Log In

Your email is not your username

Register

If you were a member of the old Bodybuilding.com forums and would like to reuse your previous username, you can request it below. We use your email only for registration and do not store it. For more information, please see our Privacy Policy.

Confirm your email

A registration code was sent to your email. Enter it here.

Welcome

You have successfully setup your account.

Sign in

Quick Navigation Bottom Misc
Forum
» FEMA is broke af
  1. Results 31 to 40 of 40
  2. First
  3. 1
  4. 2
post 1689322993 09-01-2023, 08:05 AM
-
#31
  1. Duckliver
  2. Offal
  1. Duckliver
  2. Offal
  3. Join Date: Jun 2013
  4. Location: Washington, United States
  5. Posts: 32,174
  6. Rep Power: 347469
Originally Posted By GNCPOV
Pretty easy to condemn wasteful spending by agency officials. Even if it turns out they're getting a free stay or a severely discounted rate - it's bad for optics. The rest of bureaucrats are expected to abide by strict ethics rules that include even the "appearance of a conflict of interest" so pushing back on officials not doing it is fair game.
“Hey guys we’re here to help, we’re gonna be staying in the most expensive luxury vacation hotels 1-3k a night rooms”

“Also you guys aren’t allowed to have any of this local aid donated by neighbors, it’s not approved”

“Also we’re broke and don’t actually have aid”



Btw, you guys willing to sell your scorched contaminated land yet? We’re gonna send in inspectors to determine how much remediation will be required, last chance to sell now
post 1689323133 09-01-2023, 08:08 AM
-
#32
  1. goody1
  2. Registered User
  1. goody1
  2. Registered User
  3. Join Date: Nov 2004
  4. Location: Minnesota, United States
  5. Age: 48
  6. Posts: 10,204
  7. Rep Power: 96536
Why does FEMA need anymore money. Shouldn't it be solace enough for the victims to know that Ol' Joe almost lost his corvette in a fire.
post 1689323173 09-01-2023, 08:10 AM
-
#33
  1. GNCPOV
  2. Registered User
  1. GNCPOV
  2. Registered User
  3. Join Date: Dec 2010
  4. Age: 38
  5. Posts: 788
  6. Rep Power: 4512
Originally Posted By Bushmaster
I think you're confused here.. OUR defense budget has fukall to do with Ukraine.

You can loathe the pentagon all you want bro, but the free money for Ukraine is coming from another bucket.
I think you're misinformed here. The NDAA includes specific funding for operations in Ukraine.

INTERNATIONAL SECURITY
Bolstering Support for Ukraine and NATO
- Authorizes the full fiscal year 2023 budget request for the European Deterrence
Initiative (EDI).
-Extends and modifies the Ukraine Security Assistance Initiative (USAI) and authorizes
$800 million in fiscal year 2023, an increase of $500 million above the President’s
budget request.

- Requires a report on DOD plans for the provision of security assistance to Ukraine in
the short and medium term.
-Expresses the sense of Congress that the United States' commitment to NATO is
ironclad, and emphasizes the importance of maintaining a unified response to Russia's
unjust war in Ukraine and other shared security challenges.
- Expresses the sense of Congress that the United States must continue to assist Ukraine
in its fight against the unjust and unprovoked attack by Russia, and that oversight and
transparency for such assistance is essential to ensure effective and sustained support.
-Requires a report on the framework the Inspectors General have adopted to oversee
U.S. assistance to Ukraine and whether there are any gaps in oversight or funding for
such activities.
- Requires an assessment of the required U.S. force posture and resourcing needed to
implement the National Defense Strategy in Europe and uphold U.S. commitments to
NATO.


https://www.armed-services.senate.go...nt_summary.pdf

Even if there is money coming from "other buckets" which have yet to be identified, it will end up indirectly supporting the MIC.
post 1689323273 09-01-2023, 08:11 AM
-
#34
  1. x-trainer ben
  2. Registered User
  1. x-trainer ben
  2. Registered User
  3. Join Date: Oct 2005
  4. Location: United States
  5. Posts: 62,386
  6. Rep Power: 451180
The bill proposes $25.89 billion in funding for FEMA

And we had more events than a regular year, i think it was 15-18, much more than average.
increased emergency funding.....regular year=regular funding.
There is an unspoken thing, we are iron brothers and sisters, we are to support each other and...It is our duty to support our brothers and sisters in the iron game!
post 1689323953 09-01-2023, 08:21 AM
-
#35
  1. Bushmaster
  2. Masculine Toxicity
  1. Bushmaster
  2. Masculine Toxicity
  3. Join Date: Jul 2003
  4. Location: Greenville, South Carolina, United States
  5. Posts: 68,360
  6. Subscribers: 2
  7. Rep Power: 700751
Originally Posted By GNCPOV
I think you're misinformed here. The NDAA includes specific funding for operations in Ukraine.

INTERNATIONAL SECURITY
Bolstering Support for Ukraine and NATO
- Authorizes the full fiscal year 2023 budget request for the European Deterrence
Initiative (EDI).
-Extends and modifies the Ukraine Security Assistance Initiative (USAI) and authorizes
$800 million in fiscal year 2023, an increase of $500 million above the President’s
budget request.

