Securing our borders

[wondergirl9847]

http://www.reformus.org/

Just found this on another board. Wanted to pass it along. It's a petition to help secure America's borders.

[DownOnRodeo]

I watch a lot of CNN on my cable TV here, and Lou Dobbs is always raving on about the border protection issue. In one interview, the interviewee was asked how the problem should be addressed/resolved.. the interviewee (of Mexican background I think) replied that it is a human issue which needs to be dealt with by addressing issues in both countries and the human aspect. Lou Dobbs retorted: "This is not a human issue - it's an American issue!"

I don't think he realized how bad that sounded.. :( But I know that not everyone is as hot-headed as he.

[tynan88]

Joe, didn't they inform you? There's Americans and then there's everybody else. Treatment naturally differs between the two main groups that occupy this Earth.

Australia must have the opposite problem. Fascists (the Aust. Gov.) keeping the bloodlines pure and the immigrants in the most need out of the country is not a method for preventing hatred.

You know it's ashame more people won't get this but Lux: "Please Explain" :laugh:

[tynan88]

I don't like it.


Hehe it's ashame they don't get it because she represents essentially what I see as the Americans are trying to do and yet over here she waas blasted and I believe ended up in Gaol for her views.

[strandinthewind]

Joe, didn't they inform you? There's Americans and then there's everybody else. Treatment naturally differs between the two main groups that occupy this Earth.


Blah Blah Blah - we are such the bad guy it is a wonder anyone takes our aid (insignificant in percentage that it may be :rolleyes: ) at all. I mean you would think all these other countries would just refuse our help because we are such jerks :rolleyes: Funny thing is they do not, so I guess we are not that bad :rolleyes:

Yet, the elitist (ironic no) America bashing continues.

But, to the point, America must secure her borders. The 9/11 hijackers got in through loopholes and the person who was going to bomb LAX on Y2K was caught rather by chance at a border. Moreover, who knows how many others have gotten in for the sole reason to plan harm to us. So, I say, they can be tightened up. I also say that tightening will not exclude anyone who can demonstrate they are here legitimately.

[dissention]

Blah Blah Blah - we are such the bad guy it is a wonder anyone takes our aid (insignificant in percentage that it may be :rolleyes: ) at all. I mean you would think all these other countries would just refuse our help because we are such jerks :rolleyes: Funny thing is they do not, so I guess we are not that bad :rolleyes:

Yet, the elitist (ironic no) America bashing continues.

Tell that to the people of Rwanda. :D

[strandinthewind]

Jason, you're full of ****, everyone knows that by now honey. Game's up. Where's my money? Is that a......nope, I've lost it, don't know whatI was saying. Indeed.

Are you still high :wavey:

[strandinthewind]

Tell that to the people of Rwanda. :D

Tell that to the Tsunami victims and every other person the US has helped over the last few decades. Tell that Europe which without our help and lives they would be saluting to some faction of Hitler. Tell that to the African nations we help feed.

My point is this, lest you try to spin it :wavey: --- I and most know the US has done bad things, but we have done a whole lot of good as well and no one seems to want to talk about that. Its all the US is a bad nation blah blah blah - that tends to make me pissed :cool:

Here is a cool site http://www.globalissues.org/TradeRelated/Debt/USAid.asp

Plus, you have to consider the private donations as well and they are plenty.

But, all of that does not matter I guess because all anyone around here ever does is comment on horrible we are :rolleyes:

[wondergirl9847]

I'm so sick of America-bashing...and I ain't no Toby Keith, let's kick every other country's a$$ type of person either. EVERY country has done good and bad things. A country is defined by it's people and people have good and bad qualities. Every got dang country in this world has value.

[strandinthewind]

I'm so sick of America-bashing...and I ain't no Toby Keith, let's kick every other country's a$$ type of person either. EVERY country has done good and bad things. A country is defined by it's people and people have good and bad qualities. Every got dang country in this world has value.


:xoxo: :xoxo: :xoxo: :xoxo: :xoxo:

[GateandGarden]

I'm so sick of America-bashing...and I ain't no Toby Keith, let's kick every other country's a$$ type of person either. EVERY country has done good and bad things. A country is defined by it's people and people have good and bad qualities. Every got dang country in this world has value. Am I the only one here who has a hard time grasping the notion of loving one's country when you despise its government? :shrug: It just doesn't make sense to me sometimes.

[ontheEdgeof17]

Tell that to the Tsunami victims and every other person the US has helped over the last few decades. Tell that Europe which without our help and lives they would be saluting to some faction of Hitler. Tell that to the African nations we help feed.

My point is this, lest you try to spin it :wavey: --- I and most know the US has done bad things, but we have done a whole lot of good as well and no one seems to want to talk about that. Its all the US is a bad nation blah blah blah - that tends to make me pissed :cool:

Here is a cool site http://www.globalissues.org/TradeRelated/Debt/USAid.asp

Plus, you have to consider the private donations as well and they are plenty.

But, all of that does not matter I guess because all anyone around here ever does is comment on horrible we are :rolleyes:

We should start helping those on the streets of our country before we start dishing out the dough to others. Just my two cents. :o

[strandinthewind]

We should start helping those on the streets of our country before we start dishing out the dough to others. Just my two cents. :o

I agree for the most part, though it is hard to sit by and watch things happen elsewhere. I do think, however, that if we stopped the corporate welfare, the $215 hammers, and the free flow of cash to able bodied people - we would have enough money to educate people who need it for the workplace and provide health care to allow people to work. But, hey - no one ever asked me :cool:

[wondergirl9847]

I agree with ya! :thumbsup:

Jason, I agree with you too. The mismanagement of funds in this country is atrocious. :mad: I sesly hope our next president is good at math. LOL

[dissention]

I agree for the most part, though it is hard to sit by and watch things happen elsewhere.

What utter ****. We certainly sat by fine while genocide was occurring in Sudan and Rwanda, along with the UN and many other nations. If people want to talk about how wonderful this country is, fine. It is a great country when it does great things. But let's not delude ourselves as to why this country of ours does these good deeds or turn a blind eye to this country's continued ignoring of genocide and human rights violations. We look out for our best interests in the end.

[strandinthewind]

What utter ****. We certainly sat by fine while genocide was occurring in Sudan and Rwanda, along with the UN and many other nations. If people want to talk about how wonderful this country is, fine. It is a great country when it does great things. But let's not delude ourselves as to why this country of ours does these good deeds or turn a blind eye to this country's continued ignoring of genocide and human rights violations. We look out for our best interests in the end.

blah blah blah - we are all ingrates who need to be killed for our apathy :rolleyes:

Interestingly, when the US acts, people get pissed off. When we do not act, people get pissed off. So, we might as well do whatever we want and there is no pleasing everyone :cool: If we went into Darfur right now or even at the beginning, I am sure you would find some reason to hate Bush for it even if we did a great job. Thus, the state of political commentary.

I mean you, and others, seem to rejoice on the bad acts and never bring up the good ones. Just an observation :shrug:

[DrummerDeanna]

blah blah blah - we are all ingrates who need to be killed for our apathy :rolleyes:

Interestingly, when the US acts, people get pissed off. When we do not act, people get pissed off. So, we might as well do whatever we want and there is no pleasing everyone :cool: If we went into Darfur right now or even at the beginning, I am sure you would find some reason to hate Bush for it even if we did a great job. Thus, the state of political commentary.

I mean you, and others, seem to rejoice on the bad acts and never bring up the good ones. Just an observation :shrug:

Right.

As if we're the only country who has ever done ****ty things...:shrug:


I agree with ya!

Jason, I agree with you too. The mismanagement of funds in this country is atrocious. I sesly hope our next president is good at math. LOL

I agree too....

I do think more needs to be done for our own people- but I also think people need to start doing more for themselves...AND I think there are a lot of people doing great things for the people of this country...it's not enough - but I don't know that it will ever be enough...

[dissention]

Right.

As if we're the only country who has ever done ****ty things...:shrug:


There's no other country with as much power and force as ours, we're the only superpower. To compare us with other countries in that context is inane. When we do something, it affects the world.

[strandinthewind]

. . . it's not enough - but I don't know that it will ever be enough...

I agree. I think our current welfare system stifles overall (certainly not in every case - look at Oprah) the drive to do better. I think it also captures people in it and by its design does not allow them to better themselves by getting a part time job. Mary knows way more than I about this, but people finally get a job and then they are cut off after a period of time and they cannot find a place to live, etc. So, they go back into the welfare system. It needs a huge overhaul and IMO it needs to focus not on getting people prematurely off of the rolls, but getting them off forever. Yet, it is a political poison pill if you tinker with it too much because in the transition, people will be effected and those people have nothing to put out as a buffer.

[strandinthewind]

There's no other country with as much power and force as ours, we're the only superpower. To compare us with other countries in that context is inane. When we do something, it affects the world.

and more times than not it affects it in a good way :wavey:

Interestingly, and in an attempt to drive your blood pressure through the roof :wavey: - couldn't it be argued that the invasion of Iraq was an attempt by the US to stop the genocide there? Certainly SH was doing the same types of things as other places? I get that W and the bozos lied about it and are horrible people, but assuming as history demonstrates that resistence would occur anywhere we asserted our peacekeeping, Iraq from that point of view was a good thing :shrug: I am not saying we should have gone or the reasons we went were anything but lies. I am just saying that hopefully, with the US' help, genocide will no longer occur in Iraq, though that possible instance does not excuse the lies since 1992.

[dissention]

blah blah blah - we are all ingrates who need to be killed for our apathy :rolleyes:

Interestingly, when the US acts, people get pissed off. When we do not act, people get pissed off. So, we might as well do whatever we want and there is no pleasing everyone :cool: If we went into Darfur right now or even at the beginning, I am sure you would find some reason to hate Bush for it even if we did a great job. Thus, the state of political commentary.

That's why I was saying we should have been in Darfur immediately, right? Gimme a break. We should have been in there just as we should have been in Rwanda. But we had nothing to gain, so we didn't.

I mean you, and others, seem to rejoice on the bad acts and never bring up the good ones. Just an observation :shrug:

If that's what you think, fine. Forgive me if I don't have a flag hanging from my window or a yellow ribbon plastered to the ass of my car. I'm not that dumb that I'll just make a blanket stement of "America is a great country." Such a statement is absurd.

[strandinthewind]

I am just saying you always talk about the bad things. You never say, "hey that was a good thing," which is hardly on the level of false intent with a plastic flag :shrug: - which I would never accuse you of :wavey:

[DrummerDeanna]

If that's what you think, fine. Forgive me if I don't have a flag hanging from my window or a yellow ribbon plastered to the ass of my car. I'm not that dumb that I'll just make a blanket stement of "America is a great country." Such a statement is absurd.


Okay - but America IS a great country :shrug:

I'm not saying it's the greatest - but many here do get opportunities etc that one would not get elsewhere :shrug:

And I hate this argument - but some of the things you say do beg the question - then why stay here?

if it's such an atrocious place - then why not go elsewhere?

I get that the US has done bad things - but I maintain that other countries have as well...regardless of superpower status....atrocities are atrocities...

[dissention]

and more times than not it affects it in a good way :wavey:

Tell that to the millions upon millions who have died because we didn't give a ****. I'm certainly not suggesting that we could prevent everything, but a little bit of effort is in order.

Interestingly, and in an attempt to drive your blood pressure through the roof :wavey: - couldn't it be argued that the invasion of Iraq was an attempt by the US to stop the genocide there? Certainly SH was doing the same types of things as other places? I get that W and the bozos lied about it and are horrible people, but assuming as history demonstrates that resistence would occur anywhere we asserted our peacekeeping, Iraq from that point of view was a good thing :shrug: I am not saying we should have gone or the reasons we went were anything but lies. I am just saying that hopefully, with the US' help, genocide will no longer occur in Iraq, though that possible instance does not excuse the lies since 1992.

You mean the genocide in Iraq that our country helped to perpetrate by telling the Iraqi's to rise up and rebel? Where were we when they listened to us and did, in fact, rise up and rebel? We were nowhere to be found.

[strandinthewind]

. . . You mean the genocide in Iraq that our country helped to perpetrate by telling the Iraqi's to rise up and rebel? Where were we when they listened to us and did, in fact, rise up and rebel? We were nowhere to be found.

Well that, but we were not alone and it occured before then. AND - we certainly are there now :wavey:

[strandinthewind]

Tell that to the millions upon millions who have died because we didn't give a ****. I'm certainly not suggesting that we could prevent everything, but a little bit of effort is in order . . . .

I am not saying we have not been bad. I am just saying that we have helped far more than we have not. A good example is Europe in WWI and Europe and Asia in WWII. Another good example is the aid we current give South America and Africa. Yet, you never ever mention that. It is always a bash on the bad stuff. I know you know about the good stuff. I just think it would not kill ya to mention it istead of the non-stop America bashing :shrug:
Both exist and I suggest the good we do far outweighs the bad.

[dissention]

Okay - but America IS a great country :shrug:

That's your opinion. My opinion is that America is a great country when it does great things.

but many here do get opportunities etc that one would not get elsewhere :shrug:

Yeah, and just look at the people that inhabit this country. They take everything for granted and it's revolting. I'd like to see them live in mud huts in Africa for three days and then tell me how horrible their lives are.

And I hate this argument - but some of the things you say do beg the question - then why stay here?

if it's such an atrocious place - then why not go elsewhere?

Don't put words in my mouth, I never called this country atrocious. ;)

[strandinthewind]

. . . Yeah, and just look at the people that inhabit this country. They take everything for granted and it's revolting. I'd like to see them live in mud huts in Africa for three days and then tell me how horrible their lives are . . .

With respect - you are grossly generalizing all Americans. I know lots of people from all walks of life who take nothing for granted.

[strandinthewind]

That's your opinion. My opinion is that America is a great country when it does great things . . .

So let's hear about those great thing!!!!! :)

In the end, I am an optimist, which is contrary around here most of the time :laugh:

[dissention]

With respect - you are grossly generalizing all Americans. I know lots of people from all walks of life who take nothing for granted.

While you may encounter those types of people, to say that they are the majority of this country is absurd, imo. The people of this country take so many things for granted that it's kind of funny. I bet half of them don't even realize what a luxury it is to have supermarkets; to them, it's just there. They can walk into a store and come out with 87 different sodas, all the meat and produce they want, and whatever else their heart desires. I doubt any of them take the time to think of how incredibly lucky they are to have such a thing. They're so used to it that they don't pay it any mind. And then they get pissed if they don't have a certain type of fish or cheese in stock.

[strandinthewind]

While you may encounter those types of people, to say that they are the majority of this country is absurd, imo. The people of this country take so many things for granted that it's kind of funny. I bet half of them don't even realize what a luxury it is to have supermarkets; to them, it's just there. They can walk into a store and come out with 87 different sodas, all the meat and produce they want, and whatever else their heart desires. I doubt any of them take the time to think of how incredibly lucky they are to have such a thing. They're so used to it that they don't pay it any mind. And then they get pissed if they don't have a certain type of fish or cheese in stock.

I respectfully disagree. I think it is possible to realize how good you have it AND simultaneously "get pissed if they don't have a certain type of fish or cheese in stock" :shrug: I mean who here has not been thankful for all of their blessings and at the same time become impatient while waiting in line, etc. Thus, I do not think equating the two in any way is a genuine comparison.

[dissention]

I respectfully disagree.

That makes two of us. :woohoo:

[dissention]

Speaking of Rwanda, did you see Hotel Rwanda yet, Amber? Great movie. :nod:

[DrummerDeanna]

I respectfully disagree. I think it is possible to realize how good you have it AND simultaneously "get pissed if they don't have a certain type of fish or cheese in stock" :shrug: I mean who here has not been thankful for all of their blessings and at the same time become impatient while waiting in line, etc. Thus, I do not think equating the two in any way is a genuine comparison.


Right - I literally count my blessings every night and everyday I am SO thankful for EVERYTHING I have...

On the flip side I also try very hard not to be attached to my material possesions - because that is not the most importatnt thing to me...if I lost all I owned it wouldn't be the end of the world ya know?

BUT I also know there are people who take things for granted...but there will always be people like that....I guess lately I'm taking more of the approach of trying to improve myself and not worrying to much about those around me who may have their heads up their asses.....

I do like to help others though who aren't as fortunate as I have been....

But I think there are a lot of Americans who are SO thankful for what they have....

BUT as Jason said that doesn't mean that I don't get annoyed when I can't find the cereal I like or the milk I like somewhere - it's a minor inconvenience - not the end of the world....I realize there are people living in boxes in the dessert who have no milk or cereal - but yeah I think I can be a conscious human being who is thankful for what I have etc...while still sometimes being annoyed at life's inconveniences :shrug:

[amber]

That makes two of us. :woohoo:
I'm mainly struck by one of (I think) your points, which is also what I think, and that "America" is far more likely to intervene in a good way if our interests are threatened, or people are threatened in an area where we have lots of interests. Not saying we are more bad than good, or that we don't do good things, but I think we are far more likely to do so if it benefits us. Which of course, leaves countries we don't care about kinda f****d, - As a country, we have also ignored many heinous things that we could have done something about. :shrug: JMO.

