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 3)

Gideon MacLeish

on Jan 05, 2005

If you have a serious problem with giving aid, then you elect a different government.

Unfortunately, our government is so vast that higher level government officials owe their election to large corporations and well funded idealogues, not to individuals. This means that those same individuals have a say in how the government is run.

This in my not so humble opinion is one of the biggest problems with an overly large federal government in a country the size of the US; most individuals truly want lower taxes and fiscal responsibility, but the "big two" parties have been loathe to provide fiscally responsible candidates, and so the "lesser of two evils" voting undertaken by most Americans produces candidates that are increasingly hard to distinguish from one another. This is one reason why I will not vote for a Democratic or Republican presidential candidate AT ALL. The American people had NO say in the aid package being sent to India and other countries, for instances (although, I'm gonna give Bush a few points on this one: even with the increased aid package, it was still FAR MORE conservative a package than Kerry would have been likely to provide).

Gideon MacLeish

on Jan 05, 2005

You don't recognize sarcasm when you see it.

In very poor taste.

HOLY TAKEN OUT OF CONTEXT BATMAN! Why don't you try reading MORE than one sentence of my posts and replies, whoman, instead of flaming me for the one or two you don't like?

Solnac

on Jan 05, 2005

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.

I disagree, only because we've appointed ourselves not only the richest country on Earth, but the world's policeman as well. Our entire foreign policy seems to be, and I'm not trying to overreach here, "punish the bad guys and help the good guys." If the country's economic situtation, policy situtation, or the international community situtation to radically change, then I'd agree with the statement you guys have made politically. Socially...well, I'm a liberal, what do you think I'd say?

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.

Diplomatically, this is why I kinda go 'huh?' when people say things like this. Not that I don't sympathize with your finances, that's not what I'm saying at all...I couldn't do it, and frankly, I wouldn't want to. You mention tax money; my argument was based on the fact that even if we spent one billion in a economy that extends hundreds of billions of dollars, it would be, in fact a drop in the bucket. And mathetically, that holds out. And if you're curious about my finances, I make a little less than that, but I pay for me. I do hope you're getting your money back from the government, and I think you're very admirable. The reason I go 'huh', is we're spending a lot of money for settling a war being fought entirely on foreign soil--a lot more than a billion in relief to some of the poorest regions of the world, and then you mention it being fisically irresponsible to help someone who's not been attacked by anyone and being hit by an Act of God with a fraction of that amount...it confuses me. Perhaps it's apples to oranges, but it's part of the foreign policy comparsion I made eariler.

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.

I apologize; however I am not a huge fan of diplomatic ever since I tried to make peace with 'the other side', and still continue to get vomited upon. Case in point:

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.

This is typical for certain (not all, again I apologize) bloggers on this site.

Gideon MacLeish

on Jan 06, 2005

The reason I go 'huh', is we're spending a lot of money for settling a war being fought entirely on foreign soil--a lot more than a billion in relief to some of the poorest regions of the world, and then you mention it being fisically irresponsible to help someone who's not been attacked by anyone and being hit by an Act of God with a fraction of that amount...it confuses me. Perhaps it's apples to oranges, but it's part of the foreign policy comparsion I made eariler.

I disagree, only because we've appointed ourselves not only the richest country on Earth, but the world's policeman as well.

Excellent points, both, solnac. I personally don't think we should spend our money playing "world policeman" either. That is a role that is costing us more than the foreign aid policy; however, the majority of Americans, sadly, disagree, having voted for Bush knowing full well it basically means 4 more years of war.

drmiler

on Jan 06, 2005

Reply #30 By: drmiler - 1/4/2005 4:45:26 PM

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.

You say that this is vomited on you. Okay maybe it is. But you never refuted it. If we are part of a international community and under an obligation to help out in disasters, then *where* was the help from the other side when *we* (US) had disaster (hurricane)? Did anyone even offer to help? Nope!!!!

whoman69

on Jan 06, 2005

Poor point. If the richest man in town has his cabana burn down, the whole town doesn't pitch in to buy him a new one. We are the richest nation in the world and not in need of the aid.

drmiler

on Jan 07, 2005

Reply #36 By: whoman69 - 1/6/2005 8:17:22 PM
You say that this is vomited on you. Okay maybe it is. But you never refuted it. If we are part of a international community and under an obligation to help out in disasters, then *where* was the help from the other side when *we* (US) had disaster (hurricane)? Did anyone even offer to help? Nope!!!!

Poor point. If the richest man in town has his cabana burn down, the whole town doesn't pitch in to buy him a new one. We are the richest nation in the world and not in need of the aid.

Says who? You? And BTW aid does not need to come in a monetary form. Also how about the people who are *still* homeless from the hurricane?

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!