- Sep 27, 2012
- 92,112
- 53,727
- 2,605
I underatand helping, im just saying they need to amend the constitution.What does that have to do with the fed gov not having authority to relieve regional and local populations?The fed gov cant hand out tax money to regional and local disasters. There is nothing in the constitution that gives them that power.It isnt socialism but it is unconstitutional
Flood relief is unconstitutional? In this era of appeasing the king's emergency declarations I dunno.
It sounds like we're both against the repeated flood bailouts so we're splitting the hairs of diction though.
Back in the 1800s, savannah georgia had a horrible fire that wiped out most of the city. The fed gov told them no. they didnt have that power. Of course, they do just about whatever they want now. All they have to do is get their political activists appointed by congresss.
OK, so Congress didn't do something in the past. They allowed slavery. When it was outlawed, that changing something that they allowed in the past, correct? Is that a good thing or a bad thing?
My point in bringing that up was that sometimes washington does something right.
Except in this case, the federal government is doing something right by assisting those impacted by the flooding.
A fire is a little different from a flood. In a few minutes it is over and you start to rebuild. Flooding sometimes takes weeks or months. You do realize most of the moneys from FEMA go to the state and local governments to repair infrastructure damaged by the hurricanes, tornadoes, forest fires, etc. My daughter-in-law's family was wiped out by a tropical storm which flooded an area that had never flooded since the first settlers reached North Carolina. They are still waiting to get back into their home.
We always need to amend it when the fed gov wants to extend its powers.