[wondergirl9847]

I thank God that I am blessed to live in this country, a country that people are willing to DIE to get into.

I was gonna say you were generalizing, but Jason beat me to it.

If you don't like it here, go live somewhere else. I'd love to live in England, if even for a year. I would love to live in Canada for a year, perhaps Australia. That would be awesome. I was born and raised in America, so it's my home. We have done great things, we have done horrible things. That's everywhere.

I get that Americans are either not liked much or hated by the rest of the world because of our so-called arrogance, but perhaps those people should come to America and experience it before saying anything. Come live here for a year...there's good, bad and ugly. Soooooo very ugly. :(

[bretonbanquet]

Which of course, leaves countries we don't care about kinda f****d, - As a country, we have also ignored many heinous things that we could have done something about. :shrug: JMO.

Totally agree, not that I want to get heavily involved in this :shocked: I wouldn't bash the US for this kind of thing - the UK are every bit as guilty (both countries have strangely similar ideas lately :rolleyes: )

I would also say that we are still ignoring many heinous things that we could do something about - e.g. Zimbabwe, Burma... :distress: but then of course, what have those countries got to offer us?

[strandinthewind]

Interestingly, for the Americans who go to Church, they are reminded every Sunday that they are to be thankful for what they have and to share their good fortune. I suggest the numbers indicate many many Americans share in one way or another. For example, leaving change in the boxes at various stores, giving old clothing and other items, checks to charities, etc. I think when people do thin, it reminds them of how good they have it. Are there people are totally self-centered - probably. But, I think they are outnumbered by people who give away their things because they know otheres are less fortunate. Do they give until it hurts? Well that is not really the point and that also is a subjective standard I would never want applied against me :cool:

[strandinthewind]

But, back to the topic at hand. How do we secure our borders? It is not an easy task considering the land borders :eek:

[dissention]

If you don't like it here, go live somewhere else. I'd love to live in England, if even for a year. I would love to live in Canada for a year, perhaps Australia. That would be awesome. I was born and raised in America, so it's my home. We have done great things, we have done horrible things. That's everywhere.

So, I should have to move simply because I don't like a lot of the things our government turns a blind eye to? Gawd, I'd be petrified to see exactly where this country would be today if it weren't for people who disliked what our government did and then tried to change it. It wouldn't be pretty.

And just because horrible things have been done everywhere, it doesn't excuse the bad things we've done or somehow make them any less significant.

I get that Americans are either not liked much or hated by the rest of the world because of our so-called arrogance, but perhaps those people should come to America and experience it before saying anything. Come live here for a year...there's good, bad and ugly. Soooooo very ugly. :(

Why do they have to come here to experience it when they're already experiencing the effects of our actions?

[strandinthewind]

. . . we have also ignored many heinous things that we could have done something about. :shrug: JMO.

I disagree (respectfully :wavey: ) - the US give tons of aid to African nations that have nothing to offer us :shrug:

But, if we accept your statement as true and assume all are in the same need, clearly we have only a finite amount to give. Is it wrong to give that to people who can help us (if that is indeed what is going on). I do not know the answer to this question.

[dissention]

But, back to the topic at hand. How do we secure our borders? It is not an easy task considering the land borders :eek:

It's not an easy task when our government won't properly fund measures to secure our borders.

[strandinthewind]

It's not an easy task when our government won't properly fund measures to secure our borders.

Yep! But, if they had the funds, what should they do more than they are doing now?

[bretonbanquet]

I disagree (respectfully :wavey: ) - the US give tons of aid to African nations that have nothing to offer us :shrug:

But, if we accept your statement as true and assume all are in the same need, clearly we have only a finite amount to give. Is it wrong to give that to people who can help us (if that is indeed what is going on). I do not know the answer to this question.

The thing is there's aid, which is obviously great, and the US gives more than any other country - but there's also stuff going on with dictators and dictatorial regimes, like Zimbabwe and Burma. Why should Iraq be any different when there are people in these countries being treated worse than animals?

[dissention]

I disagree (respectfully :wavey: ) - the US give tons of aid to African nations that have nothing to offer us :shrug:

What about when almost a million were killed in Rwanda? We did essentially nothing. And please note, I'm not laying all of the blame on America, it also falls on the UN, France, Italy, etc.

[amber]

The thing is there's aid, which is obviously great, and the US gives more than any other country - but there's also stuff going on with dictators and dictatorial regimes, like Zimbabwe and Burma. Why should Iraq be any different when there are people in these countries being treated worse than animals?
Yep, exactly. And we've also set up terrible puppet gov'ts.

[dissention]

Yep! But, if they had the funds, what should they do more than they are doing now?

Well, they could actually use those funds to put more border patrollers on the border. :laugh: What a concept!

[strandinthewind]

The thing is there's aid, which is obviously great, and the US gives more than any other country - but there's also stuff going on with dictators and dictatorial regimes, like Zimbabwe and Burma. Why should Iraq be any different when there are people in these countries being treated worse than animals?

I know. It is all a little overwhelming to me. I mean clearly the US alone cannot stop every single one of these things from happening. The UN perhaps could, but it is corrupt and it has too many cooks in the kitchen. Then, notwithstanding Iraq, if the US acts alone, it is seen by some as an aggressor with bad intent. I wish I knew the answer :eek:

[GypsySorcerer]

I disagree (respectfully :wavey: ) - the US give tons of aid to African nations that have nothing to offer us :shrug:

But, if we accept your statement as true and assume all are in the same need, clearly we have only a finite amount to give. Is it wrong to give that to people who can help us (if that is indeed what is going on). I do not know the answer to this question.

Well, the aid is mostly in the form of food, which we have an overabundance of anyway. (Though there are hungry here, obviously.)

[dissention]

Yep, exactly. And we've also set up terrible puppet gov'ts.

:nod: Isn't that what we've been doing for the past two years in Iraq?

[strandinthewind]

What about when almost a million were killed in Rwanda? We did essentially nothing. And please note, I'm not laying all of the blame on America, it also falls on the UN, France, Italy, etc.

I agree. But, once again, you are spinning my statement to concentrate solely on that incident. Clearly the US feeds and shelters millions in Africa :shrug: That is what I was talking about. So, yes, we do bad things, but I think we do many more good things.

[amber]

:nod: Isn't that what we've been doing for the past two years in Iraq?
As far as I'm concerned, yes.
It really is our specialty, has been for a long time now.

[strandinthewind]

Yep, exactly. And we've also set up terrible puppet gov'ts.

Which is my point. If we had gone into Rwanda (which I think the UN should have) - and set up a new govt. Wouldn't that be the same thing? I mean suppose we went in and the people elected the same govt. We would have to stop that from happening. Thus, the complexity of this conversaion.

[strandinthewind]

Well, they could actually use those funds to put more border patrollers on the border. :laugh: What a concept!

I know. I bought a plane ticket yesterday and when the nice lady at Delta told me I had to pay the $10 9/11 fee, I just went off to Mars. I was like "WE HAVE BEEN PAYING THAT CORPORATE WELFARE FOR FIVE YEARS AND ACCORDING TO THE GOVT. WE ARE NOT ANY SAFER!" :mad: Bless her heart :laugh:

[strandinthewind]

As far as I'm concerned, yes.
It really is our specialty, has been for a long time now.

Well, we could go back to the Korean war for the the recent times and, perhaps even Hearst's Spanish American War :eek:

[gldstwmn]

[
If you don't like it here, go live somewhere else.

That's a horrible thing to say to someone who sees flaws in our system and has serious concerns about fixing them. In any relationship, "love it or leave it" would seem unhealthy. That would apply to a relationship with country as well.
Back to the original topic, does this petition support having vigilantes such as "The Minutemen" on our border? Did you know that Congress just passed a bill appropriating more funds for this? All Bush has to do is sign it. But I bet he won't.
You could send the petition to him but be advised, the man doesn't like to read. :shrug:

[strandinthewind]

That's a horrible thing to say to someone who sees flaws in our system and has serious concerns about fixing them. In any relationship, "love it or leave it" would seem unhealthy. That would apply to a relationship with country as well.
Back to the original topic, does this petition support having vigilantes such as "The Minutemen" on our border? Did you know that Congress just passed a bill appropriating more funds for this? All Bush has to do is sign it. But I bet he won't.
You could send the petition to him but be advised, the man doesn't like to read. :shrug:


Those people are SCARY SCARY SCARY - talk about Bubba with a shotgun :eek: Did you see the pics :eek:

[gldstwmn]

Totally agree, not that I want to get heavily involved in this :shocked: I wouldn't bash the US for this kind of thing - the UK are every bit as guilty (both countries have strangely similar ideas lately :rolleyes: )



At least your Prime Minister is most probably going to be ousted for this. We are stuck.

[strandinthewind]

At least your Prime Minister is most probably going to be ousted for this. We are stuck.

Risking the wrath :laugh: -- I think this conv. is larger than the Bush Admin., though the Bush Admin. certainly is bad. I mean America has been doing these things for years :shrug:

[wondergirl9847]

Giving to charity is a double edged sword because if you give, people say you are only giving to get a pat on the back for it and if you give quietly, then they won't know about it and they say we don't give. :rolleyes: Can't win.

Americans are very generous with time and money. I'm talking about human beings, not corporations/the government, etc., although, they can be generous at times.

[gldstwmn]

The thing is there's aid, which is obviously great, and the US gives more than any other country - but there's also stuff going on with dictators and dictatorial regimes, like Zimbabwe and Burma. Why should Iraq be any different when there are people in these countries being treated worse than animals?

Because there's no oil.

[dissention]

Because there's no oil.

How do I love thee? Let me count the ways.

:xoxo:

[GypsySorcerer]

Giving to charity is a double edged sword because if you give, people say you are only giving to get a pat on the back for it and if you give quietly, then they won't know about it and they say we don't give. :rolleyes: Can't win.

Americans are very generous with time and money. I'm talking about human beings, not corporations/the government, etc., although, they can be generous at times.

If one is truly charitable, he/she won't care if others know about it.

[strandinthewind]

Because there's no oil.

I am sorry - do we have Iraq's oil - did I miss that memo.? :wavey:

Seriosuly, we give tons of aid to countries in Africa and South and Central America who nothing to offer us. Thus, while I certainly agree that oil plays a big part of it, it is not the only reason we give aid.

[gldstwmn]

Which is my point. If we had gone into Rwanda (which I think the UN should have) - and set up a new govt. Wouldn't that be the same thing? I mean suppose we went in and the people elected the same govt. We would have to stop that from happening. Thus, the complexity of this conversaion.

We were successful in Bosnia and Somalia to a certain extent.

[strandinthewind]

If one is truly charitable, he/she won't care if others know about it.

So true. But, trust me, the charities do not mind if one uses their donation as an advertisement :laugh:

[wondergirl9847]

I don't subscribe to love it or leave it...I am saying that if you don't think America has great freedoms, then go live somewhere where you think does. Come back when Bush is gone if you think that's our problem. :shrug:

How many celebrities threatened to move to Canada when Bush was elected? :laugh: Did any leave?

[strandinthewind]

We were successful in Bosnia and Somalia to a certain extent.

Yes, we were. I would even go as far as saying Korea and, to a lesser extent, Nam were successful in the South. Then, there are the Central and South American incidences. The whole thing is just so sensitive. I mean how far do we go to ensure it does not happen again. I do not know the answer to this question. I do think, however, that once the far right and their pro life crap gets in, e.g. the denial of any aid for any country allowing abortion of any kind, that is when things get messed up. I think this is yet another example of why religion and politics should be sep.

[bretonbanquet]

At least your Prime Minister is most probably going to be ousted for this. We are stuck.

You're joking... he'll win OK, don't worry about that. He's lying and cheating his way through the issues and dodging the ones he's stuck on - and everyone here seems happy to accept being lied to. The problem people have is that our three main parties are basically identical, changing their policies to chase the votes. Democracy has evolved into a horrible PR game here and Blair is the strongest player :(

[dissention]

I am sorry - do we have Iraq's oil - did I miss that memo.? :wavey:

Close to it.

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines04/0628-02.htm
Billions of Revenue from Oil 'Missing'

[gldstwmn]

I am sorry - do we have Iraq's oil - did I miss that memo.? :wavey:



I don't know. Have you ever heard of Kellogg Brown and Root or Halliburton?

[amber]

Close to it.

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines04/0628-02.htm
Billions of Revenue from Oil 'Missing'
But, hey, haven't we all misplaced 3.7bn. dollars at some point? :shrug:

[dissention]

I don't subscribe to love it or leave it...I am saying that if you don't think America has great freedoms, then go live somewhere where you think does. Come back when Bush is gone if you think that's our problem. :shrug:

No one ever said that this country didn't have great freedoms in this thread. :shrug:

Again, why should people move because they don't like the president? Isn't this country all about participation from the people and you have the luxury of trying to change things? Saying people should leave just doesn't make any sense to me.

[bretonbanquet]

We don't even know what happened to the money from our own oil in the UK, let alone the oil we're busy appropriating from elsewhere :rolleyes:

[strandinthewind]

I don't know. Have you ever heard of Kellogg Brown and Root or Halliburton?


Again, if the US had wanted to give them money, clearly there was an easier way to do that. But, I agree, they all profited hugely off of Iraq as they will off of the soon to be drilled Alaskan reserve lands.

[gldstwmn]

[I don't subscribe to love it or leave it...I am saying that if you don't think America has great freedoms, then go live somewhere where you think does. Come back when Bush is gone if you think that's our problem. :shrug:

I don't think anyone asked for that advice.
I have a right to execise my free speech, which includes being critical of my government. Since I have a child, who will someday probably have children herself, I would like to stay and see what I could do to make it better for those who come after me.
What makes you think that the problem will go away once Bush is gone? His legacy is going to be around for a long, long time.

[dissention]

But, hey, haven't we all misplaces 3.7bn. dollars at some point? :shrug:

Let me check between the cushions of my couch. :woohoo:

[strandinthewind]

But, hey, haven't we all misplaces 3.7bn. dollars at some point? :shrug:

So, we spent how many more billions to get this comparably insignficant amount?

[strandinthewind]

We don't even know what happened to the money from our own oil in the UK, let alone the oil we're busy appropriating from elsewhere :rolleyes:

Yep - and do not get me started on the UN's corruption, which probably is well over that amount.

[wondergirl9847]

I think I worded my post wrong. LOL I am not saying you have to agree with the president/government/laws/whatever here...but do realize that you live in a great country. There are lots of crap I don't agree with and pray to be changed, but I realize I'm blessed. I don't take it for granted.

That's all.

[dissention]

So, we spent how many more billions to get this comparably insignficant amount?

If you had read the article, you would have noticed that it's $20 billion that's unaccounted for. And that's just what we know about.

[strandinthewind]

No one ever said that this country didn't have great freedoms in this thread. :shrug:

Again, why should people move because they don't like the president? Isn't this country all about participation from the people and you have the luxury of trying to change things? Saying people should leave just doesn't make any sense to me.

Me either. My word - we agree :eek: - come over here and naked immdiately - the moon and stars have aligned - it is time to make the anti - christ :laugh:

[gldstwmn]

Again, if the US had wanted to give them money, clearly there was an easier way to do that.

You mean easier than no bid contracts?

[gldstwmn]

Let me check between the cushions of my couch. :woohoo:

Just look in Dick Cheney's pockets. While you're at it, you might as well give DeLay the once over. :laugh:

[strandinthewind]

If you had read the article, you would have noticed that it's $20 billion that's unaccounted for. And that's just what we know about.

If you had read the article you would also know it was an accusation not a fact :wavey: Even so, $20 billion is less than we have spent :shrug:

[gldstwmn]

So, we spent how many more billions to get this comparably insignficant amount?

I don't know. How much is it? Break it down for me.

[gldstwmn]

Yep - and do not get me started on the UN's corruption, which probably is well over that amount.

Awww, so it's all the UN's fault. We should nominate that nice John Bolton after all. He'll take care of everything.
LMFAO.

[gldstwmn]

I think I worded my post wrong. LOL I am not saying you have to agree with the president/government/laws/whatever here...but do realize that you live in a great country. There are lots of crap I don't agree with and pray to be changed, but I realize I'm blessed. I don't take it for granted.

That's all.

And I do? :confused:

[strandinthewind]

You mean easier than no bid contracts?

Interetingly, not all of that money went to Halliburton, who I think has a long history of no bid contracts with the US and not just with W.

But, clearly there were easier ways to give money to Halliburton than to risk a world war? That is why though I think Halliburton profited, as it has in the last two decades, off of the US' actions, that was not the main intent.

[strandinthewind]

Awww.so it's all the UN's fault. We should nominate that nice John Bolton after all. He'll take care of everything.
LMFAO.

