The Worst Humanitarian

[theburningliberal]

It’s official.

The people that comprise the Bush Administration are the worst humanitarians on the face of the planet.

We all know about the quake that occurred on Christmas Eve off the coast of Sumatra by now. It’s hard not to know, given the fact that coverage of it is all over FOX News, CNN, MSNBC, CBS, ABC, The New York Times and all my local news channels.

But yeah. Depending on which version of the truth you believe, this quake measured somewhere between a 8.9 and a 9.3 on the Richter Scale, and that caused massive tsunamis that have impacted Sumatra, Somalia, India, Indonesia, and others. We are even feeling some effects here – the water level in some areas of the Pacific coast line has risen by almost a foot.

The UN has called it the most expensive natural disaster in recorded history, and the last cost estimate I heard placed the total cost of clean-up and repairs in the billions of dollars. And that’s not to mention the economic impact something like this will have on the nations it affects both directly – Asian countries like Sumatra, Indonesia, et cetera – and the long term economic impact that it could have on the rest of the world.

So these people look to the United States, and other rich, wealthy nations for help. From the United States, what do they get? 35 million dollars, and an offer to move troops stationed in Okinawa to these countries to aid in search-and-rescue efforts, as well as whatever else may be needed.

Now I realize that the US is in tough financial straits, what with a looming federal deficit that is approaching half a trillion dollars and a national debt that is threatening to exceed our GDP. But hey, what does my opinion count? I’m just a liberal that likes to keep our budget balanced.

Either way, the negligence, incompetence and lack of foresight on the behalf of this Administration has led the United States to be able to contribute precious little to this disaster – and through the incompetence of our GOP-controlled Congress and our bumbling President, all we are doing is making it worse.

Yeah. 35 million dollars and some troops will make some difference in the coming days. But after that 35 million runs out, what then? Do we say, “Oh, crap. We know you want us to help, but we can’t?”

Now I know some of you will say to me, “how could we have been ready for this??” Well, let me answer you before you even begin. Fiscal responsibility.

An analogy will work wonders here. Take the average American family, that receives a net income of $60,000 a year. Is it not a smart move for that family to keep their debt low, and even still, to keep a stash of money hidden away for a – pardon the pun – “rainy day”? Is it not smart to keep an extra couple hundred dollars on hand for unexpected expenses? Isn’t that what we are instructed to do?

Well, shouldn’t that apply to government, as well? Shouldn’t the government keep a stash of money that they can use to help provide humanitarian aid, especially in times like this?

I am in no way saying that the United States should completely pay for this entire situation. I am saying, however, that it is absurd to think that giving someone who is $1,000 in debt a loan of 35$ will help much.

Yet that is what the United States government – under the “10-gallon-hat leadership style” of our belovedly incompetent President Bush – is proposing that we do.

He has restricted our ability to help ourselves, let alone help others. But in this modern world, a country with the stature of the United States must be able to do both – or risk fading into oblivion, much the way all the great civilizations have.

[commanderkai]

At 12/28/04 09:42 PM, wAcKyEagle wrote:
So these people look to the United States, and other rich, wealthy nations for help. From the United States, what do they get? 35 million dollars,

So what? Last I heard, Canada gave $1 million. I don't think the people affected by the quake/tidal waves will complain

and an offer to move troops stationed in Okinawa to these countries to aid in search-and-rescue efforts, as well as whatever else may be needed.

Good, those soldiers might save a few lives....what's the problem here?

Now I realize that the US is in tough financial straits, what with a looming federal deficit that is approaching half a trillion dollars and a national debt that is threatening to exceed our GDP. But hey, what does my opinion count? I’m just a liberal that likes to keep our budget balanced.

Blah blah blah, stay on topic

Either way, the negligence, incompetence and lack of foresight on the behalf of this Administration has led the United States to be able to contribute precious little to this disaster

I think 35 million plus the troops is very useful as of right now, they will need more money later on, but as of right now, getting equipment over there is more important then how much money they need.

– and through the incompetence of our GOP-controlled Congress and our bumbling President, all we are doing is making it worse.

How so?

Yeah. 35 million dollars and some troops will make some difference in the coming days. But after that 35 million runs out, what then? Do we say, “Oh, crap. We know you want us to help, but we can’t?”

