I disagree. We don't live in times where there are a few hundred thousand people dispersed through a large geographical area. I've seen first hand how a "hand up" can make the difference in someone's life. "We" are a country. There is no "I" in "We." "We" have the choice of homeschooling if you don't want "our" children to learn in public or private school. Healthcare is a serious issue. The costs are outrageous and without government programs, many would never receive any care at all. Forgive me, but I'm not so cold and callous as to impose my "personal" will that no one gets a helping hand. I'd like to think most Americans were raised better than that and I believe *most* were.
I don't see how that is relevant. I'm not talking about a few hundred thousand people. You have the right to homeschool, for now. California is already leading the way in attacking homeschooling. Pretty soon all 5 year olds will be going to public schools to learn about atheism, gay relations and sexual education. Yipee for the state! Why are the costs outrageous? Is it because we provide free care to illegals but not to the middle class that pays for that? Is it because we send $30 billion overseas in foreign aid? Is it because we finance a military presence in 130 countries around the world? Is it because of government waste and fraud? Is it because there is collusion between big business and Congress? Oh wait, it's the evil doctors and nurses, right? Gimme a break. We've got a whole thread on healthcare, I can find you a link to it. You won't be able to convince me that socialism is an answer, and if you're any kind of conservative, you'll oppose socialized medicine.
So you are aware then, that there are some 300,000,000 people here? Just checking, because it seemed like an argument for a small population. Not where I live. Did you attend public schools? Do you believe everyone who is poor is an illegal? Do you believe healthcare for the poor (um, I mean those naughty illegals) is a new phenomena since the war in Iraq started? If you are against helping out the poor and would just discard them to the curb of society, how can you assert the notion that if the war in Iraq hadn't happened, the poor could have medical care? You have to make up your mind. Either you are for helping the poor, or against it. It's not conditional upon a war. No, that's done to protect our allies and "our" country. A show of force, to prevent others from doing something they shouldn't. Ah, but you were trying to get a dig in on America though, right? Hope I didn't step on your toes there Probably not. I bet you didn't even know that waste and fraud only happens in America too, right? Ah, the admitted capitalist has a problem with big business? Yes, American doctors and nurses suck! Maybe you should revisit it. I have no illusion that I can convince you of anything other that America sucks. Some people only care about themselves. Others care about their fellow countrymen. I'm comfortable with what and who I support. Are you?
Hmmm, you seem pretty fixated on size today. Public and private. No and no. And this is totally irrelevant to the discussion. When did I say I was against helping out the poor? That's a false position you have attributed to me. Unless you are implying that the only institution that can help the poor is the government. And not you in the Walmart checkout, or a church, family or community group. Nah, you couldn't have meant that only the government can help the poor, because you proactively help the less fortunate yourself, as a private individual! Whew. You had me nervous for a minute there. There is no reason those countries can't pay for their own defense now is there? Right now, the American taxpayer is shouldering the burden to protect the world, and the way our dollar has been eroded, that's going to come to an ugly end. Sooner than later. Irrelevant. Big business != Capitalism. Only the economically retarded believe propaganda like that. North American capitalism has always been driven by small business. Big business is monopolistic, and more often than not, creates competitive advantages by colluding with the state. This is not free market economics. It's known as fascism by Mussolini's definition. Sad you think that. America doesn't suck. The government sucks. But the people, the spirit, the traditions, the history, the ideas behind the formation of the Republic, those are all beautiful things worth fighting for. Look dude, it was $49 at a Walmart. What do you want us to do? Name a forum after you or something? It's not easy to try and stick to principles, but I give it my best shot. I imagine you have an easier time since you don't really have any principles.
In every sense of the word yes governments should give foreign aid. Though there is a catch twenty two with doing so (as stated the demise of our own countries prospects, financial crisis, humanity causes etc etc), but without helping the unfortunate countries that are incapable( showing fact of the needs of the hand outs) of fending for themselves you might as well be fueling another war. I agree that most money that is handed out could be given to better our own , however to be united giving needs to be done regardless, maybe the question should be on how much should be given as apposed to not at all.
The government doesn't have any money. It only has the people's money. It should give it back, and let the people give privately. That way the money is not used for political purposes, but is genuinely given in the spirit of helping people out. Remember, the government owns nothing. The government has no money. Whatever power or wealth the government amasses, is always given by (or taken from in the case of taxes) the people, and is answerable to the people.
Acknowledging that there are some places who clearly need the aid and not wanting it to better there own pockets, climb a corporate or financial ladder or to make less debt nation wide is better for my sanity, and since I live not in poverty and seclusion it makes no difference as to the difference it can make for somebody else so in my opinion I say give it. Giving back to the people instead of to aid is a good choice if no other factors still remained , like out of all those people you give back to who are going to be discriminative, judgmental and bias and are going to give back to the needing? In the end if we left it up to giving privately to aid others demise, how effective and realistic would that be ( sure enough you can control minimal problems and deficiency within your own pocket ) for them. Considering the amount of greed and materialistic people in the world I doubt as much would be given and that amount that is given wouldn't be adequately distributed between all races, ages, religions, and so forth. But this is just my opinion as I am sure you are aware everybody sees through different windows.