Well, the UN clearly does not have clean hands :shrug: I mean the head of its son made money off of oil for food, which the head of the UN promoted though it killed probably in the millions and the vast majority of those women and children. Thus, the UN is by no means an innocent in all of this.

[strandinthewind]

I don't know. How much is it? Break it down for me.


www.google.com then enter "cost war Iraq" :p

[dissention]

If you had read the article you would also know it was an accusation not a fact :wavey:

An accusation that hasn't been proven to be false. :wavey:

Even so, $20 billion is less than we have spent :shrug:

Again, that's the $20 billion we know about. When the government is in cahoots with the oil companies, do you think they care how badly they mismanage American funds? You've gotta spend money to make money, especially in their case.

[wondergirl9847]

This is a HUGE list of crappy things right now...

Gas prices are outrageous and somebody needs to be slapped.
People don't have the health care they need.
Some people make too much, some, not enough.
Unemployment
I don't think kids are learning much in school.

Etc., etc., etc....

Even still....America is a great country...regardless.

[strandinthewind]

An accusation that hasn't been proven to be false. :wavey:

all accusations are assumed to be true then :eek:

I agree though that many companies have probably put some of that oil on the black market. The UN certainly did and apparently with KA's blessing.

But, my point was and is, America does not have control of that oil and never will. Thus, if we went to war there to get it, we failed. Moreover, I get that $20 billion or more is a lot of money, but and again, there were easier ways to give these companies money. It is done all of the time via corp. welfare through tax credits and abatements, contracts for BS services, etc.

[dissention]

Awww.so it's all the UN's fault. We should nominate that nice John Bolton after all. He'll take care of everything.
LMFAO.

:laugh:

Yup, it's all the UN's fault. Everything always is.

[gldstwmn]

Interetingly, not all of that money went to Halliburton, who I think has a long history of no bid contracts with the US and not just with W.



Not according to Bunnatine Greenhouse, highest ranking civilian at the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers in Michael Shnayerson's Vanity Fair Article Oh! What A Lucrative War in the April 2005 issue.
She said not only was it policy, it was the law to open any contract over 10 million up to competitive bidding.

[dissention]

all accusations are assumed to be true then :eek:

In this particular instance, yes. Where is the money? If they've done nothing wrong, tell us what happened to it.

[strandinthewind]

:laugh:

Yup, it's all the UN's fault. Everything always is.

SPIN - I never said that and you know it. I do maintain though that the UN is every but as guilty as W's administration and even Clinton's administration for the situation in Iraq today. This was a long brewing even that started when Bush I refused to take out SH. After that, it was a global free for all in the underhanded money making in Iraq. Every major country seemed to profit from it as did many high ranking individuals from those countries. Thus, to assert that the UN is faultless (which I think you are doing) is incorrect.

[gldstwmn]

www.google.com then enter "cost war Iraq" :p

Once again, all hot air. :laugh:

[strandinthewind]

Once again, all hot air. :laugh:

WHO MEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE :wavey:

[strandinthewind]

In this particular instance, yes. Where is the money? If they've done nothing wrong, tell us what happened to it.


Why don't we leave that up to Christian Aid, that powerhouse who seemingly makes accusations with self-admittedly little knowledge of the facts :wavey:

[strandinthewind]

Once again, all hot air. :laugh:

Buit since googling is sooooooo hard :p

http://costofwar.com/ (roughly $165 billion)

There are many others :cool:

[gldstwmn]

Buit since googling is sooooooo hard :p

http://costofwar.com/ (roughly $165 billion)

There are many others :cool:

Sorry, I'm busy sitting here on my liberal ass taking it all for granted.

[strandinthewind]

Sorry, I'm busy sitting here on my liberal ass taking it all for granted.


:laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh:

The liberals are lucky to have such an ass :eek: :wavey: :eek:

[dissention]

Sorry, I'm busy sitting here on my liberal ass taking it all for granted.

:lol:

You are on FIRE today. I love it!

[SuzeQuze]

Well, they could actually use those funds to put more border patrollers on the border. :laugh: What a concept!

And here's a thought, monitor the borders via satellite, pay attention to what is happening, and act when something fishy is happening. With the advanced technologies we have there's no excuse for not monitoring the borders.

[NaiveMelody23]

I do not mean to take sides and in the fact of goverment and its money issues I do agree with Dissention and gldstwrm.

Though, to the real point.. "Securing Our Borders." So, exactly would this be for terrorists coming over? or just the fact that many conservative Americans dislike the fact that their precious nation of only whites...to them; is sadly being took over by every other race. I really do not know what kind of borders your talking about. Ever since everybody seems to think that we are more of an island than a country. I mean we are supposed to be a world power, but yet we are being pretty selfish and myopic to a plenty of things around us. I agree I am blessed I live in America, but then again I have to kick myself sometimes to realize what a bitch it is to be respected and treated normal in this country without someone saying your doing it wrong. Also, I find it weird how we try to prevent terrorists when I mean look at our country...I am sure their are terrorists already here.

So, subdivisions in the U.S I hope you can secure your fence posts and houses.

[dissention]

And here's a thought, monitor the borders via satellite, pay attention to what is happening, and act when something fishy is happening. With the advanced technologies we have there's no excuse for not monitoring the borders.

No ****! They certainly used satellites to their advantage when they monitored the Iranians and told Saddam where they were hiding so that he could snuff them out.

[SuzeQuze]

If you had read the article, you would have noticed that it's $20 billion that's unaccounted for. And that's just what we know about.

Also, the money that went out came from all of our tax dollars. The money that is "missing" no doubt lined the pockets of a few wealthy folks.

[NaiveMelody23]

No ****! They certainly used satellites to their advantage when they monitored the Iranians and told Saddam where they were hiding so that he could snuff them out.

Now, you know how important the war on terroism is. :rolleyes:

[wondergirl9847]

America is a great country, but not the greatest in the world...I don't think anyone said that. :shrug: We have our issues. We can also learn a thing or a trillion from other countries' policies on many issues.

Whites only? LOL There are no white people...if the yo-yo's who don't believe that would get their head outta their a$$, this place would be a better one. If yo great-great-great-grandfather hadn't come over from Greece, Switzerland, Germany, Ireland, Japan, etc....you wouldn't BE here. I hate, despise, vomit at the words...white people. I know it's reality, and Caucasian is supposed to be a valid race, but I hate it. It's retarded. If people can't accept that there are other races in America...they certainly need to get the frick out.

[NaiveMelody23]

America is a great country, but not the greatest in the world...I don't think anyone said that. :shrug: We have our issues. We can also learn a thing or a trillion from other countries' policies on many issues.

Whites only? LOL There are no white people...if the yo-yo's who don't believe that would get their head outta their a$$, this place would be a better one. If yo great-great-great-grandfather hadn't come over from Greece, Switzerland, Germany, Ireland, Japan, etc....you wouldn't BE here. I hate, despise, vomit at the words...white people. I know it's reality, and Caucasian is supposed to be a valid race, but I hate it. It's retarded. If people can't accept that there are other races in America...they certainly need to get the frick out.


I was being sarcastic. :laugh:

[wondergirl9847]

I know, but the whole white people thing peeves me off and that there are STILL people here that hate other races. :distress:

[SuzeQuze]

Buit since googling is sooooooo hard :p

http://costofwar.com/ (roughly $165 billion)

There are many others :cool:

This administration intends to over spend. It is part of the ideology. If you over spend then you can justify making cuts in social programs, which also was always on the agenda. This is called "starve the beast".

http://www.thetalentshow.org/archives/001640.html

[SuzeQuze]

America is a great country, but not the greatest in the world...I don't think anyone said that. :shrug: We have our issues. We can also learn a thing or a trillion from other countries' policies on many issues.

Whites only? LOL There are no white people...if the yo-yo's who don't believe that would get their head outta their a$$, this place would be a better one. If yo great-great-great-grandfather hadn't come over from Greece, Switzerland, Germany, Ireland, Japan, etc....you wouldn't BE here. I hate, despise, vomit at the words...white people. I know it's reality, and Caucasian is supposed to be a valid race, but I hate it. It's retarded. If people can't accept that there are other races in America...they certainly need to get the frick out.

I'm more of a light beige myself ;) I hate all the race BS too.

I just want to point out that we're talking about securing the borders, not sealing them.

[irishgrl]

What utter ****. We certainly sat by fine while genocide was occurring in Sudan and Rwanda, along with the UN and many other nations. If people want to talk about how wonderful this country is, fine. It is a great country when it does great things. But let's not delude ourselves as to why this country of ours does these good deeds or turn a blind eye to this country's continued ignoring of genocide and human rights violations. We look out for our best interests in the end.

I dont think thats a bad thing, sorry :shrug: Jason is right, America gets bashed all the time but the people doing the bashing have no problem accepting our help. That smacks of hypocrisy to me. I fail to see why closed borders is seen as a bad thing? Persons who are here LEGITIMATELY should have no problem. and before anyone brings up the exploitation of migrant farmworkers, I dont agree with that practice either. Those workers who are here legit, should be paid a decent wage. IMO, that is a separate (though somewhat related) issue.

Living in CA, we deal with porous borders all the time. The FACT is, our state is FILLING UP with people who dont pay taxes and expect a hand out a la welfare. I can speak from experience here, because I WORK for Social Services and I can tell you that even in our quaint little burg, the demographics are changing. My county is not cash fluid, there is no real industry here, only a University and the most inflated housing prices in the ENTIRE US!!!! My point is, there are increasing numbers of non tax payers and these increasing numbers bring with them a need for more infrastructure and basically NO $$ to pay for it. The homeless population is exploding!

at some point, reality needs to be faced that there is a max load that can be effectively handled. I think we've reached it. If CA keeps on absorbing illegal aliens our economy will implode. DC has already proven its lack of sympathy for us, so the answer lies somewhere else........

[wondergirl9847]

I'm more of a light beige myself ;) I hate all the race BS too.

I just want to point out that we're talking about securing the borders, not sealing them.

We're all brown, just various shades of it, except albinos. :laugh: Sealing versus Securing is a VERY touchy subject.

[GateandGarden]

My opinion is that America is a great country when it does great things.Or as Nelly Furtado says, "Looks like I only love God when the sun shines my way." But still not the same thing. But when Nelly Furtado lyrics come into my head I can't resist.

But seriously, at what point does a country do so many horrible things that it's no longer a "great country"? At what point does the bad outweigh the good? Reminds me of a shirt I saw at Tshirthell.com--"What about all the good things Hitler did?"

Surely, someone's going to point out that I'm making totally irrelevant references. :laugh:

But some have said that America is great merely because it has this and this that some other countries don't have. How does that make something great? Just because I'm a better singer than the average person doesn't mean I'm necessarily a "great" singer. It doesn't have to be relative. Let America stand on it's own and you can see how not great it is more clearly, I think.

Oh, and a comment about Lux's long post--I think she has some great (sorry for overusage of that word :laugh: ) points about how uppity and potentially dangerous our attitudes can be. (I'm not talking about anyone in particular here). Sometimes I wonder how close we are to fascism. Y'all humor me and look at this (http://www.mvp-seattle.org/pages/pageFascism.htm), since "exuberant nationalism" is the first of twelve warning signs of fascism.

[dissention]

I dont think thats a bad thing, sorry :shrug:

You don't think ignoring genocide is a bad thing? That's quite...inhuman.

[GateandGarden]

You don't think ignoring genocide is a bad thing? That's quite...inhuman.Hate to speak for her, but somehow I can't believe she could have meant it like that. But you probably know that, too.

[dissention]

Oh, and a comment about Lux's long post--I think she has some great (sorry for overusage of that word :laugh: ) points about how uppity and potentially dangerous our attitudes can be. (I'm not talking about anyone in particular here). Sometimes I wonder how close we are to fascism. Y'all humor me and look at this (http://www.mvp-seattle.org/pages/pageFascism.htm), since "exuberant nationalism" is the first of twelve warning signs of fascism.

We've been on the road to fascism for awhile now. :laugh: That site is pretty good, thanks for posting.

[David]

But seriously, at what point does a country do so many horrible things that it's no longer a "great country"? At what point does the bad outweigh the good?I don't think countries are "great" or "not great." A country is an abstraction, a way of speaking, a verbal convenience. Only a person can do great things or not great things -- not a government or a country or a community or the whole planet.

When there's bad seemingly coming from a government, it's because it's coming from some people who are being & doing bad. Nothing bad is ever done anywhere in the universe unless someone, somewhere does it. All moral actions have agents. Anything that happens without a human agent behind it -- a volcanic eruption or a solar eclipse or a pretty snowfall -- happens outside the realm of morals, which can only apply to people, & not even to people grouped together but only to a person -- one person -- at a time.

[dissention]

Hate to speak for her, but somehow I can't believe she could have meant it like that. But you probably know that, too.

I got the impression that she thinks we should be spending money here on our citizens before intervening to stop such things. :shrug:

[GateandGarden]

I don't think countries are "great" or "not great." A country is an abstraction, a way of speaking, a verbal convenience. Only a person can do great things or not great things -- not a government or a country or a community or the whole planet.

When there's bad seemingly coming from a government, it's because it's coming from some people who are being & doing bad. Nothing bad is ever done anywhere in the universe unless someone, somewhere does it. All moral actions have agents. Anything that happens without a human agent behind it -- a volcanic eruption or a solar eclipse or a pretty snowfall -- happens outside the realm of morals, which can only apply to people, & not even to people grouped together but only to a person -- one person -- at a time.Great post. Thank you. I agree and I suppose I've just never thought of how to verbalize this. It's senseless to give a country credit for something we perceive as good or to blame it for something we perceive as bad because the country itself is not what's doing anything. It's probably also unfair to say that every person in the government is to blame for wrongdoing. I can't see how every member of it could be corrupt. Certainly not every citizen is responsible for wrongdoing. So, I agree with you and I think the same applies to states, cities, etc. The names are, as you said, simply a convenience for us.

[GardenStateGirlie]

I got the impression that she thinks we should be spending money here on our citizens before intervening to stop such things. :shrug:

I didn't get that impression either. I knew what she meant.

This is the point I think that's running throughout this thread (and i'm popping in late but have just read quite a bit). It's a double-edged sword...you help here and you have people calling this country a bunch of uncaring elitists and if you help over there, you have people in this country pitching a bitch because they feel the money needs to stay here. You can't win. Someone is always going to be displeased and I feel as a citizen of this country, no matter what we do...no matter how much we might financially help...no matter how much medical care we're able to provide...how many people we are able to feed because of our generosity throughout this countries history, people will always say we just aren't doing enough. That makes me sick. And yes, she's right, they may talk about how horrible we are but that doesn't stop them from taking our aid (in whatever form it appears). I'm not saying that it's right, wrong, or indifferent but it is what it is.

[dissention]

I didn't get that impression either. I knew what she meant.

Good, you get a certificate. :xoxo:

[GardenStateGirlie]

Good, you get a certificate. :xoxo:

I'd prefer gold stars and a cookie hon ;)

[dissention]

Did you read my post though? Who are you talking about taking America's aid? What aid? The aid is tiny, it's nothing to be proud of. America could really do a lot of good with aid, it could change the situation for an entire people, but it chooses not to. And another main factor is it's a large contributor for putting impoverished countries in the position anyway. I'm of the belief that no aid given to most African nations (it becomes more specific to circumstances, but in general) ever need be responded with a "thankyou". We owe them that money as inhabitants of the Earth and as those guilty of plunging them into the situations they are in. Aid? Don't kid yourself.

Lux, you're fabulous. Truly.

[dissention]

I'd prefer gold stars and a cookie hon ;)

You can't have stars, The Knight will destar you! :o

A cookie I can do, but I make no promises pertaining to whether it's edible or not.

[GardenStateGirlie]

Did you read my post though? Who are you talking about taking America's aid? What aid? The aid is tiny, it's nothing to be proud of. America could really do a lot of good with aid, it could change the situation for an entire people, but it chooses not to. And another main factor is it's a large contributor for putting impoverished countries in the position anyway. I'm of the belief that no aid given to most African nations (it becomes more specific to circumstances, but in general) ever need be responded with a "thankyou". We owe them that money as inhabitants of the Earth and as those guilty of plunging them into the situations they are in. Aid? Don't kid yourself.

Yes, I read your post :wavey:

[strandinthewind]

Lux -

Again, all reports indicate we give the most of anyone - and that is just the govt. and does not take into consideration individual and corporate donations, which are in the billions. Moreover, comparing America's GNP to any other country in the world is unfair because America's GNP is far larger than any other country and she has a HUGE population - I know you know that. But, you continue to use it as the one and only standard and when you do, you do not take into account private and corp. gifts. FInally, not all aid from America is loans and many times those loans are forgiven or some other method is achieved.

