antonlavey
Banned
- 28,210
- 847
- Joined
- Oct 13, 2008
You're an eagles fan, your opinion is irrelevant.
Am I the only one pissed off the gov't is sending assistance to libya and japan
- Thread in 'General' Thread starter Started by higherthanthemonument,
- Start date
You're an eagles fan, your opinion is irrelevant.
antonlavey
Banned
- 28,210
- 847
- Joined
- Oct 13, 2008
You're an eagles fan, your opinion is irrelevant.
superblytrife
Supporter
- 20,944
- 22,471
- Joined
- Mar 20, 2002
SMH at this debate. Save some face and take the L, kid.
superblytrife
Supporter
- 20,944
- 22,471
- Joined
- Mar 20, 2002
SMH at this debate. Save some face and take the L, kid.
- 2,217
- 321
- Joined
- Apr 1, 2005
Yes.
- 2,217
- 321
- Joined
- Apr 1, 2005
Yes.
- 144,642
- 174,699
- Joined
- Mar 16, 2010
- 144,642
- 174,699
- Joined
- Mar 16, 2010
bk201
Banned
- 1,414
- 10
- Joined
- Mar 2, 2011
Originally Posted by roback1991
You know that those statistic can't come out until the year is over?
Edit: Moneymike does this all the time though. Dame Theory murked dude in an argument in one of the religion threads and dude kept quoting dame theory's posts with "I didn't read that" "didn't read this either"
Dude knew he lost in this thread and the other threads he always starts arguments in.
But of course my post is irrelevant since I have less than 300 posts.
bk201
Banned
- 1,414
- 10
- Joined
- Mar 2, 2011
Originally Posted by roback1991
You know that those statistic can't come out until the year is over?
Edit: Moneymike does this all the time though. Dame Theory murked dude in an argument in one of the religion threads and dude kept quoting dame theory's posts with "I didn't read that" "didn't read this either"
Dude knew he lost in this thread and the other threads he always starts arguments in.
But of course my post is irrelevant since I have less than 300 posts.
- 6,801
- 16,551
- Joined
- Jun 28, 2004
I believe that we should stop most forms of foreign aid, especially when it comes to cash payments. The rule should be no foreign by the government with the following exceptions (if you do not like reading skip to the last two paragraphs):
- Military technology sharing with our more stable and friendly allies, the biggest and most expensive form of foreign aid is indirect. It is the fact that very large and high GDP (both on a total and a per capita basis) countries like Japan, Taiwan, France, Germany, Italy, Poland, Czech Republic and even the UK (to a much lesser extend in their case) enjoy military protection that is American and is paid for my American tax payers. We should remove that free defensive shield over Europe and Asia and make our allies pay their share and in exchange we would give those aforementioned European and East Asian countries tech, officer and special forces training if they want it so they could build up their forces to replace the troops that we should remove. Doing that would save hundreds of billions annually.
- Indirect military help for less stable allies. While it would be wise to give technology to Japan and France and encourage them to expand their military forces, nominally friendly but unstable regimes in places like North Africa and Western Asia should be given various assurances of help depending on the situation. Air and Naval power can be used to tip the balance of power in Africa and the Middle East and both can be used to deliver humanitarian aid during emergencies. We should also be willing to arm rebels and/or train them with special forces as well as give factions, whom we favor, as much Intel as possible.
- Sharing of non military knowledge with poor countries would not only be morally correct but would benefit Americans in more practical ways. By spending a few million dollars annually, sending: scientists, doctors, engineers and agricultural sustainability experts, these poor countries could produce billions more in GDP and in the medium and long run the US would benefit from poor countries' rising economically. More wealth any where in the world be that there are more opportunities for specialization and trade and sustainably low interest rates, the two keys to improving standards of living both abroad at right here in the US.
- Sharing of ideas about education, politics, law and economics. In places like Egypt, where reform is in the air, it would be wise for the West to present itself as an option and hopefully certain western notions of human rights, property rights, equality before the law et al. will be adopted in these changing societies. The way a society is organized is just as if not more important than its technology, in terms of economic growth and the ability to improve the quality of the lives of ordinary people.
