"Can you really, truly sit there and say because the Consititution doesn't specify a duty for the federal government to provide disaster relief that they shouldn't be providing it? My God, if they can waste money on pork barrel projects, the least they can do is put SOME of my hard-earned money towards doing some good!"
How about an amendment?
Point is that if we don't adhere strictly to our Constitution, then the document and the government it creates are boundless.
By that model, the government can do whatever it wants. That is what I am truly fearful of, and as difficult as it is to take the position I have chosen on this terrible disaster, I believe it to be the only responsible one.
You see, your reply illustrated the relativistic nature by which most Americans view the government. If it does a, then it should also do b. If it spends money on x, then it surely can find money for y.
That is the thinking which has landed us trillions in debt to the bankers who run the Federal Reserve and the Chinese.
I suppose it's safe to say that you don't subscribe to the theory of natural selection...
Anyway, you didn't answer the question. What is a disaster? Only Cat 4 or 5 hurricanes? Tropical Storms?
Are there a certain number of people who need to die or be affected in order for federal tax dollars to be spent?
Where do you draw the line between Hurricane Katrina and the fluke lightning strike which damages only my house?
If you read my reply a little more carefully, you'll see that I already answered your question. A disaster is pretty self-evident. It doesn't require the kind of -I don't know what to call it- that you're engaging in. But to help you out a little...anything that would cause the President to declare a disaster would be one. So whatever criteria is used for that now could be used to justify those expenditures. Oh, wait, isn't it ALREADY done that way? < /sarcasm.
My attitude isn't relativistic at all, imo. Personally, I would do away with the vast majority of the crap our tax dollars go to, in order to free up those monies for things like this. I am not okay with wasteful spending, and I wouldn't use it to justify spending on something important. I'm saying that the money SHOULD be spent in this manner (disaster relief), RATHER THAN some Senator's latest pet project. Hope that clarifies my position, since my choice of words there didn't convey it correctly.
If it takes an Amendement to codify what is already done, I'll go for it. At least then you would have no excuses to deny folks needed emergency aid. You'd be standing there stark naked with your attitude in full display.
Unless, of course, your only objection to federal disaster aid is the fact that it's not strictly spelled out in the Constitution.