Free Republic

History shows you are right, too, najida. :)

It's easy to get that impression, isn't it? But I think that the folks out there that really do believe such things are mercifully few and far between.

I know that people don't REALLY, at bottom, think it's okay. They just want things done the way it "should" be done.

It's throwing out the baby with the bathwater, imo.

Possibly. But I hope that isn't the case here. Just a case of terminal stubbornness. :)

True, and that's very good advice.

He's just getting angry because he's being shown over and over again that sometimes, doing the right thing means "breaking the rules", and politics be damned.

Well, that's what we have Amendments for. Where would you come down on the idea of an Amendment to the Constitution that would EXPRESSLY permit such action by the federal government?

Surely you would be okay with that, since Amendments are the perfect way to address your concerns about all this "extraconstitutional activity". Then you would have an updated version of the political Emily Post to reference in case of the next natural disaster.

Yeah. That "everyone" pretty much includes people who have both a heart and a brain.

Folks that can both see the bigger picture and still care enough about their fellow human beings to realize that we don't have to have written permission from the Founders to do the right thing, or the smart thing.

For crying out loud, use your brain instead of resorting to casting aspersions on my "conservative credentials".

At the time the Constitution was written, we had nowhere near the population we have now, nor the infastructure in place to be able to help much in the event of a natural disaster in some farflung (relatively speaking) corner of the Republic.

Now, we have -what- 300,000,000 people in this country, vastly improved health services and knowlege of epidemiology that we didn't have then. That's just for starters. We have the knowledge, the infastructure, and the WILL to do what we can to help our fellow citizens in a time of serious need.

Your literalistic reading of the Consititution in this instance leaves me cold. Stop using the Consititution to cover up your resentment at being forced to help those you would otherwise throw to the wolves.

You want practical, Huck? How's this:

No federal aid, specifically in this case could have some very undesirable outcomes, and end up costing us (the taxpayer) even more in the long run. Socially, economically, and in terms of public health issues.

Compassion for others. In this case, it's not only the RIGHT THING TO DO to help others, it's also in your best interests as both a taxpayer and a citizen.

Gnaw on that for a bit.

Wow...very eloquent. Great post, rdb3.

Hope you can ditch that wheelchair soon, FRiend. :)

OK. But a detailed answer like you are looking for will require more time and attention than I can give to it at the moment. If you are willing to wait for an answer, I can give you one this evening, once my children are asleep.

Deal?

If you read my reply a little more carefully, you'll see that I already answered your question. A disaster is pretty self-evident. It doesn't require the kind of -I don't know what to call it- that you're engaging in. But to help you out a little...anything that would cause the President to declare a disaster would be one. So whatever criteria is used for that now could be used to justify those expenditures. Oh, wait, isn't it ALREADY done that way? < /sarcasm.

My attitude isn't relativistic at all, imo. Personally, I would do away with the vast majority of the crap our tax dollars go to, in order to free up those monies for things like this. I am not okay with wasteful spending, and I wouldn't use it to justify spending on something important. I'm saying that the money SHOULD be spent in this manner (disaster relief), RATHER THAN some Senator's latest pet project. Hope that clarifies my position, since my choice of words there didn't convey it correctly.

If it takes an Amendement to codify what is already done, I'll go for it. At least then you would have no excuses to deny folks needed emergency aid. You'd be standing there stark naked with your attitude in full display.

Unless, of course, your only objection to federal disaster aid is the fact that it's not strictly spelled out in the Constitution.

Of course not, but I wasn't talking about looters, I was talking about price gouging.

Different, though just barely. It's just robbery of a different kind, imo.

Do you condone selling a loaf of bread for $10 to someone who's just lost everything? How about a container of distilled water for $25, and if they can't pay, they go thirsty?

You carefully don't say what the alternative is. Are you suggesting that it would be better to throw the water away than to sell if for $25? If so, then you are saying you'd rather everyone die of thirst, than see some people spend $25 and live. But maybe you're saying, rather, that the water should be given away free? OK, I'll say it too: giving it away free is most admirable. What's that? Oh, you think they should be forced to give their water away for free? Then I guess you're a looter too. You just choose to use the police as your muscle, instead of doing your own dirty work.

Excuse me for butting in here, but how about the obvious answer? You don't have to give it away free, or throw it out (*roll eyes*) but you don't need to jack up prices to the stratosphere either. How about keeping prices right where they are? FGS, a little common sense!

As I stated, a natural...usually weather-related disaster. Mudslides, wildfires, earthquakes, hurricanes, tornadoes, extensive and/or flash flooding.

Ya know, things that us peons can do little about. We do what we can with improving structural integrity, buying home and flood insurance, and helping our neighbors to safe places, etc. You already see people helping out with money, food, and shelter, independent of government assistance. But it isn't nearly enough, because far too many people are only out for themselves, and don't give a rip about others. "Sink or swim, there's no room in my boat for you!" they cry.

Some of these things are so severe, and local governments are knocked out by them, at least temporarily. Are we supposed to allow all to fall into chaos because the powers that be were morons and failed to implement (or develop) good disaster plans? Besides, the best laid plans...as they say. Also, some people simply cannot afford the extra cost in premiums for flood insurance. Should they, therefore, not be allowed to own a home because they may have to go to FEMA in the event of a natural disaster or be homeless? Geesh.

People need our help, and I don't give a crap if Uncle Sam has to ride to the rescue. We aren't talking about welfare slackers, etc. We're talking about people who have their lives devastated by natural disaster. You know, those folks that are hiding in attics right now, praying that they aren't washed away to their deaths.

Can you really, truly sit there and say because the Consititution doesn't specify a duty for the federal government to provide disaster relief that they shouldn't be providing it? My God, if they can waste money on pork barrel projects, the least they can do is put SOME of my hard-earned money towards doing some good!

Are you familiar with stories from Florida last year (where I live) in which people were getting supplies from FEMA and then selling them on Ebay or in the paper after hurricane season was over? Is this okay with you? How would you make sure this doesn't happen? Is some amount of waste and fraud okay as long as you feel good about helping some people who are "in need"?

Forgot about this part, sorry. Yes, I am familiar with those stories, and they tick me off, royally. However, it is an undisputed fact that wherever or whenever there is a disaster, some people start acting like vultures. Looting, or selling disaster supplies on Ebay, as you say. Yes, I think it's acceptable to still dispense aid under those circumstances. What I think should be done is to prosecute those responsible (that can be caught) and levy stiff penalties against them...up to and including jail time. It's theft and/or burglary in the case of looters, and defrauding the government in the case of those selling disaster supplies.

It's ridiculous to think it can't be stopped,or prevented altogether, but you CAN minimize the impact by punishing those who do things like that...swiftly and severely. Just because someone might decide to help themselves to other people's property during a disaster, or decide to make themselves a buck off the taxpayer's back doesn't mean we should hesitate to help those who need it.

Well, there is your problem right there.

I'm not talking about "disaster" the way you mean. I mean NATURAL DISASTER in the common usage, which usually means a hurricane, flood, tornado, etc. Things beyond our control, Mother Nature spewing her wrath upon the planet and our peon little selves.

Yes, if a tree falls on my car through some freak lightning strike, etc. that is a disaster for me...personally. The entire area is not affected, and that is why I carry auto insurance. If I did not, I would be paying for a new car, all out of pocket. (Depending on my insurance, I still may be!) :)

Look, you obviously read the Constitution VERY literally, so I can tell you now that we are NOT going to agree here. Thanks for the discussion, but I'm not going to bang my head against a brick wall to try and convince you that you are mistaken.

Thank you for the update! I am glad that Jeff is doing so well, but I will continue to pray for him.

God Bless, and thank you, Jeff, for your service!

Whatever. Call me a marxist, liberal looney-tunes, or whatever else you care to.

I think you're clinging to principle to obscure the fact that you're a cold-hearted, pennypincher that begrudges a dime given to the federal government. Your fallback position of private charities in this case is ludicrous. The federal government has immediate access to monies and equipment private charities do not. They also possess the power of the state, and that's no small thing when you have to contend with looters and price gougers.

Yes, I am aware that the police TECHNICALLY may not have a duty to prevent crimes from happening...but apparently these officers disagreed with that. I, for one, am glad that they did, though it sadly cost them their lives. They are far braver people than most, when most could and (honestly) should run for safety.

There is a vast difference between helping someone recover from a natural disaster, and "helping" someone pay for things they otherwise could not afford. If you can't understand that, then we're through here.

Have a nice day.