Foreign Aid: End or Continue?

[jakurus]

Yeah, that's true. We also pay for a large military that defends a large portion of the world. People don't consider this aid, but its a service that we provide nontheless and if we didn't provide it many countries would have to pay more for their own national defense.

Its also interesting how the UN doesn't consider private donations to be aid. First it must be taken from us through taxes, then some people take their cut of the money, and only then is it considered aid.

The first part of your post some people refer to as Gaullism. Many countries use the United States' obligation to protect their portion of the world to their advantage, acting against United States interests because they know the US wouldn ever abandon them in their national security were threatened.

 

[jakurus]

Heh. Did you have an argument to make about some part of the discussion or are you just here to show us how things go on the playground?

Just sayin', things get much more complicated than "in our interest" and "not in our interest."

 

[teacher]

Globally restructure this abundant planet.

And by that you mean redistribute the wealth of America to those that are lazy and/or stupid. Guess what honey? We got guns. Never gonna happen.

Dump capitalism which has kept people in poverty and starvation for years.

I've always done quite well under capitalism. But then I try.

Introduce international socialism.

When I said we got guns I meant I.

Eliminate the NEED for aid.

I give often to those in need. Of my own free will. Try to force it from me and you got a BIG problem.

Sure, nobody will be rich.

Of course those that work harder, longer, and smarter than others don't DESERVE then reward fo their labors.

But if carefully implemented nobody will starve or live in poverty either.

And like galenrox said, no one will try either.

I know which kind of world I'd rather live in. Socialism is good for people.

No, socialism is good for YOUR lazy ass. Then you get to have stuff you haven't worked for.


So I'm at the gas station the other day and a begger comes to me and says,

"It's 1.67$ for a chicken dinner over there. (Points across street).

I gave him a dollar.

He says "just a little more and I can get it".

I say "I worked for that dollar. Now your more than halfway there".

He said "God bless you".

Now Mrs. Franklin consider I have enough of what I earn "redistributed". If you try to take more your gonna get a round between the eyes. Think about it. Please reply. I got WAY more.

You can't make this shi*t up.

 

[Alastor]

Just sayin', things get much more complicated than "in our interest" and "not in our interest."

Okay, that's clearer. I appreciate that.

As I stated before in this post, I agree that it's not always that simple. It is however, the chief and usually over-riding concern.

If we examine it under a microscope, I'm certain we can find a few thousand items to include in our list of "factors that determine how much aid we send to where and when."

But we'd also have a 300 page text book by the time we were done too.

 

[Calm2Chaos]

No, socialism is good for YOUR lazy ass. Then you get to have stuff you haven't worked for.


So I'm at the gas station the other day and a begger comes to me and says,

"It's 1.67$ for a chicken dinner over there. (Points across street).

I gave him a dollar.

He says "just a little more and I can get it".

I say "I worked for that dollar. Now your more than halfway there".

He said "God bless you".

Now Mrs. Franklin consider I have enough of what I earn "redistributed". If you try to take more your gonna get a round between the eyes. Think about it. Please reply. I got WAY more.

You can't make this shi*t up.

That is one beautiful friggin post. If I could mount that on the wall i would

 

[Uhgreen]

As I see it, giving a country some money is great, a few people will be able to eat for a little while. But that's not going to solve the problem in the long run by any stretch of the imagination.

What a country needs is a stable economy. But how do you do that with some of the leaders in those countrys. Or the countries who have almost no working government at all? What about all the countries that need this help? Do you do one at a time? So many factors go into it and theres no clear answer.

 

[Connecticutter]

What a country needs is a stable economy. But how do you do that with some of the leaders in those countrys. Or the countries who have almost no working government at all? What about all the countries that need this help? Do you do one at a time? So many factors go into it and theres no clear answer.

We may be propping up some of these countries with our money. There is probably more money in the hands of investors than in the hands of government, but only government will invest in projects that have slim to no chance of succeeding.

 

[Uhgreen]

We may be propping up some of these countries with our money. There is probably more money in the hands of investors than in the hands of government, but only government will invest in projects that have slim to no chance of succeeding.

Of course investors have the most money. Foreign investors is what keeps the economies in major countries afloat. Now, I dont' have any statistics on this, but I'd imagine that not many investors are going to invest in a country with no chance of returning this investment. Only the government would do that, like you said.

Kind of makes me wonder, what is the main reason the government gives foreign aid?