A Forum for Grinches and Ho-Ho-Hoes

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
We could offer a $100 billion prize to the first country in the region to establish a real democracy. $50 billion to the runner-up.

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

[taxwonk]

Originally posted by sgtclub
Let me guess. You were one of those people that didn't see the benefit to US tax payors in putting pershing missles in Germany, right?

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?

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by taxwonk
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?

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.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

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

[baltassoc]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
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.

[taxwonk]

Originally posted by sgtclub

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.

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

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.

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.

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by taxwonk
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.

Positive to who?

[Dave]

Originally posted by baltassoc
Such is God's will.

Who says there are no more true philosophers?

[Adder]

Originally posted by bilmore
"Since the attack of 9-11, we've won two wars,

Translation: "Mission Accomplished"

about to see elections in Iraq and among the Palestinian people.

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

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

[taxwonk]

Originally posted by sgtclub
Positive to who?

If you have to ask....

[Adder]

Originally posted by bilmore
Anybody bitching about our government's stinginess who hasn't been particularly generous personally at this point is simply unmasked as someone for whom it is very important to give away Other People's Money only, and I can't see a lot of moral weight in that.

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

[Gattigap]

Originally posted by sgtclub
Positive to who?

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.

[Skeks in the city]

Originally posted by Gattigap
I'd think that our decision to offer a couple of [hundred million] 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.

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.

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by taxwonk
If you have to ask....

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?

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Gattigap
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

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

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.

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.