Cohousing-L Mailing List: Re: Grace's yadda yadda

[Elizabeth Stevenson (tamgoddess]

This is so bloody off topic. Is ANYBODY else getting annoyed with this, or
am I just being cranky?


-- 
Liz Stevenson
Southside Park Cohousing
Sacramento California

http://members.home.net/southsideparkcohousing/
tamgoddess [at] home.com

> --------------------  FORWARDED MESSAGE FOLLOWS --------------------
> 
> A few comments from a fellow lurker
> .
> <You know all this fund raising in connection to the WTC attacks?  I think it
> ridiculous.  Just plain stupid.  What is the money for?  I mean, really what
> is it for, how much is needed?  And why aren't the well-established disaster
> relief funds- and insurance policies- ready to pony up?  Why on earth has
> there been more than 300 million dollars collected when the problems being
> faced are problems money can't fix!?! >  and
> <I think this is a patenetly stupid reason to
> wave the flag and shake the bucket- but I just can't pass up an opportunity
> to give.  Catholic Relief Services, and the Red Cross, and the United Way
> could always use the money- they do great things and I'm delighted to
> support them- even if they're asking for (what I feel is) a ridiculous
> reason.>
> 
> Why is it "stupid" and "ridiculous" to give money for, say, the uninsured
> family of the carpenter or busboy or delivery person who just happened to be
> working in the WTC that day? How far do you think 300 million goes, divided by
> about 6000 families? (Hint: about $50,000. Not very far. It would get a family
> through maybe six months' living expenses in NY and enough therapy to maybe be
> able to think about the rest of their lives.) Money won't bring back spouses
> and parents, but it will pay the bills until the survivors can function again.
> 
> <because each one of us matters and should have our needs met on principle.>
> 
> I'm reminded of Lucinda Williams' Passionate Kisses song - charming until you
> listen to her incessant list of "needs." People in this country are so spoiled
> by advertising and affluence that they have forgotten the difference between
> needs and wants. I don't think anybody should have their wants met on
> principle.
> 
> <It takes far more resources to raise two chilren in Manhattan (or LA, or San
> Francisco, or Chicago, or insert metro area/suburb of metro area here) than
> it does to raise eight in Appalachia.  The Appalachian family should not
> necessarily be taxed more for having more kids.  Like many things, there is
> no simple formula for taxation.>
> 
> But Molly et al. were talking about PROPERTY taxes, which are not the same in
> Manhattan and Appalachia, which is presumably why your 8-kid family is living
> somewhere with more affordable taxes. And no-kid Molly can live on Vermont
> acreage. Specious argument. And real taxation formulae are hardly simple.


_______________________________________________
Cohousing-L mailing list
Cohousing-L [at] cohousing.org  Unsubscribe  and other info:
http://www.communityforum.net/mailman/listinfo/cohousing-l