I'm debating the issue and illustrating my point with some satire.
It's your problem if you cannot have your ideas challenged or your opinion of President Bush questioned.
Either way, the issue has nothing to do with how wealthy we are as a nation, because as a matter of fact, the United States government is the biggest debtor in the world.
We have a negative net worth as a country, thanks to politicians like George Bush who think it is the role of government to redistribute the wealth of the people according to the tenets of Karl Marx.
You shouldn’t because it is obvious you do not understand satire. Satire is used to mock and ridicule those whose position you do not agree, and to amuse those that agree with your point, and last, to convert those with no opinion .
It's your problem if you cannot have your ideas challenged or your opinion of President Bush questioned.
Calling President Bush “King George” wows them over at DU, but immediately subtracts any validity your argument may have had, here on FreeRepublic.
We have a negative net worth as a country, thanks to politicians like George Bush who think it is the role of government to redistribute the wealth of the people according to the tenets of Karl Marx.
Now we get to the meat of your argument. You have pointed out a problem, the federal government is spending too much money. In this case on disaster relief. Besides saying they should not do so, what is your real world solution?
Do you have one?
I don’t think so, because you have not pointed out the reason why it is the way it is. I think I know the reason, and I think I know the solution. But, in the real world, that train has left the station. It would take a constitutional amendment to solve this problem, but those in power would not allow it to occur.
So, while I may agree in theory with your general views (the government should not be in the welfare business), in the real world I do not object to providing aid to our fellow citizens in time of natural disaster.