Craig Lalley wrote:
> Just to let everyone know, I was being sarcastic.
>  
> It seems a bit fiscally irresponsible to spend 200 BILLION of the government's money on a total of 7 or 8 million people.
>  
> Lets do some basic math here, there are only say 300 million people in the US.  So every time the Government spends 1 Billion, that's 3 dollars for every man, woman and child.  So this 200 Billion is going to cost every man woman and child in the US... 600 dollars a piece.   Hmmm, for my family of 6 that is a total of $2400 to go directly to Louisiana, and Mississippi, assuming of course the end recipients even get the aid.
>  
> But remember only about 70% of the people even PAY taxes...  And some of the people affected did have insurance.
>  
> Bottom line, we were all appalled by the looting after Katrina.  Those looters are nothing compared to when the professional looters (Senators, Congressmen, Mayors) get involved.
>  
> -Craig
>  

What should one think when reading your comments about it being 
"fiscally irresponsible" to spend tax money collected from the entire 
country and use it to rebuild one tiny section of it, Craig?

And why did you use the phrase "the government's money" to describe tax
dollars collected from the people to be spent for the people?  I thought
you believed George's sound bites that "it's the people's money and they
should be allowed to keep it".  Or do you now think that the tax cuts
should expire?

Your point is that a population of 7 million out of 300 million is only 
2.3% of the people, and realistically, 3 out of the 50 states is only 6% 
of our states, effected to the level we keep seeing on the dummy tube. 
The implication is appalling, however.  I can be a heartless b*stard, 
but that made me cringe.

This situation is no different than any other with regard to the uses 
made of our tax dollars, and yes, we should watch our leaders like a 
hawk.  We should not allow them to direct public dollars into the 
pockets of their business friends, unless doing so is actually in the 
best interest of the majority of the public.  That need for monitoring, 
however, does not remove the responsibility to rebuild a vital part of 
our country's infrastructure.

More importantly, we should *NOT* fail to rescue our own people, whose
lives were destroyed by a natural disaster.  And certainly, we should
not fail to do so because we were cheap, greedy, or heartless.  While
you're throwing out statistics: what percentage of our nation's federal
budget is $200B?

If you are making these comments out of some defense mechanism: refusing
to believe the horrors these people are having to live thru, then fine.
  If, however, you truly believe that it is not the responsibility of
our government to take action to rebuild the lives of these people and
their cities, then what exactly do you think governments are supposed to do?

I count myself lucky to have visited New Orleans before the flood,
danced in Jackson Square at the Jazz Festival, wandered the French
Quarter and the cemetaries, taken a horse drawn tour of the antebellum
homes, and gotten "a little inebriated" on Bourbon Street at more than
one Mardi Gras.  I doubt whatever is rebuilt will ever be the same.

I am currently concerned for my family being pummeled by Ophelia, and
hope that the powers that be won't fail to provide for them were they
the subject of a similar disaster.

I note that George did not want to be caught like this again, and moved
National Guard units from Richmond, Virginia and somewhere in Maryland
to be closer to the Carolinas "just in case" this time.

Hmmmmm,
Rs~

* To join/leave the list, search archives, change list settings, *
* etc., please visit http://raven.utc.edu/archives/hp3000-l.html *