But, I guess you are right - we Americans are all stingy self centered jerks over here. In fact, I think we should stop our gifts as they are so paltry. Let's see where that gets the world :rolleyes:

Finally, you never say anything nice about America. I think that shows your bias. I mean certainly, the amount we give helps at least one person somewhere :eek:

[strandinthewind]

This administration intends to over spend. It is part of the ideology. If you over spend then you can justify making cuts in social programs, which also was always on the agenda. This is called "starve the beast".

http://www.thetalentshow.org/archives/001640.html

Yep - and that is why they are FAR from conservative. I despise this administration.

[strandinthewind]

I dont think thats a bad thing, sorry :shrug: Jason is right, America gets bashed all the time but the people doing the bashing have no problem accepting our help. That smacks of hypocrisy to me. I fail to see why closed borders is seen as a bad thing? Persons who are here LEGITIMATELY should have no problem. and before anyone brings up the exploitation of migrant farmworkers, I dont agree with that practice either. Those workers who are here legit, should be paid a decent wage. IMO, that is a separate (though somewhat related) issue.

Living in CA, we deal with porous borders all the time. The FACT is, our state is FILLING UP with people who dont pay taxes and expect a hand out a la welfare. I can speak from experience here, because I WORK for Social Services and I can tell you that even in our quaint little burg, the demographics are changing. My county is not cash fluid, there is no real industry here, only a University and the most inflated housing prices in the ENTIRE US!!!! My point is, there are increasing numbers of non tax payers and these increasing numbers bring with them a need for more infrastructure and basically NO $$ to pay for it. The homeless population is exploding!

at some point, reality needs to be faced that there is a max load that can be effectively handled. I think we've reached it. If CA keeps on absorbing illegal aliens our economy will implode. DC has already proven its lack of sympathy for us, so the answer lies somewhere else........


:eek: - I agreed with Diss and you in the same day - I need a purge as I am being to nice :laugh:

[strandinthewind]

You don't think ignoring genocide is a bad thing? That's quite...inhuman.

I think her point was it is occuring here and here is where the first responsibility is :shrug: Again, there is a finite amount of money even if the BS spending is stopped. Many people are for feeding us first and then the world. In the end, I think the US does what it can and it cannot do everything alone.

[strandinthewind]

Did you read my post though? Who are you talking about taking America's aid? What aid? The aid is tiny, it's nothing to be proud of. America could really do a lot of good with aid, it could change the situation for an entire people, but it chooses not to. And another main factor is it's a large contributor for putting impoverished countries in the position anyway. I'm of the belief that no aid given to most African nations (it becomes more specific to circumstances, but in general) ever need be responded with a "thankyou". We owe them that money as inhabitants of the Earth and as those guilty of plunging them into the situations they are in. Aid? Don't kid yourself.

I, for the most part, agree. I think we should give the money and not expect repayment, which we do imn many cases.

MY WORD - I agreed with Lux, Mary, and Diss in one day.

I am starting to get soft :laugh:

[irishgrl]

Did you read my post though? Who are you talking about taking America's aid? What aid? The aid is tiny, it's nothing to be proud of. America could really do a lot of good with aid, it could change the situation for an entire people, but it chooses not to. And another main factor is it's a large contributor for putting impoverished countries in the position anyway. I'm of the belief that no aid given to most African nations (it becomes more specific to circumstances, but in general) ever need be responded with a "thankyou". We owe them that money as inhabitants of the Earth and as those guilty of plunging them into the situations they are in. Aid? Don't kid yourself.

Lux, you are young and idealistic therefore all you think about is the good that SOMEONE should be doing and apparently you think America should be doing the Lion's share of humanitarian aid. But then again, America simply CANT help the entire world :shrug: I certainly dont approve of genocide as many of you have discerned. But, my mom always taught me that charity begins at home and we have plenty of issues that could use some attention right HERE. As for your your assertion that our "aid is tiny", you are very much mistaken. America has consistently provided financial dollars to countries around the world for at least a century. When disasters strike, everyone looks to America to ante up the most. I for one am getting tired of that expectation.

as for being a rabid nationalist, I think I can safely say that I have criticized our government and our leaders quite pointedly. I have no problem with helping other nations. What I have a problem with is the automatic assumption that we MUST. Having said that, I believe that America is full of generous hearted people that donate for many international causes, aside from the aid the Government gives.

Finally, I am aware of the trend (most notably since the 80's) by the corporatocracy (yes Im almost done with THE BOOK!) to create financial dependence of third world countries. I think its despicable. I HATE HATE HATE multinationals and the banking monopolies. I wish there was a solution but I dont know what it is....

[irishgrl]

I, for the most part, agree. I think we should give the money and not expect repayment, which we do imn many cases.

MY WORD - I agreed with Lux, Mary, and Diss in one day.

I am starting to get soft :laugh:

or maybe you're nesting :D

[irishgrl]

Lux -

Again, all reports indicate we give the most of anyone - and that is just the govt. and does not take into consideration individual and corporate donations, which are in the billions. Moreover, comparing America's GNP to any other country in the world is unfair because America's GNP is far larger than any other country and she has a HUGE population - I know you know that. But, you continue to use it as the one and only standard and when you do, you do not take into account private and corp. gifts. FInally, not all aid from America is loans and many times those loans are forgiven or some other method is achieved.

But, I guess you are right - we Americans are all stingy self centered jerks over here. In fact, I think we should stop our gifts as they are so paltry. Let's see where that gets the world :rolleyes:

Finally, you never say anything nice about America. I think that shows your bias. I mean certainly, the amount we give helps at least one person somewhere :eek:

Tew shay. :laugh:

[strandinthewind]

. . . the Lion's share . . . .


I LOVE that expression. My great grandmother used to sign her letters using it like this:

You have the lion's share of my love

or

Sending you the lion's share of my love

or

With the lion's share of my love to you, I remain

___________________________________________

I thought that was just beautiful!

[irishgrl]

I LOVE that expression. My great grandmother used to sign her letters using it like this:

You have the lion's share of my love

or

Sending you the lion's share of my love

or

With the lion's share of my love to you, I remain

___________________________________________

I thought that was just beautiful!

So do I :angel:

[strandinthewind]

Well, yes I am because I think corp.'s give money and the stats back me up. I am not talking about what you are talking about, which is I think the corp building in poor countries to hook them on their products. I am talking solely about gifts, like when Bill Gates' charity gave a billion or so to AIDS - that was a gift essentially from Microsoft.

In the end, I think America gives a huge amount of money. Could it be more - of course it could - but that applies to everyone and every country.

Also, I submit China is currently the world's largest polluter, but I could be wrong. AND - in a nutshell, America is not alone in ruining the world. All countries commercial interaction is doing that. I mean GM makes cars for Brazil because they buy them. AND most other countries do not have the emission controls we have. The black smoke coming out of most cars in most other countries I have seen is far worse than here. Of course, I think we (the world) should stop drilling for oil now - all drilling - stop it now. We would then be foreced to use the sun, hydrogen, etc. - all of which harm no one.

[strandinthewind]

I never meant to imply that America is alone.

Now hang on, you're wanting to claim corporation's good deed but not take on the destruction done by corporations? The would be like us suddenly claiming a donation in the name of News Corp as our own good deed despite us insisting it's not ours (which it isn't) on every other issue.

Well, no. I know corps have done bad things. But, we are talking about charity in the form of aid - which is different :shrug: I mean I get that the US and every other country have done bad things, but those bad things do not obviate the aid given. But, you like to talk about them hand in hand :shrug:

[amber]

Well, no. I know corps have done bad things. But, we are talking about charity in the form of aid - which is different :shrug: I mean I get that the US and every other country have done bad things, but those bad things do not obviate the aid given. But, you like to talk about them hand in hand :shrug:
I think they are hand in hand, too. America rapes other countries of everything they can, then gives aid in a fraction of the amount? You can't really keep them separate.

[SuzeQuze]

Lux, you're fabulous. Truly.

Yes she is. I mean, I sometimes wish that I were actually crazy and this evil stuff isn't happening but it is. :nod: Because of extreme capitalist ideology this country just lets the weak drown and I think it's awful.

[strandinthewind]

Right, because the poorest countries were just created in debt. They have always existed in debt, nobody put them there.

If I steal everything you have and make you my servant on some pathetic wage, lend you money ocassionally so you don't starve to death and then make you work til you die to pay back that debt, I should not be considered giving if am persuaded to throw you a bit of aid. Not to mention the fact that it would probably take a news crew threatening to expose me for this 'good' to occur. You're talking about aid as if these countries were thrown into debt by some greater power. It's these corporations that you're going on about that do the damage, it's the wealthiest nations and their agendas.

[edit] Yes, like Amber said in a much more brief form.

I agree with you on this. I think we should give aid to countries not loan them money.

[amber]

Right, because the poorest countries were just created in debt. They have always existed in debt, nobody put them there.

If I steal everything you have and make you my servant on some pathetic wage, lend you money ocassionally so you don't starve to death and then make you work til you die to pay back that debt, I should not be considered giving if am persuaded to throw you a bit of aid. Not to mention the fact that it would probably take a news crew threatening to expose me for this 'good' to occur. You're talking about aid as if these countries were thrown into debt by some greater power. It's these corporations that you're going on about that do the damage, it's the wealthiest nations and their agendas.

[edit] Yes, like Amber said in a much more brief form.
Thanks, lux. (does this mean I'm fabulous, too? Probably not. :laugh: ) Anyway, well expressed here, I agree, of course.

[dissention]

I think they are hand in hand, too. America rapes other countries of everything they can, then gives aid in a fraction of the amount? You can't really keep them separate.

Ooh, that makes you fabulous, too. You said it perfectly.

[strandinthewind]

I think they are hand in hand, too. America rapes other countries of everything they can, then gives aid in a fraction of the amount? You can't really keep them separate.

Well, it is not really America alone. It is the Global economy. I mean China has most of out debt :eek: At one point Japan owned a significant part of the US (at least in the larger cities) - less than 100 years ago the sun never set on the British empire. Corporations are not just American anymore - they are multinational. It is all interrelated.

[strandinthewind]

Ooh, that makes you fabulous, too. You said it perfectly.

Is that all countries in the world? Are you saying we rape all those African countries for all their resources :rolleyes: If so, which ones Mr. I Love to Bash America and Cannot be Bothered to Point Anything Good Out" :laugh:

Again, I think since we are so loathesome, America should stop all of its paltry aid that is merely a product of the world destruction it has caused.

[amber]

Well, it is not really America alone. It is the Global economy. I mean China has most of out debt :eek: At one point Japan owned a significant part of the US (at least in the larger cities) - less than 100 years ago the sun never set on the British empire. Corporations are not just American anymore - they are multinational. It is all interrelated.
That's true. I'm mad at those other countries, too. But we have been the wealthiest for a long time, and in conjunction with The rise of industrialization, have been able to perform the largest scale rapeage. We also consume more and pollute more than the other industrialized nations. (yes, China is big now, with pollution, I know). Anyway, I'm not letting others off the hook, but I do think overall, we are the worst. :shrug:

[irishgrl]

I don't understand your point Jason, nor yours Mary. You say America gives more than any other country, I didn't say it didn't give. You say you're aware of how much bigger the GNP is. So how can the fact that America gives any more than say New Zealand, be anything to rave about. Of course it should freakin give more than New Zealand or the likes. It should give a certain percentage (and so should Aust. etc.) of the GNP, no matter what that may be, but it is not. It is taking money from the poorest countries from old debts. And yes Mary, people look to America for the aid because it's the country that can provide the most. If each gave a certain percent, the amount coming from America would naturally be greater so it's the key one to be eager on receiving. Doesn't mean other nations get off the hook either. Australia doesn't give enough either, I've never denied that. But if Australia still gave it's 0.7% we'd be giving far less than America so naturally when disaster strikes, practicalities come into place and America is the one they're keen to receive money from the most.

And don't treat me like I'm a naive kid. Patronising due to age will not get you far when there's a thread further down about that very thing. Perhaps you're just a misinformed American then? You say charity begins at home, and it does but it's about distribution of GNP and it's simply not going in the right places. America has been a large contributing force when it comes to stripping nations of their wealth and so you can't then turn around and use the excuse that the aid money for these nations should now go to homeland issues. Money should go to domestic causes but there is enough money to be given back to the poorest people in the world who are only in that position because the rest of us freakin put them there!

Also, expecting aid from America is not an issue. Aid should be expected from all the wealthy nations. You do not get to complain about being expected to provide aid. As I just said above, the ranking system only comes about due to the wealthier nations actions against the poorer nations. It is the least we can do for them and every wealthy nation is expected to. So just don't even complain about that one.

One more thing Jason, you talk about Corporate donations as aid. So if you're adopting corporation's aid as American aid, we'll adopt corporation's destruction as American destruction. Watch out because then you'll have a lot of explaining to do. In that case you're destroying most of the earth, you're responsible for most of the poverty. It's double sided, so are you still going to take on corporation aid as your own?

Actually Lux, EXPECTING aid at ALL is a mistake. Maybe I was too generous when I said you were young therefore idealistic. Possibly your youth just translates to foolishness. I dont know what any previous thread said about "patronizing due to age", but I can tell you, once you've lived a little (and I've lived a little more than you) you begin to realize some of your dearly held idealisms go by the wayside. Also: where do you get the idea that America's GNP needs to be redistributed OUTSIDE of America? That is unbelievable! America's GNP is driven at its heart by American workers and it is THEY who should be reaping the benefits! America is under NO obligation to fork over, unless there is some treaty or contract between the two countries in question. If Nations had your attitude (you have more than me so fork over because you OWE me), borders would be closed and barred and locked for all time. If we are talking about true AID here (not some sort of reparation for past wrongs--such as Germany or Japan received from us after WWII) then it should be given as an expression of humanitarianism NOT merely because we have it.

If a society determines that it wants to help its poorest members, it does so, within limits. But that is different from constantly sending out $$$ outside the country. There is NO obligation to do so absent some agreement between the countries

Also, on a side note, I heard just recently that the GNP is not an accurate indicator of wealth so you may be using the wrong benchmark.

[irishgrl]

That's true. I'm mad at those other countries, too. But we have been the wealthiest for a long time, and in conjunction with The rise of industrialization, have been able to perform the largest scale rapeage. We also consume more and pollute more than the other industrialized nations. (yes, China is big now, with pollution, I know). Anyway, I'm not letting others off the hook, but I do think overall, we are the worst. :shrug:

Just a quick note here: China is the worst polluter at this point because they are the fastest growing industrialized nation and they have none of the environmental checks in place that we have (even tho W is doing his level best to do away with them, we still have SOME in place).
As for wealth, the top 85-90% of this Nation's wealth is held by precious few people. The Rockefellers, Gates', Morgans etc are the individuals in the best position to offer help and yet........

As for the poor struggling Continent of Africa, as I recall, the Nation that plundered THAT part of the world (South Africa, becuz the rest is a wash) is ENGLAND, and to a lesser extent the Dutch. I dont believe America has ANY claim to fame in THAT part of the world.

By the way: Nations that consume HUGE quantities of resources are--
Japan, Russia, and China. Its all well and good to say we Americans consume resources but our Exports (in toto) to the rest of the world far outweigh what any of the aforementioned countries' can claim....

I just want to stress this point because I think it is incredibly arrogant for ANYONE to think that America automatically MUST go around aiding the rest of the world: When our government pledges aid in times of disaster (the tsunami comes to mind), that money comes from the pockets of Joe America.
that is OUR TAX DOLLARS, which obviously WONT be used to fix our own problems at home. I cant condemn strongly enough the notion that its somehow our "duty" to go around with financial bandaids every time there is a problem. Sooner or later, that goose isnt going to lay golden eggs any more and when that happens, the rest of the world will just have to figure out how to solve their own problems. Who the hell is going to step up to the plate if AMERICA needed help?

[strandinthewind]

. . . As for wealth, the top 85-90% of this Nation's wealth is held by precious few people. The Rockefellers, Gates', Morgans etc are the individuals in the best position to offer help and yet........

And history demonstrates they do. I mean look at Vanderbilt Hospital, the Morgan/Whitney Foundations, the Gates Charitablle trust, and many many more. All of those provide charity to millions daily. Interestingly, they also support the arts, which is a charity in many ways (the arts are for everyone, art/music can act like a tonic, etc. )

As for the poor struggling Continent of Africa, as I recall, the Nation that plundered THAT part of the world (South Africa, becuz the rest is a wash) is ENGLAND, and to a lesser extent the Dutch. I dont believe America has ANY claim to fame in THAT part of the world . . . .

Let's not forget the French :wavey:

[irishgrl]

And history demonstrates they do. I mean look at Vanderbilt Hospital, the Morgan/Whitney Foundations, the Gates Charitablle trust, and many many more. All of those provide charity to millions daily. Interestingly, they also support the arts, which is a charity in many ways (the arts are for everyone, art/music can act like a tonic, etc. )



Let's not forget the French :wavey:

Jason the days of Noblesse Oblige are fading into the sunset. As for supporting the Arts, I submit that only the financially secure (those with ample discretionary income) can even afford the Arts. Middle Americans are more likely to run to the Video Store if they want "Art."