No, by then, donations from millions of people across the world (which I have donated a few dollars as well) will be used to help the people over there through the Red Cross

Now I know some of you will say to me, “how could we have been ready for this??” Well, let me answer you before you even begin. Fiscal responsibility.

How can we be ready for this? For what? A big ass earthquake off the coast of Los Angeles? I'm not sure if you are talking about the disaster or the funding which the government doesn't have to provide

Well, shouldn’t that apply to government, as well? Shouldn’t the government keep a stash of money that they can use to help provide humanitarian aid, especially in times like this?

They do, Fort Knox has billions worth of gold. The US Mint can make however much money the US government needs etc.

I am in no way saying that the United States should completely pay for this entire situation.

Good, we agree on something

am saying, however, that it is absurd to think that giving someone who is $1,000 in debt a loan of 35$ will help much.

So how much money do you think the US government should pay?

Yet that is what the United States government – under the “10-gallon-hat leadership style” of our belovedly incompetent President Bush – is proposing that we do.

Wait, does this mean we shouldn't have given any aid? You're flip flopping.

[theburningliberal]

No, commanderkai, I am not flip-flopping.

You are just twisting my words and making wild assumptions that have no basis in fact.

In no way did I ever condemn what the US is doing. I am simply stating the fact that it will not be anywhere near enough to cover what needs to be done over there.

But seriously. Do you think the Red Cross and organizations like it can gather billions upon billions of dollars in donations for this one single cause? That is an asinide assumption.

All I'm saying is that, far aside from screwing us in the next decade when the Baby Boomers start to retire, Bush's policies have screwed up our image as this great humanitarian.

I mean, seriously. It seems to me that Bush thinks that losing the War In Iraq against the insurgency there is more important than saving America's reputation. As Anderson Cooper put it, we are seeing the number of deaths rise for this one single event to a level that rivels the death tolls of many wars the U.S. has been involved in. [Each war separately, not all together].

So we continue to lose money investing in a company that has Dick Cheney in their pocket. We continue to struggle to maintain the tenuous grip we have on the citizens of Iraq, even as the situation there grows bleaker and bleaker with every passing day.
This administration continues its policy of taking from the poor and giving to the rich. This administration continues to screw the people who help the most - in favor of helping himself, Cheney, his and his parties' corporate contributors and the Saudi Royal Family.

And you nitwits want this guy as your President? Forgive me, but I'm moving to Canada or Mexico as soon as I get a chance.

No joke. I already have possible apartments scouted out in Ottawa and Mexico City.

[Sn0rtingGlue]

L-I-B-E-R-A-L

[theburningliberal]

At 12/28/04 11:05 PM, Sn0rtingGlue wrote: L-I-B-E-R-A-L

Gee, ya think?

Considering my AIM name is burningLIBERAL and my email addresses are all theburningLIBERAL...

[Memorize]

At 12/28/04 11:07 PM, wAcKyEagle wrote:

Considering my AIM name is burningLIBERAL and my email addresses are all theburningLIBERAL...

Acually your AIM name is GenesysXXX.

[cylon]

Has anyone said that's all the aid the US is going to give? It may just be immediate relief -- like, hand over your "rainy day fund" and then scrounge up more later.

Initially Canada was offering one million, but it has been boosted to four. And our Defense Minister was quoted as saying, "This is an immediate response, not the last response."

Here's the article on it - it also lists some of the initial relief offered by other nations/organizations.

[commanderkai]

At 12/28/04 11:03 PM, wAcKyEagle wrote:
In no way did I ever condemn what the US is doing. I am simply stating the fact that it will not be anywhere near enough to cover what needs to be done over there.

But why does the US have to pay for all of it? There are other rich nations out there.

But seriously. Do you think the Red Cross and organizations like it can gather billions upon billions of dollars in donations for this one single cause? That is an asinide assumption.

Maybe, maybe not. If everybody in Canada and the US donates just one dollar, The Red Cross would have about $335 million, now let's say of we all donated $10, we would have over $3 billion, never underestimate people's generousity

All I'm saying is that, far aside from screwing us in the next decade when the Baby Boomers start to retire, Bush's policies have screwed up our image as this great humanitarian.

Actually, that's was Canada image as being the world's peacekeeper/humanitarian

And you nitwits want this guy as your President? Forgive me, but I'm moving to Canada or Mexico as soon as I get a chance.

