I just got home from a party, where there were some people talking about the tsunami that recently occurred. They were bitching that Bush had recenty allotted 135 mil in aid. The gist of their conversation was, it happened to them...let them take care of themselves. Shit, they went all the way back to WWII complaining that we had bailed out France & Belgium, how we let people immigrate to our country, how we help out all over the world. We should ban immigration, or at least only allow "desirable" people to come here. That would certainly not include scabberous foriegn types like Indians, Asians, and Arabs.
I'm no bleeding heart, but who the hell are these people? In a natural tragedy like the recent one that occurred in one of the poorest spots in the world, who would bitch about one of the richest nations in the world, and certainly the ONLY superpower, coming to the aid of these people? Bush wanted to give 35 mil and only relented after world pressure was brought to bear. In other words, he had to be shamed into it.
I guess I must have missed something about "compassionate conservatism." These people are not the "fine American patriots" with whom I would choose to associate. Thank God there were many others at the party. This just reinforces my already pretty damn strong opinion, that conservatives care only about themselves. They are the party of the mean, the short sighted, the selfish, the uncaring, the fat cats, and the greedy. I'm ashamed to call them Americans.
Last edited on Mon Jan 3rd, 2005 01:56 am by Mr. Versatile
____________________ If you can't read this, you're illiterate.
The only reason I wouldn't wanna give them a lot of aid is that the U.N. needs to get its other members to help instead of trying to make itself the ruling body of the world with the u.s as its slave. I think we should stop all aid and wars and such and let the world take care of itself until we get our own junk under control and fix all major financial troubles. But that sho nuff ain't gonna happen.
On another note (and I know saying this is not so welcome here or anywhere), the world is overpopulated. There is no proper solution for this. No one in their right mind wants people to suffer. How do we solve it? We can't. Anything done will violate human rights, womens rights to their bodies, or be just evil. Natural disasters are going to be the only thing that'll slow down the growth of our population.
The british public alone have donated in excess of £60 million (about $115 million)
Thats comin from a country about the size of 1 American state!!
Unfortunately America would rather fight wars over oil (and i fought in iraq) than help people, but then why should it help America will make no money from helping!!
Last edited on Mon Jan 3rd, 2005 11:41 pm by RS-Steve
The UN has gotten itself together and many other countries have contributed large amounts of aid. If we waited to get all of our financial problems solved, we'd never be willing to help anybody. Sorry, but that's just a crock! Just another cop-out, another way of saying we're greedy. Japan gave 500 mil. That's WAY more than we have given, from a much smaller company. There are many other countries who have contributed, rich as well as poor.
As far as natural disasters are concerned, this one has already claimed an estimated 140,000 lives. Another approx. 5,000 000 have no homes, no food, no water, and no sanatation. Maybe we should just sit on our hands and let'em all die. That would certainly help the population problem. Come to think of it, why did we give assistance to the victims of the Fla hurricanes this summer. If we'd just ignored them, that might have solved a few problems too, right? BTW, other countries also offerred and/or came to OUR aid during that crisis.
Last edited on Tue Jan 4th, 2005 02:27 am by Mr. Versatile
____________________ If you can't read this, you're illiterate.
Mr. Versatile wrote: BTW, other countries also offerred and/or came to OUR aid during that crisis
Huh? How? Electricians? Roofers? Tomatoes and grapefruit?
Don't they always whenever I reply to a political thread? It always leads to the same things with me. Taxes and the universal rediculousness of the need for them to make life boring. People all over the world have dealt with natural disasters in their areas for a long time before this last century or so. People die too. It does happen. When did this political incorrectness of death come about? Not that I wouldn't help someone in need but no government should be able to have that much surplus of wealth to be able to give it away. I want my own planet. No taxes. Make stuff for yourself and take care of yourself. Barter for what you don't wanna make. It'd make life more interesting. Liberals aim to make life boring. Safe and boring. Just make it 100% taxed and everything free! Work for credits like on Star Trek. WHOO! Or better YET! Invent the Matrix type thing but make it so nothing dangerous happens, there's no disease, no death, and everyone is happy and smiley and sane and intelligent and whatever they wanna be.
