Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Politics' started by KenH, Aug 22, 2005.
If what is meant by "humanitarian" is giving away billions of American tax dollars while throwing the national debt into never-never land, yep - he fits the bill.
Let's give some more billions of dollars to Africa so the warlords can get more guns and weapons to fight us with later on down the road.
So "humanitarian" means wasting money in a war of Bush's own choosing and creating a record deficit while ignoring the needs of the poor, the sick, and the elderly? There are many words we could use to describe President Bush, but "humanitarian" is not one of them.
I thought people like you, PA, liked to see the government spending money on welfare programs. Or does it only count in your eyes if it's done by a liberal Democrat?
Meeting the needs of the poor, the sick, and the elderly is the responsibility of you as an individual, and all of us as individuals. It is not the function of the federal government to take money from me by force and spend it on some socialistic welfare program that you like.
I agree, LE. I figured this column would upset the socialists/liberals amongst us. Apparently they only approve of welfare programs advocated by liberal Democrats, not supposedly conservative Republicans.
Folks like you and me, and others, are consistent in opposing this stuff regardless of who proposes it.
But since apparently we are going to have these socialistic giveaway programs I do hope they start being handled more sensibly.
What are your thought about humanitarian relief to Indonesia and Africa? Let me see if I got this right? Fighting AIDS in Africa - Good. Building schools in Iraq - Bad. Or, is it more of the ole isolationist garbage where you only take care of your own, and cross to the other side of the road when confronted with the suffering of the rest of the world? How compassionate the liberals have become now that their guy isn't in office.
You notice not even out of this administration
they use the term "compassionate conservative"
anymore because it was an just an election gimmick
to pull in liberal Republicans.
but I guess the new marketing ploy is "humanitarian".
The president can't give away anything. Congress must approve the funds. I believe that foreign aid started under that grreat president who got us into WWII, FDR and has continued every since.
If I am not mistaken it was you who called down the wrath of God on this country for turning its back on Israel. The lion's share of our foreign aid goes to Israel and has for years under both Republican and democrat administrations. Surely you are not going to turn your back on Israel.
I found it, I found it, page 4 of the Letter to President Bush from Jim Vineyard thread.
[ August 23, 2005, 09:25 AM: Message edited by: OldRegular ]
The ASP strikes again!
hu·man·i·tar·i·an (hy-mn-târ-n) KEY
One who is devoted to the promotion of human welfare and the advancement of social reforms; a philanthropist.
Of, relating to, or characteristic of a humanitarian or humanitarianism. See Synonyms at humane.
Seems to me like conservatives DO fit this definition. We ARE "devoted to the promotion of human welfare." We just attempt to accomplish it a very differnt manner from liberals, who often support policies that hurt some people as much (or little) as it helps other people. Have you noticed that the standard of living in this country hasn't increased much in the last several decades, even though families are earning more income than ever? Could it be that the reason most families have to have two incomes now, instead of one income in the past, is because they need that additional income to "make up" for the taxes that the government removes from their paychecks? Or, that without these high taxes, families would have more disposable income with which to voluntarily donate to worthy causes? Instead, Government arbitrarily decides what "worthy causes" are, like sending $300 million to California for road beautification, and forces all taxpayers to contribute?
Have you noticed that the standard of living in this country hasn't increased much in the last several decades, even though families are earning more income than ever? Could it be that the reason most families have to have two incomes now, instead of one income in the past, is because they need that additional income to "make up" for the taxes that the government removes from their paychecks?
It seems more likely to me that our consumer driven lives attribute more to two family incomes than taxes. We live in a society where everyone is trying to "keep up with the Jone's".
I know a few people trying to "keep up with the Joneses", but most are struggling to get by. Maybe my perspective is colored by living in one of the poorest counties in the country, but I don't think so. I've lived in roughly 20 states, and the standards of living haven't changed much in 30 years. Any income increases are swallowed up in increased health costs and taxes.