Ok ok, yeah you can't even make a Hollywood move for 90 million dollars. Still, that money could have gone to the teachers in Minnesota or something, no?

Cairo, Egypt (CNN) -- U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton took a short tour of Tahrir Square in the Egyptian capital on Wednesday.

During the anti-government demonstrations that eventually led to the ouster of long-time Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak, the square was a rallying spot for protesters who transformed it from a bustling urban center into a fortified campground.

The walking tour lasted about 10 to 12 minutes, with crowds of people stopping her to shake her hand. She later met with Prime Minister Essam Sharaf.

"To see where this revolution happened and all that it has meant to the world is extraordinary for me," Clinton said. "It's just a great reminder of the power of the human spirit and universial desire for human rights and democracy. It's just thrilling to see where this happened."

On Tuesday, Clinton issued a strong statement of praise for Egypt's political revolution, declaring she was "deeply inspired" by the dramatic change and promising new assistance for America's longtime Middle East ally.

Clinton pledged $90 million in emergency economic assistance during a meeting in Cairo with Foreign Minister Nabil Al-Araby. She is the highest ranking U.S. official to visit Egypt since the overthrow of Mubarak.

"The United States will work to ensure that the economic gains Egypt has forged in recent years continue, and that all parts of Egyptian society benefit from these gains," a State Department statement noted.

While in the region, Clinton is also scheduled to visit neighboring Tunisia to express support for that country's revolt.

Insignificant amount of money.

$90 million in assistance now could prove invaluable in securing the new Egyptian government as a long term ally in the region. It could also do a hell of a lot of good for the Egyptian people.

Meanwhile US deficit problems are measured in hundreds of billions, and need to be resolved by beginning a sensible debate on the real operating cost of government and the tax level needed to fund that.

Wouldn't it jut be easier and shorter to just plainly say you don't like foreign aid?

Also, 90 million is a paltry sum in the scheme of the federal budget. It also doesn't work in such a way that if we are helping Egypt that we must also then not be helping Minnesota. Minnesota is still getting it's pork.

Ahtman wrote: Minnesota is still getting it's beautiful Nordic women.

More accurate.

dogma wrote:

Ahtman wrote: Minnesota is still getting it's beautiful Nordic women.

More accurate.

I suppose this is where I make a joke about Betty White's character from Golden Gris who was from Minnesota.

90 million is about 2/3rds of an F22 fighter jet.

Ahtman wrote:
I suppose this is where I make a joke about Jessica Biel's lower body from reality who was from Minnesota.

How I read that.

I had no idea. We now need someone to photoshop Jessica Biel's lower body onto Golden Girls era Betty White and I think this thread will be ready for a lock.

No, i fully understand it's a small amount of money. I think I mentioned that in the post. However when does the constant global charity end? I hear people preaching monetary responsibility and here we are just constantly handing cash around to anyone, even if they don't need it. Hey Libya needs a no fly zone, who is gonna foot the bill for that. We are surely going to spend lots of money in aid for Japan (i don't really have a problem with that), yet the Yen today just reached a 16 year high vs the dollar!

Why are we pledging money to a country that barley has a stable government and is sitting on its own supply of oil. Certainly not a giant supply of oil compared to its neighbors, but still a considerable amount.

What are we getting in return? Promises? Kisses?

I don't have problem with foreign aid outright. But if you are in debt to your ears it hardly makes good fiscal sense to be donating large amounts of money to charities.

Someone please explain how this makes fiscal sense? Please no spending 90 million now will stop us from spending 2 billion later arguments as I would not agree with those monies either. Currently Egypt has a smaller debt to GDP percentage than the US and it does sit on sizable oil reserves. Financially they are more stable than the US in many ways.

So please enlighten me? I don't care if its a dollar or a billion, the principle question is why?

Forieng Aid =/= Charity

Helping others helps us. Not only does is show we aren't a bunch of navel gazing jerk offs, it also helps prevent the spread of violence and secure trade. 90 million now is nothing compared to the amount that will be made in trade, which won't happen if things spiral out of control. It isn't charity, it's self interest. Just becuase it is also nice doesn't mean we don't get something real and tangible out of it.

That isn't even adding in the national security argument. When we cut tail and ran from Afghanistan and let the Taliban rise up it didn't exactly lead to good things now did it? This isn't the 17th century where it takes half a year to travel somewhere. You can get to almost anywhere in the world in a day. What happens over in other countries has an effect here and we cant ignore that there are other people in the world.

So, in summary, foreign aid is good for national security, good for business, and good for our image.

Foreign Aid in UK = imperialist guilt trip.

UK gives tonnes of money to India and Pakistan. India has a freaking SPACE PROGRAM. They need to get their priorities right first.

Andrew1975 wrote:No, i fully understand it's a small amount of money. I think I mentioned that in the post. However when does the constant global charity end? I hear people preaching monetary responsibility and here we are just constantly handing cash around to anyone, even if they don't need it. Hey Libya needs a no fly zone, who is gonna foot the bill for that. We are surely going to spend lots of money in aid for Japan (i don't really have a problem with that), yet the Yen today just reached a 16 year high vs the dollar!

Why are we pledging money to a country that barley has a stable government and is sitting on its own supply of oil. Certainly not a giant supply of oil compared to its neighbors, but still a considerable amount.

What are we getting in return? Promises? Kisses?

I don't have problem with foreign aid outright. But if you are in debt to your ears it hardly makes good fiscal sense to be donating large amounts of money to charities.

Someone please explain how this makes fiscal sense? Please no spending 90 million now will stop us from spending 2 billion later arguments as I would not agree with those monies either. Currently Egypt has a smaller debt to GDP percentage than the US and it does sit on sizable oil reserves. Financially they are more stable than the US in many ways.

So please enlighten me? I don't care if its a dollar or a billion, the principle question is why?

Foreign aid is primarily bribe money to get other countries to play nice.

dogma wrote:

Ahtman wrote:
I suppose this is where I make a joke about Jessica Biel's lower body from reality who was from Minnesota.

How I read that.

What? Jesssica Biel's lower body was from Minnesota? Was she born at the exact moment her mum was crossing state lines or something? Where was the rest of her born, Wisconson?

Andrew1975 wrote:No, i fully understand it's a small amount of money. I think I mentioned that in the post. However when does the constant global charity end?

It doesn't. As long as you're among the richest countries in the world, then for practical and moral reasons it is good to give money to poorer countries.

I hear people preaching monetary responsibility and here we are just constantly handing cash around to anyone, even if they don't need it.

The US pays out far, far less in foreign aid than just about every other developed country. The total amount you've spent wouldn't come close to making a dent in the budget.

Why are we pledging money to a country that barley has a stable government and is sitting on its own supply of oil.

To help it develop a stable government. And to secure access to oil.

What are we getting in return? Promises? Kisses?

The US relationship with the Mubarak regime allowed you to acquire near complete regional dominance. It certainly secured Israel's future, and for some reason that's very important to Americans. In fact, isn't the overwhelming sums of money handed over to Israel each year a better question, given they're a reasonably wealthy nation in their own right?

I don't have problem with foreign aid outright. But if you are in debt to your ears it hardly makes good fiscal sense to be donating large amounts of money to charities.

Debt and foreign aid are almost entirely unrelated. If you'd never offered any foreign aid the debt would be almost exactly what it is now, because it really is a piddly part of the budget.

Meanwhile, actually resolving the budget involves getting a real understanding of what the government of a developed nation really costs, and setting the tax rate appropriately. The longer you all feth about with line items like this, the longer you delay that conversation and the harder it will be when you finally get around to solving the issue.

Andrew1975 wrote:
So please enlighten me? I don't care if its a dollar or a billion, the principle question is why?

I've explained this to you before, but in broad strokes foreign aid involves buying products from domestic companies and sending their works abroad.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

sebster wrote:
What? Jesssica Biel's lower body was from Minnesota? Was she born at the exact moment her mum was crossing state lines or something? Where was the rest of her born, Wisconson?

Don't question, just gaze.

Andrew1975 wrote:No, i fully understand it's a small amount of money. I think I mentioned that in the post. However when does the constant global charity end?

...

...

The USA foreign aid budget is a smaller proportion of its GDP than any other developed nation's. About a third of the budget goes to Israel and (irony!) Egypt as military aid.

There are all kinds of arguments around the issue of foreign aid, however it is sensible first to recognise how small an amount of money the US actually does give away at the moment.

Play this game and see how you can fix the deficit.

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2010/11/13/weekinreview/deficits-graphic.html

Click on the button to cut foreign aid in half.

Compare that to "Reduce military to pre-Iraq War size and further reduce troops in Asia and Europe"

sebster wrote:The US government pays out far, far less as a percentage of GDP in foreign aid than just about every other developed country.

Thought I'd help improve your post.

The US (at least, in 2003-4) was at the top of the list in real dollars of foreign aid.

And private US citizens give out far, FAR more in aid than the government.

These are the best sites I can find that don't measure aid as a percentage of GDP or based on military budget. Do you have any information that shows foreign aid spending in real dollars (pounds, euros, yen...) by country, rather than as a percentage of GDP?

malfred wrote:Play this game and see how you can fix the deficit.

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2010/11/13/weekinreview/deficits-graphic.html

Click on the button to cut foreign aid in half.

Compare that to "Reduce military to pre-Iraq War size and further reduce troops in Asia and Europe"

Although biased and bulshit it was easy, I solved the deficit with 67% spending cuts and 33% increased taxes. VIVA FRAZZLED!


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Kilkrazy wrote:

Andrew1975 wrote:No, i fully understand it's a small amount of money. I think I mentioned that in the post. However when does the constant global charity end?

...

...

The USA foreign aid budget is a smaller proportion of its GDP than any other developed nation's. About a third of the budget goes to Israel and (irony!) Egypt as military aid.

There are all kinds of arguments around the issue of foreign aid, however it is sensible first to recognise how small an amount of money the US actually does give away at the moment.

Then they won't miss it when we cut it to -$0-

I think the Israelis will.

Kilkrazy wrote:I think the Israelis will.

In the words of Daddy Frazzled:
"Get a job you bums!"

biccat wrote:

sebster wrote:The US government pays out far, far less as a percentage of GDP in foreign aid than just about every other developed country.

Thought I'd help improve your post.

The US (at least, in 2003-4) was at the top of the list in real dollars of foreign aid.

There's a bible story which is relevant to that.

biccat wrote:And private US citizens give out far, FAR more in aid than the government.

...

Actually, they don't. That figure is arrived at by adding private remittances to actual charity.

"More than half of all U.S. assistance to developing countries, $61.7 billion, came in the form of private remittances by individuals living in the United States to their families abroad, the report says. "

It's questionable to call it US assistance when it consists of Somalis, Mexicans and so on sending money to their relatives.

Yea we're evil, not like all those other countries that give everything they have.

Kilkrazy wrote:There's a bible story which is relevant to that.

Haven't you heard the news? We're not a Christian nation anymore. So I'm not sure how this is at all relevant.

sebster wrote:$90 million in assistance now could prove invaluable in securing the new Egyptian government as a long term ally in the region. It could also do a hell of a lot of good for the Egyptian people.

Meanwhile US deficit problems are measured in hundreds of billions, and need to be resolved by beginning a sensible debate on the real operating cost of government and the tax level needed to fund that.

seems pretty succinct, having allies over there isn't a bad thing, especially when they are happy we helped them get out from beneath their despotic ruler of how many years?

WOAH I SOLVED IT http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2010/11/13/weekinreview/deficits-graphic.html?choices=d3uk4bm4

biccat wrote:

Kilkrazy wrote:There's a bible story which is relevant to that.

Haven't you heard the news? We're not a Christian nation anymore.

Trying to derail the thread already?

Ahtman wrote:

biccat wrote:

Kilkrazy wrote:There's a bible story which is relevant to that.

Haven't you heard the news? We're not a Christian nation anymore.

Trying to derail the thread already?

I'm not the one suggesting we should follow the Christian bible here. I assume he means the Christian bible, but the passage I'm thinking of is in the Torah as well...so ymmv.

Besides, "a billion here, a billion there, and pretty soon you're talking real money." Sure $90 million isn't a lot of money, it wouldn't affect any of our standards of living, right?