So you want to leave one slightly corrupt government for another slightly corrupt government with twice as much taxes (Canada)or a government where even police are corrupt. (Mexico)

No joke. I already have possible apartments scouted out in Ottawa and Mexico City.

Good luck finding one in Ottawa, maybe try Alberta. They are growing the fastest out of the entire country, plus you won't have to adjust as much since they are just as right wing as the US and if you move to Mexico City....well, hope you learn how to breathe CO2

[Ravens-Grin]

At 12/28/04 11:15 PM, commanderkai wrote: But why does the US have to pay for all of it? There are other rich nations out there.

We don't, he is not saying that we should pay for all of it. He is merely saying that the contributions that we are putting into this catastrophe is way way too low. I'm agreeing with him.

Maybe, maybe not. If everybody in Canada and the US donates just one dollar, The Red Cross would have about $335 million, now let's say of we all donated $10, we would have over $3 billion, never underestimate people's generousity

We'll see if what you say will come true. I highly doubt it though.

I'm wondering, what if something on the scale of this happened in the US? Let's say a 9.0 eathquake hits near LA and California literally splits off. Will the federal government have enough money in it's back pocket to help them? Or will we just go further and further into the ballooning debt? Economically, the Bush Administration is pushing the federal budget so hard that we cannot use federal money for emergency causes. Yes there is a state government, but lately the state government has become way too weak to actually help adequately in a crisis.

[IllustriousPotentate]

What about the billions of dollars of damage that the U.S. suffered in this year, what with all the hurricanes? Where was all the international assistance then?

[Nylo]

Strangely enough, my Political Moderate standpoint leans left and agrees with you on this one.

While I wouldn't go as far as setting aside money for humanitarian aid, I think a nation that literally shits money for nuclear weapon research that everyone prays to God won't be used contributing $35 million to a disaster of this magnitude is a slap in the face to those who are suffering.

A lot of my coming to this conclusion stems from me disagreeing with the way the Bush administration has chosen to spend money in that past. I just wanted to make that clear for those who think I might be under the impression that this money could come from out of nowhere. More money could have been expendable for those people, but the way things are now, maybe it's too risky. Just makes me a bit bitter.

"Sorry, we can't help you. We're too busy forcing democracy on other nations and preemptively striking our ememies while throwing money away on building better weapons we can't afford. God bless, though."

-George W. Bush-

[cylon]

At 12/28/04 11:42 PM, IllustriousPotentate wrote: What about the billions of dollars of damage that the U.S. suffered in this year, what with all the hurricanes? Where was all the international assistance then?

The huge international emergency isn't the dollar value of damage, but the fact that tens of thousands of people are dead and more are dying. :S

I mean, maybe I'm wrong here, but the US didn't ask for or require international help during the hurricanes -- they had good systems and good people helping others down there. Corporations donated money to help, volunteers from all over North America went to help, etc..

It must have been horrible and there was loss of life, but if it turned out to be anything along the lines of what's happening over there in Asia right now, you can bet your ass that other nations would help.

[MoralLibertarian]

At 12/28/04 09:42 PM, wAcKyEagle wrote: It’s official.

...that you are teh ghey!! omg lollol!1

The people that comprise the Bush Administration are the worst humanitarians on the face of the planet.

How much have you donated to the cause?

The UN has called it ...

Why do you liberals keep affording so much credibility to the UN? Could it be because they hate America almost as much as the average liberal does? :

So these people look to the United States, and other rich, wealthy nations for help. From the United States, what do they get? 35 million dollars, and an offer to move troops stationed in Okinawa to these countries to aid in search-and-rescue efforts, as well as whatever else may be needed.

That's pretty good considering our country is in a huge deficit. Also don't forget individuals and corporations contributions to the cause. You know the healthcare companies that you love to hate are giving billions of dollars in aid to try to kill the disease that's bound to spread, and the 35 million doesn't count food and troops.

Now I realize that the US is in tough financial straits...just a liberal that likes to keep our budget balanced.

by keeping taxes high and the economy stagnant, no doubt.

Either way, the negligence, incompetence and lack of foresight on the behalf of this Administration has led the United States to be able to contribute precious little to this disaster – and through the incompetence of our GOP-controlled Congress and our bumbling President, all we are doing is making it worse.

