Why is america behind other countries...?

Post Reply New Topic

Helping the Haitians is great to do. However, the nations with nukes pointed at us have had them pointed at us for decades, as a mutually assured destruction standoff. They have leaders which are capable of being reasoned with (at least until Iran has nuclear weaponry) and even their mafias think in terms of money and profit rather than distributing gasoline on people for free and then igniting. Lending the Haitians a hand to help them recover is necessary, but they need to get their act together.

i personally dont respect a country that cant pull itself up by its own boots

It's not wrong to help those in need though. Respect should be earned though. The problem with giving help to third world countries is that they see it as an unearned income and therefore see no necessity in advancing when they are already being taken care of. Haiti has had a catastrophe, which is quite different from just being a nation in poverty mooching. They actually need help, not just desire free money. It is practically a necessity to assist them, and any other nation undergoing a catastrophe such as those affected by the tsunamis back in December 26th 2004.

Those Haitians who have emigrated to the U.S. are among the most hard working immigrants. There is a joke in the immigrant community how Haitians hold down 4 jobs and work 8 days a week. What has happened is the Haitians who have gumption and ambition have left Haiti. That means what is left on the home island are the dregs. A kind of Darwinian selection has taken place.

My guess is that United Stateseans do not know how to get through to the Haitians. That could be partly due to racial prejudice, but I think it is mostly due to the fact that Americans are unable to relate to the hardness of life which is common around the world. I call it the fat, dumb and happy syndrome.

ruveyn

You must be living in a time warp, Sand. The Jim Crow laws are a thing of the past, in case you didn’t know. Blacks are protected by hate crime laws, while whites, as Eric Holder admitted, are not (despite the fact that black-on-white crimes far outnumber white-on-black crime: see here and here). Civil Rights laws, as one-time head of the United States Commission on Civil Rights Mary Frances Berry said “were not passed to protect the rights of white men and do not apply to them”. And Affirmative Action quite obviously benefits everyone but whites. The current president is black (as you’ve probably noticed). Blacks in America as a whole have a higher standard of living than blacks practically anywhere else, and there are surely few places on earth where a black can earn 30 million dollars a year for throwing balls through hoops.

The fact that, despite all this, blacks as a group are still at the bottom of the American socioeconomic pile is largely down to a simple factor that reality-deniers like you don’t want to contemplate. Since you are presumably opposed to racial separation, I don’t see what more could realistically be done to satisfy people like you. Perhaps if America were to go the way of Zimbabwe and South Africa, that might cheer you up a bit – so long as you didn’t have to live there of course.

You really are out of it. Senseless to try to make you see reality.

+1,000,000

Look at natural disasters around the world. Who gives the most of anyone to those in need? Normally, it's the average American donating to charities to help these people. Whole governments abroad don't match what the average people of America kick in to help those in need.

Charity should be voluntary. Not everyone in need deserves to be helped. By a charity proving the beneficiary is worthy of help, people can decide who gets the help. When government does it, everyone must benefit and those who are not deserving quickly learn how to manipulate the system to get something they really don't need.

I wonder too if our culture is partly responsible. There seems to be this common attitude that the poor are only poor because they're lazy or drug addicted thugs who chose their plight. As a child I was raised to believe that only in America can one so freely choose their destination and make it in this country. This may be true to an extent if one comes from an affluent background. But for many who come from poverty or low income, it seems further from the truth. You get people who work full time in a minimum paying job or two they can barely get by on since the salary is equivalent to that of kiddy allowance. Then there is the lack of resources such as education which would help obtain a better paying job. Then you get ignoramuses that belittle the poor man's burden by telling him he's lazy.

It seems we invest more of our "charity" abroad but when it comes to our own interests, it's every man for himself.

Last edited by MissConstrue on 15 Apr 2010, 11:50 pm, edited 1 time in total.

there is nothting stopping these people from helping them selves. america spends how much money a year on infrastructure. hell even cave men knew not to dump sewage in the water they drink. they talk about these kids in africa parents dead no water and hunted by militias........why not join the militia. for what they are, they are pretty well equipped. im sure those guys dont have to worry about starving, or getting water. basic human survival isnt pretty but then again it was never ment to be. its not just the 3rd world, how many in the us would die if suddenly there was no power or no running water

because its out of step with western europe's social democracy of the last 40 yrs

That makes a lot of sense. There seems to be this perception that any attempt to improve the health and welfare of individuals below the poverty line is a form of socialism. Well god forbid our country turn into a commie nation.....*sarcasm*

along those lines socialist charity doenst get you in the papers. famous celebrities always give out money and time to places like africa and hatai or mexico. yet none of them even think about the impoverish here. i doubt some appilatian moss farmer will know angelina jolie. so why should she bother helping them there is no publicity in it

Aren't you getting married in less than a month? How do you plan to manage raising a family in your current state without a good source of income? On top of that, you have a reluctance to accept an unemployment cheque..

There is nothing socialistic about voluntary charity. Socialism has to do with collective ownership of the means of production. Private property is limited to what one can consume.

ruveyn

Oh yeah, according to a documentary i watched tonight, the reason why Syria is the way it is now is apparently the fault of the USA's meddling. Tired of their tricks, they joined up with the Soviets, and well... They said that it is kind of a pity because otherwise Syria would've gotten along well with the US. But that and the "unconditionnal" support towards Israel... <.<

Let's just say those inhumane treatments in contemporary Syria are rather reminiscent of sovietic communism (be taught to revere the leader while you're in school, not question the leadership, there's apparently 4 different "secret services" squads that report about what each of them are doing o.O, in order to even join the squads, you need to do a report on your best friend. <.< And let's not talk about the prisons...)

Soviets? What?