- Emergency aid for countries that cannot afford to provide that type of aid. In situations like the Boxing Day (12/26/04) Tsunami or the 2010 Earth Quake in Haiti, there are millions of people who are placed at serious risk of starvation or death by thirst or disease. If a tiny fraction of the Federal Budget and an infinitesimal portion of our GDP, American servicemen and women can be the face of life saving aid. In a place like Sumatra there are tens of millions of poor Muslims and while some Islamic extremists will never change their mind, there are many Muslims who are on the fence, who may or may not become militants. Those potential militants, upon seeing Americans giving humanitarian aid, without any regard for the race, religion, creed or nationality of those afflicted, may see America and the West in a more positive light and decide to eschew extremism and to not only refrain from being terrorists but may become willing to work with the West in the future and may even be willing to adopt Western ideas and bring about global stability, economic growth and ultimately prosperity within the US itself.
The US has to do some budget cutting and some of these cuts should be from the foreign aid budget. Economic aid to a wealthy country like Israel is a waste of money. Aid to Japan, even for an emergency like a Tsunami is something that we cannot afford and the Japanese government can afford. Economic aid to the extremely corrupt governments of the Third world (the PC term, developing world is simply dishonest because many poor countries are not developing because their people's creativity, energy and other forces that could create economic growth are constantly being suffocated by horrible governance) tends to only enhance the power of the local potentate and fails to improve the lives of ordinary citizens. All foreign aid, with the exception of those five things that I mentioned specifically, should be ended. Unfortunately for us, all of these foreign aid cuts are just a very small step in the long journey to a truly balanced budget. The only move that would make a real impact would be to make wealthy European and Asian nations pay the full cost of their national defense (the US military and tax payer absorb some if not most of the costs right now).
The fact that I want most foreign aid ended does not mean that I am indifferent to the poverty that exists in the US and that exists throughout the planet. Americans tend to be the most charitable people in the developed World and if we made some tweaks to our tax code we could coax a giving spree which would go to religious groups, NGO's and other charities that can bypass the corrupt governments that reign in these very poor countries. For people who live on a dollar or two per day, an extra infusion of a thousand dollars or so per year per poor person, would mean better nutrition, smarter kids, literacy, the ability to obtain modest amounts of capital and all of those modest gains in human and physical capital begets even more of both and greater skills and a better capital stock are key parts of a society's journey from universal poverty to relative prosperity and if the poorest billion people on the planet could go from making two or three dollars a day to twenty to thirty dollars per diem, that would mean that the world wide interest rate would fall, there would be more capital for every one, more productivity both the richest and poorest countries and a very good chance that your quality of life in the US, Canada, Japan and elsewhere will improve in a noticeable and meaningful way.
Cliff Notes:
We should cut some foreign aid but retain some because in the long run, certain forms of foreign aid can means that the global economy will be more productive and capital rich and that means that your average Americans will have a higher standard of living than we do today.
- Military technology sharing with our more stable and friendly allies, the biggest and most expensive form of foreign aid is indirect. It is the fact that very large and high GDP (both on a total and a per capita basis) countries like Japan, Taiwan, France, Germany, Italy, Poland, Czech Republic and even the UK (to a much lesser extend in their case) enjoy military protection that is American and is paid for my American tax payers. We should remove that free defensive shield over Europe and Asia and make our allies pay their share and in exchange we would give those aforementioned European and East Asian countries tech, officer and special forces training if they want it so they could build up their forces to replace the troops that we should remove. Doing that would save hundreds of billions annually.
- Indirect military help for less stable allies. While it would be wise to give technology to Japan and France and encourage them to expand their military forces, nominally friendly but unstable regimes in places like North Africa and Western Asia should be given various assurances of help depending on the situation. Air and Naval power can be used to tip the balance of power in Africa and the Middle East and both can be used to deliver humanitarian aid during emergencies. We should also be willing to arm rebels and/or train them with special forces as well as give factions, whom we favor, as much Intel as possible.
- Sharing of non military knowledge with poor countries would not only be morally correct but would benefit Americans in more practical ways. By spending a few million dollars annually, sending: scientists, doctors, engineers and agricultural sustainability experts, these poor countries could produce billions more in GDP and in the medium and long run the US would benefit from poor countries' rising economically. More wealth any where in the world be that there are more opportunities for specialization and trade and sustainably low interest rates, the two keys to improving standards of living both abroad at right here in the US.
- Sharing of ideas about education, politics, law and economics. In places like Egypt, where reform is in the air, it would be wise for the West to present itself as an option and hopefully certain western notions of human rights, property rights, equality before the law et al. will be adopted in these changing societies. The way a society is organized is just as if not more important than its technology, in terms of economic growth and the ability to improve the quality of the lives of ordinary people.
