The most enjoyable posts to write (and participate in) are those that meet certain criteria:
1) Everyone, by the simple fact that they are a human being, should have an opinion.
2) Reasonable people can disagree and both sides can be right.
3) Even those that agree in substance can have totally different reasons on how they got there.
4) There is a good chance that more than one can change sides mid thread, by being swayed by a better argument.
With these posts, nothing has to be read prior, no fact collecting is required, each of us has a gut reaction that can be expressed immediately.
So here is the questions(s), how far should the government go (using your tax dollars) in repairing the damages done by tornadoes in the South and Midwest? Is it the government’s obligation, where someone has suffered catastrophic loses to make them whole again?
We have all seen the photos and the videos, our nation has literally had it’s ass handed to it this tornado season. Just from Joplin alone, it looks like something right out of Hiroshima. In Tuscaloosa it looks like the Eighth Air Force reenacted the Dresden bombings. From Miss. to NY, towns and cities in between have been wiped off the map, with many people lucky enough to have lived through it who came home and found that they have no home. That is the scenario.
Now I have heard many politicians who have toured these ravaged areas make claims similar to ,”We are going to build every one of these homes back, we are going to make every business whole again, we will not abandon you”. In a few days the president will make an appearance, no doubt making similar promises of government backed restitution.
And I’m wondering, what’s the tab for something like this?
Other things to consider. Most people have homeowner’s insurance, some do not, for those that don’t, should they be made whole by the government? Aren’t those that are not insured, did they not take a risk? Wouldn’t you call these types irresponsible? When you reward bad behavior does not this encourage others to duplicate that bad behavior? If, God forbid, my neighborhood gets hit by an earthquake and my block is destroyed. I have homeowners insurance and my neighbor does not, should we both have the same outcomes? And if you answered yes, then what’s the point of being responsible? If I suffer a catastrophic loss in the stock market, put everything I had in Commodore computers, Betamax, or Joe’s 8 track tape systems, and lost everything, gee, I need to be made whole, I’ve been wiped out cleaner then if a tornado stole my house. If say I own a dry cleaners in Joplin and I am the responsible type and insure my business, my competition down the street is more into profit (and risks) and he has no insurance coverage at all, do we both get our dry cleaners rebuild?
It should come as no surprise that America is the most charitable/giving nation on earth. We always step up when tragedy strikes, and we will do it again here. Organizations like FEMA were created with tax payer dollars for situations just like this, but their job is disaster relief, not undoing the disaster so that it is like it never happened. I’ve plugged the Red Cross before, they do terrific work in this area. Other charities are pouring resources into the tornado areas and you can bet most churches in the land have funds going to help those folks.
spend waste so much money on foreign aid to other nations, some still hate our guts all the while cashing our checks. I doubt there are tax payers out there that would moan about any of their tax money going to aid the suffering in this country and to help those truly in need, but where does that help end?
The progressives have always tried to use shame in separating the wealthy (or those they think can give more) from their purses. They throw out silly comparisons to biblical teachings that we as a society must take care of the poor and the needy, this is true, to a degree. The bible is clear that charity begins at home, that we do have this obligation but it comes from God and not the government, it’s not charity if it is not freely given, taxation is not charity, never has been.
So there is today’s conundrum, how far do you think the government is obligated to go in their aid? On one end would be, the barest of emergency aid, food, shelter, and medicine for a set time, on the other side would be that they make every single victim whole again so that their station in life was exactly as it was before the tornado hit. Anything in between, or would you even extend the parameters.?The government gave a few million dollars to the families of every single 9/11 victim, do you think something similar is in order here?