA May Be Eliminated(pbs.org) |
Does this guy ever think through anything before opening his mouth? Is he even capable of thinking?
None of this behavior is new; the American people have been fully aware of this and a voting majority decided that he was the most qualified person for the job.
There's your mistake: the technocratic assumption that elections are job interviews selecting for the "most qualified" candidate.
That's one part, but not the only part. This thought experiment should make it clear: You're voting in an important election. One candidate is an incompetent and unqualified clown, the other is a highly competent and qualified Nazi. You hate Nazis. Who do you vote for?
Could eliminating it force states to strengthen their own disaster relief programs?
If that's the case, some potential benefits of this might be that states get more efficient with their overall budget (in order to support disaster relief initiatives). And maybe spurs more innovation in disaster relief tech/processes.
My questions are if this would have any repurcussions on EMAC membership and if it would increase politicization of aid between states. We've seen this with a number of conservative-leaning states pulling out of ERIC over flimsy political reasons.
How do you like them apples?
https://www.axios.com/2024/10/08/fema-direct-payments-state-...
Stronger apart, economy of small scale. These aren't the phrases.
> Trump has criticized former President Joe Biden for his administration’s response to Hurricane Helene in North Carolina. As he left the White House on Friday morning, he told reporters that “it’s been a horrible thing the way that’s been allowed to fester” since the storm hit in September, and “we’re going to get it fixed up.”
> “I’d rather see the states take care of their own problems,” he told Hannity, adding that “FEMA is getting in the way of everything.”
So to be clear, when it happened during the previous administration, it was the administration's fault. When it's his administration, it is the agency's fault and also not his responsibility. And it sounds like the president changes his tune based on whether the disaster was in a red state or a blue state.
Everything that has been said so far is so in conflict with itself so it's hard to guess what a policy change would even be. So my guess would be nothing happens and we don't hear about it anymore as soon as wildfires are out of the news cycle.
Along with the ATF and IRS (for other reasons), its looming and certain villiany rallied sovereign citizen and militia types to organize and arm themselves.
Assuming some of those people now have more political influence than they have had in the past, it seems like the legacy of that mythos could be part of what's at play here.
California is the world's fifth largest economy. They will be fine.
[1] https://www.texastribune.org/2023/06/02/texas-environment-cl...
[2] https://www.npr.org/2024/05/17/1252012825/florida-gov-desant...
[3] https://www.axios.com/2023/09/27/insurance-rates-climate-cha...
[4] https://www.mckinsey.com/~/media/McKinsey/Business%20Functio...
[5] https://www.newsweek.com/map-reveals-scale-florida-property-...
If $X is exported from residents of my state out to support another state, that's the same local impact regardless of how populous the destination is or how finely that $X gets split after it arrives.
In any case, I think it's enough to support the idea that there's a tension (if not contradiction) where the states that receive the most absolute benefit are also the ones electing politicians who pretend the exact opposite.
Why? Harris isn't a Nazi. The hypothetical was exaggerated to emphasize a specific point. Don't take it too literally or try to map it directly to current events.
> …or maybe they can just vote for the change they would like at the federal level like they just did.
This is the change they voted for. If it is harmful to them, that was their choice. As Jamie Dimon said, "Get over it." Vote better next time? If the forest votes for the axe after everyone told them not to, I have no compassion when the axe starts chopping.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Woodcutter_and_the_Trees
https://bsky.app/profile/briantylercohen.bsky.social/post/3l...
Who is “we” and what did “we” do to prevent “what” outcome?
Seems to me if you can answer that question you might have a clue why the forest might chose the axe.
So yeah, maybe it's better to let them go than suffer having them dragging the rest of the country down with them.
Funny how that works in a republic like ours. If their direction doesn’t pan out, you have opportunities in 2026 and 2028 to right the ship. Of course that would mean that the democrats will actually have to provide a leader to two that can effectively communicate, motivate, and lead.
https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2024/07/12/10-facts-...
https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2024/11/13/what-trum...
https://www.the-independent.com/news/world/americas/us-polit...
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/jan/11/there-are-a-...
You will always have an issue if you can’t communicate obvious peril in a way that is accepted or if you lack the respect and authority that prevents your advice being heard and accepted. That’s the problem, not the forest and trees.
It’s possible that both sides seek to destroy the policies of the other and maybe, just maybe, neither side truly has a monopoly on what is right and correct.
All I hear as an independent political thinker is two sides whining that the other is dogmatic.
And for what it’s worth, I am pragmatic, not a centrist, which means that sometimes I might have an unbalanced view according to folks that believe “if you are not always A you must be B”
Also no one has claimed "if you are not always A you must be B," here. Again, you're just resorting to platitudes and stereotypes, no actual criticism or analysis. You haven't actually refuted any arguments with anything but blithe dismissals.
Here is your argument, since apparently you didn’t get it from the much more brief sarcasm that started this little chain: “it’s shortsighted and frankly ignorant to suggest that destroying the most powerful country ever to exist via secession is a reasonable idea just because someone is butthurt that their ‘side’ didn’t win an election this time around and we had some hurricanes and fires this year that required significant federal disaster assistance”
By the way, my argument doesn’t change if it’s republicans talking secession or if the democrats are doing it. It’s a stupid idea.