superchuck500
U.S. Blues
Offline
Most disasters in this country are at least 90% funded by the federal government - mostly through FEMA.
Trump to sign executive order "maybe getting rid of FEMA" (4 Viewers)
- Thread startersuperchuck500
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
coldseat
Well-known member
Offline
He doesn’t abhore what they stand for. He abhores that they don't kiss his arse like red state do.
Last edited:
SystemShock
Uh yu ka t'ann
Offline
Hurry up and shut FEMA down. Tornado season is fast approaching!
Hey, knock yourself out, Republicans.
Next hurricane that blows through the Gulf of Mexico and hammers TX, MS, LA, AL, FL et al
You. Get. Nothing. No help, no money, no declaration, nothing. Tax your forking idiot Republican voters to pay for it.
Next hurricane that blows through the Gulf of Mexico and hammers TX, MS, LA, AL, FL et al
You. Get. Nothing. No help, no money, no declaration, nothing. Tax your forking idiot Republican voters to pay for it.
cuddlemonkey
Well-known monkey
- Joined
- May 17, 2019
- Messages
- 4,634
- Reaction score
- 5,784
Offline
Gulf of Mexico? Never heard of it.
SystemShock
Uh yu ka t'ann
Offline
And make sure you got North America coverage if you want to reach your Congressperson, as they'll be in Cancun.
wardorican
Well-known member
Offline
Can Trump 'terminate' FEMA? Not so fast
Although President Donald Trump has floated eliminating FEMA with an executive order, he does not have unilateral authority, according to federal law.
Fix/reform, sure. Eliminate. Heck no.
This is the typical Trump talking out of his rear and floating a crazy idea and see what the outcry is. Then he'll go from there.
He's not wrong about there always being complaints about FEMA, but just shifting 100% of the cost and responsibilities se to states is wildly reckless.
I bet all the Gulf state governors are in hiding, so they don't have to contradict their glorious leader.
No argument.
“
www.scientificamerican.com
Why the U.S. Disaster Agency Is Not Ready for Catastrophes
Responding unnecessarily to smaller events has left FEMA understaffed and short of funds for major disasters”Why the U.S. Disaster Agency Is Not Ready for Catastrophes
Responding unnecessarily to smaller events has left FEMA understaffed and short of funds for major disasters
DJ1BigTymer
F-22A 1st Confirmed A/A Kill 4 Feb 23
Offline
Well, that article tells a story that the states contribute nothing towards disaster recovery and the FEMA handles the load, without ever showing us how those states failed to respond. What I got from the article is that FEMA needs more personnel and they need to be adequately funded.“Why the U.S. Disaster Agency Is Not Ready for Catastrophes
Responding unnecessarily to smaller events has left FEMA understaffed and short of funds for major disasters”
Why the U.S. Disaster Agency Is Not Ready for Catastrophes
Responding unnecessarily to smaller events has left FEMA understaffed and short of funds for major disasters
So this means they need to be dissolved? I really wish you would add context or something. When you post like this, I don’t know what you are trying to say or promote.“Why the U.S. Disaster Agency Is Not Ready for Catastrophes
Responding unnecessarily to smaller events has left FEMA understaffed and short of funds for major disasters”
Why the U.S. Disaster Agency Is Not Ready for Catastrophes
Responding unnecessarily to smaller events has left FEMA understaffed and short of funds for major disasters
coldseat
Well-known member
Offline
Much like everything else, people in general are very ignorant as to what all FEMA does in a disaster and how much they coordinate. Sure, their operations can improve and be more effective. But get rid of them and watch the crying and catastrophe reign forward after every disaster.
Fund them adequately and give them resources they need.
Fund them adequately and give them resources they need.
- Moderator
- #30
Online
The article's suggestion that smaller incidents leave FEMA unprepared for larger ones misses the mark. Instead of framing it as a trade-off, the real issue is why FEMA cannot effectively handle both. All states contribute to FEMA, so why should any state be denied aid when disaster strikes? This isn’t just a question of funding, as the article seems to imply, but also about ensuring FEMA has the experience, resources, and capabilities to manage disasters of any scale.
Consider the examples given:
As someone with over 20 years of experience volunteering in the Danish Civil Defense Force—an organization responsible for disaster management ranging from blizzards to fires and floods, as well as providing first aid at local events—I can attest that effective disaster response relies more on expertise and preparedness than purely on funding. Disaster management is about coordination, experience, and rapid action to mitigate risks. A small incident can quickly escalate into a major disaster if it’s mismanaged or ignored.
FEMA’s role must adapt to the increasing challenges posed by climate change. The solution isn’t to reduce engagement or cut the budget—it’s to strengthen the agency’s capacity. All states contribute to FEMA, and all states deserve reliable support when disaster strikes. Instead of prioritizing based on surpluses, FEMA should focus on building a system that is robust, responsive, and capable of addressing the diverse challenges ahead.
Consider the examples given:
- New Hampshire, where FEMA assisted with a 2017 snowstorm causing $1.7 million in damages, while the state had a $190 million budget surplus.
- Oklahoma, where FEMA responded to $5.1 million in storm damage in the same year, despite the state holding a $452 million surplus.
- West Virginia, where FEMA provided aid after July flooding, issuing 469 grants while the state amassed a $1.1 billion surplus.
As someone with over 20 years of experience volunteering in the Danish Civil Defense Force—an organization responsible for disaster management ranging from blizzards to fires and floods, as well as providing first aid at local events—I can attest that effective disaster response relies more on expertise and preparedness than purely on funding. Disaster management is about coordination, experience, and rapid action to mitigate risks. A small incident can quickly escalate into a major disaster if it’s mismanaged or ignored.
FEMA’s role must adapt to the increasing challenges posed by climate change. The solution isn’t to reduce engagement or cut the budget—it’s to strengthen the agency’s capacity. All states contribute to FEMA, and all states deserve reliable support when disaster strikes. Instead of prioritizing based on surpluses, FEMA should focus on building a system that is robust, responsive, and capable of addressing the diverse challenges ahead.
FullMonte
Well-known member
Offline
Those are some odd examples, unless there are significant typos.
A snowstorm in New Hampshire that caused $1.7 million in damages? The average home value in New Hampshire is $479,000. Are you telling me a snowstorm wiped out three houses? The average home value in Oklahoma is $200,000. So, I guess the storm destroyed a whole 25 homes?
- Moderator
- #32
Online
It was direct quotes from the article posted by Sendai
Why the U.S. Disaster Agency Is Not Ready for Catastrophes
Responding unnecessarily to smaller events has left FEMA understaffed and short of funds for major disasters
"FEMA was helping two rural counties in New Hampshire with a March 2017 snowstorm that caused $1.7 million in damage to infrastructure."
While not knowing the details my guess is it could be anything from downed powerlines, blocked roads or to getting supplies through to communities cut off by the blizzard,
It’s simply a good articles discussing the issues FEMA faces. Informative.
Things to think about.
- Moderator
- #34
Online
The article seems less focused on addressing the genuine challenges FEMA faces and more on promoting the idea that only poorer states should receive disaster aid. This is both unfair and counterproductive. FEMA’s role isn’t about redistributing wealth or punishing states with sound fiscal management—it’s about providing equitable disaster relief to all contributing states when they need it. So no - not a good article but a very biased one
Sure. Trump is too stupid to understand that.
As for reform? Well, the country better get used to unintended consequences because everything Trump touches dies.
Create an account or login to comment
You must be a member in order to leave a comment
Create account
Create an account on our community. It's easy!
Log in
Already have an account? Log in here.