Democrats & Liberals: Archives

This is a very compassionate post, but it will fall of deaf ears. Remember, this is a president who doesn’t read the papers or listen to the news; he prefers to get his information from his lackeys, and they certainly aren’t going to bring this to his attention. How unfortunate to feel this way about the POTUS.

Nicely done, Paul.
Unfortunately, I think jackie is right. They’ll never be pro-bono, they’re too busy being pro-bonehead.

I read earlier today that our government is going to again be producing plutonium 238 at the cost of 1.5 billion over the next few years. How is it that we have a deficit when it comes to helping our fellow man, but not when it comes to technology that could help to eradicate them? I agree with the fact that helping others can help to fight our war on terror more than anything else our country can do. As the old saying goes, “you can get more with honey, than you can with vinegar” A simple, tried and true concept, that you would think a country boy like Georgie would have learned.

If you want to be pro-bono, you have my blessing. If you want to give your hard earned money to a cause that you feel worthwhile- that is your right. When you demand that the president pledge money you did not earn to give to people in other countries, you are stepping over the line and asking me to subsidize your preferences.

I admit that there are some things that cannot be done through the private market- for example, if you want to stop a group of people in a country from committing genocide against another group of people- there is no practical way for you to do that without the help of the government. But if you want to give money to those in need- there are many charity organizations that you can give to.

In summary, even if Bush is inclined to “be compassionate” (which it seems he is given how much we give to AIDs in Africa), he has no right to be compassionate with the money you and I earn. There is only one person who has the right to be compassionate with someone’s money- the one who earns it. This post should be made in an appeal to private individuals- Americans, who give an extraordinary amount of money every single year. Instead you have directed your plea at a person whose JOB is to uphold the constitution. Your message is misdirected.

Dear President Bush,

I fully support you in everything you do. I, like everyone else realize that you have made some terrible mistakes. In fact, I can’t think of very many things that you would get credit for having done correctly.

In any case, I firmly believe that you should take the opportunity proposed by Bono and allocate the funds requested. After all, being promised a place in history by Bono is no trifling matter.

Besides, you never know what mistakes you will be accused of in doing the right thing and, who knows how much of the aid money will get to it’s destination anyway. You may have an opportunity to spend millions more trying to recover the original millions. It’s worth the risk, go for it.

Paul, you are as bad as the Republicans whose response to deficits and debt is to spend more and more OVERSEAS while Americans continue to lose infrastructure, real wage dollar earnings and purchasing power, lower educational standards, and frightening retirement years with the looming pension crises, Medicare/Medicaid spiralling costs, and cuts in SS benefits.

Americans first! With 42 million uninsured, America has a health crisis of is own to solve first.

I support Bush’s stand on forgiving African debt. I am adamantly opposed to his sending any more tax dollars overseas for the relief of the others while the numbers here in need of relief are steadily growing. Get your damn priorities straight, will you?

Misha —

By that logic, does a president have a right to do much of anything with “our” money?

Certainly that same logic applies to a war in Iraq. Starting a war in a foreign land that costs more every day than a likely one-time donation would also falls into the category of Uses for “My” Money that I Don’t Support.

I find your critique exceedingly strange. Do you not support any of the President’s other enormously expensive uses of tax dollars, as well? Or is it OK so long as we’re aiming guns at the poor non-whites, instead of rendering much-needed aid?

Screw Africa! We have been sending them aid for over half a century, and all they do is breed more and want more aid. If these people want to be fed, let them present proof that they have been sterilized and we won’t end up feeding their multitudes of descendants, who STILL won’t be able to support themselves.

Following capn mike’s theory why not just feed and clothe those who are already not terminally ill with contagious diseases.

That way we can get a return on investment.

Hey, am I incorrect, but don’t some of our tax dollars go for diplomacy? Why bother having diplomats and embassies? Why bother sinking tax dollars into good will? (Diplomacy: The skill and tact of negotiating with others.) Whoops! My mistake, I forgot that it’s better to sink tax money into a war that benefits the rich and greedy, while taking the lives of our American youth.

Now, that more and more people are realizing the false reasons we were given for invading Iraq, do they have any option to quit paying taxes to support the war? Do they have an option to donate to the war effort? I believe if most Americans were polled as to where their tax dollars went, most would opt to save lives rather than to take them.

