Why have working americans always gotten angry at the government for welfare, but not angry about all the money given to other countries? Which is a much larger amount than welfare ever was. I, as a working individual, would much rather help a person who is having a hard time finding a job here-than someone I don't even know about. I would much rather help a family with children who can't support their self than give money to some other country who may later attack ours.
2006-09-25 12:52:55 · 12 answers · asked by AveGirl 5 in Society & Culture ➔ Community Service
Generally speaking, other nations are more likely to turn to violence if their economies are worse, not better. So when first world nations use monetary assistance to help other nations, they're protecting themselves, not setting themselves up for later attacks. Not only that, but if through assistance a second or third world nation can develop a functioning economy, it creates new international trade areas for businesses, which makes all economies stronger.
2006-09-25 12:57:07 · answer #1 · answered by Paul J 3 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Your asking a question making a false assumption in your statement, "Why have working Americans gotten angry at the government for welfare but not angry about money spent on other countries". I'll let you in on a little know thing called information. It's not welfare that Americans are so upset about it's what the government says it's going to do with the money like put it in a lock box and then spending it on pork barrel projects that serve no real purpose for the public interest. I have no problem donating money to impoverished countries nor do I have a problem with financing a coup to over throw a dictatorship country. I do have a problem with throwing money at a problem with a lame policy, domestic or foreign. Now giving money to countries that end up turning on us is a military and diplomatic dance in the world community and when are government has to make the hard choices for us in order to protect us it's a gamble and a necessary evil I'm willing to take.
2006-09-25 23:16:11 · answer #2 · answered by warlock785 2 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Someone just pissed me off with their answer. Recently, a study has been released that indicated that the average welfare recipient receives less than eight years worth of benefits, and the system is making it hard for those that do need it to remain on it.
These people wouldn't be on welfare if they could find a job. You try finding a job when you have less than a high school education, don't have nice clothes for an interview, and have no bus fare to get there! And working at McDonald's does not support anyone. As for having kids, well...if you had nothing, at least you would still have sex. Welfare doesn't create the recipients, society does.
My coworkers and I asked the same question today, but relating to starving people. Hmmm...the fattest country has a lot of starving citizens. Isn't that American?
Anyway, I agree with you.
2006-09-26 00:53:10 · answer #3 · answered by the_rising_goddess 2 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Welfare was set up in the depression. It was for folks who could not find work. The government has messed the system up so bad they don't know how to fix it. Here are some ways to fix things instead of penalizing people who try to work. first make it if you work we will help you. If you can work then we will help you file for programs that you are intitled to and while you are waiting for that to come through, we will help you. People can find jobs but the government has made it so it is better not to work and especially if you have children and the more you can have the more you get. The government has made welfare recipients dependant on them. Let them work and make some money and develope some self worth, support them and thier children with insurance so they can go to the doctor, there for allowing for less time away from work, school and less hsopital visits and stays. If parents who need medical insurance could take thier children to the doctor more often we could cut our expenditures in half or more and that comes to trillions. The government can;t see this. They only see black and white. You work or you don't. Your kids get medicaid and you don't work and you can feed them or you work for minimum wage we cute all your benifits and you are double below the poverty level and your children are sicker, you are sicker and you have twice the problems. Does anyone else see this but me.
2006-09-25 20:03:40 · answer #4 · answered by dgbrsand1 3 · 2⤊ 0⤋
Maybe the people receiving welfare in the U.S. have an opportunity to work and are healthy and well fed but won't work in many cases...some people in other countries have no food or opportunity and are in life threatening situations. Money spent Overseas is also an investment in that country for future U.S. interventions.
I am not saying that I agree with money sent overseas...when it could be spent on needy American citizens...I am just saying that this is Governmental justification. I agree with dgbrsand..
2006-09-25 20:05:03 · answer #5 · answered by toe poe gee gee oh 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋
I agree. I am often baffled as to why we use so much money for foreign affairs. Billions dollars go to helping other countries with their war efforts, efforts that create more economical problems for Americans.
2006-09-25 19:55:53 · answer #6 · answered by Elkie 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Most of us cannot see the big picture and are informed only in our own personal situation.
2006-09-25 19:55:21 · answer #7 · answered by beez 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Personally, I'm tired of supporting all of them! I'd really rather keep all my money myself.
2006-09-25 19:55:11 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
They'd probably be angry if they knew how extensive aid to other countries is.
2006-09-26 17:43:41 · answer #9 · answered by nursesr4evr 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I think you have a great point.
Vote in November.
2006-09-25 20:00:37 · answer #10 · answered by moebiusfox 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