Reason Writers Around Town: Shikha Dalmia on Why Liberals ? FEMA

Hurricane Sandy hadn't even touched down and various liberal outfits started blowing kisses to FEMA, the federal disaster relief agency. But if they love FEMA so much it couldn't be because of its glorious track record, notes Reason

Foundation Senior Analyst Shikha Dalmia in her morning column for the Washington Examiner. It is because FEMA is a vehicle for expanding the welfare state without fear of opposition.

She notes:

Anyone in Sandy's path can latch on to the FEMA teat. This is not disaster relief but disaster socialism. It is one thing for the government to provide emergency housing, health care and food; it is quite another to compensate victims for every loss. If people knocked down by a storm deserve such federal largesse, why not open the coffers to anyone who suffers a car crash, a death in the family or a broken heart?

Go here to read the whole thing.

Comments

[Bingo]

So, FEMA give out the FREE SHIT to people.

I'm almost sensing a pattern here of what liberals are all about...

[John Tagliaferro]

They never give away their own free shit.

[yonemoto]

that's actually not true.

http://www.amazon.com/registry.....AA123PJR42

for example. The "occupy sandy" is exactly voluntaryist redistribution to aid each other. The irony is that the OWSers are exactly proving that you don't need gov't to do this stuff.

[yonemoto]

I'm donating right now.

[John Tagliaferro]

We are talking about different people. Certainly there are altruists out there, but Leftists are not any of them. Their deal is to take the property of others and give it away to whomever warms their heart.

Leftists never give away their own shit.

[yonemoto]

these are OWSers, dude, the same people who were in zucotti square demanding their college debt be forgiven. Which is also hilarious, because, that should be taken care of with bankruptcy, but the leftist state loves giving advantage to the college professor 1%.

[yonemoto]

(referring to the indespensability of educational loans)

[DJF]

Broken windows and giving away taxpayer money, Paul Krugman will be happy.

[Ken Shultz]

In the Obama personality cult, there are a number of lesser saints, all of which are either helpless victims or people who sacrifice selflessly.

In the Obama cult, FEMA represents a bridge between these two worlds of saints. It takes saints who sacrifice selflessly and matches them up with helpless victims.

In fact, it does even better than that. FEMA makes saints out of all of us--by forcing us to sacrifice selflessly on behalf of helpless victims.

"We are greater than the sum of our individual ambitions."

----Obama 3:16

This is why Progressives reverence FEMA.

[Pound. Head. On. Desk.]

It takes saints who sacrifice selflessly and matches them up with helpless victims.

That explains some of the reactions I get from neighbors after hurricanes. They act like I'm prepped for the end of civilization just because I cook our regular meals on a kettle grill instead of running off to a hotel for the week until the power comes back. Most of them don't want to learn. Instead they act like there's something wrong with me for having clean clothes and not losing the food in my refrigerator.

It never occurred to me before opting out of victimhood makes me a sinner.

[Scruffy Nerfherder]

Victimhood is moral high-ground in our modern society.

I hate it, but that's the reality.

[Pound. Head. On. Desk.]

Unpreparedness as an ideal... Clearly, I'm badly out of date. I cannot grok that.

[Dr. Frankenstein]

Serious question. How are you keeping your clothes clean?

[nicole just can't even!]

I can't speak for PHOD and don't know how long he's been stuck sans power, but really, unless your home is destroyed, don't you have a few clean changes of underwear on hand to begin with?

[Dr. Frankenstein]

Today I don't because it's laundry day but yes. I was thinking he had no power for some time and was cleaning his clothes in a somewhat primitive way. I was just curious.

[Ken Shultz]

I'd guess he has a generator.

I have a generator.

[Isaac Bartram]

If you have a generator, you can run a load through the washer and then the dryer.

You may have to unplug everything else while you're doing it but that depends on the output.

In the three storms in a months in central Florida in 04 one of my neighbors had a generator and strung wires to my house and another neighbor.

We all took turns buying gas until the power came back.

We also arranged times for big draw items like clothes washing.

As long as you don't do anything like trying to run AC or heat a 4 to 5KW generator is plenty.

[The Hammer]

This is disturbingly true. There was a commenter on the HuffPo article about Staten Island being unhappy with the Red Cross who straight up said "When FEMA helps people, I feel like I am helping them too." After about a dozen "Amen!" replies, I just couldn't read any more.

[Killazontherun]

Uncle Sugar is the brokenest* heart of them all. Or, is that just his wallet?

why not open the coffers to anyone who suffers a car crash, a death in the family or a broken heart?

*is too sucha

[DJF]

What about clean underwear? Both doctors and mothers know the importance of clean underwear in an emergency. We need a new agency, FECUA, Federal Emergency Clean Underwear Agency.

[Ken Shultz]

That would be life imitating Woody Allen.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dkYfmRwryQo

[John Tagliaferro]

To these people, giving away other people's money after taking it under the threat of violence is the sincerest form of charity. I believe that is Milton Friedman's way #4 of spending money.

Just wait for the Sandy full employment act where they put the Katrina "victims" employment incentives on steroids.

[sarcasmic]

Collectivists believe that individualists oppose all collective action, even the voluntary sort. This is because collectivists feel that when they coerce someone into doing something, that it becomes voluntary. So this idea of voluntary collective action without coercion simply does not compute.
Additionally, because we're all in this together and since no man is an island, all of our money belongs to all of us.
So taking money under threat of violence and giving it away is actually, in their twisted minds, coercing someone into voluntarily sharing what belongs to all of us.

[Ken Shultz]

Corporations aren't people.

...because people have to be forced by the government to work together.

[sarcasmic]

Exactly.

Corporations, as in people voluntarily pooling their resources for a common goal, are evil.