[irishgrl]

The GNP is the benchmark used by the UN when calculating percentages given in aid. The percentage was pledged by the 22 participating nations, only five have reached it.

I could go on to but I'd be repeating myself. If you don't see why America (and other wealthy nations) should give aid overseas you've got a screw loose. Do you honestly think some nations are born wealthy and others poor? Do you honestly think America is not a contributing force behind the impoverished conditions of poorer countries?

Oh and you must be right. I'm just 22, what would I know about anything? This is the source of your appointed superiority naturally. I'm but a foolish youth who's never experienced the world but simply by your age we must assume you've experienced more than I. Don't f*cking patronise me with your bull****. How the p**** would you know about me? Just 'cause I don't mention in every post what good I'm doing for the world or what my domestic struggles are, don't assume anything about me. And if you think it comes down to the age you've got a second screw loose. Age is a number, not an automatic entry into superiority.

Unfortunately, from that little tantrum, Id say that you've clearly demonstrated your "age", AND your lack of insight. Back to the corner with you.

BTW: I notice you fail to mention which 5 Nations ARE meeting their obligation and what THEIR GNP is.....It must not amount to much or you wouldnt be salivating over the American GNP. The UN is a sad shadow of what it started out to be. It is not the end-all or be-all. In fact, I think the US should withdraw completely and let the rest of youse sort yerselves out. Then you can squabble in your extra large sandbox about who has the biggest GNP and who should get the largest share.

[irishgrl]

Do you honestly think some nations are born wealthy and others poor?

Partly: Some are born poor due to lack of resources or poor location.
but NO nation is born rich. America is wealthy because of hard WORK. And we HAVE shared. My point, which you keep missing, is that whatever is shared for a humanitarian reason, is given out of a spirit of generosity, not because other nations are standing around EXPECTING it. Talk about a screw loose :shrug:

Im sure you'll have some scathingly sarcastic reply, too bad I dont have the time to enjoy it as I am off to WORK.

[strandinthewind]

Jason the days of Noblesse Oblige are fading into the sunset. As for supporting the Arts, I submit that only the financially secure (those with ample discretionary income) can even afford the Arts. Middle Americans are more likely to run to the Video Store if they want "Art."

Bill and Melinda Gates just started the largest ever at #22 Billion :shrug: and there currently are 55,000 out there ranging from $22 billion to around $100,000. So, while I think the robber baron days of The Gilded Age (1870- 1910) are over, the giving keeps coming in. It will be interesting to see what effect the repeal of the estate tax has on this. I think it will minimal because these people at this level realize the greater good, etc. At least that is what they say. I mean there was no such tax when the robber barons did it and really no such tax until, I think, the 30's or thereabouts. Here is a history on the estate tax http://www.faireconomy.org/estatetax/ETHistory.html - personally, I think that is they raised the ceiling to $10 million and then levied a 10% tax on anything over that - no one would complain. It is when it was at 70% and farmers and small businesses were not excluded that it was a problem.

Also, the Met in NYC is free as are a whole bunch of other "suggested donation" museams :shrug: Plus, symphonies give free concerts all of the time and they have hugely discounted tickets usually available. So, access is out there - now the PARKING fee is another story - OY :laugh:

[strandinthewind]

Partly: Some are born poor due to lack of resources or poor location.
but NO nation is born rich. America is wealthy because of hard WORK. And we HAVE shared. My point, which you keep missing, is that whatever is shared for a humanitarian reason, is given out of a spirit of generosity, not because other nations are standing around EXPECTING it. Talk about a screw loose :shrug:

Im sure you'll have some scathingly sarcastic reply, too bad I dont have the time to enjoy it as I am off to WORK.

"didn't need no welfare state - everybody pulled their weight - gee our old LaSalle ran great - Those were the DAAAAAAAYYSSSSS"

:D :D :D :wavey:

[irishgrl]

Bill and Melinda Gates just started the largest ever at #22 Billion :shrug: and there currently are 55,000 out there ranging from $22 billion to around $100,000. So, while I think the robber baron days of The Gilded Age (1870- 1910) are over, the giving keeps coming in. It will be interesting to see what effect the repeal of the estate tax has on this. I think it will minimal because these people at this level realize the greater good, etc. At least that is what they say. I mean there was no such tax when the robber barons did it and really no such tax until, I think, the 30's or thereabouts. Here is a history on the estate tax http://www.faireconomy.org/estatetax/ETHistory.html - personally, I think that is they raised the ceiling to $10 million and then levied a 10% tax on anything over that - no one would complain. It is when it was at 70% and farmers and small businesses were not excluded that it was a problem.

(Jason, yer gonna make me late!) I think what the Gates have done is admirable, but I think they are probably among the last to do this sort of charity.

ok, I go now.

[strandinthewind]

I agree the days of the huge charitable trusts are somewhat numbered at least unitl the next economic boom - Interestingly, Turner gave a billion or so to the UN - so it does happen.

Here is a cool article for 03 that shows the clearly generous nature of Americans:

Buddy, We're Sparing Fewer Dimes
WASHINGTON, Oct. 27, 2003


Contributions to the largest charities fell in 2002 for the first time in a dozen years because of the troubled economy and uncertainty among donors, a survey finds.

Donations to the 400 largest charities dropped 1.2 percent last year, to $46.9 billion from $47.5 billion in 2001, according to The Chronicle of Philanthropy's annual survey released Monday. During the previous five years, donations increased an average of 12 percent each year.

"This economic downturn has just had so many twists and turns that donors aren't feeling very certain about the future, so they aren't as willing to give," editor said. "As donors are feeling more pinched, charities are feeling it, too."

She said the growing number of charities also contributes to the decline, as more organizations compete for donations. In response to the hard times, some charities are changing the way they raise funds, adding staff and sponsoring events to attract donors.

For the first time in a decade, the Salvation Army — with nearly $1.4 billion in contributions — slipped from the top spot, the survey said.

A surge in giving prompted by the Sept. 11 attacks pushed the American Red Cross from ninth to No. 1 last year. With $1.1 billion given to the Red Cross' Sept. 11 fund, the organization's donations totaled more than $1.7 billion — a 161 percent increase over 2001.

Even as larger nonprofits struggled, some smaller charities prospered. According to the report, Conservation International in Washington saw a 251 percent boost in donations. Donations to New York's Museum of Modern Art doubled.

Charity officials have said their task in 2002 was complicated by many challenges: the waves of layoffs, the stock market plunge, the erosion of trust in some institutions, donor fatigue after the response to the attacks.

Gifts to the top 400 charities accounted for nearly a fifth of the $241 billion given to all U.S. charities last year. Nearly 90 percent of donations come from individuals, Palmer said, with the rest from foundations and companies.

The survey's annual statistics, which cover private donations and not government contributions, are adjusted for inflation.

According to a study released in June by the American Association of Fundraising Counsel, total charitable giving in 2002 rose to $240.92 billion from $238.46 billion the previous year — only 1 percent.

When adjusted for inflation, charitable contributions of all types declined one-half of a percentage point compared with 2001, the report said.

In five years of rapid economic growth that began in 1996, giving posted annual increases in the double digits - ranging from 11 percent to 15 percent. But giving in 2001 posted just a 4.5 percent increase, followed by last year's 1 percent rise.

It was unclear whether any of the falloff in giving was due to the changes in the estate tax. Many wealthy families donate substantial sums to charity to reduce the size of their taxable estate. The amount of wealth exempt from estate taxes is scheduled to rise from $1 million to $3.5 million in 2009, before the law expires for a year in 2010.

Claire Gaudiani, senior scholar at Yale Law School and author of The Greater Good, says charitable donations and philanthropic giving is a vital part of the American way of life.

She told CBS News Correspondent Kelly Cobiella that charitable giving is two percent of the gross domestic product, compared to 0.7 percent for the second highest nation, Great Britain.

"Americans aren't generous because we're rich," Gaudiani said, "we're rich because we're generous."

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/06/24/national/printable560206.shtml

[irishgrl]

now that you've given us our irrelvant interlude, I have used my time a bit more wisely.
link (http://www.globalpolicy.org/socecon/develop/oda/2005/0411moreaid.htm)

I see where you get your figures (since you neglected to post a link or any info)
but you fail to acknowledge that the US is STILL the largest single contributer:
The United States remained the largest aid donor in volume terms, followed by Japan, France, the United Kingdom and Germany.

and then there is this:
The net ODA from the United States in 2004 was 19 billion dollars, a 14.1 percent increase in real terms from 2003. Its ODA/GNI ratio rose from 0.15 percent to 0.16 percent. Most of the increase was due to a 1.8 billion dollar contribution to the International Development Association (IDA), the grant and soft-loan arm of the World Bank. U.S. aid to Afghanistan (875 million dollars) and Iraq (2.9 billion dollars) also rose substantially. ODA from the United States comprised 24.2 percent of the DAC total in 2004, its highest share since 1986, and nearly double the low point of 12.5 percent reached in 1995, the OECD report says.

btw: the 5 countries that managed to meet or exceed the .07 target:
Denmark, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Norway and Sweden.

Im sure that equals a princely sum. Wahoo.

now I really must go earn a living so my tax dollars can go elsewhere. :cool:

[strandinthewind]

Um, what level of schooling did you finish? Of course the US aid amounts to more, I even mentioned this earlier but it hardly needs mentioning. Do you expect Sweden to donate the same amount as the US? That end up on the list of aid recipients. How can you mock their aid? The fact that their GNP is lower is not a matter to scoff at and the fact that you mock their donations while waving your yanky flag makes you the reason people want to kill Americans! All I can say is not to look surprised. Just like Australia should give more in aid than New Zealand, America should give more in aid than any other wealthy nation. Did you fail maths class?


The American Govt. does "give more in aid than any other wealthy nation." Thus, my point. And - that is just the govt. That goes not count the private donations which are well into the billions, even if you exclude corp. donations. Thus, I, again, think you are incorrect in asserting that America is cheap in its donations. I also think using the GNP standard is unfair because GNP is a disproportionate standard - but you do not.

But, and in the end, you will never acknowledge that America is anything but a bunch of elitist (again irony coming from you :wavey: ) who are loathe to help anyone out. So be it :cool"

[tynan88]

Sorry but I have to weigh in to this now, America has to be a large contributore to funds not just through the government but in particular the corporations because they undoubtedly take so much from the rest of the world too. I won't make this a personal attack against America because the same should go for any group of people, the American multi-nationals make people work for a wage for which they can't afford a meal, So they should donate, but it is no different to the fact France should have paid compensation to the people that were affected by their atomic tests, they Australians should compensate Aborigines.

The fact is we should have to compensate (or 'donate') to those who have been affected by our actions in an adverse way.

[strandinthewind]

Sorry but I have to weigh in to this now, America has to be a large contributore to funds not just through the government but in particular the corporations because they undoubtedly take so much from the rest of the world too. I won't make this a personal attack against America because the same should go for any group of people, the American multi-nationals make people work for a wage for which they can't afford a meal, So they should donate, but it is no different to the fact France should have paid compensation to the people that were affected by their atomic tests, they Australians should compensate Aborigines.

The fact is we should have to compensate (or 'donate') to those who have been affected by our actions in an adverse way.

I get that and am not really arguing against it except to say repariations are a slippery slope into the ole "when is enough" argument. I mean should the Italians still be paying for persecuting Christians or has enough time passed :shrug:

But, America to my knowledge never did anything to Africa in the way of making it the desolate place it is. Thus, why should we pay for it under a reparations theory? I do think we should help though and we do.

Also, I also think the whole "American companies exploit the world" argument is a little false. I mean it takes two to tango and the world participates with those companies. They would not go where it is not profitable and if they did not go some other nation would - in fact the domination of new markets if a hot hot hot global economic trned. Thus, are the consumers in those nations equally as guilty - they, after all, buy the goods and take the jobs when they are offered. Probably not. But, surely they have some cuplability though not as deep pockets, which is the rub.

In the end, I go back to America through all sources pays a significant amount of aid to the world and that is a good thing. Should they pay more - yes - but everyone should. And then what is more? I mean who here really gives to a charity and lives without electricity or other such luxuries probably not availbale in some of the countries receiving the aid. Why should we hold anyone to a different standard?

Anyway - food for thought and I enjoyed your post - as always :cool:

Also, not all companies pay low wages :shrug: In fact, I suggest relatively few do in the big scheme of things and those that do are bad people. I mean GM pays its people selling cars overseas. Coca Cola pays its workers in the bottling plants. China pays its McDonald's workers. But, clearly the low wages happen and that is sad and needs to be changed.

[tynan88]

I get that and am not really arguing against it except to say repariations are a slippery slope into the ole "when is enough" argument. I mean should the Italians still be paying for persecuting Christians or has enough time passed :shrug:

But, America to my knowledge never did anything to Africa in the way of making it the desolate place it is. Thus, why should we pay for it.

Also, I also think the whole "American companies exploit the world" argument is a little false. I mean it takes two to tango and the world participates with those companies. They would not go where it is not profitable and if they did not go some other nation would - in fact the domination of new markets if a hot hot hot global economic trned. Thus, are the consumers in those nations equally as guilty - they, after all, buy the goods and take the jobs when they are offered. Probably not. But, surely they have some cuplability though not as deep pockets, which is the rub.

In the end, I go back to America through all sources pays a significant amount of aid to the world and that is a good thing. Should they pay more - yes - but everyone should. And then what is more? I mean who here really gives to a charity and lives without electricity or other such luxuries probably not availbale in some of the countries receiving the aid. Why should we hold anyone to a different standard?

Anyway - food for thought and I enjoyed your post - as always :cool:

Also, not all companies pay low wages :shrug: In fact, I suggest relatively few do in the big scheme of things and those that do are bad people. I mean GM pays its people selling cars overseas. Coca Cola pays its workers in the bottling plants. China pays its McDonald's workers. But, clearly the low wages happen and that is sad and needs to be changed.

I think you get the idea in general strand, and I agree one hundred percent that it takes two to tango! I mean the exploitation couldn't happen if people weren't willing to be exploited, and people couldn't be exploited if there was enough to share.

However the answer to this problem won't come soon, but it will come I think, in the quest for a global world, standards will need to be adjusted and more responsible thinking by ALL parties necessary. This includes aid, and I would agree with America saying, 'hey these war lords are stealing our aid, why should we bother?"

I also share your view on companies paying for overseas workers, I know people who won't eat McDonald's because it is American and I have always said, without McDonald's a lot of young Aussies would be without a job, and they use Aussie product too so it's a win win situation.

In the end responsibility and thought, not culpability is what is important I think, it is no good blaming anyone, just concentrating on how it can be fixed.

[strandinthewind]

I know and then I see reports of waste withing charities. Some of them have overhead of greater than 30% and some of that overhead is luxury items like first class plane tickets and suites. Oh if the world would just listen to us :laugh:

[tynan88]

I know and then I see reports of waste withing charities. Some of them have overhead of greater than 30% and some of that overhead is luxury items like first class plane tickets and suites. Oh if the world would just listen to us :laugh:

Retire to Australia, hey another thirty years and I'll be Prime Minister/President don't forget! :cool: Remember the name, you'll see me stirring the pot soon :laugh:

[strandinthewind]

Retire to Australia, hey another thirty years and I'll be Prime Minister/President don't forget! :cool: Remember the name, you'll see me stirring the pot soon :laugh:

I expect an invite to the coronation - as she is my online wife, Lux will be my date - so don't try to pull the wool over anyone's eyes that day or you are answering to her :eek: :wavey:

[tynan88]

I expect an invite to the coronation - as she is my online wife, Lux will be my date - so don't try to pull the wool over anyone's eyes that day or you are answering to her :eek: :wavey:

Oh I would be scared LOL She'd kick my ass :lol: You will all get an invitation, we can have a world leader who has both good taste in music (a love of Fleetwood Mac) and intergrity :p

[David]

America is wealthy because of hard WORK. And we HAVE shared.Again, more pronoun trouble. "We"?

I, an American, gave some money to Red Cross several months ago for the tsunami relief, but my friend Jan, an American, did not. Multiply that 270 million times & you wind up with: Some people share & some people don't.

To extrapolate from that complex mess of "some do, some don't" that "we have shared" is to have trouble with pronouns, which may seem like a small deal, but how can anything be seen clearly if you don't do stuff like get your pronouns straight or define your terms?

Last year, I remember opening a piece of junk mail that said "It takes an entire community to raise just one child," & I wondered & wondered just what the heck that actually meant.

After a few hours of thinking about it, mulling over it, pondering it, weighing it, considering it in the light of everything I know to be specifically logical, I couldn't figure it out. Every child on earth -- except those who came out of a test tube -- has (or had) two -- exactly two -- parents.

[amber]

Partly: Some are born poor due to lack of resources or poor location.
but NO nation is born rich. America is wealthy because of hard WORK. And .
Um, this is a bit naive, I think. America is wealthy mainly because of natural resources, our own abundant ones (much of which are gone, especially lumber) and much from stripping other countries of their natural resources. Every country has hard workers. For instance, people in Africa have to walk miles just to get a few bucketfuls of water. Poorer countries do not work less hard, in fact, they usually have to work much harder just to get basic necessities. And often they don't even have those. And it is largely a matter of having no resources....Honestly, when you say America is wealthy because of Hard work, it kind of makes me laugh...

