- Mar 31, 2003
- 10,865
- 1,510
- 126
That money was to keep people alive in regions that don't produce anything. The money would have been better served relocating them to somewhere that isn't death as far as you can see.
So they stayed alive to repeat the cycle for another generation so their children will be in the EXACT same position?? Actually, they are in a worse position because now there are more children competing for even less resources...(food, housing, water, etc)...
It seems like now that every natural disaster is causing billions of dollars of damage...how can the world (i.e., the US), afford to keep giving money away when it is desperately needed at home?
