Quote Originally Posted by vita3 View Post
But it's the correct answer, isn't it?

NO. it's not. IMO

Got to ask Are you a robot or human?
I wonder what sort of pensions and life insurance those who died had? A couple bucks a pay check and if I am tragically killed on the job, my family is set.

I get it. It is an emotional issue.

So are hurricanes, earthquakes, floods, tornadoes, forest fires, plane crashes and the like. It is heartbreaking how cruel the world can be.

But what level of tragedy is necessary to financially compensate those who were maimed or killed? And in perpetuity no less with no real budget estimations.

Obviously you do not have to be a robot to draw the line somewhere.

In my opinion, it ought not be drawn where the government is granted the authority to steal or borrow from future generations to pay for things today. After all, it is naive to think there won't be future tragedies. Future tragedies which will not receive the response needed due to that generation being burdened with prior generational debt.

Also consider that there will be a costly bureaucracy built behind these funds. It may be 50/50 with half going to those in need and the other half being squandered by administrative ineffectiveness. It may be more. It isn't just that it is immoral for the government to steal (even in the name of charity) it is that they are also the most inefficient and corrupt group of people to be put in charge of the money. They will be taken by fraudsters and much will be spent on a whole lot of nothing.

Americans are a generous people. Four hundred and ten billion dollars generous and that is after being taken from to the tune of 20-50 percent. Let charity work. The government isn't the answer.... whether the question is disaster relief, AIDS research, or 9/11 victim funds.