[dissention]

Um, this is a bit naive, I think. America is wealthy mainly because of natural resources, our own abundant ones (much of which are gone, especially lumber) and much from stripping other countries of their natural resources. Every country has hard workers. For instance, people in Africa have to walk miles just to get a few bucketfuls of water. Poorer countries do not work less hard, in fact, they usually have to work much harder just to get basic necessities. And often they don't even have those. And it is largely a matter of having no resources....Honestly, when you say America is wealthy because of Hard work, it kind of makes me laugh...

I agree completely.

When someone says America is wealthy because of hard work, how do you justify other nations being poor? Do they just sit around on their keisters eating pork rinds and watching soaps? I think not. I dare someone to say that America is wealthy because the people who live in it work hard to a man in South Africa who works eighteen hours a day to put food in his kids' mouths and still can't make enough to provide for them. Gimme a bloody break, you can't get more naive than that.

[strandinthewind]

I agree completely.

When someone says America is wealthy because of hard work, how do you justify other nations being poor? Do they just sit around on their keisters eating pork rinds and watching soaps? I think not. I dare someone to say that America is wealthy because the people who live in it work hard to a man in South Africa who works eighteen hours a day to put food in his kids' mouths and still can't make enough to provide for them. Gimme a bloody break, you can't get more naive than that.

I guess all those people who died staking out the west, all those people who suffered while building the cities, all those people who to this day work and sweat mean nothing - it is all sweet creme and roses for everyone over here now :rolleyes: :wavey:

But seriously, once again, you are generalizing on an area of people. I mean look at Bill Gates. He worked his fingers to the bone building that company. I may not agree with all the tactics he used, but he burnt the midnight oil doing it. Same for Oprah, Whoppie Goldberg, and many others who, unlike Gates, came from nothing and in fact experienced tradedy. So, I think many rich (and I mean $10 million or more) do work very hard for it. Do they swing an ax - probably not. But, hard work is hard work :shrug:

[amber]

I didn't say Americans didn't work hard.

[dissention]

I guess all those people who died staking out the west, all those people who suffered while building the cities, all those people who to this day work and sweat mean nothing - it is all sweet creme and roses for everyone over here now :rolleyes: :wavey:

No one ever said American's never worked hard, I just don't get Mary's logic that we're a rich country simply because of hard work. I don't buy it and I think Amber put it perfectly.

But seriously, once again, you are generalizing on an area of people. I mean look at Bill Gates. He worked his fingers to the bone building that company. I may not agree with all the tactics he used, but he burnt the midnight oil doing it. Same for Oprah, Whoppie Goldberg, and many others who, unlike Gates, came from nothing and in fact experienced tradedy. So, I think many rich (and I mean $10 million or more) do work very hard for it. Do they swing an ax - probably not. But, hard work is hard work :shrug:

Blah blah blah. Hard work is hard work, but let's not generalize this country by saying that we're rich simply because of hard work. If all it took was hard work to be rich, we wouldn't have so many problems in this world.

[amber]

No one ever said American's never worked hard, I just don't get Mary's logic that we're a rich country simply because of hard work. I don't buy it and I think Amber put it perfectly.



Blah blah blah. Hard work is hard work, but let's not generalize this country by saying that we're rich simply because of hard work. If all it took was hard work to be rich, we wouldn't have so many problems in this world.
You can do all the hard work in the world, but if all you have at your disposal is a sheep, some roots you can dig, and a little bit of water that you have to follow around because it dries up some seasons, you're not gonna build an empire... :shrug:

[strandinthewind]

You can do all the hard work in the world, but if all you have at your disposal is a sheep, some roots you can dig, and a little bit of water that you have to follow around because it dries up some seasons, you're not gonna build an empire... :shrug:

Respectfully, America did and so did Australia :shrug:

But, I get you all's points and agree mostly. Interestingly, in Utopia, everyone would be caring. I think the world, sadly, does not work that way. I mean look at Communism, on paper it is a great romantic notion. However, once humans get involved, it is just another way to suppress the poor - at least as we have seen it applied in the last 50 years. I mean no one other than Stalin (or was it Lenin) actually lived like one of the unwashed masses :shrug: In the end, I say give what you can, vote for positive change, and pray for the best.

[The Tower]

Jason, I just love your typos.

Whoppie Goldberg

So many images come to my mind when I pronounce her name like that... :laugh: :laugh:

[DrummerDeanna]

Respectfully, America did and so did Australia :shrug:

But, I get you all's points and agree mostly. Interestingly, in Utopia, everyone would be caring. I think the world, sadly, does not work that way. I mean look at Communism, on paper it is a great romantic notion. However, once humans get involved, it is just another way to suppress the poor - at least as we have seen it applied in the last 50 years. I mean no one other than Stalin (or was it Lenin) actually lived like one of the unwashed masses :shrug: In the end, I say give what you can, vote for positive change, and pray for the best.


:nod:

You know what sickens me lately?

That these celebs spend like thousands of dollars on a purse or on shoes....

Who needs $9,000 shoes? I mean really....why not use that money for something worthwhile? Feek a homeless kids, donate some clothes to a woman's shelter :shrug: I don't know...it bugs me sometimes...

[strandinthewind]

:nod:

You know what sickens me lately?

That these celebs spend like thousands of dollars on a purse or on shoes....

Who needs $9,000 shoes? I mean really....why not use that money for something worthwhile? Feek a homeless kids, donate some clothes to a woman's shelter :shrug: I don't know...it bugs me sometimes...

I know - but I do not want anyone telling me not to spend money on whatever I want - so as hard as it is, I will not tell them. I mean what we consider okay for us would be a horrifying amount of money to someone living in a box :shrug: Just look at the $150 or more people spent on seeing FM, which though I regard highly, is not a necessity :laugh:

Also - almost all celebs have some kind of charity that donates to causes. So, a yang exists for the yin :cool:

[dissention]

Who needs $9,000 shoes? I mean really....why not use that money for something worthwhile? Feek a homeless kids, donate some clothes to a woman's shelter :shrug: I don't know...it bugs me sometimes...

If I had made this statement, Jason would be all up in my face. :nod: :D

[strandinthewind]

Jason, I just love your typos.



So many images come to my mind when I pronounce her name like that... :laugh: :laugh:

OMG :eek: :eek:

me and my typing!!!!!!! :D :D :D

[strandinthewind]

If I had made this statement, Jason would be all up in my face. :nod: :D

Well, she is a lady and though you may sit to pee - you are not :p :p :p :wavey:

[dissention]

Also - almost all celebs have some kind of charity that donates to causes. So, a yang exists for the ying :cool:

Hehe. Half of those celebrity charities are just fronts to gain some good PR; the majority of them only end up donating 10-20% of all donations and eat up the rest in operating costs. Cher's chairty and Spielberg's charity are the really ridiculous ones.

[strandinthewind]

Hehe. Half of those celebrity charities are just fronts to gain some good PR; the majority of them only end up donating 10-20% of all donations and eat up the rest in operating costs. Cher's chairty and Spielberg's charity are the really ridiculous ones.


I think charities that pay execs or celebs a fortune or have outrageous perks on the way to feed the indigent suck. Sadly, people realized that they could put on a $100,000 fashion show to raise $500,000 - so they do it. And, being the hypocrite I am, I go to these :laugh:

[dissention]

I think charities that pay execs or celebs a fortune or have outrageous perks on the way to feed the indigent suck.

:shrug: You were all over me when I said the exact same thing.

I think the celebrities that make such demands and accept such extravagances are the worse than the charities that end up indulging them. They make me sick to stomach. Give them a fruit basket, not a Rolex.

Sadly, people realized that they could put on a $100,000 fashion show to raise $500,000 - so they do it. And, being the hypocrite I am, I go to these :laugh:

If you're happy to feed into it, by all means, go ahead. :P

[DrummerDeanna]

I know - but I do not want anyone telling me not to spend money on whatever I want - so as hard as it is, I will not tell them. I mean what we consider okay for us would be a horrifying amount of money to someone living in a box :shrug: Just look at the $150 or more people spent on seeing FM, which though I regard highly, is not a necessity :laugh:

Also - almost all celebs have some kind of charity that donates to causes. So, a yang exists for the yin :cool:


I totally see that point too.....and I think of that when I'm buying something like A Little House on the Prairie season on DVD...lol...really there must be something more worthwhile I could do with that money....like feed a homeless kid lol....

It's just something I think about - I was more thinking through my fingers - not making a statement that people shouldn't spend money on whatever they want ya know?

Just thinking out loud a little a guess :p

[strandinthewind]

:shrug: You were all over me when I said the exact same thing.

I think the celebrities that make such demands and accept such extravagances are the worse than the charities that end up indulging them. They make me sick to stomach.

No, I think what I said was the charities realize that to make big money they have to spend it. That is the system. I do not like it though. I think people should give freely to honest charities. I do think though that corps. do it for the advertising and I do not have a huge prob. with that because that is not really a perk like a suite or a Rolex.

If you're happy to feed into it, by all means, go ahead. :P There was nooooooo way I was not going to the AHI Enchanted tour benefit concert :laugh: Seriously, the system will never change and I do love a four course dinner with chicken and a steak :laugh: :wavey:

[strandinthewind]

I totally see that point too.....and I think of that when I'm buying something like A Little House on the Prairie season on DVD...lol...really there must be something more worthwhile I could do with that money....like feed a homeless kid lol....

It's just something I think about - I was more thinking through my fingers - not making a statement that people shouldn't spend money on whatever they want ya know?

Just thinking out loud a little a guess :p

I know - I get that way too. So, I say live your life as best you can and pray for the best :cool:

[dissention]

No, I think what I said was the charities realize that to make big money they have to spend it. That is the system. I do not like it though. I think people should give freely to honest charities.

You told me that the celebrities (and the charities) realize that they're bringing lots of money into the charities, so you didn't see anything wrong with them getting such ridiculous rewards. I find it abhorrent for anyone to only participate in raising charitable funds when they get something in return. You would think that the satisfaction of helping out your fellow human beings would be the only thing they would need.

There was nooooooo way I was not going to the AHI Enchanted tour benefit concert :laugh: Seriously, the system will never change and I do love a four course dinner with chicken and a steak :laugh: :wavey:

If that's what floats your boat. :)

[DrummerDeanna]

I know - I get that way too. So, I say live your life as best you can and pray for the best :cool:


That's what I try to do...

I have a sort of inner dilema with all this - which is where I get confused with myself :laugh:

See I figure I work hard and have been working non-stop since I was 16 - I'm trying to build a better life for myself that my mom had ya know? Therefore I should be able to buy whatever the hell I want....

BUT then I think of the homeless kids lol....I think too much - this is perhaps my problem....

Whatever though - usually my first train of thought wins out and I buy things for myself :D

[irishgrl]

I didn't say Americans didn't work hard.
Well good, because we DO. btw: I DID mention natural resources as a factor.

Im not saying there arent lazy people or that everyone donates to red cross
(that bit of fluff over "pronoun trouble" isnt applicable) BUT: our tax dollars go to fill the coffers in DC which in turn contribute to the pot of aid relief. So, in a very REAL sense, WE all do contribute (except perhaps those on public assistance)

[David]

It's just something I think aboutThat may be the first important step on the path to wisdom, Deanna -- thinking about your actions & your deeds, as well as the actions & deeds of others. Can a life be well-lived if the question is never asked: Should I want what I do in fact want?

Imagine if people everywhere started seriously asking themselves that question. Programming would shrivel up & TV would go off the air (even PBS!); governments would topple as politicians found themselves in bread lines; & sales of computers, autos, hairdryers, magazines, DVDs, CDs, salad spinners, plastic plants, cell phones, designer furnishings, bottled water, swimming pools, speed boats & vacation homes would plummet!

The spirit of Epictetus lives yet.

[strandinthewind]

You told me that the celebrities (and the charities) realize that they're bringing lots of money into the charities, so you didn't see anything wrong with them getting such ridiculous rewards. I find it abhorrent for anyone to only participate in raising charitable funds when they get something in return. You would think that the satisfaction of helping out your fellow human beings would be the only thing they would need.

If I said that - I misspoke. What I meant to say was that the system is in place and they are all playing in it. I think they should not do that, but I get why they do. I mean that Rolex was undoubtably donated so it is not like the charity is paying for it. Plus, I know this sounds awful, but having been on boards that have thrown huge high profile parties in Atlanta - people will not come unless you bait them. And - that includes both the public and the celebs. You have to have a silent auction and a big item raffle if you want to make any money. I think it sucks that it is like this, but having done it, I realize that is the reality - and it has been like that for the last 200 or so years that I can see.

[David]

that bit of fluff over "pronoun trouble" isnt applicableReally? That's very interesting.

[irishgrl]

No one ever said American's never worked hard, I just don't get Mary's logic that we're a rich country simply because of hard work. I don't buy it and I think Amber put it perfectly.



Blah blah blah. Hard work is hard work, but let's not generalize this country by saying that we're rich simply because of hard work. If all it took was hard work to be rich, we wouldn't have so many problems in this world.

well, you can throw in a bit of luck too....oh and it helps to KNOW someone.

I never said it was ONLY because of hard work. But it IS a big part of the equation.

[strandinthewind]

That's what I try to do...

I have a sort of inner dilema with all this - which is where I get confused with myself :laugh:

See I figure I work hard and have been working non-stop since I was 16 - I'm trying to build a better life for myself that my mom had ya know? Therefore I should be able to buy whatever the hell I want....

BUT then I think of the homeless kids lol....I think too much - this is perhaps my problem....

Whatever though - usually my first train of thought wins out and I buy things for myself :D

LOL - "gimme gimme gimme" is my middle name :laugh:

Seriously, if you cannot afford the $$$$, give time. I have done that before. I mean if you took your pre tax hourly work rate and donated two Sat.'s a month doing something. I think that is a substantial donation :shrug: Also, I never really feel guilty about spending on myself because I know I have done many a charitable thing either with time or with money. I mean I went down the Amazon River to deliver school supplies to the natives - obviously I believe in charity even though that trip was also cool because of what and where it was. So, don't beat yourself up :cool:

[irishgrl]

Really? That's very interesting.

well, if you choose to take it LITERALLY when it was used as a GENERALITY, then I guess thats your choice........

[amber]

Respectfully, America did and so did Australia :shrug:


Respectfully, America and Australia did not. America was plumb chock full of natural resources when it was settled. The lumber exported and used here in the country alone is a staggering amount. And in most areas, there was an abundance of water and game, etc. America had an enormous amount of resources. :wavey:

[irishgrl]

Respectfully, America and Australia did not. America was plumb chock full of natural resources when it was settled. The lumber exported and used here in the country alone is a staggering amount. And in most areas, there was an abundance of water and game, etc. America had an enormous amount of resources. :wavey:

Respectfully: the Native Americans and the Aborigines of Australia also had those same resources and didnt build world empires.

England built one without them.

its more than resources alone. I submit that the active factor IS hard work.

[strandinthewind]

Esp. Australia, which was mostly a prison colony.

[The Tower]

You would think that the satisfaction of helping out your fellow human beings would be the only thing they would need.
Unfortunately, this is not a characteristic of humanity.

[amber]

Respectfully: the Native Americans and the Aborigines of Australia also had those same resources and didnt build world empires.

England built one without them.

its more than resources alone. I submit that the active factor IS hard work.
I fear you are a bit misinformed. But that's ok. Why do you think England didn't have natural resources... :confused:

[The Tower]

I don't get your point Mary. You said that the native Australians had resources and yet didn't build an empire. I have no idea what your point is but firstly, Australia does not have many resources, that's why they initially sailed their ships on by. Secondly, the native Australians believe the earth is sacred, the dirt, trees, everything are the remains of their ancestors and the one thing they would never have done is rape, even so much as touch what 'resources' were there. And Australia is so huge that until the white man came along with his gun, the Aboriginal peoples lived in relative harmony due to the fact that their was ample to share around. The Brits invaded their land, trod all over their ancestors, raped them of everything they had and then killed many of them. That is how Australia made the transition from Aboriginal land to a wealthy nation of the commonwealth. This is exactly what we're talking about only on a more specific level. What you're saying is the equivalent of saying Australia does not owe the original inhabitants anything, that anything we give them is charity. That is utter bull****. We are who we are because we put these people in these imporverished circumstances and we owe them. Same goes for any other peoples we have done this to. We owe the East Timorese and what we give them is not through generosity, it's through our obligation to give to them. This is the same scenario we're talking about but on a global scale.

It certainly was hard work when they stole and proceeded to destoy the land I'm living on. Tough times, but they pulled through and thanks to their hard work, I live in a wealthy nation. It's also tough times ripping the oil out of East Timor. It's really hard when they show us pictures of the kiddies over there (the ones we didn't aid in slaughtering atleast) who have no education and little resources, but I have my oil to pull me through it.
Lux, in case you didn't know it- I think you are awesome. Don't let anyone, including yourself, tell you any different.