You forgot the Satanic Bible and boy its a page turner.

biccat wrote:
I'm not the one suggesting we should follow the Christian bible here.

You have to be Christian in order to find something written in the Bible to be relevant to what might be regarded as a question of morality?

biccat wrote:
Besides, "a billion here, a billion there, and pretty soon you're talking real money." Sure $90 million isn't a lot of money, it wouldn't affect any of our standards of living, right?

Don't appeal to ridicule.

biccat wrote:These are the best sites I can find that don't measure aid as a percentage of GDP or based on military budget. Do you have any information that shows foreign aid spending in real dollars (pounds, euros, yen...) by country, rather than as a percentage of GDP?

Which is more generous: a family living below the poverty line giving a tenth of their income to cancer research, or a multimillion dollar corporation giving ten thousand dollars to cancer research?

WARBOSS TZOO wrote:

biccat wrote:These are the best sites I can find that don't measure aid as a percentage of GDP or based on military budget. Do you have any information that shows foreign aid spending in real dollars (pounds, euros, yen...) by country, rather than as a percentage of GDP?

Which is more generous: a family living below the poverty line giving a tenth of their income to cancer research, or a multimillion dollar corporation giving ten thousand dollars to cancer research?

Simple, the latter.

If you're talking about self-sacrifice, then it would be the former.

Would you say that the multi-million dollar corporation gave "far, far less" than the family below the poverty line?

If one of those groups stopped giving money to the cancer charity, which one would you prefer?

biccat wrote:

WARBOSS TZOO wrote:

biccat wrote:These are the best sites I can find that don't measure aid as a percentage of GDP or based on military budget. Do you have any information that shows foreign aid spending in real dollars (pounds, euros, yen...) by country, rather than as a percentage of GDP?

Which is more generous: a family living below the poverty line giving a tenth of their income to cancer research, or a multimillion dollar corporation giving ten thousand dollars to cancer research?

Simple, the latter.

If you're talking about self-sacrifice, then it would be the former.

Would you say that the multi-million dollar corporation gave "far, far less" than the family below the poverty line?

If one of those groups stopped giving money to the cancer charity, which one would you prefer?

generous:

1.
liberal in giving or sharing; unselfish: a generous patron of the arts; a generous gift.
2.
free from meanness or smallness of mind or character; magnanimous.
3.
large; abundant; ample: a generous portion of pie.
4.
rich or strong in flavor: a generous wine.
5.
fertile; prolific: generous soil.

The family was more generous because they gave more out of what they were able to give than the corporation was. The USA might have given the most out of any country in the world in '03, but it was also able to give far, far more than it did. It was not generous, it was pocket change. It was an utterly insignificant amount of money compared to what was in the rest of the budget.

None of those definitions support your argument that generosity is equivalent to self sacrifice.

biccat wrote:

Ahtman wrote:

biccat wrote:

Kilkrazy wrote:There's a bible story which is relevant to that.

Haven't you heard the news? We're not a Christian nation anymore.

Trying to derail the thread already?

I'm not the one suggesting we should follow the Christian bible here. I assume he means the Christian bible, but the passage I'm thinking of is in the Torah as well...so ymmv.

You're making up this claim that someone suggested we should follow the Christian Bible. KK noted that there's a Bible story which is relevant. You don't have to be Christian to reference or learn from a Bible story. Although presumably if one is Christian (as most Americans are, although we're not, and have never been, a "Christian nation"), one might be aware of said stories and they might bear on one's perspective on life.

biccat wrote:None of those definitions support your argument that generosity is equivalent to self sacrifice.

1.
liberal in giving or sharing; unselfish: a generous patron of the arts; a generous gift.
2.
free from meanness or smallness of mind or character; magnanimous.
3.
large; abundant; ample: a generous portion of pie.
4.
rich or strong in flavor: a generous wine.
5.
fertile; prolific: generous soil.

Whether or not you are considered generous relates to your capacity to give, not the amount that you give compared to other people, unless those other people have a similar capacity to give.

Of course, we can simulate an equality of the capacity to give by rephrasing the question in terms of percentage. 'How much of your wealth did you give', instead of 'how much wealth did you give'. The former gives us a percentage, while the latter gives us a number that doesn't really tell us anything about how much more you could have given.

Andrew1975 wrote:No, i fully understand it's a small amount of money. I think I mentioned that in the post. However when does the constant global charity end? I hear people preaching monetary responsibility and here we are just constantly handing cash around to anyone, even if they don't need it. Hey Libya needs a no fly zone, who is gonna foot the bill for that. We are surely going to spend lots of money in aid for Japan (i don't really have a problem with that), yet the Yen today just reached a 16 year high vs the dollar!

Why are we pledging money to a country that barley has a stable government and is sitting on its own supply of oil. Certainly not a giant supply of oil compared to its neighbors, but still a considerable amount.

What are we getting in return? Promises? Kisses?

I don't have problem with foreign aid outright. But if you are in debt to your ears it hardly makes good fiscal sense to be donating large amounts of money to charities.

Someone please explain how this makes fiscal sense? Please no spending 90 million now will stop us from spending 2 billion later arguments as I would not agree with those monies either. Currently Egypt has a smaller debt to GDP percentage than the US and it does sit on sizable oil reserves. Financially they are more stable than the US in many ways.

So please enlighten me? I don't care if its a dollar or a billion, the principle question is why?

Thats a tiny fraction fraction of the amount of money we gave the last administration annually in order to maintain it's military/security apparatus which it used to keep it's people down. We're saving money by buddying up with these people as opposed to the previous. You should really drop your 5oclockFOX talking points and look at things in a realistic fraction. Ninety million is a minor goodwill gesture that won't impact the bottom line in the slightest.

Mannahnin wrote:You're making up this claim that someone suggested we should follow the Christian Bible. KK noted that there's a Bible story which is relevant. You don't have to be Christian to reference or learn from a Bible story. Although presumably if one is Christian (as most Americans are, although we're not, and have never been, a "Christian nation"), one might be aware of said stories and they might bear on one's perspective on life.

If we're national basing policy on a biblical story, how is that not suggesting we follow the Christian Bible, at least in part?

And if it's OK to base that part of our policy on Biblical teachings, where should we stop? What is the rationale for stopping at this point rather than that point?

biccat wrote:

Mannahnin wrote:You're making up this claim that someone suggested we should follow the Christian Bible. KK noted that there's a Bible story which is relevant. You don't have to be Christian to reference or learn from a Bible story. Although presumably if one is Christian (as most Americans are, although we're not, and have never been, a "Christian nation"), one might be aware of said stories and they might bear on one's perspective on life.

If we're national basing policy on a biblical story, how is that not suggesting we follow the Christian Bible, at least in part?

And if it's OK to base that part of our policy on Biblical teachings, where should we stop? What is the rationale for stopping at this point rather than that point?

No lets use Old testament. Lots more smoting going on.

Would someone post the relevant scripture for those of us who don't know what's being talked about?

biccat wrote:If we're national basing policy on a biblical story, how is that not suggesting we follow the Christian Bible, at least in part?

Where are we doing this?

And they did look at him funny and Moses did say "Oh Great Speghetti Monster, the dost rain on our parade and dost suck it, can'st thou smote 'em?" And The Great Speghetti Monster didst smote them, and verily, and it was good.

Ahtman wrote:

biccat wrote:If we're national basing policy on a biblical story, how is that not suggesting we follow the Christian Bible, at least in part?

Where are we doing this?

Don't look at me, Killkrazy is the one who suggested it.

biccat wrote:None of those definitions support your argument that generosity is equivalent to self sacrifice.

No.1 does.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

biccat wrote:

Ahtman wrote:

biccat wrote:If we're national basing policy on a biblical story, how is that not suggesting we follow the Christian Bible, at least in part?

Where are we doing this?

Don't look at me, Killkrazy is the one who suggested it.

I didn't. I merely reminded the forum indirectly of the tale of the widow's mite.

The moral of this tale is not that public spending should be run according to biblical injunctions, it is that giving a lot of money does not make you a good person (or nation).

Kilkrazy wrote:

biccat wrote:None of those definitions support your argument that generosity is equivalent to self sacrifice.

Actually no.1 does.

Liberal:

10. Given freely or abundantly

So would you agree that a donation of $1 million from a wealthy company is "far, far less" than $10,000 from a poor family?

biccat wrote:

Mannahnin wrote:You're making up this claim that someone suggested we should follow the Christian Bible. KK noted that there's a Bible story which is relevant. You don't have to be Christian to reference or learn from a Bible story. Although presumably if one is Christian (as most Americans are, although we're not, and have never been, a "Christian nation"), one might be aware of said stories and they might bear on one's perspective on life.

If we're national basing policy on a biblical story, how is that not suggesting we follow the Christian Bible, at least in part?

And if it's OK to base that part of our policy on Biblical teachings, where should we stop? What is the rationale for stopping at this point rather than that point?

We're not basing policy on a Bible story, nor did anyone suggest doing so. KK merely referenced one for its relevance to our present discussion.

biccat wrote:

Kilkrazy wrote:

biccat wrote:None of those definitions support your argument that generosity is equivalent to self sacrifice.

Actually no.1 does.

Liberal:

10. Given freely or abundantly

So would you agree that a donation of $1 million from a wealthy company is "far, far less" than $10,000 from a poor family?

If the amount that the wealthy company gave is proportionately less than what the family gave... then yes.

Though I can't speak for KK.

Does that include aircraft carriers provide air lift aid and peacekeeping missions? Does that include things like the US military in a radiation zone as we speak?

biccat wrote:

Kilkrazy wrote:

biccat wrote:None of those definitions support your argument that generosity is equivalent to self sacrifice.

Actually no.1 does.

Liberal:

10. Given freely or abundantly

So would you agree that a donation of $1 million from a wealthy company is "far, far less" than $10,000 from a poor family?

As a quantity of money? then yes. it is less than the amount given by the company.

As a display of charity? then it is comparatively far far greater.

Goliath wrote:As a display of charity? then it is comparatively far far greater.

I'll just end my part in this discussion by saying that if I were a poor person, I would much rather have a wealthy person give me 0.1% of their income than have a poor family give me 10% of their income, especially if it meant the difference between $1 million and $10k.

YMMV.

Generosity as a metric isn't about how useful the end result is. There are other metrics for that.

Like, say, how useful the end result is.

I don't think anyone here thinks that the foreign aid the US gives out isn't useful. What's being alleged is that the US is giving out an amount that is hugely insignificant when you look at its economic capacity.

biccat wrote:

Goliath wrote:As a display of charity? then it is comparatively far far greater.

I'll just end my part in this discussion by saying that if I were a poor person, I would much rather have a wealthy person give me 0.1% of their income than have a poor family give me 10% of their income, especially if it meant the difference between $1 million and $10k.

YMMV.

Generosity as a trait and act isn't proportional to means. It's an act of spirit. Charity as a function is proportional to means. Generosity is a trait charity is an act. A poor man giving more of his worldly goods as a percentage is more generous then a rich man giving less, but less charitable because the end result matters. This conversation is stupid.

Right. We give a lot of money, and it does a lot of good, and I think a good number of countries are very grateful for it.

But it's not a huge amount of money in the sense that it's a significant sacrifice for us, or that it hurts us budgetarily.

Thats a tiny fraction fraction of the amount of money we gave the last administration annually in order to maintain it's military/security apparatus which it used to keep it's people down. We're saving money by buddying up with these people as opposed to the previous. You should really drop your 5oclockFOX talking points and look at things in a realistic fraction. Ninety million is a minor goodwill gesture that won't impact the bottom line in the slightest.

I don't think I ever said I liked giving the former regime money either? Giving them that money certainly helped them stay in power didn't it. I don't watch television news and I don't like your condescending tone. Why should the US have to pay others for influence. Last time I checked we were the powerful country, shouldn't people be paying us for our influence. Oh yeah we are too busy constantly giving out influence out for free.

Tiny fractions continue to add up, should you watch dollars or cents, the answer is both!

Its not just Egypt, it's all the aid, it's an attitude. The fact that politicians repeatedly do things like throwing 90 million at countries for no better reason than sounding nice is irresponsible and lazy. I'll remember that next time a dam breaks of a bridge collapses because the was no more money in the budget for maintenance.

And giving the money to US contractors to do work still doesn't help the people here, hire the contractors to build and repair bridges here!

As for national security, and keeping other peoples rebellions down, I'm pretty sure that is what has got us in this mess in the first place. Why did we have to placate Afghanistan, oh yeah because some wacko didn't like the US military being in the middle east, so he flew planes into buildings. Why were we in the middle east? Kuwait was raping Iraq financially (by slant drilling and leveraging war debts Iraq incurred defending them all from Iran) and the US gave Saddam the idea that we wouldn't interfere in middle east affairs. Which can all be traced to our botched support job of the shah of Iran during the revolution.

What did we accomplish in Afghanistan? Oh yeah we took out the Taliban and did IRAN a huge favor!

Our national debt is a much larger security risk than what is happening in Egypt. Stop making excuses for decades of overspending and handouts to cover our terrible foreign policy, you are only encouraging more of it.

...Right, but killing foreign aid will

a) do almost nothing to balance the budget

b) remove an extremely cost-effective tool for international goodwill from the equation

I don't think I ever said I liked giving the former regime money either? Giving them that money certainly helped them stay in power didn't it. I don't watch television news and I don't like your condescending tone. Why should the US have to pay others for influence. Last time I checked we were the powerful country, shouldn't people be paying us for our influence. Oh yeah we are too busy constantly giving out influence out for free.

Tiny fractions continue to add up, should you watch dollars or cents, the answer is both!

And economic and security investment pays dividends in return on capitol, more liquid economic trade patterns, and less expensive economic and military negotiations. Dollars don't disappear.

The fact that politicians repeatedly do things like throwing 90 million at countries for no better reason than sounding nice is irresponsible and lazy.

Aiding a downtrodden people whose oppression we directly funded for spurious security reasons is irresponsible. You heard it here first folks.

I'll remember that next time a dam breaks of a bridge collapses because the was no more money in the budget for maintenance.

Yes, the national federal bridge. You should probably hit the ejector seat on this thread.

As for national security, and keeping other peoples rebellions down, I'm pretty sure that is what has got us in this mess in the first place. Why did we have to placate Afghanistan, oh yeah because some wacko didn't like the US military being in the middle east, so he flew planes into buildings. Why were we in the middle east? Kuwait was raping Iraq financially (by slant drilling and leveraging war debts Iraq incurred defending them all from Iran) and the US gave Saddam the idea that we wouldn't interfere in middle east affairs. Which can all be traced to our botched support job of the shah of Iran during the revolution.

And look how well our economy and budget was doing in the last 50 years! It's as if this is a bs strawman!

What did we accomplish in Afghanistan? Oh yeah we took out the Taliban and did IRAN a huge favor!

I'm pretty sure Iraq was the big power balance shift, not afghanistan. But hey, you keep that unicorn planet in your head.

Our national debt is a much larger security risk than what is happening in Egypt. Stop making excuses for decades of overspending and handouts to cover our terrible foreign policy, you are only encouraging more of it.

Yep. It's a more important security issue then the recovery of japan too. Are you high?

Andrew1975 wrote:
Its not just Egypt, it's all the aid, it's an attitude. The fact that politicians repeatedly do things like throwing 90 million at countries for no better reason than sounding nice is irresponsible and lazy.

That's not the main reason that we give aid to foreign nations, in fact its probably not even a significant enough reason to spend much time worrying over.

We give aid in order to develop a power relationship with certain interests in the target state (Egypt's military is a good example of this), and in order to subsidize domestic manufacturers.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

biccat wrote:
If we're national basing policy on a biblical story, how is that not suggesting we follow the Christian Bible, at least in part?

There is a distinction between legislating according to an allegorical tale, and using the same allegorical tale to illustrate a point. Its the distinction between "we should do X because its in the Bible", and "the Bible features a good example of X."

dogma wrote:

biccat wrote:
If we're national basing policy on a biblical story, how is that not suggesting we follow the Christian Bible, at least in part?

There is a distinction between legislating according to an allegorical tale, and using the same allegorical tale to illustrate a point. Its the distinction between "we should do X because its in the Bible", and "the Bible features a good example of X."

You're using the Bible as a persuasive tool in both cases. Therefore, in both cases you're attributing some inherent truth to the Bible, whether it's as a primary or secondary reference is largely irrelevant.

"We should ban the eating of pork. The bible features a good example of why eating pork is bad."

biccat wrote:
You're using the Bible as a persuasive tool in both cases. Therefore, in both cases you're attributing some inherent truth to the Bible, whether it's as a primary or secondary reference is largely irrelevant.

"We should ban the eating of pork. The bible features a good example of why eating pork is bad."

You can't infer that thing X is true because it is used persuasively. Take your example, if I were to claim that the Bible is true, and that we should ban the consumption of pork because the Bible instructs us to, then I am arguing from a sort of inherent Biblical truth. However, if I made claim like the one you did above, I'm simply implying that "the consumption of pork is bad" is a true statement (assuming banning only occurs when a thing is bad), the fact that the Bible happens to agree does not imply that the Bible itself possess an inherent, collective truth.

And economic and security investment pays dividends in return on capitol, more liquid economic trade patterns, and less expensive economic and military negotiations. Dollars don't disappear.

Oh ok, you have explained it now! So one day Iraq, Afghanistan, Egypt, and Libya will come back and pay our debt for us!? Show me where this scenario has ever played out this way exception for post WW2 Europe. That aid to Pakistan has been paying off huge dividends.

Aiding a downtrodden people whose oppression we directly funded for spurious security reasons is irresponsible. You heard it here first folks.

If you read the post I didn't think we should have funded the regime in the first place.

Yes, the national federal bridge. You should probably hit the ejector seat on this thread.

Actually yes its called Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), and the Highway Bridge Replacement and Rehabilitation Program (HBRRP). Consider your point ejected

And look how well our economy and budget was doing in the last 50 years! It's as if this is a bs strawman!

Are you trying to make my point for me here? It's in the last 50 years we have decided on this plan of action and attitude all the while accumulating alot of global hate and a large deficit

Yep. It's a more important security issue then the recovery of japan too. Are you high?

I never said no aid to Japan. It's a nuclear emergency its pretty serious. I say give them the 90 million before we give it to Egypt, we might reap rewards from that someday. But you know nobody sent the US millions of dollars of aid during Katrina, 911 or the California earthquake.

What security does Japan provide? Militarily they would get stomped by their neighbors. They might be a financial player and trade partner but currently the yen is at a 16 years high, they might need expertise and advise, but they don't need money.

How is the National Debt not more of a security issue than japan? Unless you mean the nuc plants blowing. That is a much greater threat to many more countries than the US.

I'm pretty sure Iraq was the big power balance shift, not afghanistan. But hey, you keep that unicorn planet in your head.

I was mentioning Afghanistan because someone else had used it to make a point. It appears that you are one of the delusional few that thinks our foray into Iraq was a good idea. Can you explain what was accomplished there and how it was in US interests? I sure can't. I'm pretty sure its one of the reasons we have such a large national debt. If anything we helped Iran by switching regional hatred towards us and away from them. Iran was scared %$*^less of the Taliban and al quieda until the even greater infadel stepped in

That's not the main reason that we give aid to foreign nations, in fact its probably not even a significant enough reason to spend much time worrying over.

We give aid in order to develop a power relationship with certain interests in the target state (Egypt's military is a good example of this), and in order to subsidize domestic manufacturers.

Look, I understand influence. It just seams that people should be courting the US not the other way around. We have the influence to give, markets to open and assistance to provide. I'm sure there are reasons to be friends with Egypt, but lets face it any relationship we have with them while mutually beneficial will benefit them much more than us.

Oh ok, you have explained it now! So one day Iraq, Afghanistan, Egypt, and Libya will come back and pay our debt for us!? Show me where this scenario has ever played out this way exception for post WW2 Europe. That aid to Pakistan has been paying off huge dividends.

If you can't stop speaking in absolutes that combine all of time and a widely disparate series of situations then you need to click the X on your browser. You'll have nothing to add to the conversation until you do.

If you read the post I didn't think we should have funded the regime in the first place.

As soon as you get a time machine that will become relevant or interesting.

Actually yes its called Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), and the Highway Bridge Replacement and Rehabilitation Program (HBRRP). Consider your point ejected

The Local Programs Development Office notifies local agencies of bridges
under their jurisdiction that have been selected for replacement. If the
local government chooses to accept the bridge, the federal program pays
80% of the project cost—all phases are eligible. The remaining 20% is
paid by the local government.

It's local bridges that local constituencies request to receive additional funding for. It's separate from maintenance and safety standard review that will see bridges closed or made unusable. Those services are meant to close access to bridges well before they become dangerous and they function independent of federal revitalization programs. "Those federal bridges".

Are you trying to make my point for me here? It's in the last 50 years we have decided on this plan of action and attitude all the while accumulating alot of global hate and a large deficit

We had a surplus a decade ago. You have no idea what you're talking about and it's painfully obvious. Foreign aid makes up a fraction of our federal budget and it contributes very little to our debt.

I never said no aid to Japan. It's a nuclear emergency its pretty serious.

Not compared to the massive earthquake and tsunami damages, but thanks for showing that you have no perspective on the issue itself. Also YES THEY DID.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_response_to_Hurricane_Katrina

What security does Japan provide? Militarily they would get stomped by their neighbors. They might be a financial player and trade partner but currently the yen is at a 16 years high, they might need expertise and advise, but they don't need money.

Are you like 15? Japan is a lynchpin of of our east asian defense strategy and maintains a significant defense force while we maintain significant offensive capability based out of the islands.

How is the National Debt not more of a security issue than japan? Unless you mean the nuc plants blowing. That is a much greater threat to many more countries than the US.

You also don't know nuclear plants work. This list keeps getting bigger.

I was mentioning Afghanistan because someone else had used it to make a point.

BACKPEDAL BACKPEDAL!

It appears that you are one of the delusional few that thinks our foray into Iraq was a good idea.

UNRELATED UN-SOURCED ACCUSATION THATS LUDICROUSLY FALSE!

Can you explain what was accomplished there and how it was in US interests? I sure can't. I'm pretty sure its one of the reasons we have such a large national debt.

I'm pretty sure you should do yourself a favor and stop.

dogma wrote:You can't infer that thing X is true because it is used persuasively. Take your example, if I were to claim that the Bible is true, and that we should ban the consumption of pork because the Bible instructs us to, then I am arguing from a sort of inherent Biblical truth. However, if I made claim like the one you did above, I'm simply implying that "the consumption of pork is bad" is a true statement (assuming banning only occurs when a thing is bad), the fact that the Bible happens to agree does not imply that the Bible itself possess an inherent, collective truth.

If you aren't acknowleding the validity or persuasiveness of the Biblical source, then why are you citing to it?

I'm not saying "the Bible speaks favorably on X, therefore the Bible is true for all cases"

Rather, the argument "We should X, the Bible supports X," is no different than "We should Y, the Bible supports Y."

The only difference between the part cited by KK and the part cited by me is where we draw the line on the truthfulness of the Bible, not on it's persuasive value.

If you can't stop speaking in absolutes that combine all of time and a widely disparate series of situations then you need to click the X on your browser. You'll have nothing to add to the conversation until you do.

Until you can back up one of your claims with facts maybe you should not participate in a topic that you didn't start.

As soon as you get a time machine that will become relevant or interesting.

You are the one who brought up the past.

It's local bridges that local constituencies request to receive additional funding for. It's separate from maintenance and safety standard review that will see bridges closed or made unusable. Those services are meant to close access to bridges well before they become dangerous and they function independent of federal revitalization programs. "Those federal bridges".

First off why do you assume it's local bridges I was talking about. I love when you just assume my facts for me. I guess the bridge in Minnesota of the levies in new Orleans couldn't have used that money before they failed.

By 2003 the federal funding for the flood control project essentially dried up as it was drained into the Iraq war. In 2004, the Bush administration cut funding requested by the New Orleans district of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers for holding back the waters of Lake Pontchartrain by more than 80 percent. Additional cuts at the beginning of this year…forced the New Orleans district of the Corps to impose a hiring freeze.

We had a surplus a decade ago. You have no idea what you're talking about and it's painfully obvious. Foreign aid makes up a fraction of our federal budget and it contributes very little to our debt.

We had a yearly budget surplus not a national debt surplus. Wow you really should just stop if you don't understand the difference. I mean did you really think we had paid off the US national debt at some point?

Are you like 15? Japan is a lynchpin of of our east asian defense strategy and maintains a significant defense force while we maintain significant offensive capability based out of the islands.

And that is important because we are at war with whom right now?

You also don't know nuclear plants work. This list keeps getting bigger.

So you don't think that venting radioactive gas into the atmosphere is dangerous? Yeah it's not going to turn into Herosima just Chernobyl that's much better yeah! While melt down may have been a better word, blow is appropriate if YOU know how reactors fail.

BACKPEDAL BACKPEDAL!

Not remotely. My point about Afghanistan was valid

UNRELATED UN-SOURCED ACCUSATION THATS LUDICROUSLY FALSE!

This on the other hand is back pedaling

Until you can back up one of your claims with facts maybe you should not participate in a topic that you didn't start.

I've posted links and direct quotes in my posts. Do you want me to surf the tsunami to your house and hand you a textbook? Also if you didn't want people coming in and disagreeing with everything you posted you wouldn't have posted what you did on a public forum.

You are the one who brought up the past.

You brought up Iraq, Afghanistan, and the previous regime of Egypt. Those are decisions made in the past. Everything that happened before right now is the past. The relevance of previous opinions depends on their present relevance, not the relevance of the totality of their basis.

First off why do you assume it's local bridges I was talking about. I love when you just assume my facts for me. I guess the bridge in Minnesota of the levies in new Orleans couldn't have used that money before they failed.

I assume you're talking about federal bridges because we don't have a federal bridge that crosses the pacific and you were talking about bridges.

By 2003 the federal funding for the flood control project essentially dried up as it was drained into the Iraq war. In 2004, the Bush administration cut funding requested by the New Orleans district of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers for holding back the waters of Lake Pontchartrain by more than 80 percent. Additional cuts at the beginning of this year…forced the New Orleans district of the Corps to impose a hiring freeze.

False corollary. The nation was also undergoing a minor recession at the time which placed significant tax pressures on the federal budget while bush kept tax rates low. These contributed to significantly more debt and thus loss to federal budget output then the war itself. You could just as easily say rising health costs cost Mississippi their funding. Or political football.

We had a yearly budget surplus not a national debt surplus. Wow you really should just stop if you don't understand the difference

We've run a deficit for over 200 years, at times paying it off. Our economy is orders of magnitude larger then when it began. You plainly don't understand economics if you believe that debt itself is endemic of economic fragility or inefficient government.

Heres a handy graph for you. You seem to have dropped the foreign aid for katrina thing which is cute and the accusation of my love for Iraq, but it'll help you understand some historical debt rates for what you didn't backpedal away from.

biccat wrote:
If you aren't acknowleding the validity or persuasiveness of the Biblical source, then why are you citing to it?

I never said I that the persuasiveness of the Bible wasn't being leverage, I merely said that using the Bible as a persuasive tool does not indicate that the speaker is claiming that the Bible is true. A thing doesn't need to be true in order to be persuasive, nor do I need to consider my means of persuasion to be true in order to use them. Persuasion is about tailoring a message to suit an audience, not necessarily crafting one that is purely indicative of the beliefs of the speaker. In this particular instance one might cite the Bible because its a source that many people find compelling, without actually finding the source compelling himself, or even leveraging the truth of the Bible as a specific source.

biccat wrote:
The only difference between the part cited by KK and the part cited by me is where we draw the line on the truthfulness of the Bible, not on it's persuasive value.

Sure, but my point is that parts of a thing can possess veracity without lending it to the whole of that thing such that the presence of one true statement in the Bible conveys a measure of truth to all other statements in the Bible.

I've posted links and direct quotes in my posts. Do you want me to surf the tsunami to your house and hand you a textbook? Also if you didn't want people coming in and disagreeing with everything you posted you wouldn't have posted what you did on a public forum.

No you didn't! I asked you for one example of aid bringing a return on capital as you explained with the exception of post WWII Europe. You have provided nothing!

You brought up Iraq, Afghanistan, and the previous regime of Egypt. Those are decisions made in the past. Everything that happened before right now is the past. The relevance of previous opinions depends on their present relevance, not the relevance of the totality of their basis.

Yes but you had brought unchangeable past mistakes as an excuse to keep making the same ones in the future

I assume you're talking about federal bridges because we don't have a federal bridge that crosses the pacific and you were talking about bridges.

That's a silly assumption based on the argument that we should fund rebuilding our own infrastructure before we go building someone else's . Your skills are mind blowing? I can only assume that you are terrible at assumption! One would assume you shouldn't do it then.

False corollary. The nation was also undergoing a minor recession at the time which placed significant tax pressures on the federal budget while bush kept tax rates low. These contributed to significantly more debt and thus loss to federal budget output then the war itself. You could just as easily say rising health costs cost Mississippi their funding. Or political football

Collate it anyway you want, we spent money globally before we fixed our problems here and it bit us in the ass. Oh and last time I checked New Orleans was in Louisiana! Really check a fact now and then. Was this recession during the same year we had no national debt according to you.

We've run a deficit for over 200 years

Yes I know. What I don't understand is why you would bring up a yearly budget surplus while I am talking about the staggering US debt, you are backpedaling again!

As for US disaster funding
An article in the April 29, 2007 Washington Post claimed that of the $854 million offered by foreign countries, whom the article dubs "allies," to the US Government, only $40 million of the funds had been spent "for disaster victims or reconstruction" as of the date of publication (less than 5%).[55]

Additionally, a large portion of the $854 million in aid offered went uncollected, including over $400 million in oil.

Not one country on your list offered 90 million, and I think that was a much bigger problem then some riots in Egypt.

You did use Iraq as "I'm pretty sure Iraq was the big power balance shift, not afghanistan." As I was attacking all of our middle east adventures. One could only inference that it was your belief that this was a much more important battle field. Important to whom I don't know?

And please you skip plenty of arguments out of convenience to your argument! I skip yours because they are ludicrous and have nothing to do with the topic...like your Iraq argument sited above.

No you didn't! I asked you for one example of aid bringing a return on capital as you explained with the exception of post WWII Europe. You have provided nothing!

Post WW2 japan? South Korea? Saudi Arabia? South Africa? India? There are plenty of examples, but I think what you're looking for is "successful nation building" rather then "tit for tat return on investment". I mean, half the stuff we give to mideast countries we do so so that we can put dudes with guns within their borders and use their airfields.

Collate it anyway you want, we spent money globally before we fixed our problems here and it bit us in the ass.

Yep. Too bad they didn't have your time machine. Coulda avoided that.

Yes I know. What I don't understand is why you would bring up a yearly budget surplus while I am talking about the staggering US debt, you are backpedaling again!

Because overall debt is intrinsically tied to yearly budgets? I mean, unless we find several trillion tonnes of already refined precious metals under arkansas in shipping containers ready to go then I think we're gonna have to pay it off year by year. Taking it otherwise implies a lack of perspective.

As for US disaster funding
An article in the April 29, 2007 Washington Post claimed that of the $854 million offered by foreign countries, whom the article dubs "allies," to the US Government, only $40 million of the funds had been spent "for disaster victims or reconstruction" as of the date of publication (less than 5%).[55]

Additionally, a large portion of the $854 million in aid offered went uncollected, including over $400 million in oil.

Not one country on your list offered 90 million, and I think that was a much bigger problem then some riots in Egypt.

Cool beans kid. Not many other countries have 23% of the planets wealth. We're one of the most populous countries on the planet and have by an order of magnitude the largest economy. When we give we giver bigger with much smaller percentages of generosity. The 90 million is an attempt to reduce anti Americanism in Egypt, a lynchpin of mideast security and American energy policy. This is all a backpedal anyway since you said they gave nothing.

You did use Iraq as "I'm pretty sure Iraq was the big power balance shift, not afghanistan." As I was attacking all of our middle east adventures. One could only inference that it was your belief that this was a much more important battle field. Important to whom I don't know?

Thats a plainly illogical inference as I was describing Iraq as more important to Irans resurgence. The topic the quote was discussing. I indicated that by quoting you. It's how these things flow.

And please you skip plenty of arguments out of convenience to your argument! I skip yours because they are ludicrous and have nothing to do with the topic...like your Iraq argument sited above.

I skip little. My posts are very long and nearly line by line responses to yours.

Post WW2 japan? South Korea? Saudi Arabia? South Africa? India? There are plenty of examples, but I think what you're looking for is "successful nation building" rather then "tit for tat return on investment". I mean, half the stuff we give to mideast countries we do so so that we can put dudes with guns within their borders and use their airfields.

Right we give them aid so we can give them "Military" Aid. Why is this important. Rebuilding Europe I understand, we created global markets to sell things=Profit (obviously not the only reason). I can back that. Saudi Arabia what do we get, military bases that cost money so that we can defend them which costs us money. I can't back that. Saudi Arabia can defend itself!

Africa (gonna start the *&*& storm here) What has us aid ever gotten us from Africa. If anything our Aid is causing problems. The more people we save the more people they have to feed which they can't.....so it's pretty useless and actually destructive.

Yep. Too bad they didn't have your time machine. Coulda avoided that.

Keep not learning from past mistakes

Because overall debt is intrinsically tied to yearly budgets? I mean, unless we find several trillion tonnes of already refined precious metals under arkansas in shipping containers ready to go then I think we're gonna have to pay it off year by year. Taking it otherwise implies a lack of perspective.

Having the attitude that we should finance the world for little or no or negative return while in debt shows yours. And still does not excuse why you brought up such an topic out of left field.

Cool beans kid. Not many other countries have 23% of the planets wealth. We're one of the most populous countries on the planet and have by an order of magnitude the largest economy. When we give we giver bigger with much smaller percentages of generosity. The 90 million is an attempt to reduce anti Americanism in Egypt, a lynchpin of mideast security and American energy policy. This is all a backpedal anyway since you said they gave nothing.

We don't have wealth we have uncollected debt or can't you follow the argument. Egypt is no such thing. according to you, every country is a lynchpin of some sort, i don't even think you know what this means.

It's not backpeddeling you have argued that 90 million is nothing so surely the 40 million is less than nothing

Thats a plainly illogical inference as I was describing Iraq as more important to Irans resurgence

Incorrect. Iran was quite frightened of and was at the time militarily sparing with the Taliban and Al qeeda. They Iran Iraq war ending long before this.

I skip little. My posts are very long and nearly line by line responses to yours.

Except for the parts you skip yes. I mean really you still have not explained why it is better to build infrastructure in other countries when our own needs massive repair. You give vague military scenarios where we have to defend people because well we defended them in the past, and we should keep funding things because we funded them in the past. History would say if our intervention was the root cause of the problem in the past, it will continue to be so in the future.

People don't appreciate being messed with! If you are helping someone you are usually messing with someone elses plans or upsetting a natural balance. To say we should support Egypt because we supported the last oppressive regime is ludicrous. It's a terrible attitude, the kind of thinking that got us to support Mubarak in the first place. We should feel bad about this? Mubarak wasn't Stalin and who is to say this new regime will be ant better? When they fall will we have to send another 90 million in aid to the next guy that steps up. This is sh&* policy! I don't feel guilty that the US is powerful! I don't feel guilty that Egypt is in turmoil.

Andrew1975 wrote:Saudi Arabia can defend itself!

So you can back the creation of markets, but not military action in the interests of obtaining a large amount of commodity X at as low a price as possible? Why would you favor the creation of demand over the effective creation of supply? That seems arbitrary.

Andrew1975 wrote:
Africa (gonna start the *&*& storm here) What has us aid ever gotten us from Africa. If anything our Aid is causing problems. The more people we save the more people they have to feed which they can't.....so it's pretty useless and actually destructive.

The argument from destruction has been made with respect to aid, though not the way you just made it. The way you just made it is nonsense, you can't save someone, in general, and feed them to the lions.

Andrew1975 wrote:
Keep not learning from past mistakes.

The problem is that you're generalizing without cause, and oversimplifying the issue of state spending. These two actions characterize essentially every argument that you've ever made on this board.

Andrew1975 wrote:
It's not backpeddeling you have argued that 90 million is nothing so surely the 40 million is less than nothing

That's nonsense. Its isn't possible for something to be less than nothing. If the word "nothing" is used euphemistically in order to reference insignificance, then any sum which is less than the with which "nothing" is associated would also be nothing, not less than nothing.

So you can back the creation of markets, but not military action in the interests of obtaining a large amount of commodity X at as low a price as possible? Why would you favor the creation of demand over the effective creation of supply? That seems arbitrary.

OK, Saudi Arabia has a military, quite a good military actually, they should. Why? Because the have assets and the money to protect them. If you have assets worth protecting you can afford to pay for them to be protected. If Saudi Arabia needed to buy a whole new military today, do you think that would really affect the cost of there goods (oil) much?

The only threat that had been posed to Saudi Arabia in the past few decades was Iraq. Iraq's belligerency could be directly correlated to US intervention in the first place. So had the US not messed up in the first place we wouldn't have had to step up later.

The argument from destruction has been made with respect to aid, though not the way you just made it. The way you just made it is nonsense, you can't save someone, in general, and feed them to the lions.

My point exactly. So it becomes a self fulfilling aid proficy. Hey we saved your life, now I have to feed you, cloth you, shelter you, and defend you. WTF? Well here is some food. Your farmers are now unemployed and need aid now.....great. Really why bother with the aid in the first place? Humanitarian reasons? I've just created more problems and now instead of blaming god they now blame the US.

The problem is that you're generalizing without cause, and oversimplifying the issue of state spending. These two actions characterize essentially every argument that you've ever made on this board.

And I think you over complicate the issue and that has been your argument. I think it would be better to spend money at home if its needed

That's nonsense. Its isn't possible for something to be less than nothing. If the word "nothing" is used euphemistically in order to reference insignificance, then any sum which is less than the with which "nothing" is associated would also be nothing, not less than nothing.

Irrelevant. And an attempt to derail, next.

Andrew1975 wrote:
OK, Saudi Arabia has a military, quite a good military actually, they should. Why? Because the have assets and the money to protect them. If you have assets worth protecting you can afford to pay for them to be protected. If Saudi Arabia needed to buy a whole new military today, do you think that would really affect the cost of there goods (oil) much?

Yes, probably. They would need to raise revenue, and they only have one way of doing that; affecting the supply of oil. More to the point, as you seem to continually misunderstand, it isn't about whether or not the oil is going to flow, its about where its going to flow.

Andrew1975 wrote:
The only threat that had been posed to Saudi Arabia in the past few decades was Iraq. Iraq's belligerency could be directly correlated to US intervention in the first place. So had the US not messed up in the first place we wouldn't have had to step up later.

This entire passage is false. First, there have been threats to Saudi Arabia that extended beyond Iraq. At this moment both Yemeni rebels and Iran are threats to the Saud family. Second, there is no correlation between Iraqi belligerence and US interventionism, you're manufacturing that idea.

Andrew1975 wrote:
My point exactly. So it becomes a self fulfilling aid proficy. Hey we saved your life, now I have to feed you, cloth you, shelter you, and defend you.

That's nonsense. Giving aid at time t is not a commitment to give aid at time t2.

Andrew1975 wrote:
WTF? Well here is some food. Your farmers are now unemployed and need aid now.....great. Really why bother with the aid in the first place? Humanitarian reasons? I've just created more problems and now instead of blaming god they now blame the US.

That's almost never how aid works. This has been pointed out to you repeatedly, and you have proven unwilling, or unable, to accept this material fact. If you're simply talking about disaster aid, and still cannot appreciate the distinction between an emergency measure, and sustained practice, then there is no hope for you understanding anything related international politics.

Quite honestly, I think you're too wrapped up in this on a emotional level to have anything of significance to say.

Andrew1975 wrote:
And I think you over complicate the issue and that has been your argument. I think it would be better to spend money at home if its needed

Why is that better? From a certain perspective a stable Pakistan, which is a place one might rather enjoy visiting again, is much more important than a starving American citizen about whom one knows nothing, and cares not at all.

Andrew1975 wrote:
Irrelevant. And an attempt to derail, next.

No, its quite relevant. If you cannot be counted on to debate an issue with sense, then why should anyone engage you at all?

biccat wrote:Thought I'd help improve your post.

Well, obviously. Things are almost always compared as a percentage of GDP. The fact that you think this requires any kind of clarification only goes to further show highlight how little you've read on world economic matters.

And private US citizens give out far, FAR more in aid than the government.

No, they don't. Either in terms of foreign aid or in terms or overall aid.

I think you're getting confused with the fact that US citizens give more overseas than citizens in other countries (yes, measured against GDP...) It doesn't come anywhere close to the shortfall from its government compared to others, though.

These are the best sites I can find that don't measure aid as a percentage of GDP or based on military budget. Do you have any information that shows foreign aid spending in real dollars (pounds, euros, yen...) by country, rather than as a percentage of GDP?

Why would that be relevant. The US would come out on top, by the pure force of having so much more money than anyone else to begin with.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Frazzled wrote:Does that include aircraft carriers provide air lift aid and peacekeeping missions? Does that include things like the US military in a radiation zone as we speak?

Yes, it does.

Does a fact like that change your opinion at all? Even a little?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

biccat wrote:I'll just end my part in this discussion by saying that if I were a poor person, I would much rather have a wealthy person give me 0.1% of their income than have a poor family give me 10% of their income, especially if it meant the difference between $1 million and $10k.

YMMV.

Which would be a fantastically inciteful point if the discussion had ever been on whether US foreign aid is useful, or if anyone had ever even slightly suggested that it wasn't useful. But no-one ever discussed that. Instead, it was pointed out that people complaining about the US giving away so much money in foreign aid made no sense, because other wealthy countries gave more (yes, as a percentage of GDP...).

So, to use your rich man, poor man argument, we have a rich man complaining that he's feeling like he's obligated to give 0.1% of his yearly earning to support the orphanage, and he should be credited for being so very, very generous. Meanwhile all the other rich people are giving 0.2% or 0.3% of their income, making the first rich guy look like quite an ass.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Mannahnin wrote:Right. We give a lot of money, and it does a lot of good, and I think a good number of countries are very grateful for it.

But it's not a huge amount of money in the sense that it's a significant sacrifice for us, or that it hurts us budgetarily.

Yes, this. Completely and entirely this.

It's frustrating because it so simple, and so obvious, but people just don't want to get it.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Andrew1975 wrote:Its not just Egypt, it's all the aid, it's an attitude. The fact that politicians repeatedly do things like throwing 90 million at countries for no better reason than sounding nice is irresponsible and lazy. I'll remember that next time a dam breaks of a bridge collapses because the was no more money in the budget for maintenance.

As I said earlier, the money for US foreign aid is trivial. You can maintain the dams and the bridges and have foreign aid. This involves beginning a real, honest debate on the cost of government in a developed country, and setting an appropriate tax level.

And in the meantime every day you spend fething about moaning about emotive and important sounding items like $90 million in foreign aid for Egypt that are actually incredibly minor, is a day that you aren't addressing the incredibly serious nature of your long term budget deficit.

Right now there's an "emergency" hearing in congress to discuss funding of NPR. You should be outraged that one of your two major parties is grandstanding over such a completely meaningless issue, while pretending they're trying to solve the budget crisis.

Because here it is, plain and simple. Anyone that talks about the budget crisis, but only talks about foreign aid or NPR or other really small things, and steers clear of social security, health, military spending and the tax rate, either has no idea about what is in the budget, or is lying to you. Possibly both.

Letting that kind of crap will only harm any efforts towards real debate on the issue.

Yes, probably. They would need to raise revenue, and they only have one way of doing that; affecting the supply of oil. More to the point, as you seem to continually misunderstand, it isn't about whether or not the oil is going to flow, its about where its going to flow.

The cost to start a new Saudi military, which they don't need because they have a good one already would not significantly raise the cost of oil. Divide that cost between the millions of barrels of oil they produce a day and you are talking about pennies.

This entire passage is false. First, there have been threats to Saudi Arabia that extended beyond Iraq. At this moment both Yemeni rebels and Iran are threats to the Saud family. Second, there is no correlation between Iraqi belligerence and US interventionism, you're manufacturing that idea.

Really Yemen rebels and Iran. I'm pretty sure neither of those issues require millions or billions of US aid to stem. Us intervention was part of the cause of Iraqi belligerence. The Iran/Iraq war and further more the Iran Revolution are all related to US intervention.

That's nonsense. Giving aid at time t is not a commitment to give aid at time t2.

Says you, I just had someone say we owed Egypt because we supported the last regime. Every year we continue to provide the same countries with the same insane amounts of aid.

That's almost never how aid works. This has been pointed out to you repeatedly, and you have proven unwilling, or unable, to accept this material fact. If you're simply talking about disaster aid, and still cannot appreciate the distinction between an emergency measure, and sustained practice, then there is no hope for you understanding anything related international politics.

Quite honestly, I think you're too wrapped up in this on a emotional level to have anything of significance to say.

No, not at all, you continually spout about protecting resources and us contractors. Neither of which help the average tax payer where these moneys are being take from.

Why is that better? From a certain perspective a stable Pakistan, which is a place one might rather enjoy visiting again, is much more important than a starving American citizen about whom one knows nothing, and cares not at all.

Do you pay attention? Look why are we giving anyone money to say build infrastructure when we need better infrastructure here. If we can afford to pay a contractor to build a power station or damn in Whogivesastan, why can we not afford to fix our own powergrid and transport system which have a much larger and direct effect on the people actually paying for these projects?

No, its quite relevant. If you cannot be counted on to debate an issue with sense, then why should anyone engage you at all?

Dogma I'm not going to debate the fact that there can be negative numbers. If 90 million is nothing then yes 40 million is less than nothing. Negative numbers have been around for quite some time and yes you can get less than Zero, maybe you need a remedial math class.

Sebster, obviously cutting all foreign aid is not the answer or the only answer. I'm talking about changing an entire attitude to the way the US government throws money around like we print the stuff. If you are in Debt you need to start cutting all unnecessary costs. If joe dirt is in debt he needs to maybe reevaluate all his priorities that includes small things to create the discipline and habits.

If you are in Debt you need to start cutting all unnecessary costs.

I can see why you don't own a business.

Andrew1975 wrote:
The cost to start a new Saudi military, which they don't need because they have a good one already would not significantly raise the cost of oil. Divide that cost between the millions of barrels of oil they produce a day and you are talking about pennies.

Saudi Arabia spends 8.2% of their GDP on the military, that isn't pennies.

Andrew1975 wrote:
Really Yemen rebels and Iran. I'm pretty sure neither of those issues require millions or billions of US aid to stem.

No, they don't, but, as I've said many times, that isn't the point.

Andrew1975 wrote:
Us intervention was part of the cause of Iraqi belligerence. The Iran/Iraq war and further more the Iran Revolution are all related to US intervention.

The Iranian revolution wasn't caused by US belligerence, nor did it cause Iraqi belligerence. The Iran/Iraq war wasn't about US influence either.

This sort of commentary betrays your ignorance of world history, this is I-Poli 101 stuff.

Andrew1975 wrote:
Says you, I just had someone say we owed Egypt because we supported the last regime. Every year we continue to provide the same countries with the same insane amounts of aid.

No, it has nothing to do with what I say, its what follows from the reality of a statement. If I say I'll give you $5, then I'm not making a commitment to give you $5 every day.

Andrew1975 wrote:
No, not at all, you continually spout about protecting resources and us contractors. Neither of which help the average tax payer where these moneys are being take from.

How much do you pay for gas? How much gas are you allowed to pay for?

Andrew1975 wrote:
Do you pay attention? Look why are we giving anyone money to say build infrastructure when we need better infrastructure here. If we can afford to pay a contractor to build a power station or damn in Whogivesastan, why can we not afford to fix our own powergrid and transport system which have a much larger and direct effect on the people actually paying for these projects?

But, as a member of the upper class, why should I give a damn? You mean nothing to me, you're a peasant from my perspective, and your ability to assemble political will is nonexistent. I mean, really, I would prefer that you had no money, its only the structure of the social contract that requires me ensure that you have anything.