So Misha, you don’t want your money going to a cause that others think will reduce the spread or terrorism because it can be done through a charity? I don’t like how some of my hard earned money goes to support things like Abu Gharib or Guantanamo especially since I think it doesn’t help reduce terrorism, but I bet you think that at least Guantanamo works for our war on terror and that I have the duty to pay for what happens at Guantanamo. Going by your line of reasoning, why do I have to pay for Guantanamo when I do not think it works and people can pay for it without the government’s help? Plus, if you don’t think Charity works in the war on terror than I guess improving our image by over 70 percent in the world’s largest muslim nation means nothing to you.

Matty said,

[Saint Matty, we critique the message, not the messenger.]

The gospel according to Matty

David:
“Get your damn priorities straight, will you?”

I think you’re being a little rough on Paul here. We could easily take care of ourselves, and give at least a little more than we’re giving to Africa, if we did as Paul suggested:

“You know the Defense Depatment has many boondogles. Pick one of them - maybe the anti-missile defense system, which does not work - and get rid of it.”

Seriously, doing away with StarWars and a few of our other crappy military projects, as well as all that cash that has been earmarked for Mars Exploration, would really go a long way toward helping ourselves (and I agree we should put ourselves first) and yet, still allow us to be generous to Africa during such a horrific crisis.

“By that logic, does a president have a right to do much of anything with “our” money?”

The president can spend your money to achieve constitutional goals. For example, the Iraq war was, at least purportedly, to protect our national security- something that is committed to the president and something that cannot be adequately done through private action. Now you can disagree with whether he was correct in his assessment- but that was his reason under the constitution for doing what he did. And Guantanamo- that is supposed to protect our national security- although you may disagree with whether it does or not. Whether the merits of either Guantanamo or the Iraq War comport with these reasons is a subject for another post- and I probably agree with you on at least one of those more than you think.

The problem with your proposals is that you want our country to give to charity- pure and simple. You are making an argument that this could NOT be done through private donations and thus only the government can do it. Moreover, it is pretty clear that your goal here is charity, not protecting America or increasing our nation’s welfare…

Now, if your serious (not pretextual) argument was that giving to charity is best for our national security, you may have some argument. Moreover, you could also submit an argument that only government can properly give to charity, because of some sort of inefficiency. I think both of these arguments would fail. You want the federal government to give charity to people in foreign nations for no ends committed in the constitution and no other purpose our national government was created to serve. You should stop this effort to further undermine the federal government from its constitutional moorings, and attempt to convince your fellow American citizens to give more to charity.

“but I bet you think that at least Guantanamo works for our war on terror…”

I spent the last year working with a professor here at Georgetown Law Center to help protect the rights of one of the prisoners at Gtimo. You know what they say happens when you assume…. how much was that bet for, by the way?

When you demand that the president pledge money you did not earn to give to people in other countries, you are stepping over the line and asking me to subsidize your preferences.

Um, how many billions have we spent in helping a small, poor nation in the Middle East achieve democracy? And that doesn’t include the much higher cost of spilled blood. But perhaps we can argue the Iraq war was done to protect America’s interests? Okay. Then wouldn’t spending relative pocket change to enhance our global reputation and blunt the accusations of U.S. enemies be a wise thing? It’s practically defense spending.

By the way, very nicely written article, Paul.

Matty,

Next time let go a bit and tell us how you really feel about capn mike.

“Then wouldn’t spending relative pocket change to enhance our global reputation and blunt the accusations of U.S. enemies be a wise thing? It’s practically defense spending.”

If that was actually the reason you guys have for supporting this proposal, I would have made a practical, rather than a principled, objection to the proposal. I think, however, that the major goal of proponents of this spending (like Bono) is charity, pure and simple. And while that is a very noble goal, and something that I will give to whenever I actually start earning money, it is not the place of our federal government under the constitution.

Misha, if our public image in Indonesia, the world’s largest muslim nation, was improved by over 70 percent through government relief combined with private donation as recent polls prove, a simmilar program of a much larger magnitude would go a long way in the War on Terror in muslim countries that produce the terrorist recruits. We did the same thing in Europe after WWII when reporters in 1946 would say that European opinion of America was at an all time low leading France and Italy to almost become Soviet Satalites but the Marshall Plan changed all of that within 4 years. Sure, just throwing money at these countries without an infastructure to handle the funds with the least amount of corruption may not be the best move, but America’s reputation and security would be greatly helped with a program that has an aid infastructure that can achieve the correct distribution of funds.

Sorry, I shouldn’t have assumed your position through that figure of speech.

Misha,

What about the power to enter into executive agreements and engage in diplomacy? Moreover, if you want to keep things Constitutional, the President does not, even under the War Powers Act, have the power to engage unilaterally in a military action of the scope and duration of the Iraqi conflict.

Ultimately, any monetary pledge by the President would have to be ratified (not in the strict constitutional sense, but in the linguistic sense) by Congress anyway, wouldn’t it? And Congress purportedly represents the people, so that pretty much undermines your claim, doesn’t it?

At the end of the day, your argument is a bit silly and doesn’t amount to much more than quibbling. The President clearly does not constitutionally have the power of the purse, and yet a monetary pledge announces an intention to recommend to Congress and exert pressure in order to see that they make such an expenditure. And with a government as monolithic as ours currently is, certainly a pledge by the President will more than likely be honored by Congress, especially with the huge political dividends it promises to reap.

Mischa,

You claim that our president has to uphold the constitution. I agree. Are you naive enough to believe that he actually does that or has done that? Lying to your constituents to fight a personal war and/or one based on personal greed for yourself and your oil cronies does not uphold our constitution. Asking our legislature for money to help a “truthful” cause would go far in fighting our war on terror, mending diplomatic relations with foreign countries as well as allowing ‘W’ to someday be seen in the history of the world as not being a total war monger bent on greed and power. And, guess what? If congress would approve it, it would even be constitutional. What? You may argue that congress approved us going into Iraq? We were over there bombing them for a year before that occured. When it did, it did so based on lies. Would any man or woman have enlisted knowing that they may sacrifice their lives based on a lie?

I agree that we need to help the poor at home first and I also agree that we should have enough to help other countries in need. First, we need to get our priorities straight. If we are going to truly fight the war on terror, there are much more positive means to achieve our purpose than to attack a country who had never attacked us or to turn our backs on greater threats to our security.

I can’t disagree with anything that Misha said. I wish I could express it as well. Everything this administration is legal according to the constitution. I challange anyone to prove otherwise.(Go to the press and get famous.)

Our government has specific demands on it’s revenue (Our money)….Some at least most of us agree that we need, like roads and bridges, national defense, Disaster relief to name a few. I guess it would come down to which program to take it out of. The defense budget won’t be cut to support a charity. Could you imagine the outrage from citizens when our military was just chastised for supporting the boy scouts. We have XXX$$$ to spend on social programs. Which do you want to cut to give to this charity?

Then wouldn’t spending relative pocket change to enhance our global reputation and blunt the accusations of U.S. enemies be a wise thing? It’s practically defense spending.

If that was actually the reason you guys have for supporting this proposal, I would have made a practical, rather than a principled, objection to the proposal.

Yes, by all means, let’s talk practicality. After all, Paul’s original post noted, “it will bring you closer to winning the war on terror than anything you have done to date.”

I would argue, as Julia has said in another threat, that money spent in Indonesia after the tsunami was well spent because it bolstered the U.S. reputation in the largest Muslim nation in the world. That is, we take out our enemies not by killing them but by undercutting the reasons for attacking us. The terrorists can’t be successful without social support. We cut the support, we defeat the terrorists.

Africa has large Muslim populations in the northern nations. We can undercut terrorism there. I’d also argue, as Bush does, that unstable nations become a hotbed for future terrorists, so we can reduce their numbers by making nations more stable. This war, like the war against communism, is a world war. We should be treating it that way.

One thing is missing here. Bono praised President Bush for the work the U.S. has done in Africa during his first term. Especially with the AIDS problem. Said that it would make history but unfortunately it would probably be forgotten unless the situation in Iraq gets better.
I agree. Giving hand outs makes us look good and may convince some that America isn’t all that bad.
My problem with all of the help that has already been sent is that the situation has not gotten any better.
The money CANNOT go directly to the governments.
Giving food to people in tents will never help them stand on their own.
They would like us a lot better if they could have productive lives instead of handouts.

Africa needs more than just money. They need capitalism. Free markets will allow those countries to slowly turn around.

The aid does not always go to those in need. Throwing more money at the problem does not fix it. I support Bush’s decision to forgive African debt, but that alone will not turn the country around. They need free markets and desperately require some risk-taking entrepreneurs.

Don’t believe all the stereotypes about Africa. There’s an astonishing amount of entrepreneurship throughout the region, and you’ll be hard put to find more self reliance, especially not in the pampered U.S.

The problems there are many, and they include government corruption in some places, but the more serious problems have to do with things like malaria and drought. These are the kinds of problems that can be addressed fairly easily and cheaply, and solving them can turn around entire populations.

Let’s put it this way: it doesn’t matter how many pep talks you give to someone suffering from malaria. They won’t be able to get up and start business. They can’t. They’re sick. But if you give them something as basic as sleeping nets, their whole world can change. Suddenly, they don’t need handouts but only modest investments. It’s not as complex or as hopeless as the stereotypes dictate.

