20 Jan 05
Over US$40M is about to be spent on celebrations for Bush's election. Wouldn't this be better spent helping people like the following ?
- Victims of the tsunami disaster
- Innocent civilians suffering in Iraq (see HTTP://rhp-ratings.blogspot.com)
- America's own poor
What's your thoughts ?
20 Jan 05
Originally posted by STANGLol Stang, I wonder if everyone gave 30.00 for relief, instead of subcribing to chess for one year, how much will that help?
Over US$40M is about to be spent on celebrations for Bush's election. Wouldn't this be better spent helping people like the following ?
- Victims of the tsunami disaster
- Innocent civilians suffering in Iraq (see HTTP://rhp-ratings.blogspot.com)
- America's own poor
What's your thoughts ?
Its our money, we decide what it does, as with Bush's money, Why pick on Bush? why not Bill Gates? lol
20 Jan 05
Originally posted by STANGHe at the lest get to have one day to celebrate.
Over US$40M is about to be spent on celebrations for Bush's election. Wouldn't this be better spent helping people like the following ?
- Victims of the tsunami disaster
- Innocent civilians suffering in Iraq (see HTTP://rhp-ratings.blogspot.com)
- America's own poor
What's your thoughts ?
20 Jan 05
I'm sure the needy would benefit whether the money was public or private.
It's definitely in bad taste and only goes to reinforce the negative perception much of the world has of the American nation. This, most regretfully, builds up to events like 9/11 and lack of support for events like the invasion of Iraq.
20 Jan 05
Originally posted by STANGYou're looking at this all wrong - the people putting up the US$40M (or whatever the true cost is) aren't just spending the money on a party. They're buying access to key decision makers.
Over US$40M is about to be spent on celebrations for Bush's election. Wouldn't this be better spent helping people like the following ?
- Victims of the tsunami disaster
- Innocent civilians suffering in Iraq (see HTTP://rhp-ratings.blogspot.com)
- America's own poor
What's your thoughts ?
Are the tsunami victims going to fund your R&D?
Can any Iraqi (civilian or otherwise) impose import tariffs on your foreign competitors?
Are the poor going to give you tax cuts?
20 Jan 05
Originally posted by richjohnsonA few comments:
You're looking at this all wrong - the people putting up the US$40M (or whatever the true cost is) aren't just spending the money on a party. They're buying access to key decision makers.
Are the tsunami victims going to fund your R&D?
Can any Iraqi (civilian or otherwise) impose import tariffs on your foreign competitors?
Are the poor going to give you tax cuts?
- Their business cases must be questionable if they have to sell them in such a way
- Why not get attention by publicising a fund to educate the poor
- 9/11 was about people getting attention
- Isn't America concerned that tsunami survivors will try to get attention in similar ways
20 Jan 05
Originally posted by STANGWhy don't you quote the amount that private Americans have donated to the tsunami fund?
I'm sure the needy would benefit whether the money was public or private.
It's definitely in bad taste and only goes to reinforce the negative perception much of the world has of the American nation. This, most regretfully, builds up to events like 9/11 and lack of support for events like the invasion of Iraq.
Why don't you quote the amount that the American Gov't has contributed to the tsunami fund?
I agree that 40 million dollars is too much to spend on Pomp and Circumstance and would have benefitted the three examples you quoted, except that I will put America's poor at the top of the list because only Americans will support our poor...you sure as hell won't...
20 Jan 05
Originally posted by STANGI know that talking with Stang is a waste of time, but what else am I going to do in Michigan in the middle of winter?
A few comments:
- Their business cases must be questionable if they have to sell them in such a way
- Why not get attention by publicising a fund to educate the poor
- 9/11 was about people getting attention
- Isn't America concerned that tsunami survivors will try to get attention in similar ways
Pay attention, Stang, afterwards there's going to be a pop quiz.
1. The $40+ million isn't dumped in front of the Capitol and burned as you imply.
2. The $40+ million is spent on products that people are employed to make. It is spent on wages for people who work the event.
3. The $40+ million circulates from the deep pockets of those who have it into the shallow pockets of those who don't.
4. So where's the downside?
5. And why is America's business any of your business anyway?
20 Jan 05
I wish Stang would point out things like the EU preparing to put up tariffs on Thailand (a tsunami effected country) if they do not buy so many of their new jumbo airliner Airbus 380. Does this sound charitable in the face of such human suffering? Would there be an outcry if the US did the same?
20 Jan 05
Originally posted by DelmerActually, I was trying to point out the downside, but sarcasm doesn't come off that well in here sometimes.
I know that talking with Stang is a waste of time, but what else am I going to do in Michigan in the middle of winter?
Pay attention, Stang, afterwards there's going to be a pop quiz.
1. The $40+ million isn't dumped in front of the Capitol and burned as you imply.
2. The $40+ million is spent on products that people are employed to make. It is spe ...[text shortened]... So where's the downside?
5. And why is America's business any of your business anyway?
The problem is that the normal rules governing political contributions do not apply to the innaguration, so what happens is industry lobbyists descend on D.C. and try to but up as many policy makers as they can with hookers and handouts. This results in the administration making policies which benefit their benefactors, rather than the nation as a whole.
20 Jan 05
Originally posted by richjohnsonNow wait a minute. Are you telling me that hookers are able to permeate "family values" ideology and right wing evangelical Christianity? How can this be? IF this be so, why are we not sending hookers to Iraq?
Actually, I was trying to point out the downside, but sarcasm doesn't come off that well in here sometimes.
The problem is that the normal rules governing political contributions do not apply to the innaguration, so what happens is industry lobbyists descend on D.C. and try to but up as many policy makers as they can with hookers and handouts. This ...[text shortened]... ministration making policies which benefit their benefactors, rather than the nation as a whole.
20 Jan 05
Originally posted by kirksey957I'm not referring to the people who voted for Bush, I'm talking about the people that work for him and other elected officials. Lobbyists are quite good at finding out who to bribe and what they want. Nobody has a moral aversion to cash, as far as I know, at least not any politicians or their cronies.
Now wait a minute. Are you telling me that hookers are able to permeate "family values" ideology and right wing evangelical Christianity? How can this be? IF this be so, why are we not sending hookers to Iraq?
20 Jan 05
Originally posted by chancremechanicHow much has been donated?
Why don't you quote the amount that private Americans have donated to the tsunami fund?
Why don't you quote the amount that the American Gov't has contributed to the tsunami fund?
I agree that 40 million dollars is too much to spend on Pomp and Circumstance and would have benefitted the three examples you quoted, except that I will put Americ ...[text shortened]... at the top of the list because only Americans will support our poor...you sure as hell won't...