Re: Californians fires
 

[ QUOTE ]
Fact: The US Constitution does not authorize the federal govt to seize assets to relieve individual suffering.

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States

[/ QUOTE ]

Please explain how Congress providing tax relief to Californians is not covered by this clause of the Constitution.

Also, please explain how disaster management expenditures (such as FEMA grants, etc.) are not covered under this clause, either.

Re: Californians fires
 

A big difference in this is that for one, not alot of actual infrastructure was damaged. The roads are still fine. San Diego doesn't need to be drained of water. no bridge collapses. Although there was power line damage. So the rebuilding of actual city infrastructure won't be as expensive. Yea, the government does do stupid stuff. I live in Poway which was hit hard by the fires. San Diego County emergency had a map that said I should be evacuated, however Poway's map said I was safe.

Another thing is that the most devastated in Katrina were the poor people. Whereas in San Diego many of the burned residential areas are full of very well off people, such as Rancho Santa Fe. This is an extremely rich area where you probably aren't getting a house for under 3 to 5 mill there.

Re: Californians fires
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Californians are also unfortunate enough to have one of dumbest governors in America

[/ QUOTE ]

Did they replace Arnold with someone? At an IQ of 135, he's not a genius, but calling him dumb is... dumb.

[/ QUOTE ]

I love this argument. If I had time, I would post pages and pages of links to stories to prove the point, but, I must go to work.

Arnold may have a high IQ, but that does not automatically mean he makes smart day to day decisions in ruling the People's Republic of California.


Arnold on Freedom of Speech

Arnold Forcing Gun Companies To Submit

Those two took less than a minute to find.

I'll post more later if needed to prove my point.

-J

[/ QUOTE ]

Microstamping is bad ?????

Getting OG's off the streets is bad???

(I understand microstamping won't get the ganstas's and gangs caught for murder)

But as years roll on and weapons improved and older weapons are phased out it will make a difference in being able to catch murderers.

Re: Californians fires
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States

[/ QUOTE ]

Please explain how Congress providing tax relief to Californians is not covered by this clause of the Constitution.

Also, please explain how disaster management expenditures (such as FEMA grants, etc.) are not covered under this clause, either.

[/ QUOTE ]
The "General Welfare" clause is one of the areas of the Constitution that has been interpreted in a way limiting government power. The relevant Supreme Court precedents have basically neutered this clause for purposes of expanding government power. Of course, this is one area where the libertarians aren't strict constructionists.

Re: Californians fires
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Fact: The US Constitution does not authorize the federal govt to seize assets to relieve individual suffering.

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States

[/ QUOTE ]

Please explain how Congress providing tax relief to Californians is not covered by this clause of the Constitution.

Also, please explain how disaster management expenditures (such as FEMA grants, etc.) are not covered under this clause, either.

[/ QUOTE ]

It might be that seizing assets =/= lay and collecting taxes and duties, since the taxes would be on future economic activity which is different than seizing assets.

Re: Californians fires
 

[ QUOTE ]
It might be that seizing assets =/= lay and collecting taxes and duties, since the taxes would be on future economic activity which is different than seizing assets.

[/ QUOTE ]

...I mean, *I* agree with that, but "seizing assets" is AC code for "taxes" in every other thread in this forum, and if that's not what you meant, nobody's seized any assets.

re: iron: It's true that for freakish historical reasons, nobody bothers with this clause while shoehorning all sorts of random strained facts into the commerce clauses, but the difference is pretty moot when you consider 90% of the shoehorns tend to fit into this clause, anyway.

Re: Californians fires
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Their misfortune is no Constitutional entitlement to my treasure, a long forgotten truth.

[/ QUOTE ]

OK, we know where to place you on he scale of empathy for others.



[/ QUOTE ]

Cite your evidence.

Feelings get a liberal only so far.

Re: Californians fires
 

Sadly, California deals with natural disasters annually between mudslides, earthquakes, fires and other events. They have learned to deal with them as a state should and not the federal government.

Louisiana, for some reason, doesn't or didn't prepare adequately for its own type of disasters, ie hurricanes and flooding and tried to defer much of the effort to an ineffective federal government. At least they managed to show how states can't depend on Fema and other government agencies to bail them out of any emergencies.

