Why is it that the American society seems to not care about the rest of the world? I know that there are people who care but as the supposedly "most powerful" country in the world, we could do a lot more to help people who are less fortunate. Any ideas?

Comments

• I agree. We spend so much time worrying about other nations when our own people are struggling to heat their homes.

  • Report
  

  by cristnalyn on February 1st, 2007

• Sad, but so very true.

  • Report
  

  by Wolfen on February 1st, 2007

Comments

• It's true that the US does give a lot of money, but as you said at the end, there needs to be a better method of putting the money to good use. Look at the relatively recent problem of the US Government 'loosing' a HUGE amount of cash in Iraq for aid. I'm not saying there's a conspiracy, merely that there needs to be some work done to improve the methods : D (They literally just shipped $100 bills over to Iraq in crates as 'aid', and a lot of it was lost). As well with what you've said, the US gives the most $'s per year, but the least % of their income. The US Government spends anywhere from 15%-50% of their total income on the Military, but 0.16% (from what you said) on Foreign Aid... They are disgusting figures, that's like $50b in Aid, $200-500b in Military... They have their priorities woefully wrong : /

  • Report
  

  by Twhupfold on April 3rd, 2007

Comments

Comments

• Awesome!

  • Report
  

  by New Elian on October 4th, 2011

Comments

• Problem as I see it is that the world is now a much smaller place, and everyone is part of a single community, broken up into multiple countries. It is thus the responsibility of all countries to support those less able, each individual within each country should give what they can, and each government should give what they can, not what they want *shrugs* (Also I dunno how entirely valid the private donation thing is, considering America is home to most of the wealthiest people on earth, Bill Gates has for example given over $30b since his charity was founded, and that is just -one- person, there are others too who have given many billions from their own pockets, and good on them for that, but also shame on them for not giving so much more really : / (Gates for example, could give 99.9% of his wealth, literally, and still live in complete gluttony for the rest of his life if he wanted to.)

  • Report
  

  by Twhupfold on April 3rd, 2007

• You know? I find it interesting how certain people seem to feel that they are entitled to the fruits of the labors of other. This is one of the problems with many welfare programs. Rather than being grateful for what they are given, they start feeling entitled to it and more. What one person gives in charity is no one's business but the giver's. Bill Gates gives billions of dolars for charity, but that is not good enough for you. He has to give all of his money away. He worked hard and made very shrood decissions to get where he is. He is entitled to enjoy the fruits of his labors.

  • Report
  

  by Glenn Blaylock on April 3rd, 2007

• There's a difference between letting people 'live off you', and letting people 'live'. I truly respect Bill Gates for the charity work he does, but he, as well as many other people could do SO MUCH MORE. When you are sitting on $60-70 billion dollars & rising, you can give away $59-69 billion dollars and still have more than most people will ever see in their entire lives, regardless of -anything- they do. Please don't try to turn me into the 'bad guy', I'm really sick of people doing that to me ; ) Using Bill as an example again, he gives away huge amounts of money, which is great! But he still has more in his wallet than he can physically spend in 3 lifetimes, and is STILL earning a lot more money. He isn't a good example I admit, because when he gives to charity, he makes SURE it goes to good use, much more than can be said of other people. I use him because he is a well known name, and people are usually aware of just how much money he has, and will continue to earn over time

  • Report
  

  by Twhupfold on April 3rd, 2007

• Just on a little side note, have you ever been to Africa for example and 'seen' the poverty? I'm a little shocked you'd say "I find it interesting how certain people seem to feel that they are entitled to the fruits of the labors of other." at all, even jokingly... Honestly, if only once in your life, go and witness the horrors of reality first hand, it could change your heart for the better : /

  • Report
  

  by Twhupfold on April 3rd, 2007

• The problem with Africa is that they have had to suffer under corrupt governments that won't allow the people to prosper. You can give those people all of the money in the world. However, until they can live in true freedom, without the problems of constant civil wars and dictatorial governments, that money is not going to do them any good.

  • Report
  

  by Glenn Blaylock on April 4th, 2007

• That is in the worst parts, there are other areas which are simply lacking in self-sustaining agriculture, or have wide-spread disease, etc. In the worst areas you still have charity organisations doing their part, but of course they are greatly hindered and can often do little to help those truly in need. Just an idle thought, but surely the Armies of the world would be better put to use in Africa to end the corruption and civil war, then get the country back on it's feet? I'm yet to understand why governments don't do as much as they could to help in Africa... (Short of that old 'there aren't many natural resources there, so countries don't want to help' thing, which I find hard to believe is the only reason) : (

  • Report
  

  by Twhupfold on April 4th, 2007

• You know, I find the double standard here truly breathtaking. Just about any time we actually try to use our military to free an oppressed people we get accused of nation building and/or trying to steal the nation's resources. In such situations people like you keep asking what right do we have to impose our values on others. On the other hand, if we sit back and try to get other countries to take the lead, then we are accused of not doing enough. You can't have it both ways. So, what is it going to be? Are we supposed police the world or aren't we? When you can get a consensus from the rest of the world on this then get back to me.

  • Report
  

  by Glenn Blaylock on April 5th, 2007

• Keep in mind the overwhelming support the US had for the initial invasion of Iraq, also try to remember the declining state of affairs in the region 'since' that invasion... Also, Iraq was a country ruled by a dictator & a corrupt government, but it was still a sustainable country, the people living in it could live with sufficient food & water, shelter, etc, albeit in poverty & oppression. The situation in the bad parts of Africa is beyond the worst imaginations of many people living in industrialised countries. People literally can not live; people have been born and died in the millions so far, disease is spreading, famine is widespread, war raging, and there is little that can be done without a serious military involvment to remove the corrupt governments. Consider an absolute -worst case- scenario, Iraq has a population of around 27million, Sub-Saharan Africa several hundred million... It is a far greater problem, many orders of magnitude larger than the Middle-East is currently... I hate to put numbers on such horrible events, but it might help to understand the HUGE differences in scale & situation between the two...

  • Report
  

  by Twhupfold on April 5th, 2007

• And I would point out that we tried to do something about that in Somalia. What did that get us? Lots of criticism, accusations of nation building and Blackhawk Down. It does not matter where we go. We are vilified whatever we do.

  • Report
  

  by Glenn Blaylock on April 5th, 2007

• Well, that's not right then, people shouldn't criticise the US at every turn. I'm thinking it probably has quite a bit to do with the media's portrayal of the events, much like how a lot of people criticise the Iraq war in ever regard, just because the media says it's wrong.

  • Report
  

  by Twhupfold on April 5th, 2007

• I will agree with you on that. The media wants us to lose that war. So, they only really report the bad news. They don't, for example, tell how many of the Suni leaders in the Unbar provence are now turn on the terrorists. (This is an area that was once one of the terrorist strongholds.)

  • Report
  

  by Glenn Blaylock on April 5th, 2007

Comments

Comments

Comments

Comments

Comments

Comments

Comments

Comments