I don't understand your argument? How does 35 million dollars of aid and troops deployed a bad thing? Liberals will spin everything. And also, we didn't know that we'd be attacked by terrorists. I wish we could say that they had no effect on our economy, but knocking down trade buildings isn't really healthy.

Yeah. 35 million dollars and some troops will make some difference in the coming days. But after that 35 million runs out, what then? Do we say, “Oh, crap. We know you want us to help, but we can’t?”

35 million is the initial investment, crybaby. There will be more, trust me, if not from the US government, from the millions of generous Americans who are willing to donate to the cause.

Now I know some of you will say to me, “how could we have been ready for this??” Well, let me answer you before you even begin. Fiscal responsibility.

A liberal preaching fiscal responsibility? Funny. I suppose you mean by raising taxes. Well, I hate to say it, but if we had done that, our economy would suck a lot harder than it is now, which I know you'd love because it gives you more reasons to hate Bush.

An analogy will work wonders here. Take the average American family, that receives a net income of $60,000 a year. Is it not a smart move for that family to keep their debt low, and even still, to keep a stash of money hidden away for a – pardon the pun – “rainy day”? Is it not smart to keep an extra couple hundred dollars on hand for unexpected expenses? Isn’t that what we are instructed to do?

Yeah, but the fact is there have been a lot of rainy days, BL. September 11th was one, Afghanistan was another, and so was Iraq. The War on Terror is a fucking rainy day. Talk about an unexpected expense. Than again, you are the type of person who believes that the war on terror is all about finding OBL and neglecting other possible threats. Whatever, that's your ideology. But when the people in charge force theirs on yours, don't be too upset.

I am in no way saying that the United States should completely pay for this entire situation. I am saying, however, that it is absurd to think that giving someone who is $1,000 in debt a loan of 35$ will help much.

It will help some, you whining prat. You're talking like Eurotrash and you're neglecting to mention the fact that 35 million and troops are an initial donation solely from the government.

He has restricted our ability to help ourselves, let alone help others. But in this modern world, a country with the stature of the United States must be able to do both – or risk fading into oblivion, much the way all the great civilizations have.

This is surely unadulterated nonsense. Republicans give people the opportunity to help themselves without the help of huge government. The fact that there is a precedent for the rich nations to give to disaster relief was a precedent set by this nation, and now liberals are whining because we are only initially giving 35 million to a disaster relief cause.

And BL, I know that your narrowminded view of the world only allows you to see what government can donate to a cause, but there are actually corporations and individual aid groups separate from the government that are contributing. Have you contributed? Are you practicing what you preach? Because a lot of lefties I know will bitch about America for everything before they even open their wallets and sacrifice. They are called limousine liberals.

[BAWLS]

JendrixtheGreat: its easier said then done what you're talking about
JendrixtheGreat: it takes awhile to get this shit passed through congress anywayz
JendrixtheGreat: and it just happened
burningliberal: But no initatives have been taken yet.
burningliberal: No one has said anything.
JendrixtheGreat: ?
JendrixtheGreat: what do you mean?
JendrixtheGreat: who hasn't said anything/
burningliberal: Congress.
burningliberal: Bush.
JendrixtheGreat: =/
burningliberal: No one has said anything about passing legislation to help Southern Asia.
JendrixtheGreat: well i'm not about to defend the bush administration
JendrixtheGreat: so my point is this
JendrixtheGreat: you can't get mad at someone who takes offense when you start off a topic like that
JendrixtheGreat: "The people that comprise the Bush Administration are the worst humanitarians on the face of the planet."
JendrixtheGreat: yeah, maybe we need to send more money
JendrixtheGreat: maybe we aren't doing enough
burningliberal: Fuck dude... This shit means stuff to me... You expect me not to take this personally?
burningliberal: Have you ever suffered through something horrific?
JendrixtheGreat: no
burningliberal: Well I have.
burningliberal: And let me tell you...
burningliberal: For me, what our government is doing (and what they aren't doing) is a slap in my face.
burningliberal: It's downright disrespectful.
burningliberal: And for you to sit there and tell me NOT to take it personally is just pouring salt in the wounds i'm still nursing from it.
burningliberal signed off at 9:30:05 PM.