[strandinthewind]

Lux, in case you didn't know it- I think you are awesome. Don't let anyone, including yourself, tell you any different.

Well, for the record so do I - no matter how wrong she often is :xoxo: :xoxo: :xoxo:

[irishgrl]

I don't get your point Mary. You said that the native Australians had resources and yet didn't build an empire. I have no idea what your point is but firstly, Australia does not have many resources, that's why they initially sailed their ships on by. Secondly, the native Australians believe the earth is sacred, the dirt, trees, everything are the remains of their ancestors and the one thing they would never have done is rape, even so much as touch what 'resources' were there. And Australia is so huge that until the white man came along with his gun, the Aboriginal peoples lived in relative harmony due to the fact that their was ample to share around. The Brits invaded their land, trod all over their ancestors, raped them of everything they had and then killed many of them. That is how Australia made the transition from Aboriginal land to a wealthy nation of the commonwealth. This is exactly what we're talking about only on a more specific level. What you're saying is the equivalent of saying Australia does not owe the original inhabitants anything, that anything we give them is charity. That is utter bull****. We are who we are because we put these people in these imporverished circumstances and we owe them. Same goes for any other peoples we have done this to. We owe the East Timorese and what we give them is not through generosity, it's through our obligation to give to them. This is the same scenario we're talking about but on a global scale.

It certainly was hard work when they stole and proceeded to destoy the land I'm living on. Tough times, but they pulled through and thanks to their hard work, I live in a wealthy nation. It's also tough times ripping the oil out of East Timor. It's really hard when they show us pictures of the kiddies over there (the ones we didn't aid in slaughtering atleast) who have no education and little resources, but I have my oil to pull me through it.
my points are:
a) I was responding to Amber's point which said that America owed its prominence to resources alone. So, I pointed out the obvious: the Natives here had those same resources, in fact they had MORE. And yet, they didnt go out and conquer the world.

b) I KNOW the aboriginals of both continents have a different attitude toward Nature, that wasnt the point. The point was the fact that the resources in and of themselves do not a global empire make.

c) England, because it is an Island Nation by definition has limited resources.
That fact didnt stop it.

d) I DEFY you to find ANY PLACE where I said England's treatment of the Aboriginals was acceptable. In fact Lux, I think you must STILL be high because you apparently have me mixed up with the voices in your head. I NEVER said ANYTHING about colonialism being good. I never said we shouldnt aid countries in need. What I said WAS: I disagree with the position that America automatically must ante up each and every time a disaster hits some part of the globe. If you'll refer to the facts and figures I posted some pages back, I dont think America needs to hang its head at ALL. We DO help. Just because its not as much as YOU wish it were........is just something you'll have to live with.

e) you'd probably be a lot more credible if you actually did something else besides spread venom on the net and got up and did something constructive about your convictions. If you feel so strongly about these issues, become involved in your country's politics, dont just be an armchair cyber critic.

[strandinthewind]

Don't forget the Spanish here in America :p :p :p :wavey:

[amber]

e) you'd probably be a lot more credible if you actually did something else besides spread venom on the net and got up and did something constructive about your convictions. If you feel so strongly about these issues, become involved in your country's politics, dont just be an armchair cyber critic.
Uncalled for, and I enjoyed every moment of what Lux said, and thought she was right, as well.

[hayley]

e) you'd probably be a lot more credible if you actually did something else besides spread venom on the net and got up and did something constructive about your convictions. If you feel so strongly about these issues, become involved in your country's politics, dont just be an armchair cyber critic.
I'm confused. At what point in this discussion did Lux say anything to you that makes it okay to personally attack her baselessly and unfairly? Her post was nothing but informed and intelligent.

[strandinthewind]

Uncalled for, and I enjoyed every moment of what Lux said, and thought she was right, as well.


While I trend to agree with Lux, she tends to put forth her comments in an elitist, blase', and snobby manner - and this is self-professed. She also spins it to point out only the negative, which she seemingly gravitates toward. For example, to read her post in a own its own, one could think the world (particularly America) is a horrible place with no good in it whatsoever and that America gives very little to the world, all of which it owes some figure based on America's incomparable GNP. I think that is wrong and a gross overstatment that allows the spin to the negative. Then again, I am an optimist :cool:

Note: this is not a slam on Lux - just my perception of how her posts come off to me and I am pretty sure she is aware of that :cool: Again, I like Lux's posts and take them with a grain of salt as I am sure she does mine if she takes me at all :cool:

[amber]

While I trend to agree with Lux, she tends to put forth her comments in an elitism blase', and snobby manner - and this is self-professed. She also spins it to point out only the negative. For example, to read her post in a own its own, one would think the world is a horrible place with no good in it whatsoever and America gives very little to the world, all of which it owes. I think that is wrong and a gross overstatment that allows the spin to the negative. Then again, I am an optimist :cool:

Note: this is not a slam on Lux - just my perception of how her posts come off to me and i am pretty sure she is aware of that :cool:
Thanks for another perspective. Lux's post (this recent one) just seemed true, right, and normal to me. Mary seemed shrill, angry, and wrong. But now we know it can be different to different people. :D :wavey:

[strandinthewind]

Thanks for another perspective. Lux's post (this recent one) just seemed true, right, and normal to me. Mary seemed shrill, angry, and wrong. But now we know it can be different to different people. :D :wavey:


Oops - I edited as you quoted - oh well - work in progress :laugh:

Now - off I go spreading my optimist sunshine all over Atlanta to the chagrain of the naysayers :cool:

[irishgrl]

I'm confused. At what point in this discussion did Lux say anything to you that makes it okay to personally attack her baselessly and unfairly? Her post was nothing but informed and intelligent.

I'll rebut by saying my posts are just as informed an intelligent. I will also refer you to several pages back when Lux said I had not one but TWO screws loose--based entirely on her mistaken interpretation of something I in fact didnt say. Where were all you referees at that point?

If you'll stop and think about it, I gave her good advice. If she feels THAT strongly about something, then she is wasting her time venting in cyberspace, her convictions would serve her better in other, more productive arenas.

When a person feels strongly ENOUGH, then they will DO something besides complain.

[dissention]

If you'll stop and think about it, I gave her good advice. If she feels THAT strongly about something, then she is wasting her time venting in cyberspace, her convictions would serve her better in other, more productive arenas.

When a person feels strongly ENOUGH, then they will DO something besides complain.

Darling, you don't know what she does about the issues she's obviously passionate about. You shouldn't assume that all she does is complain because you don't know that. She comes across as incredibly intelligent about these things, so I'd find it hard to believe that she does nothing but bitch on this board about such things in order to vent and annoy you. She's not wasting her time any more than you or I or Jason or Goldie are when we discuss these things and her views aren't any less important than any of ours.

[irishgrl]

I am angry (I resent the assumption that America is always the bad guy and gets no credit from the rest of the world for the good we do) but I am not shrill, and sorry, but I am not wrong. once you examine what I said, you will have to admit that my premise was correct: America WAS built by hard work. There may have been other factors (luck, resources etc) but they are useless without EFFORT. Resources alone do not an Empire make. it IS possible to create an Empire without them and conversely, you can have them, and not have an Empire.

There are side issues that come into play (the evils of Colonialism, the respect for Nature some cultures have) but that wasnt the main issue and getting sidetracked to that is non productive.

If this discussion was about those topics I would certainly be counted among the naysayers.

[irishgrl]

Darling, you don't know what she does about the issues she's obviously passionate about. You shouldn't assume that all she does is complain because you don't know that. She comes across as incredibly intelligent about these things, so I'd find it hard to believe that she does nothing but bitch on this board about such things in order to vent and annoy you. She's not wasting her time any more than you or I or Jason or Goldie are when we discuss these things and her views aren't any less important than any of ours.

the reverse holds true. I'd venture to say that if she WERE doing something, we'd all hear about it. After all, she did mention donations she had given to some charity or other. While I dont know what she DOES do, I certainly know when she's NOT doing it (as evidenced by the hours logged in cyberspace).

[dissention]

the reverse holds true.

I know that and I never told you your views were less important than mine or anyone else's.

[irishgrl]

Thankyou :)

I would have said basically what Diss just said, you don't know me, although you seem to be under the impression you're some horrid aunt of mine who's despised me since she found out I was illegitimate and am disgracing her family through my existence. Your ignorance to my life doesn't deny me the right to post though. For future reference, if I'm to post in a thread about, say Michael Jackson, will I be require to present convincing evidence of my participation in various rallies and petitions related to sex offenses? Just checking so I don't make a fool of myself by thinking I can post (and not be spat at for doing so) on a particular topic.

My post was not simply about colonisation. That was an example that was intended to be a metaphor of very simillar qualities to what we were talking about originally. You can't lump what I said in as 'colonisation' and then think it's irrelevant because we're largely talking about a different politcal system. I never assumed you were in support of the treatment of the natives during the colonisation, I was using this example to illustrate the point that when a government creates its wealth on the exploitation of other peoples, it owes those people its aid and any given does not imply that they are a generous government. You said earlier than aid given by the US is simply generosity and that they don't owe it to anyone, I was illustrating the point that it is not a matter of generosity. Like with East Timor, Australia is not generous to East Timor, we are in debt to East Timor. That is the difference I was presenting and I don't know why you assumed I was saying you enjoyed the slaughter of the natives.

Also, don't pretend your posts haven't been as personal as mine. Your posts always seem to contain a personal attack. You better lay down your assumption that your aging mind gives you the power to insult me without being called out on it. You even said that I haven't lived, you basically informed me that I'm inexperienced, I know nothing about the world, I'm a sheltered fool. Does that not seem like a giant assumption to you? Shall we compare notes?

We can if you like.....Ive done nothing to you you havent done first. How does it feel?

and now that I have some time to respond to your vitriol:

Comparing me to some mythical family member of yours is strange to say the least...Im sure I can safely say, I dont think either one of us would relish that notion. I dont care if you post, I was only rebutting your attitude re: America. We are not all bad and our Government is not all bad. Some administrations are worse than others but the pendulum will swing the other way, never fear. As for what we give to other nations, we DO give in a spirit of generosity. As the post on page 16 will show, private Americans give twice as much as the Government does. We are not obligated to do this, we just DO. Who the hell are YOU to take this country OR its people to task?

btw: My statement that you were young was not meant as a dig. it is a FACT that because you are young you havent had the life experience that I have. You may not like it but its true. Your sophmoric indignation at my comment is laughable because I can just imagine what your parents would say if you proclaimed to them that you are on a level with them (of course now Im sure you will bash your parents) regarding life experiences etc. Obviously you are well informed, I never said you werent. But I stand by my earlier statement that your views WILL evolve as YOU evolve. Its one thing to be idealistic, (I was more of an idealist at your age) but as you mature, you realize that the solutions are not so simple or black/white. There are a lot of things going on behind the scenes that (for the most part) we are not aware of. I hope that you ARE putting your money where your mouth is and try to make a difference where you live. If things are as bad in your country as you say, then you must be sorely needed. Its a thought...

[irishgrl]

Like a wet sponge. Don't play victim.

no more than you.
although it suits you better than martyr IMO.

[irishgrl]

Found this while researching US Foreign Aid:

Side note on private contributions

As an aside, it should be emphasized that the above figures are comparing government spending. Such spending has been agreed at international level and is spread over a number of priorities.

Individual/private donations may be targeted in many ways. However, even though the charts above do show US aid to be poor (as a % of GNP--NOT in terms of overall $$) compared to the rest, the generosity of the American people is far more impressive than their government. Private aid/donation has been through charity of individual people and organizations though this of course can be weighted to certain interests and areas. Nonetheless, it is interesting to note for example, per latest estimates, Americans privately give at least $34 billion overseas — more than twice the US official foreign aid of $15 billion at that time:

* International giving by US foundations: $1.5 billion per year
* Charitable giving by US businesses: $2.8 billion annually
* American NGOs: $6.6 billion in grants, goods and volunteers.
* Religious overseas ministries: $3.4 billion, including health care, literacy training, relief and development.
* US colleges scholarships to foreign students: $1.3 billion
* Personal remittances from the US to developing countries: $18 billion in 2000
* Source: Dr. Carol Adelman, Aid and Comfort, Tech Central Station, 21 August 2002.

While Adelman admits that “there are no complete figures for international private giving” she still says that Americans are “clearly the most generous on earth in public — but especially in private — giving”. Hence these numbers and claims may be taken with caution, but even then, these are high numbers.

As I said before, we in America (thats a GENERAL "WE" David) have nothing to be ashamed of.

here's the link (http://www.globalissues.org/TradeRelated/Debt/USAid.asp)

[NaiveMelody23]

I am angry (I resent the assumption that America is always the bad guy and gets no credit from the rest of the world for the good we do) but I am not shrill, and sorry, but I am not wrong. once you examine what I said, you will have to admit that my premise was correct: America WAS built by hard work. There may have been other factors (luck, resources etc) but they are useless without EFFORT. Resources alone do not an Empire make. it IS possible to create an Empire without them and conversely, you can have them, and not have an Empire.

There are side issues that come into play (the evils of Colonialism, the respect for Nature some cultures have) but that wasnt the main issue and getting sidetracked to that is non productive.

If this discussion was about those topics I would certainly be counted among the naysayers.

Not to be rude by any means Irishgirl, but I do beelive every country was bulit by hardwork. Even if they fell at least they tried to create something and you never know American could possibly fall like other countries. I mean a ship might sail and all, but you know the titanic did sink

[irishgrl]

Not to be rude by any means Irishgirl, but I do beelive every country was bulit by hardwork. Even if they fell at least they tried to create something and you never know American could possibly fall like other countries. I mean a ship might sail and all, but you know the titanic did sink

true. I was only pointing out that America wasnt BORN a world power, in response to what another poster said.

[irishgrl]

Don't forget the Spanish here in America :p :p :p :wavey:

Jason, it took me a day, but I just realized what you were saying :laugh:

and MILITARY FORTS DO NOT A MISSION MAKE!!! :laugh: :p back atcha!

[irishgrl]

I fear you are a bit misinformed. But that's ok. Why do you think England didn't have natural resources... :confused:

England, to my knowledge, had tin, and coal mines and at one time vast stands of oak with which they built their navy. The lumber was never replaced, I dont believe, and the coal was used domestically. I think they exported their tin but Im not sure there is much of a market for it, especially since aluminum came along.

I was speaking of England's resources in relation to America's. England, as a small island nation, had very limited resources contrasted with America's bounty. I neglected to clarify that, my apologies. However, England's rise to prominence was more a result of what they procured from other places, as Lux pointed out.

Again, I am not applauding Colonialism, but it happened. I believe the wealthier nations HAVE tried to atone for their past wrongs, but IMO, the reparation is not infinite, though some obviously think it should be. That is where the dichotomy between the IDEAL and the REAL comes into play.

[irishgrl]

The GNP is the benchmark used by the UN when calculating percentages given in aid. The percentage was pledged by the 22 participating nations, only five have reached it.

Lux, your statement is misleading. The .07 mark you refer to is NOT a UN figure for AID to other countries, it is a figure at which nations agreed to implement "sustainable development" of poorer countries. It was part of Agenda 21, which is NOT law. It is NOT binding. to wit:
Agenda 21 is not a legally binding document but a "work plan," or "agenda for action," with a political commitment to pursue a set of goals. It may become "soft law," if, as is likely, the UN General Assembly adopts it as a resolution this fall. Agenda 21 includes estimates of the annual costs of its programs in developing countries from 1993 to 2000, of which about $125 billion per year will come from the industrialized countries. Although it may be only soft law, the contentious negotiation of many parts of Agenda 21 underscores its importance to the signatories. Most of the text of Agenda 21 was finalized at the last PrepCom meeting in April. The remaining text was left to be negotiated at UNCED by eight informal "contact groups" that addressed the most contentious issues: atmosphere, biodiversity and biotechnology, finance, forests, freshwater resources, institutions, legal instruments, and technology transfer.

again:
Chapter 33: Financial Resources and Mechanisms. Negotiations for this chapter were the most difficult of the conference. The three major issues discussed are a target and deadline for an increase in total official development assistance (ODA); the level of replenishment of the concessionary branch of the World Bank, the International Development Agency (IDA); and the governance of the Global Environmental Facility (GEF). The question of total ODA was resolved by the statement that industrialized nations "reaffirm" their commitment to the UN target of ODA equal to 0.7 percent of donor gross national product. Thus, no new obligation is imposed on those industrialized countries that never "affirmed" the UN goal. The level of IDA replenishment was not resolved during discussions at UNCED, and additional donor funding for an explicit "Earth increment" to the fund was not instituted. World Bank President Lewis Preston proposed that the next scheduled IDA replenishment should maintain the present level in real terms, which would require funding of about $17.5 billion over the period 1993 to 1995. He also suggested that the bank allocate an additional $1.2 billion from its interest income. Furthermore, the UNCED delegations recommended changing the structure of GEF to give developing countries more power.