Adrienne, my comment may have sounded a bit harsh. But I responded just a short time after reading a story indicating municipalities are criminalizing panhandlers at an alarming rate across our nation.

Our priorities exemplified by this government’s give aways to foreign nations while ignoring millions upon millions of suffering Americans is just beyong the pale for me. And Paul seems to have more empathy for those overseas than he does for Americans here at home. I am all for aid overseas, but, like my own charity giving, I want to see the US insure its own family is fed, housed, employed and insured first.

Isn’t it true that Bush has done more for Africa than any other president ever ?

www.globalissues.org

The USA gave more than double, in aid, than any nation on Earth.

That doesn’t include the millions of illegal aliens who are currently receiving aid from within the USA.

China and Russia aren’t in the top 20 (Far below new Zealand)

Doesn’t most of the aid end up in the hands of warlords?

You do know that when the aid gets to a “poor” nation. Most of the time, the sacks of grain will not read on the outside “A gift from the USA” In fact often, the receiving Government refuses to distribute the aid until all US markings have been removed.

So, there is no diplomacy gain from the aid. None at all

Second, again, most of the time, the food goes to troops, or prospective troops who learn all day that the USA sucks and they should strive for our deaths. (almost sounds like the aid is being sent to Berkley, or any other college, USA)

America has sent huge shiploads of surplus corn to starving nations in Africa and they burned it!

Its the same exact thing your cornflakes are made from, but because we raise hybred grains their government feels people might get sick from eating it?
They did say that if we purchased grain from another country that bans those types of grain, they would welcome that aid?

Lets see…they are starving to death and dieing of aids and other nasty sicknesses, but refuse the very food that Americans eat?

I have to agree with David, give free cornflakes to hungry children here at home, there are lots of them!(adults too)

jimmie,

You might want to look at a map of Africa sometime. It’s not all desert. In fact, it has more fertile land than Europe does! Sure, there’s a really big desert in the north, but not all — or even most — of the people live there.

Would you suggest that everyone in the Southwest US should move to Kansas to solve all of their problems?

James, you are right, GW has done more for Africa than any other President in fact, President Bush pleadged $15 billion for Africa in 2002, although Congress has yet to allocate that money. It is being held up by the Reps. as well as the Dems. Why, I don’t know, but there is an epidemic in Africa that needs to be addressed soon and money will not resolve the problem. As a world community, we must help them build an infrastructure of schools, roads, homes and business’s and help them get back on their feet. Money will end up in the hands of the corrupted few and will help nothing. The US has sent more money around the world than all of the other countries combined and we are still looked at with disdain by many. Don’t be fooled into thinking that only money will resolve these issues, because it won’t and GW knows it.

If Bono and all the rest of his multi-millionaire friends all donated one million each they wouldn’t have to take a pork chop out of my measily wages!
None of these celebrities donate appropriately compared to their wealth….Oprah donated a million dollars to such and such…….big deal she has billions! Not to mention that it then can be a tax write off for them! You cannot get a charity write off if it is just taken out of your check in taxes!
Go be “kind” w/ your own money!

The Defense Depatment has many boondogles. Pick one of them - maybe the anti-missile defense system, which does not work - and get rid of it. Pledge the money at the G8 meeting.

Mixing partisan politics with a message of compassion is the greatest hypocracy on this board.

How many in this discussion have visited the poor in a third-world country, or visited a halfway house in the U.S.? How many have given their own money to alleviate suffering (in the U.S. or abroad)? How many homeless people do you know? What percentage of your income goes to charities/churches/needy individuals? These are the questions we should be asking. To say “I’ll give when I have money” is no excuse; look at this example from the Bible.

From having been abroad myself, I’d say that the poorest 1% of Americans are better off financially than at least 50% of the people in any third-world country, and for even the poorest here, getting free food is easy. Everyone can give something. If your conscience isn’t clean on this, then I would encourage you to set yourself straight before suggesting that everyone else pay more with their tax dollars.

Having said this, I think the U.S. could give more. But it ought to do so in some form other than money - “ending poverty” is an elusive goal. The problem is often not resources, but distribution. Better for the government to create programs encouraging individuals to give, or help the Peace Corps with higher recruiting goals, or subsidize missions trips for high-school and college students. Chops has been to Rwanda; I bet he has some good suggestions. If you’d like to help orphans in India, feed homeless people on the East Coast, or subsidize missions trips for college students, drop me an email (gandhi@djnoronha.com). Better still, start with your local church.