[JoS]

Actually I think they are pledging more now, and Canada is pledging $40, and sending in a recon team to decided if they send in the DART (disaster assitance relief team)

[theburningliberal]

300$ split between unicef and the red cross you ignorant nitwit, which came out of my personal slush fund for unforeseen costs.

And that is on top of the bi-weekly contribution of 15$ that I give alternately to the two charities.

How much have YOU given Rooster?

By the way, you cock-sucking white trash freak of nature, you are wrong on two accounts.

First, America is not a right-wing nation. On the political spectrum of the world, we are considered to be a Liberal/Radical nation on the left end of the political spectrum, and both parties in the United States (Dems and Repubs) fall in that classification.

Secondly, neither the UN nor liberals hate America. We dislike the policies of this Administration, which have weakened positive feeling for America not only in Europe, but in every country in the world, and President Bush taking 3 days to respond to this disaster didn't help. Only, the GOP and this president are too blind and too shielded from the rest of the world to see it. In response to this disaster, we are being seen as callous, arrogant and stingy (YES I SAID STINGY).

Now let me ask you this.

Have you effered lived through something horrific? Something no other human being should EVER have to endure?

Because I have, Rooster. I have. And I will tell you this. For this President to say that we are doing all we can do, but sit back in his chair and do nothing more than throw some money and troops at it and hope for it to go away is a slap in my face. It is a slap in my face. It is disrespectful. And if you expect me not to take this situation personally, you are mistaken, by far. No human should ever have to suffer if there is a way around it.

The United States Government (Congress) throws away enough money on Pork Projects every year (Congresspeople from both parties) that we could afford to spend a little more than this on humanitiarian assistance if we would cut back on putting swimming pools in the backyards of certain people.

This is disrespectful, and I think, personally, that the amount the US has thrown on the table is disgraceful.

[theburningliberal]

At 12/28/04 11:10 PM, Soul_Chamber wrote:

At 12/28/04 11:07 PM, wAcKyEagle wrote:

Considering my AIM name is burningLIBERAL and my email addresses are all theburningLIBERAL...

Acually your AIM name is GenesysXXX.

You don't want to fuck with me right now.

[MoralLibertarian]

Your rage is blind.

At 12/29/04 10:37 PM, wAcKyEagle wrote: 300$ split between unicef and the red cross you ignorant nitwit, which came out of my personal slush fund for unforeseen costs.

Good job. I'm glad that you are as generous as you'd like our government to be.

How much have YOU given Rooster?

I am not discussing that, it's none of your business. I am not about to get into a contest on who gives more or less to charity.

By the way, you cock-sucking white trash freak of nature, you are wrong on two accounts.

lol.

First, America is not a right-wing nation. On the political spectrum of the world, we are considered to be a Liberal/Radical nation on the left end of the political spectrum, and both parties in the United States (Dems and Repubs) fall in that classification.

Umm...I agree with you in the sense that most people in America want social programs and happiness and love and sharing and stuff, but along with that, most Americans aren't willing to pay for it. Especially bullshit social programs that don't work.

Secondly, neither the UN nor liberals hate America. We dislike the policies of this Administration, which have weakened positive feeling for America not only in Europe, but in every country in the world, and President Bush taking 3 days to respond to this disaster didn't help. Only, the GOP and this president are too blind and too shielded from the rest of the world to see it. In response to this disaster, we are being seen as callous, arrogant and stingy (YES I SAID STINGY).

The world can go to hell then. Apparently, you don't know what the UN is comprised of. The UN is a bunch of sissies who talk and talk and don't do shit. They project, talk, whine about America, talk, and bitch, and rape third world women and give huge amounts to terrorist states in oil for food scandals. I don't care if it has a big heart. It's a useless piece of shit organization, and the US is fixing to pull out of it soon I bet.

We've given far more to the cause than any other nation both through our government and through our people, and the precedent was set by us. What do you feel is the appropriate amount? 50 million? 100 million? A billion? Or are you one of those libs like Bono: nothing we give could ever be enough? If Clinton gave 35 million to aid, would you praise him? Would the UN praise him?

You can't even see through your own bias. Don't pretend that the UN would attack Clinton for being stingy if he put any money on the table.

Have you effered lived through something horrific? Something no other human being should EVER have to endure?

Okay...Look, I am sorry that you've had to suffer, but we all have. Suffering is not exclusive to one person or one group and it's really quite silly to debate over it. Again, I don't think it's appropriate to get into a contest over who's suffered more or less.

Because I have, Rooster. I have. And I will tell you this. For this President to say that we are doing all we can do, but sit back in his chair and do nothing more than throw some money and troops at it and hope for it to go away is a slap in my face. It is a slap in my face. It is disrespectful.

Disrespectful is criticizing the amount of aid a nation gives to another in times of crisis, and refusing to take into accounts all the other forms of aid we have provided over the last four years.

Besides, we both know that the president could never do enough for you and you'd hate him no matter what. Let's face it. You don't even know how much 35 million is and how much it will do and you're just looking for another chance to blindly lash out at Bush. If Bush jumped up and did a photo-op, you would criticize him for what you would consider false compassion.

The United States Government (Congress) throws away enough money on Pork Projects every year (Congresspeople from both parties) that we could afford to spend a little more than this on humanitiarian assistance if we would cut back on putting swimming pools in the backyards of certain people.

Which party do you think supports a line item veto, Mr. BL? :)

This is disrespectful, and I think, personally, that the amount the US has thrown on the table is disgraceful.

Well look at all the countries when criticizing then. Don't single out the US and this administration for giving more than all of the European nations combined (their total contributions are about 4 million) Also, look at the future plans of the Bush Admin for this project. They are already teaming up with Australia, Japan, and some other country to bypass the bullshit UN and help with the relief program with our true allies.

[MoralLibertarian]

At 12/29/04 11:00 PM, Tal-con wrote: Liberals don't hate America, but you hate the UN, which is almost as bad.

I don't hate the UN. I just think they are a bunch of obnoxious imbeciles working their way into irrelevence. I hardly think it's a terrible thing to put what's best for our country before the UN's idea for the world.

Not really, 35 million isn't alot to a global superpower.

Even BL will admit that that's about as good as we can do because we have a huge deficit. His original argument is that we should have saved up for this. By keeping taxes high or something...

Remember, 35 million is just an initial investment. When that runs out, more will come.

Now I realize that the US is in tough financial straits...just a liberal that likes to keep our budget balanced.

At least we don't give our tax cuts to the rich. Oh, zing!

A tax cut goes to everyone. The rich receive most of the taxes back because they make more money and get more income. The idea that tax cuts only go to the rich is liberal spin and class warfare, and most of them know it.

Liberals will spin everything.

Can you say "stereotype"?

To be nonpartisan, conservatives will spin everything too. Obviously, what BL sees as a disgrace, I see as a good first step towards rebuilding the affected areas. I don't view my views as spin, and I'm sure BL doesn't think he's spinning either.

You can't honestly expect me to believe that 9/11 was the only factor to affect our poor economy.

It was one of them. A recession and a boost are the two most common trends of our oscillating economy. And make no mistake, the economy oscillates and cannot be completely manipulated, only pushed in the right direction, which is precisely what the Bush tax cuts did.

Because you said so, right?

I know that the US will continue to send aid because that's the tradition of the country. If they need more, we're not going to just leave them in pain. Also, Bush and his cabinet said that the 35 million was the first donation, if I'm not mistaken.

Oh my gosh a stereotype !! You can't just assume that because some liberals of the past may have raised taxes, all of them will. But that's a misinformed stereortype, and unless you have something intelligent to say, shut up.

Um, I'm saying that tax levels would have remained the same if Bush did not get into office in 2000, and without the Bush tax cuts, economists predicted that the economy would have lost 2.8 million jobs more and would have decreased our total economy by 4%.

Can you say "communism"?

Umm, communism is the biggest opponent of capitalism you can find. We republicans believe capitalism is good. Yes...capitalism...good...mmmm

[theburningliberal]

Not really, 35 million isn't alot to a global superpower.

:Even BL will admit that that's about as good as we can do because we have a huge deficit.

Who caused the deficit? Whose refusal to veto a single spending bill since he stole the White House in 2000 pushed America into record deficits? Whose reckless spending policies have pushed the Federal Deficit dangerously close to surpassing the GDP?

Hmmm?

