Total Posts:18|Showing Posts:1-18
Jump to topic:

Pull All Foreign Aid Until US Econ. is Fixed

Hambone
Posts: 18
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/18/2011 12:59:15 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
Doesn't it make sense to pull all of our foreign aid until we can start paying our own bills? I think giving the billions and billions of dollars in foreign aid we give other countries is great, however, I don't think it's prudent to give it when we could default on our own bills in the next couple of weeks. Let's say you gave a homeless guy on your street two dollars every week, would you still give it to him if you only had a dollar in the bank? I'm not saying we give up on it completely, but for a year or two, and it seems like we could probably right our own ship, then get back to helping others.
Hot and Dangerous
freedomsquared
Posts: 450
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/18/2011 1:06:39 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
While your idea is well meaning, it is inherently flawed. Less than 1% of the budget is put to foreign aid, an amount so insignificant that it would have little to no effect if we were to allocate those resources to our own country. Secondly, the money we spend overseas serves our interests both politically and economically. Politically it shows our good will and fosters friendly diplomatic relations with other nations. Economically, it helps both established countries remain prosperous and growing countries become prosperous (to a certain extent). The world economy is so intertwined that rising of many third-world countries economically can only help the global market, and thus the United States.
But it's Norway, sort of the Canada of Europe."
-innomen

http://www.debate.org...
-humorous debate with brian_eggleston

http://www.debate.org...
-tournament debate, need votes
darkkermit
Posts: 11,204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/18/2011 1:22:56 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 7/18/2011 1:06:39 PM, freedomsquared wrote:
While your idea is well meaning, it is inherently flawed. Less than 1% of the budget is put to foreign aid, an amount so insignificant that it would have little to no effect if we were to allocate those resources to our own country. Secondly, the money we spend overseas serves our interests both politically and economically. Politically it shows our good will and fosters friendly diplomatic relations with other nations. Economically, it helps both established countries remain prosperous and growing countries become prosperous (to a certain extent). The world economy is so intertwined that rising of many third-world countries economically can only help the global market, and thus the United States.

Foreign aid helps keep nations poor. It changes the incentive of government. Instead of government officials helping its own citizens, government officials actually benefit from the nation remaining poor, since it ensures that the nation will get foreign aid. And when we say "nation", it is really the politicians getting the aid, not those actually starving.
Open borders debate:
http://www.debate.org...
freedomsquared
Posts: 450
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/18/2011 1:26:02 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 7/18/2011 1:22:56 PM, darkkermit wrote:
At 7/18/2011 1:06:39 PM, freedomsquared wrote:
While your idea is well meaning, it is inherently flawed. Less than 1% of the budget is put to foreign aid, an amount so insignificant that it would have little to no effect if we were to allocate those resources to our own country. Secondly, the money we spend overseas serves our interests both politically and economically. Politically it shows our good will and fosters friendly diplomatic relations with other nations. Economically, it helps both established countries remain prosperous and growing countries become prosperous (to a certain extent). The world economy is so intertwined that rising of many third-world countries economically can only help the global market, and thus the United States.

Foreign aid helps keep nations poor. It changes the incentive of government. Instead of government officials helping its own citizens, government officials actually benefit from the nation remaining poor, since it ensures that the nation will get foreign aid. And when we say "nation", it is really the politicians getting the aid, not those actually starving.


Then we need to change the way that aid is given. Just because foreign aid has been executed poorly does not mean that it is fundamentally wrong. Change the execution, not the goal.
But it's Norway, sort of the Canada of Europe."
-innomen

http://www.debate.org...
-humorous debate with brian_eggleston

http://www.debate.org...
-tournament debate, need votes
GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/18/2011 1:49:04 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
All foreign aid needs to stop period. That's the bottom line.

As Ron Paul rightly says, foreign aid is just stealing money from poor people in this country and giving it to rich dictators in other countries.

I don't like the idea of that at all and I don't know why the American people stand for that. It's absurd.

