Traveler Posted September 23, 2005 Report Posted September 23, 2005 Washington has committed to rebuild New Orleans to the tune of 200 Billon dollars. From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. There are (were) 188,251 households in New Orleans. That means that the government will spend on average $1,062,411 for every household in New Orleans. Of course these government dollars do not include private insurance or private contributions. My question only concerns the government dollars. Will the government dollars be a “redistribution” of wealth or will it be a matter of the rich getting richer and the poor getting poorer – not just for New Orleans but the country in general? The Traveler Quote
Guest Member_Deleted Posted September 23, 2005 Report Posted September 23, 2005 Originally posted by Traveler@Sep 23 2005, 08:59 AMWashington has committed to rebuild New Orleans to the tune of 200 Billon dollars. From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. There are (were) 188,251 households in New Orleans. That means that the government will spend on average $1,062,411 for every household in New Orleans.Of course these government dollars do not include private insurance or private contributions. My question only concerns the government dollars. Will the government dollars be a “redistribution” of wealth or will it be a matter of the rich getting richer and the poor getting poorer – not just for New Orleans but the country in general?The Traveler←A million per house hold... gosh I wish I lived in ORleans.... Isn't that excessive?It is a republican thing to embellish the rich and kick the poor... isn't it?? Quote
Fiannan Posted September 23, 2005 Report Posted September 23, 2005 This is what happens when people's emotions over-rule their cognitive abilities. Why should the feds rebuild a house flooded in New Orleans but not a house that burns down in a California wildfire (many the result of federal environmental laws I might add). Quote
Guest Member_Deleted Posted September 23, 2005 Report Posted September 23, 2005 Originally posted by Fiannan@Sep 23 2005, 12:43 PMThis is what happens when people's emotions over-rule their cognitive abilities. Why should the feds rebuild a house flooded in New Orleans but not a house that burns down in a California wildfire (many the result of federal environmental laws I might add).←Yeah... why not across the board kind of thing.... it really bugs me... that they can't get it right... and we are paying for it... Quote
pushka Posted September 23, 2005 Report Posted September 23, 2005 I agree that they should pay out to families across the board... A better idea might be to reconsider rebuilding at all, in any areas which are high risk...why would people want to live in such hazardous places ever again?!!! Quote
Traveler Posted September 23, 2005 Author Report Posted September 23, 2005 As some of you may have guessed I am rather cynical when it comes to government or political parties. I have learned that the following really means: 1. Welfare reform = Taxes will increase, government bureaucracy will increase and the amount of dollars reaching the poor will decrease. 2. Government assistance = Taxes will increase, government bureaucracy will increase, money reaching the people that need it will decrease and the political parties in power will pay off their "fat cats". 3. Federal emergency relief = Taxes will increase, government bureaucracy will increase, money reaching the people that need it will decrease and the political parties in power will pay off their "fat cats". 4. Government grants = Taxes will increase, government bureaucracy will increase, money reaching the people that need it will decrease and the political parties in power will pay off their "fat cats". In general any government social program means = Taxes will increase, government bureaucracy will increase, money and services reaching the people that need it will decrease and the political parties in power will pay off their "fat cats". The Traveler Quote
pushka Posted September 23, 2005 Report Posted September 23, 2005 Do you have any alternatives to suggest using Traveller? Quote
Guest Member_Deleted Posted September 24, 2005 Report Posted September 24, 2005 Originally posted by pushka@Sep 23 2005, 03:00 PMI agree that they should pay out to families across the board...A better idea might be to reconsider rebuilding at all, in any areas which are high risk...why would people want to live in such hazardous places ever again?!!!←I soooo agree again!!! They should be given money on the premise of moving to safer localities... not rebuilding in the same drainage ponds over and over again.. Quote
Guest Member_Deleted Posted September 24, 2005 Report Posted September 24, 2005 Originally posted by Traveler@Sep 23 2005, 03:58 PMAs some of you may have guessed I am rather cynical when it comes to government or political parties. I have learned that the following really means:1. Welfare reform = Taxes will increase, government bureaucracy will increase and the amount of dollars reaching the poor will decrease.2. Government assistance = Taxes will increase, government bureaucracy will increase, money reaching the people that need it will decrease and the political parties in power will pay off their "fat cats".3. Federal emergency relief = Taxes will increase, government bureaucracy will increase, money reaching the people that need it will decrease and the political parties in power will pay off their "fat cats".4. Government grants = Taxes will increase, government bureaucracy will increase, money reaching the people that need it will decrease and the political parties in power will pay off their "fat cats".In general any government social program means = Taxes will increase, government bureaucracy will increase, money and services reaching the people that need it will decrease and the political parties in power will pay off their "fat cats".The Traveler←You have nailed it....I think the only thing that will ever change it is .... a total reform of government by honest men... but that won't happen until Christ reigns... Quote
Laureltree Posted September 24, 2005 Report Posted September 24, 2005 Why don't they deduct the money that came up missing from the budget to prepare for the storm and then we will help them! It's nice to see there senator and govenor letting everyone else pick up the pieces Quote
Guest Member_Deleted Posted September 24, 2005 Report Posted September 24, 2005 Originally posted by Laureltree@Sep 23 2005, 07:08 PMWhy don't they deduct the money that came up missing from the budget to prepare for the storm and then we will help them! It's nice to see there senator and govenor letting everyone else pick up the pieces←It really is stupid isn't it? Quote
Traveler Posted September 24, 2005 Author Report Posted September 24, 2005 Originally posted by pushka@Sep 23 2005, 04:02 PMDo you have any alternatives to suggest using Traveller?←Abolish all social program for the mentally and physically fit and install negative income tax.The Traveler Quote
Guest Member_Deleted Posted September 24, 2005 Report Posted September 24, 2005 Originally posted by Traveler+Sep 23 2005, 09:49 PM--><!--QuoteBegin-pushka@Sep 23 2005, 04:02 PMDo you have any alternatives to suggest using Traveller?←Abolish all social program for the mentally and physically fit and install negative income tax.The Traveler←What is a negative income tax? Quote
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.