We Give To The Needy, Not The Greedy

Can someone please explain to me, as I am confused.

America is asking the world for donations to help out it's city that has been flooded.

If there was one nation in the world, just one, rich enough to be able to take care of a city, I'd say it was America. It's vast resources dwarf those of the UK, Russia, or any other country in the European area, one of the most affluent areas in the world. It is the only world superpower.

So why when it has bills to pay, and cities to fix, does it ask us to foot the bill? I mean, I know developing nations don't have the spare cash, and then we naturally step in and help the needy... But come on, what's America's excuse?

It's like an episode of the Simpsons where Mr. Burns' son Larry is kidnapped, and on the phone Mr. Burns says "How much money do you want? $100, $200? I swear that's all I've got".

America has billions and billions and billions and billions of dollars. Why do they ask the rest of the world for more money?

Because not everyone has billions and billions of dollars.
I don't. Many people I know don't.

The people who do have billions probably don't play SL so they won't see your question.

No I mean the US government, America as a nation has billions of dollars. What I want to know is why does America need the UK public to dip into their purses when they have so much money flowing around their nation every year. I once saw the annual defense budget, I could have sworn that was some billions of dollars.

Why does a nation so rich suddenly need handouts from around the world?

jsecure, you bring up an interesting point. while i understand where you're coming from, i think the important thing to remember is the thousands of people that have been affected by this tragedy. there are thousands of people without food, water, or shelter. and will be without a home to go back to for months, or years. this is something that will affect not only the residents of the gulf coast, but the whole US economy for a while. donating to international organizations, such as the red cross, would not be giving money to the US. it would be giving money to people who need help.

i too, disagree with many of the current US policies. and i've asked myself the same question you are posing on this forum. but it is my belief, in times of widescale loss and tragedy, one needs to put those thoughts aside, and just help people. politics can be discussed once people are fed and housed.

edited to add: just curious, is the government specifically asking UK citizens to give money? additionally, we don't have much control over what the government chooses to spend it's money on. the US does have a vast amount of funds, but it is my belief that they are not being allocated correctly. and because of this, all the people who live in the gulf coast are not being given the proper aid they need. which is why more of the burden falls on relief agencies.

You make a fair point, but I personally will be keeping any details of any donations I do/do not make private. So this is my thread for wondering only, not influencing donation habits.

With regard to politics, I think, politics aside, America is so rich, why is it not the case that any donations from around the world would be useless? Why is it not the case that there is almost too much money available to New Orleans? I mean, the US has the cash.

I understand people want to donate, and please don't let me stand in the way, but economically I am baffled, and I wonder if any of our smart minds in this community can enlighten me.

jsecure, i'm not trying to influence your donation habits. i'm sorry if my comments came across that way.

and i agree with you. america is rich, and should be able to do much more than it's doing at the moment. i think it's a problem of funds being used elsewhere, mainly iraq. but, i don't know enough details about fund dispersement to know for sure. i'll leave the rest of the conversation for the "smart minds".

If I understand right, and I'll try to find some articles to back me up on this, America didn't ask "the world for donations to help out it's city that has been flooded". I believe initially the administration said that America looks after it's own, and did not need outside help.

When the extent of devestation became clearer, and the lack of FEMA logistical planning was established, the administration reversed itself, with Condi Rice (who has GREAT legs) announcing that the US would accept any help it could get.

Did I misunderstand the order of events?

So are the US actually not asking for money, instead "stuff" like helicopters, or volunteers, or equipment and food and things?

Lol no sorry, I meant I wasn't trying to influence anyone else's donation habits. I thought your post was quite well thought out and decent I just wanted to steer things more into a finance channel than a general discussion of what individual people should do in light of events

This is totally hearsay but I've been led to believe that the US (government) itself is in a bit of a mess financially and all the money everyone sees it as having belongs to fat cat businessmen...

Could be totally wrong though.

hazard of forum conversation...misinterpretation.

Hazard of any conversation.

the US is trillions of dollars in debt... almost 8 trillion according to this source :
http://www.brillig.com/debt_clock/

plus spending hundreds of billions on the war in Iraq and stuff in Afganistan probably hasn't helped.

Because we're spending billions and billions on war, silly.