If people want to be charitible, they can, but it shouldn't be forced. I give money to homeless people all the time when I can, but will not be forced to and I shouldn't be.
"We must raise the standard of the Old, free, decentralized, and strictly limited Republic."
-- Murray Rothbard

"The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended."
-- Frederic Bastiat
freedomsquared
Posts: 450
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/18/2011 1:55:18 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 7/18/2011 1:49:04 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
All foreign aid needs to stop period. That's the bottom line.

As Ron Paul rightly says, foreign aid is just stealing money from poor people in this country and giving it to rich dictators in other countries.

As much as I like Ron Paul, you can't simplify the issue so much. There is no reason to believe that all that money would go to our poor if it wasn't given overseas. It could just as easily be used on military spending or earmark programs that have no direct effect on the poor.

I don't like the idea of that at all and I don't know why the American people stand for that. It's absurd.
We believe that we derive more benefit from foreign aid than it harms us.

If people want to be charitible, they can, but it shouldn't be forced. I give money to homeless people all the time when I can, but will not be forced to and I shouldn't be.

I completely agree with the idea that forced charity is not charity at all. However, this includes a wider issue about taxes as a whole, and whether or not it is just to take someone's property through coercion. I am basing my comments off the premise that the evil of taxation has already been executed, and that we are now discussing the distribution of its spoils.
But it's Norway, sort of the Canada of Europe."
-innomen

http://www.debate.org...
-humorous debate with brian_eggleston

http://www.debate.org...
-tournament debate, need votes
darkkermit
Posts: 11,204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/18/2011 1:55:46 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 7/18/2011 1:26:02 PM, freedomsquared wrote:
At 7/18/2011 1:22:56 PM, darkkermit wrote:
At 7/18/2011 1:06:39 PM, freedomsquared wrote:
While your idea is well meaning, it is inherently flawed. Less than 1% of the budget is put to foreign aid, an amount so insignificant that it would have little to no effect if we were to allocate those resources to our own country. Secondly, the money we spend overseas serves our interests both politically and economically. Politically it shows our good will and fosters friendly diplomatic relations with other nations. Economically, it helps both established countries remain prosperous and growing countries become prosperous (to a certain extent). The world economy is so intertwined that rising of many third-world countries economically can only help the global market, and thus the United States.

Foreign aid helps keep nations poor. It changes the incentive of government. Instead of government officials helping its own citizens, government officials actually benefit from the nation remaining poor, since it ensures that the nation will get foreign aid. And when we say "nation", it is really the politicians getting the aid, not those actually starving.


Then we need to change the way that aid is given. Just because foreign aid has been executed poorly does not mean that it is fundamentally wrong. Change the execution, not the goal.

Quite frankly, the American government really has no incentive to execute it properly. As long as it looks charitable, but creates disastrous results, who cares?

Free market charities are the most effective, since it holds the charities personally accountable. If I find that my charity money is going to corrupt politicians, I simply will not donate.
Open borders debate:
http://www.debate.org...
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/18/2011 2:14:28 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 7/18/2011 1:55:46 PM, darkkermit wrote:
At 7/18/2011 1:26:02 PM, freedomsquared wrote:
At 7/18/2011 1:22:56 PM, darkkermit wrote:
At 7/18/2011 1:06:39 PM, freedomsquared wrote:
While your idea is well meaning, it is inherently flawed. Less than 1% of the budget is put to foreign aid, an amount so insignificant that it would have little to no effect if we were to allocate those resources to our own country. Secondly, the money we spend overseas serves our interests both politically and economically. Politically it shows our good will and fosters friendly diplomatic relations with other nations. Economically, it helps both established countries remain prosperous and growing countries become prosperous (to a certain extent). The world economy is so intertwined that rising of many third-world countries economically can only help the global market, and thus the United States.

Foreign aid helps keep nations poor. It changes the incentive of government. Instead of government officials helping its own citizens, government officials actually benefit from the nation remaining poor, since it ensures that the nation will get foreign aid. And when we say "nation", it is really the politicians getting the aid, not those actually starving.


Then we need to change the way that aid is given. Just because foreign aid has been executed poorly does not mean that it is fundamentally wrong. Change the execution, not the goal.

Quite frankly, the American government really has no incentive to execute it properly. As long as it looks charitable, but creates disastrous results, who cares?

The voters.


