America has problems, but America is NOT THE PROBLEM!~
Are we really?
Published on May 5, 2008 By Moderateman In US Domestic

I feel we are the most generous, giving nation on the planet, yet the most hated at the same time. I am old enough to remember when just being an American was a status symbol, now it is reached the point of something to be ashamed of. When did this happen? How did this happen?

We are always the first nation to respond with help when another nation has some kind of disaster, we give free medications, free health care to those that have none, feed and house those to lazy to work for their own sustenance.

Recently when I went to Canada, I struck up a conversation with a Aussie, nice man BTW, he mentioned if he were me that he would keep his American passport out of sight because it draws trouble, it makes me a target. I was stunned. A Target?? Just for being an American.

I ask myself why do we continue to be so generous to people that seem to hate us so much? Why do we continue to be "world police" when it is obvious no one wants us in that role anymore.

Robin Williams had it right when he said we should stop all forms of aid, ALL, including food to starving countries, medications to aids infected countries trying to educated them, allowing people from countries that hate us and have declared so, to continue to allow them to send their children here to be educated. Need help ask the European Union or Russia, or OPEC countries.

It is time we start to help ourselves, fix our infra-structure, bridges, highways, electrical grids, dams, schools.

How about we start helping our vets, who we treat like cast off garbage after they have put their life on the line, specially the ones that have come back with body pasts missing, or serious brain damage or mental health issues? How about helping the families that have lost a Father or a Mother forever while doing their duty?

We are so damn busy helping a bunch of ungrateful people, that our own country has fallen into serious disrepair. But it's not to late.... YET!!!!!!

Vote out the pork users in the House and Senate, lets get serious folks before our once great country becomes just another Use to be!


Comments (Page 1)
2 Pages1 2 
on May 05, 2008

We're not ugly! Just very opinionated and somtimes bossy!  And I fully love and appreciate that we are!  I think some of those countries forget that they wouldn't be where they are without US!

on May 05, 2008

Heya MM, where ya been?

 

Regarding your article, I hear ya.  It seems to be human nature to tear down the tallest tree in the forest.  All the other trees want the light!  But they don't understand that when you tear down the tallest tree, the next tallest tree just takes its place.

 

Once upon a time, I think all the "helping" was done for mostly the right reasons.  these days?  Well, I don't really trust our government anymore, and I don't trust the voters to vote on issues rather than some sort of appeal a candidate has for them.  So, I don't see it getting any better any time soon.  America has become a place where a lot of people believe that no problem is so great that it can't be solved in 20 minutes plus 10 minutes for commercials.

 

 


Americans, in large part, are spoiled rotten.  Even the poorest American doesn't light a candle in the suffering department to some of the people I've seen in the last few years.  Yes, choosing whether to eat out of the Burger King dumpster or the McDonalds dumpster sucks, and it's still a problem that should be fixed, but the poor I've seen are wondering if there is any nutritional value in dirt, and strangely enough are quite happy about their lives.  They don't know any better - literally.

 

The world media loves a good drama, and sadly many of the world's folks tune into TVs to find out what they're supposed to think today.  They eat up the drama about the big capitalist bully because everyone loves the underdog.  Of course this same media spends very little time looking at what we do for that underdog versus what anyone else ever does.

 

In short, I agree.  We oughta just stop and sew up the borders, issue a final "Good luck, folks" to everyone, and start concentrating on ourselves.  Some countries would do just fine.  Others would get invaded immediately and start calling for help.  Who would come, I wonder?

on May 05, 2008
Heya MM, where ya been?


Canada it seems.

MM, I understand the frustration. But it will never happen. We give because that is who we are. Thanks is nice, but never necessary. And in this case, will never happen.

They hate us because we can and do give. Others can and do not. Others cannot and dont. They are not hated because that is expected. But giving without quid pro quo is anathema to the rest of the world, and one of the major reasons we will never be liked. We shine a mirror onto their dark souls, and they hate that.
on May 07, 2008

foreverserenity
We're not ugly! Just very opinionated and somtimes bossy!  And I fully love and appreciate that we are!  I think some of those countries forget that they wouldn't be where they are without US!

