THe United States: Best Country On Planet

[Scourge]

Right with you, mate. I don't know what you think I said (I have no computer skills and when I quote someone else it just looks like I typed it!) but no worries. I don't really think throwing money at problems is any good either. Education, workable representative models of government all that... but not brought by force. So certainly we owe something to those we are standing on, but that understanding that is a whole university course I have yet to take.

 

[5.10 leader]

Scourge,

I was agreeing with you, which maybe wasn't apparent.

The whole issue of aid to the third world is a very complex issue and one that, in discussion, we like to think can be solved easily.

In fact most first world counties have poverty, to a greater or lesser extent, within their own orders and there is a great tempatation to quote the old phrase that "charity begins at home". But speaking for Britain, I feel that everyone here has the means to escape poverty, they have to get off their backsides and do something about it.

If only it was so simple in, say, Africa. The situation is so very different that I am afraid that it will take many years before a answer is found, aid is only a small contibution towards an overall solution.

But being aware of the problem is the essential first step with a willingness to help a close second. I am sure the first two steps have been taken along the road and can only hope the journey will be short but fear it will develop into a marathon.

 

[lilcountriegal]

I am not interested in ending world hunger. Nor am I interested in curing the African continent of AIDS. Since when is it my responsibility to clean up the problems of the world?

I agree with Moi on this actually. We have enough problems of our own here. We have children starving. We have homeless. We have needy. I think we need to start curing our own ailments before we go out and mend the world of theirs.

 

[5.10 leader]

I can see your point of view Lil.

But I do know that Britain is far from being self sufficient in raw materials and I suspect that the US is similar.

What I am arguing is that we, UK, have an obligation to the countries that we exploited in order to provide cut price materials on which to build our wealth. I cannot argue that the US is in a similar position, but again suspect that is the case.

An obligation is not a large handout. Even large powerful nations suffer from economic problems. All I would ask is that we recognise our debt and assist when we can, whether on a personal level by means of a charitable donation, or on a national level.

 

[Moi]

Originally posted by SinisterMotives
They are our fellow human beings, and we inhabit this world together. You either understand that or you don't.

What I don't understand is the futile hope of ending world hunger and curing diseases around the globe when our own citizens need help. What I do understand is that not many people who pontificate for vast amounts of money to be spent on foreign countries themselves donate a significant portion of their incomes/assets to those less fortunate in their own country. How many of those generous people do you think lifted a ladle at a soup kitchen over the holiday? Or now that the NE is going through such heavy cold (been below zero many times this month) have let even one homeless friend/relative/stranger into their warm houses at night? What I understand is that our money and resources should be used to lift the circumstances of our own citizens before we start doling it out to others.

I understand a lot more than you think. And, while it makes some people feel better to give lip service to such altruistic goals and give away money that costs them nothing, curing world hunger and ridding the world of diseases, although perhaps laudable goals, is never going to happen. People aren't going to suddenly start getting along, eating only minimum food amounts and diseases will continue to mutate one right after another is cured.

Personally, I think that until human nature changes for the better, it's a waste of money to spend it when the return on the investment is so poor when that money could do our own citizens a lot of good.

 

[SinisterMotives]

Originally posted by Moi
What I don't understand is the futile hope of ending world hunger and curing diseases around the globe when our own citizens need help. What I do understand is that not many people who pontificate for vast amounts of money to be spent on foreign countries themselves donate a significant portion of their incomes/assets to those less fortunate in their own country. How many of those generous people do you think lifted a ladle at a soup kitchen over the holiday? Or now that the NE is going through such heavy cold (been below zero many times this month) have let even one homeless friend/relative/stranger into their warm houses at night? What I understand is that our money and resources should be used to lift the circumstances of our own citizens before we start doling it out to others.

I understand a lot more than you think. And, while it makes some people feel better to give lip service to such altruistic goals and give away money that costs them nothing, curing world hunger and ridding the world of diseases, although perhaps laudable goals, is never going to happen. People aren't going to suddenly start getting along, eating only minimum food amounts and diseases will continue to mutate one right after another is cured.

Personally, I think that until human nature changes for the better, it's a waste of money to spend it when the return on the investment is so poor when that money could do our own citizens a lot of good.

