A non-PC question.

I was just wondering: Why aren't the people who complain whenever the US sticks its nose into the affairs of other countries complaining when we give aid to other countries. I can hear it now: "But, but that's different." Different, how?

Now, I'm all for aiding those who need it. I just can't stand hypocrits (yeah, I fall into that category at times, I'm sure.) I might be an angel, but I ain't perfect.

The reason nobody comes to help us when towns get destroyed by tornadoes or hurricanes or what have you, is because we don't need their help. Unfortunately, all countries don't have the wealth and resources we do, so they rely on our help. Which is only the right thing to do.

 

*Pulls out a bat*

*Bashes in the dead horse's head*

You know this thread is gonna get hot, fast.

 

Huh??
You know me better than that. I don't like to start stuff.

Just an observation. That's all.

Oh, and I just noticed, I can post messages with Firefox again.

 

Hey, ArchAngel, good points. Food for thought (heh, heh, heh): the money tagged for all foreign aid is less than 1% of the yearly budget (complaint or observation?).

 

Related question: Why is most of the world quick to help with natural disasters, like the tsunami, but totally ignore even larger man-made disasters, such as genocide in Rwanda, and the current one in Sudan? CURRENT death toll in Sudan is estimated between 275,000 and 375,000 dead, and estimated to top 1 million dead without hard intervention.

In some cases, it's simple greed: We don't like you, but we like your money.

In some cases, it's laziness mixed with cowardice: Sending money is easy, but we're not willing to FIGHT for what's right. Fixing Indonesia's current problem only needs money and logistics. Fixing Sudan requires getting your hands dirty.

In most cases, it's a difference in worldview. Situational ethics, which makes no concrete judgements of good and evil, makes it easy to excuse and/or ignore evil. Observe the U.N.. They constantly talk about freedom and justice, but over half the member countries are dictatorships of one form or another. Including Rwanda... including Sudan... When Syria can head the Security Council, and Libya can head a human rights commission, the U.N. is clueless about real evil and what should be done about it, and most of the world today takes their cues from the U.N.. We're upsetting their warm fuzzies.

 

That's just the government hand-outs. Private donations to all kinds of foreign "aid" from the U.S. is high every year, and higher this year. We consistently outgive any other country in the world by a HUGE margin.

Not directed at you personally, but at complainers in general: What percentage of your personal income do you volunteer for charity every year? That money that Uncle Sam gives away is ultimately YOUR money. They don't pull it out of thin air. If you don't think we're doing enough, write a check yourself. Kodo posted an easly link to aid organizations.

 

good reply, G.T. (thanks for changing your post, I was answering it - the citizens of the U.S. (like I've posted elsewhere) are the most generous donaters in the world; I was referring to the government (like I believe ArchAngel was- and it was an observation, not a complaint). And to answer your other question, I'm on a fixed income, so I can't do as much as I'd like; but I donate to local charities because there's a lot of poverty right here, as well as feed any and all kids in the neighborhood that ask, as well as take in all the stray animals- plate's pretty full. I think the U.S. is a great country, with a few problems (it's the Administration I'm not too fond of).

 

We have a long tradition of personal, as opposed to givernment, charity. Originally, it was thought to be unfair to confiscate (which is what taxation is, no matter how you pretty it up) money from one person, who may have serious needs of his own, to give to someone else.

We've always given freely, and personally. We've wandered FAR away from what the Constitution authorized Congress to confiscate for, but still rely heavily on the personal generosity of our people. Which is fine with me.

People that complain the loudest about Washington not giving enough don't realize that it's still THEIR money that Washington is giving away. Some of those people donate generously, I'm sure, but I suspect that the vast majority that complains don't give a dime personally. If you don't think Wasington is giving your money away fast enough, write your own check folks! It ain't that difficult.

 

Right on! You hit that on the head- similar to the people I talk to around my area. The ones that complain the loudest about the current government/elected officials/laws, I find out, aren't even registered to vote. I guess it's like that everywhere, though

 

How times change. I recalled this from some years ago and dug it up again. A bit long, but a true story from David Crockett, US Congressman and one of the heroes of the Alamo. Worth a read. Same Constitution we pay lip service to today, but boy what a different mindset.

A Tale of Davy Crockett

 

France and who were the other 5?

 

Makes sense. Splitting a fin into 5 singles is easy.

 

Wow! I hope everybody reads that (the link), G.T.- that was something!

 

Did you stick with it to the last paragraph? That sounded SO much like today.

 

But your name is not "please".

 

WOW (she used uppercase!) thanx GT!!!! incredible read.

 

Who complains when we stick our nose in?

Oh, the U.N.?

They ARE complaining, Angel.

They're complaining that we aren't giving enough?

The U.N., man, you know, that organization that was involved in that *cough* oil for food program with *cough* Saddam?

(Some people really hope he doesn't go to trial.




..........He just might do some "singing".)

 

I heard the President ask the American people to give from their hearts one day. He went on to say,if every American gave $10.00 to the Tsunami Charity Fund of their choice, donations would total about 3 billion. Which is an impressive amount of money. The American people championed to the 911 cause and there is no doubt in mind mind that they will follow suit in this cause as well.

This also got me thinking. If every American gave $10.00 every year to the American people fund, think of all the people we could pull out of poverty every year. Now multiply that by the next hundred years. Wow! O.K. maybe I'm a dreamer.

What I don't like, is when charity giving turns into a numbers game. Once the pledges started to stream in, all you heard, was how much each celebrity or organization was pledging. Maybe it"s a marketing strategy to get other people off their duffs to pony up. Then you have people on Fox News, turning the helping aid of the American people and their government into a political relief effort. They stated on the news, we are also coming to the aid of the Tsunami torn areas, to help with future relations, because most of the people in that region are Muslim. I don't know about anyone else, but if any country experiences catastrophe on a grand scale, you would hope the wealthiest nations would come to their aid, simply because it is the right thing to do.

 

Yeah, basically what G.T. said I seem to remember Australia and a few other countries sending over aid and emergency personal after 9/11 and the Californian wild fires. They just didn't jump up and down about it. I'm not a national here, but I do know genuine giving when I see it.

I've donated several times to the Tsunami disaster. That's not important. Two of my now ex-partners and personal friends were in Puhket on Boxing Day. They paid with a lot more.

The scary thing is I was supposed to be there as well. Ya just never know do you? I've given the Reaper the slip again, so it seems.

 

Would be nice if it worked, but it doesn't. We're already putting out more than that on the "War on Poverty", have been for decades, and it doesn't help. Long term poverty is a mindset and a lifestyle, not an easily fixable problem. If simply throwing money at it would fix it, it would have been eradicated by 1980.

In cases like this, we always do. But there's no harm in noticing that helping in THIS case may have a positive effect on our image over there. Indonesia has a strong radical Muslim contingent, that strongly favors and supports Al Queda and the other radicals. Would be nice if they started thinking more favorably towards us, but most likely after we're no longer needed, they'll go back to cheering every dead American that shows up in the news. We help anyway, because it's the right thing to do.

 

quote by GT" Long term poverty is a mindset and a lifestyle,..." Do you really believe this? Could you explain? Just out of curiosity, do you consider yourself a Republican?

 

Yes, I do believe that, and no, I'm not a Republican. (Somehow I hear "evil Republican" echoing in the background. )

There are some people, because of various kinds of severe mental or physical disabilities, that absolutely cannot support themselves. They are a VERY small minority of the population. A compassionate society can and must take care of those.

But in this country, for the average healthy person, there are two reasons for poverty. Short term poverty can happen because of bad luck, bad decisions, disaster, any number of reasons. Those that FALL into poverty because of circumstances always manage to get back on their feet with work and determination. Money, "aid", helps them through the bumpy times until they get their lives back together.

Long term poverty is caused by either a refusal to work, a refusal to learn the skills that will get them work, or both. Aggravated by drugs and alcohol, which are voluntary on their part. There is an alarmingly large segment of our society that sneers at education, sneers at "honest" work, and still expects to have air conditioning, color TV and cable. Parents who don't value education or work raise kids that don't value education and work, and today we have a society within a society that simply thinks that it's the government's job to support them forever. Schools and education are there, and they not only don't take advantage of it, they harrass and pick on those that try to. Jobs are out there, even for unskilled, and they don't want to put out the effort to get and keep them. Job training programs have been around for decades, and few take advantage of them. We frequently hear politicians claiming that we NEED illegal immigrants to fill the jobs that citizens refuse to take. Why is it that we need to import unskilled labor when we've got plenty of our own? I've been out of work, with bills to pay and mouths to feed, and it's no fun. I've taken a few REALLY crappy low paying jobs to keep food on the table until I could find another decent job. I've worked in hot sweaty factories, and on the back end of a garbage truck, worked outdoors in freezing Chicago winter... It ain't always fun, but I'll take any kind of work when necessary to support myself. They could too. For the most part, they don't.

President Johnson officially started the War On Poverty way back in the 60s. We've sunk billions into it, and haven't improved anything. Insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting to get a different result. That pretty well describes our War On Poverty.

We can have a long debate on how to motivate the unmotivated, how to instill work ethics in the lazy, how to instill productive values into those that don't have them. But simply throwing more money at those accustomed to living poor but lazy hasn't worked for the last 40 years. Giving them nicer places to live and more money for toys, drugs, or booze won't solve the problem.

 

Way to go G.T., providing me with two great reads in the same thread. The first was the Crockett link, and the second your last post. We have the same problem north of the 49th.

 

As G.T. says, it's a cycle. We learn how to be adults from our parents (or whoever might be "taking care" of us). If a kid grows up in a family, seeing nothing but monthly checks, ways to "beat the system", abuse (drug, alcohol, domestic, etc.), and a litany of complaining and fault-finding rather than one of motivation and willingness to alter a "pre-determined" course, that's the legacy the kid inherits. There are exceptions, but that seems to be the accepted norm.

