• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Stop foreign aid

TheRepublican

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 21, 2017
Messages
1,613
Reaction score
177
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
We’re wasting our money on these countries and, they are sending their people for what? We are going to sending $10 billion dollars to Mexico and south in foreign aid and, we cannot get $5 billion dollars for the wall? What would happen if the President stop sending the money to those countries and, use it for the wall?
 

ttwtt78640

Sometimes wrong
DP Veteran
Joined
May 22, 2012
Messages
70,523
Reaction score
40,162
Location
Uhland, Texas
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
We’re wasting our money on these countries and, they are sending their people for what? We are going to sending $10 billion dollars to Mexico and south in foreign aid and, we cannot get $5 billion dollars for the wall? What would happen if the President stop sending the money to those countries and, use it for the wall?

That president would be impeached for violating the Constitution. Congress, not the POTUS, decides how public money is to be allocated and spent.
 

Visbek

Stuck In The Circle
DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 28, 2011
Messages
19,604
Reaction score
13,247
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Other
We’re wasting our money on these countries and, they are sending their people for what? We are going to sending $10 billion dollars to Mexico and south in foreign aid and, we cannot get $5 billion dollars for the wall? What would happen if the President stop sending the money to those countries and, use it for the wall?
Well, let's see. Aside from (as already noted) the President can't do that?

• Let's start with a key fact: Southern border crossings are significantly down since 2000.

how-many-people-are-crossing-the-border.png


That wasn't due to enforcement, by the way. It's mostly because Mexico's economy improved.

I.e. you can either scream about Mexicans "stealing our jobs!" (by those jobs moving to Mexico, which improves Mexico's economy) or you can scream about Mexicans "stealing our jobs!" (as a result of higher immigration, due to poor economic prospects in Mexico). Sorry, you can't have both. Moving on....

• Another key fact: Physical walls don't stop anyone, that's a fantasy. In fact, if your goal is to reduce the permanent migrant population, they backfire. When people can cross the border easily, they spend a few months in the US to work (usually in agriculture) then go home, because the costs involved are low. The tougher it is to cross, the greater the incentive to stay in the US.

• Another key fact: $5 billion will barely build anything resembling a wall along the border. Seriously. Just think about basic cost overruns and delays on any big infrastructure project, then delay it by 10 years as the government faces a barrage of lawsuits over environmental impacts and eminent domain. We'd be lucky if it only cost $70 billion.

• Most undocumented immigrants now are coming from Asia. They fly to the US, and overstay their visa. Walls don't help with that one.

• Like it or not, asylum is a human right that is part of US law -- and that is not likely to change any time soon. Even if we spend $70 billion on a massive wall, even if it somehow works, it's going to wind up creating a massive human rights crisis on the border, that Mexico will not want to pay for. And hey! Already there. Wanna bet it won't stop next year's caravans?


Sounds to me like if you really don't want brown people crossing the southern border, the best policy is to improve their lives in their home nations, so they have less incentive to migrate.
 

chuckiechan

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 2, 2015
Messages
16,568
Reaction score
7,252
Location
California Caliphate
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
We’re wasting our money on these countries and, they are sending their people for what? We are going to sending $10 billion dollars to Mexico and south in foreign aid and, we cannot get $5 billion dollars for the wall? What would happen if the President stop sending the money to those countries and, use it for the wall?

We are in an influence contest between China and to some degree Russia. China is making a lot of infrastructure loans that they cant pay and they lose their soveriginity.
 

Nickyjo

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 12, 2016
Messages
18,739
Reaction score
5,654
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
We’re wasting our money on these countries and, they are sending their people for what? We are going to sending $10 billion dollars to Mexico and south in foreign aid and, we cannot get $5 billion dollars for the wall? What would happen if the President stop sending the money to those countries and, use it for the wall?

We send $10 billion to Mexico?
 

Nickyjo

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 12, 2016
Messages
18,739
Reaction score
5,654
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
We’re wasting our money on these countries and, they are sending their people for what? We are going to sending $10 billion dollars to Mexico and south in foreign aid and, we cannot get $5 billion dollars for the wall? What would happen if the President stop sending the money to those countries and, use it for the wall?

More people would climb over the wall.

My understanding from several years ago is that a lot of foreign aid is in the form of loans that are used to buy US products. The aid is paid back with interest, albeit at a low rate. The joke used to be that the check never left the US, was simply endorsed to buy tractors or something. Most of the aid used to go to Israel and Egypt, for obvious foreign policy objectives. US gives the most in dollar amounts, the Scandinavians most in percent of GDP. But the US is also a leader in humanitarian aid.
 

RaleBulgarian

DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 20, 2018
Messages
22,532
Reaction score
10,040
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
We’re wasting our money on these countries and, they are sending their people for what? We are going to sending $10 billion dollars to Mexico and south in foreign aid and, we cannot get $5 billion dollars for the wall? What would happen if the President stop sending the money to those countries and, use it for the wall?
That you are asking these questions shows how little you understand.
 

