United States aid to Tsunami victims

[Hack]

I'm sure the Iraqi people are very happy about our collective charity.

And there are people in America who do not have health insurance, terrible public schools, etc. If we are going to spend government money on foreign aid then we certainly have money to spend on domestic needs. I'm not saying the federal government should necessarily do that, but it's definitely more worthy than sending foreign aid which will most likely be mismanaged.

And foreign aid is unconstitutional. Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution says so. It's not a legitimate federal government power.

[Randy_Refeld]

[ QUOTE ]
they are in position to be a lot more generous.

[/ QUOTE ]

I am all for Americans being generous. Is it generocity when the governmetn takes it at the threat of jail and gives it to someone else. What woudl be good is if everyone that wants to help woudl send how ever much of THEIR money they want and keep their hand out of my pocket.

RR

[Hack]

EXACTLY.

[Hack]

You shouldn't be lecturing anyone on what they should do, using a word like Jap.

[bholdr]

[ QUOTE ]
And foreign aid is unconstitutional. Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution says so.

[/ QUOTE ] who told you this? why did you beleive them? have you read the constitution?

only the total whackos from the constitution party really beleive that there is no provision in that document providing for the existance of foreign aid. my question was retorical, in that your argument is not genrally considered to be reasonable or accurate.

to suggest that the founders of the nation wanted it to be unconstitutional to give money to another nation for the purpose of providing 'aid' (if you remember, in my post i mentioned that the reasons for such giving are not only, or even mostly, altrustic ones) is absurd.

[natedogg]

the great majority of Americans concede that giving foreign aid is both wise and desirable.

This fact has no bearing on whether or not it is actually wise and desirable.

welcome to representative republican democracy

Are you saying no one should ever criticize the current practice of the "representative republican democracy"? I proposed a different way to handle giving aid to disaster victims. Just becuase the majority of voters and congress are a bunch of morons doesn't mean others shouldn't bother to give voice to better solutions.

natedogg

[Hack]

Bullshit. Read the Federalist papers. It's all in there. Madison did not intend for the "general welfare" clause of the Constitution to be perverted like it has been over the past 70 years...

And I don't think you mean the Constitution Party. Their 2000 presidential candidate wanted to ban abortion at the federal level. That's not constitutional either. It should be a state issue.

I think what you actually mean is the Libertarian Party. They're the only party that truely adheres to constitutional principles.

[bholdr]

you proposed nothing except stopping government aid. and i don't really understand what you are trying to say now.

[ QUOTE ]
Are you saying no one should ever criticize the current practice of the "representative republican democracy"?

[/ QUOTE ] where the heck did you get that? you are welcome to criticize whatever and whomever you would like. i was saying that your position is both unpouplar and wrong.

you said of the government, ideally,[ QUOTE ]
They'd be collecting far fewer taxes and letting the citizens decide how much they want to give.

[/ QUOTE ]

In my post, i gave several reasons why this should not be the case. you only responded to one- "the great majority of Americans concede that giving foreign aid is both wise and desirable." by saying:"This fact has no bearing on whether or not it is actually wise and desirable." and in the case of a strictly logical, stand-alone argument, you would be right; the majority is often wrong and never necessasarily right(which, ironicly, doesn't prove your point at all either). However, that argument was intended to be veiwed in the context of the entire paragraph, where it was being used as anecdotal evidence to support the perspective that many people hold, that the government is the most effictive way of distributing aid, and that can be veiwed as a collective descision as well as an individual one. when i said "welcome to representative republican democracy" i was insinuating that you anti-foreign aid folks were vastly in the minority here, so tough.

You have not responded to the bulk of the arguments in my post, those arguing the utility of, and humanitarian need for fedrally funded foreign aid (FFFA from now on that's getting old), as well as the arguments expressing some of the non-altrustic reasons: political, economic, and national security considerations that make FFFA desirable. the latter set of arguments are genrally ignored py proponents of "no FFFA" and i would like a response fron the other side here.

all you've done so far is make one semi-relavant comment about one statement that i made, and one baffling remark accusing me of trying to stifle the debate. you can do better natedogg!

[bholdr]

I have read the fedralist papers, i assume you are refering to nos 4 and 41. you are wrong. i will repeat: there are very few informed people who consider your position even a debatable one (vis-a-vis constitioniality). i am not one of them. you have consistantly, like natedogg, sidestepped my arguments in favor of hyperbole.

Both the constitution party and the libertarian party (and i suppose the republicans dems and greens, etc.) would like to beleive that only they 'truely adere' to the constitutions principals, but all are, in fact, holding positions on a changing and debatable document.

I will again say that i think i have provided solid arguments for the legitimacy, necessity, utility, consensus, wisdom and effectiveness of fedrally funded foreign aid.
can you argue those points? or only, like natedogg, keep repeating the propaganda that you seem to have absorbed?

[The once and future king]

Its telling about the psyche of the American people that in the wealthiest country where its citizens enjoy the highest standard of living, that these same citizens would probably have a revolution if the govt had the temerity to take a mere 1 cent extra in income tax even if that 1 cent was iron fenced for forieghn aid.

Added to this the implications of my earlier comment that the consumption of the average north American would require 5 earths to sustain it if we all were to consume to the same degree. Howevere we only live on 1 Earth. So to sustain your consumption it is necessary for millions to only consume 1/5 of the worlds output of recources.

If those on the right want to literlay put there money where there mouth is, they should pressure there govt to truely liberalise trade between the developed world and and the developing world. This would have a far greater impact on world poverty than Governmental aid, which is akin to giving a paracetomol to someone dying of cancer.