remember when republicans thought biden did this?

[loveofourlord]

Trump denies aid for Arkansas after storms that killed more than 40 people

Latest denial of disaster funding comes as Trump has repeatedly stated he wants to eliminate Fema

www.yahoo.com

here we are trump refusing to help his own base with natural disasters.

 

[Belk]

Trump denies aid for Arkansas after storms that killed more than 40 people

Latest denial of disaster funding comes as Trump has repeatedly stated he wants to eliminate Fema

www.yahoo.com

here we are trump refusing to help his own base with natural disasters.

 

[Aryeh Jay]

Trump denies aid for Arkansas after storms that killed more than 40 people

Latest denial of disaster funding comes as Trump has repeatedly stated he wants to eliminate Fema

www.yahoo.com

here we are trump refusing to help his own base with natural disasters.

Newsflash, Trump dosen't care about barefoot Arkansas poor people, they may vote for him but will never attend a dinner or fundraising event.

 

[Richard T]

I did not see a dollar figure of loss in that article. It is good though if "free" Federal Aid is downsized. Reagan was great at this, though i am not his "devolution" included disaster relief.

 

[loveofourlord]

I did not see a dollar figure of loss in that article. It is good though if "free" Federal Aid is downsized. Reagan was great at this, though i am not his "devolution" included disaster relief.

so it's good for states, particularly republicans don't get the disaster relief they need?

 

[Yarddog]

Trump denies aid for Arkansas after storms that killed more than 40 people

Latest denial of disaster funding comes as Trump has repeatedly stated he wants to eliminate Fema

www.yahoo.com

here we are trump refusing to help his own base with natural disasters.

He did the same in Kentucky.

 

[Richard T]

so it's good for states, particularly republicans don't get the disaster relief they need?

No one ever gets the disaster relief they want. Hard to know if it is need or want. I do think the states and cities can plan more though. There might be more needs than wants even if no disaster. I am sure that the poor in states withoutmuch medicaid think so. So where to look?

First, states and cities are too under-insured privately. States need to set aside some of their own monies for their own disaster relief. "They found that a significant portion of state and local governments that are eligible for PA (public assistance) purchase some type of insurance for their buildings, contents, vehicles, and equipment (BCVE) but that the insurance share across all PA projects is low, meaning that FEMA is paying for a substantial portion of the repairs." https://www.rand.org/pubs/research_reports/RRA332-1.html
Less fema, more private insurance or rainy day savings. It is a good idea to have FEMA assist in the most catastrophic events. Have that defined so that politics are not as involved in who gets relief.

Here are the excessive needs of Arkansas. They need to plan for two events a year, maybe Fema then covers parts of the third or fourth. The same should be for every state.

"From 1980-2025 (as of April 8, 2025), there have been 97 confirmed weather/climate disaster events with losses exceeding $1 billion each to affect Arkansas. These events included 17 drought events, 9 flooding events, 2 freeze events, 55 severe storm events, 5 tropical cyclone events, and 9 winter storm events. The 1980–2024 annual average is 2.2 events (CPI-adjusted); the annual average for the most recent 5 years (2020–2024) is 6.0 events (CPI-adjusted). Billion-Dollar Weather and Climate Disasters | National Centers for Environmental Information (NCEI)."
So these are too common. Much of that billion is private poperty anyway.
I suppose though if you want more FEMA, then pay more Federal taxes for it. However, that is not fair to the states that are not disaster prone.

 

[loveofourlord]

No one ever gets the disaster relief they want. Hard to know if it is need or want. I do think the states and cities can plan more though. There might be more needs than wants even if no disaster. I am sure that the poor in states withoutmuch medicaid think so. So where to look?

First, states and cities are too under-insured privately. States need to set aside some of their own monies for their own disaster relief. "They found that a significant portion of state and local governments that are eligible for PA (public assistance) purchase some type of insurance for their buildings, contents, vehicles, and equipment (BCVE) but that the insurance share across all PA projects is low, meaning that FEMA is paying for a substantial portion of the repairs." https://www.rand.org/pubs/research_reports/RRA332-1.html
Less fema, more private insurance or rainy day savings. It is a good idea to have FEMA assist in the most catastrophic events. Have that defined so that politics are not as involved in who gets relief.

Here are the excessive needs of Arkansas. They need to plan for two events a year, maybe Fema then covers parts of the third or fourth. The same should be for every state.