- Emergency aid for countries that cannot afford to provide that type of aid. In situations like the Boxing Day (12/26/04) Tsunami or the 2010 Earth Quake in Haiti, there are millions of people who are placed at serious risk of starvation or death by thirst or disease. If a tiny fraction of the Federal Budget and an infinitesimal portion of our GDP, American servicemen and women can be the face of life saving aid. In a place like Sumatra there are tens of millions of poor Muslims and while some Islamic extremists will never change their mind, there are many Muslims who are on the fence, who may or may not become militants. Those potential militants, upon seeing Americans giving humanitarian aid, without any regard for the race, religion, creed or nationality of those afflicted, may see America and the West in a more positive light and decide to eschew extremism and to not only refrain from being terrorists but may become willing to work with the West in the future and may even be willing to adopt Western ideas and bring about global stability, economic growth and ultimately prosperity within the US itself.
The US has to do some budget cutting and some of these cuts should be from the foreign aid budget. Economic aid to a wealthy country like Israel is a waste of money. Aid to Japan, even for an emergency like a Tsunami is something that we cannot afford and the Japanese government can afford. Economic aid to the extremely corrupt governments of the Third world (the PC term, developing world is simply dishonest because many poor countries are not developing because their people's creativity, energy and other forces that could create economic growth are constantly being suffocated by horrible governance) tends to only enhance the power of the local potentate and fails to improve the lives of ordinary citizens. All foreign aid, with the exception of those five things that I mentioned specifically, should be ended. Unfortunately for us, all of these foreign aid cuts are just a very small step in the long journey to a truly balanced budget. The only move that would make a real impact would be to make wealthy European and Asian nations pay the full cost of their national defense (the US military and tax payer absorb some if not most of the costs right now).
The fact that I want most foreign aid ended does not mean that I am indifferent to the poverty that exists in the US and that exists throughout the planet. Americans tend to be the most charitable people in the developed World and if we made some tweaks to our tax code we could coax a giving spree which would go to religious groups, NGO's and other charities that can bypass the corrupt governments that reign in these very poor countries. For people who live on a dollar or two per day, an extra infusion of a thousand dollars or so per year per poor person, would mean better nutrition, smarter kids, literacy, the ability to obtain modest amounts of capital and all of those modest gains in human and physical capital begets even more of both and greater skills and a better capital stock are key parts of a society's journey from universal poverty to relative prosperity and if the poorest billion people on the planet could go from making two or three dollars a day to twenty to thirty dollars per diem, that would mean that the world wide interest rate would fall, there would be more capital for every one, more productivity both the richest and poorest countries and a very good chance that your quality of life in the US, Canada, Japan and elsewhere will improve in a noticeable and meaningful way.
Cliff Notes:
We should cut some foreign aid but retain some because in the long run, certain forms of foreign aid can means that the global economy will be more productive and capital rich and that means that your average Americans will have a higher standard of living than we do today.
- 6,801
- 16,551
- Joined
- Jun 28, 2004
I believe that we should stop most forms of foreign aid, especially when it comes to cash payments. The rule should be no foreign by the government with the following exceptions (if you do not like reading skip to the last two paragraphs):
- Military technology sharing with our more stable and friendly allies, the biggest and most expensive form of foreign aid is indirect. It is the fact that very large and high GDP (both on a total and a per capita basis) countries like Japan, Taiwan, France, Germany, Italy, Poland, Czech Republic and even the UK (to a much lesser extend in their case) enjoy military protection that is American and is paid for my American tax payers. We should remove that free defensive shield over Europe and Asia and make our allies pay their share and in exchange we would give those aforementioned European and East Asian countries tech, officer and special forces training if they want it so they could build up their forces to replace the troops that we should remove. Doing that would save hundreds of billions annually.
- Indirect military help for less stable allies. While it would be wise to give technology to Japan and France and encourage them to expand their military forces, nominally friendly but unstable regimes in places like North Africa and Western Asia should be given various assurances of help depending on the situation. Air and Naval power can be used to tip the balance of power in Africa and the Middle East and both can be used to deliver humanitarian aid during emergencies. We should also be willing to arm rebels and/or train them with special forces as well as give factions, whom we favor, as much Intel as possible.
- Sharing of non military knowledge with poor countries would not only be morally correct but would benefit Americans in more practical ways. By spending a few million dollars annually, sending: scientists, doctors, engineers and agricultural sustainability experts, these poor countries could produce billions more in GDP and in the medium and long run the US would benefit from poor countries' rising economically. More wealth any where in the world be that there are more opportunities for specialization and trade and sustainably low interest rates, the two keys to improving standards of living both abroad at right here in the US.