Anyhow, the Department of Interior's mismanaged policy of putting out every fire is largely responsible for this disaster. Expect things to get worse as drought combined with decades of fire suppression and the resulting extra fuels will make these types of fires more commonplace.

Re: Californians fires
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
As I watch the news, here, in Australia, my thought go to all those people that have lost their houses and possessions (and some indeed their lives or loved ones lives) in California those past days.

I was disturbed by also being forced to watch President Bush promise (another promisee, another lie) those Californians that they will not be forgotten in Washington and that help was forthcoming.

Assuming that President Bush was not lying, a big ask, I understand, what would make those Californians different from the many from New Orleans that are still waiting, regardless of even the international support and donations that that catastrophe generated?

[/ QUOTE ]

I've got some exciting news for you, your contributions are welcome here:

Bush-Clinton Katrina Fund

I'm happy that you're contributing. As far as feds ignoring people in need of Katrina relief, first time in history that spending $127 billion amounts to ignoring disaster victems plight.

The Big Easy’s Billion Dollar Boondoggle


Here’s a pop quiz: How much money has Uncle Sam spent on New Orleans and the Gulf region since Hurricane Katrina ripped the place apart?

I’ll give you the answer because you’ll never guess it. The grand total is $127 billion (including tax relief).


and

Perhaps all this money should’ve been directly deposited in the bank accounts of the 300,000 people living in New Orleans. All divvied up, that $127 billion would come to $425,000 per person! After thanking Uncle Sam for their sudden windfall, residents could head to Southern California and buy homes that are now on sale thanks to the sub-prime mortgage crisis and bid up the sagging house prices in the state.


[/ QUOTE ]
And yet there are still areas in New Orleans that look like Katrina just hit yesterday.

Re: Californians fires
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
As I watch the news, here, in Australia, my thought go to all those people that have lost their houses and possessions (and some indeed their lives or loved ones lives) in California those past days.

I was disturbed by also being forced to watch President Bush promise (another promisee, another lie) those Californians that they will not be forgotten in Washington and that help was forthcoming.

Assuming that President Bush was not lying, a big ask, I understand, what would make those Californians different from the many from New Orleans that are still waiting, regardless of even the international support and donations that that catastrophe generated?

[/ QUOTE ]

I've got some exciting news for you, your contributions are welcome here:

Bush-Clinton Katrina Fund

I'm happy that you're contributing. As far as feds ignoring people in need of Katrina relief, first time in history that spending $127 billion amounts to ignoring disaster victems plight.

The Big Easy’s Billion Dollar Boondoggle


Here’s a pop quiz: How much money has Uncle Sam spent on New Orleans and the Gulf region since Hurricane Katrina ripped the place apart?

I’ll give you the answer because you’ll never guess it. The grand total is $127 billion (including tax relief).


and

Perhaps all this money should’ve been directly deposited in the bank accounts of the 300,000 people living in New Orleans. All divvied up, that $127 billion would come to $425,000 per person! After thanking Uncle Sam for their sudden windfall, residents could head to Southern California and buy homes that are now on sale thanks to the sub-prime mortgage crisis and bid up the sagging house prices in the state.


[/ QUOTE ]
And yet there are still areas in New Orleans that look like Katrina just hit yesterday.

[/ QUOTE ]

Which is the point of the article more or less. With all the government money spent in the recovery from Katrina in New Orleans the place isn't even close to being rebuilt. Kudlow says this:

So the billion-dollar question becomes: Where did the rest of that money go?

Meanwhile, according to an article by Nicole Gelinas at the Manhattan Institute, New Orleans has earned the distinct honor of becoming the murder capital of the world. The murder rate is 40 percent higher than before Katrina, and twice as high as other dangerous cities like Detroit, Newark, and Washington, D.C.

Think of this: The idea of using federal money to rebuild cities is the quintessential liberal vision. And given the dreadful results in New Orleans, we can say that the government’s $127 billion check represents the quintessential failure of that liberal vision. ...

Remember President Reagan’s line during the 1980 campaign about how LBJ fought a big-government spending war against poverty, and poverty won? Well think of all this Katrina spending as the Great Society Redux. And it failed. I suppose the current Bush administration would like to label this “compassionate conservatism.” But guess what? That failed, too.

Right from the start, New Orleans should have been turned into a tax-free enterprise zone. No income taxes, no corporate taxes, no capital-gains taxes......