Free market charities are the most effective, since it holds the charities personally accountable. If I find that my charity money is going to corrupt politicians, I simply will not donate.

Thus the charities have an incentive to make sure you don't find out. Anyone that is doing something that their donaters (or voters for that matter, tieing back to elected officials) won't approve of, they'll hide it, or twist it, or spin it. Any way they can to make it look better than it is to keep the money rolling in.
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/18/2011 2:26:19 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 7/18/2011 12:59:15 PM, Hambone wrote:
Doesn't it make sense to pull all of our foreign aid until we can start paying our own bills? I think giving the billions and billions of dollars in foreign aid we give other countries is great, however, I don't think it's prudent to give it when we could default on our own bills in the next couple of weeks. Let's say you gave a homeless guy on your street two dollars every week, would you still give it to him if you only had a dollar in the bank? I'm not saying we give up on it completely, but for a year or two, and it seems like we could probably right our own ship, then get back to helping others.

Not nessicarily pulling all of it, but it should be completely re-evaluated (regardless to if we were in debt or not). But then, every program should be re-looked into every several years.
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
Cerebral_Narcissist
Posts: 10,806
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/18/2011 2:30:43 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
Aid is not charity.

Aid is 'given' as a bribe to foreign leaders or a back hander to domestic business or supporters.
I am voting for Innomen because of his intelligence, common sense, humility and the fact that Juggle appears to listen to him. Any other Presidential style would have a large sub-section of the site up in arms. If I was President I would destroy the site though elitism, others would let it run riot. Innomen represents a middle way that works, neither draconian nor anarchic and that is the only way things can work. Plus he does it all without ego trips.
mongoose
Posts: 3,500
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/18/2011 2:56:34 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 7/18/2011 2:14:28 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 7/18/2011 1:55:46 PM, darkkermit wrote:
At 7/18/2011 1:26:02 PM, freedomsquared wrote:
At 7/18/2011 1:22:56 PM, darkkermit wrote:
At 7/18/2011 1:06:39 PM, freedomsquared wrote:
While your idea is well meaning, it is inherently flawed. Less than 1% of the budget is put to foreign aid, an amount so insignificant that it would have little to no effect if we were to allocate those resources to our own country. Secondly, the money we spend overseas serves our interests both politically and economically. Politically it shows our good will and fosters friendly diplomatic relations with other nations. Economically, it helps both established countries remain prosperous and growing countries become prosperous (to a certain extent). The world economy is so intertwined that rising of many third-world countries economically can only help the global market, and thus the United States.

Foreign aid helps keep nations poor. It changes the incentive of government. Instead of government officials helping its own citizens, government officials actually benefit from the nation remaining poor, since it ensures that the nation will get foreign aid. And when we say "nation", it is really the politicians getting the aid, not those actually starving.


Then we need to change the way that aid is given. Just because foreign aid has been executed poorly does not mean that it is fundamentally wrong. Change the execution, not the goal.

Quite frankly, the American government really has no incentive to execute it properly. As long as it looks charitable, but creates disastrous results, who cares?

The voters.


Free market charities are the most effective, since it holds the charities personally accountable. If I find that my charity money is going to corrupt politicians, I simply will not donate.

Thus the charities have an incentive to make sure you don't find out. Anyone that is doing something that their donaters (or voters for that matter, tieing back to elected officials) won't approve of, they'll hide it, or twist it, or spin it. Any way they can to make it look better than it is to keep the money rolling in.

Governments are much more likely to keep stuff like that hidden. Charities are more open.
It is odd when one's capacity for compassion is measured not in what he is willing to do by his own time, effort, and property, but what he will force others to do with their own property instead.
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/18/2011 3:01:59 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 7/18/2011 2:56:34 PM, mongoose wrote:
At 7/18/2011 2:14:28 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 7/18/2011 1:55:46 PM, darkkermit wrote:
At 7/18/2011 1:26:02 PM, freedomsquared wrote:
At 7/18/2011 1:22:56 PM, darkkermit wrote:
At 7/18/2011 1:06:39 PM, freedomsquared wrote:
While your idea is well meaning, it is inherently flawed. Less than 1% of the budget is put to foreign aid, an amount so insignificant that it would have little to no effect if we were to allocate those resources to our own country. Secondly, the money we spend overseas serves our interests both politically and economically. Politically it shows our good will and fosters friendly diplomatic relations with other nations. Economically, it helps both established countries remain prosperous and growing countries become prosperous (to a certain extent). The world economy is so intertwined that rising of many third-world countries economically can only help the global market, and thus the United States.