- Sharing of ideas about education, politics, law and economics. In places like Egypt, where reform is in the air, it would be wise for the West to present itself as an option and hopefully certain western notions of human rights, property rights, equality before the law et al. will be adopted in these changing societies. The way a society is organized is just as if not more important than its technology, in terms of economic growth and the ability to improve the quality of the lives of ordinary people.
- Emergency aid for countries that cannot afford to provide that type of aid. In situations like the Boxing Day (12/26/04) Tsunami or the 2010 Earth Quake in Haiti, there are millions of people who are placed at serious risk of starvation or death by thirst or disease. If a tiny fraction of the Federal Budget and an infinitesimal portion of our GDP, American servicemen and women can be the face of life saving aid. In a place like Sumatra there are tens of millions of poor Muslims and while some Islamic extremists will never change their mind, there are many Muslims who are on the fence, who may or may not become militants. Those potential militants, upon seeing Americans giving humanitarian aid, without any regard for the race, religion, creed or nationality of those afflicted, may see America and the West in a more positive light and decide to eschew extremism and to not only refrain from being terrorists but may become willing to work with the West in the future and may even be willing to adopt Western ideas and bring about global stability, economic growth and ultimately prosperity within the US itself.
The US has to do some budget cutting and some of these cuts should be from the foreign aid budget. Economic aid to a wealthy country like Israel is a waste of money. Aid to Japan, even for an emergency like a Tsunami is something that we cannot afford and the Japanese government can afford. Economic aid to the extremely corrupt governments of the Third world (the PC term, developing world is simply dishonest because many poor countries are not developing because their people's creativity, energy and other forces that could create economic growth are constantly being suffocated by horrible governance) tends to only enhance the power of the local potentate and fails to improve the lives of ordinary citizens. All foreign aid, with the exception of those five things that I mentioned specifically, should be ended. Unfortunately for us, all of these foreign aid cuts are just a very small step in the long journey to a truly balanced budget. The only move that would make a real impact would be to make wealthy European and Asian nations pay the full cost of their national defense (the US military and tax payer absorb some if not most of the costs right now).
The fact that I want most foreign aid ended does not mean that I am indifferent to the poverty that exists in the US and that exists throughout the planet. Americans tend to be the most charitable people in the developed World and if we made some tweaks to our tax code we could coax a giving spree which would go to religious groups, NGO's and other charities that can bypass the corrupt governments that reign in these very poor countries. For people who live on a dollar or two per day, an extra infusion of a thousand dollars or so per year per poor person, would mean better nutrition, smarter kids, literacy, the ability to obtain modest amounts of capital and all of those modest gains in human and physical capital begets even more of both and greater skills and a better capital stock are key parts of a society's journey from universal poverty to relative prosperity and if the poorest billion people on the planet could go from making two or three dollars a day to twenty to thirty dollars per diem, that would mean that the world wide interest rate would fall, there would be more capital for every one, more productivity both the richest and poorest countries and a very good chance that your quality of life in the US, Canada, Japan and elsewhere will improve in a noticeable and meaningful way.
Cliff Notes:
We should cut some foreign aid but retain some because in the long run, certain forms of foreign aid can means that the global economy will be more productive and capital rich and that means that your average Americans will have a higher standard of living than we do today.
- Military technology sharing with our more stable and friendly allies, the biggest and most expensive form of foreign aid is indirect. It is the fact that very large and high GDP (both on a total and a per capita basis) countries like Japan, Taiwan, France, Germany, Italy, Poland, Czech Republic and even the UK (to a much lesser extend in their case) enjoy military protection that is American and is paid for my American tax payers. We should remove that free defensive shield over Europe and Asia and make our allies pay their share and in exchange we would give those aforementioned European and East Asian countries tech, officer and special forces training if they want it so they could build up their forces to replace the troops that we should remove. Doing that would save hundreds of billions annually.
- Indirect military help for less stable allies. While it would be wise to give technology to Japan and France and encourage them to expand their military forces, nominally friendly but unstable regimes in places like North Africa and Western Asia should be given various assurances of help depending on the situation. Air and Naval power can be used to tip the balance of power in Africa and the Middle East and both can be used to deliver humanitarian aid during emergencies. We should also be willing to arm rebels and/or train them with special forces as well as give factions, whom we favor, as much Intel as possible.
