Has anyone heard this news? It talks about Bush's appeal for us to spend 770 million feeding other nations. I understand we should help others in need, but this is coming off all the talk of rising food costs and gas in our own nation, and how our own people can't afford to eat. Wouldn't that money be well spent taking care of our own, moderating prices so that the working poor can make ends meet? This article says that America has always been in the lead of helping others and we should remain. Is this a contest of who does the most world wide. Is it not enough we are spending billions and lives on war in other countries? Not to mention we are in debt to many countries since we are borrowing so much money. Where's the money we have to give?
I must seem like a cold hearted person, but when I see homeless people and mentally ill people getting benefits cut, not to mention families in economic crisis that don't fall in the lines of getting government assistance, it seems pretty unbalanced that we can't take care of our own.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
16 comments:
Not cold hearted. Different priorities.
I have a better plan than $770 million feeding other countries' people. How about we save $10 billion by not bombing them, spend $1 billion feeding them, another $1 billion educating them, and $1 billion more on feeding, housing, and educating our own citizens. There you go, $7 billion saved and far more good done in the world.
Seems so simple, doesn't it?
But seriously, to your point: I struggle with this in my professional life. I know that 50% of the world's population lives on no more than $2 a day. So, the need around the world is spectacular. But I share your "we have to fix our own problems" perspective. There is need here as well.
I personally give my own money to local causes. My father is deeply involved in an orphanage in Tanzania.
This country being what it is, many people think of their "community" as something other than (or in addition to) where they live. We have thousands and thousands of citizens that come from other countries, or that are first or second generation in the US, who have very strong emotional and familial ties elsewhere. I think it's important that our government recognize that, as well as the fact that we're part of a global neighborhood. We should be helping our neighbors, even when we have problems at home.
I would prefer that Bush spend far more time and money thinking about how to help other countries than how to bomb them to smithereens. Though I guess in the end if you kill all the poor people, there won't be poor people any more. Maybe he's a genius.
I'm voting for pete for the next president.
There's a statistic floating around that I know I should find before I quote it (I used to use it a lot in sermons) that the United States throws away more food per year than all the third world countries together produce.
I've never been in favor of the "take care of our own first" mentality for that reason, but I see your point. And I agree with pete that it's so much more complicated.
We cannot let McCain win this election, we just can't - he will continue this destructive cycle *sigh*
You guys have gotten it all wrong. It's not bombing that's bad. It's indiscriminate bombing. We're bombing perfectly nice people while there are so many revolting happily people running around. Take my neighbor, for instance. He should totally be bombed. You have to trust me on this one. And Bush, he should have been bombed long ago. Paris Hilton? The MTV reality show headquarters? Kentucky? Nobody goes to Kentucky anymore. Let's work on this, People. Rally with me.
Right on, Robin! I'm going to get bombed myself tonight.
Yay, pjd! That's the spirit. (Except you don't sound particularly revolting.)
I agree - Pete for president!
It is complicated stuff & Aerin, you are right. God forbid a republican take office. (no offense to the republicans out there).
Pete & Robin, "bombed", "spirit", you guys are funny!
We were at our Catholic school fair this week and there was plenty of people partaking in spirits and getting pretty bombed. Maybe that's the way to go, then all politics will be smooth like buttah. :-)
I would prefer that Bush spend far more time and money thinking about how to help other countries than how to bomb them to smithereens.
The Republican attitude seems to be "Hey, we're in a war, so we have to fund a war. Sorry! Shit happens! Unless we want to CUT AND RUN."
The premise that if I don't want to bomb the smithereens out of weaker nations I must be some kind of pussy alienates me from the Right more than any other issue. And even if I am a pussy, better that than a war criminal.
Pete for President? Sounds good to me. Maybe we can start up a new party right here in the comments section of Polikat's blog.
Kentucky? Nobody goes to Kentucky anymore. Let's work on this, People. Rally with me.
I'm gonna back Robin on this, too. Please bomb Kentucky.
Stephen, you'd make a mighty fine president yourself, although we'd have to move the White House to you and I'm sure that would seriously disrupt the vineyards. As for the Polikat Party, we'll work on it. :-)
A proposed Polikat Party platform:
1. Peace, love, prosperity, health, and happiness for everyone.
2. Bomb Kentucky.
3.) Ban organic cotton - it shrinks to much, evidenced by my micro-eco-grocery bags that just got out of the dryer.
Yes, Writerkat, I agree with you too!!
And to my cynical thinking, this money won't go to the needy. It'll go (inevitably) to war lords and corrupt officials.
(I stopped by hoping you'll stop by my blog today!! I think you'll like today's author)
I'm a little hesitant to post this, as it's a bit raunchy and don't know how you'll all take it, but compared to advocating for bombing Kentucky, I suppose it's not really so bad:
My favorite bumper sticker here in the People's Republic of Boulder is, "The Only Bush I Trust Is My Own."
And... WriterKat - just posted your winning entry on my blog. Enjoy the moose poop!
I think it only fitting to follow Doreen's comment by asking, is there something wrong with pussy? Gee, people say it like it's a bad thing.
I'm totally with you writerkat. I'd like to see our streets free of homeless people and our schools free of abused kids and our country becoming less dependent on other countries for fuel, etc ad nauseum. We have plenty of potential uses for that money right here, just in potentially getting our own home/country into minimum decent shape. Once we have it together, then we can afford to start giving to our neighbors. But to give when we ourselves need help so badly is ridiculous.
Amen, Polly!
Okay, you girls are raunchettes & making me laugh over here. :-)
Was it only in San Francisco that the "Lick Bush" bumper stickers were popular in the election years against both Senior and Junior?
Post a Comment