Andrew1975 wrote:
Dogma I'm not going to debate the fact that there can be negative numbers.

Good, God, that's not what negative numbers mean. Don't talk about higher mathematics if you couldn't pass calculus.

I can see why you don't own a business.

You are correct.........! I own two, a bar and a web design company, if I ran them like the US government, however I'm sure I would not own either.

Saudi Arabia spends 8.2% of their GDP on the military, that isn't pennies.

Per gallon of gas, yes it is!

No, they don't, but, as I've said many times, that isn't the point.

You have not made any points as far as i'm concerned.

The Iranian revolution wasn't caused by US belligerence, nor did it cause Iraqi belligerence. The Iran/Iraq war wasn't about US influence either.

This sort of commentary betrays your ignorance of world history, this is I-Poli 101 stuff.

I never said anything about US belligerence! I said US intervention. That's in English 101

No, it has nothing to do with what I say, its what follows from the reality of a statement. If I say I'll give you $5, then I'm not making a commitment to give you $5 every day.

Fine, I'm saying if you want $5 you better make a good argument for it, which you haven't !

How much do you pay for gas? How much gas are you allowed to pay for?

As much as the market will bare, As much as I feel like buying. How much should Saudi Arabia pay for their Own protection?

But, as a member of the upper class, why should I give a damn? You mean nothing to me, you're a peasant from my perspective, and your ability to assemble political will is nonexistent. I mean, really, I would prefer that you had no money, its only the structure of the social contract that requires me ensure that you have anything.

Because these issues affect you also. And don't call me a peasant you have no idea who I am, I own two business and I'm doing just fine. Oh and I'm sure you don't ensure I have anything, you have no power over me. What is your problem? You really need some therapy, God complex much?

Everyperson in the US depends on the US infrastructure I don't care who you are. Thats why you should care.

I'm sure Mubarak had much the same opinion of the pleebs tough, worked out well for him!

Good, God, that's not what negative numbers mean. Don't talk about higher mathematics if you couldn't pass calculus.

Says the man who couldn't conceive of something less than nothing a minute ago. I mean hey it was your argument. Oh and I did pass calculus and graduated from college just fine. Really, the way you and Shurma resort to personal attacks only shows your frustration and lack of understanding.

Andrew1975 wrote:

I can see why you don't own a business.

You are correct.........! I own two, a bar and a web design company, if I ran them like the US government, however I'm sure I would not own either.

You do realize that government isn't a business and shouldn't be run as such, and vice-versa. Treating one like the other is just going to lead to bad things.

Andrew1975 wrote:You are correct.........! I own two, a bar and a web design company, if I ran them like the US government, however I'm sure I would not own either.

And when your bar lost twenty thousand dollars in a year, would you start talking about halving the number of peanuts you put out for customers, or would you start talking about ways to grow revenue and cut back on the three or four major sources of expenditure?

Hey Ahtman,I didn't start with the Business/government analogy Jeez.

Sebster If I lost $20k in a year I would look at wherever I was bleeding cash, while I was doing that, I would certainly stop donating to charities that provide no valuable return for my investment.
If I couldn't afford lights (cheap infrastructure) I certainly would not be donating $20 to the shelter across town.

But, as a member of the upper class, why should I give a damn? You mean nothing to me, you're a peasant from my perspective, and your ability to assemble political will is nonexistent. I mean, really, I would prefer that you had no money, its only the structure of the social contract that requires me ensure that you have anything.

Holy cow I think Dogma is really Charlie Sheen!

Andrew1975 wrote:Sebster If I lost $20k in a year I would look at wherever I was bleeding cash while I was doing that, I would certainly stop donating to charities that provide no valuable return for my investment.

But more than anything else, you would look at those big areas, wouldn't you? And if someone was managing your bar for you, and when you asked him how you were going to move back to break even and then into profitability, and all he'd talk about was peanuts and increasing the charge for using the love predictor machine in the corner, you'd think he was either bullshitting you or completely incapable of bringing the bar into the black, yeah?

Because here we are, crapping on about $90 million out of a $3.5 trillion budget. Talking about 0.0026% of total yearly expenditure. I think peanuts would probably be a bigger portion of a bar's expenditure.

But there's no conversation about health, social security, defence or tax revenue...

Andrew1975 wrote:
Per gallon of gas, yes it is!

Only in the sense that any increment of money can be divided by 1. Regardless of the actual calculation, if we take 8.2% of 3 USD (Rounding way down) the total is 24.6 cents; which is more than what would generally be qualified as "pennies".

Andrew1975 wrote:
You have not made any points as far as i'm concerned.

Again, that's nonsense. I've very clearly made points. You might consider them to be poorly supported, or incoherent, but I made them.

Andrew1975 wrote:
I never said anything about US belligerence! I said US intervention. That's in English 101

Are we now claiming that intervention isn't belligerence?

Andrew1975 wrote:
Fine, I'm saying if you want $5 you better make a good argument for it, which you haven't !

Of course not, I've mostly been mocking you, which is far more entertaining. I'm not interested in arguing with people that have nothing interesting to say.

Andrew1975 wrote:
As much as the market will bare, As much as I feel like buying.

No, what you feel like buying has nothing to do with what you are able to buy. Similarly, "what the market will bear" intrinsically considers things like military intervention. This idea that the market xists outside reality is as nonsensical as the idea that the forms float off in the empyrean depths.

Andrew1975 wrote:
How much should Saudi Arabia pay for their Own protection?

Are you still caught up in this nonsense idea of payment where exchange only entails fiscal relationships?

Andrew1975 wrote:
Because these issues affect you also.

So do the issues in Pakistan, about which I might care more.

Andrew1975 wrote:
And don't call me a peasant you have no idea who I am, I own two business and I'm doing just fine. Oh and I'm sure you don't ensure I have anything, you have no power over me. What is your problem? You really need some therapy, God complex much?

I didn't say anything as myself, I explicitly made a hypothetical argument.

Andrew1975 wrote:
Says the man who couldn't conceive of something less than nothing a minute ago. I mean hey it was your argument. Oh and I did pass calculus and graduated from college just fine. Really, the way you and Shurma resort to personal attacks only shows your frustration and lack of understanding.

No, its an illustration of my disappointment in your position. The ideas of "less" and "more" don't have the same relationship in abstract math as they do in conventional reasoning. As several of my professors have said, -1 is not a hole.

Just to render it in an allegorical sense, -1 * -1 = 1, but hole * hole = a bigger hole; at least to the extent that such an action is sensible (which it isn't).

Andrew1975 wrote:Hey Ahtman,I didn't start with the Business/government analogy Jeez.

Perhaps, but you still made the comparison.

Andrew1975 wrote:I would certainly stop donating to charities that provide no valuable return for my investment.

For a guy who owns business you seem to be having trouble differentiating between charity and investment. This isn't charity, it is an investment, and like any it has risks but it also has rewards. A more stable region allows for more trade and better relationships in the region allow for more trade. And of course it is also in our interest to avoid creating another Taliban like situation as well. In essence you want to toss out a huge revenue stream due to your own misguided parochialism.

Sebster, Again it's not the 90 million. It's the attitude that spends the 90 million flippantly. The attitude that directly affects all the other aspects and points that you are bringing up.

Ahtman, these investments are crap investments, they don't generally pay of, if these investments paid off as you say we wouldn't have such a large deficit. It's more like welfare than investment. Welfare is a self perpetuating cycle of crap too! It's the same a giving crack whores housing so they don't rob the neighborhood.

Only in the sense that any increment of money can be divided by 1. Regardless of the actual calculation, if we take 8.2% of 3 USD (Rounding way down) the total is 24.6 cents; which is more than what would generally be qualified as "pennies".

Usually things that end in cents would qualify as pennies, especially when it's less than a quarter. MATH GENIUS DOGMA!

Are we now claiming that intervention isn't belligerence?

I'm claiming you've gone Charlie Sheen. Go get your Goddesses you Warlock. There is no point arguing with a lunatic.

Andrew1975 wrote:Ahtman, these investments are crap investments, they don't generally pay of, if these investments paid off as you say we wouldn't have such a large deficit.

They do pay off. They don't pay off in currency though, if that's what you mean.

Andrew1975 wrote:
Usually things that end in cents would qualify as pennies, especially when it's less than a quarter. MATH GENIUS DOGMA!

Two trillion USD and one cent qualifies as pennies?

I'm going to guess that you didn't put any thought into this.

You aren't very good at this argument thing.

Andrew1975 wrote:
I'm claiming you've gone Charlie Sheen. Go get your Goddesses you Warlock. There is no point arguing with a lunatic.

Yes, become frustrated, that is the easiest path towards concluding that you have a relevant opinion.

They don't have to pay off cash directly. But all returns are monetary in the end. The billions the US has spent in the middle east has not had a direct return to us. Oil isn't any cheaper in the US compared to the rest of the world because of these "Investments". Again please people don't say these "Investments" pay off if you can't site examples, and a good ratio of them too, only one would not prove a point.

Usually things that end in cents would qualify as pennies, especially when it's less than a quarter. MATH GENIUS DOGMA!

Two trillion USD and one cent qualifies as pennies?

I'm going to guess that you didn't put any thought into this.

You aren't very good at this argument thing.

What part of "Especially if it's less than a Quarter" do you not understand. You apparently aren't very good at reading, comprehension, debate,or math! I don't need to debate with someone who can't even read or pretends to not have such abilities to try to make a point.

Andrew1975 wrote:Sebster, Again it's not the 90 million. It's the attitude that spends the 90 million flippantly. The attitude that directly affects all the other aspects and points that you are bringing up.

But the problematic attitude isn't one where $90 million is given to secure a future ally in a very important region of the world. The problematic attitude is the one where most of the country recognises the deficit as a major issue, but talking about the things driving the deficit, healthcare, social security, defence and tax revenue, are simply banned from conversation. Instead it worries about $90 million here, or some similarly trivial amount somewhere else.

Perhaps worrying about the little amounts would be nice, but when you're not even attempting to talk about the major items it becomes a bit of a nonsense, doesn't it?

Right now there is an emergency session of congress to debate NPR funding. Which gets about $10 million a year from the federal government. Out of $3.4 trillion dollars in annual expenditure. There's no emergency session to discuss the $800 billion in healthcare, or the $700 billion in social security, or the $690 billion in defence expenditures.

That one political party makes a lot of noise about solving the budget but then picks out trivial things it is ideologically opposed to and refuses to mention the rest, and the other side is lucky to maybe mention defence every once in a while is a serious problem.

It is a lot more serious than $90 million spent on Egypt.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Andrew1975 wrote:They don't have to pay off cash directly. But all returns are monetary in the end. The billions the US has spent in the middle east has not had a direct return to us. Oil isn't any cheaper in the US compared to the rest of the world because of these "Investments". Again please people don't say these "Investments" pay off if you can't site examples, and a good ratio of them too, only one would not prove a point.

Umm, why would oil be cheaper in the US to qualify as an investment? If I build a road and use it to get my tractor from one of my fields to another quickly, it is a useful investment for me whether or not another farmer uses it for the same purpose.

The point is that oil is cheaper on the whole, than it would otherwise have been. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to realise that if the governments of the middle east were independant of western aid and openly hostile towards us oil would cost a lot more than it does.

Suez Canal remains under control of a close ally (Egypt).

The dominant regional military power (Israel) is another close ally.

The point is that oil is cheaper on the whole, than it would otherwise have been. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to realise that if the governments of the middle east were independant of western aid and openly hostile towards us oil would cost a lot more than it does.

You are assuming that they would be openly hostile without the aid. I'm simply saying if they have the ability to to self sufficient then why shouldn't they.

When I invest in a company I'm not investing so that everyone in the world can get a dividend. If I build a road I'm not letting someone else use it unless they help pay for maintenance and upkeep. If he is using that road that I paid for to bring competing products to market then he can undercut cut me and do me financial harm, I now have to calculate the cost of infrastructure into my product and he doesn't. Do you let random people use your car when you are not using it, for free?

I have not removed the other issues from the table. I'm not ignoring those issues too. I don't understand why you keep inferring that I seam to think that limiting foreign aid is the end all be all solution. It's not even a start. I'm saying charity starts at home.

Suez Canal remains under control of a close ally (Egypt).

The dominant regional military power (Israel) is another close ally.

OK, so what does that change? I don't get your point. Yes they are our allies. Are you suggesting that if we cut off aid they would no longer be our allies? They profit more by being our allies than we do from being theirs.

Andrew1975 wrote:Oil isn't any cheaper in the US compared to the rest of the world because of these "Investments".

No, that's utter nonsense. Oil costs .83$ per gallon in the US, it costs $1.10 per gallon in India.

Andrew1975 wrote:
What part of "Especially if it's less than a Quarter" do you not understand. You apparently aren't very good at reading, comprehension, debate,or math! I don't need to debate with someone who can't even read or pretends to not have such abilities to try to make a point.

So 24.9% of X is insignificant in all cases, but 25% is significant?




You are doing an amazing job of illustrating why representatives don't pay attention to the people they are representing.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Andrew1975 wrote:
When I invest in a company I'm not investing so that everyone in the world can get a dividend.

The purpose of your investment has no bearing on the effect of your investment.

Would you fail to invest in a profitable company if other people might benefit as well?

Andrew1975 wrote:
If I build a road I'm not letting someone else use it unless they help pay for maintenance and upkeep.

So you would spend more money in order to restrict people from using a beneficial asset when you lose nothing from allowing them to benefit from said asset?

Andrew1975 wrote:
Do you let random people use your car when you are not using it, for free?

False analogy. The car is not only eroded by use, but open to theft; whereas the road is only open to the former.r allies? They profit more by being our allies than we do from being theirs.

Dogma I'm not responding to you anymore, I really don't care to respond to your utter nonsense. Go ahead an spout drivel if you must. I think therapy would be of more benefit to you, but to each his own. I've already collected enough of your inane quotes to last me a lifetime.

Andrew1975 wrote:You are assuming that they would be openly hostile without the aid.

It's not a particularly big assumption. Are you aware of the history of Egypt before Mubarak brokered a deal for it to become a US client state?

I'm simply saying if they have the ability to to self sufficient then why shouldn't they.

Receiving aid doesn't mean a nation isn't self sufficient. Every time the US has bushfires that get out of control, Australia sends firemen to help out... is the US self sufficient?

When I invest in a company I'm not investing so that everyone in the world can get a dividend. If I build a road I'm not letting someone else use it unless they help pay for maintenance and upkeep. If he is using that road that I paid for to bring competing products to market then he can undercut cut me and do me financial harm, I now have to calculate the cost of infrastructure into my product and he doesn't. Do you let random people use your car when you are not using it, for free?

Really, all those things are big concerns for you when the road cost 0.0026% of your total yearly expenditure?

Come on, mate. You're being very pigheaded about some very simple things here.

I have not removed the other issues from the table. I'm not ignoring those issues too. I don't understand why you keep inferring that I seam to think that limiting foreign aid is the end all be all solution. It's not even a start. I'm saying charity starts at home.

The simple point is that debate on those issues just isn't happening. One of the reasons it isn't happening is because people are dancing about the issue and making a show of dealing with the deficit by talking about pretend things like cuts to foreign aid. Crap like this works as a release valve, and a side measure to drive ideological means. Meanwhile the deficit will grow and grow until debate is started for real.

If you were genuinely concerned about the deficit you'd stop pretending foreign aid mattered one bit, and start talking about what really needs to happen to bring the deficit into line.

OK, so what does that change? I don't get your point. Yes they are our allies. Are you suggesting that if we cut off aid they would no longer be our allies? They profit more by being our allies than we do from being theirs.

Yes, if you cut off Egypt they would have stopped being your allies. This is not a great secret.

Andrew1975 wrote:Dogma I'm not responding to you anymore, I really don't care to respond to your utter nonsense. Go ahead an spout drivel if you must. I think therapy would be of more benefit to you, but to each his own. I've already collected enough of your inane quotes to last me a lifetime.

To simplify:

Andrew says X.

Dogma says Y.

Andrew says nuhuh.

Dogma presents evidence.

Andrew quietly contends with the fact that he has no education in the area of inquiry, or any significant intellectual curiosity.

It's not a particularly big assumption. Are you aware of the history of Egypt before Mubarak brokered a deal for it to become a US client state?

I highly doubt it would be in Egypt's best interest to cut ties with the US over the amount of aid we provide them. Are you serious?

Receiving aid doesn't mean a nation isn't self sufficient. Every time the US has bushfires that get out of control, Australia sends firemen to help out... is the US self sufficient?

And we send firefighters to Australia for the same reasons. Sounds fair to me. Sounds like a mutually supportive act if you ask me. Monetarily it makes sense to pull resources, so it pays. If the US had to pay enough full time firefighters to handle brushfires it would be much more expensive. Now if the US was sending firefighters to Australia and funding the entire Australian fire department because well it's in our interest to not let Australia burn down I'd call BS.

The simple point is that debate on those issues just isn't happening. One of the reasons it isn't happening is because people are dancing about the issue and making a show of dealing with the deficit by talking about pretend things like cuts to foreign aid. Crap like this works as a release valve, and a side measure to drive ideological means. Meanwhile the deficit will grow and grow until debate is started for real.

If you were genuinely concerned about the deficit you'd stop pretending foreign aid mattered one bit, and start talking about what really needs to happen to bring the deficit into line.

Who isn't having those debates? I'll have those debates too. Again with this. Can I only have one exclusive argument? If so fine I'll switch to something else. Are you interested in a comprehensive plan to cut the budget from me right now? It does matter as an attitude of cutting spending. You seam to think that the US should cut spending everywhere except foreign aid. Then everyone else will say why should we cut this when we give out so much foreign aid. So there must be comprehensive cuts everywhere.

Yes, if you cut off Egypt they would have stopped being your allies. This is not a great secret.

Yeah, you are gonna have to provide documentation for that. Anwar did not leave the Soviet sphere of influence based soley on a promise of US monetary or military aid. It didn't go down like that. It's part of it sure, but not the only reason. Soviet influence was already waning globally, the US presented much better economic possibilities.

Even if they were not our ally, I don't see them becoming openly hostile or cutting diplomatic ties it would be economic suicide for the last regime or the current one that steps up. Egypt's economy improved by leaps and bounds because of it's ties to the US, little to none of that has to do with US aid but US influence and trade.

Andrew1975 wrote:

The point is that oil is cheaper on the whole, than it would otherwise have been. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to realise that if the governments of the middle east were independant of western aid and openly hostile towards us oil would cost a lot more than it does.

You are assuming that they would be openly hostile without the aid. I'm simply saying if they have the ability to to self sufficient then why shouldn't they.

When I invest in a company I'm not investing so that everyone in the world can get a dividend. If I build a road I'm not letting someone else use it unless they help pay for maintenance and upkeep. If he is using that road that I paid for to bring competing products to market then he can undercut cut me and do me financial harm, I now have to calculate the cost of infrastructure into my product and he doesn't. Do you let random people use your car when you are not using it, for free?

I have not removed the other issues from the table. I'm not ignoring those issues too. I don't understand why you keep inferring that I seam to think that limiting foreign aid is the end all be all solution. It's not even a start. I'm saying charity starts at home.

Suez Canal remains under control of a close ally (Egypt).

The dominant regional military power (Israel) is another close ally.

OK, so what does that change? I don't get your point. Yes they are our allies. Are you suggesting that if we cut off aid they would no longer be our allies? They profit more by being our allies than we do from being theirs.

These are my points.

Egypt was a Soviet ally until the US got it on side with foreign aid.

Israal might not have survived this long with the large amount of foreign aid it has received from the USA.




Automatically Appended Next Post:
But really there's no arguing with you.

You asked for examples of cases where foreign aid proved a genuine investment. I gave them. You just deny they are factual.

You made up your mind before you starting posting. Now that people are giving you facts that contradict your position, you just ignore them.

This is a well known psychological function, so I'm not surprised.

These are my points.

Egypt was a Soviet ally until the US got it on side with foreign aid.

Israal might not have survived this long with the large amount of foreign aid it has received from the USA.




Automatically Appended Next Post:
But really there's no arguing with you.

You asked for examples of cases where foreign aid proved a genuine investment. I gave them. You just deny they are factual.

You made up your mind before you starting posting. Now that people are giving you facts that contradict your position, you just ignore them.

This is a well known psychological function, so I'm not surprised.

It's not that. It's that with Soviet influence waning globally Egypt had more to gain by coming into the US sphere of influence with or without millions of dollars in aid. I'm pretty sure that's why even Russia now has trade with the US. It's poor strategy to not be economically intermingled with the US, the sheer economic prosperity and security derived from such relationships is worth more than any aid the Us gives.

Israel is really a non starter. You may consider this relationship vital for some reason. I consider our relationship with Israel to be a good example of the US intervention costing us more than it is worth. Us support for Israel is a great financial and political drain and a cause of much of our political issues in the middle east. You do understand that most of the middle east hates that we support them right? This policy alone has kept the middle east in a constant state of instability and made it very difficult for us to create lasting and strong relationships throughout the region.

I don't really know what the middle east would look like if the US had just kept it's hands off, but its hard to imagine a more unstable and chaotic environment then the one that currently exists. I highly doubt the current situation where every country is 2 seconds from cutting the others throats would exits because those throats would already be cut. If lets say 50 years ago the US policy was not to not take sides in the middle east I honestly believe the region might not be so messed up and in the need of constant and costly baby sitting.

The Idea that the US can buy peace throughout the world is a falsehood. All we are doing is sticking thumbs in the wall and building more and more tension and hate. That dam is going to burst one day.

US foreign aid = $25bn

US unfunded state pension liability = $2.5trn

That's right, TRILLION.

It's really a drop in the ocean, and the US seems to get a lot of bang for its foreign aid buck, all things considered. That's why the UK protected its aid budget - they generally make up a small proportion of the donor country's GDP, and go a long way towards creating goodwill.

Andrew1975 wrote:

These are my points.

Egypt was a Soviet ally until the US got it on side with foreign aid.

Israal might not have survived this long with the large amount of foreign aid it has received from the USA.




Automatically Appended Next Post:
But really there's no arguing with you.

You asked for examples of cases where foreign aid proved a genuine investment. I gave them. You just deny they are factual.

You made up your mind before you starting posting. Now that people are giving you facts that contradict your position, you just ignore them.

This is a well known psychological function, so I'm not surprised.

It's not that. It's that with Soviet influence waning globally Egypt had more to gain by coming into the US sphere of influence with or without millions of dollars in aid. I'm pretty sure that's why even Russia now has trade with the US. It's poor strategy to not be economically intermingled with the US, the sheer economic prosperity and security derived from such relationships is worth more than any aid the Us gives.

How come all these other states like Iran and Iraq (pre-2003) aren't economically intermingled with the US, then?

Iraq was until they invaded Kuwait. Iran was until the revolution.

I'd proffer we don't actually get much bang for the buck.

Kilkrazy wrote:

Andrew1975 wrote:

These are my points.

Egypt was a Soviet ally until the US got it on side with foreign aid.

Israal might not have survived this long with the large amount of foreign aid it has received from the USA.




Automatically Appended Next Post:
But really there's no arguing with you.

You asked for examples of cases where foreign aid proved a genuine investment. I gave them. You just deny they are factual.

You made up your mind before you starting posting. Now that people are giving you facts that contradict your position, you just ignore them.

This is a well known psychological function, so I'm not surprised.

It's not that. It's that with Soviet influence waning globally Egypt had more to gain by coming into the US sphere of influence with or without millions of dollars in aid. I'm pretty sure that's why even Russia now has trade with the US. It's poor strategy to not be economically intermingled with the US, the sheer economic prosperity and security derived from such relationships is worth more than any aid the Us gives.

How come all these other states like Iran and Iraq (pre-2003) aren't economically intermingled with the US, then?

Not only that but even if Russia has lost that much influence China has gained it and then some. China has an interest in the region and the growing muscle to compete for the region. I don't think Russia's influence in the region is quite as weak as stated but even if it is the world isn't just the US and Russia.

How come all these other states like Iran and Iraq (pre-2003) aren't economically intermingled with the US, then?

I don't know. But these two countries are shinning pillars of what is means to not be a US ally aren't they. Not being a US ally has been wonderful for them huh?