[Memorize]

At 12/30/04 12:45 AM, wAcKyEagle wrote:

Who caused the deficit? Whose refusal to veto a single spending bill since he stole the White House in 2000 pushed America into record deficits? Whose reckless spending policies have pushed the Federal Deficit dangerously close to surpassing the GDP?

Who is it whose chasing a man who caused hundreds of thousands of jobs ( the fall of the WTC which cause many jobs to be lost and was a huge stock market), whose putting money into the war effort and supporting our troops, whose trying to send out armored humvees because liberal sissys complain, whose trying to help rebuild iraq, whose putting money back into our intelligence agencies?

[MoralLibertarian]

At 12/30/04 12:45 AM, wAcKyEagle wrote:

Not really, 35 million isn't alot to a global superpower.

Even BL will admit that that's about as good as we can do because we have a huge deficit.

Who caused the deficit? Whose refusal to veto a single spending bill since he stole the White House in 2000 pushed America into record deficits? Whose reckless spending policies have pushed the Federal Deficit dangerously close to surpassing the GDP?

Hmmm?

Most conservatives, myself included are critical of the Dubya for spending so much money. I think he spent way too much on social programs and education. He increased education spending by 40 something percent for crying out loud. That sort of increase is not necessary at all.

Liberals get mad at him for not raising taxes during war time. I won't get upset about that, I just wish that he would have cut a couple of things out in order to balance it out.

Anyway, in times of war, and in times of recession, deficit rules pretty much go out the window as you are well aware. FDR attempted to spend his way out of the depression, and our budget bounced back. Our deficit might not go away for a couple decades, but don't fret too much. Our budget and economy is amazingly resilient.

[cylon]

At 12/30/04 12:17 AM, mofomojo wrote:

So what? Last I heard, Canada gave $1 million. I don't think the people affected by the quake/tidal waves will complain

Canada has a population of 30 million people... and I believe we gave 5 million... but in ratio to the tax revenues we get thats a good amount of money..

The Canadian government has upped the pledge to 40 million now, but still hasn't decided if they're going to send out the Disaster Assistance Response Team or not.

[MoralLibertarian]

At 12/30/04 01:34 AM, ben_dont_jump wrote: The Canadian government has upped the pledge to 40 million now, but still hasn't decided if they're going to send out the Disaster Assistance Response Team or not.

I read that they are going to send out the DART on Canada.com. Good job Canada. Are you canadian kind sir?

[Pyrrho]

At 12/29/04 09:21 PM, Rooster349 wrote:

At 12/28/04 09:42 PM, wAcKyEagle wrote:

That's pretty good considering our country is in a huge deficit.

Now why do you think that is? Hmm... I ponder...:

I don't understand your argument? How does 35 million dollars of aid and troops deployed a bad thing? Liberals will spin everything. And also, we didn't know that we'd be attacked by terrorists. I wish we could say that they had no effect on our economy, but knocking down trade buildings isn't really healthy.

Oh, really? The Bush Administration didn't have the slightest little inkling of a terrorist attack on American soil prior to the morning of 9/11? Ya know... maybe some intelligence may have been placed down on old Dubya's desk to the surveillance of terrorist organizations before the attack on the WTC? We were that ignorant? Oh, ok... -_-"

Yeah. 35 million dollars and some troops will make some difference in the coming days. But after that 35 million runs out, what then? Do we say, “Oh, crap. We know you want us to help, but we can’t?”

A liberal preaching fiscal responsibility? Funny. I suppose you mean by raising taxes. Well, I hate to say it, but if we had done that, our economy would suck a lot harder than it is now, which I know you'd love because it gives you more reasons to hate Bush.

Taxes will have no effect as long as our political leaders are comprised of corporations and endorse corporations, amigo. If you've forgotten, the rich found a way to side step having their vast piggy banks touched by hiding behind corporations which let them first spend their income and then let the nominal money left to be taken a percentage out of. Now which political party do you think these snivelling weasels belong to? The Republican conservatives? Yes? Very well done! So the government now needs money that they are now not getting from the upper classes. So they extend the reach down to the working class to get their fill. And we who are screwed royally - us liberals, us democrats, less-income conservatives, the average Joes become the trough. "This is a government of the people, by the people and for the people no longer. This is a government of corporations, by corporations and for corporations." - US President Rutherford B. Hayes, 1884. So yes, we may be preaching. But we have damn good reason! I suggest you pick up a copy on the NY Bestseller's "Rich Dad, Poor Dad". Marvelous book...

