Originally posted by: Dari
This nation has done the most to help the world and we have people like Engineer questioning our commitments? For shame. Face it Engineer, whether it's Iraq, the tsunami-hit parts of Asia, or other global crises, the United States is doing the job of the United Nations. I thought you'd like that.
Originally posted by: ECUHITMAN
What the hell is the problem with helping people that need it? Is that not what government is supposed to do? Or would all the neocons rather millions of people die? It is not about government running my life but I pay taxes shouldn't the government do something good with it other than make tanks and bomb? Isn't it sad that a country that has an annual budget of more than 2 Trillion dollars would have to rely on a private company or person to donate money.
Originally posted by: aidanjm
Originally posted by: HalosPuma
When the US "donates" money, that's actually our tax dollars. How dare the United Nations or another nation for that matter call for an increase in my taxes to help other people. It's my money, not some bureaucrat's money.
Individuals can donate all they want, but to force everyone to "donate" via taxation is absolutely horrible, worse than this natural disaster.
WTF?
Paying taxes for the funding of a social democratic state (or republic) -- and having a miniscule portion of those taxes going to foreign aid -- is WORSE THAN 100,000 dead people??????????????????????????
This is why most people will never support your libertarian political agenda, your myopic focus on your libertarian "ideals" has led to moral bankruptcy.
Originally posted by: ntdz
ignorance is bliss I guess.
Originally posted by: HalosPuma
Originally posted by: aidanjm
Originally posted by: HalosPuma
When the US "donates" money, that's actually our tax dollars. How dare the United Nations or another nation for that matter call for an increase in my taxes to help other people. It's my money, not some bureaucrat's money.
Individuals can donate all they want, but to force everyone to "donate" via taxation is absolutely horrible, worse than this natural disaster.
WTF?
Paying taxes for the funding of a social democratic state (or republic) -- and having a miniscule portion of those taxes going to foreign aid -- is WORSE THAN 100,000 dead people??????????????????????????
This is why most people will never support your libertarian political agenda, your myopic focus on your libertarian "ideals" has led to moral bankruptcy.
YES!!! Any time the government gets involved in what is supposed to be a private affair, it always, always, always gets bigger, bloated, and corrupt.
Why can't you poeple turn off your emotions and make decisions based on logic and rational judgement? The road to hell is paved with good intentions. To take your example further, would we now need the Department of Foreign Aid to coordinate all of this? Is that what we really need - more government agencies which will result in more bloat?
Originally posted by: HalosPuma
Originally posted by: aidanjm
Originally posted by: HalosPuma
When the US "donates" money, that's actually our tax dollars. How dare the United Nations or another nation for that matter call for an increase in my taxes to help other people. It's my money, not some bureaucrat's money.
Individuals can donate all they want, but to force everyone to "donate" via taxation is absolutely horrible, worse than this natural disaster.
WTF?
Paying taxes for the funding of a social democratic state (or republic) -- and having a miniscule portion of those taxes going to foreign aid -- is WORSE THAN 100,000 dead people??????????????????????????
This is why most people will never support your libertarian political agenda, your myopic focus on your libertarian "ideals" has led to moral bankruptcy.
YES!!! Any time the government gets involved in what is supposed to be a private affair, it always, always, always gets bigger, bloated, and corrupt.
Why can't you poeple turn off your emotions and make decisions based on logic and rational judgement? The road to hell is paved with good intentions. To take your example further, would we now need the Department of Foreign Aid to coordinate all of this? Is that what we really need - more government agencies which will result in more bloat?
Originally posted by: HalosPuma
Originally posted by: ECUHITMAN
What the hell is the problem with helping people that need it? Is that not what government is supposed to do? Or would all the neocons rather millions of people die? It is not about government running my life but I pay taxes shouldn't the government do something good with it other than make tanks and bomb? Isn't it sad that a country that has an annual budget of more than 2 Trillion dollars would have to rely on a private company or person to donate money.
NO!
Government is not your "feel-good" tool to force and compel others to do your bidding. This is the fundamental difference between those of us who are right and those of you who are wrong.
* There is nothing wrong with helping people as long as it is done at the private level.
* Yes, there are times when our government supposed to help us, the US citizens. One of those times is national defense. There is absolutely no clause at all in our Constitution which grants Congress the power to send money to foreign victims of natural disasters, nor should there be. We are not a welfare nation.
* Yes, Article 1, Section 8 specifically enumerates what Congress may spend money on. Nothing more, nothing less! Are you advocating to disregard the Constitution because it makes your feel better?
* No, it is not sad at all for the US to solely rely on private donations. It shows to the world who really runs the nation - we, the people, not a few bloated bureaucrats.
For shame both you and Engineer for raping our Constitution to suit your emotional needs. That is horribly un-American. I suggest you both re-read our Constitution and Bill of Rights to see just how limited and small our government should be.
Originally posted by: Rockhound
The problem with the Europeans is that they have a different philosophy. They feel that taxing the people and the government giving away the money is the solution. We on the other hand rely more on private donations. Its as simple as that. Just because Europe doesn't like it or us doesn't mean their method is right and ours is wrong. Obviously Europe is highly jealous of the US and its power not only militarily but economically. They just can't stand the fact that we beat them at every turn no matter what. The only way they seem to be able to "raise" money is by taking it away from those who have it and distributing it. It seems otherwise they are the ones who would be considered stingy because Europeans simply wouldn't donate like Americans, either through government or privately.
Originally posted by: HalosPuma
Originally posted by: Rockhound
The problem with the Europeans is that they have a different philosophy. They feel that taxing the people and the government giving away the money is the solution. We on the other hand rely more on private donations. Its as simple as that. Just because Europe doesn't like it or us doesn't mean their method is right and ours is wrong. Obviously Europe is highly jealous of the US and its power not only militarily but economically. They just can't stand the fact that we beat them at every turn no matter what. The only way they seem to be able to "raise" money is by taking it away from those who have it and distributing it. It seems otherwise they are the ones who would be considered stingy because Europeans simply wouldn't donate like Americans, either through government or privately.
:thumbsup: One of the reasons we revolted against Britain.
I still don't know why some of the ATPN'ers here get upset when I suggest to keep donations private. It's as if no one will donat if they are private and they must force each and every one of us to pony up money for their "feel-good" project.
Originally posted by: Byers
Originally posted by: Dari
This nation has done the most to help the world and we have people like Engineer questioning our commitments? For shame. Face it Engineer, whether it's Iraq, the tsunami-hit parts of Asia, or other global crises, the United States is doing the job of the United Nations. I thought you'd like that.
What planet are you from? Are you serious?
Originally posted by: Engineer
Originally posted by: HalosPuma
Originally posted by: Rockhound
The problem with the Europeans is that they have a different philosophy. They feel that taxing the people and the government giving away the money is the solution. We on the other hand rely more on private donations. Its as simple as that. Just because Europe doesn't like it or us doesn't mean their method is right and ours is wrong. Obviously Europe is highly jealous of the US and its power not only militarily but economically. They just can't stand the fact that we beat them at every turn no matter what. The only way they seem to be able to "raise" money is by taking it away from those who have it and distributing it. It seems otherwise they are the ones who would be considered stingy because Europeans simply wouldn't donate like Americans, either through government or privately.
:thumbsup: One of the reasons we revolted against Britain.
I still don't know why some of the ATPN'ers here get upset when I suggest to keep donations private. It's as if no one will donat if they are private and they must force each and every one of us to pony up money for their "feel-good" project.
Fine. Let's make Iraq and Israel money from PRIVATE donations, and not the government. What? I didn't think so.
We give Israel about 5 Billion in aid each year. Let's just make all of that private donations? That would be fine by me....so would making Iraq reconstruction private.
I wonder how much of that money was debated in Congress or if some of it is just slipped in on bills. There is an awful lot of pork that gets passed via Congress.Originally posted by: Rockhound
we'd have to call into question all foreign aid then. Fine by me. Most of the countries that get it are corrupt anyway and don't use it for its intended purposes.
Originally posted by: Dari
Originally posted by: Byers
Originally posted by: Dari
This nation has done the most to help the world and we have people like Engineer questioning our commitments? For shame. Face it Engineer, whether it's Iraq, the tsunami-hit parts of Asia, or other global crises, the United States is doing the job of the United Nations. I thought you'd like that.
What planet are you from? Are you serious?
Planet Earth here. And you?
Originally posted by: HalosPuma
I wonder how much of that money was debated in Congress or if some of it is just slipped in on bills. There is an awful lot of pork that gets passed via Congress.Originally posted by: Rockhound
we'd have to call into question all foreign aid then. Fine by me. Most of the countries that get it are corrupt anyway and don't use it for its intended purposes.
I think Israel provides us a strategic military location in the Middle East - and that we are paying a very expensive "lease" for it.
Originally posted by: Rockhound
Originally posted by: Engineer
Originally posted by: HalosPuma
Originally posted by: Rockhound
The problem with the Europeans is that they have a different philosophy. They feel that taxing the people and the government giving away the money is the solution. We on the other hand rely more on private donations. Its as simple as that. Just because Europe doesn't like it or us doesn't mean their method is right and ours is wrong. Obviously Europe is highly jealous of the US and its power not only militarily but economically. They just can't stand the fact that we beat them at every turn no matter what. The only way they seem to be able to "raise" money is by taking it away from those who have it and distributing it. It seems otherwise they are the ones who would be considered stingy because Europeans simply wouldn't donate like Americans, either through government or privately.
:thumbsup: One of the reasons we revolted against Britain.
I still don't know why some of the ATPN'ers here get upset when I suggest to keep donations private. It's as if no one will donat if they are private and they must force each and every one of us to pony up money for their "feel-good" project.
Fine. Let's make Iraq and Israel money from PRIVATE donations, and not the government. What? I didn't think so.
We give Israel about 5 Billion in aid each year. Let's just make all of that private donations? That would be fine by me....so would making Iraq reconstruction private.
Hey Engineer, I'm all with you on Israel. I think they are self-sufficient and I don't see the point in giving them aid or at the very least cut it back. However, Iraq is a different story. The money we are spending there is for the long run. Is it a lot of money? Sure it is. Think of what a democratic or at least an Iraq without a tyrant at the wheel is going to mean for the region. This same sort of thinking was applied to rebuilding Europe (i.e. France, Britain, Germany, etc.) after WWII. Do you remember the Marshall Plan? Was that money well-spent in the end? How about when we got Japan back on its feet also?
No, we didn't start that war like we did this one, but Saddam started it in 1991 when he invaded Kuwait. He was the real "Hitler" of modern days, not Bush. Europe was liberated after WWII and Iraq will have been liberated after this one.
But, by your logic also we'd have to call into question all foreign aid then. Fine by me. Most of the countries that get it are corrupt anyway and don't use it for its intended purposes.
Originally posted by: HalosPuma
So in order them them to like us we need to give them money? That sounds liked extortion to me.Originally posted by: loki8481
poverty + dislike of America = breeding ground for terrorists.
Originally posted by: loki8481
how do you not get that foreign aid helps the US in the long run? it's much the same as the educational system helps us out in the long run. I don't think the constitution mandated that we provide 12 years of free education either, but we do it because an educated society produces a more competative economy.
Actually, I would very much like to see the Department of Education abolished and all public schools shut down. I went to private, prepratory schools my whole life and the money my parents spent on my education was less than what was spent in public schools, yet the quality of my education was much better.
The point is that whenever government gets involved in anything there will be waste. With all of the money comes the fight for power. Throw in the nearly unlimited power than our government has, and you can see the corruption.
I hope the US government sends NOTHING. Let the citizens of the US send as much as they like, but leave government of out it.
Originally posted by: loki8481
Published: December 30, 2004
President Bush finally roused himself yesterday from his vacation in Crawford, Tex., to telephone his sympathy to the leaders of India, Sri Lanka, Thailand and Indonesia, and to speak publicly about the devastation of Sunday's tsunamis in Asia. He also hurried to put as much distance as possible between himself and America's initial measly aid offer of $15 million, and he took issue with an earlier statement by the United Nations' emergency relief coordinator, Jan Egeland, who had called the overall aid efforts by rich Western nations "stingy." "The person who made that statement was very misguided and ill informed," the president said.
We beg to differ. Mr. Egeland was right on target. We hope Secretary of State Colin Powell was privately embarrassed when, two days into a catastrophic disaster that hit 12 of the world's poorer countries and will cost billions of dollars to meliorate, he held a press conference to say that America, the world's richest nation, would contribute $15 million. That's less than half of what Republicans plan to spend on the Bush inaugural festivities.