At first the U.S. refused the help, then they decided to accept it after seeing how bad the disaster was. I think its good for a change for other countries to help us, since we've helped them over the years with disasters over there. Its also more than just one city affected, its a good chunk of a region.

It's not just the war. Even apart from war expenses, the government has increased spending and slashed tax revenues, with more tax giveaways for the rich on the agenda.

I think it's deliberate sabotage to cause the Federal government to collapse, so Halliburton can buy the individual states at bargain prices. (joking... sorta...)

If America asks for help then they must really need it. The BBC say that the problem is that America is "seemingly unable to draw on its wealth at short notice to immediately respond to the disaster". So what would you do? Don't give help as they will have the money eventually, even though it's needed now?

The UK is apparently sending several million 24-hr emergency ration packs.

I saw a statement that this is usual international practice, as it is not sensible for one country to hold stock for all contingencies. On the assumption that not all countries will be hit by diasaster at once, they hold a sort of "stock in common", and send it where it is needed on a quid-pro-quo basis. Seems good to me.

Surely, if there is cross-party agreement, sufficient determination, and rapid legislative action via an emergency bill, money can be conjured instantly, in any amounts short term. Just have to sort out implications for the money supply afterwards.

In the very, very short term, surely the credit of the US government is good. Do they normally pay bills instantly, or in cash ? I don't think so.

Give me a government contract to move 10000 containers full of food to a disaster area, I'll take it and fulfil it as fast as I can. And my suppliers will give me credit when I show them the contract.

Where there's a will there's a way - the question is - was there a will ? Or even an intelligent decision structure with any ability to respond quickly at all ? What if it had been a suitcase A-bomb? And look at the four days warning they had, to make it easy, easy.

Dept of Homeland Security clearly a farce. Just Dept for Pursuit of Deviants and Generation of Submissiveness through Fear and Hysteria. I'm exaggerating, but I'm sure you see the point.

Every country in the Western World is in debt. The US has one of the lowest ratios compared to other countries. Money is fake. This is all paper and 0s and 1s. The real "money" is in military power. Those with the best military win, so currently, the US is still the richest nation, although China will probably wipe us all off the earth sooner or later.

Yes. And apparently there is an additional $13trillion or so outside the US fulfilling the role of "standard world currency". Ever been to Egypt and seen the dollar bills changing hands in every shop, and nothing to do with tourists ? But if it came to the push, they could simply repudiate all that if it ever tried to come home. They've done it before.

Edit : I checked through Eboni's sources on the $40trillion of total indebtedness to see what was included. This figure, for US currency held outside the US for purposes of private and public working capital, to be passed around and oil the wheels, (ie used for non-domestic circulation purposes) seems not to be included.

This figure is often forgotten, and hard to estimate, in that in would not usually be thought of as debt, and some of it may have left the US years ago.

Nevertheless, like all currency, it is a promise to pay from the US government, and if confidence in its solidity really began to wane, it would return home, and people would buy american exports with it, or even come and try to buy property etc. Over the long years americans have had real things for it, from the hands of foreigners. It is a debt - always overlooked, shoved under the table, but there it is. Best estimate I've seen - another $13 trillion.

I'm truly sorry, I last researched this two years ago - I've lost the links. Its difficult to estimate because much of it just vanished from internal circulation as it was used to buy things from foreigners informally, with no import/export record. It is primarily one way, because of the world confidence in the dollar as solid currency of choice. No-one in the US prefers to hold and use other peoples currencies inside the US at present.

I can't quite remember, I think the figure includes both physical banknotes, and positive bank balances held in $, whether as savings, or for working buffers in trade or banking. Yes, I think its both. Its the benefit of being the trusted standard, but it all has to be taken back if that ever stops.

I have even seen it suggested that this $13trillion hidden debt is the real reason for the Iraq war. This is the logic:

Just before the first (Kuwait) war the iraqis, despite their dictator, were doing well not only economically but socially. High employment, good education, great infrastructure - water, sewerage, free health care. I checked - this much is true. Their military were crap, as it turned out, at least compared to us.

Their oil was flowing - no problem. Then they decided to break with the entire world, and price their oil not in US$, but in (was it ?) euros. Everybody said it wouldn't work, but it worked fine.

