We Give To The Needy, Not The Greedy

I think I want to say, as it seems I am one of very few Europeans appearing in this thread, that I am pretty unhappy with Jsecures wording of the thread title. That despite his slight backing away, I cannot identify at all with the initial thrust of his posts, and that I and my friends in the UK are hugely concerned about the plight of the NO victims, and see no possible reason not to want to help them, which we do. The scale of this awful disaster hardly bears contemplating. Don't like these "redneck" insults, either.

This is why I don't like posting in these forums at times.

The last post implies I am not concerned about the victims of the crisis in New Orleans.

Concerned as I may or may not be, this thread is exclusively for exploring the movement of money between two of the richest nations on the planet. It's asking why central government USA might need funds externally to deal with the disaster.

Most of all of my questions have been answered. But as some people will be inclined to have a pop, I'll get MY statement in here:

"This thread has no relevance, intended or actual, to actual people involved in situations following hurricane katrina. Instead it explores the need of central government in the USA for funds, in light of the fact it is viewed as one of the richest nations on the planet".

Most people get that, but there will always be people out for a fight who will come here representing "Europe" or "England" or "Uncle Jed's back yard" who say I am being horrible to three people in particular in New Orleans by asking government fiscal questions. But I'm not. so I won't be keeping these people going with responses any longer.

Well see, I got insulted to a point, and then I'm only human. So even when I try keep a cool head, sometimes the odd insult slips in there. I'm not in government so luckily I can't be impeached or voted out, or I'd probably hire a speech team to edit out all my insults, as I suppose George Bush does every time he sees Michael Moore.

I thought the US was seeking international donations of a clue.

There's another economic factor: the UK and many other countries have huge investments in American ventures -- including, I would assume, some operations in the Gulf region, or at least materials that travel through the port of New Orleans. Beyond purely humanitarian concerns (which should never be discounted), there is an economic interest in repairing the labor pool and infrastructure for those investments.

With great respect. Jsecure, I think its too late to ask us to unpick requests from the US Government for contributions to their disaster fund, or the equipment pool for them to distribute (all otherwise funded from taxes). To unpick them, that is, from requests from voluntary organisations and other charitably funded or non- governmental organisations willing to take donations. To assume your comments were beyond doubt applicable to one but not the other.

You very first post above didn't say "The American Government". The people and the government are not the same, and helping one is not subsidising the other. Hopefully any voluntary efforts will improve the circumstances of the victims, not allow them to remain as they would have been, but at less cost to Bush.

It really is not surprising people took offence, and posthumously reshaping your message doesn't really alter whether they were right to do so.

And I don't understand your apparent comments about individual billionaires at all.

What is America's last name? What city did America grow up in? Is America a man or a woman?

Or is it in fact a country, and not a person. My point. I was referring to America the nation. Not any specific person or persons. That would be the third consecutive time I've made this same point, and it's getting repetitive.

My point is simply that "America is asking the world" includes requests from non-governmental organisations. Such wording in no way relates exclusively to requests from the government, for use and distribution by itself. Which it would have to do to render your defences valid, or so it seems to me. So for some people to take issue with you is far from unreasonable.
Has this particular point been made before, and shown to be invalid ? Sorry, I missed it.

You're nitpicking, and you know it full well. I'm going to ignore you now.

America is, essentially, a massive corporate entity, with its citizens as major shareholders.

What I find puzzling, J, is your apparent hyper-sensitivity to criticism. Your initial posts set the tone for a rather raucous debate. Your points of clarification have been helpful, but you seem to take great exception to those who have dissented. Granted, many of us have peppered our posts with hyperbole and impassioned rhetoric, but you have done the same, for example, by broad-brushing dissenters as "haters." It surprises you why, then, that several of us have taken exception with you?

And I challenge you, J, to re-read your initial post. Were you not making some very bold accusations?

At any rate, if you read my first reply post, I asked you some valid questions, which you have chosen to ignore. It appears that you would like for everyone to play by your rules, unless they apply to you, directly. Why, then, do you expect that everyone will treat you with kid gloves?

Lastly, you have to concede that the timing of your initial question/post was, at minimum, rather insensitive. Timing, as they say, is everything.

I don't remember being asked questions by you... I do a lot of posting in the forums. If I miss something, it doesn't necessarily mean I missed it.

And it's not that I hate people disagreeing with me, it's just that I hate people being negative with me. Plenty of people find a civil way of disagreeing with me, and it's fine.

Yes! I think it's just wonderful!

coco

But it's OK for you to post accusatory (read: negative) rhetoric? And, what do you consider to be civil discourse?

"My dear Jsecure, oh most learned one, I must respectfully take issue with the tone, nature and premise of your post. I fear that the millions of displaced evacuees might easily miscontrue the true intent of your post, quite possibly taking personal offense at what appears to be a curmudgeony response to a massive natural disaster. Kind sir, I hold you in highest esteem, and am only addressing your public actions and statements. Your intrinsic value as a human being is, of course, unquestionably intact."

Is that better?

Volumes

Long before the war, the current president's administration was running up a staggering deficit. The way this happened was that it tremendously cut the nation's revenue sources (taxes). This has been a means to an end in the past, and clearly that legacy continues. The Regan administration pioneered the tactic of social engineering through deficit by slashing taxes for the wealthy and then arguing for the years to come that cuts in social spending were necessary because the nation could no longer afford the programs.

I wonder what would happen if I cut my revenue source and then tried to shirk my responsibilities by saying "sorry, don't have the funds!"

All that said, the people of New Orleans shouldn't have to bear the brunt of this administration's backward thinking. Heck, I think it is important to remember that the Majority of the American people didn't even vote for the president they have first time around. AND if the supreme court hadn't intervened to stop the votes from being counted fairly, Al Gore would have been the rightful president.

Please JH, don't be silly. This is palpably untrue. You just said you were muting me for my last post, and I defy any one to point out where it was lacking in civility.

It seems to me you are just digging yourself deeper and deeper into a hole. The thread was a bit misconceived, and insensitively worded. The response you got was, at least initially, fairly predictable. I for one, fully accept that your heart is in the right place. Why don't we just drop it. But it's hard if you keep on digging the hole deeper, and flinging the sand into our eyes..