Are we really THIS capitalist?

[almaty 19]

Thankfully, the US State Department decided to not charge the Americans being evaucated.

Yeah, they'll just charge the Americans who weren't...

well, I'm paying for a whole frigging war I don't agree with either...so...I guess that's just the breaks, huh?

soooooooooooooo true..and paying to make all the chopf##ks at halliburton richer too

LOL I wonder if the state dept issues advisories for certain 'neighborhoods' in the suburbs of Paris or Toronto. They sure do deserve it.

heard there was one for parts of new jersey arijit.,..

[Melo 1]

Thankfully, the US State Department decided to not charge the Americans being evaucated.

Yeah, they'll just charge the Americans who weren't...

Melo, I in no way implied btw that they shouldn't be evacuated if they can't pay..of course they should be. But I look at it like a county hospital...you pay back in small amounts....

Well I just think that the USA is very diferent from Europe and Great Britain in this regard. Even India is getting its nationals out... they have 4 ships waiting for permission to dock and get the Indian nationas out of there. There is no debate about whether people should be charged in the UK/Europe... certainly if my country decided they wanted money to evacuate people I would be utterly disgusted. But as long as we have socialist leanings that won't happen in a hurry - though if Tony B Liar spends more time lying in bed with Bush that could change perhaps!!!

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

LOL I wonder if the state dept issues advisories for certain 'neighborhoods' in the suburbs of Paris or Toronto. They sure do deserve it.

heard there was one for parts of new jersey arijit.,..

[Fandango 1,440]

Using the war as justification for more spending write offs doesn't really hold water, imo. It's skewered logic...

As Spark of Creation was saying, there is travel insurance that is available & was opted out of. As John_and_Marlene has said, there has been a travel advisory in place for Lebanon. Now if I buy a house for cash on the side of a well known mudslide area & refused to take out insurance....(a mortgage would require insurance which is why I differentiated)...should the gov't buy me a new house? Then I can say 'well, we're spending on a war, so why not buy me a house? What's the real bottom line figure in comparison to this war?' Yes, I realise it's not an exact parallel, but I feel it's close enough to illustrate my POV.

Again, I'm certainly not advocating NOT evacuating Americans.....I hope and pray for all Americans to return safely & actually pray for allhuman beings that this end ASAP......but I see nothing wrong with a promissory note for the evacuees. It's called taking responsibility. In a perfect world, we wouldn't have to deal with this chit, but at the end of the day, someone has to pay for it.

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

Using the war as justification for more spending write offs doesn't really hold water, imo. It's skewered logic...

As Spark of Creation was saying, there is travel insurance that is available & was opted out of. As John_and_Marlene has said, there has been a travel advisory in place for Lebanon. Now if I buy a house for cash on the side of a well known mudslide area & refused to take out insurance....(a mortgage would require insurance which is why I differentiated)...should the gov't buy me a new house? Then I can say 'well, we're spending on a war, so why not buy me a house? What's the real bottom line figure in comparison to this war?' Yes, I realise it's not an exact parallel, but I feel it's close enough to illustrate my POV.

Again, I'm certainly not advocating NOT evacuating Americans.....I hope and pray for all Americans to return safely & actually pray for allhuman beings that this end ASAP......but I see nothing wrong with a promissory note for the evacuees. It's called taking responsibility. In a perfect world, we wouldn't have to deal with this chit, but at the end of the day, someone has to pay for it.

Lisa,

I must say... you've convinced me

[mercuryroad 0]

Using the war as justification for more spending write offs doesn't really hold water, imo. It's skewered logic...

As Spark of Creation was saying, there is travel insurance that is available & was opted out of. As John_and_Marlene has said, there has been a travel advisory in place for Lebanon. Now if I buy a house for cash on the side of a well known mudslide area & refused to take out insurance....(a mortgage would require insurance which is why I differentiated)...should the gov't buy me a new house? Then I can say 'well, we're spending on a war, so why not buy me a house? What's the real bottom line figure in comparison to this war?' Yes, I realise it's not an exact parallel, but I feel it's close enough to illustrate my POV.

Again, I'm certainly not advocating NOT evacuating Americans.....I hope and pray for all Americans to return safely & actually pray for allhuman beings that this end ASAP......but I see nothing wrong with a promissory note for the evacuees. It's called taking responsibility. In a perfect world, we wouldn't have to deal with this chit, but at the end of the day, someone has to pay for it.

So....if San Fran was hit by an earthquake and the government had to go in and rescue them....should we charge those people for that service? They knew they lived in an earth quake prone area.

[ceriserose 1]

I'd just like to point out that Canada has been affectionately called the 51st state for several decades now. So all those other countries named will simply have to start vying for the 52nd position.

[hockeygal 0]

When I read that Canada was chartering cruise ships to go get the 20,000+ Canadians in Lebanon out, I thought - great! The government should be arranging for safe passage out of Lebanon for its citizens. Of course, I assumed they would be paying for their passage somehow, at some point.

And I don't think it is wrong of me to expect that. As someone already noted, if you can afford to travel to Lebanon you can afford to travel back. Get on the ship, get home, settle up somehow later. This is traumatic for everyone involved and I would not expect them to be taking Visa at the gate, but if I were someone being rescued, I can tell you I would be HAPPY to pay something when I got safely back home.

edited to add - if they aren't charged and it is lumped into the "already paid in taxes" category, I won't be outraged or anything.

Edited July 19, 2006 by hockeygal

[VivaMexico 0]

So....if San Fran was hit by an earthquake and the government had to go in and rescue them....should we charge those people for that service? They knew they lived in an earth quake prone area.

