You're misinterpreting Rayiner's point, and debating this in the wrong way. You're speaking from an ethical perspective, but Rayiner is not. He's making a point about logical sphere of influence - it's not cold and uncaring towards distant suffering, just not prioritized.

I'm sure Rayiner feels deep sympathy for places that are not presently near to him (such as India, in this thread).

If every major problem in the United States were already solved, it would be more reasonable to then try to help others solve their problems. But that's not the case.

If you have people suffering right in front of you, it just makes sense logistically to help them first. Helping our own homeless and unemployed would aid in stimulating the American economy.

The bottom line is that there isn't any sane reason why an American would prioritize the needs of another country before his own. Nor would it be sane for an Indian to prioritize America's while she lives in India. It just doesn't make sense. You tend to your side of the street first.