"From 1980-2025 (as of April 8, 2025), there have been 97 confirmed weather/climate disaster events with losses exceeding $1 billion each to affect Arkansas. These events included 17 drought events, 9 flooding events, 2 freeze events, 55 severe storm events, 5 tropical cyclone events, and 9 winter storm events. The 1980–2024 annual average is 2.2 events (CPI-adjusted); the annual average for the most recent 5 years (2020–2024) is 6.0 events (CPI-adjusted). Billion-Dollar Weather and Climate Disasters | National Centers for Environmental Information (NCEI)."
So these are too common. Much of that billion is private poperty anyway.
I suppose though if you want more FEMA, then pay more Federal taxes for it. However, that is not fair to the states that are not disaster prone.

you do know the states that do this are some of the poorist and get the most money from the federal goverment then they give? Where are they expected to get the money to repair hurricanes and tornados when the taxes are that limited?

 

[Aryeh Jay]

He did the same in Kentucky.

If the people of Kentucky want a communist nanny state, they can move to Cuba or China.

 

[Richard T]

you do know the states that do this are some of the poorist and get the most money from the federal goverment then they give? Where are they expected to get the money to repair hurricanes and tornados when the taxes are that limited?

Yes, but even poor states can tax more. It does not nullify the other financial aid that government gives to the poor. Snap, HUD, tax credits and in some cases health insurance. But yes, if people's preference is for bigger Federal government then certainly they can vote for that. I personally look at every program or policy separately. Many programs make more sense at the state level. IF you know you get two Federal disasters a year, then the only reason they do not plan for it is because they are relying on the Federal Government. IT is a good strategy to save money unless the Feds cut the state off. I think any city or state politician has to take the Federal money whenever possible but if they would state their policy and base it on objective criteria everyone could accept the changes and make plans at the state and local level.

 

[Job 33:6]

Trump denies aid for Arkansas after storms that killed more than 40 people

Latest denial of disaster funding comes as Trump has repeatedly stated he wants to eliminate Fema

www.yahoo.com

here we are trump refusing to help his own base with natural disasters.

That's the irony of it all. Red states are far more reliant on federal funding than blue states. The federal government also largely consists of veterans. So I'm not sure why red states that support veterans would see these cuts as being good.

We hear that it's about balancing the deficit. However, Congress is proposing a 100 billion dollar increase in defense spending, essentially erasing all of doges work. The federal government is spending more now than in any of the years of the Biden administration. And areas of the greatest spending, social security, Medicaid, and Medicare, Trump has repeatedly vowed not to cut.

 

[Job 33:6]

Yes, but even poor states can tax more. It does not nullify the other financial aid that government gives to the poor. Snap, HUD, tax credits and in some cases health insurance. But yes, if people's preference is for bigger Federal government then certainly they can vote for that. I personally look at every program or policy separately. Many programs make more sense at the state level. IF you know you get two Federal disasters a year, then the only reason they do not plan for it is because they are relying on the Federal Government. IT is a good strategy to save money unless the Feds cut the state off. I think any city or state politician has to take the Federal money whenever possible but if they would state their policy and base it on objective criteria everyone could accept the changes and make plans at the state and local level.

I think the point here is that there is an assumption that states could tax at levels necessary to replace fema. But that would put a significant burden on red states that are already struggling with low income and poverty as it is.

That's the reason we have federal assistance to begin with, so that portions of our country are not left behind.

Maybe some people think that some of these southern states should be left behind. But that's not the usual approach of the federal government.

What's interesting is that, the vast majority of our nation's spending is derived from areas that have nothing to do with FEMA. Social Security, Medicaid, and Medicare.

Our nation spends twice as much on healthcare as a dozen other modern nations in the world per person, yet our life expectancy is a decade or more less.

FEMA has a budget of 20 billion. It's very tiny in comparison to say, the 840 billion+ budget of the DoD.

So the question is, why are we cutting areas like FEMA that are directly observed with respect to protecting American lives every year, while much larger areas of spending are going unaddressed?

In fact, Congress is seeking to increase defense spending by some 100 billion dollars.

House unveils budget plan with $100B boost for defense - Breaking Defense

Unlike the Senate — which opted for a two-bill strategy that starts with approving additional funds for defense, border security and energy — the House is pursuing what Trump has called “one beautiful bill” that would also raise the debt limit, and include tax cuts and government spending cuts.

breakingdefense.com

 

[Aryeh Jay]

The federal government also largely consists of veterans. So I'm not sure why red states that support veterans would see these cuts as being good.

If a veteran was able to survive the pressure of combat in Afghanistan and Iraq, they should have no problem with life in the trailer park. Most are getting what they voted for anyway.