David R. Remer:

I support Bush’s stand on forgiving African debt. I am adamantly opposed to his sending any more tax dollars overseas for the relief of the others while the numbers here in need of relief are steadily growing. Get your damn priorities straight, will you?

I agree. I have always found it to be flawed logic to send money and food and workers overseas when we have millions at home who are so desperately in need. I agree with forgiving debt, but then loaning them more only replaces the debt. I give more money than I probably should to charity, but I always give to charities that help Americans first—local food banks, Habitat for Humanity, etc.

I hate the idea that people are dying in Africa because they can’t get a couple measly mouthfuls of food each day, or their situation is horribly unsanitary, or diseases are running rampant. I feel even worse, and ashamed, that the same thing is still happening here. However, over the years, I have read articles stating that much of the money and food sent there is stolen or misappropriated for the benefit of some profiteers. As Beagle said, much of the surplus grain we send there is destroyed for no good reason.

This may not be the greatest analogy, but it seems like the 12 step plan. You can only truly be helped once you admit the need for help, and accept it willingly and honestly.

Screw Africa! We have been sending them aid for over half a century, and all they do is breed more and want more aid. If these people want to be fed, let them present proof that they have been sterilized and we won’t end up feeding their multitudes of descendants, who STILL won’t be able to support themselves.

Why not just furnish them with Smallpox blankets…lord knows it worked so well the first time, you dink! While we’re at it, we can introduce them to firewater and steal their land. We could use another military base the size of China, couldn’t we? I’m well aware that we have problems in this country, but we’ve established ourselves over the years as a charitable nation, one of the world’s super powers. We should continue to give, and give generously. anything to take away the image of the US as the devil…I agree with whoever mentioned the 1.5 billion for Uranium 238 enrichment…why the hell do we need that!!??

I completely agree that the poorest in the USA are better off than 50% of the world. That number may be higher if you consider not just home life but, school opportunities available, infrastructure (police, fire, roads) In the USA you could probably walk the streets looking for aluminum cans and make 10 times what a Nike clothes maker in Bangladesh makes. And they routinely work 60 hour weeks for 17 cents an hour.

Gandhi - I agree we should do more to END poverty. I think it’s the give a fish or teach a man to fish dilemma.

The racism in Africa is incredible. Racism is the wrong word since they are the same “race”, but they don’t see it that way. The hate is centuries deep. (The Tutsis and Hutus) Whoever you help the other will hate you forever.

If you could only give them liberty (this article is from ‘03 but some things never change).

What African countries need, the West cannot give. In a word, what Africans need is personal liberty. That means a political system where there are guarantees of private property rights and rule of law. It’s almost a no-brainer. The “2003 Index of Economic Freedom,” published by the Heritage Foundation and The Wall Street Journal, lists Botswana, South Africa and Namibia as “mostly free.” World Bank 2002 country per capita GDP rankings put Botswana 89th ($2,980), South Africa 94th ($2,600) and Namibia 111th ($1,700). Is there any mystery why they’re well ahead of their northern neighbors, such as Mozambique 195th ($210), Liberia 201st ($150) or Ethiopia 206th ($100)?

And what would PETA do if 9m rhinos, giraffes and lions had been similarly slaughtered?

AIDS?

You cannot avoid aids in a country where the tribal men believe a condom is against their religion but raping women is not!(Their beliefs state that the more women they sleep w/ and children they father makes them a man……where on earth do you go w/ that kind of logic?)

—-
Screw Africa! We have been sending them aid for over half a century, and all they do is breed more and want more aid. If these people want to be fed, let them present proof that they have been sterilized and we won’t end up feeding their multitudes of descendants, who STILL won’t be able to support themselves.
—-
Man, the compassion and humanity. Wow, what a dumbass (redneck?) Of course, I’m assuming this idiot is not a Christian, and somehow has come to terms with the religious right’s take over of the REPS…???

Maybe it’s just a rude joke and I’m missing it…

George in SC,

You bring up a good point(even if unintended).

Africa has billions of unused resources in game animals because of the groups like peta, that think you can stock-pile wildlife.
If things were managed like they are in every state in America, millions could be reaped in profits from managed, legal hunting.
Its almost cheaper to book a hunt in some African countrys, than booking a wyoming elk hunt!

There are photo tours that bring in some cash, but nothing compaired to the 10’s of thousands some will pay to shoot a lion ect.
The key is MANAGEMENT! Only harvest the surplus that would die anyway.
I understand that some people don’t agree with killing any animals EVER, I respect their views, but I guess I’m to pratcial to understand them.

If a farmer planted a crop every year,and never harvested any of it, and tilled it under every spring, they would likely get put in a nuthouse?

