U.S. Should Not Help Tsunami Victims

Ayn Rand Institute ^ | Dec. 30, 2004 | David Holcberg

[Grey Ghost II]

This thread had nothing to do with taxation. It's subject was whether our country (through our government) should provide disaster relief.

If you don't see that the two are connected, then do you support disaster relief and other hand outs to any one who asks?

[Atlantic Friend]

"As the other countries brag about what their governments give, I would like to see how much individual contributions are in each country."

You can get an idea of yearly (and thus not related to any specific catastrophe) individual donations gy going to "www.nationmaster.com" and clicking on the "Most generous nations" link.

[kidd]

Do you know of any private firms that have several large scale water purification systems that are operating, on a ship and ready to go?? >>Of course not, nor does the US Government

from source: http://usinfo.state.gov/gi/Archive/2004/Dec/29-174477.html:

"Lieutenant General James T. Conway, Joint Chiefs of Staff director of operations, was at the same briefing, describing the array of military resources that the Pacific Command is sending into the region. Five ships each capable or producing 90,000 gallons (over 340 kiloliters) of fresh water a day are heading to the Bay of Bengal. Two more U.S. ships with the same capability are already in the Indian Ocean and steaming toward the affected region, Conway said."

Or shall we wait for OXFAM to "scale up their drawings"?

[expatguy]

Aid is now at around 500 Million and there are an estimated 150,000 victims. That works out to over US3,300 per person.

So where exactly is this US500 Million going?

[Luis Gonzalez]

Our government prints currency at will, and engages in deficit spending. Foreign aid is little more than inflation control.

[chronic_loser]

Do you know of any private firms that have several large scale water purification systems that are operating, on a ship and ready to go?? >>Of course not, nor does the US Government from source: http://usinfo.state.gov/gi/Archive/2004/Dec/29-174477.html: "Lieutenant General James T. Conway, Joint Chiefs of Staff director of operations, was at the same briefing, describing the array of military resources that the Pacific Command is sending into the region. Five ships each capable or producing 90,000 gallons (over 340 kiloliters) of fresh water a day are heading to the Bay of Bengal. Two more U.S. ships .....>>>>

Sorry, did not realize you were referring to the onboard capabilities of ships to use water purification systems.

It is hard to respond in an environment like this, because you really DON'T want to be a whiner who said "BUT YOU DIDN'T SAVE THEIR LIVES THE RIGHT WAY." That said:, My criticisms are twofold:
1)Centralized plants that produce water are not NEARLY as as efficient as small purification distilleries that are spread out throughout the region. World Vision has been sinking wells and (consequently) making small purification stills, making the water sources potable, for over 40 years. I had rather have 9,000 ten gallon per day distilleries that people can use themselves than one big plant.
2)The people not geographically near these ships will die, or contract water borne disease, because they cant relocate to the places where the ships are.

The dialogue with you is helpful to me, even if we disagree. It has caused me to realize that I need to make another donation to World Vision, even if I disagree about our government illegaly using our moneys to fund this, rather than encouraging us to support groups that I truly believe will do it better, quicker, and more thoroughly. For that reminder, I thank you.

[kidd]

My key argument is that the US military is the only group that can get a lot of water there and get it there NOW. Time is extremely important here. Yes, private firms will be quite important, and their help is needed as soon as they are capable. Questions about "efficiency" and "centralization" are secondary to timing.

These ships aren't going to save everyone, but they will supply water for a million people, and they can be located where the water is needed the most - the heavily populated areas where cholera outbreaks are most likely to start. But most importantly, it can be done quickly.

The government is not doing it "better" or "more efficiently", but they can get a lot of water there quicker. Quicker is better in this case. Efficiency can be worked on next week.

[Howlin]

Remind me again WHERE in the constitution grants the president this "discretion" and I will happily call him a "fool" with you.

You, too?

Till then, you are just a little child engaged in name calling because you have run out of arguments.

I stated a fact; there are plenty of things the government does that aren't written into the Constitution.

Highways, for example; and I don't remember seeing anything in the Constitution about the internet, yet the goverment was a major mover and shaker in that.

Since you're such a purist, what are you doing using something that isn't named in the Constitution?

[Spiff]

You are a fool is you don't believe that the president of the United States doesn't have money to spend at his discretion.

Any money that he has to spend was given to him through specific legislation appropriating those funds for specific purposes. The legislation had to pass Congress. Sure, maybe Congress appropriated funds for a "discretionary" account to be used in aiding foreign victims of natural disasters. Congress has only certain powers authorized to it and must operate within the scope provided by the Constitution. Show me the portion of the Constitution which authorizes Congress to appropriate funds to give to the President for such "discretionary" uses. Neither the Congress nor the President can do whatever they want. They are limited by the Constitution. Just because Congress appropriates funds and gives them to the President doesn't mean he can do whatever he wants with those funds.