 

[Job 33:6]

If a veteran was able to survive the pressure of combat in Afghanistan and Iraq, they should have no problem with life in the trailer park. Most are getting what they voted for anyway.

I'm annoyed by our nation's recent election decision as well, but at the end of the day, we don't want our veterans out on the street. It'll just make everyone's lives harder.

I noted this before but our nation spends some twice as much as other developed nations on health care, despite having a decade+ lower life expectancy. This is where the majority of our federal spending is going, by a wide margin.

All 2+ million federal employees salaries account for somsomething like 4% of federal spending. Meanwhile DoD, Medicaid, Medicare and social security, excluding our nation's interest, make up something like 90% of spending.

So it's not a solution to layoff veterans and cut FEMA. The solution is in reform to things like Medicare, Medicaid, and social security.

If someone has 30,000 dollars and they buy a 50,000 dollar car, nobody expects them to get upset because they bought a cup of coffee last Thursday. The concerns should be directed at the areas that are essentially causing the issue.

 

[Richard T]

I think the point here is that there is an assumption that states could tax at levels necessary to replace fema. But that would put a significant burden on red states that are already struggling with low income and poverty as it is.

That's the reason we have federal assistance to begin with, so that portions of our country are not left behind.

Maybe some people think that some of these southern states should be left behind. But that's not the usual approach of the federal government.

What's interesting is that, the vast majority of our nation's spending is derived from areas that have nothing to do with FEMA. Social Security, Medicaid, and Medicare.

Our nation spends twice as much on healthcare as a dozen other modern nations in the world per person, yet our life expectancy is a decade or more less.

FEMA has a budget of 20 billion. It's very tiny in comparison to say, the 840 billion+ budget of the DoD.

So the question is, why are we cutting areas like FEMA that are directly observed with respect to protecting American lives every year, while much larger areas of spending are going unaddressed?

In fact, Congress is seeking to increase defense spending by some 100 billion dollars.

House unveils budget plan with $100B boost for defense - Breaking Defense

Unlike the Senate — which opted for a two-bill strategy that starts with approving additional funds for defense, border security and energy — the House is pursuing what Trump has called “one beautiful bill” that would also raise the debt limit, and include tax cuts and government spending cuts.

breakingdefense.com

All states can institute a more progressive tax. Yes, there are rich people in Mississippi etc. I would argue the poor are LESS likely to benefit from FEMA assistance anyway. https://www.npr.org/2019/03/05/688786177/how-federal-disaster-money-favors-the-rich The poor have no property, or small business. It might trickle down to them if they are employed or rent but they get crumbs from FEMA.
Yes, FEMA is relatively small but you have to start somewhere. I never figured Trump was going to close the deficits much, if even at all. It sounds good and to get his tax cut extension through he is trying to find ways to pay for it. All probably smoke and mirrors. Budget estimates from the government generally understate the costs, and overstate the revenues or cuts.

You are right that the US goes overboard with medical costs. No politician or party has come close to addressing this. Often they make things worse. Medical related interest groups spend alot of money on campaigns for both parties. Seems like someone needs to fix that first.

 

[DaisyDay]

So it's not a solution to layoff veterans and cut FEMA. The solution is in reform to things like Medicare, Medicaid, and social security.

Or the solution is to understand that Medicare, Medicaid and SS cost money and we should come up with the best way to provide these services.

 

[Job 33:6]

Or the solution is to understand that Medicare, Medicaid and SS cost money and we should come up with the best way to provide these services.

Sure. Reform is definitely necessary.

 

[RocksInMyHead]

In fact, Congress is seeking to increase defense spending by some 100 billion dollars.

Well, that $100 billion has to come from somewhere!

 

[CRAZY_CAT_WOMAN]

Trump denies aid for Arkansas after storms that killed more than 40 people

Latest denial of disaster funding comes as Trump has repeatedly stated he wants to eliminate Fema

www.yahoo.com

here we are trump refusing to help his own base with natural disasters.

He doesn't need them anymore. So, he doesn't have to pretend to care about them. Or do things for them . As for people believing Biden didn't help with aid for the hurricane.They were lied too.

 

[loveofourlord]

He doesn't need them anymore. So, he doesn't have to pretend to care about them. Or do things for them . As for people believing Biden didn't help with aid for the hurricane.They were lied too.

yeah they were lied to, my comment is more the people who were lied to that were up in arms about it, but here is trump doing worse, and they ignore it.