Results 1 to 4 of 4
  1. #1
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    San Diego, CA
    Posts
    7,396
    Thanks (Given)
    11
    Thanks (Received)
    1501
    Likes (Given)
    5
    Likes (Received)
    47
    Piss Off (Given)
    0
    Piss Off (Received)
    0
    Mentioned
    7 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    2067948

    Default About spending tax money on storm shelters etc.

    I keep hearing rumors that the Fed Govt will start spending money to prepare states for the next weather disaster, using the horrific disaster over the last few days in Oklahoma as a prod.

    I've already given money to the Red Cross to help with the Oklahoma tonado disaster. If a disaster ever happens to California (earthquake etc.) I'm sure Oklahomans will be just as generous - they've seen their share of such things, even beyond this present ones.

    But about spending Federal money to prepare for the next one, whether in Oklahoma, California,or anywhere else in the country....

    ...sorry, Oklahoma, we can't. There isn't any more money.

    We've already spend ourselves into a half-trillion-plus deficit for just this year alone. And we've been doing it for so long, that we've spent every penny we could hope to earn in the next YEAR. Including food, shelter, all therest, for every citizen in the U.S. We've spent everything we had, and then we've borrowed more than sixteen TRILLION, and spent all of that, too.

    Every man, woman, and child in the country owes $54,000. Adn that's just the debt for what we've already spent. For what we've promised to spend in the future (Social Security, Medicare etc.), the bill is something like three or four times that. And we CAN'T get out of it. We must pay, and pretty soon. BTW, not every man, woman, and child works and earns money here. So a family of four that has one (or maybe two) breadwinners, owes more than $200,000 already. And that's BEFORE the Fed spends even more tomorrow. And the next day. And when you throw in the stuff we've promised to pay in the future (within our lifetimes)... well, you're talking a cool million or more. That EVERY family must pay. And if you feel that "the poor" shouldn't have to pay it, that means YOU have to pay your entire share PLUS THEIRS.

    Sorry, folks. There isn't any more money. Even if we were attacked by some aggressive nation in a full-blown World War, about all we could do is surrender, because we'd run out of fuel, ammo, and even food and uniforms for the troops, to say nothing of warships, planes, jeeps, tanks and everything else we'd need to fight. Maybe we could throw rocks at the enemy, we still have lots of those.

    Well, we aren't QUITE at that stage. But we're awfully close. And we'd have to be insane to move any closer.

    So for anything short of a clear and present threat to our national existence.... sorry, tornado victims. There isn't any more money.

    You Oklahomans will have to build your own storm shelters. And Californians will have to reinforce your buildings against quakes, on your own dime. And folks along the Mississippi, Missoouri, and those other rivers that usually flood if they haven't done so already... better start filling your own sandbags (after paying for them yourselves)... or learn to swim. The Fed govt can't help any more... because they've already spent all the money on other things. There isn't any more.

    Get the message? It doesn't matter how much others might want to help, or how much you deserve to be helped.

    There isn't any more money. And all the deserving or suffering in the world, won't change that fact.

    We're tapped out, and can't help any more, no matter how much we want to. Period.

    Sorry.
    Last edited by Little-Acorn; 05-21-2013 at 11:01 AM.
    "The social contract exists so that everyone doesn’t have to squat in the dust holding a spear to protect his woman and his meat all day every day. It does not exist so that the government can take your spear, your meat, and your woman because it knows better what to do with them." - Instapundit.com

  2. #2
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    23,251
    Thanks (Given)
    7207
    Thanks (Received)
    11746
    Likes (Given)
    1048
    Likes (Received)
    1381
    Piss Off (Given)
    4
    Piss Off (Received)
    0
    Mentioned
    39 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    21475215

    Default

    I hate to change the gist of this thread Little-Acorn. But. I do believe. The Obama administration, based on past experience, and the words of Rahm Emanuel who told Obama "Never let a good crisis go to waste." That those horrific Tornado's in Oklahoma have become the CRISIS...or BLESSING for Obama that they were hoping for as a means of taking the THREE OTHER STORIES off the front page, and out of mind of his MSM.

    I do agree about the usefulness of building storm shelters. BUT...how can they spend money THEY DON'T HAVE?

    With all of the supposed Cuts taking place....according to Obama. How can we afford anything new if they can't pay what we already owe?
    It just makes no sense...AT ALL.
    I love to make Liberals Cry, and Whine.
    So, this is for them.
    GOD BLESS AMERICA - IN GOD WE TRUST !

  3. #3
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Posts
    1,168
    Thanks (Given)
    0
    Thanks (Received)
    0
    Likes (Given)
    0
    Likes (Received)
    0
    Piss Off (Given)
    0
    Piss Off (Received)
    0
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    174358

    Default

    Never let a serious crisis go to waste. -Rahm Emanuel
    Homophobe (n) - a perjorative term invented by homosexual advocates in an attempt to pretend that people with a natural dislike of homosexual relations, are somehow "afraid" of something.

  4. #4
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Posts
    1,168
    Thanks (Given)
    0
    Thanks (Received)
    0
    Likes (Given)
    0
    Likes (Received)
    0
    Piss Off (Given)
    0
    Piss Off (Received)
    0
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    174358

    Default

    Ah, looks like you beat me to it.
    Homophobe (n) - a perjorative term invented by homosexual advocates in an attempt to pretend that people with a natural dislike of homosexual relations, are somehow "afraid" of something.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Debate Policy - Political Forums