Foreign aid helps keep nations poor. It changes the incentive of government. Instead of government officials helping its own citizens, government officials actually benefit from the nation remaining poor, since it ensures that the nation will get foreign aid. And when we say "nation", it is really the politicians getting the aid, not those actually starving.


Then we need to change the way that aid is given. Just because foreign aid has been executed poorly does not mean that it is fundamentally wrong. Change the execution, not the goal.

Quite frankly, the American government really has no incentive to execute it properly. As long as it looks charitable, but creates disastrous results, who cares?

The voters.


Free market charities are the most effective, since it holds the charities personally accountable. If I find that my charity money is going to corrupt politicians, I simply will not donate.

Thus the charities have an incentive to make sure you don't find out. Anyone that is doing something that their donaters (or voters for that matter, tieing back to elected officials) won't approve of, they'll hide it, or twist it, or spin it. Any way they can to make it look better than it is to keep the money rolling in.

Governments are much more likely to keep stuff like that hidden. Charities are more open.

Charities are open because they are required to be by the government.
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/18/2011 3:17:52 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 7/18/2011 1:55:18 PM, freedomsquared wrote:
At 7/18/2011 1:49:04 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
All foreign aid needs to stop period. That's the bottom line.

As Ron Paul rightly says, foreign aid is just stealing money from poor people in this country and giving it to rich dictators in other countries.

As much as I like Ron Paul, you can't simplify the issue so much. There is no reason to believe that all that money would go to our poor if it wasn't given overseas.

I never claimed it would. I think you misunderstood. Ron Pauls point is that the taxes that poor people pay are being wasted and given to rich people in other countries. If the governments going to spend poor peoples taxes, at least do it so it benefits them rather than benefit foriegn dictators we keep propping up.

It could just as easily be used on military spending or earmark programs that have no direct effect on the poor.

Yes, that would be a waste too. But earmarks aren't that much of a waste though, that benefits the infrastructure of the states.

I don't like the idea of that at all and I don't know why the American people stand for that. It's absurd.
We believe that we derive more benefit from foreign aid than it harms us.

Well, that's unfortunate because that belief is FALSE.

If people want to be charitible, they can, but it shouldn't be forced. I give money to homeless people all the time when I can, but will not be forced to and I shouldn't be.

I completely agree with the idea that forced charity is not charity at all. However, this includes a wider issue about taxes as a whole, and whether or not it is just to take someone's property through coercion. I am basing my comments off the premise that the evil of taxation has already been executed, and that we are now discussing the distribution of its spoils.

Ok
"We must raise the standard of the Old, free, decentralized, and strictly limited Republic."
-- Murray Rothbard

"The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended."
-- Frederic Bastiat
freedomsquared
Posts: 450
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/18/2011 4:24:36 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 7/18/2011 3:17:52 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
At 7/18/2011 1:55:18 PM, freedomsquared wrote:
At 7/18/2011 1:49:04 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
All foreign aid needs to stop period. That's the bottom line.

As Ron Paul rightly says, foreign aid is just stealing money from poor people in this country and giving it to rich dictators in other countries.

As much as I like Ron Paul, you can't simplify the issue so much. There is no reason to believe that all that money would go to our poor if it wasn't given overseas.

I never claimed it would. I think you misunderstood. Ron Pauls point is that the taxes that poor people pay are being wasted and given to rich people in other countries. If the governments going to spend poor peoples taxes, at least do it so it benefits them rather than benefit foriegn dictators we keep propping up.

The way our tax system works right now, people who are so poor as to need this kind of aid are not paying any kind of income tax and/or are receiving money back from the government with tax rebates. Once again, we need to change the way we give money (not to foreign dictators), not the giving of money itself.

It could just as easily be used on military spending or earmark programs that have no direct effect on the poor.