What's unrealistic is thinking that it's ok to tap the working class to pay for all of the wrongs in the world. When they did this in Russia, some people refused to work. So they sent them to slave camps and forced them to work. Is that the society you want to live in? The only way to eradicate poverty is to make food a limitless resource. As long as it is limited in supply, it will cost money as people compete with one another to get food. Being greedy or materialistic may be sins, but that's for God to judge, not man. I know. I just think the government has taught a couple generations of people that its ok to spend other peoples money. And sadly, very few people today understand basic economics.
I believe that anything the government does should only be approved by its citizens by voting (like we do when choosing our next dictator...errr...president). That should include any kind of spending proposals for things like foreign aid.
Foreign aid for the US though is very much a political project, with Israel always coming at the top of the list of the recipients. It's actually a very effective way of buying political loyalty, or at least neutralising nations - it's obvious that the muted to reaction to Israel's offensive in the Lebanon from Arab states was about the money the US showers on friendly governments - Egypt thinks, 'Hmm, over $50bn in cash over a thirty year period, is it worth rocking the boat? Naaaa'
Exactly! Charity should be personal - in the ideal world no government has the right to decide to give away money that isn't theirs so they can have a say in the benefactor's life. Finally, is it about charity when a government opens wide its arms and gives or is it about the strings attached? When it's personal however, people give because they really want to - so it should be charities with voluntary donations that should be doing the doling out. And one more thing - as long as people see a steady outpouring of manna from heaven without having to work for it - they never will
Increased education, more facilities for distributing clean water, Tools enabling people to farm, Better health care and basic treatments for curable conditions, Decrease in cases of infant malnutrition, Increased HIV education [which resulted in an infection rate decrease in the under 20's from 16% in 05 to just over 13% in 06]. it's a bit like "what have the Romans ever done for us", When you look at it, Quite a lot. Can we do more? of course we can. Could the aid be better spent? Almost certainly. but this money is used to help them and people are benefiting from it.
"* Africa-with this year's requested 54% increase, aid to Africa will have nearly quadrupled under this Administration, from $1.1 billion to $4.4 billion, focused on addressing the crippling effects of disease and poverty. * Near East-a 6% increase for vital investments in winning the Global War on Terror and empowering the people of this key region. * Western Hemisphere-with this request, aid to the region has doubled under this Administration, from $862 million to $1.6 billion, and is focused on continued economic growth and strengthening democratic institutions. * Peace and Security-$6.88 billion for counterterrorism and counter-narcotics activities and programs to secure necessary conditions for further political, economic, and social progress. * Governing Justly and Democratically-$1.45 billion to promote effective, accountable, democratic governance, a vital foundation for sustainable progress. * Investing in People-$6.95 billion to support human capacity development and address poverty and disease, including, $4.5 billion to meet the treatment and prevention goals of the President's Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief, $388 million for the President's Malaria Initiative, and $535 million to support equitable access and improved quality of basic education around the world-the largest request ever by this Administration. * Economic Growth-$2.37 billion to support economic progress and poverty reduction as critical underpinnings of sustainable development. * Humanitarian Assistance-$2.12 billion to maintain the United States' long-standing commitment to alleviate human suffering and respond to destabilizing humanitarian disasters" that's very true. however, most of these aids end up in the pockets of just a few people. poor governance and corruption is the major problem facing Africa today. Instead of giving these aids out to the governments directly, I think it will be very good to do so indirectly through organizations such as UNICEF so that the rural and the most poor who really deserve the aids can benefit from them.
The government is not suited to charity. They shouldn't be collecting domestic taxes from the poor and middle class, then redistributing them to foreign nations and governments. Private aid is the way, both in giving and in distributing. Like most industries, competition would better serve the donor and the recipients. Does anyone actually know how much each dollar of government revenue dedicated to aid and aid management actually makes it to the the intended persons of need? I'll bet it is less than 50%. Groups like Children's International get 80% of each dollar to the intended child. The Red Cross collected $2.1 Billion for Hurricane relief and it cost them only $80 million in fund raising costs and general management fees. The remainder is still in their fund, or was applied directly to relief efforts. That's because 95% of Red Cross workers are volunteers. With the Red Cross' training and command structure, the government might have been better off paying them to do DHS' job in New Orleans. Or rather, the people of New Orleans might have been better off, if the government was cut out of the graft business, how would Blackwater and Haliburton get paid? This article might upset some people, but I think it's very relevant. If you read it, please read it to the end. The best part is the second half. The United States Government Should Not Aid Myanmar Excerpt I'll admit, I can't find Burma on a map.
Of course Burma is now renamed Myanmar I would agree with you, govt does a poor job in charity, Red Cross and the others did much better. I would trust Red Cross/Crescent much more than govt charities. For eg in Myanmar recently, the various govt aid goes direct to the military junta, while Red Cross at least managed to get people on the ground to distribute the aid.
People seem to hate us no matter what good we do so we might as well spend as much here as possible. Besides, African lives or the lives of people from other poor parts of the world are worth no more than American lives.
I didn't read every word in this thread, just skipped around, but are any of you welfare givers enlightened to the fact that foreign aid usually goes into the foreign government's hands, not the people who actually need it? So what exactly justifies one tyrannical government, to forcibly take and transfer wealth into another tyrannical government full of poverty stricken people? Do the oppressors suddenly share all of the wealth? Think. Outside. The. Box.