I too love who we are as a country, but it's time to start taking care of our own.

on May 07, 2008

OckhamsRazor
Heya MM, where ya been? Regarding your article, I hear ya.  It seems to be human nature to tear down the tallest tree in the forest.  All the other trees want the light!  But they don't understand that when you tear down the tallest tree, the next tallest tree just takes its place. Once upon a time, I think all the "helping" was done for mostly the right reasons.  these days?  Well, I don't really trust our government anymore, and I don't trust the voters to vote on issues rather than some sort of appeal a candidate has for them.  So, I don't see it getting any better any time soon.  America has become a place where a lot of people believe that no problem is so great that it can't be solved in 20 minutes plus 10 minutes for commercials.  Americans, in large part, are spoiled rotten.  Even the poorest American doesn't light a candle in the suffering department to some of the people I've seen in the last few years.  Yes, choosing whether to eat out of the Burger King dumpster or the McDonalds dumpster sucks, and it's still a problem that should be fixed, but the poor I've seen are wondering if there is any nutritional value in dirt, and strangely enough are quite happy about their lives.  They don't know any better - literally. The world media loves a good drama, and sadly many of the world's folks tune into TVs to find out what they're supposed to think today.  They eat up the drama about the big capitalist bully because everyone loves the underdog.  Of course this same media spends very little time looking at what we do for that underdog versus what anyone else ever does. In short, I agree.  We oughta just stop and sew up the borders, issue a final "Good luck, folks" to everyone, and start concentrating on ourselves.  Some countries would do just fine.  Others would get invaded immediately and start calling for help.  Who would come, I wonder?

Thank you for your well thought out response and I agree with you completely {IMAGINE THAT?}

on May 07, 2008

Dr Guy
Heya MM, where ya been?Canada it seems.MM, I understand the frustration. But it will never happen. We give because that is who we are. Thanks is nice, but never necessary. And in this case, will never happen.They hate us because we can and do give. Others can and do not. Others cannot and dont. They are not hated because that is expected. But giving without quid pro quo is anathema to the rest of the world, and one of the major reasons we will never be liked. We shine a mirror onto their dark souls, and they hate that.

DocG they are going to hate us no matter what we do, I say fuck them, let them get along with America helping for awhile. see if they realize how badly they have misunderstood us all these years!!

on May 07, 2008
I think the problem is that America isn't consistently nice and doesn't really care what the real effect of their aid is.

US aid policy is fairly blatantly focused on a couple of agendas - foreign policy (most government aid), disaster relief (gov and private), medical aid (mostly private) and religious (mostly private) and various less significant relief goals.

Where aid is provided for foreign policy reasons it's likely to be targeted to support US interests. People can tell when this is happening. When a third-world dictator gets a governance grant and spends it on internal security, people know who to blame. When a democracy's opposition party gets a massive war fund courtesy of the US government, everyone knows who's responsible and why. This is problematic, but I suppose the thinktanks believe the short-term benefits are worth the long-term discontent. They may be right.

Disaster relief and medical aid are usually fairly popular, but they come with the caveat that they give skilled workers inside the country a desire to leave it (local doctors often abscond with foreign-trained doctors after working with them for a while, crippling the local health industry). So while an obvious positive, there's always that slight negative tinge.

Religious aid creates problems. This is its purpose. When you go forth into a country and spread the word, you're going to cause discontent among those who don't like change, those who don't like your religion and those who are easily provoked. Missionaries can be an ideal fit for a community, but it's not that common, and when it isn't you can turn the entire community against outsiders. Still, where the aid provides useful skills (like schools or hospitals) it can be popular.

