So they wont pay for the foreign victims funeral cost or transportation back to their original countries?

Quote from VioletBobaTea

under most countries laws, if their are foreigners within the borders who are hurt or injured in someway, without other proper financial means, it's the responsibility of the government to accommodate the foreigner. for example, in italy, people visiting will have the same access to free healthcare as citizens of italy.

anyway, the whole situation was a result of poor infrastructure / urban planning - which the government is also responsible for. funding the transportation of the victims back to their homes is the least they can do.

poor urban planning...from the 1950s

Quote from VioletBobaTea

i could've gone in depth, but it's not the sort of thing i want to flesh out on a k-pop forum

yea LUL

I gotchu

Quote from Haolat

who won't pay? the government or the victim's relatives?? imo the government is only responsible for their citizens

I wouldn't want to visit any country that thinks like this. It doesn't exactly make one feel welcome! Especially given that the Korean government is largely responsible for this tragedy. If they played such a large role in the deaths of these people, which they did, then I think they can fork over some funding for their transportation back home. It's really the least they could do.

Quote from Kataphract

The foreign visitors aren't entitled to that money, dead or not because they had no part in raising that money and once its spent on them, that money's not coming back unless if someone else agrees to reimburse the gov't on that. Ultimately tax money is the people's money under the control of the government. Unless the people agree, its not supposed to be used outside of helping the citizens.

As a tax-paying citizen of a country whose government is always sending large chunks of its wealth overseas in the form of foreign aid, without asking anyone's permission, I got a good laugh out of this. Some of you sound really selfish right now.

Quote from jt3000

As a tax-paying citizen of a country whose government is always sending large chunks of its wealth overseas in the form of foreign aid, without asking anyone's permission, I got a good laugh out of this. Some of you sound really selfish right now.

That's actually the core of one of the older major political fights right now.

Most of the foreign aid seek objective goals and it isn't because "oh you're poor, have some aid" A main part of US foreign aid is "If I stabilize you, then the fights won't come back to my doorstep\ I can route supply routes through you\ I won't have to send military aid to restabilize the situation\ oil interests" Generally its actually a cost cutting measure; If you have smaller country you can proxy fight through and is stable enough to act as a firebreak to isolate the US, then they are a worthy ally no matter the amount of aid they need. Because no matter the amount of aid, the military costs are going to be far greater trying to gain that ally back from a civil war or when the UNSC eventually orders deployment of a peacekeeping coalition. The defense budget is big enough already; we needn't make the need for it to be bigger when we can avoid conflict.

On the flip side -- Should the money be spent internally? Reliance on shaky countries is quite the security risk in and of itself as it has been proven to regularly stoke hate within the locals, especially when US military personnel cause a scandal like Blackwater or the more recent mistaken predator strike in Afghanistan. Internally the money can really help - theoretically - clean up ongoing issues like the millions, nearing billions of holes in the FBI background check for guns (would contribute to a reduced rate of false negatives that lead to killings) it could help subsidize jobs for the homeless, and help contribute to infrastructure to lower the cost of internal transportation.

Transporting dead bodies out doesn't achieve national security nor does it help internal matters other than the saving cost of sticking the dead body into cold storage -- cents on the dollar for the electricity bill compared to the hundreds or even thousands needed for an international flight (especially to fly around certain flight embargos).

Governments are fundamentally selfish because they have no real source of income that hasn't already been generated by the citizens; it has no money of its own. There is autonomy in how it is spent (Ex: citizens elect officials who then vote on budget plans, forming a disconnect between the citizens and the actual expenditure of money) but ultimately the citizens who had to work hard for it only to give it up to the government would like to see that money helping themselves rather helping foreigners because they essentially gave that much in work hours for free to the government. It is the job of a government to look after its own citizens, even excluding those who didn't pay -- the IRS takes cares of those.

Again it would be a very nice gesture to help pay for the transport the body but there's no legal obligation nor a beneficial transaction to be made (other than making a nice impression to foreigners -- the post you quoted outlines why locals might be pissed)

Please don't mock my statements. Otherwise, if you'd like to point out holes in my argument, please do.

Quote from Kataphract

That's actually the core of one of the older major political fights right now.

Most of the foreign aid seek objective goals and it isn't because "oh you're poor, have some aid" A main part of US foreign aid is "If I stabilize you, then the fights won't come back to my doorstep\ I can route supply routes through you\ I won't have to send military aid to restabilize the situation\ oil interests" Generally its actually a cost cutting measure; If you have smaller country you can proxy fight through and is stable enough to act as a firebreak to isolate the US, then they are a worthy ally no matter the amount of aid they need. Because no matter the amount of aid, the military costs are going to be far greater trying to gain that ally back from a civil war or when the UNSC eventually orders deployment of a peacekeeping coalition. The defense budget is big enough already; we needn't make the need for it to be bigger when we can avoid conflict.

On the flip side -- Should the money be spent internally? Reliance on shaky countries is quite the security risk in and of itself as it has been proven to regularly stoke hate within the locals, especially when US military personnel cause a scandal like Blackwater or the more recent mistaken predator strike in Afghanistan. Internally the money can really help - theoretically - clean up ongoing issues like the millions, nearing billions of holes in the FBI background check for guns (would contribute to a reduced rate of false negatives that lead to killings) it could help subsidize jobs for the homeless, and help contribute to infrastructure to lower the cost of internal transportation.

Transporting dead bodies out doesn't achieve national security nor does it help internal matters other than the saving cost of sticking the dead body into cold storage -- cents on the dollar for the electricity bill compared to the hundreds or even thousands needed for an international flight (especially to fly around certain flight embargos).

Governments are fundamentally selfish because they have no real source of income that hasn't already been generated by the citizens; it has no money of its own. There is autonomy in how it is spent (Ex: citizens elect officials who then vote on budget plans, forming a disconnect between the citizens and the actual expenditure of money) but ultimately the citizens who had to work hard for it only to give it up to the government would like to see that money helping themselves rather helping foreigners because they essentially gave that much in work hours for free to the government. It is the job of a government to look after its own citizens, even excluding those who didn't pay -- the IRS takes cares of those.

Again it would be a very nice gesture to help pay for the transport the body but there's no legal obligation nor a beneficial transaction to be made (other than making a nice impression to foreigners -- the post you quoted outlines why locals might be pissed)

Please don't mock my statements. Otherwise, if you'd like to point out holes in my argument, please do.

Display More

Someone with a brain and an iq above 3 and gets it. Thank you, unfortunately so many people need you to spell it out for them to get the memo