Wrong. Right away the answer is to always take money away from the people who've strived to build themselves a better life and have prospered from reaching their goals. If you tax the rich very heavily, then you cause the economy to decline. People with money fuel the economy. The more money that I make, the less taxes that I pay = more money that I go out and spend and fuel the economy.

That I agree with. When NAFTA was introduced back in the 90's, so many people thought that it was such a fantastic plan. I hated it from the moment that I read about it. ANd look what it has done to our job situation in this country.

Where do you get the money from to employ all these people? In theory your idea is real a fantastic one, but I'll take it a step further; If these people are going to be given aid from the government in the form of social security, etc., then the government can take part of your idea and pay these people with the social security that they are to recieve as pay for working to rebuild the areas that were destroyed. It would give them back a sense of purpose and at the same time help to rebuild their city. But no matter what, you always need volunteers to help out in matters of this nature. Experience is definitely needed in this situation.


Don Cardi

I couldn't agree more!


Don Cardi [/b][/quote]SO:

NO to - give aid to parts of the world were millions are dying from hungre, easily solved diseases like diarrea, and diseases that even don't exist in the western world anymore, like polio. Biggest example: 95% of the whole territory of Africa.

YES to - spending billions of dollars at a war to take away a gruesome dictator. Who btw didn't came close, even in a million years, to killing as much people as the things I said about Africa above.

Nice priorities Bush, AND other world-leaders, I'm not only blaming him, state.

You are twisting this around.

What's wrong with Plaw saying that our government should take care of the starvation problems and poverty that exists in our country before sending billions of dollars to other countries?

If you have a family, you feed your family. Yes, you make contributions to other families or people in need, no question about it. But if you allow your own family to starve and go out in public to feed other families, then there is something wrong with that.

Being that you brought this up, about the USA sending money to other countries in need, I must make a point. The United States has just been hit with a natural disaster, a devestating one. Basically almost a whole state is in ruins. Yet I have not heard of ONE country from other parts of the world pledging any help, be it physically or financially. If a country has made a pledge, then I apologize in advance. But I have not heard of one yet!

But when another country has a disaster and is in dire need of assistance due to some horrible natural or man made disaster, the USA is always one of the first to jump up and offer help. Where is the reciprication??????

But you get disturbed because Plaw asks that we take care of our own before outsiders.
No one is offering to help us now.


Don Cardi

DC you beat me to it (the last part of your post)

And that is a dirty rotten shame.

It disgusts me DMC. Others from all over the world are constantly bashing our government, our country and it's people. But get on the subject of fiancial or physical support for other countries around the world, and the first words out of the mouths of these others are " Don't worry, The USA will help." And help we should, for that is what we are. Yet we are the "arrogant nation." the " big shots of the world." :rolleyes:


But why is it that when we need help, everyone runs and hides?


Don Cardi

Yes, I was actually thinking of bumping the tsunami thread back up. This is the USA's tsunami IMO. Everyone can kiss our ass now. The next time something in Europe or Asia goes wrong, I hope we don't do shit about it. Screw them.

It was a fantastic plan. I'm not really sure what you mean when you mention the job situation in the country, since the unemployment rate is more than 1% lower than it was in 1993 (the year NAFTA was enacted). NAFTA also greatly increased trade profits between ourselves and the other participants, with value rising from $81 billion in 1993 to $232 billion.

Actually, it's really sad.

Don Cardi

DC, the USA is a rich country, that can take care of it's own, normally. If money is given to the right things (so not on Iraq, no primary at least)
Japan has earthquake's too, and they don't ask money from other countries.

I'm not saying that the USA should give all their money away, but they should divide it more, give more to poor country's than they do now.
And not only the USA, but all rich western countries, and that includes certainly mine.

To give an example: Life-expectation in my country is 78 for men, 82 for women. In Sierra Leone: 35 for men, 37 for women. I admit, the Sierra Leone info is two years old, but you can see the point, I think.

And I know the damage made by Katrina is huge. I may have been ironic in the past on these boards, but I'm not when I say that I really feel sorry for all those people.

Is this a serious post

If it is then I agree but with your track record Pat I have to ask

It was a fantastic plan. I'm not really sure what you mean when you mention the job situation in the country, since the unemployment rate is more than 1% lower than it was in 1993 (the year NAFTA was enacted). NAFTA also greatly increased trade profits between ourselves and the other participants, with value rising from $81 billion in 1993 to $232 billion. [/quote]But how many jobs were outsourced because of that Nafta agreement. how many US companies werthen able to hire people form other countries and take jobs away from American citizens because of that Nafta agreement?
Ever call DELL, who's based in Texas? You are connected to India, where jobs were outsources. Yes, the trade profits did increase for us, but that doesn't help the average working man or woman who has lost their job due to NAFTA and the outsourcing of American jobs. The agreement eventually trickled down to the working man and woman and cost many their jobs.


Don Cardi

Hey I agree with Pat. F*%$ 'em.