Wildlife is no different, its a crop that you manage and gleen the surplus, while saving some for seed.
I guess I could be off topic, but knowledge could also be aid?

Here are the numbers:

In 2003, the US spent nearly $20 billion or less than two tenths of one percent of our $11,000 billion GDP on humanitarian foreign aid. According to the OECD, this was the lowest percentage of any industrialized country in the world.

We also gave away $11.7 billion in military aid, with 96% of that amount going to only four countries (Egypt - 11%, Israel - 26%, Poland - 26%, and Pakistan - 32%), only one of which (Poland) can be classified as a secular democracy.

Obviously, the first step in increasing our humanitarian aid is to reduce our military aid. A 50% reduction could increase humanitarian aid by $6 billion without adding a penny to our national debt. It wouldn’t get us to 0.7% of our GDP, but it would be a large step in the right direction. Most importantly, it might actually make it through Congress (if the pro-Israel and pro-military lobbies assent, that is).

Second, we spent slightly less than $19 billion in 2003 on agricultural subsidies. If Congress reduced this amount by 50% (by eliminating subsidies for farms owned by corporations or farms that generated more than $100,000 in net income), we could add another $9 or $10 billion to our humanitarian aid. This might make it through Congress, too, if the agricultural lobby could be sufficiently shamed into cooperating. (Perhaps TV ads juxtaposing large corporations and wealthy farmers with starving children might be a start.)

Now we’d be up in the range of $35 - $40 billion (or 0.35% of our GDP), without an increase in public spending.

Finally, and most importantly, we should think back to the reasons that the Marshall Plan worked. Charity is never a permanent answer, investment is. The Congress must encourage private capital investment in indigent and developing democracies by providing American corporations with significant tax credits. Due to the agrarian nature of these societies, the most obvious recipients for this aid would be companies that manufacture aquacultural and agricultural equipment.

This isn’t some kind of novel idea. I think it was Confucius who said, “Give a man a fish, and you’ve fed him for a day; teach a man to fish and you’ve fed him for a lifetime.” Just like Europe after WWII, as these nations become more prosperous and bourgeoisie, they become more productive and democratic, as well.

Our elected representatives, especially those who consistently support agricultural subsidies and military aid and oppose corporate tax breaks, could enact these proposals, but they won’t unless they see some potential for the acquisition of personal political capital. This means it isn’t up to Bush or the Democrats of the Republicans. It’s up to us, not them, to push these proposals through Congress. Not only could we save tens of thousands of innocent lives annually, we might actually foment (rather than impose) the adoption of American principles globally.

Two quotes that come to mind:

“That which you do for the least of my brothern, you do for me”. Jesus Christ

“If a free society cannot help the many who are poor, it cannot save the few who are rich”. JFK

One quote that comes to mind…

“If every issue gets framed by partisan politics, It becomes a circle-jerk game…Beagle

Beagle-

The possibilities for Africa are endless save the current people who running the majority of the countries. Giving them more money for their Swiss bank accounts and for their armies just doesnt’make sense.

No, it is not a request for a check or some other handout. Nor is it a request to send over your 4th Infantry division to liberate us. Our suffering does not give us a right to your wealth or to the lives of your brave soldiers.

No, the favor I have to ask is very different—and far simpler. America, stop apologizing for your greatness.

Stand up and proudly champion the principles that have enabled you to earn your wealth and power: capitalism and the individual’s inalienable rights to life, liberty, property and the pursuit of happiness. Condemn every form of tyranny and tell the world that the political system created by your founders is the only noble system the world has ever seen. Tell every individual across the globe that no matter if he is black, white or Arab, the *only* path to freedom and prosperity is through the ideas contained in your Constitution and Bill of Rights. To modify a saying from one of your great founders, George Washington: Proclaim a standard to which the wise and the just can repair.

To do so costs you nothing—and will achieve much.

-A Cry from Zimbabwe by Steven Tennett

ok lets look at what the great bono said

“It is the most extraordinary thing to watch people dying three in a bed, two on top and one underneath, as I have seen in Malawi, in Lilongwe, Malawi.”

the smart thing to do would be to put the 2 on the bottom and the one on top. THATS how you build a pyamid. sounds like we need to send a few cheerleaders over to teach the doctors that one.