A south american oil producer was about to follow suit ( Venezuela ?). There was a sudden danger this would become an avalanche, undermining the status of the $ and starting that $13trillion on the way home. It had to be stopped.

Hence the double dealing (we don't mind if you invade Kuwait ?) which lead to the destruction of Iraq. And then the punishment of Venezuala.

And now every oil producer is back on the dollar (and, incidentally, the euro looks pretty sick )

I have no idea whether there is the slightest shred of truth in this scenario, but it is what started me researching, and the forgotten $13trillion and the threat to the dollar did look about right.

Another interesting viewpoint, anyway. Not much chance we little people will ever be allowed to discover the real underlying motives for our governments actions. If they do bad, bad things which are genuinely in our essential interest, perhaps its better we don't know. It depends how seriously (on average) we take our morals.

This is all a bit confused, isn't it, for me. Just enjoy its entertainment value perhaps ?

Can't sort it out, Pretty migraine zigzags strting to obliterate the screen.Probably last about an hour. damn

I only got as far as the third post before I was so outraged that I had to reply. Did you hear anyone in the US, Jsecure, whining about providing relief when London was recently under siege by terrorists? My god, all I heard were cries of compassion and support for our UK friends and allies. What the heck is this attitude all about?

As far as I'm concerned, the UK is also massively wealthy (especially in proportion to its population), but just like the US, that doesn't equate to collective wealth at the individual level. Have you seen the video streaming in from N.O.? Do those people look like they had/have billions and billions? Do you have 25,000 evacuees now living in your city's local convention center, as is the case in my home town, or close to 300K in cities like Houston?

Regardless of our nation's wealth, what about simple acts of compassion? What if Birmingham or York or Manchester were suddenly wiped off the face of your country's map? How would you feel if your international allies just sat by and said "poor, poor folks," but didn't offer to lend a hand?

I am disgusted that the question is even being raised. Everyone expects the US to be at the forefront of giving when it comes to disasters in other parts of the world. Sri Lanka's (relatively small) Red Cross contribution is, in my view, one of the most un-selfish and truly sacrificial gifts, given that the tiny nation is still recovering from the Tsunami of last winter. What an amazing investment in diplomacy.

If we form a player government in Second life can we get 40 trillion lindens worth of deficit spending?

I'd like to apologise for the quality of my previous post. Structurally, grammatically and with regard to spelling. Looks a bit mentally confused too. I did it during the onset of a migraine attack, with my vision steadily deteriorating and beautiful sharp crystal clear razor-edge blak and white zigzags growing across the screen and obscuring my view. Its an interesting phenomenon if it weren't for the accompanying headache.

I understand that something in the brain goes into spasm, and squahes some neurones which start firing off inappropriately. They are often in the visual field, but in the processing part where deductions of what is there have already been made. So if they are neurons for spotting and deducing "zigzag" - thats what you see, a perfect crisp zigzag that simply isn't there.

I assume the spasm travels a bit before it fades, so over 20 or 30 mins you are likely to see this highly instructive vision creep across your visual fiels, often starting small, then growing into an arc which slowly retreats to the periphery and then fades.

If this ever happens to you for the first time, don't be afraid. It is not harmful. You quickly recover, and though it will likely repeat it probably wont be often. I get them about once a month, and thats probably because I'm currently eating too much cheese.

But their not helpful wnen forum posting, particularly when some of the non zigzag bits (which you can struggle to peer round, although of course they do move with your eye) are accompanied by misty swirly bits which sort of jumble the true image up.

Have one. You'd find it interesting. Eat more cheese !

I'll let the migraine post stand - as a demo and a warning

Look at this one closely and you'll see I'm still not quite right. Not quite up to catching those last typos.

The government might have money, but the people do not. Can you seriously expect the government to single-handedly help millions of its citizens? I think not. I think something like 5 million people were in the area, and most of those are currently experiencing problems. No government can support nearly 1/60th of its population without help. They're not omnipotent, no matter how much you think they are.

The thing is, donations to those people affected would not be donations to the US, but donations to the people. To the disadvantaged. It doesn't matter if they're in Indonesia or the US, they need help.

Besides, the US has helped dozens of other countries when their disasters struck. Earthquakes, tsunami's, tyrants...