Similarly, food aid is a terrible blow against third world farmers. Why? Because every bushel of rice or wheat provided as food aid comes in at a price no farmer can match. So they go out of business as they can't sell their crops. Then the country continues to starve because it can't sustain a farming industry but doesn't have the foreign capital to trade for food, nor the connections to sustain a constant feed of free food. So the farmers get angry at America for flooding their markets and destroying their livelihoods. Then they move to the cities and join the angry and disaffected slum dwellers, where unemployment further degrades the love for the outside world.
However, food aid can save a life. The line between give a man a fish and teach a man to fish can be difficult to get right.

DocG they are going to hate us no matter what we do, I say fuck them, let them get along with America helping for awhile. see if they realize how badly they have misunderstood us all these years!!


It wouldn't be a terrible idea. I don't know if the American people could handle it though.
on May 08, 2008
Cacto, while there is a kernel of truth in your response, it goes beyond that. You list "rules" as if they were absolute, when in truth they are isolated incidents that have no bearing on the over all policy. You cannot name any of your rules applied to Indonesia, or even attached to Myanmar.

No, the "rule" you do not mention, and the one that is overarching, is envy. While the old saying of "beggars cant be choosy" is true, it is also true that the beggar does not have to like the choice, and indeed, is often resentful of it.

It is nice to critique the largess of the American people. As indeed, I would expect no less. Yet 2 things immediately come to mind in your critique.

1. Are you going to cut off your nose to spite your face? That is what some are going to do. The "strings" that you mention are hardly iron wires, but more like silk threads. Easily borken, and only pie crust promises to start with (how many times have we seen a thug make promises to get aid, only to break it when they turn around?).

2. YOu have a nice litany of America's sins. Where is your list of the sins of the other nations? I dont blame you for not listing them. After all, it is hard to provide a list of sins for a nation that is nowhere to be found when the going gets tough (and just so you know, this is not mentioning Australia as they seem to go above and beyond their duty in all emergencies as well - and are notable for it because of their uniqueness outside of America in doing so). There is a reason that the old cliche of "no one criticizes the man who does nothing" applies in this case. If you never have any accomplishments, who is going to waste time critcizing nothing?
on May 08, 2008

cactoblasta
I think the problem is that America isn't consistently nice and doesn't really care what the real effect of their aid is.US aid policy is fairly blatantly focused on a couple of agendas - foreign policy (most government aid), disaster relief (gov and private), medical aid (mostly private) and religious (mostly private) and various less significant relief goals.Where aid is provided for foreign policy reasons it's likely to be targeted to support US interests. People can tell when this is happening. When a third-world dictator gets a governance grant and spends it on internal security, people know who to blame. When a democracy's opposition party gets a massive war fund courtesy of the US government, everyone knows who's responsible and why. This is problematic, but I suppose the thinktanks believe the short-term benefits are worth the long-term discontent. They may be right.Disaster relief and medical aid are usually fairly popular, but they come with the caveat that they give skilled workers inside the country a desire to leave it (local doctors often abscond with foreign-trained doctors after working with them for a while, crippling the local health industry). So while an obvious positive, there's always that slight negative tinge.Religious aid creates problems. This is its purpose. When you go forth into a country and spread the word, you're going to cause discontent among those who don't like change, those who don't like your religion and those who are easily provoked. Missionaries can be an ideal fit for a community, but it's not that common, and when it isn't you can turn the entire community against outsiders. Still, where the aid provides useful skills (like schools or hospitals) it can be popular.Similarly, food aid is a terrible blow against third world farmers. Why? Because every bushel of rice or wheat provided as food aid comes in at a price no farmer can match. So they go out of business as they can't sell their crops. Then the country continues to starve because it can't sustain a farming industry but doesn't have the foreign capital to trade for food, nor the connections to sustain a constant feed of free food. So the farmers get angry at America for flooding their markets and destroying their livelihoods. Then they move to the cities and join the angry and disaffected slum dwellers, where unemployment further degrades the love for the outside world.However, food aid can save a life. The line between give a man a fish and teach a man to fish can be difficult to get right.DocG they are going to hate us no matter what we do, I say fuck them, let them get along with America helping for awhile. see if they realize how badly they have misunderstood us all these years!!It wouldn't be a terrible idea. I don't know if the American people could handle it though.

