How come...

[toto2]

The US governement can go to war in Irak , destroy most of it's infrastructure and rebuild it ( with your tax dollars) , but Us citizen have to give to charities to help rebuilt New-Orlean ?

 

[jrydberg]

Because the US government bears no responsibility whatsoever for the destruction caused by a hurricane.

It is debateable how much responsibility the US bears for rebuilding Iraq's infrastructure, but clearly there is at least some responsibility there.

Edited to add: not to mention the billions being spent on helping the Gulf Coast to recover.

 

[Miss Jasmine]

Hmmm well we may learn something more after the President's speech tonight. There have been some rumors about raising taxes to pay for Katrina.

 

[Charade]

The US governement can go to war in Irak , destroy most of it's infrastructure and rebuild it ( with your tax dollars) , but Us citizen have to give to charities to help rebuilt New-Orlean ?

We aren't the ones that are blowing up the infrustucture in Iraq. We may have taken out a bridge or two in the beginning though. A lot of the infrustucture was in disrepair before we got there.

 

[bsnyder]

If the OP meant it as a slam, I didn't take it that way. It is pretty amazing, the generosity of the American private sector in times like this. Although what they are giving will only be a drop in the bucket compared to what the government will spend.

Toto, if you're interested in the answer to your question, read some of Alexis de Tocqueville's Democracy in America.

 

[Lisa loves Pooh]

private donations help people--that's what the relief agencies are for. I always thought that was for the immediate needs following a disaster...not to go and rebuild the infrastructure.

For example--my home burns down....red cross or some other agency will be there to help us get back on our feet--but they won't rebuild the house.

 

[wvrevy]

Hmmm well we may learn something more after the President's speech tonight. There have been some rumors about raising taxes to pay for Katrina.

You don't actually think that THIS president is going to propose actually paying for something, do you ? He's refused to even discuss repealing his tax cuts to the rich in order to pay for Iraq...why on Earth would you think he would do so for Katrina ?

Last I heard, several Republicans were calling for more tax cuts, including the repeal of the Estate Tax. Bush is already a pariah on the left, and polls seem to indicate that the centrists are starting to feel the same way...the only people he has left in his corner are the extreme right. He's not about to alienate them by calling for a tax increase just to actually pay down our country's enormous debt that he's running up.

 

[TiggerPiglet]

private donations help people--that's what the relief agencies are for. I always thought that was for the immediate needs following a disaster...not to go and rebuild the infrastructure.

For example--my home burns down....red cross or some other agency will be there to help us get back on our feet--but they won't rebuild the house.

I agree. I do not think charitable dollars will go to rebuilding the infrastructure, that will come from tax dollars.

 

[peachgirl]

He's not about to alienate them by calling for a tax increase just to actually pay down our country's enormous debt that he's running up.

We can dream, can't we?

 

[Charade]

We can dream, can't we?

Dream for what, a tax increase?

 

[wvrevy]

Dream for what, a tax increase?

I think she was probably saying that we can dream that president frat boy learns that, when you buy things, the money has to come from somewhere. So far, he's shown no hint that he understands that basic concept.

$1 Billion a week for Iraq
$200 Billion (?) for Katrina

Add those up, and I don't think it spells "tax cut for the wealthy". Do you ? 'Cause apparently the Republicans in congress do...

 

[Charade]

I think she was probably saying that we can dream that president frat boy learns that, when you buy things, the money has to come from somewhere. So far, he's shown no hint that he understands that basic concept.

$1 Billion a week for Iraq
$200 Billion (?) for Katrina

Add those up, and I don't think it spells "tax cut for the wealthy". Do you ? 'Cause apparently the Republicans in congress do...

We know how you feel about the wealthy. Punish them for success.

 

[peachgirl]

I think she was probably saying that we can dream that president frat boy learns that, when you buy things, the money has to come from somewhere. So far, he's shown no hint that he understands that basic concept.

$1 Billion a week for Iraq
$200 Billion (?) for Katrina

Add those up, and I don't think it spells "tax cut for the wealthy". Do you ? 'Cause apparently the Republicans in congress do...

Thank you...that's exactly right.

Watching the reaction of the faithful would just be an added bonus.

 

[wvrevy]

We know how you feel about the wealthy. Punish them for success.

Yep...that's it exactly.

It's not about punishment. It's about those that can most afford to help being asked to do more for those that need help the most.

Why is that so hard to understand ? And why is it that Republicans - the supposed party of fiscal restraint - give a pass to this president that has run up larger deficits than any other, and spends worse than any Democrat in 8 years...all while cutting federal revenue to pay for it?

 

[BuckNaked]

Yep...that's it exactly.

It's not about punishment. It's about those that can most afford to help being asked to do more for those that need help the most.

I have no problem with that, to a point. But what is the limit, in your mind? At what point is enough, enough? To me, telling a wage earner "OK, from this point on, 33% of everything you make is going to be taken away and given to someone else" is far enough. Would you be willing to work for 2/3 of your regular salary?

Why is that so hard to understand ? And why is it that Republicans - the supposed party of fiscal restraint - give a pass to this president that has run up larger deficits than any other, and spends worse than any Democrat in 8 years...all while cutting federal revenue to pay for it?

I'm all for cutting domestic spending, and the current spending spree (pre-Katrina) is the big failure of this administration, as far as I'm concerned. But what I don't get is this - you want spending cut, but you want more social spending. How does that work exactly?

 

[Charade]

Yep...that's it exactly.

It's not about punishment. It's about those that can most afford to help being asked to do more for those that need help the most.

Why is that so hard to understand ? And why is it that Republicans - the supposed party of fiscal restraint - give a pass to this president that has run up larger deficits than any other, and spends worse than any Democrat in 8 years...all while cutting federal revenue to pay for it?

The problem is they aren't being asked, they are being forced. If you want to give more than what's taken out on payday, you're more than welcome to but when I'm forced to give more just because someone else thinks I'm not giving enough, I have a problem with that. Why is that so hard to understand?

Hey, I've never endorsed Bush on all of his spending. I think the perscription drug program is a white elephant. That's a really BIG expediture. The problem with healthcare is not finding more ways to pay for the ever rising costs like universal healthcare which just spreads the cost over a wide base, it's finding ways to reduce the costs. My GF was just in the hospital (via the ER) a week or so ago. She was in ONE night and got the bill the other day (she has no insurance). It was $6000!! 1600 for the room, 800 for the ER, 900 for the meds and 700 for a CT scan. IMO, that is OUTRAGEOUS!

 

[bsnyder]

It's not about punishment. It's about those that can most afford to help being asked to do more for those that need help the most.

So how much more are you willing to give, of your wages?

 

[Charade]

So how much more are you willing to give, of your wages?

Not give. Confiscated.

 

[bsnyder]

Not give. Confiscated.

Anyone who's advocating tax increases to help those in need should be willing to state how much of an increase their share will be.

 

[Pugdog007]

So how much more are you willing to give, of your wages?

Wasn't this question posed to Kerry during his campaign? Oh yeah he didn't answer it either. Maybe those that want to pay more just don't know they can? We should educate them! You can, you can!!! Give as much as you want!!! Or is it that you are on the other end of the pipeline and you're a beneficiary of various tax driven social programs? That would make more sense. I pay 28% and I'm not willing to pay a dime more.

Thanks for asking though.