Yes, that would be a waste too. But earmarks aren't that much of a waste though, that benefits the infrastructure of the states.
But it doesn't benefit the economy if that infrastructure is not needed.

I don't like the idea of that at all and I don't know why the American people stand for that. It's absurd.
We believe that we derive more benefit from foreign aid than it harms us.

Well, that's unfortunate because that belief is FALSE.
I disagree, as I have already shown how foreign aid can help us both economically and politically. Even under the current system where the money might not make it to the poor, it still helps diplomatic relations and foreign economies, and thus our own economy.

If people want to be charitible, they can, but it shouldn't be forced. I give money to homeless people all the time when I can, but will not be forced to and I shouldn't be.

I completely agree with the idea that forced charity is not charity at all. However, this includes a wider issue about taxes as a whole, and whether or not it is just to take someone's property through coercion. I am basing my comments off the premise that the evil of taxation has already been executed, and that we are now discussing the distribution of its spoils.

Ok
Glad we agree on something. :)
But it's Norway, sort of the Canada of Europe."
-innomen

http://www.debate.org...
-humorous debate with brian_eggleston

http://www.debate.org...
-tournament debate, need votes
Lasagna
Posts: 2,440
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/20/2011 8:41:04 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
Although our anti-foreign-aiders here have a point that money sent overseas is often misused, the fact is that your only true argument here is that "it's our money, not theirs." Foreign dictators probably do use a lot of that money on whores and cars, but no country can approach even slightly the waste that Americans achieve right here in the States. So, as I said, the only argument you guys have is "well at least we earned it and it should stay here." Saying that "it comes from American poor and goes to foreign elites" is silly, since we have no problem doing that in our own country. We are much more insidious, as we take the money indirectly through complicated economic processes instead of directly by brute force. In other countries, the poor at least have the chance to be dignified by knowing that they are being forced down, while in America the poor are f*cked without even a kiss; they are not only trampeled upon, but they are also led to believe it's their own fault. They are tricked into thinking they have a real shot at the top, at the very least through the lottery, and a startling number of them are just waiting for that powerball ticket to get them where they need to go while they sing along to "I want to be a billionaire, so freaking bad" and stare at celebrities all day long on TV that they somehow think are actually their friends.
Rob
Lasagna
Posts: 2,440
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/20/2011 8:56:05 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
Waive your wallets in the air if you worship rich people! Rich people think you are all bottom-feeders and are barely qualified to clean up their waste products after them. Those of you who defend them, and the economic processes they implement to keep themselves fat, are truly pathetic.
Rob
PARADIGM_L0ST
Posts: 6,958
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/20/2011 9:25:18 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 7/18/2011 12:59:15 PM, Hambone wrote:
Doesn't it make sense to pull all of our foreign aid until we can start paying our own bills?:

Until? We should pull foreign aid, period. Friendly trading partners with all, alliances with none.
"Have you ever considered suicide? If not, please do." -- Mouthwash (to Inferno)
PARADIGM_L0ST
Posts: 6,958
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/20/2011 9:52:31 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 7/20/2011 8:41:04 AM, Lasagna wrote:
Although our anti-foreign-aiders here have a point that money sent overseas is often misused, the fact is that your only true argument here is that "it's our money, not theirs.":

No, the argument is that enabling sh*tty behavior most often doesn't get people "back on their feet," enabling behavior incentivizes expected hand outs. And then, of course, there's the whole damned if you, damned if you don't thingy.

When the United States has involved itself in the affairs of other nations, critics accuse us of having a "Caesar complex," fostering an "interventionist attitude," and of being too heavily involved in the affairs of sovereign nations. However, when the United States takes a more hands-off approach, irrespective of the other nation's policies, critics like Rob say we are indifferent to human suffering by taking an isolationist attitude; citing that we are uncompassionate to the plight of others. For all intents and purposes it appears that America's sphere of influence is a catch-22, for we are incapable of appeasing both points of view simultaneously.

Whatever the case is, these are bribes, not charity. The goal is for the US to appear so gracious, when in fact they're simply fostering political alliances.
"Have you ever considered suicide? If not, please do." -- Mouthwash (to Inferno)