Lord Tammerlain

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 25, 2010
Messages
21,638
Reaction score
9,531
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
We’re wasting our money on these countries and, they are sending their people for what? We are going to sending $10 billion dollars to Mexico and south in foreign aid and, we cannot get $5 billion dollars for the wall? What would happen if the President stop sending the money to those countries and, use it for the wall?
Mexico gets about 400 million in foreign aid. South Central America gets less
 

D_NATURED

DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 9, 2014
Messages
5,505
Reaction score
2,748
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Progressive
We’re wasting our money on these countries and, they are sending their people for what? We are going to sending $10 billion dollars to Mexico and south in foreign aid and, we cannot get $5 billion dollars for the wall? What would happen if the President stop sending the money to those countries and, use it for the wall?

If the aid stopped, no wall in the world could keep out the hungry. It would be a cruel act of futility.

There is a fundamental moral disconnect in your "thinking". If I were a Republican who had a moral compass, I'd distance myself from those who write and think like you do because you are a stereotype of low, conservative processing power that goes a long way to support the opinions of liberals, who can dismiss your thoughts as typically narrow and petty in true repub fashion. It's really two different ways of saying the same thing.
 

Skeptic Bob

DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 6, 2014
Messages
16,626
Reaction score
19,488
Location
Texas
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Left
The bulk of the aid Mexico gets is for counterterrorism, counternarcotics, and other law enforcement programs. Mexico is our neighbor and, like Canada, is a buffer for us. So cutting those programs could also hurt us. We don’t just give foreign aid out of the goodness of our hearts. We do it because we get something out of it.
 

TheRepublican

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 21, 2017
Messages
1,613
Reaction score
177
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
If the aid stopped, no wall in the world could keep out the hungry. It would be a cruel act of futility.

There is a fundamental moral disconnect in your "thinking". If I were a Republican who had a moral compass, I'd distance myself from those who write and think like you do because you are a stereotype of low, conservative processing power that goes a long way to support the opinions of liberals, who can dismiss your thoughts as typically narrow and petty in true repub fashion. It's really two different ways of saying the same thing.

So what how’s your fundamental moral connection difference between mine? I can flip it around and, say that you are disconnected? I’m sorry but, what about those people in Africa and, undeveloped countries who don’t have anything and what do they get?
 
Last edited:

SonOfDaedalus

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 13, 2017
Messages
13,278
Reaction score
8,112
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
Well, let's see. Aside from (as already noted) the President can't do that?

• Let's start with a key fact: Southern border crossings are significantly down since 2000.

how-many-people-are-crossing-the-border.png


That wasn't due to enforcement, by the way. It's mostly because Mexico's economy improved.

I.e. you can either scream about Mexicans "stealing our jobs!" (by those jobs moving to Mexico, which improves Mexico's economy) or you can scream about Mexicans "stealing our jobs!" (as a result of higher immigration, due to poor economic prospects in Mexico). Sorry, you can't have both. Moving on....

• Another key fact: Physical walls don't stop anyone, that's a fantasy. In fact, if your goal is to reduce the permanent migrant population, they backfire. When people can cross the border easily, they spend a few months in the US to work (usually in agriculture) then go home, because the costs involved are low. The tougher it is to cross, the greater the incentive to stay in the US.

• Another key fact: $5 billion will barely build anything resembling a wall along the border. Seriously. Just think about basic cost overruns and delays on any big infrastructure project, then delay it by 10 years as the government faces a barrage of lawsuits over environmental impacts and eminent domain. We'd be lucky if it only cost $70 billion.

• Most undocumented immigrants now are coming from Asia. They fly to the US, and overstay their visa. Walls don't help with that one.

• Like it or not, asylum is a human right that is part of US law -- and that is not likely to change any time soon. Even if we spend $70 billion on a massive wall, even if it somehow works, it's going to wind up creating a massive human rights crisis on the border, that Mexico will not want to pay for. And hey! Already there. Wanna bet it won't stop next year's caravans?


Sounds to me like if you really don't want brown people crossing the southern border, the best policy is to improve their lives in their home nations, so they have less incentive to migrate.

This is what the Trumpsters need to understand. A wall is just a dumb idea that only makes sense to dumb people.
 

TheRepublican

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 21, 2017
Messages
1,613
Reaction score
177
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
That president would be impeached for violating the Constitution. Congress, not the POTUS, decides how public money is to be allocated and spent.

Show me in the United States constitution because I cannot remember where it states that the United States must give money to others
 

ElChupacabra

Me cago en las cabras!
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 17, 2018
Messages
16,499
Reaction score
8,746
Location
The Garden State
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Show me in the United States constitution because I cannot remember where it states that the United States must give money to others

That's not the issue; it is one of process where Congress makes those decisions and not the president, so he doesn't have the power to stop that funding in the way you're suggesting.
 

TheRepublican

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 21, 2017
Messages
1,613
Reaction score
177
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
That's not the issue; it is one of process where Congress makes those decisions and not the president, so he doesn't have the power to stop that funding in the way you're suggesting.

