Bush has gone totally daft...

[vidcc]

"Any houses built with our tax dollars should remain the property of the government and either rented out or sold at full market value so we can recoup the money spent. I do not believe that we should build homes and hand them over as a gift."

So you think your Government should rebuild the city, but charge the victims for their new homes.

So you think that they should live there for free?

A city isn't just homes. The feds should be rebuilding the infrastructure so that it is safe to habit. Some of the houses destroyed may have been public housing, do you think the previous tenants should be rent free from now on?
All other houses were privately owned, this includes the privately rented houses. Insurance companies carry the responsibility to rebuild these even though they are trying to worm out. Anyone without insurance that has their property rebuilt by the government should either pay rent (at a reasonable rate) or pay for the rebuild (over a period of time like a loan) That said it would be fair to just charge the rebuild cost and not market value as I said before as it was government failing that left the flood defences so weak.
If you knowingly settle in a place that has a certainty of damage then you have to take responsibility for that choice.


my social ethic (generally) is that we help the needy to help themselves, not let them be parasites. There are those that can't help themselves and I believe we have a duty to look after them.

[Rat Faced]

who do go to when you have problems?

Rat wants you to go to a bidding bizarre and stand in line, apparently.

No, i gave you a reference to stop your confusion over the Haliburton reference supplied by Clocker.

However, when a company is being investigated for stealing $billions from the Taxpayer, then it is inappropriate to keep hiring them with tax dollars.

I would have thought your own Conservative views would have supported my more Liberal ones on something like that

[j2k4]

my social ethic (generally) is that we help the needy to help themselves, not let them be parasites. There are those that can't help themselves and I believe we have a duty to look after them.

Finally-

Evidence my presence here is having an effect, muted though it may be...

[JPaul]

It is the Federal Government as General Contractor.

The American taxpayer is merely the reluctant client, and the citizens of the afflicted area the soon-to-be long-suffering beneficiaries.

Give me a private contractor any fucking day...

I would change that slightly.

The citizens would be clients, rather than beneficiaries, if they are having to pay for whatever they get. (Or is that just vid's preference).

The American taxpayer would be the "backer" supplying the funds for the project.

I have to say tho', I find the idea of re-building the city bizarre. FFS people it's a dangerous place, build somewhere else .... on higher ground.

[vidcc]

my social ethic (generally) is that we help the needy to help themselves, not let them be parasites. There are those that can't help themselves and I believe we have a duty to look after them.

Finally-

Evidence my presence here is having an effect, muted though it may be...

you have not had any effect on my social ethics..... perhaps my post has changed your mistaken view of what my social ethics are.

[JPaul]

"Any houses built with our tax dollars should remain the property of the government and either rented out or sold at full market value so we can recoup the money spent. I do not believe that we should build homes and hand them over as a gift."

So you think your Government should rebuild the city, but charge the victims for their new homes.

So you think that they should live there for free?

A city isn't just homes. The feds should be rebuilding the infrastructure so that it is safe to habit. Some of the houses destroyed may have been public housing, do you think the previous tenants should be rent free from now on?
All other houses were privately owned, this includes the privately rented houses. Insurance companies carry the responsibility to rebuild these even though they are trying to worm out. Anyone without insurance that has their property rebuilt by the government should either pay rent (at a reasonable rate) or pay for the rebuild (over a period of time like a loan) That said it would be fair to just charge the rebuild cost and not market value as I said before as it was government failing that left the flood defences so weak.
If you knowingly settle in a place that has a certainty of damage then you have to take responsibility for that choice.


my social ethic (generally) is that we help the needy to help themselves, not let them be parasites. There are those that can't help themselves and I believe we have a duty to look after them.

If people were paying rent before then they would continue to pay rent, why would it become free when the house is re-built. That makes no sense.

Do you think that, if you help people in a foreign country to rebuild their homes after a natural disaster, then that "aid" should be repaid, by the individuals who got their home rebuilt.

I am genuinely interested, as I find it a strange position to take.

[Rat Faced]

Tsk...

The Foreign Government is supposed to buy the equivalent value of Arms from the US, for which a federal loan will be arranged... surely you jest in your question here.

[vidcc]

If people were paying rent before then they would continue to pay rent, why would it become free when the house is re-built. That makes no sense.

your original question wasn't limited to rental homes. I covered rental and private in the answer.

Do you think that, if you help people in a foreign country to rebuild their homes after a natural disaster, then that "aid" should be repaid, by the individuals who got their home rebuilt.

Any. Recompense be it monetary, trade, services or good will is between the government of that land and the government of the land providing the help.

[JPaul]

Do you think that, if you help people in a foreign country to rebuild their homes after a natural disaster, then that "aid" should be repaid, by the individuals who got their home rebuilt.

Any. Recompense be it monetary, trade, services or good will is between the government of that land and the government of the land providing the help.

Sorry I don't understand you answer.

Should "aid" payments be treated as loans between your country and the recipient country.

[vidcc]

Any. Recompense be it monetary, trade, services or good will is between the government of that land and the government of the land providing the help.

Sorry I don't understand you answer.

Should "aid" payments be treated as loans between your country and the recipient country.

That is up to the two governments concerned as is the method of repayment (if any). I don't see why it should automatically be treated as a gift nor do I see why it it should automatically be treated as a loan.
Humanitarian emergency aid should never have strings attached and it would be pretty low to demand anything in return.