It’s an avoidable catastrophe. You saw what happened with the tsunami. You see the outpouring, you see the dramatic pictures. Well, there’s a tsunami happening every month in Africa, but it’s an avoidable catastrophe. It is not a natural calamity.”

the diferance is the people in the tsunami did nothing to bring it on themselves.

it is a NATURAL calamity and it must be allowd to run its corse.

when the great bono was there why didnt he whip out his checkbooj and stroke a check for 10 million bucks? ill tell you, all talk no action. u2 has a concert this summer, unless 100% of the profits go to africa then bono is the biggest hipocrit on earth.

next in line are the hollywood pinheads on that tv comercial asking for money. why dont they give up the 80 million they make per movie to africa? oh its a middleclass tax payer issue not a hollywood issue!

what a joke.

I hate the way people like Chuck H. use the GDP and GNP to call the USA cheap. Just because Norway gives 2 Billion doesn’t mean the USA has to give 200 Billion. Gosh, what is Norway’s GNP from anyway? Murdering whales!

So, let me get this straight, Norway murders 10,000 whales and then gives 2 billion to African warlords who run around the country side killing (black)Christian Africans, but because they gave more than .75 of one percent they are great and we are cheap?

In 2004, France gave 8 Billion and the Japanese gave 9 and the USA gave 18.

Privately, the USA private citizens gave more than that. Most of them were religious groups. Darn, those damn religious groups.

This world is growing smaller. We are all becoming more aware of each other’s situation. Do you want a cost effective way to deal with cross border terrorism? Can it also be a cost effective way to protect Americans? What would a prudent capitalist do in this situation? Might I suggest this…

“But what improves the circumstances of the greater part can never be regarded as an inconveniency to the whole. No society can surely be flourishing and happy, of which the far greater part of the members are poor and miserable”
—Adam Smith

Yes, but, as Bono said, government corruption is a problem in many instances that keeps aid from reaching the intended recipients.

jimmie,

Comment deleted for failing to abide by our policy. — Watchblog Managing Editor —

I have an honest question, and hope that maybe it will provoke some thought from some of the vehement anti-aid posters here:

What about the prospect of aiding those who desperately need it angers you so much? Try as I might, I completely fail to see how charity, no matter how ill-conceived or wrongheaded, manages to draw such unbelievable ire. When I think about feeding the hungry and helping the sick, the absolute LAST emotional response I can envision is rage and remarks espousing near genocide.

What does it cost you, that you get this angry? Some tax dollars? I posit that if you can afford a computer and have the time to waste posting here, you are having absolutely NO problems feeding yourself, your family, and still probably have an enormous television.

And yet, I’m willing to bet that you’re in complete, mindless support of the war in Iraq, which is waged on dubious authority, based on lies, is costing BILLIONS, will DEFINITELY waste your money, and cost our sons and daughters their lives. THIS doesn’t make you angry?

Good God, no wonder the world hates us. We don’t make a damn bit of sense. Charity costs us comparatively little, and it incenses us to no end. Needless war benefits none of us save the few who manipulate us, and costs us immeausurable amounts, in terms of both money and life, and we cheer.

Sometimes I honestly think we deserve whatever happens to us. God bless America.

Speaking for myself of course, It’s not the charity that bothers me. I hope Africa can raise enough money to solve all of their problems. The trouble I have with it is when it goes from a charity status to an entitlement. The government doesn’t have the right in my opinion to use our money for chatity…Kinda like sticking a gun in my ribs and taking $10 for the man on the corner. The man might need it but you have no right to force it from me.

unkind k~

“What does it cost you, that you get this angry? Some tax dollars? I posit that if you can afford a computer and have the time to waste posting here, you are having absolutely NO problems feeding yourself, your family, and still probably have an enormous television.”

Straight from the mouth of someone who obviously does have this and assumes the rest of us do!(Some of us post from work, not home!)

To all watchblog bloggers,

Saint Matty is no more.

Matty

—-
The government doesn’t have the right in my opinion to use our money for chastity…
—-
OK, I’ll take on the responsibility of supporting the people who ‘need charity’ if you’ll cover the cost of killing ‘all those who need killing.’

Why do people think that the government has no responsibility to help those in need, but give blank checks if it involves killing people? My money - helping people, your money, kill people. We’ll split it down the middle and you have to get things done with your half, and I’ll take care of things with my half.

I promise to keep my vagrants from pissing on your door step - you keep your enemies from blowing up my buildings…

Deal?

Traci —

Imagine that, a cheap barb rather than an address of actual issues from the right! Who would’ve guessed!

Good to see you’re working hard, Traci! If you’re spending your time on the clock writing posts, obviously you’re sweating out those dollars that you are so loath to give up.

Try actually responding to an issue. Otherwise, start earning your money.

As most of the postings agree, the U.S. already gives a great deal of to development.

