Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Since it's government of the people, by the people and for the people, it seems like you are drawing a very fine distinction, and one that is the point of my question. Do the majority of Americans want a government that doesn't provide any aid to foreign countries? If the government does provide aid, how does that become anti-American? And in the case of a national disaster, if sending money is wrong, but sending other humanitarian aid is okay, how is this going to be coordinated? There are logistical problems sending food or water halfway around the world, that require coordinated efforts. Should private citizens try to do that on their own, or is it anti-American to ask the government to lend its expertise?
It hasn't been a government by the people and for the people in a long time. As to your questions of logistical problems with the sending of humanitarian aid, where do you suppose these suffering nations will buy their food and water with the money they receive. We must remember that most nations who require US aid are themselves third world countries with very little in resources. Not to mention the fact that most of these nations are also surrounded by countries in similar situations. So their neighbors are also hard put for resources. Seems to me the only sure way to bring aid is to bring it ourselves in the form of foodstuffs and water, not green paper or blips on a computer screen.
Money transactions also afford too many people the opportunity to skim off the top. The same happens with most charities. Any number of charities upon investigation will reveal that they are only required to use a small percentage of their collections for actual charity. So the obvious best choice in this situation is to provide real aid and not monetary aid.
Also, it has been proven time and time again that private organizations get things done twice as fast or more than any government operation. A handy example would be road workers. There could be two identical projects of equal miles laid on the board for both the DOT and some private road building company. The private business will finish in half the time the government does and probably be under budget. 9 times out of 10 all DOT road projects run overdue and almost always cost far more than was predicted or intended. This same premise works for most government organizations world wide. If you want something done in a timely manner, you want a private business to handle your affairs. Not FEMA~
depends on what you mean by "we." it is not the role of the united states government to provide aid to foreign countries at the expense of the american tax payer. that is the role of charity.
It's in the best interest of the US government to promote stability throughout the world. Stability throughout the world provides stable markets and provides stability to the US economy. We will continue to provide foreign aid as long as it serves our interests. It just makes sense.
I'd say anyone who doesn't belong to a group that wants to secede from the United States of America is pro-America.
That's why I want to give her the benefit of the doubt. She has been married to a person that belonged to a group that wants to secede from the US, so maybe it is a refreshing change for her to be around other people that actually love this country. Maybe most of the people she hangs with in Alaska don't love this country very much. That certainly would explain her comments.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.