Although the US representative signed it, I seem to recall that the US Government was not in favor of this document.

here is the link (http://www.ciesin.org/docs/003-312/003-312.html)

[strandinthewind]

Jason, it took me a day, but I just realized what you were saying :laugh:

and MILITARY FORTS DO NOT A MISSION MAKE!!! :laugh: :p back atcha!

GGIIIIIIIIRRRLLLLLLL - Your getting slow :p :laugh: :xoxo:

[gldstwmn]

I am sorry - do we have Iraq's oil - did I miss that memo.? :wavey:



I believe a Google search of Executive Order 13303 reveals your answer. :wavey:
Thanks to Randi Rhodes for bringing this up on her show the other day just after we had finished talking about it.
Sometimes I think she's psychic.

[gldstwmn]

Executive Order
Executive Order Protecting the Development Fund for Iraq and Certain Other Property in Which Iraq Has An Interest



By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, including the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, as amended (50 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.) (IEEPA), the National Emergencies Act (50 U.S.C. 1601 et seq.), section 5 of the United Nations Participation Act, as amended (22 U.S.C. 287c) (UNPA), and section 301 of title 3, United States Code,

I, GEORGE W. BUSH, President of the United States of America, find that the threat of attachment or other judicial process against the Development Fund for Iraq, Iraqi petroleum and petroleum products, and interests therein, and proceeds, obligations, or any financial instruments of any nature whatsoever arising from or related to the sale or marketing thereof, and interests therein, obstructs the orderly reconstruction of Iraq, the restoration and maintenance of peace and security in the country, and the development of political, administrative, and economic institutions in Iraq. This situation constitutes an unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security and foreign policy of the United States and I hereby declare a national emergency to deal with that threat.

I hereby order:

Section 1. Unless licensed or otherwise authorized pursuant to this order, any attachment, judgment, decree, lien, execution, garnishment, or other judicial process is prohibited, and shall be deemed null and void, with respect to the following:

(a) the Development Fund for Iraq, and

(b) all Iraqi petroleum and petroleum products, and interests therein, and proceeds, obligations, or any financial instruments of any nature whatsoever arising from or related to the sale or marketing thereof, and interests therein, in which any foreign country or a national thereof has any interest, that are in the United States, that hereafter come within the United States, or that are or hereafter come within the possession or control of United States persons.

Sec. 2. (a) As of the effective date of this order, Executive Order 12722 of August 2, 1990, Executive Order 12724 of August 9, 1990, and Executive Order 13290 of March 20, 2003, shall not apply to the property and interests in property described in section 1 of this order.

(b) Nothing in this order is intended to affect the continued effectiveness of any rules, regulations, orders, licenses or other forms of administrative action issued, taken, or continued in effect heretofore or hereafter under Executive Orders 12722, 12724, or 13290, or under the authority of IEEPA or the UNPA, except as hereafter terminated, modified, or suspended by the issuing Federal agency and except as provided in section 2(a) of this order.

Sec. 3. For the purposes of this order:

(a) The term "person" means an individual or entity;

(b) The term "entity" means a partnership, association, trust, joint venture, corporation, group, subgroup, or other organization;

(c) The term "United States person" means any United States citizen, permanent resident alien, entity organized under the laws of the United States or any juris-diction within the United States (including foreign branches), or any person in the United States;

(d) The term "Iraqi petroleum and petroleum products" means any petroleum, petroleum products, or natural gas originating in Iraq, including any Iraqi-origin oil inventories, wherever located; and

(e) The term "Development Fund for Iraq" means the fund established on or about May 22, 2003, on the books of the Central Bank of Iraq, by the Administrator of the Coalition Provisional Authority responsible for the temporary governance of Iraq and all accounts held for the fund or for the Central Bank of Iraq in the name of the fund.

Sec. 4. (a) The Secretary of the Treasury, in consultation with the Secretary of State and the Secretary of Defense, is hereby authorized to take such actions, including the promulga-tion of rules and regulations, and to employ all powers granted to the President by IEEPA and the UNPA as may be necessary to carry out the purposes of this order. The Secretary of the Treasury may redelegate any of these functions to other officers and agencies of the United States Government. All agencies of the United States Government are hereby directed to take all appropriate measures within their statutory authority to carry out the provisions of this order.

(b) Nothing contained in this order shall relieve a person from any requirement to obtain a license or other authorization in compliance with applicable laws and regulations.

Sec. 5. This order is not intended to, and does not, create any right, benefit, or privilege, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or in equity by a party against the United States, its departments, agencies, entities, officers, employees, or agents, or any other person.

Sec. 6. This order shall be transmitted to the Congress and published in the Federal Register.

GEORGE W. BUSH
THE WHITE HOUSE,
May 22, 2003.

[sparky]

Tell that to the Tsunami victims and every other person the US has helped over the last few decades. Tell that Europe which without our help and lives they would be saluting to some faction of Hitler. Tell that to the African nations we help feed.



Tell it all to me. Living in Southern California where emergency rooms are closing relentlessly. The hospitals are going bankrupt mostly thanks to uninsured illegal immigrants to whom they cannot deny care.

BTW, I employ no illegal immigrants as maids, pool guys, or gardeners.

In case anyone wants to inform me that we are ALL immigrants, my mother was an immigrant from Germany in 1952, and yes, she bothered to get a green card.

[amber]

I don't understand the extent of immigration problems over there but I know that here, it's not a matter of some not being bothered. That's an absurd thought, atleast in terms of us over here. I'm guessing it's largely different there.
It's true, it really is a ginormous "problem". It's really unfortunate, because, of course, one's inclination is to allow immigrants in. But the sheer numbers are daunting, from Mexico, and from Asia. :shrug: I'm very liberal, (very) but I struggle with this issue. I, personally, think California is officially "full". I don't do this from anti mexican or asian sentiments, I do this from pro environment sentiments. We have some of the most astounding wildlife/nature stuff, and I really don't want that stuff to be filled up with humans. Plus, we have a good bit of farmland. Of course, I don't want to deny anyone "a better life" or anything (although I question whether the freedom of conspicuous consumption and rampant capitalistic acquirement are "better"), and I don't want to deny anyone health care or anything, but honestly.... I don't think everyone should be having so many kids, and wanting to move somewhere where they can have "great" things we have to offer. Which is mainly the possibility of conspicuous consumption, and things to distract you from what life is really about, and what's really important. Did that make sense? :confused: Again, I am in a moral quandry about immigration, but generally I am against it, although I understand why people want to come here. To conclude - I think California is full, and I want to preserve spaces without humans in them. OK.

[irishgrl]

I can tell you that from a Public Assistance standpoint, California has been "full" for some time. the Average caseload for Eligibility Workers is over 750 EACH MONTH and some go OVER 1000!! Think about that! Our county isnt wealthy enough to hire enough workers to handle this caseload, and the amount of work is overwhelming. California has always been a magnet for people ever since the days of the goldrush. Many enjoy the weather or the scenery but we also have one of the most generous social service programs in the US. And, because our county has very LITTLE to recommend it in terms of actual work (no industry no factories, just a University and supporting services) we have an explosion of needy people. I myself deal with the Homeless and disabled population mainly. I tell you it is tragic to see the state these people live in. Our shelters are FULL and funds from other aid agencies are always depleted. Its a sad state of affairs. I know that many of our bi-lingual (hispanic) Eligibility workers have to deal with illegal aliens daily. Interestingly, the Hmong population has no such problem getting documentation when (or before) they enter this country. They network amongst themselves to ensure they have the details worked out. and their young people almost ALWAYS go to college, which is NOT the case with other minorities. IMO the illegal aliens are utilizing services over here to have their babies in CLEAN hospitals and put their kids in decent schools. They send a portion of their wages back home to family in Mexico (primarily) so our dollars are slipping away and not being put back into the economy. Its disgraceful.

[irishgrl]

I get what you're saying up until the last bit. It's disgraceful to, as you say, want to access better health and education and generally a better standard of living for their children?

(how did I know you would find something to pick at?) I believe my meaning was clear, taken as a whole, but to clarify for you:

the disgrace is coming over illegally, using our system, accessing our facilities, sending dollars OUTSIDE the country instead of recirculating them back into the economy that is supporting them. The disgrace is that these illegals are flooding the system to such a point that the people that are here LEGALLY are not being served in a timely manner, and some are not served at ALL due to lack of funds in some programs. The disgrace is that these people CHOOSE to do all of this illegally when obviously it is not difficult to get LEGAL access. These illegals, by their sheer numbers, are squeezing out persons the system/economy was MEANT to serve. If they want to benefit from what this country has, let them come over LEGALLY.


I think its high time we closed our borders, and tho I do not have all the info on the "minute men" movement, I can certainly see why this grassroots movement felt it needed to mobilize. Our border patrols are underfunded, understaffed and our borders are so extensive that they have gaping holes east to west.

[irishgrl]

its a gift.

[irishgrl]

I get what you're saying up until the last bit. It's disgraceful to, as you say, want to access better health and education and generally a better standard of living for their children?

Lux, if you got what I said, then my last sentence followed.

Personally, I believe you can ask a legit question (What do you mean "disgrace?") without twisting my meaning and then expecting me to justify YOUR take on my post. ("It's disgraceful to, as you say, want to access better health and education and generally a better standard of living for their children?") Your sentence is deliberately provocative and was NOT my point at all. Nobody begrudges children the best they deserve. My issue was with the PARENTS who are abusing our system/utilizing our services that they basically have no right to, but because we are a compassionate society/state, we have accomodated. These people are robbing the rest of us and OUR children.
period.

[tommer]

using our system, accessing our facilities, sending dollars OUTSIDE the country instead of recirculating them back into the economy that is supporting them. .

irishgrl, i think that economically speaking, you are a little bit wrong there. :confused: immigrants (whether legal or illegal) always occupy the worst jobs in the market, those that the "old" population "rejects". their unemployment rate tends to be lower than in the general population, and their income doesn't get saved in the banks, it operates and boosts the whole economy. the money those ppl "send" overseas is really nothing much comparing to the sums that richer ppl "invests" in forign markets.
as a matter of fact, what halts the market is ppl who have too much money on their hands, more than they could ever spend; that's when money's being held back from the market, coz it gets saved instead of operating the wheels of the economy.

[sparky]

I get what you're saying up until the last bit. It's disgraceful to, as you say, want to access better health and education and generally a better standard of living for their children?

I would say it is disgraceful to have children if you cannot provide for them in the manner you desire.

[amber]

I would say it is disgraceful to have children if you cannot provide for them in the manner you desire.
I might say that, too. Well, maybe not disgraceful, but wholly unwise.

[irishgrl]

irishgrl, i think that economically speaking, you are a little bit wrong there. :confused: immigrants (whether legal or illegal) always occupy the worst jobs in the market, those that the "old" population "rejects". their unemployment rate tends to be lower than in the general population, and their income doesn't get saved in the banks, it operates and boosts the whole economy. the money those ppl "send" overseas is really nothing much comparing to the sums that richer ppl "invests" in forign markets.
as a matter of fact, what halts the market is ppl who have too much money on their hands, more than they could ever spend; that's when money's being held back from the market, coz it gets saved instead of operating the wheels of the economy.

You are actually comparing apples and oranges: the dollars they are paid (whether fair or not--thats a different issue and Im not going there now) are NOT being recirculated into the economy if even a portion goes outside the borders. and, contrary to what you might think, it DOES add up. My point is, these folks come here illegally, dont pay taxes, dont cooperate with the rules/regulations and then send part of their earnings back home. Therefore, our economy IS bleeding. It may be a death of 1000 cuts, but its still not right. BTW: the LEGAL immigrants DO pay taxes, do recirculate their money, and in the case of the Hmongs, primarily send their money back "home" so that THOSE folks can ALSO come to America. Make no mistake, they have all their ducks in a row when they get here or soon after. They have agencies in place to facilitate the procural of alien cards, and temporary (later permanent)
residency status. They even go to school to learn how to write our alphabet, and can write their names (at the very least) when they get here.

Whether or not rich people are also to blame is in fact a different issue.

[sparky]

I might say that, too. Well, maybe not disgraceful, but wholly unwise.

How about Idiotic ? Thoughtless ? Myopic ?

[amber]

How about Idiotic ? Thoughtless ? Myopic ?
Yes, perhaps. I'm sad that a lot of people's religious beliefs prohibit birth control. :( It's really lame, I think. My mom had me when not in a good situation, though - so...I feel a bit hypocritical. But then, that's her, not me! Course, she only had me. :)

[GateandGarden]

How about Idiotic ? Thoughtless ? Myopic ?Well, what about those who have children when they do have the means but then lose their jobs, etc.? Or is that irrelevant because you're not talking about those people?

I'm sad that a lot of people's religious beliefs prohibit birth control.I hate to be a bitch, but I think that if people have lots of children they know they can't even begin to support and those children suffer, it's really idiotic of they justify that with their religious beliefs.

[irishgrl]

I received a missive from our Chief Accounting Officer along with my paycheck today. though I usually refer to his drivel as "bird cage liner" I felt part of what he had to say was pertinent to this thread:

California's population grew by 532.000 between 2002 and 2003, about a 1.5% rate. The State's population is expected to top 50 million by 2040. Between now and 2050, the State Dept of Finance is projecting Butte County's population to grow by 33%! :eek:

we have the 5th or 6th largest economy in the WORLD. more than most Nations. Thats a sobering thought. With Growth projections as mentioned, the cost of services is, as you can imagine, through the roof. The last thing we can afford is more people abusing the system and draining our economy.

[sparky]

[COLOR=DarkSlateGray]Well, what about those who have children when they do have the means but then lose their jobs, etc.? Or is that irrelevant because you're not talking about those people?



Of course that is different.

[irishgrl]

I found a chart that shows a percentage of monies allocated to Health and Human Services in CA...For example, in 1981-82, California allocated 33.23% of its total budget dollars to Social Services. The only thing higher in budget allocation was K-12 education at 35.62%. in terms of dollars (remember, we are talking 1981-82) and all numbers are in MILLIONS:
Health and Human Services: $7,126.7 (MILLION!!!) this is the Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC) Program or more recently, the TANF (Temp Assistance to Needy Families) program.

When welfare takes as big a bite out of a budget as education, you begin to see the problem. And I will tell you, neither program is getting NEARLY enough to do its job right.

btw: attachment c1 gives dollar amounts, attachment c gives percent of total budget.


edit: I discovered the figures for 2005-6: $61,616 MILLION for Health and Human Services!!!!! GAD!!! only 31% tho....because when programs get cut, its always the programs for the poor that take the biggest hits :(

[GateandGarden]

Of course that is different.Okay. Just wanted to throw it out there.

[GypsySorcerer]

Yes, perhaps. I'm sad that a lot of people's religious beliefs prohibit birth control. :( It's really lame, I think. My mom had me when not in a good situation, though - so...I feel a bit hypocritical. But then, that's her, not me! Course, she only had me. :)

I actually don't think religious beliefs prohibiting birth control contribute much to people having children when they really can't take care of them for whatever reasons. Most Protestant denominations, for example, don't prohibit birth control.

With teenagers especially, though, they might be too afraid to get birth control in fear of their religious parents finding out. Not that the distinction matters or anything; I'm just rambling. :)

And many of the parents I know who may not be ready for children actually choose to have them. So it's not an issue of birth control or religion or anything.

[irishgrl]

I actually don't think religious beliefs prohibiting birth control contribute much to people having children when they really can't take care of them for whatever reasons


tell that to all the good catholics in Mexico. Mexico City is a disaster.

[amber]

I actually don't think religious beliefs prohibiting birth control contribute much to people having children when they really can't take care of them for whatever reasons. Most Protestant denominations, for example, don't prohibit birth control.

With teenagers especially, though, they might be too afraid to get birth control in fear of their religious parents finding out. Not that the distinction matters or anything; I'm just rambling. :)

And many of the parents I know who may not be ready for children actually choose to have them. So it's not an issue of birth control or religion or anything.
I guess, in this instance, i was thinking about the largely catholic population of Mexico... :shrug: Onetime, I was talking to a friend of my friend Khrista, she was from Liberia, had come here when she was younger...she was like "I'll have as many babies as the spirits grant me" or something like that. She wasn't catholic, but, apparently, she was something. Anyway, i was appalled (though I like her, she's cool) because she really didn't have anything, anything at all. She had just had her first baby, luckily by someone who was from a wealthy family. Anyway, I just can't believe it when people say things like that... :shocked:

[GypsySorcerer]

tell that to all the good catholics in Mexico. Mexico City is a disaster.

I thought we were discussing America, where apparently 90% of Catholics use birth control. :wavey:

[amber]

I thought we were discussing America, where apparently 90% of Catholics use birth control. :wavey:
I think we were actually discussing immigrants, in this case. Uh, like I just said. :laugh: