question
 

If we did that Ross Perot would hire up some mercinaries and go take over Kuwait.

What's This About?
 

Nope. But I'm also not one of those people that are too doctrinaire to see the absolute necessity of the world's greatest power providing relief to a region that has large portion of the world's population in the wake of the greatest natural disaster since the Flood.

Or is there no benefit in a national conscience?

What's This About?
 

2 points.

1. I think several good arguments can be made that US disaster relief does serve the interest of the US tax payor. My point was that I think the question needs to be asked before our government spends $1 dollar on foreign aid, let alone $350 million.

2. I would be curious to see how much money individuals in this country pony up for private relief aid. I would bet that it will be greater than the donations of most other nations.

According to CNN, Sweden's fatalities from the tsunami may be -- proportionate to its population -- greater than Indonesia's and behind only Sri Lanka.

Such is God's will.

What's This About?
 

I think that if the sheer overwhelming nature of the destruction and loss doesn't speak for itself then I sincerely wonder what would.

That may or may not be true. However, we don't ask how much private support there is for the military occupation of Iraq. Between Iraq and Southeast Asia, I have no trouble seeing which is a more positive use of taxpayer's dollars.

What's This About?
 

Positive to who?

Who says there are no more true philosophers?

Too much choice
 

Translation: "Mission Accomplished"

Translation: "Yeehaw, Yasser's dead!!"

Ad(The administration, and Rumsfeld in particular, had exactly what to do with elections in Palestine?)der

What's This About?
 

If you have to ask....

What do you mean other people's money? From your point of view, we "rich" lawyers pay more than our fair share of taxes. It's my money.

Ad(already given privately as well)der

What's This About?
 

You may have seen the Administration's own reports suggesting that our abysmal relationships with the Muslim world have retarded our successes in Iraq, notwithstanding our demonstrated ability to turn Fallujah into bumpy glass.

From that view, I'd think that our decision to offer a couple of governmental dollars to alleviate some honest-to-God thirst, hunger and other needs and help prevent the further loss of vast numbers of lives in Southeast Asia would redound to the benefit of even the most libertarian of Americans, at least as much on a dollar-for-dollar basis as those spent to quench the Iraqi's virtual thirst for democracy.

If it's your argument that contributing the first governmental dollar to this cause is unwise or unjustified, then say so. Pussy-footing around with a procedural point simply for the sake of procedure where (a) we don't remember you raising it before we initiated other campaigns to spend a couple hundred billion dollars in foreign lands, and (b) you may agree with the answer that everyone else suggests here anyway, adds little to the discussion and simply pisses people off.

What's This About?
 

How do you know there's adequate controls so that 75 or 80% of the money isn't stolen or wasted. It's better to do nothing than write a check for over $225 million to the local robber barrons and royals.

What's This About?
 

Right. So that brings us back to my original question. Is spending tax payor money for the benefit of non-tax payors a proper use of funds?

What's This About?
 

I never said otherwise. In fact, I said there are several good arguments to this effect.

My point is that I think it's useful to ask the question, because others on this board don't seem to think it should be ask. The view seems to be that its the Gs money now so shut the fuck up.