Maybe this massive tragedy isn't the best situation upon which to make this point. There are a heck of a lot of other things that the President and the Congress does which are not authorized by the Constitution. However, the truth remains that most Federal expenditures to aid the victims of this tragedy are not within the bounds of the Constitution.

The fool is not the one who points out that the Constitution does not authorize a thing. The fool is the one who insists that it does but fails to back up their argument by providing the portion of the Constitution which proves it.

[utahagen]

I never said anyone is stopping me from giving money directly to tsunami aid, and I have done so. What I resent is the government's giving my money away for me; I can do that very well on my own, thank you very much. (The snide tone is directed at the government, not at you, fellow freeper.

[Howlin]

The president has a contingency fund that he is free to use every single day; he does not have to account to Congress for one dime of it.

If he wants to spend more through an agency, he has to ask Congress; but not in a case like this.

The fool is the one who insists that it does but fails to back up their argument by providing the portion of the Constitution which proves it.

Kindly post the reply where I said anything close to that. I can wait.

[Spiff]

I can guarantee you, that at the bottom of the idea of foreign aid, the proper constitutional steps were taken.

I can guarantee you that they were not.

[Spiff]

Since you're such a purist, what are you doing using something that isn't named in the Constitution?

Pardon me for ever having the impression that you were intelligent. This has got to be one of the most stupid points ever made on Free Republic.

[Spiff]

The president has a contingency fund that he is free to use every single day; he does not have to account to Congress for one dime of it. If he wants to spend more through an agency, he has to ask Congress; but not in a case like this.

You've said that much. Show me the part of the Constitution that authorizes Congress to appropriate money for such a "discretionary" or "contingency" fund from which the President can spend any way he wants to.

>The fool is the one who insists that it does but fails to back up
> their argument by providing the portion of the Constitution which proves it.

Kindly post the reply where I said anything close to that. I can wait.

Um, you're really batting a thousand today. Look, I asked you for the portion of the Constitution authorizing expenditures on disaster relief for foreign nations. In response, you called me a fool for not believing that the President has a "discretionary" fund to spend any old way he feels like. You NEVER provided the portion of the Constitution authorizing such a thing. I simply pointed out that the fool is the one who can't back up their statement saying the Constitution authorizes a thing without providing the portion wherein the authorization is made.

[Howlin]

You are the one asking for the portion of the Constitution that authorizes it; I pointed out to you that there are plenty of things that we have and do that the Constitution doesn't name specifically.

Evidently you'd rather have the issue than face reality.

[Spiff]

You are the one asking for the portion of the Constitution that authorizes it; I pointed out to you that there are plenty of things that we have and do that the Constitution doesn't name specifically. Evidently you'd rather have the issue than face reality.

So, you're admitting that the Constitution does not authorize these foreign disaster aid expenditures?

[Howlin]

So, you're admitting that the Constitution does not authorize these foreign disaster aid expenditures?

I'm admitting you're beating a dead horse.

Are you actually contending that the government shouldn't pay for anything that isn't mentioned in the Constitution?

[Future Snake Eater]

Wow, thanks for posting that--I'd never read that before. It really puts a whole new spin on things, doesn't it?

[Luis Gonzalez]

"Article I, Section 9, Clause 7: No Money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in Consequence of Appropriations made by Law; and a regular Statement and Account of the Receipts and Expenditures of all public Money shall be published from time to time."

I backed my statement with the Constitution.

Now, back yours.

[Spiff]

Are you actually contending that the government shouldn't pay for anything that isn't mentioned in the Constitution?

Are you actually contending that the government should!? Where then do you draw the line? There are specific scopes within which the government must operate. You lamely mentioned the Internet. The Internet was developed as a defense against having our communications wiped out in a nuclear attack. The redundant connections allowed communications to continue even if several cities were annihilated. It was developed within the realm of defense. All I asked of you was to at least attempt to show some sort of Constitutional authorization for foreign disaster aid. Instead I get called a fool and told that the government routinely operates outside of Constitutional limitations and that I should just accept that reality and put a little ice on it. What you fail to realize that anything the government does outside of the powers and authority delegated to it by the people is usurpation and tyranny. I guess a little tyranny is perfectly OK with you. Some have less tolerance for such things no matter what emotion-driven wrapper that you put around it.