Mr. President, "Disaster Relief" Is Not Yours to Give

Peroutka 2004 ^ | 12/30/2004 | Peroutka

[worldclass]

The real issue here is whether such so-called Federally-funded disaster “relief” is Constitutional. And the answer is very clear: No, it is not. There isn’t the slightest Constitutional authority for Federal tax dollars to be spent for disaster “relief.” Thus, any such expenditure of Federal tax dollars for disaster “relief” --- foreign or domestic --- is illegal, unlawful.

[Snoopers-868th]

I am not disagreeing with you at all. I just believe all this struggle going on (everywhere) is not for the benefit of the common person. It is for power and as for our country, world power. The rich wield that power and will continue to do so. Common man is only fodder; has always been and always will be. Without the fodder they are nothing, so they toss us some goodies on occasion and continue on with their reign and herding of the sheep. Sheeple applies to all of us (ignorant or not) since we have little power to influence.

[unbalanced but fair]

Well. since you have previously said that "Fascism best describes the U.S. government;" nothing that you say here astounds me.

[Howlin]

This is one of the oddest threads I have ever seen on FR.

Oh, so you missed the other four or five?

[Zon]

The Constitutional Quarterbacks calling foul on disaster aid are remarkably ignorant of the law, history, and the USC.

Yeah there's so many laws that almost every person breaks the law each year but is ignorant of the fact that they're breaking the law. How is it that people and society increased prosperity for decades without last year's new laws or this year's new laws. How is it that people and society continue to increase prosperity this year with out the laws of the next five years.

Ignorant of the law is how most politicians, bureaucrats and many lawyers want people to be. That's the opposite of what the founding fathers wanted nor intended.

[Howlin]

I don't see that it was posted before.

It's posted on this thread. Among others.

[newfrpr04]

true... but American's didn't get their home replaced for nothing.. They had high insurance deductible, had to get FEMA loans to rebuild, I did not see other countries offering with clean up in Florida or on 9-11. When does the giving stop. We go and bomb Iraq then pay to rebuild better housing and roads for these people. WHAT ABOUT the Swedes, Germans,Russians that spend Millions vacationing their ... where is all the tourism money going that they can't use that to rebuild. I understand giving medical aid and food... do not see why we should rebuilt their countries... when we can't take care of our own. Look at the daily interest rates that are piling up here.

[sheltonmac]

ONE of the reasons for this disaster aid is to keep those areas stable, so that they are not run over by the Islamic terrorists or the Chinese. That is a PRACTICAL reason for this aid. These countries are positioned very strategically, and it is in the US interest to keep them under stable governments.

To whom is this "disaster aid" going, foreign government leaders or the people directly affected by this catastrophe? What assurance do we have that it won't fall into the wrong hands? How are we making sure it's being used properly? Given the federal government's fondness for red tape and bureaucratic BS, how much of the $350 million do you expect to finally filter down to those who need it?

And why do you trust the government over the private sector?

[Miss Marple]

What I felt was grateful to God that I wasn't on a beach in southeast Asia, and grateful for having the means to help.

No one in Asia will know me from Adam when they get the relief aid.

My comment was directed to your emphasis on the importance of allowing people to feel self-esteem by their donations. In my opinion, that is the LEAST important thing, by far.

[Doohickey]

I agree with you. I believe that the nations impacted by the tsunami should receive relief aid - through private charitable orgainizations like the American Red Cross. Americans are always among the first to open their hearts and wallets to those in dire need.

[newfrpr04]

I have the milk duds, choc covered raisians (maybe should be gin soaked)

[Howlin]

I just feel better when it's not around.

So you don't use the interstates, right?

And you should definitely stay off the INTERNET, because they started this, too.

[Sofa King]

I agree with that sentiment.

What bothers me most about this thread is the attitude that government has to do our giving for us.

[HitmanLV]

Then again, the Fed tax code encourages charitable donations by providing a $ 1 for $1 tax deduction for it. So you can't really say that the Feds don't do what they can to encourage charitable donations - in fact, they do.

If $10 were given for every American man/woman/child by individuals for disaster relief, the American people would raise $ 3,000,000,000.

The average family of 4 then would give $40 - it's deductible, so it's pretax money (that is, someone in the 25% fed tax bracket would actually be taking a post-tax hit of only $30 rather than $40).

$30 isn't quite 'nothing,' but it's not abnormally high either. People pay as much (or more) for all sorts of non-essentials and stupid things.

The average guy who goes to a strip club gives $20 to women for 3 minutes of titillation (and like the potato chips, you just can't have only one, you know).

I recently dropped $75 for some software to help me make nicer DVD-videos on my PC. Not essential, not at all, and the tax code didn't impact my decision.

Speaking of DVDs, many folks buy films on DVD routinely, dropping $10-30 a pop. Many rent several DVDs a week, a nice $ 10-15 habit.

Folks drop $10-20 on newspapers and magazines in a week - if they really wanted to, why not just g without for a week or 2 and give the money to where it could do more help?

Taxes are taxes (and inevitable) but they don't really discourage people from doing 1,000s of entirely elective decisions of dubious merit in their lives. Why would they discourage someone from taking an elective action of strong merit?

They don't.

So I don't really buy what you are saying at all. If they really cared that much, the fact that they can't spare $30 doesn't have much to do with the Federal Government's decision to collect taxes from them, in light of the fact that this is, after all, the nation that made it popular to pay $4 for a cup of coffee that really should be closer to 40 cents? Gotta love that Starbucks business model I suppose.

[Earthdweller]

Like I said..jockeying or not..I have to believe the US has good intentions with this charity unlike others countries that are in this. I personally don't see myself as a little guy..just one more ripple in a huge pond. (sorry for being philosophical it's my nature.)

[HitmanLV]

I agree - those calling 'Constitutional Foul' on matters like this genuinely don't know what they are talking about. Thanks.

[Doohickey]

Grab me something too, will you please? It doesn't have to be anything big. If you send it to Sri Lanka, a can of corned beef hash would be good. If Indonesia is the beneficiary of our good will, a can of pork and beans would be great. Thanks!

[myrabach]

I responded to your original post... long before the thread was at 200, the text as follows...

"CAUTION! The following may seem to be heartless, BUT:

I think the disturbed response to the President allotting so many ($350,000,000) hard earned tax dollars to other countries without the approval of US citizens is understandable. We pay taxes to keep the US afloat, NOT THE WORLD. How does the President have that power and
just who is playing God here?

Just a thought."

I hardly think your statement was either God-like or kindly. I neither have the the mind of an ape nor the tongue of an asp... I'm just appalled at the selfishness expressed on this thread and your post seemed to fit the category.

I apologize if I responded too harshley and misunderstood your heart.

Secondly, I voted for President Bush and he represents me. He does not need to seek my approval for every decision he has to make. He has that approval... I gave it to him in the voting booth.

[Nephi]

We didn't need anyone's help. We also didn't have entire cities wiped out and over 100,000 dead.

We also wouldn't withhold tsunami warnings to "protect" our tourism industry. Private charitable giving is constitutional, public charitable giving isn't. Somehow I don't expect that to matter to you.

[HitmanLV]

Yea, but don't overstate it either. The point remains that anyone who seriously argues that Federal mone for disaster aid is somehow unconstitutional doesn't know what they are talking about.

Period.

[carenot]

Thanks.