It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Bush frees up 32.8 million dollars for refugees

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 23 2008 @ 11:57 PM
link   

US First Lady Laura Bush on Friday announced 32.8 million dollars in new emergency aid for refugees and conflict victims in Africa, the Middle East, Asia, and the Americas.


Source

Gas prices at record highs, hundreds of thousands if not million of Americans displaced by floods, and the retard in chief wants to send almost 33 million of our tax dollars to "refugees".

Using tax dollars in this manner is unconstitutional, and Bush needs to be held accountable for yet another crime.




posted on Jun, 24 2008 @ 03:01 AM
link   
Gotta help your brothers and sisters.
Sorry if you don't feel the same way.
Contrary to what you might think, things aren't so bad in America.



posted on Jun, 24 2008 @ 04:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by PeaceUk
Gotta help your brothers and sisters.
Sorry if you don't feel the same way.
Contrary to what you might think, things aren't so bad in America.

The point here is that all taxpaying Americans are being forced to donate...The better way is to let those who have enough surplus resources to donate freely & of their own will. How does the poor man in a $#|+hole job who barely gets by under normal circumstances afford to feed his own family when the government forces him to contribute?
Check this out:

NOT YOURS TO GIVE
The Story of Col. David Crockett, a US Representative from Tennessee

One day in the House of Representatives a bill was taken up appropriating money for the benefit of a widow of a distinguished naval officer. Several beautiful speeches had been made in its support. The speaker was just about to put the question when Crockett arose:

"Mr. Speaker--I have as much respect for the memory of the deceased, and as much sympathy for the suffering of the living, if there be, as any man in this House, but we must not permit our respect for the dead or our sympathy for part of the living to lead us into an act of injustice to the balance of the living. I will not go into an argument to prove that Congress has not the power to appropriate this money as an act of charity. Every member on this floor knows it...

..."Every man in this House knows it is not a debt. We cannot without the grossest corruption, appropriate this money as the payment of a debt. We have not the semblance of authority to appropriate it as charity. Mr. Speaker, I have said we have the right to give as much money of our own as we please. I am the poorest man on this floor. I cannot vote for this bill, but I will give one week's pay to the object, and if every member of Congress will do the same, it will amount to more than the bill asks."

Later, when asked by a friend why he had opposed the appropriation, Crockett gave this explanation:

"Several years ago I was one evening standing on the steps of the Capitol with some members of Congress, when our attention was attracted by a great light over in Georgetown. It was evidently a large fire. We jumped into a hack and drove over as fast as we could. In spite of all that could be done, many houses were burned and many families made houseless, and besides, some of them had lost all but the clothes they had on. The weather was very cold, and when I saw so many children suffering, I felt that something ought to be done for them. The next morning a bill was introduced appropriating $20,000 for their relief. We put aside all other business and rushed it through as soon as it could be done...

..."The next summer, when it began to be time to think about election, I concluded I would take a scout around among the boys of my district. I had no opposition there but, as the election was some time off, I did not know what might turn up. When riding one day in a part of my district in which I was more of a stranger than any other, I saw a man in a field plowing and coming toward the road. I gauged my gait so that we should meet as he came up, I spoke to the man. He replied politely, but as I thought, rather coldly.

"I began: 'Well friend, I am one of those unfortunate beings called candidates and---

"Yes I know you; you are Colonel Crockett. I have seen you once before, and voted for you the last time you were elected. I suppose you are out electioneering now, but you had better not waste your time or mine, I shall not vote for you again."

"This was a sockdolger...I begged him tell me what was the matter...

..."It is not the amount, Colonel, that I complain of; it is the principle. In the first place, the government ought to have in the Treasury no more than enough for its legitimate purposes. But that has nothing with the question. The power of collecting and disbursing money at pleasure is the most dangerous power that can be entrusted to man, particularly under our system of collecting revenue by a tariff, which reaches every man in the country, no matter how poor he may be, and the poorer he is the more he pays in proportion to his means.

What is worse, it presses upon him without his knowledge where the weight centers, for there is not a man in the United States who can ever guess how much he pays to the government. So you see, that while you are contributing to relieve one, you are drawing it from thousands who are even worse off than he...

..."'Individual members may give as much of their own money as they please, but they have no right to touch a dollar of the public money for that purpose. If twice as many houses had been burned in this country as in Georgetown, neither you nor any other member of Congress would have Thought of appropriating a dollar for our relief. There are about two hundred and forty members of Congress. If they had shown their sympathy for the sufferers by contributing each one week's pay, it would have made over $13,000. There are plenty of wealthy men around Washington who could have given $20,000 without depriving themselves of even a luxury of life.'

So, morally & ethically, we should be helping out our fellow man in times of need...But it's not up to the government to force the cost upon all taxpayers, especially against their own will. At best, the government could help organize or announce public collection points for citizens to donate as they can, but there should be absolutely no public money involved.
Get the point?

[edit on 24-6-2008 by MidnightDStroyer]



posted on Jun, 24 2008 @ 05:07 AM
link   
if you were to have one of your neighbors have his car break down and in need of a new used car with no resources to get it, would you go out and run to the bank to take out a loan in your name to give him one?

this is what the government is doing, they don't have that kind of money laying around, they can't even come up with the money they are spending to keep themselves running, they ARE BORROWING THE MONEY!!!

do the unborn have the responsibility to be charitable to the disadvantaged halfway around the world also?



posted on Jun, 24 2008 @ 02:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by PeaceUk
Gotta help your brothers and sisters.
Sorry if you don't feel the same way.
Contrary to what you might think, things aren't so bad in America.


It's awesome that you and people who share your thought process can be compassionate when it comes to spending other peoples money.

Expenditures like this are Unconstitutional.




top topics
 
0

log in

join