- Sharing of non military knowledge with poor countries would not only be morally correct but would benefit Americans in more practical ways. By spending a few million dollars annually, sending: scientists, doctors, engineers and agricultural sustainability experts, these poor countries could produce billions more in GDP and in the medium and long run the US would benefit from poor countries' rising economically. More wealth any where in the world be that there are more opportunities for specialization and trade and sustainably low interest rates, the two keys to improving standards of living both abroad at right here in the US.
- Sharing of ideas about education, politics, law and economics. In places like Egypt, where reform is in the air, it would be wise for the West to present itself as an option and hopefully certain western notions of human rights, property rights, equality before the law et al. will be adopted in these changing societies. The way a society is organized is just as if not more important than its technology, in terms of economic growth and the ability to improve the quality of the lives of ordinary people.
- Emergency aid for countries that cannot afford to provide that type of aid. In situations like the Boxing Day (12/26/04) Tsunami or the 2010 Earth Quake in Haiti, there are millions of people who are placed at serious risk of starvation or death by thirst or disease. If a tiny fraction of the Federal Budget and an infinitesimal portion of our GDP, American servicemen and women can be the face of life saving aid. In a place like Sumatra there are tens of millions of poor Muslims and while some Islamic extremists will never change their mind, there are many Muslims who are on the fence, who may or may not become militants. Those potential militants, upon seeing Americans giving humanitarian aid, without any regard for the race, religion, creed or nationality of those afflicted, may see America and the West in a more positive light and decide to eschew extremism and to not only refrain from being terrorists but may become willing to work with the West in the future and may even be willing to adopt Western ideas and bring about global stability, economic growth and ultimately prosperity within the US itself.
The US has to do some budget cutting and some of these cuts should be from the foreign aid budget. Economic aid to a wealthy country like Israel is a waste of money. Aid to Japan, even for an emergency like a Tsunami is something that we cannot afford and the Japanese government can afford. Economic aid to the extremely corrupt governments of the Third world (the PC term, developing world is simply dishonest because many poor countries are not developing because their people's creativity, energy and other forces that could create economic growth are constantly being suffocated by horrible governance) tends to only enhance the power of the local potentate and fails to improve the lives of ordinary citizens. All foreign aid, with the exception of those five things that I mentioned specifically, should be ended. Unfortunately for us, all of these foreign aid cuts are just a very small step in the long journey to a truly balanced budget. The only move that would make a real impact would be to make wealthy European and Asian nations pay the full cost of their national defense (the US military and tax payer absorb some if not most of the costs right now).
The fact that I want most foreign aid ended does not mean that I am indifferent to the poverty that exists in the US and that exists throughout the planet. Americans tend to be the most charitable people in the developed World and if we made some tweaks to our tax code we could coax a giving spree which would go to religious groups, NGO's and other charities that can bypass the corrupt governments that reign in these very poor countries. For people who live on a dollar or two per day, an extra infusion of a thousand dollars or so per year per poor person, would mean better nutrition, smarter kids, literacy, the ability to obtain modest amounts of capital and all of those modest gains in human and physical capital begets even more of both and greater skills and a better capital stock are key parts of a society's journey from universal poverty to relative prosperity and if the poorest billion people on the planet could go from making two or three dollars a day to twenty to thirty dollars per diem, that would mean that the world wide interest rate would fall, there would be more capital for every one, more productivity both the richest and poorest countries and a very good chance that your quality of life in the US, Canada, Japan and elsewhere will improve in a noticeable and meaningful way.
Cliff Notes:
We should cut some foreign aid but retain some because in the long run, certain forms of foreign aid can means that the global economy will be more productive and capital rich and that means that your average Americans will have a higher standard of living than we do today.
- 8,131
- 618
- Joined
- Sep 1, 2007
I agree 100% with you OP. There are so many individuals and families here living in tough situations but can't get help. I think if we first invested in our own citizens aka taxpayers, we could strengthen ourselves to the point that helping other countries would be no problem.
- 8,131
- 618
- Joined
- Sep 1, 2007
I agree 100% with you OP. There are so many individuals and families here living in tough situations but can't get help. I think if we first invested in our own citizens aka taxpayers, we could strengthen ourselves to the point that helping other countries would be no problem.
