Originally posted by Adam Grimes
No, it's not. The government's work is to manage our economy. If people want to use it to say: help populations in need, they have the right to ask for it as much as they want.
Again, it has to get the money from somewhere.
And that money is limited by "the people's" willingness to be taxed.
I don't agree asking the government to do something is "passing the buck", because the government literally is the people, but the people have to agree to having that tax burden put upon them.
And people generally don't like being taxed. Even wealthy "bleeding heart" liberals aren't pushing too hard for a 90 percent tax increase to try fixing the third world.
We're a democracy--super clever barbs about it not really being notwithstanding. Elected officials do and say what the voters want them to do and say because doing so will help them hold on to their job and power.
If we don't make a big enough collective stink about wanting something, no politician worth his re-election is going to bother pushing it. And none of this "not the government's job" to do this or that. The government is ours, we own it, we constitute its employees, its revenues, its offices, enforcers, its everything. It's not some separate entity with its own rights---it's our b*tch, and it behaves according to how much leash we give it. And we give it a f*ck ton too much.
We don't put enough pressure on the people we elect to use our national power and wealth to lift the impoverished out of poverty, to shake off dictatorship, and to aid in their education and enfranchisement. We could, but we don't. And it's selfish isolationists who care only for short-term personal profit and NIMBYism who spearhead the counter-initiative of justifying our lack of motivation and empathy with false flag political rhetoric or religious bullshit. And the rest of us go along with it because secretly, we don't want to bothered. We're all selfish *ssholes. Yaaay for honesty.
Originally posted by cdtm
Again, it has to get the money from somewhere.And that money is limited by "the people's" willingness to be taxed.
I don't agree asking the government to do something is "passing the buck", because the government literally is the people, but the people have to agree to having that tax burden put upon them.
And people generally don't like being taxed. Even wealthy "bleeding heart" liberals aren't pushing too hard for a 90 percent tax increase to try fixing the third world.
It's passing the buck because instead of doing it themselves, they demand someone else do it so that they can continue to sit on their a$$ and post on the internet about how someone else should be doing more.
Originally posted by Silent Master
Nothing is stopping 'you' from sending them money or opening your home to refugees.
I often find the same people who say "why don't you let refugees live in your house" are invariably the same people who say "we should help our homeless veterans first before we help immigrants"
Yet none of them let homeless veterans stay in their houses.
Funny that.
Originally posted by Silent MasterWell the U.S. Department of Defense had a budget of $534.6 billion last year, with the President wanting another, what was it? $54 billion added to that at the expense of the EPA--an organization with a gigantically bloated budget of... $8 billion.
What are you willing to give up so that the government can free up resources for other countries and are you doing anything on your own to help?
How about we don't cut the EPA funding, and instead cut the monstrously out of control defense budget by a $100 billion or so, and start from there? USAID, the agency responsible for civilian foreign aid has a current budget of $27 billion. Let's see what a bit more in that department can do instead of financing the 800+ military bases the American industrial complex tells us is super duper important. Or the 10 new supercarriers the Navy's got in production at a cost of $10.4 billion each.
Ya know, cut the excesses.
Originally posted by Lord Lucien
Well the U.S. Department of Defense had a budget of $534.6 billion last year, with the President wanting another, what was it? $54 billion added to that at the expense of the EPA--an organization with a gigantically bloated budget of... $8 billion.How about we don't cut the EPA funding, and instead cut the monstrously out of control defense budget by a $100 billion or so, and start from there? USAID, the agency responsible for civilian foreign aid has a current budget of $27 billion. Let's see what a bit more in that department can do instead of financing the 800+ military bases the American industrial complex thinks it needs to tell us is super duper important. Or the 10 new supercarriers the Navy's got in production at a cost of $10.4 billion each.
Ya know, cut the excesses.
In other words, you personally aren't willing to give up anything. that said, I'm all for cutting wasteful spending and putting that money where it'll help the most people.
Originally posted by Silent MasterYes, good. So like toward improving the quality of life of 100s of millions, or billions over time of the world's poorest, most destitute, and most in need of help?
In other words, you personally aren't willing to give up anything. that said, I'm all for cutting wasteful spending and putting that money where it'll help the most people.
Originally posted by Lord Lucien
Yes, good. So like toward improving the quality of life of 100s of millions, or billions over time of the world's poorest, most destitute, and most in need of help?
I think most should be spent on our own problems, but I have no problems with some of it going to help others.
Originally posted by Silent MasterWe have our own problems no doubt, but alot of ours won't be solved by money alone. It's gonna take a change in how we think about lot of things in life--for instance, the notion that people from other countries shouldn't be helped because... they're not us... That one has roots somewhere deeper than simple "not my problem"ism.
I think most should be spent on our own problems, but I have no problems with some of it going to help others.
Likewise, no amount of cash is going to make the world's dictators disappear, the starving and impoverished 100s of millions suddenly able to live a decent life, the uneducated and illiterate able to work and read. It takes genuine change in how we think of other people from different nations and cultures and skin colors.
Us or Them is a false dichotomy, IMO. There's no reason we can't help both, or stop seeing everyone else as "the Other" out to destroy us, or take advantage of us. It's only "Us," everywhere.