 

Our economy is driven by one main source, MONEY . That is called capitalism . When production is down and reinvestment of your earnings fail(stocks )you have massive job loss.

Greed has driven hundreds of companies overseas.Several thousands of jobs have been lost to this fact alone. Unscrupulous company CEO'S, such as Enron, who are driven by greed, keep the bulk of their work force on entry level wages for their own financial gain.


Unemployment has been at one of it's highest points during the Bush administration. During one of his Presidential speeches, President Bush angrily declared, that we have to stop losing jobs, to companies that are moving overseas. He also stated that job creation should be a high priority.


Over 1/2 of the American children are not insured or are underinsured. This is largely due to the fact that many of the jobs that are created, are low entry level jobs that keep them within the poverty level bracket. The backlash to this, is that some sort government assistance is still needed(health care,heating assistance, food etc).

The Great Depression was caused by the stock market crash of 1929. Every recent recession we have gone through(are we still in one?) has been determined by the economy(supply and demand) and the stock market. Granted long term poverty has many causes, but I tend to lean on the side of the stock market and economy as the culprits.

I do agree you on this point though, GT quote:"
We frequently hear politicians claiming that we NEED illegal immigrants to fill the jobs that citizens refuse to take. Why is it that we need to import unskilled labor when we've got plenty of our own?" What is this guy thinking???

So lets just say we agree that we disagree and call it a day.

 

Every economy is driven by money. Free market capitalism is the philosophy that controls how businesses are allowed to function in this, and quite a few other countries. Alternatives to capitalism are direct government control of businesses in socialist and communist countries. Capitalism is much more unruly than direct government control, but it's also much more efficient and effective. Study the business model of the defunct USSR for a look at the other end of the scale. Abysmal. Stock prices are somewhat related to actual economic realities, but are more dependent on the mood of the people than on the performance of the companies. Crashes are usually caused by panic, and the following upswings happen when they start to trust the market again. Actual job losses start when the populace in general starts losing faith in the economy and stop spending money. The recent downturns were started by the DotCom bust in the late 90s, and further aggravated by 9/11. Wouldn't have mattered who sat in the White House. And stock levels have bounced back to the 2000 highs.

If greed = a desire for profit, then yes, greed had driven them offshore. Keep in mind though, that corporations are started for the sole purpose of making money. Profit is not evil, it's the common human desire to be successful. Shareholders demand it, or they'll appoint new officers to head the company. And zero or negative profits will drive the company out of business. Some companies embraced outsourcing eagerly simply for a better bottom line. Some fought it as long as they could, and only went offshore when their losses threatened to put them outof business. Fruit OF The Loom and Levi Strauss fit that category. Some refused to go offshore for any reason and went out of business instead. Florsheim (maker of VERY good dress shoes) went under rather than go offshore.

Not true. Mild recession started at the end of the Clinton era, which Bush inherited, and 9/11 cost a LOT of jobs, making it worse, but it never fell to the 10+% unemployment at the end of the Carter era in the early 80s, much less the 25% disaster in the 30s. It's currently at around 5.5%, which is historically considered "full employment", due to normal job expansion/contraction, business failure/startups, and people changing jobs/careers. It's currently at the exact same level it was in through the 1990s boom. Your statement derives from the Kerrry Campaign scare tactics, not from actual data.

Very true, and I knew when he said it he'd do nothing about it. To some extent he CAN'T do much about it under current laws and regulations. But he is definitely in the "free-market" camp, not the protectionist camp.

And it's already there. A large part of that figure are those on Welfare, where government health care is part of the package. Most of the rest receive care when needed, even without insurance. However, health insurance is an individual's own responsibility, not the government's responsibility. It is not a "right".

Actually, most of the world's economy was in depression in 1929 before our stock market crashed, and nervousness over the lousy world economy finally made investors nervous enough to start pulling out of our stock market, which was HIGHLY overinflated, overoptimistic, and over-leveraged. That in turn made the average citizen nervous, and our real economy slowly sank into depression over the following couple of years, matching what was going on in the rest of the world.

Once a company sells a stock initially, and gets cash for that sale, the stocks in the marketplace have NO bearing on the company's capital or performance, other than the obligation to the shareholder that they took on from the initial sale to pay dividends on any profits that are made. The only impact of a current stock price is when the company still has unsold stock that they've reserved, and it affects what price they can sell it for.

Economics and the relation between stocks and the real economy are more complex than you seem to be aware of. Currently, the economy is doing well, and there are jobs to be had, by those willing to do them.

Personally, regarding keeping jobs here in the country, I'd like to see us abolish the income tax altogether and go back to a substantial tarrif on imports to raise the money the government needs. That's how we funded the government for about the first 150 years. Uncle Sugar would still raise his money, and we'd still be paying it, but there would be STRONG incentive for companies to build their stuff HERE. Other countries would squak about it, but Washington's responsibility is to us first. Another topic for a long thread.

And a good day to you.