The American aid figure for the current disaster is now $35 million, and we applaud Mr. Bush's turnaround. But $35 million remains a miserly drop in the bucket, and is in keeping with the pitiful amount of the United States budget that we allocate for nonmilitary foreign aid. According to a poll, most Americans believe the United States spends 24 percent of its budget on aid to poor countries; it actually spends well under a quarter of 1 percent.
Bush administration officials help create that perception gap. Fuming at the charge of stinginess, Mr. Powell pointed to disaster relief and said the United States "has given more aid in the last four years than any other nation or combination of nations in the world." But for development aid, America gave $16.2 billion in 2003; the European Union gave $37.1 billion. In 2002, those numbers were $13.2 billion for America, and $29.9 billion for Europe.
Making things worse, we often pledge more money than we actually deliver. Victims of the earthquake in Bam, Iran, a year ago are still living in tents because aid, including ours, has not materialized in the amounts pledged. And back in 2002, Mr. Bush announced his Millennium Challenge account to give African countries development assistance of up to $5 billion a year, but the account has yet to disperse a single dollar.
Mr. Bush said yesterday that the $35 million we've now pledged "is only the beginning" of the United States' recovery effort. Let's hope that is true, and that this time, our actions will match our promises.
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/12/30/opinion/30thu2.html
I suppose everyone on the right will immediately dismiss this as liberal trash from the NYT, but it's more of a numbers piece.
IMO, people underestimate how much foreign aid helps our national security. by making promises and not delivering, and allowing poor people in 3rd world countries to live in squalor, we're missing out on opportunities to build good-will towards our country.
Originally posted by: HalosPuma
Originally posted by: ECUHITMAN
What the hell is the problem with helping people that need it? Is that not what government is supposed to do? Or would all the neocons rather millions of people die? It is not about government running my life but I pay taxes shouldn't the government do something good with it other than make tanks and bomb? Isn't it sad that a country that has an annual budget of more than 2 Trillion dollars would have to rely on a private company or person to donate money.
NO!
Government is not your "feel-good" tool to force and compel others to do your bidding. This is the fundamental difference between those of us who are right and those of you who are wrong.
* There is nothing wrong with helping people as long as it is done at the private level.
* Yes, there are times when our government supposed to help us, the US citizens. One of those times is national defense. There is absolutely no clause at all in our Constitution which grants Congress the power to send money to foreign victims of natural disasters, nor should there be. We are not a welfare nation.
* Yes, Article 1, Section 8 specifically enumerates what Congress may spend money on. Nothing more, nothing less! Are you advocating to disregard the Constitution because it makes your feel better?
* No, it is not sad at all for the US to solely rely on private donations. It shows to the world who really runs the nation - we, the people, not a few bloated bureaucrats.
For shame both you and Engineer for raping our Constitution to suit your emotional needs. That is horribly un-American. I suggest you both re-read our Constitution and Bill of Rights to see just how limited and small our government should be.
So by its own admission it has the power to make any law it needs to (even ones that are not listed here). So no I do not think we should disregard the Constitution because it makes me feel better."To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof."
Originally posted by: ECUHITMAN
Also explain to me how you can possibly think that corporations show the world that the people run the government? the last time I checked I did not vote for a CEO to run things, I voted for a representative of the people, by the people, for the people. Big business is for itself and no one else.
Originally posted by: HalosPuma
Originally posted by: ECUHITMAN
Also explain to me how you can possibly think that corporations show the world that the people run the government? the last time I checked I did not vote for a CEO to run things, I voted for a representative of the people, by the people, for the people. Big business is for itself and no one else.
Corporations are owned by individuals. American corporations are mostly owned by American people. And I did vote for several CEOs since I am a shareholder. Look at Disney, the shareholders had a vote of no-confidence for Michael Eisner and he's on his way out the door. Of course "Big Business" is for itself - the #1 goal of all corporations is to stay in business to provide value for their shareholders. A very good side effect of this is that it also provides employment for thousands of people. "Big Business" employs millions of Americans. Some of those Americans in turn use their salary to donate to charity.
Cheers!
Originally posted by: Dari
Originally posted by: Byers
Originally posted by: Dari
This nation has done the most to help the world and we have people like Engineer questioning our commitments? For shame. Face it Engineer, whether it's Iraq, the tsunami-hit parts of Asia, or other global crises, the United States is doing the job of the United Nations. I thought you'd like that.
What planet are you from? Are you serious?
Planet Earth here. And you?