I absolutely agree with you that charity begins at home. We do spend a lot of money on such programs as welfare, food stamps, housing assistance, etc., not to mention all the private charities and service organizations that work to improve the lives of less fortunate Americans. No case can be made that we help only people in foreign countries or that we give them priority over the needs of our own citizens.

We may not be able to completely end world hunger, disease, or poverty, but we'd be miserable excuses for human beings if we didn't devote part of the weath of this nation to the effort.

As regards how those generous people choose to contribute - e.g., writing a check vs. ladling soup in a soup kitchen - ask yourself which is a more effective use of their time? Working to make more money so they can contribute more, or performing chores that any volunteer can do? If Bill Gates decided to ladle soup, could you or I take his place in donating millions of dollars to charity each year? I know I couldn't.

 

[Moi]

Originally posted by SinisterMotives

As regards how those generous people choose to contribute - e.g., writing a check vs. ladling soup in a soup kitchen - ask yourself which is a more effective use of their time? Working to make more money so they can contribute more, or performing chores that any volunteer can do? If Bill Gates decided to ladle soup, could you or I take his place in donating millions of dollars to charity each year? I know I couldn't.

With the exception of Mr. Gates, I don't think there is a groundswell of people who do anything for charitable causes that actually impacts their lives. And that what I'm talking about, voting for people who are sending our money elsewhere (whilst they don't replenish the coffers out of their own pocket) and not lifting a finger for the supposed greater good. It's not helping others...it's assuaging their guilt and getting a tax deduction.

I don't think it makes anyone more human. Nor do I believe that we'd be miserable excuses for human beings if we decided to use our money on causes which would actually have an impact rather than those that are futile. We've spent all this money helping others...are we more respected? Do we receive in kind? Have we actually made anything any better? I don't think so.

 

[SinisterMotives]

Originally posted by Moi
With the exception of Mr. Gates, I don't think there is a groundswell of people who do anything for charitable causes that actually impacts their lives.

Gates may be the largest charitable donor in the U.S., but there is certainly no shortage of others who give as large a percentage of their fortunes to charity as he does.

And that what I'm talking about, voting for people who are sending our money elsewhere (whilst they don't replenish the coffers out of their own pocket) and not lifting a finger for the supposed greater good. It's not helping others...it's assuaging their guilt and getting a tax deduction.

I don't personally know anyone as selfish as you make "them" out to be, so I can't answer for them. It seems likely to me that most people who give at least believe they're making a difference, whether they actually are or not. Otherwise, they would adopt your attitude that their charity is futile and not do it.

I don't think it makes anyone more human. Nor do I believe that we'd be miserable excuses for human beings if we decided to use our money on causes which would actually have an impact rather than those that are futile.

I think that giving even one human being a brief respite from suffering or a moment of hope makes an impact. Maybe not an earth-shattering impact, but I wouldn't call it futile either.

We've spent all this money helping others...are we more respected? Do we receive in kind? Have we actually made anything any better? I don't think so.

If our motive for giving was to get respect or be repaid in kind, we would be no better than those you mentioned who give in order to assuage their guilt or get a tax deduction.

Moreover, I've personally known plenty of able-bodied Americans, including members of my own family, who believe the world owes them a comfortable living and who show far less gratitude for the help given them than many of the foreign recipients of charity that you categorically denounce as ungrateful. Some people simply won't allow themselves to be helped by making something of the opportunities given them, but instead view generous people as pushovers or meal tickets. If you give them a dollar, they pester you for twenty. I think that may have a lot to do with why rich people don't invite street people into their homes on a cold night. Putting up with ingratitude or being hustled under one's own roof is more insult than most people can bear. In other words, it's better for the down-and-out that the wealthy don't bump elbows with them on a daily basis. Doing so might actually make them less inclined to help.

 

[5.10 leader]

I may be cynical but when one is earning as much as Gates per annum, to give a large percentage of your fortune to a chaitable trust, or whatever, is not significant and does not impact on his way of life one iota. He is not, realistically, making a personal sacrifice to help others at all, particularly as Microsoft is still earning countless millions of dollars from the third world.