I understand that but, the republicans should come back to the floor and do it before they adjourned because it’s going to get ridiculous and childish. Oh wait, it has been from the day one of his term
 

Tigerace117

DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 30, 2016
Messages
39,939
Reaction score
10,346
Location
Chicago
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
We’re wasting our money on these countries and, they are sending their people for what? We are going to sending $10 billion dollars to Mexico and south in foreign aid and, we cannot get $5 billion dollars for the wall? What would happen if the President stop sending the money to those countries and, use it for the wall?

We would have wasted billions of dollars on a pointless joke and alienating American allies.

Not that the Trump Cult cares about American interests.
 

D_NATURED

DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 9, 2014
Messages
5,505
Reaction score
2,748
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Progressive
So what how’s your fundamental moral connection difference between mine? I can flip it around and, say that you are disconnected? I’m sorry but, what about those people in Africa and, undeveloped countries who don’t have anything and what do they get?

Various African countries get aid too. My morals are fundamentally different than yours because I don't think the answer to need is to build a big ****ing wall around your hoard of food and money and keep the others out. I am a humanist and an investment in human need should be prioritized over the hundreds of billions wasted blowing **** up.
 

TheRepublican

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 21, 2017
Messages
1,613
Reaction score
177
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
If the aid stopped, no wall in the world could keep out the hungry. It would be a cruel act of futility.

There is a fundamental moral disconnect in your "thinking". If I were a Republican who had a moral compass, I'd distance myself from those who write and think like you do because you are a stereotype of low, conservative processing power that goes a long way to support the opinions of liberals, who can dismiss your thoughts as typically narrow and petty in true repub fashion. It's really two different ways of saying the same thing.

So it’s our job to take care of everyone?
 

TheRepublican

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 21, 2017
Messages
1,613
Reaction score
177
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
Various African countries get aid too. My morals are fundamentally different than yours because I don't think the answer to need is to build a big ****ing wall around your hoard of food and money and keep the others out. I am a humanist and an investment in human need should be prioritized over the hundreds of billions wasted blowing **** up.

You are a humanist? So what we have American people who need a job! No no no don’t hire American hire immigrants and, then what? What will happens when you or someone who has a difficult time to understand that person? The left will flip it around and, call them the racist because they don’t understand the language! Why don’t we just give up to Mexico. The democrats will be in love 51 states! I don’t know why we have a fence? Should I ask Obama, Clinton, or whoever? Oh wait I won’t get a honest answer
 
Last edited:

jnug

DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 23, 2018
Messages
20,550
Reaction score
7,649
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
We’re wasting our money on these countries and, they are sending their people for what? We are going to sending $10 billion dollars to Mexico and south in foreign aid and, we cannot get $5 billion dollars for the wall? What would happen if the President stop sending the money to those countries and, use it for the wall?

That is a laugh...its about the best bang for the buck we get as long as we are not engaging in Regime change.
 

TheRepublican

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 21, 2017
Messages
1,613
Reaction score
177
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
Well, let's see. Aside from (as already noted) the President can't do that?

• Let's start with a key fact: Southern border crossings are significantly down since 2000.

how-many-people-are-crossing-the-border.png


That wasn't due to enforcement, by the way. It's mostly because Mexico's economy improved.

I.e. you can either scream about Mexicans "stealing our jobs!" (by those jobs moving to Mexico, which improves Mexico's economy) or you can scream about Mexicans "stealing our jobs!" (as a result of higher immigration, due to poor economic prospects in Mexico). Sorry, you can't have both. Moving on....

• Another key fact: Physical walls don't stop anyone, that's a fantasy. In fact, if your goal is to reduce the permanent migrant population, they backfire. When people can cross the border easily, they spend a few months in the US to work (usually in agriculture) then go home, because the costs involved are low. The tougher it is to cross, the greater the incentive to stay in the US.

• Another key fact: $5 billion will barely build anything resembling a wall along the border. Seriously. Just think about basic cost overruns and delays on any big infrastructure project, then delay it by 10 years as the government faces a barrage of lawsuits over environmental impacts and eminent domain. We'd be lucky if it only cost $70 billion.

• Most undocumented immigrants now are coming from Asia. They fly to the US, and overstay their visa. Walls don't help with that one.

• Like it or not, asylum is a human right that is part of US law -- and that is not likely to change any time soon. Even if we spend $70 billion on a massive wall, even if it somehow works, it's going to wind up creating a massive human rights crisis on the border, that Mexico will not want to pay for. And hey! Already there. Wanna bet it won't stop next year's caravans?


Sounds to me like if you really don't want brown people crossing the southern border, the best policy is to improve their lives in their home nations, so they have less incentive to migrate.

I rather spend it on football lights for the United States boarder Officers, I could care about those people because can we just separate legal immigrants from illegal immigration for a minute? Or illegal immigration isn’t in any vocabulary?
 
Top Bottom