Our health care really isn't that bad compared to the rest of the world. Nations that have government run health care systems usually suffer from crippling costs, high tax rates, and long waiting lines. I read an article recently in the Wall Street Journal comparing the Canadian health care system to our own, and it showed quite clearly how nationalized health care isn't as good as it is made out to be.

You should also note that not everyone in the U.S. that is uninsured does so because they cannot afford it. More often than not, people just choose not to purchase it. This isn't to say that there aren't people who don't have the money, merely that the numbers of uninsured are misleading.

For those who really cannot afford health insurance, they can usually continue to get health care, particularly if they have emergency needs. My father is a doctor, and his practice (and every other that I know of as well) willingly treats those who are not insured, even though they will not receive any payment for their services.

If NAFTA had such a major impact on employment, why has the unemployment rate dropped from an average of nearly 7% prior to its enactment to around 5% currently? Of course jobs are sent to different countries when they provide cheaper labor. This doesn't mean that those put out of work won't find new jobs, and when companies can spend less on manufacturing costs by having goods produced in places with lower wages, they can often create more, better paying jobs here in the United States. Just because jobs are lost in one area does not mean jobs are not being created in another. Attempting to force companies to keep jobs here in the United States eventually causes more harm to the average worker as the company cannot afford to pay the wages required in the United States. Instead, manufacturers will be forced to cut jobs, while being unable to create new ones. In the end, free trade is almost always a better option than protectionism.

It was a fantastic plan. I'm not really sure what you mean when you mention the job situation in the country, since the unemployment rate is more than 1% lower than it was in 1993 (the year NAFTA was enacted). NAFTA also greatly increased trade profits between ourselves and the other participants, with value rising from $81 billion in 1993 to $232 billion. [/quote]But how many jobs were outsourced because of that Nafta agreement. how many US companies werthen able to hire people form other countries and take jobs away from American citizens because of that Nafta agreement?
Ever call DELL, who's based in Texas? You are connected to India, where jobs were outsources. Yes, the trade profits did increase for us, but that doesn't help the average working man or woman who has lost their job due to NAFTA and the outsourcing of American jobs. The agreement eventually trickled down to the working man and woman and cost many their jobs.


Don Cardi [/b][/quote]I agree with you DC. When our lack of morals president brought out nafta I knew it would suck for the American working man & woman. Giving our jobs to other countries who will work for less money was simply bull shit.

Is this a serious post

If it is then I agree but with your track record Pat I have to ask [/b][/quote]I'm 100 % serious. I'm sick of hearing about our problems at home and then turning the channel to seeing the US solving problems for other people in other countries.

Bah, you might be dead from a myocardial infarction, but damnit, it's "free" health care! Fuck those capitalist American bastards!

Can you make one post without trying to make someone laugh or one without sarcasm? Seriously. It's quite annoying.

Oh, I'm sorry. I didn't mean to annoy you with my witticism.

Chalk up a new one - annoying - good character trait for the list, which keeps growing every day.

Witticism?? There was a witticism there??

Of course! You just have to look hard enough.

I mean, why go for mere sarcasm, when I can use my rapier-like wit.

Besides, now that I know how annoying it is... :p

Some food for thought; I'm sure many would agree, but I think I'd have to fetch them back on the boards from their self-exile, since they've left, due to the attributes I'm about to list:

Blind
Illogical
Ignorant
Obnoxious
Hateful
Boring
Vain
Petty
Unsuccessful
Embarrassing
Pathetic
Ill-mannered
Hypocritical
Unhappy
Foolish
Pitiable
Wretched

Thanks for reading,
Mick

Of course, the first nation to offer us help is our great friend and ally Great Britain.

Don Cardi

Of course, the first nation to offer us help is our great friend and ally Great Britain.

Don Cardi [/b][/quote]I never doubted that Great Britain would eventually offer some kind of help.


Has anyone heard from the Hollywood finocios about how they plan on helping to raise money for this?


DS

I'm only listing the ones that people have recently called me.

Of course, the first nation to offer us help is our great friend and ally Great Britain.

Don Cardi [/b][/quote]I knew Great Britain would come through

Now let's wait for Russia.

Hell, Venezuela offered help before many European nations did, and a certain somebody just said that country's leader should get assasinated. I mean damn....

Yes, offering heating oil will definitely take him off the "25 Worst Dictators in the World List," and immediately make him eligible for the Nobel Peace Prize.

Although I was surprised to learn that some NATO countries, Russia, and others are pledging to aid the US. I guess they really do need us.

Meaningless help offered there! Chavez wants to make himself look good in the public eye by offering us Oil. But what the average person does not realize is that the oil that is being offered by Chavez is worthless. It needs to be refined and converted into gasoline, and right now that is our problem, no refineries! All the oil in the world would not help right now because it cannot be refined and converted into Gasoline or Heating Oil. And Chavez damn well knows this.


Don Cardi