Not sure if the argument can apply to natural disasters. Apples and oranges. But Lisa D's underlying argument is still an interesting one. People have to take responsibility for the risk that they put themselves in. That is why the State Dept. issues travel warnings. If i decide to go hiking in rebel-controlled mountains in Colombia and get kidnapped, should the U.S. taxpayers have to pay for my rescue?

[Fandango 1,440]

Using the war as justification for more spending write offs doesn't really hold water, imo. It's skewered logic...

As Spark of Creation was saying, there is travel insurance that is available & was opted out of. As John_and_Marlene has said, there has been a travel advisory in place for Lebanon. Now if I buy a house for cash on the side of a well known mudslide area & refused to take out insurance....(a mortgage would require insurance which is why I differentiated)...should the gov't buy me a new house? Then I can say 'well, we're spending on a war, so why not buy me a house? What's the real bottom line figure in comparison to this war?' Yes, I realise it's not an exact parallel, but I feel it's close enough to illustrate my POV.

Again, I'm certainly not advocating NOT evacuating Americans.....I hope and pray for all Americans to return safely & actually pray for allhuman beings that this end ASAP......but I see nothing wrong with a promissory note for the evacuees. It's called taking responsibility. In a perfect world, we wouldn't have to deal with this chit, but at the end of the day, someone has to pay for it.

So....if San Fran was hit by an earthquake and the government had to go in and rescue them....should we charge those people for that service? They knew they lived in an earth quake prone area.

You know, I took that on board early on into the conversation because I do feel that's quite a valid argument....but after much thinking on the situation, I feel that if there was an official warning equal to the severity of a travel advisory...until then, I'd have to say that it's a different argument.

Lookit, anyone in this country could need emergency services ie ambulance services. That person's life may be on the line & it's a matter of life or death. And you will call the ambulance & they will come rescue you. But you'll get a bill in the mail, that's for sure.

If someone wants to go surfing & they're told....DON'T GO OUT THERE IT'S DANGEROUS...well where's the responsibility lay when that person ignores the warnings and goes anyway?

As I said earlier in this thread, I am a bit torn with this debate as both sides put forth good arguments. But I feel more strongly on this side of the fence. It's not a perfect world, and it 's a horrible horrible tragedy that this is even happening & also sucks so bad that the question of money has to come into it. But at the end of the day, someone DOES have to pay for it. It's just the bottom line. There are budgets. So we don't charge evacuees for this and either taxes will be raised *speaking very generally here* or some program earmarked for money is cut (like soldiers going into battle without the appropriate protection maybe) We can't just go print off more money. It has to come from somewhere!

Edited July 19, 2006 by LisaD

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

So....if San Fran was hit by an earthquake and the government had to go in and rescue them....should we charge those people for that service? They knew they lived in an earth quake prone area.

Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but the Federal government and the states have an understanding of who shoulders what cost in a situatoin like that. I am reasonably certain that the Feds do charge the states for some costs. The US has no such 'deal' in place with the sovereign nation of Lebanon so the cost must fall on the citizens.

Maybe the citizens states of residence can compensate?

[mercuryroad 0]

So....if San Fran was hit by an earthquake and the government had to go in and rescue them....should we charge those people for that service? They knew they lived in an earth quake prone area.

Not sure if the argument can apply to natural disasters. Apples and oranges. But Lisa D's underlying argument is still an interesting one. People have to take responsibility for the risk that they put themselves in. That is why the State Dept. issues travel warnings. If i decide to go hiking in rebel-controlled mountains in Colombia and get kidnapped, should the U.S. taxpayers have to pay for my rescue?

It isn't apples and oranges to me.

People are residing in a high risk place via their own choice. Inevitably, the high risk comes to pass and the government steps in to assist it's citizens.

I agree she has an interesting argument.

[Sister Fracas 5]

but I see nothing wrong with a promissory note for the evacuees. It's called taking responsibility. In a perfect world, we wouldn't have to deal with this chit, but at the end of the day, someone has to pay for it.

and I guess it's moot anyway...since they won't be paying, huh?

[Fandango 1,440]

but I see nothing wrong with a promissory note for the evacuees. It's called taking responsibility. In a perfect world, we wouldn't have to deal with this chit, but at the end of the day, someone has to pay for it.

and I guess it's moot anyway...since they won't be paying, huh?

Is this the 'nanny nanny boo boo' equivalent ?

[Peter Miami 0]

Ok just a few quick comments ( I don't think they should have to pay to be evacuated btw).

Numero uno: 25,000 Americans are in Lebanon partially because of the fact there is a large branch of American University (the main campus is in DC) in Beiruit - I would say that would constitute a few thousand. There are also quite a few others who came to the US after the last war in Lebanon as refugees. There are not 25,000 that live there full-time. Many are temporary visitors, students etc..

2) If all of the countries with travel warnings were listed it would be a long list - mostly leaving Western Europe as the "safe" places to be. Maybe Canada too....

3) Soooo Peter - if you were visiting your wife's family in Columbia and some big clash erupted (as you are well aware I'm sure Columbia does have travel warnings and is not considered the safest place) you would be considered stupid by your definition. I'm not trying to start anything with you I just think it's kind of an unfair judgement for you to pass even though you are entitled to an opinion.

Colombia is not a safe place to live or take a vacation too. If I moved there and decided to live there. The U.S. Citizens that pay taxes should not pay to get me out.

I should know the risk and take the responsibility upon myself. The U.S. government has enough “problems” and “debt” to worry about every single bad decisions made by each U.S. citizen.

Do you understand that the U.S. government can not pay for every U.S. citizen that is abroad?

This does not mean we do not take care of our U.S. citizen here and then help U.S. citizen outside the U.S. than are living a more stable country and or natural disasters area.

Peter Miami