- 3,236
- 10
- Joined
- Oct 3, 2005
the US wouldn't be giving money to anything if it didn't somehow kick back in the form of benefits, whether it be upholding a status in the global community, improving trade relations, military strategy, natural resources, other political reasons, etc.... why would we give say $100 million to Japan and not to poor families here in the US? perhaps because it looks "good" right now to the rest of the world rather than the US giving that money to it's own people. we here have that attitude toward the rich. be believe they should pay more taxes, but they believe they shouldn't have to give everyone else a hand and that they should be able to pocket their own money for their own affairs. USA is the richest country in the world, so how is that not the same attitude, to not provide the foreign aid and spend for itself.
with that said, US gains more by doing this sort of thing, but not just for anybody. if it didn;t somehow benefit the US directly (or indirectly), they would not be doing it.
with that said, US gains more by doing this sort of thing, but not just for anybody. if it didn;t somehow benefit the US directly (or indirectly), they would not be doing it.
- 3,236
- 10
- Joined
- Oct 3, 2005
the US wouldn't be giving money to anything if it didn't somehow kick back in the form of benefits, whether it be upholding a status in the global community, improving trade relations, military strategy, natural resources, other political reasons, etc.... why would we give say $100 million to Japan and not to poor families here in the US? perhaps because it looks "good" right now to the rest of the world rather than the US giving that money to it's own people. we here have that attitude toward the rich. be believe they should pay more taxes, but they believe they shouldn't have to give everyone else a hand and that they should be able to pocket their own money for their own affairs. USA is the richest country in the world, so how is that not the same attitude, to not provide the foreign aid and spend for itself.
with that said, US gains more by doing this sort of thing, but not just for anybody. if it didn;t somehow benefit the US directly (or indirectly), they would not be doing it.
with that said, US gains more by doing this sort of thing, but not just for anybody. if it didn;t somehow benefit the US directly (or indirectly), they would not be doing it.
- 69,518
- 105,968
- Joined
- Apr 30, 2010
No, i'm sure you're not the only selfish tool in America, even if you are, there's tons of political opportunists who'll play the part.
And here's a tip after brieflly surveying the thread, if you're in a serious argument with someone and they turn to "you're a ____fan, your argument is irrelevant", it's time to stop arguing before you get pulled down further into a fool's world.
And here's a tip after brieflly surveying the thread, if you're in a serious argument with someone and they turn to "you're a ____fan, your argument is irrelevant", it's time to stop arguing before you get pulled down further into a fool's world.
- 69,518
- 105,968
- Joined
- Apr 30, 2010
No, i'm sure you're not the only selfish tool in America, even if you are, there's tons of political opportunists who'll play the part.
And here's a tip after brieflly surveying the thread, if you're in a serious argument with someone and they turn to "you're a ____fan, your argument is irrelevant", it's time to stop arguing before you get pulled down further into a fool's world.
And here's a tip after brieflly surveying the thread, if you're in a serious argument with someone and they turn to "you're a ____fan, your argument is irrelevant", it's time to stop arguing before you get pulled down further into a fool's world.
- 5,555
- 3,465
- Joined
- May 8, 2005
wait.. so what youre saying is that you rather just stand by and watch thousands of people die, burn, drown in their midst of chaos right? cus your financial situation is more important than giving aide to those who just experienced hell... and that we shouldnt help till we are so well off that our pockets dont feel the pinch right?
Im not telling you how to live your life but I sure am glad you people are not leading this country
- 5,555
- 3,465
- Joined
- May 8, 2005
wait.. so what youre saying is that you rather just stand by and watch thousands of people die, burn, drown in their midst of chaos right? cus your financial situation is more important than giving aide to those who just experienced hell... and that we shouldnt help till we are so well off that our pockets dont feel the pinch right?
Im not telling you how to live your life but I sure am glad you people are not leading this country
- 6,259
- 2,066
- Joined
- Aug 4, 2010
- 6,259
- 2,066
- Joined
- Aug 4, 2010
- 23,277
- 5,276
- Joined
- Jan 19, 2002
Let's just increase our deficit, sure why not?
- 23,277
- 5,276
- Joined
- Jan 19, 2002
Let's just increase our deficit, sure why not?
- 4,363
- 10
- Joined
- Aug 18, 2010
I dunno why people are all up in arms against this thread. Op can have his own opinion. Without looking of the numbers of course I would think that our population has more power to donate to this effort than our government could at this moment. Our government really cant waste this money but there are people in our society that could. I think us as a collective population should do what we can but our government just cant afford a full blown assistance program to japan at this moment. It sucks that thats way it is but it is what it is.