All I want tlo know os when did it become out job to feed someone a fish, let alone teach someone how to fish>?

on May 08, 2008

Dr Guy
Cacto, while there is a kernel of truth in your response, it goes beyond that. You list "rules" as if they were absolute, when in truth they are isolated incidents that have no bearing on the over all policy. You cannot name any of your rules applied to Indonesia, or even attached to Myanmar.No, the "rule" you do not mention, and the one that is overarching, is envy. While the old saying of "beggars cant be choosy" is true, it is also true that the beggar does not have to like the choice, and indeed, is often resentful of it.It is nice to critique the largess of the American people. As indeed, I would expect no less. Yet 2 things immediately come to mind in your critique.1. Are you going to cut off your nose to spite your face? That is what some are going to do. The "strings" that you mention are hardly iron wires, but more like silk threads. Easily borken, and only pie crust promises to start with (how many times have we seen a thug make promises to get aid, only to break it when they turn around?).2. YOu have a nice litany of America's sins. Where is your list of the sins of the other nations? I dont blame you for not listing them. After all, it is hard to provide a list of sins for a nation that is nowhere to be found when the going gets tough (and just so you know, this is not mentioning Australia as they seem to go above and beyond their duty in all emergencies as well - and are notable for it because of their uniqueness outside of America in doing so). There is a reason that the old cliche of "no one criticizes the man who does nothing" applies in this case. If you never have any accomplishments, who is going to waste time critcizing nothing?

I await the answer to that one docG, great question!! btw!!

on May 08, 2008

1. Are you going to cut off your nose to spite your face? That is what some are going to do. The "strings" that you mention are hardly iron wires, but more like silk threads. Easily borken, and only pie crust promises to start with (how many times have we seen a thug make promises to get aid, only to break it when they turn around?).

man this is gonna be a lengthy reply. Sorry ahead of time!

This aid often has much more benefit for the donor than the recipient. Let's look at how this has gone down many, many times in the past:

Donor nation (that's us) goes to poor nation with offer of 45 billion dollars. However, donor nation will not give the money to the poor nation unless the poor nation passes laws that de-nationalize most of it's public owned companies. This means electrical, water, phone, rail, airports, mines etc. Also, donor nation will not give aid to the recipient unless recipient agrees to little or no tax on foreign companies, and change their laws so that foreign companies can come and go as they please (this means they can take their profits out of the country)

Recipient country makes changes that are demanded of them, then get their big chunk of change. Most of this money, they are told, is needed to "develop" their country. They have been told in advance that in order to join the big boys of the 21st century they need more power generation, better airports, and maybe a couple of big spa resorts (or mines, whatever).

Recipient nation takes this money that was loaned to it, and gives a big chunk of it to big engineering firms located in the donor nation. These are companies like Bechtel, Fluor, Halliburton, etc. These big companies come in and do do the job as promised to build facilities and infrastructure and they are paid handsomely to do it. The remainder of this money quite often will go to buy some shiny toys for the military (also purchased from companies in the donor nation) and then of course some gets spread around the top levels of leadership in the recipient nation (this is corruption, gotta love it)

Still with me? Good. So,  now we have a poor country with a big shiny new airport/electrical grid or mine. And, tens of billions of dollars of debt they now have to pay back (the money basically left the donor nation but then returned through different channels. But recipient still has to pay it back) The theory is that with this new development suddenly the country will start raking in massive profits to repay the debt. What actually happens is quite different. Remember all those strings attached to get the aid in the first place? Now foreign companies start moving in and buying up all the industries that were formerly publicly owned. Again, big companies like Bechtel and Fluor move in and buy the water system, the heating company, just about anything that isn't bolted down. Sounds good, only the nation also passed laws allowing foreign companies to move their money as they please. This means the money that these companies make doesn't stay in the local economy, it all gets carted back overseas (to the donor nation) as well.

