Vast Shadow: I'd like to correct all of your points.
BTW, I'm also in NYC while my family in the Hudson River Valley was badly affected (no water, electricity, heat--half the lower town flooded into the Hudson, above flood levels--fires due to portable generator burn-outs, etc.). I've been walking 4 hours to work and basically have been lugging and hauling supplies since before this hurricane hit.
In past (and current) disasters, the U.S. Govt. has declined foreign aid. The U.S. Govt. has the option of refusing foreign assistance/support. Plus our govt considers our nation a leader amongst developed nations, so it's also about pride. It's the same pride you perceive where you feel the US is the only one in a position to set global order (which is not the case btw--we need to work with other countries in order to leverage our economic, national security, trade, and interests). (read previous case examples here: http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2011/02/accepting-disaster-relief-from-other-nations-lessons-from-katrina-and-the-gulf-oil-spill) So please confirm your facts before you provide a statement which is false. Also, for this current one, multinational aid organizations which specialize in disaster response and recovery, along with disaster reduction, have offered. Most often, 'rich' or developed nations often decline assistance as a matter of principle and pride. It is not just the US. When Japan had their earthquake---the UN, NATO nor other countries marched in with troops.
But other nations did collect funds and contribute in donations. Same with Sandy---there are donation efforts being mobilized but before the rebuilding fundraising can occur, FEMA and national experts have to assess the level of damage to determine how much we need to build back better.
ANd your so-called notion of "free hand out" of aid isn't truly free. It's money invested in America's national interest because if countries collapse, poverty tends to push people into seeking jobs as armed mercenaries wherever they can (piracy, drug trade, human slaves trade, arms trade, and all this fuels terrorists, drug lords, and extremists---all of those groups are a threat to our national security)---look what happens in South America and Mexico---if these countries collapse, the chain of violence, criminality, and drug/human trafficking (don't forget terrorists and extremists in North Africa and the Sahel, this is also fueled by lack of govt capacity to police these areas or provide options for its people so that the entire area becomes rampant with North Africa al qaeda, pirates, and drug/arms runners).
We don't live on an island. We depend on other nations for trade, we sell to them, they buy from us. If their country is insecure and filled with war/conflict/terrorists/drug lords/pirates--the normal citizens of those countries cannot sustain jobs or economies..it's like you're trying to build a farm and someone keeps coming and knocking it all down so you can never get back up beyond poverty--this impacts us eventually because we then trade with less countries and also end up relying more on specific countries (ie: China)---while if the other countries, especially in South America, were successful, peaceful democracies---the domino effect of trade/jobs/migrants/drugs/illegal arms/criminality wouldn't go up that South American corridor up Mexico through the Gulf and Mexico and bite us in the ass (it already is right now). And it impacts us even if you're not close to there--the illegal arms and trafficked human slaves end up in some shady nail salon or "spa" in small town America or a poor area of a big city--it's guarded by gangs and criminals carrying illegal weapons where these trafficked people (often women kidnapped and sold into sex slavery), are forced into prostitution. Usually, those places also sell drugs and illicit guns and weapons you wouldn't think of passing through borders. Then if terrorists and druglords link up--the terrorists provide money and trade drugs for arms and large assault weapons.
It's a vicious cycle. So it's not "free hand-out of aid" and we are not immune to other nations if we decide to take an isolationist approach like the one you're approaching. We also can't be the best country in the world if the other countries are all collapsing and we're in economic dire straits---we need them to do well financially so they trade with us and we get things from them so we don't have to be reliant on China.
And if anyone is plundering--it's China--while putting its environment at risk and probably causing much of the pollution that is causing all the global warming (if you believe in extreme weather caused by global warming), that they put out from having to make so much cheap things for us and our big box stores.