Get Foreign Nations off Welfare

Published on December 29, 2004 By Gideon MacLeish In Politics

India and many other countries just hit the lottery.

In addition to being able to conveniently rid themselves of many of their homeless, they are getting a bonus check from the US government this year for the tsunami disaster.

OK, folks, it seems to have trouble sinking in: GOVERNMENT MONEY means YOUR TAX DOLLARS AND MINE get to be spent taking care of India's problems, as usual.

But added to that is the UN's criticism that the aid is "stingy". Apparently, they won't be happy until the standard of the US poor is equal to or greater than that of poor countries such as India. We already contribute a great deal of aid to India, and we are a country that is hemmhorraging cash. If our country were a private business, we would be seriously looking at bankruptcy protection, and several of our leaders would be looking at serious prison time (and those people aren't confined to one party or the other).

And yet, our contribution is mocked as "stingy", when it remains $35 million more than I consider appropriate.

If Bill Gates wants to contribute money for the disaster, fine. If private humanitarian groups want to put out a bucket, hey, I'll even toss in a buck or two. I'm not without compassion. But I still feel very firmly that the contributions towards India's rebuilding should be committed VOLUNTARILY, and not through government strong arming that will lead towards increased taxes or increased debt. If Bush wants to commit $35 million, he should pull that out of his personal holdings, not the US Treasury.

Comments (Page 2)

Lee1776

on Dec 30, 2004

In case you hadn't noticed, the subject of this thread has to do with how lucky these countries are that they have taken part in one of the worst natural disasters of the last century. The one off topic is you. You want to defend how these countries "won the lottery" using the abhorrent term used by this thread's author, go ahead.

Since you only like to read first lines, believe what you want. As I read GM's post I've noticed it reads much like a news paper i.e. grab their attention with the head line then open up with the meat of the issue.

OK, folks, it seems to have trouble sinking in: GOVERNMENT MONEY means YOUR TAX DOLLARS AND MINE get to be spent taking care of India's problems, as usual.

This is the really the start of GM's article. The first two lines was only to get your attention. I have been on this forum for some months now and have read enough of GM's articles to know that this is his style. Seldom have I seen him blatantly used so much shock value (maybe he is just having a bad day) in his articles, but I have noticed that he has used the tactic before. I will view his article in this light until GM says otherwise.

That's My Two Cents

MusiKitty

on Dec 30, 2004

I don't see any problem with the U.S. helping out these countries, and I'm a die-hard fiscal conservative. You don't seem to realize that well over 75,000 people have died, and some experts are expecting that number to practically double, what with rampant starvation and disease. Most of the dead are innocent children, who weren't strong/fast enough to get to safety. That $35 mil. is like a single raindrop in the OCEAN when it comes to how much relief will be needed. I realize that the governments of the world can't do everything-- and I expect most of the relief to come from the private sector. But these countries NEED help, and they need it NOW. You thought 9/11 was bad? It was nothing. Literally NOTHING compared to this. Just because these people live far away, and just because their government isn't quite like ours, doesn't mean they don't need help. This was the greatest and most expensive natural disaster of ALL TIME, and you complain that our government is giving away $35 mil!!? 35 MILLION IS NOTHING! It ain't gonna hurt our economy one bit. I'm not saying the government is required to spend more-- I'm glad we gave anything at all. But to whine about it is absurd.

cactoblasta

on Dec 30, 2004

I agree fully with your title, but I can't say I agree with the basic premise of your argument. Of course it's up to the US government as the political embodiment of its citizenry how much it gives (if any) but giving aid for natural disasters isn't really such a bad thing. Certainly baseless grants of money have beggared much of the third world through pointless projects and corruption, but giving funding to rebuild after a tsunami is more a charitable and humanitarian act than an attempt to make someone's life better for ever. After all, it's not like a country can get a contract with Lloyd's of London to insure against killer tidal waves.

It's more like a friendly community effort in this case than the "throwing money at people" kind of deal that usually passes for aid. It shouldn't be called stingy regardless of how much is given (after all, the US has recently suffered considerable natural disaster damage itself for which it received rather more words than dollars) but the provision of aid in this case isn't a bad move.

Gideon MacLeish

on Jan 03, 2005

You do realize you are saying they hit the lottery when innocent children were killed.

You don't recognize sarcasm when you see it. I have written enough on a wide variety of topics that my general philosophical outlook should be readily apparent to anyone who takes the time to dissect it. Why is it bad when innocent women and children die of NATURAL disasters in India, but somehow good when we "terminate" innocent children and call it a medical procedure? (blog to follow).

The biggest problems with foreign aid in my opinion occur because it is provided with PUBLIC dollars, in essence the equivalent of the Salvation Army guy mugging passersby for contributions, as well as the fact that FAR too much money goes to "administrative costs" (read: middle men who profiteer off of the misfortunes).

Gideon MacLeish

on Jan 03, 2005

Giddy, this has got to be the most selfish and demoralizing post I've seen in a long time. Upwards of 100,000 or more are going to be dead from this tragedy. Millions are homeless. The devastation is apocalyptic. And, you're belly aching about sending tax revenues? You really are a sicko.

dabe,

Thank you for your opinion. It's the last I have to tolerate on my blog. I should not have to spend article after article defending my positions when they can be CLEARLY determined through my blog archives before you take an article out of context. Buh Bye.

