Today I'm angry about.....

[Lord Kangana]

Doesn't the rest of Europe do it to, thus rendering that reason not right?

[ohjimmyjimmy]

Pretty sure they do.

[Lord Kangana]

I've just found out that Peter Hitchens thinks its a good idea to scrap it, so for that reason we should be keeping it exactly as it is. The braindead f*cknut.

[ohjimmyjimmy]

Is that the guy who could cause an argument in an empty room, about whether or not the room is empty or not?

[David Lee's Hair]

Wants to be his brother and fails miserably....

[Lord Kangana]

Is that the guy who could cause an argument in an empty room, about whether or not the room is empty or not?

Good lord no.

He's way more c*ntish than just that.

[thebish]

wall to wall coverage of Americans being affected by the flooding and the storms - but pretty much sod all media recognition that dozens of people were killed and thousands made homeless across Cuba, Jamaica, Haiti and the Dominican Republic... also - I bet the Americans respond quicker to broken lives in New York than they did in New Orleans...

[Lord Kangana]

It'll be interesting to see if they do, or do not, and its effect on voting. After all, the opposition want even less state intervention in things. I'm waiting for a potentially massive slice of irony...

[mummywhycantieatcrayons]

It'll be interesting to see if they do, or do not, and its effect on voting. After all, the opposition want even less state intervention in things.

Well, that's not quite right. 'State' intervention is exactly what the Republicans tend to argue for - that is, having these things organised and paid for as much as possible at the individual state rather than federal level.

I'm not close enough to the numbers and organisational dynamics involved to have an opinion that's worth very much, but it doesn't seem to me to an obviously unrespectable position.

[Lord Kangana]

They still want less of it, whichever hair we're splitting.

[Lord Kangana]

In point of fact, FEMA exists because individual states don't have the financial capacity to deal with sudden and wide ranging disasters.

The proposal is to cut its funding..

Ryan’s House-passed budget proposal suggested $11 billion for “Community and Regional Development,” a government function that includes FEMA and disaster relief. President Obama’s budget allocation was nearly $19 billion. That’s a cut of about 40 percent for 2013 under Ryan’s plan, according to the Office of Management and Budget. The disparity would grow to more than 60 percent in future years, according to a study by David Kendall of the non-partisan think tank Third Way.

So, who will pick up this slack? "The market"? "Private Investors"?

It'd be naive in the extreme to even start an argument that postulates there being some profit in disaster relief. The only way it can possibly succeed is by the states levying higher taxes, indirect government funding (in other words driving costs up for the sake of political dogma) or direct government funding. Unless of course, you see no need to sort the aftermath out. Like New Orleans.

[mummywhycantieatcrayons]

The argument is that they want states to fund their own programmes rather than pay into the central pot for the money to find its way back to them.

That isn't hair splitting.

[Montreal Wanderer]

The argument is that they want states to fund their own programmes rather than pay into the central pot for the money to find its way back to them.

That isn't hair splitting.

IMHO disaster relief has to be handled federally. There are rich states and poor states, there are states more prone to disaster, and others less. The only level playing field is at the federal level. States pay equally into the central pot, but it is distributed unequally where needed. This is as close to socialism as America comes.

New Orleans was handled badly by Bush, Obama seems to be doing better in New Jersey and New York. Romney/Ryan would pass the buck to the states and the private sector. As an election issue it could hurt anyone who screws up but assuming no one does it should help Obama. Again IMHO.

[mummywhycantieatcrayons]

The argument is that they want states to fund their own programmes rather than pay into the central pot for the money to find its way back to them.

That isn't hair splitting.

IMHO disaster relief has to be handled federally. There are rich states and poor states, there are states more prone to disaster, and others less. The only level playing field is at the federal level. States pay equally into the central pot, but it is distributed unequally where needed. This is as close to socialism as America comes.

New Orleans was handled badly by Bush, Obama seems to be doing better in New Jersey and New York. Romney/Ryan would pass the buck to the states and the private sector. As an election issue it could hurt anyone who screws up but assuming no one does it should help Obama. Again IMHO.

I agree as it happens.

Presumably New York, as a rich, coastal state, would spend extensively on preparing for disasters if left to its own devices, as I said to my rabid Democrat friend last night when he asked me what I thought would have happened in this disaster if the states' rights Republicans had had their way.

All I am saying is that arguing for making this a matter for the states is not necessarily an argument for less spending on it, which is what LK was suggesting.

[Montreal Wanderer]

The argument is that they want states to fund their own programmes rather than pay into the central pot for the money to find its way back to them.

That isn't hair splitting.

IMHO disaster relief has to be handled federally. There are rich states and poor states, there are states more prone to disaster, and others less. The only level playing field is at the federal level. States pay equally into the central pot, but it is distributed unequally where needed. This is as close to socialism as America comes.

New Orleans was handled badly by Bush, Obama seems to be doing better in New Jersey and New York. Romney/Ryan would pass the buck to the states and the private sector. As an election issue it could hurt anyone who screws up but assuming no one does it should help Obama. Again IMHO.

I agree as it happens.

Presumably New York, as a rich, coastal state, would spend extensively on preparing for disasters if left to its own devices, as I said to my rabid Democrat friend last night when he asked me what I thought would have happened in this disaster if the states' rights Republicans had had their way.

All I am saying is that arguing for making this a matter for the states is not necessarily an argument for less spending on it, which is what LK was suggesting.

Fair enough, but it is also true the Romney/Ryan ticket does wish to spend less on it and even express the (facile) hope that the private sector should play a role.

[mummywhycantieatcrayons]

Fair enough, but it is also true the Romney/Ryan ticket does wish to spend less on it

Is that true though? My impression was that they wanted less spent on the federal version, but that's exactly what I'm saying - that doesn't automatically amount to wanting less spent on disaster relief in total.

[Montreal Wanderer]

Fair enough, but it is also true the Romney/Ryan ticket does wish to spend less on it

Is that true though? My impression was that they wanted less spent on the federal version, but that's exactly what I'm saying - that doesn't automatically amount to wanting less spent on disaster relief in total.

I'm sure if, after cutting the federal portion and stating it was a state responsibility, Romney would say states could spend as much as they wanted and he would like to see it increased. Basically they want to spend less federally but do not care what happens thereafter. The savings for their economic plans have to come from somewhere, and disaster relief is one target.

[mummywhycantieatcrayons]

Fair enough, but it is also true the Romney/Ryan ticket does wish to spend less on it

Is that true though? My impression was that they wanted less spent on the federal version, but that's exactly what I'm saying - that doesn't automatically amount to wanting less spent on disaster relief in total.

I'm sure if, after cutting the federal portion and stating it was a state responsibility, Romney would say states could spend as much as they wanted and he would like to see it increased.

Right, good - we got there in the end!

[Prufrock]

But presumably in real life then New York would have and therefore might spend the money to prepare for this kind of thing. Louisiana would be up shit creek without even a boat, never mind the paddle?

[mummywhycantieatcrayons]

But presumably in real life then New York would have and therefore might spend the money to prepare for this kind of thing. Louisiana would be up shit creek without even a boat, never mind the paddle?

Quite probably.

As Monty says - Americans don't do socialism.

Some would say that the long term trend should be people not living in low-lying swamp land if it is unsustainable on its own terms.