As Bono says about George W. Bush, “I think he’s done an incredible job, his administration, on AIDS. And 250,000 Africans are on anti-viral drugs. They literally owe their lives to America. In one year that’s been done.”

All this public aid doesn’t even count U.S. private giving, which is much greater.

No matter how anyone tries to spin this, the U.S. is doing good and so is our president.

We should not let anyone imply that we should be anything but very proud. I know we can do more and we will do more, but so far it is very good.

Oh yeah – a good link to information about U.S. aid and Bono’s comments.

Jimmie —

Why is it I doubt you give a shit about poor people starving in America any more than you do about poor people starving in Africa? So don’t talk to me about charity. Chances are, you don’t pay a dime to anybody, American or otherwise.

I seriously doubt any economist, despite the notion of scarcity, or anyone who had seriously done any sort of study on the matter seriously believes that this world is incapable of feeding every single person on the planet. But it must be awfully comfortable for you to sit on your ass, and say, “Well, they’re screwed anyway, so I can continue being an obese American swine, wasting my money on the latest crap that our enormous advertising machine has convinced me I need, and not give a dime to anyone else.”

Good to know that porn and personal gratification of your petty desires takes precedence over human life. You’re really convincing me that the Right really does have a chokehold on morality, after all! Good for you guys!

Just keep writing your posts, Jimmie and all the others like you. Keep proving us right about how morally bankrupt, corrupt, and bloodthirsty the Right is. Maybe next war you volunteer for someone will have the good aim to put you out of our misery.

OK, last sentence was a little intense. My apologies to Jimmie and anyone it offended.

OK, OK, apology’s made, it won’t happen again. Don’t milk it for more than it’s worth.

Everyone can spend their money as they wish, you’re right. I still stand by my earlier question: what about charity makes you stand up and take notice in a political discourse that you, on other discussion threads, have called (I paraphrase) pointless? If you think African relief isn’t a “true” charity, as you stated earlier, what about it isn’t “true”? And what is a “true” charity?

Moreover, what should we spend money on? I see more problems with spending money on superfluous wars than on starving children. I don’t think I’m alone there.

I haven’t seen any serious challenges to the idea that the government has to power and legal underpinnings to give foreign aid. So what’s the big deal? Are your tax dollars really that important to you?

I think if conservatives answer yes to the last question, they really have to think long and hard about who really has the moral high ground in the ideological spectrum.

“What is in us that turns a deaf ear to the cries of human suffering”
—System of a Down

I’m surprised how the right (at least the sample here) refuse to go along with the notion of our government spending on “charity”.

I keep hearing that charity should be the domain of the “private” sector. I’m I the only person who can see THAT DOES NOT ADD UP!

Right now, people are dying of very preventable causes (like hunger). This after you consider what we (and the rest of the world) are spending. Both public AND private funds, at the current levels, ARE NOT ENOUGH!

Clearly if you remove the “public” funding, and are only left with the private funds, the end result will be even more suffering, disease, and death (so much for a culture of life).

And please don’t say something akin to “if we were taxed less, we’d give more.” Let’s say we did “give more”, it still would not add up to even our current public and private level.

Jimmie,

I have, but you did not respond to my position. CLEARLY, private charity is not enough!

Patrick, good point.

Jimmie

You said you participated in Gulf War Part I because you believed in it, no? Just out of curiosity, what moved you so much about the plight of the Kuwaiti people, and yet does not move you about the plight of the African people?
I wonder if you even have a reason. Or if any response of yours can amount to more than, “If you want to help Africans, get on a boat! Ha ha!”

I wait with bated breath for a “reply”.

And quit milking your alleged veteran status for rhetorical capital around here. You got paid already.

well the kuwaiti people did nothing to bring the problem on themselves. while the people in africa keep breeding like bunnies.

when are you going to realize that the problem in africa is never goning to get better as long as the root of the problem is not curied.

And what is your proposed cure? From your complaint in the previous paragraph, I wouldn’t be surprised if you say forced sterilization.

Yes, milking anything is bad.

You did not fight in this current war. You fought (you allege) in an extremely limited conflict from years ago. Your rhetorical currency is used up. If you believe so strongly in this war, fight in this one. I bet they’d love to have you.

As for Africa, the root of the problem? What do you know about it? Most of Africa’s problems are ultimately rooted in Western colonialism.

Jimmie, you’re a joke. With your inane, barely readable posts you have garnered nothing but contempt, even from people who are on your side of this dispute.

Everyone has given up changing your mind. You have to have one to have it changed. You barely even get responded to anymore. This will be my last response to you.

I’ll echo the sentiments of a great many others on this site and say:

Go away!