Solnac

on Jan 03, 2005

Wow. You all also realize we're the most wealthy country in the world right now? So, it's not like we don't have the money to do it. Hell, 1 billion dollars is 1/1,000th of the unit of money that the US debt is measured in, trillions of dollars. So, the argument that it's going to put in more debt is sorta like arguing a dollar is going to hurt after you've charged $1,000 on your credit card.
And before you make the argument that that's a flawed argument, it's not flawed, it's simple math.

There's the appeal to one's sense of morality argument: we've got so much, why not give some away to those who need it? I doubt these people had a warning system for crying out loud. If it was the US, we'd know and evacuate whatever was under threat within minutes. The death toll would of been much lower. And I don't doubt the world would of been calling our president within minutes of it happening. I'm reminded eerily of 9/11 when I say that.

Fact is, and something people tend to miss, as a member of the international community, we've got an obligation to help those in natural disasters. The people of Asia didn't ask to be hit by this tsunami. They were, and as a member of the international community, the US gave. If that means an extra dollar for every 1,000 dollars you have to pay in taxes, then first of all, I envy you have a job that makes that a sizable dent in your total finances. I'd estimate in order for you to cough up even a hundred bucks, you'd be making 100,000 a year under this model. That's if we're donating even one billion dollars to the effort.

Last thing: charitable contributions rarely work. That sounds horrible, but let me explain. People being the fickle things they are, they often forget. Or ask, 'why me? I'm sure someone else will make up the shortfall." Or something tragic happens in their life that makes them unable to do so. There's a million excuses why, but if we were to wait for aid to come from private contributors, we'd be in for a long one.

Keep blowing your trumpet, Gideon. I highly suspect you'll need it.

cactoblasta

on Jan 03, 2005

That's not true. The US is a democracy. Whether or not you agree with your countrymen and women, it is the official will of the American people that they have the Bush government. Therefore until such time as the government is overthrown, every action of your government has been sanctioned and has gained the approval of a majority of the populace. So it's hardly mugging. Your fellow citizens chose a party who would donate $35 million in the event of a massive disaster, so when the government does this, noone should be that surprised. After all, it's part of why they got elected in the first place.

drmiler

on Jan 04, 2005

Reply #22 By: cactoblasta - 1/3/2005 6:59:00 PM
The biggest problems with foreign aid in my opinion occur because it is provided with PUBLIC dollars, in essence the equivalent of the Salvation Army guy mugging passersby for contributions, as well as the fact that FAR too much money goes to "administrative costs" (read: middle men who profiteer off of the misfortunes).

That's not true. The US is a democracy.

NO it's NOT!!! It's a republic! Even though we have a "democratic" form of government.

stevendedalus

on Jan 04, 2005

Apparently Bush got Cacto's blast and upped the donation tenfold!

cactoblasta

on Jan 04, 2005

NO it's NOT!!! It's a republic! Even though we have a "democratic" form of government.

In this case it's the same thing. You elect a government, especially an incumbent one or one who has ruled in the past, and you know full well how it's going to react in certain circumstances. If you have a serious problem with giving aid, then you elect a different government. Otherwise you accept that a capacity for generosity is the price you pay for a certain candidate and you move on with your life.

Starstuff

on Jan 04, 2005

we've got an obligation to help those in natural disasters.

And they say liberals don't like to spend other peoples money.

whoman69

on Jan 04, 2005

You don't recognize sarcasm when you see it.

In very poor taste.

whoman69

on Jan 04, 2005

And they say liberals don't like to spend other peoples money.

And the thin skinned conservative reaction not being called stingy is to go overboard and now spend billions by sending our military instead of pooling with the UN and other countries. Where's the fiscal conservatives now?

Gideon MacLeish

on Jan 04, 2005

Fact is, and something people tend to miss, as a member of the international community, we've got an obligation to help those in natural disasters.

No, we don't. Personally, I do feel a moral and ethical obligation to help those involved, and will PRIVATELY contribute to that end. I will do so, however, to agencies which will most efficiently apply my contributions, and not to middlemen who will use this situation to their own financial ends.

Your "drop in the bucket" argument is NOT relevant. If we are to be fiscally responsible, we must make choices that don't spend money we don't have on every project we can; there are too many out there for even the most beneficent country to begin to think about supporting them. We must pick and choose and apply our dollars wisely.

I don't like to discuss my finances much, Solnac, but I am raising my five children on less than $12,000 a year WITHOUT GOVERNMENT ASSISTANCE. For you and others to suggest that I should contribute more of my already overtaxed money to help out every disaster that hits every country is appalling, and frankly, an irresponsible waste of money, since myself and many others will be hit up for more taxes as the debt continues to mount, taxes many of us CANNOT AFFORD TO PAY and that we should not expect the higher income levels to carry to support.

Solnac, a good adage is to "write what you know". This ain't it. You've been allowed one disrespectful comment on my thread, but you might want to try a little diplomacy in your reply of why you feel comfortable demanding other people's hard earned money to pay for YOUR pet projects.

drmiler

on Jan 04, 2005

Reply #21 By: Solnac - 1/3/2005 4:22:14 PM
Fact is, and something people tend to miss, as a member of the international community, we've got an obligation to help those in natural disasters.

Boy are *you* wacked in the head! The US is under NO SORT of obligation to help at all if we don't want to. So please crawl back under your Austrailian rock before you suffer further brain damage from the heat.

Welcome Guest! Please take the time to register with us.
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:

Richer content, access to many features that are disabled for guests like commenting on the forums.
Access to a great community, with a massive database of many, many areas of interest.
Access to contests & subscription offers like exclusive emails.
It's simple, and FREE!