The guy in the street who willingly gives up his (or her) time for no reward at all, or who donates money from his real income is the person making the true sacrifice to help others.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

Originally posted by 5.10 leader
I may be cynical but when one is earning as much as Gates per annum, to give a large percentage of your fortune to a chaitable trust, or whatever, is not significant and does not impact on his way of life one iota. He is not, realistically, making a personal sacrifice to help others at all, particularly as Microsoft is still earning countless millions of dollars from the third world.

The guy in the street who willingly gives up his (or her) time for no reward at all, or who donates money from his real income is the person making the true sacrifice to help others.

Typical attitude for someone who's JUST an engineer!

 

[5.10 leader]

Originally posted by rtwngAvngr
Typical attitude for someone who's JUST an engineer!

Touche RWA

 

[SinisterMotives]

Originally posted by 5.10 leader
I may be cynical but when one is earning as much as Gates per annum, to give a large percentage of your fortune to a chaitable trust, or whatever, is not significant and does not impact on his way of life one iota. He is not, realistically, making a personal sacrifice to help others at all, particularly as Microsoft is still earning countless millions of dollars from the third world.

The guy in the street who willingly gives up his (or her) time for no reward at all, or who donates money from his real income is the person making the true sacrifice to help others.

Nevertheless, the millions Gates donates certainly don't hurt the causes he donates them to. Besides, I've always been taught not to look a gift horse in the mouth. He's not under any compulsion to give anything to anyone if he doesn't want to.

 

[Bullypulpit]

<b>THe United States: Best Country On Planet</b>

Not for long, especially if Dubbyuh suspends the 2004 elections and declares himself "President for Life". Of course, with the help of his good friends from Diebold, he can just steal it like he did in 2000.

 

[jimnyc]

Originally posted by Bullypulpit
Of course, with the help of his good friends from Diebold, he can just steal it like he did in 2000.

Any solid proof, or just spouting your propoganda bullshit again?

 

[DKSuddeth]

are you asking for proof that the diebold system is fallible or that he stole the election in 2000?

 

[jimnyc]

Originally posted by DKSuddeth
are you asking for proof that the diebold system is fallible or that he stole the election in 2000?

Every system is fallible. I'm asking for proof that he 'stole' the election. No proof can be given because that theory is absurd.

 

[Bullypulpit]

Originally posted by jimnyc
Any solid proof, or just spouting your propoganda bullshit again?

<h2><center>Voting Machine Owner
Committed To Give Votes To Bush</center></h2>
By Julie Carr Smyth
Cleveland Plain Dealer Bureau
8-30-03


Columbus - <i>The head of a company vying to sell voting machines in Ohio told Republicans in a recent fund-raising letter that he is:

"committed to helping Ohio deliver its electoral votes to the president next year."

The Aug. 14 letter from Walden O'Dell, chief executive of Diebold Inc. - who has become active in the re-election effort of President Bush - prompted Democrats this week to question the propriety of allowing O'Dell's company to calculate votes in the 2004 presidential election.

O'Dell attended a strategy pow-wow with wealthy Bush benefactors - known as Rangers and Pioneers - at the president's Crawford, Texas, ranch earlier this month. The next week, he penned invitations to a $1,000-a-plate fund-raiser to benefit the Ohio Republican Party's federal campaign fund - partially benefiting Bush - at his mansion in the Columbus suburb of Upper Arlington.

The letter went out the day before Ohio Secretary of State Ken Blackwell, also a Republican, was set to qualify Diebold as one of three firms eligible to sell upgraded electronic voting machines to Ohio counties in time for the 2004 election.</i>

Here's the link:

http://www.rense.com/general40/fr.htm

 

[DKSuddeth]

Originally posted by jimnyc
Every system is fallible. I'm asking for proof that he 'stole' the election. No proof can be given because that theory is absurd.

the theory may sound absurd but its not completely without some substance, considering the fiasco in florida and its connections, however, being that there IS no solid proof other than speculations, it will remain a theory for all time.

 

[jimnyc]

Sorry, Bully, that isn't proof of anything. Have anything solid that shows proof of wrongdoing, or are you fresh out of conspiracies?

 

[Bullypulpit]

Originally posted by jimnyc
Sorry, Bully, that isn't proof of anything. Have anything solid that shows proof of wrongdoing, or are you fresh out of conspiracies?

NEVER! BWAHAHAHAHA!