Recipient still has to pay back all that money though. In order to make just the interest payments on it, they have to cut their spending to the bone. Social programs, welfare, retirement pensions all of that gets cut. Large sums of their taxpayer dollars (most of which is produced locally, remember they had to cut their taxes on foreign business earler) has to go to pay for a debt that was spent on foreign companies, that other foreign companies are now profiting form. In fact the only thing that stays the same or increases is military spending, as all those foreign companies now buying up the country like to have protection and there's lots of ordinary people now unhappy that their country is crumbling around them while they've been cut out of the picture. Quite often the recipient nation will still be unable to make payments, so donor nation says "no problem.... we've always wanted an air base/naval port in that part of the world you know" that, or they want further privatizations like the oil company, etc.

So, to summarize the kind of "aid" we're giving them, it's that only in name. In reality the aid is a temporary influx of money or material that only stays in country for a very short period of time, the fruits of which profit our companies while the recipient nation still has to foot the bill. It means big profits for our companies and big misery for the average person living in these countries as they watch what little national pride that does exist get bought up by big foreign business at fire sale prices.

One such real world example happened in Bolivia. Bechtel (big company in the U.S) purchased the water company, and promptly increased their rates so that basic access to water cost 25 % of the average monthly income. In a dirt poor country like this, the people simply couldn't pay. In this case, the company was too greedy and crossed a line- in response the people literally shut down the capitol and rioted in the streets. The government was so terrified of being ousted that they forced Bechtel out of the country and set water rates to something that people could afford. You know, so they could drink and all.

So when you ask why people see America as big and bad, it's quite often because of examples like what happened in Bolivia. The people there remember all too well the time that they couldn't have access to potable water because an American company took over and charged unaffordable rates.

Part two of my response to come! 

on May 08, 2008
All I want tlo know os when did it become out job to feed someone a fish, let alone teach someone how to fish>?


I never said it was. But when you do give people fish, they're not always going to be as appreciative as you would like.
on May 08, 2008
I never said it was. But when you do give people fish, they're not always going to be as appreciative as you would like.

Hell, I can live without us appreciated, it would just be nice if we weren't hated for it.
on May 08, 2008
Hell, I can live without us appreciated, it would just be nice if we weren't hated for it.


Unfortunately life isn't that simple. I've helped people personally and seen the hate it engenders. Many people can't handle the idea that they need help, and they resent that need and displace it onto their helper. It's just something people do.
It doesn't help that aid policy is nearly always carried out in the national interest of the aiding country (AusAID's mission statement/motto is "Assisting developing countries reduce poverty and achieve sustainable development, in line with Australia's national interest"), but you can't expect aid to make others like you.
When you force someone to think about you, it's very difficult to make sure they'll think positive thoughts. I don't think the US has access to the kinds of minds that can make that possible.
on May 08, 2008
I've helped people personally and seen the hate it engenders.

I hope it was only help they wanted.

I can understand the negative reactions to aid done mainly for foreign policy reasons and definitely the religiously motivated aid; but people complaining about disaster/medical/food relief is just plain looking a gift horse in the mouth. Oh, sure it might drive the local growers out of business, but (as you mentioned) the alternative is letting people starve. Maybe we should make the recipients work tilling soil to make more arable land to earn the food, or make them attend classes on modern agriculture techniques, etc... If we did, they would probably complain about that. We don't require them to do that, but if they did, the negative effects might disappear. Perhaps that is the real problem, you can't help people that won't help themselves.

Maybe I am selling some places short. I am sure there are a few places we helped that are success stories. But that too is kind of the point here, we don't hear about the success stories, and the drastic failures try to pin 100% of the blame on us...and almost all cases ignore the problems in the helped people's government and/or society that may have led to the original problem in the first place.

2 Pages1 2