Yeah, but the fact is there have been a lot of rainy days, BL. September 11th was one, Afghanistan was another, and so was Iraq. The War on Terror is a fucking rainy day. Talk about an unexpected expense.

Rainy day?! Rainy days are unpredictable. Look into Chaos theory. September 11th, the War on Terror and the invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan were not! I... ughh...

Have you contributed? Are you practicing what you preach? Because a lot of lefties I know will bitch about America for everything before they even open their wallets and sacrifice. They are called limousine liberals.

A lot of lefties you know. Not all the liberals in existence. A vast majority of the Democratic party borne from the likes of Thomas Jefferson and Andrew Jackson do sincerely care about America and are more than willing to contribute, whether it be financially or otherwise. Why do you think we bitch like little girls every time something like this happens? 35 million is just the initial cost and we will be donating more as well as individual and charitable organizations. (Hey, a point we agree on!) So don't get your undies in too much of a bunch over it, Eagle.

The fact that we all of us are so passionate about the world around us that we can peacefully disagree with each other is part of what makes America great. I appreciate your views on things. Whether you be a Republican, Democrat, conservative, liberal, independent or third-party supporter.

[Pyrrho]

At 12/30/04 12:58 AM, Rooster349 wrote:

Anyway, in times of war, and in times of recession, deficit rules pretty much go out the window as you are well aware. FDR attempted to spend his way out of the depression, and our budget bounced back. Our deficit might not go away for a couple decades, but don't fret too much. Our budget and economy is amazingly resilient.

Aye, that it is. Let's hope it will stay that way. I, too, wish Bush had made some different decisions to help balance the budget. But hey, what are ya gonna do?

[D2Kvirus]

Nah, you still have to top Howard Hughes - he set up a charity as nothing but a tax dodge. Now that's anything but humanitarian...

[Gutmunchr]

Britain has pledged 15 million pounds, thats almost $30 million dollars, we are a 5th of your size and not as rich per person. It is a fair comment to say that the US is not the most generous country with its wallet. The US donates 0.1% of its budget, this compares to the EU minimum of 0.7% (some donate more in other words). The donations are particularly low under Bush, but you cant really have a go at Bush, because as an aid donor theUS is bad under any president.

At 12/28/04 11:42 PM, IllustriousPotentate wrote: What about the billions of dollars of damage that the U.S. suffered in this year, what with all the hurricanes? Where was all the international assistance then?

In case you havent noticed the US is a country that can deal with such problems, aid goes to countries that are incapable of dealing with problems themselves. I was watching an Irish comedian shorty after the hurricanes and he was saying how bad it was, etc, but then he said something along the lines of, 'is it just me or are the Americans stupid, havent they ever heard of stone?', funny of course, but it made me wonder, 'why do you build houses out of wood?'. Ive never seen a house made out of wood in Britain anyway.

Can I just say, all of you yanks keep moaning about, 'ooh our economy is going down the quagmire etc', American growth was twice that of European growth and will be much larger once again this year, so how is it European countries can afford to donate? Yes you have overspent, its nothing new, countries do it all the time.

The Aussies have given $8 billion, there are just 20 million Aussies in the world aswell, they are not as rich as you yanks on top of that. There was also a criticism from a Norwegian official on the 'stingyness' of the rich nations in aid, it was felt that America was the country he was getting at; an American spokesmean came out and said America is not stingy! and will do more.

[Gutmunchr]

Ah, look the stingy topic has it all said, ignore my ramblings above and just read the report in it.

[Maus]

1 - TBL needs to calm himself before debating. Calling people 'cocksucker' is hardly conducive to discussion. I don't care what you've been through, it's no reason to make petty attacks. No-one could have known what you've experienced.

2 - That 35mil is the initial donation. Who can say what will happen when that runs out? Assuming that is all we will give is rather short-sighted.

3 - Totally discounts the monies that will be donated by private citizens. This country has some of the biggest philanthropists. Cutting their taxes means that they have more to give to things like this. Lets see how the rest of America deals with it, since that is the America that we live in.

4 - I'm dissapointed to see that TBL is quitting and moving. Quitting never changed an administration.