President Neelix threatens to pull California wildfire money

[Yukaphile]

Not me.

[LittleRaven]

Okay, this whole debate of free will and god-like power is...kinda off-topic.

Agreed.

It's about what one horrible little man is doing, threatening to actively withdraw the taxpayer support that would stop thousands of people who are already losing their homes from burning to death.

Jesus Christ, Fuzzy. Thousands of Californians are not going to burn to death without Federal funding. I very much doubt one single Californian will burn to death without it. California is not exactly begging for change behind the 7-11...it is wealthier than most NATIONS. But that very wealth does create some problems - Californians are rich enough to build houses in the woods, and then demand that those houses not burn down when the forest inevitably does. It's much the same as Floridians who build houses in flood planes and then cry when their houses flood. Questioning these policies is not tantamount to calls for mass immolation.

[Yukaphile]

Well, it does seem to be the Republican strategy to drive up the debt so high that they can get rid of all the social programs that benefit the most helpless and vulnerable in our society they don't like.

[Fuzzy Necromancer]

Okay, this whole debate of free will and god-like power is...kinda off-topic.

Agreed.

It's about what one horrible little man is doing, threatening to actively withdraw the taxpayer support that would stop thousands of people who are already losing their homes from burning to death.

Jesus Christ, Fuzzy. Thousands of Californians are not going to burn to death without Federal funding. I very much doubt one single Californian will burn to death without it. California is not exactly begging for change behind the 7-11...it is wealthier than most NATIONS. But that very wealth does create some problems - Californians are rich enough to build houses in the woods, and then demand that those houses not burn down when the forest inevitably does. It's much the same as Floridians who build houses in flood planes and then cry when their houses flood. Questioning these policies is not tantamount to calls for mass immolation.

When there is a widespread natural disaster, you should actively fund attempts to manage that disaster, or else what is the government for? Are you really trying to go "well the Californians are rich enough so they should be able to handle it themselves"? That's an argument for legalization of burgling billionaires, not cutting disaster funding in the middle of a Hecate-damned disaster!

[Fuzzy Necromancer]

Listen, you wanna talk about "rich people can take care of themselves?

Kardashians, Kanye West, and others hired private fire fighters. https://motherboard.vice.com/en_us/arti ... zupvrcY2NA

The rest can burn.

There are people rushing to get breathing masks for the homeless population.

I have a friend in California who can't see local landmarks for the frelling smoke.

And you wag your boney finger and go "Well he's not leaving them to die just because he's cutting funding for the government forces that fight the wildfires which drive them out of their homes and sometimes overwhelm and kill people!"

[Fuzzy Necromancer]

Fun fact: It is now the most destructive fire in California’s history

[Fuzzy Necromancer]

Also, just throwing this out there, maybe the intense heat and excessive droughts, have something to do with global warming? That thing that our president has censored any mention of in any government documents?

[Fuzzy Necromancer]

Okay, you know what Little Raven? I will concede a point.

There have only been 9 confirmed fatalities, so "thousands burning to death" is an overstatement. I'm just worried becuase there are thousands in the path of the fire and/or actively fleeing from it.

[LittleRaven]

When there is a widespread natural disaster, you should actively fund attempts to manage that disaster, or else what is the government for?

Of course. But there is (and should be) robust debate about what government policy should be when there isn't a disaster currently ongoing, because that policy can very impact just how bad the NEXT disaster is.

Virtually everyone agrees that the government should rescue people when a hurricane blows in. Not everyone agrees that the government should pay people to rebuild their houses in the middle of a hurricane floodplain. Both sides of that debate have a legitimate argument.

Are you really trying to go "well the Californians are rich enough so they should be able to handle it themselves"?

No, I'm saying this is a problem money can't solve. If money COULD solve it, California would have solved it already - with or without Federal help.

And let's be clear, I'm talking about the general problem of forest management, not this immediate blaze. Trump is being his usual idiot self when he talks about cutting off aid RIGHT NOW, and nobody is actually going to do that. But once this blaze is contained, the larger problem will remain. The Federal government and the California government do not see eye to eye when it comes to forest management. The Feds are mostly of the mind that forest fires are a natural thing that happens and needs to happen, while California tries very hard to keep its forest in stasis. Both sides have good reasons for believing what they do.

[LittleRaven]

Also, just throwing this out there, maybe the intense heat and excessive droughts, have something to do with global warming?

They very much do. But that's something we're all just going to have to adapt to...at least in the short term.