Do we offer relief to PROPERTY or to PEOPLE?

[TahitiNut]

First, I apologize for starting a redundant (spin-off) thread on this topic, but it seems we're using Republican memes to discuss a disaster that harmed people, not property. Property cannot be harmed, only damaged; it is people who can be harmed. As (so-called) liberals, we're supposed to be about people first, not property. New Orleans, and other towns and cities, are people and it is to those people we must offer relief and assistance. I'm not at all interested in providing subsidies and assistance to someone not harmed by that disaster merely because they now see an opportunity to gain economically by building or rebuilding something in a disaster area. When we focus on what instead of who was harmed, this will be the result.

I'm not at all concerned about over-compensating impoverished people and have no desire to waste taxpayer money to avoid this. I am concerned about over-compensating profiteers who feed at any trough of taxpayer money they can find. I doubt that anyone would rush to be made homeless by a hurricane in the expectation they'd gain a few hundred dollars more in relief than they lost in that disaster. After all, how can anyone see a few hundred dollars as worth their while in wading in shit-filled waters and being torn away from neighbors and family? I'm far more concerned about wasting millions to 'compensate' Carnival Cruise Lines for costs they never incurred, or billions to 'compensate' organizations for services they never delivered to a single victim.

I'm not interested in "rebuilding New Orleans" (or Waveland or Biloxi) and leave that to whomever wishes to live there or do business there. I am, however, interested in providing relief and assistance to those who built those communities and lost their homes and livelihoods. If they decide to use that relief and assistance to again build those communities, so be it.

Insofar as corporations are concerned, however, I regard their losses as a "cost of doing business." Just as their corporate boundaries are constructed to limit their liabilities for their behavior to just the corporation itself, so are those boundaries impermeable to any public assistance for such losses. To them, I say, "tough luck!"

[MountainLaurel]

1. Do you mean "should we", "are we", or "we are going to . . . "

"Just because that's how this fucking country operates."

Because I concur that the focus needs to be on people. However, because in a legal decision 100 years ago corporations were given the same rights as "individuals," I am sad to say that corps will no doubt be given priority over living, hurting human beings.

:cry:

[TahitiNut]

3. I'm trying to focus on the way we frame the questions.

I think we must be aware that our very ways of thinking are affected by the language we use and the language we hear and read. When I read Subjects on DU like "Should we rebuild New Orleans" I'm frustrated that we're using the language of property 'rights,' not the language of human rights.

If we focus SOLELY on providing our generous support and assistance to the human beings whose homes and livelihoods were damaged or destroyed by this catastrophe, then "New Orleans" will take care of itself.

No matter where those people have had to flee and no matter where they decide to live tomorrow or next year, it is the harm to THEM that I'm interested in ameliorating.

[G_j]

2. missed the lead in to this but

you are so right!
I fear that we are losing our grasp on the fundamental convictions to the welfare of the people, who also happen to be (light bulb) us.
When property is elevated above people, then it becomes obvious that "life is cheap".

[TahitiNut]

4. (sigh)

Too esoteric?