Government Sponsored Charity
Posted by Edmond Dantes on Wed, 05/07/2008 - 05:22 inApparently the United States government is sending the people of Myanmar 3 million dollars out of our pocket. So that brings up several questions? Should the US Government be involved in forced charity. In essence we're forced to pay taxes and now that money is going to the people of Myanmar. What should be the US government's role in disaster relief? Are we a barbaric nation if we don't help our own people in a Katrina type situation? How should the people of the US offer disaster relief? A little off topic. Should the US be involved in projects like the Panama canal? Would these projects be built at all without being government sponsored? We all know how critical the canal is to the world economy so would government get in the way of economic progress in that case?
My opinion: Our money shouldn't be going to Myanmar. FEMA shouldn't exist. FEMA/Bureaucracy kills instead of saves. In the case of Katrina boaters were only allowed to pick up dead bodies per Federal Government orders. FEMA along side of the US military went house to house confiscating guns and beating up an old lady.
Subscribe to this thread- Flag as offensive
- Login or register to post comments
- 78 reads
I think your question comes down to this: would you rather be forced into charity for these kinds of things, or would you rather deal with HUGE corporations for your social programs. Toll booths come to mind. Even after they pay for the project, they continue to charge. I hate those things! Then you realize that companies that own such massive social sectors en masse basically operate a monopoly, and then you start thinking about the role of government regulation of the market or anti-trust laws!
Your points are valid- FEMA had a hard time getting things done, but Walmart was hooking and jabbing to get those people fresh water in New Orleans.
Also consider the interstate highway system- largely funded by federal dollars. Was this appropriate? Would we be having the problems we have with gas consumption if we didn't travel so much? Pollution? Would we still have smaller more localized economies resistant to recession etc?
Many people like to argue their points against social programs and forced charity while they or their loved ones are utilizing said programs. Does that render your arguments invalid? I once argued with an old guy about social security and Medicare even though he was on both. I felt like a jackass and he was pissed, but in the end he agreed that I would probably never see a dime I've "donated" into either program by the time I'm eligible, and he sympathized.
You asked some tough questions and I suspect that's why you didn't get responses? Personally I love some aspects of globalism- coffee being the best example. I get coffee from around the world, fresh and cheap, no matter what time of year it is. Am I willing to give up my mocha cappuccino for some peace, freedom, and stability? You betcha! Think about cheap clothes at WalMart. How many days can the seamstress in Malawi subsist on what I paid for that shirt? I think the average income was once like $5 a month there. Is that fair and ethical? Are we willing to give up our cheap consumer goods for our principles about forced charity and free markets? Actions speak louder than words! No, we're probably not. We have to be forced through violence or catastrophe, apparently.
Panama canal? It was originally leased by the US I believe, and was eventually given back to Panama with the approval of the American right to protect it militarily. Maybe American business owners should have invested in foreign companies to build it? But what happens when a Castro type character takes over and nationalizes? Then we send Marine MajGen Smedley Butler in with a bayonet to be a gangster for Wall Street and "protect our interests abroad."
“Money will be put under the direction of government, and the government will be put under the direction of money.”
~Philip Freneau
I'm in a similar situation as that elderly gentlemen you were talking about. I'm a college student (well graduating in 18 days. yay!) and over my four years at a state school I have gradually become an opponent against state funded schools and government financial aid. So if I were in office I'd take all that away from myself. Do I think I'm a bit hypocritical? Sometimes. If I had the money I obviously wouldn't be taking money from the government but am I supposed to let other people succeed while I take a semester off to pay for school with cash? However, a couple things that ease my mind is the fact that I pay taxes and will for my whole life and this will hopefully be the only time I'll ever take money from the government. I also realize that the government put its self in this position. If I were scamming or defrauding it I'd feel pretty bad.