"There is a vast difference between helping someone recover from a natural disaster, and "helping" someone pay for things they otherwise could not afford."
I don't disagree, but the problem in my mind comes in when you try to define "disaster".
If a tree falls on my house and my property is ruined, but my neighbors are not affected, is that a disaster?
If not, why? Aren't I just as bad off regardless if the rest of the town is underwater or not?
Where do we draw a line between a personal misfortune and a natural disaster necessitating federal taxes be allocated for "relief" efforts?
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.