Originally Posted by Hazzle
In fact all of it does. It's not the Presidents job to ensure the State takes care of its people at all. If it's in the constitution I'd love to see where. Prevention of hurricane damage would not be acceptable Federal spending. Once the bloody thing had hit, it was a bit late to take care of anyone. Blame Louisiana for not being prepared, but after it hit, blaming anyone for the aftermath is like blaming Chris Evans for having ginger pubes. A lack of preparedness was the cause of the problem.
As for "saving people from a tyrant" vs taking care of his own, I believe I adequately explained the geopolitical rammifications of that attitude. In fact, but for America "saving people from a tyrant", there's every possibility we'd both be speaking German right now. A cliched argument but nonetheless true.
Katrina was so overblown by the media and the left-wing. It killed less 2,000 people! Unless we're being racist and suggesting an American life is worth more than that of a foreigner, what about the Asian tsunami which killed 100 times that many people? Should America have sent more relief efforts there?
You keep making it sound as though Katrina was just your average storm they should have been prepared for. Fact is, it wasn't. It was an extroardinarily heavy blow; a special hurricane that required special attention. This wasn't average state business - it was a natural disaster on America's own soil that killed many people, and left others homeless till today even. When a state is in way over its head, it is the umbrella organisation that needs to take action.
Next point: I'm talking about America having the responsibility to take care of it's own people. That's not racist, it's logic. It would make little sense to pass on the charity all over the world, letting another country take care of your problems every time, like a big chain of goodwill.
You are also taking my argument out of context: I am merely suggesting that before America goes off to save the world, they may want to look at a few things that are harming their own people. After all, America is one of the Western countries where you can happily die of starvation still. There weren't enough soldiers left to help in an emergy such as Katrina. To my mind, that sounds as though there wouldn't be enough to help out in the event of say... a terrorist attack either? You may want to leave your people well and safe before you rush off overseas. That's not to say you can never go overseas to fight a war that, to my mind, isn't unjust, unless your country is perfect. It does mean that you have the obligation to take care of emergencies on home soil before you put all your money in overseas warfare.
Seeing how you're a war expert, surely you know that WWII was a good thing for the home economy of America. There were no urgent matters that needed taking care of within borders at that stage. That's when you can afford to give others a hand. To compare this to the current situation in America seems strange.
Originally Posted by ryan
how can one man take on the additional responsibilities of 50 states on top of all of his federal and international responsibilities?
some of it has to fall on the state.
I think you know that all these responsibilities only officially rest upon his shoulders. Unless you have fifty clones of your president to deal with it all on time. Then you must know I meant part of the government needs to take on that umbrella function and merely check whether America's states are taking accurate measures to ensure the safety of their people.
Taking care of people overseas should not be mutually exclusive with providing means to survive in your own country.
Haz! Look what you've done to me! Now I'm as wordy as you!