the one statement you make that I'd like to comment on... despite what we all may want to believe, the US has no surplus of wealth. Any money we send in aid, isn't really "our" money anyhow, as it is part of the national debt, a majority of which is funded by foreign investors. It isn't like we were sitting on a pot full of gold. Granted I think that these are the exact examples of how messed up the administration is. We can spend $100 million dollars of the last omnibus spending bill for pet projects for senators and representatives with the president showing no fiscal responsibility on that note, but when it's time for something that makes a difference in the world at large, when a major catastrophe has occured... well then it's time to tighten up the belt. Bullshit
I read this with Dan last night and man, I've been in these situations before. Let them all rot - gotta love the humanity this country has for it's fellow man.
Captain, you're right - I don't agree with you most of the time - however, you've not had to deal with issues that are life threatening and limit you in many ways. That's ok, I understand - don't agree with you, but understand.
Mr. V - if there were more people that gave a rat's ass in this world and were'nt so damned selfish, sheltered and numb to the rest of the world around them, I think it would be a much better place to live. The saddest part here is that the majority, that has voted this conservative political leadership into our government offices is the same bunch that are talking like that.
I've said it before, and I"ll say it again...you take these silver spoons away from the conservative right and they won't know what to do or how to do it and they'll be the first bunch to stand on their soap box and scream out to the rest of the world that THEY deserve this and they deserve that. BAH
If it's any consolation. I've always gone out of my way to help, even when I couldn't help myself. Why, because I always hold hope that someone will learn compassion and selflessness from my example. I try not to be bitter about it either, but it's difficult when you have people who'd rather bitch about the cost of their BMW and property taxes on their 10,000sq foot house than go out and volunteer to teach a homelss child how to read and support themselves.
____________________ Get in, Sit down, Shut up and HANG ON!
I tend to see both sides of the issue and I understand where you're coming from Captain J. That said, I don't have the answer. (I must say though, I don't know why it's the "liberals" who make life safe and boring - trust me, ALL politicians do this by passing new and needless laws EVERY YEAR.) I think there is something to be said for letting people fend for themselves, take care of themselves, and deal with life as it's delt to them. I have no earthly idea why we all pay in to a GIANT ponzi scheme under the premise of some bogus "social compact" to take care of everyone. The arguement is always something like, "well you like to use public roads, and airports and have a military to 'defend' you don't you?" Yes, yes I do, but what we're collectively paying in taxes has gone SO FAR BEYOND these group needs items that it really boggles my mind. I don't think it's the federal government's job to take care of everyone when there's a natural disaster either at home or abroad. That's for the people in the affected area and those associated with them to do. People should put away for the bad times because they touch everyone at some time or another. That said, I don't think we should just say screw 'em either. Hmm... I'm really starting to sound like a politician; incapable of an easy straight answer.
The other thing that bothers me is that the feds take so much in taxes, and yet the social services and things like relief efforts would utterly fail without the ADDITIONAL voluntary support of millions of kind hearted people giving over and above their alloted share. A system that relies so heavily on the kindness of strangers while squandering money (like $35,000,000!!!! on an inauguration party!!!) is an absolutely irresponsible system.
Definition of compassionate conservative helping the needy:
pays cash for the best pair of boot straps he can find for the money (probably made by non-union workers), hands them to the downtrodden and tells him/her to put them on and lift themself up.
Definition of a bleeding heart liberal helping the needy:
uses someone elses money to buy the most expensive pair of bootstraps he can find (probably made by union workers), invites the downtrodden to a group therapy session at an agency supported by tax dollars so that the group can help him/her put them on and then enrolls him/her in a government susidized program to lift them up because they are undoubtedly incapable of taking care of themselves.
Last edited on Thu Jan 6th, 2005 03:13 am by FLAZX5
Its unfortunate that there will always be the poor people. Not so bad for the people who get themselves in that situation but its sad for the inevitible children they bear who can't see above that level and never learn to conquer it.