- Requires a report on DOD plans for the provision of security assistance to Ukraine in
the short and medium term.
-Expresses the sense of Congress that the United States' commitment to NATO is
ironclad, and emphasizes the importance of maintaining a unified response to Russia's
unjust war in Ukraine and other shared security challenges.
- Expresses the sense of Congress that the United States must continue to assist Ukraine
in its fight against the unjust and unprovoked attack by Russia, and that oversight and
transparency for such assistance is essential to ensure effective and sustained support.
-Requires a report on the framework the Inspectors General have adopted to oversee
U.S. assistance to Ukraine and whether there are any gaps in oversight or funding for
such activities.
- Requires an assessment of the required U.S. force posture and resourcing needed to
implement the National Defense Strategy in Europe and uphold U.S. commitments to
NATO.


https://www.armed-services.senate.go...nt_summary.pdf

Even if there is money coming from "other buckets" which have yet to be identified, it will end up indirectly supporting the MIC.
Welp, I can admit that I was wrong about that... it happens.

Doesn't change the fact that I still don't think Ukraine should even get $1 of US taxpayer money.
It's a hot night. The mind races. You think about your knife: the only friend who hasn't betrayed you, the only friend who won't be dead by sunup. Sleep tight mates, in your quilted chambray night shirts.
post 1689324243 09-01-2023, 08:27 AM
-
#36
  1. GNCPOV
  2. Registered User
  1. GNCPOV
  2. Registered User
  3. Join Date: Dec 2010
  4. Age: 38
  5. Posts: 788
  6. Rep Power: 4512
Originally Posted By Bushmaster
Welp, I can admit that I was wrong about that... it happens.

Doesn't change the fact that I still don't think Ukraine should even get $1 of US taxpayer money.
Not gonna rebut that, we agree on that front. I just want to take the chisel further down the DoD budget. Appreciate you at least owning up on that specific issue, measlies!
post 1689325253 09-01-2023, 08:45 AM
-
#37
  1. frankdtank20
  2. Registered User
  1. frankdtank20
  2. Registered User
  3. Join Date: Nov 2020
  4. Posts: 27,464
  5. Rep Power: 171374
Originally Posted By GNCPOV
I love that conservatives are complaining that we're sending too much money to Ukraine, as if Republicans are famous for trying to reign in unnecessary military expenditures. What party directs a trillion dollars to the Pentagon every year again? Crickets.

Oh that's right, its only bad when Biden does it.

Wut.
Your beliefs are wrong because they're stuck in the wrong century. Obama ramped up the wars, particularly in Afghanistan. And historically Democrats have been more the party of war.

-Wilson entered the US into WW1 after promising not to
-FDR for WWII, though that was just
-Tiny, insecure Truman dropped the atomic bombs on Japan
-Tiny, insecure Truman put the US into the Korean War
-Overt racist Lyndon Johnson put the US into the Vietnam War
-Obama bombed this schit out of the Middle East, killed A LOT of brown people
-Obama's admin repeatedly lied trying to get the US into Syria

To be fair chicken hawks are on both sides. Fuk Bush and Cheney. Thank God one of the biggest chicken haws in all of DC, Hillary wasn't elected or we'd already be 5 years balls deep into a 3rd world country's anus.
Yeah Buddyyy! Light weight! Light weight baby!!!!
post 1689326083 09-01-2023, 08:57 AM
-
#38
  1. GNCPOV
  2. Registered User
  1. GNCPOV
  2. Registered User
  3. Join Date: Dec 2010
  4. Age: 38
  5. Posts: 788
  6. Rep Power: 4512
Originally Posted By frankdtank20
Your beliefs are wrong because they're stuck in the wrong century. Obama ramped up the wars, particularly in Afghanistan. And historically Democrats have been more the party of war.

-Wilson entered the US into WW1 after promising not to
-FDR for WWII, though that was just
-Tiny, insecure Truman dropped the atomic bombs on Japan
-Tiny, insecure Truman put the US into the Korean War
-Overt racist Lyndon Johnson put the US into the Vietnam War
-Obama bombed this schit out of the Middle East, killed A LOT of brown people
-Obama's admin repeatedly lied trying to get the US into Syria

To be fair chicken hawks are on both sides. Fuk Bush and Cheney. Thank God one of the biggest chicken haws in all of DC, Hillary wasn't elected or we'd already be 5 years balls deep into a 3rd world country's anus.
There is nothing with my beliefs, you're chasing ghosts in my post. You won't catch me defending Democrats on their war record, either. That post was just pointing out that Republicans in Congress largely enable the war machine by passing the NDAA, which is true. So, picking out one sliver of war funding as unconscionable when the whole thing is a monstrous waste of money seems like missing the forest for the trees.

I agree with your last sentence. It's both parties that engage in war-mongering, because both parties support US imperialism. That's probably at odds with majority of American voters, but alas, here we are.
post 1689334643 09-01-2023, 11:21 AM
-
#39
  1. DeshaunWatson
  2. Verified
  1. DeshaunWatson
  2. Verified
  3. Join Date: Jun 2014
  4. Posts: 19,647
  5. Rep Power: 135286
They should give us an opt out option on where our funds go for international disputes.



I opt out on giving anything more than $0.00 to Ukraine.
post 1689337683 09-01-2023, 12:06 PM
-
#40
  1. greenleaf
  2. Registered User
  1. greenleaf
  2. Registered User
  3. Join Date: Jan 2008
  4. Posts: 8,619
  5. Rep Power: 35570
Originally Posted By DeshaunWatson
They should give us an opt out option on where our funds go for international disputes.

I opt out on giving anything more than $0.00 to Ukraine.
The option is always there.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relinq...es_nationality
Quick Navigation Top Misc
Bookmarks
Digg.com
Digg
del.icio.us
del.icio.us
Stumbleupon.com
StumbleUpon
Google.com
Google
Facebook.com
Facebook
Posting Permissions
  1. You may not post new threads
  2. You may not post replies
  3. You may not post attachments
  4. You may not edit your posts