There has been a lot of discussion since Athens about foreign swimmers training in the United States. Most of them attend U.S. Universities, receive athletic scholarships, and compete at NCAA's. Some notable examples include Duje Draganja (Cal), Fred Bousquet and Kirsty Coventry (Auburn), Markus Rogan (Stanford), and the South African sprinters (Arizona). Some train in the U.S., but don't compete for a university (Inge de Bruijn). All of these athletes benefit from U.S. coaching, from training with U.S. swimmers, and in some cases, from financial support provided by U.S. entities (athletic scholarships). They all turn around and then win medals for other countries.
A couple questions: 1) What do you think about this arrangement generally? 2) Is it of benefit or detriment to U.S. swimming to have these foreign athletes training and competing here? 3) Should we be giving athletic scholarships, which are a scarce resource in swimming, to foreign athletes who will represent their own countries internationally instead of U.S.-born swimmers who will represent us internationally?
I'm sure there are other issues, but these come directly to mind.
Originally posted by some_girl
As for your other question, no I do not think private charity is a reasonable option. Private charity is never disinterested, and I especially don't think people should have to endure prostelyzation to get help. Even the most reprehensible people deserve help and compassion, and a disinterested government is the best way to make sure people are helped regardless of their personal charms.
So, let me see if I understand you. You contend the only way to help people is to throw high tax dollars at inefficient gov't run program and agencies? Maybe we should all stop giving to charity and just give it all to the gov't, such fine stewards of our money they are. What in the world makes you think the dollars people give to church require prostelyzing? We give to habitat, soup kitchen, homeless shelters, women's shelters. If we never see a single of these folks in our doors, we don't care. That's not what giving is all about.
Are you also saying the gov't should dicatate how I spend my charity dollars? Wow, are you an American?
Originally posted by some_girl
As for your other question, no I do not think private charity is a reasonable option. Private charity is never disinterested, and I especially don't think people should have to endure prostelyzation to get help. Even the most reprehensible people deserve help and compassion, and a disinterested government is the best way to make sure people are helped regardless of their personal charms.
So, let me see if I understand you. You contend the only way to help people is to throw high tax dollars at inefficient gov't run program and agencies? Maybe we should all stop giving to charity and just give it all to the gov't, such fine stewards of our money they are. What in the world makes you think the dollars people give to church require prostelyzing? We give to habitat, soup kitchen, homeless shelters, women's shelters. If we never see a single of these folks in our doors, we don't care. That's not what giving is all about.
Are you also saying the gov't should dicatate how I spend my charity dollars? Wow, are you an American?