Well, if you base it on "poor" or "class" structure, which I know the world can be broken down that way.
I was born "middle class". We had a home, Dad built it after coming home from the Navy (Vietnam). Had his college degree, owned a business did well. Had a vacation property...as did most of my Paternal side...up in Rockland ME on the water, secluded and private.
Had a boat, two snowmobiles, 3 cars, Dad used to drag race and played guitar with his friends. Then I got ill @ 10 year old.
Business went under because he was trying to care for me (back then there was only indemnity insurance...Pay a premium, then 20% of all the bills) These bills piled up and dad slowly liquidated, 2nd mortgage. Lost the business, lost the land, lost the cars, the boat, the sleds. nearly lost our home. Then, Mom got ill...I wasn't born poor, nor do I consider myself poor, but I've struggled due to catastrophic incidents that have plagued me and my family.
I personally don't care about material things. That's not to say I don't like having certain things, car etc., but it can be very hard to keep these things when something strikes you like my illness did.
btw - after all of the sacrifice and fighting I've done over the past 24+ years with this illness - I was just told by my new Credit Union here in NH that I have A credit. The best! I fought long and hard and had to swallow my pride from time to time to get help, but if I didn't I wouldn't have been able to pull myself up the way I've done. Help is necessary for some and abused by others. I don't condone the abuse and I can't bitch about it if I know someone who is abusing it and don't report it.
How many of you out there bitch about the abuse of the "system", but don't report the abusers?
____________________ Get in, Sit down, Shut up and HANG ON!
Almost three years ago, the Bush Administration signed a pledge, the Monterrey Consensus, to "make concrete efforts" to provide 0.7% of national income in assistance to the world's poor. Currently, the U.S. provides less than one-fourth of that pledge, just 0.15%--a mere 15?? out of every $100 of U.S. income.
Among the world's 22 wealthiest nations, the United States gives the lowest percentage of its GNP. Although in terms of actual dollars, the US might give more, because of the lowest percentage of GNP, that makes us the stingiest of all the richest nations.
____________________ If you can't read this, you're illiterate.
Who decides what the poor of the world is? People that are starving to death and disease ridden? That should be the our definition for the ROW. Give them the basics for life. I know some people from the Philippines that lived in huts in the jungle and still have family that lives there. They don't think they're poor and neither do I. They have what they need. Now those people in Somalia that are starving to death, those people fit what should be the description of what are poor. But like in their case, they've been at war forever and the faction in power is going to be the one that is going to control the food. Is what happens there our business? Should we still spend money on their aid knowing that they won't get it? Our "poor" people aren't the crazies who live on the streets but the people who were placed there or living in those craphole ghettos. I would bet that most of those people who are sane didn't do all they could to not be in that position. Some won't care what their lifestyle appears to look like. Some just want to recieve the handouts and don't see a way out or just don't care to get out of that position. Prices will always be set by what people can afford and those who have the least will always have to spend the highest percentage of what they have to get by. People shouldn't be allowed to drain the public resources because they're lazy. It sucks that alot of those lazy ones have kids and don't teach them that they can have whatever they want if they'll work for it. Our society doesn't do anything to promote that either. That's something that public education needs to emphasize more, rather than just graduating or going to college. They should teach them how to handle money and what they can do to be set for life. There are lots of jobs that don't pay bad for those who want to work. When I worked construction I was making around $40k and got that because I worked hard and that ain't bad for a single person living with mom and pop. There are vendors for potato chip companies who work only 2 stores but work 10 hour days sometimes seven days a week that make $2k a week! Good examples of not doing bad if you wanna work for it. You feel sorry for those "poor" mexican families who come here illegally? They come here, get a social, work for 10 years, automatically become citizens, and go back to mexico rich by their standards. They want it enough and do what it takes to get it. And really, those "poor" mexicans are better off than middle class americans. That's why I really don't believe in government programs, they don't do enough to teach people how not to be leeches and their operating costs are outrageous.