Only under threat of violence is collective action good.

Free will is evil and violence is good.

[Ken Shultz]

They definitely make a fetish out of self-sacrifice. ...and they're evangelical about it.

It becomes like a frenzy, and they become addicted. Then self-sacrifice becomes an end in itself.

And forcing other people to make sacrifices is just an extension of that. They're just projecting their own willingness to make sacrifices onto other people.

And arguing with them about the effectiveness of these sacrifices just goes over their head. It's like arguing with anyone else in a religious frenzy. It's like arguing with someone engaging in self-flagellation.

They're not really doing it for the benefit of other people anyway; it's for the feeling they get while they're doing it.

[sarcasmic]

it's for the feeling they get while they're doing it.

Bingo.

[Scruffy Nerfherder]

A lot of people have come to expect that during an emergency, everything will be available and at a greatly reduced price, because, you know, EMERGENCY! The government desires to perpetuate this belief because it suits their agenda of buying votes by fulfilling a savior role.

Meanwhile, the rest of us just see moral hazards and long-term disaster. But try explaining that to your average citizen.

[sarcasmic]

I got into it with a coworker when I suggested that price gouging is a good thing.

She had an emotional meltdown of how it's unconscionable to charge extra for necessities in a time of need.

She exclaims "What about old people, or women with children? Why should they pay more? That's mean!"

I asked "Why do you want them to wait in long lines only to discover that what they want is unavailable? Would it not be better to have the goods available, but at a higher price? At least they're available."

She says "But, but, but then only rich people can have stuff!" ENVY LOOMS!

I tried to explain the difference between "want" and "need", and between being willing to buy something (want) and being willing to pay extra something (need), then gave up.

Logic cannot penetrate emotion. Especially when envy has been activated.

[Scruffy Nerfherder]

I feel your pain. I've been present at family gatherings where this has come up. My aunt's boyfriend did everything but call my father and me Shylocks for making money selling generators at LIST PRICE during an emergency.

[yonemoto]

hit back. tell her that if she's that concerned about poor people not being able to get gas, then she can open up her pocketbook and help. Of course, her generosity would do no good when there is rationing because, the state says no.

[yonemoto]

THE STATE IS KEEPING HER FROM HELPING.

[Ken Shultz]

And Americans are extremely generous at times like this.

And as somebody who's volunteered at a homeless shelter in the past, I can tell her that there are a lot of people who need help even when there isn't a disaster. And I can almost guarantee her that there's a shelter near her somewhere that needs her to volunteer.

She shouldn't let the lack of a disaster stand in the way of her helping--if that's what she wants to do. But how would she feel about being forced to help against her will?

That's what she's trying to force all those shop owners to do.

[Bingo]

GOOD INTENTIONS
FEELINGS
FREE SHIT

[Pound. Head. On. Desk.]

I got into it with a coworker when I suggested that price gouging is a good thing.
She had an emotional meltdown of how it's unconscionable to charge extra for necessities in a time of need.

I went through something similar with a friend who finally admitted it might be necessary, and improve people's live, and maybe even save lives, but it was still evil to do it.

[Ken Shultz]

Yeah, shop owners typically charge what it costs to replace an item once it comes off the shelf.

They may have a hard time finding distributors who are willing to come into a disaster area--for pre-disaster prices, too.

I think it seems really theoretical to people--how this stuff works. If a distributor has a limited supply of water and a huge demand from different retailers for bottled water, how does he encourage his supplier to make more bottled water than usual--if not by price?

Selling price determines how much I build and where. I'm sure it determines how much bottled water is being produced, too. Why wouldn't it?

It just isn't a theory. And some of these people who think it is are the same people who make fun of creationists.

[Scruffy Nerfherder]

it might be necessary, and improve people's live, and maybe even save lives, but it was still evil to do it.

What a stupid fuck.

[Fatty Bolger]

I asked "Why do you want them to wait in long lines only to discover that what they want is unavailable? Would it not be better to have the goods available, but at a higher price? At least they're available."

She says "But, but, but then only rich people can have stuff!" ENVY LOOMS!

What's funny is that the rich people got the fuck out and are waiting out the recovery in their second home or a ritzy hotel. It's everybody else who suffers from the shortages.

[protefeed]

It's not "price gouging", it's "selling at the market price, thus ensuring an adequate supply of goods on hand".

Don't let liberals saddle you with pejorative descriptions.

[tagtann]

Wow thats some pretty crazy stuff man

http://www.Anon-Nerds.tk

[RickC]

"If people knocked down by a storm deserve such federal largesse, why not open the coffers to anyone who suffers a car crash, a death in the family or a broken heart?"

Right now, Top Men are working on a plan to do just that. Seriously, I had the same reaction during the post 9/11 payout. Never figured out why those victims deserved government compensation any more than victims of other crimes. Unless, of course, it was to stave off lawsuits for feds screwing up re: security.

[Gray Ghost]

Seriously, I had the same reaction during the post 9/11 payout. Never figured out why those victims deserved government compensation any more than victims of other crimes. Unless, of course, it was to stave off lawsuits for feds screwing up re: security.

There was an article I read in a trade magazine, by the overseer of the victims' fund for 9/11, who pretty much stated that lawsuit avoidance was the primary reason for the payouts. He didn't mention a cover-up as the necessity for the avoidance, of course; rather he couched it in terms of 'the nation coming together in a time of unprecedented tragedy' or similar horseshit.

In addition to your motivator, I'll throw in the desire to not have revealed just how many warnings the airlines had about this sort of thing, as well as the desire to not delve too closely into the construction details of the WTC complex. A complex that was plagued with construction delays and cost overruns, IIRC.