Actually I'll take that back, one was an ally and one wasn't. They both however have paid the price of the US's terrible foreign policy fumbles. I'm not sure if I can think of two countries that have been messed with more by US foreign policy actually.

Iraq is maybe the worst example of US intervention! They were our ally. Then Kuwait basically declared economic war on them. Saddam asked the US what we would do it he attacked Kuwait. "we have no opinion on the Arab-Arab conflicts, like your border disagreement with Kuwait" was the response he got. Trillions of dollars later the middle east is still a mess.

My point being is not only US intervention not really necessary, pretty often it's bad! We should be trade partners with lots of people, but sticking our noses in these places really has not been good.

Iran is not our ally specifically because we gave aid and supported the former Shaw and out aid to Israel. Now Iran can't even build it's own nuclear reactors in peace. Do you really think it pays to not have good relations with the US? Then show me a major global player that does not have good relations with the US. It worked out great for the USSR.

Not only that but even if Russia has lost that much influence China has gained it and then some. China has an interest in the region and the growing muscle to compete for the region. I don't think Russia's influence in the region is quite as weak as stated but even if it is the world isn't just the US and Russia.

Great, let China try to babysit that region and drain it's economy, it probably should, they have just as much interest in the oil as we do if not more. Since the baby sitter of this region get no specific compensation for the chore, I'm all for letting someone else do it. The US does not specifically get cheaper oil because it does the baby sitting, the world gets cheaper oil.

Relations, fine. Trade, fine. Aid and policy making...not so good.

Frazzled wrote:Iraq was until they invaded Kuwait. Iran was until the revolution.

I'd proffer we don't actually get much bang for the buck.

We have a bad habit of supporting totalitarian regimes in the area in the name of stability. The unfortunate part about that is that such regimes tend to suffer revolution after a while.

Andrew1975 wrote:Great, let China try to babysit that region and drain it's economy, it probably should, they have just as much interest in the oil as we do if not more. Since the baby sitter of this region get no specific compensation for the chore, I'm all for letting someone else do it. The US does not specifically get cheaper oil because it does the baby sitting, the world gets cheaper oil.

Relations, fine. Trade, fine. Aid and policy making...not so good.

God, you really have no idea what you are talking about do you?

God, you really have no idea what you are talking about do you?

Ahtman seeing as the world and regional players were able to get Libya to agree to a cease fire without the US raising a finger, dropping a bomb, enforcing a no-fly zone, or bribing Libya with aid, I think my point is pretty well made actually. But thanks for playing!

Frazzled wrote:Iraq was until they invaded Kuwait. Iran was until the revolution.

Both have always been by way of the oil market, and up until the second Iraq war we got about 8% of our crude from Iraq; the invasion of Kuwait made no difference there.

Andrew1975 wrote:

God, you really have no idea what you are talking about do you?

Ahtman seeing as the world and regional players were able to get Libya to agree to a cease fire without the US raising a finger, dropping a bomb, enforcing a no-fly zone, or bribing Libya with aid, I think my point is pretty well made actually. But thanks for playing!

The US deployed military assets to the region, and was a major player in the declaration of the no-fly zone.

At this point you're just making gak up.

The US deployed military assets to the region, and was a major player in the declaration of the no-fly zone.

At this point you're just making gak up

Wrong again, there we plans but nothing was ever implemented.Who is making Gak up now, oh yeah Charlie Sheen/Dogma as usual.



"The US military is moving naval and air forces into position around Libya, the Pentagon said today, as Western countries weigh possible intervention against Moamer Kadhafi's regime.

"We have planners working various contingency plans, and I think it's safe to say as part of that we're repositioning forces to provide for that flexibility once decisions are made," Pentagon spokesman Colonel Dave Lapan told reporters.

The redeployment of "naval and air forces" would give US President Barack Obama a range of options in the crisis, said Lapan, without specifying what ships and aircraft had been given orders or what potential action was under consideration.

As Gaddafi's troops assaulted opposition forces, US and European leaders were weighing the use of NATO air power to impose a no-fly zone over Libya to stop Kadhafi from using air strikes against his own people.

For any military intervention, US commanders could turn to the USS Enterprise, which is currently in the Red Sea, as well as the amphibious ship the USS Kearsarge, which has a fleet of helicopters and about 2,000 Marines on board.

British Prime Minister David Cameron said this afternoon a possible no-fly zone over the Libya was being planned.

US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said no naval action against Libya was planned."

Andrew1975 wrote:
Wrong again, there we plans but nothing was ever implemented.Who is making Gak up now, oh yeah Charlie Sheen/Dogma as usual.

You really, really need to read more news.

You have no idea what you're talking about, stop trying to pretend otherwise; its embarrassing.

Modquisition on. Lets take it back to Dakka Rule #1 compliance people. Personal attacks are not needed.

"It is scheduled to depart from the state of Virginia on Wednesday along with the Mesa Verde, a transport dock ship, and the USS Whidbey Island, a dock landing ship".

They haven't even left yet! These can hardly be considered military maneuvers much less a threatening military posture.

Everything else in the article specifically mentions the other forces were already in the theater and that their presence there had nothing to do with Libya. The Libyan cease fire is based on international pressure including that of it's Arab neighbors. The fact that Jordan, Qatar and the United Arab Emirates are willing to help enforce the no fly zone with their own air forces really took the air out of big G


If you look back you will see I always said we should play a play a part and do our share. These moves could hardly be construed as heavy lifting. BE MORE PICKY

Are you still against the $90 million then?

"Are you still against the $90 million then? "

Why wouldn't I? This situation wasn't solved by aid. Not that is has been solved yet. Looks like I was right and if the US sits back the rest of the world can solve its problems on its own.

So you are in favour of light lifting in terms of assistance and you are against minor aid contributions.

So you are in favour of light lifting in terms of assistance and you are against minor aid contributions.

If by light lifting you mean sitting back and doing practically nothing....yes. I have yet to see where Libyan operations have cost the tax payers one additional dollar. Most of the bluster has come from Europe. If Europe wants to spend money on a No-fly zone with what essentially is us verbal backing, fine. I'm not against military intervention as an absolute value, I'm against the US doing it alone or essentially alone and having to foot the bill for the entire fiasco. I'm against a constant state of welfare that requires the US to pay off everyone friend and foe alike, and requires us to keep a military presence throughout the entire world underwriting the world peace on our own while everyone else sits back and reaps the rewards.

Sending aid for things like the occasional natural disaster is one thing. Giving people 90 million because the pulled off an essentially bloodless coup, financing a friendly's armies and infrastructure is another is another. Seriously trying to force Somalians to accept aid while they are shooting at us is brilliant thinking and money well spent. Where was the return on the investment on that one?

Andrew1975 wrote: I have yet to see where Libyan operations have cost the tax payers one additional dollar.

Would the massive re-depolyment and preparation of forces come out of the tax payer's wallet?

Would the massive re-depolyment and preparation of forces come out of the tax payer's wallet?

It might if such things were happening. Currently all that has happened is some minor fleet movement. Ships moving is an operational cost that is paid everyday one way or another. If I had my way they wouldn't have been their eating money everyday, but they are, might as well get my moneys worth with them.

Do I think it's likely that it will cost something eventually. Yeah probably. But it will cost alot less then having the US do this essentially on their own, which is what would of happened if we didn't hold our card for so long. I guarantee if we rushed into it Britain and maybe Australia would send forces (stalwart supporters of the US they are), but their politicians would take a beating for supporting another US military excursion. France would be screaming at us now, and you can forget the Arab league support and China and Russia's pass. The second anything really happens the middle east would be burning the stars and stripes, terror alerts would go up and radicalism would be on the rise. I don't think the world can blame the US now when gak eventually hits the fan, hopefully it doesn't but judging by past experience....Then who sends ground forces in. Not this time, The US has already said no boots on the ground for us....not that that is really a promise.

This strategy saved alot of political capital along not to mention $$$$.

Andrew1975 wrote:

Would the massive re-depolyment and preparation of forces come out of the tax payer's wallet?

It might if such things were happening. Currently all that has happened is some minor fleet movement. Ships moving is an operational cost that is paid everyday one way or another. If I had my way they wouldn't have been their eating money everyday, but they are, might as well get my moneys worth with them.

Hate to say it, but it's already been established in this thread that the US probably shouldn't be run the way you would have it.

Do I think it's likely that it will cost something eventually. Yeah probably. But it will cost alot less then having the US do this essentially on their own, which is what would of happened if we didn't hold our card for so long. I guarantee if we rushed into it Britain and maybe Australia would send forces (stalwart supporters of the US they are), but their politicians would take a beating for supporting another US military excursion. France would be screaming at us now, and you can forget the Arab league support and China and Russia's pass. The second anything really happens the middle east would be burning the stars and stripes, terror alerts would go up and radicalism would be on the rise. I don't think the world can blame the US now when gak eventually hits the fan, hopefully it doesn't but judging by past experience....Then who sends ground forces in. Not this time, The US has already said no boots on the ground for us....not that that is really a promise.

Yeah, much of the Australian public is still pissed off about getting dragged into a unilateral clusterfeth that was done soley to scratch US balls.

This is has nothing to do with foreign aid. Unless suddenly foreign aid includes US intervention?

This strategy saved alot of political capital along not to mention $$$$.

All of which has nothing to do with a paltry sum being given to secure the support of the new Egyptian government. Paltry for the US that is, if Aus politicians over here pulled something like that things would be very different.

My whole point about the 90 million in aid is about a stupid a spending attitude brought on by the idea that we have to control the world and interfere in everyone elses business.

Hate to say it, but it's already been established in this thread that the US probably shouldn't be run the way you would have it.

Only by agros that think it is manifest destiny for the US to control the world though petty bribery and a global military presence. I don't really rate them at all.

Yeah, much of the Australian public is still pissed off about getting dragged into a unilateral clusterfeth that was done soley to scratch US balls.

Yeah well wouldn't have happened if we'd be more laissez-faire. Which if you look is what I have been preaching.

Andrew1975 wrote:My whole point about the 90 million in aid is about a stupid a spending attitude brought on by the idea that we have to control the world and interfere in everyone elses business.

$90 million gift =/= World Control.

It is a move, and in my opinion a clever one, to get a fledgling Egypt onside with the US.

Hate to say it, but it's already been established in this thread that the US probably shouldn't be run the way you would have it.

Only by agros that think it is manifest destiny for the US to control the world though petty bribery and a global military presence. I don't really rate them at all.

Did you even read their posts? This is nothing at all like what I picked up from their posts.

Yeah, much of the Australian public is still pissed off about getting dragged into a unilateral clusterfeth that was done soley to scratch US balls.

Yeah well wouldn't have happened if we'd be more laissez-faire. Which if you look is what I have been preaching.

Yeah, you see I was talking about a "AMERCUH!! feth YEAH!" invasion that dragged a lot of other people in with it. Not a show of goodwill to get a newly founded, strategically important, country on your good side.

How is estranging Egypt a good thing?

How is estranging Egypt a good thing?

How is not giving them 90 million dollars estranging them? I never said we should take it back now that we have promised it. I just said we (Hillary Clinton) shouldn't have promised it. Did I say break off diplomatic relations or cancel trade agreements. I never said that. Open markets, share technology, sell them stuff they don't need that will break after 5 minutes in the grand American tradition.

Don't resort to petty bribery. To hear other people put it we bribed Egypt away from Soviet influence for $250 mil. The reality of the situation at the time they probably would have done it for free, it just made economic sense. Trade alliances should be our currency. You start giving regimes money and weapons and you become responsible for what you give them and what they do with it. All the sudden they are a US puppet and every act they do with the loot you gave them becomes your responsibility because Washington bullets are killing people.

Look at Israel, every time some Palestinian gets killed there it's because The Great Satan is supplying them with weapons.

Please lets not turn this into a Israel/Palistien thread now!

Did you even read their posts? This is nothing at all like what I picked up from their posts.

Yeah I did. I can see where the message might get lost, some people like to derail converations and go on tangents about how you can't have negitive values and other bizzare things.

I said we shouldn't give aid to every fether that puts out a hand and sometimes those that don't. Its bad policy and it costs too much.

The response was well its really nothing and it is an "investment" that affects interests in global markets and allows us to interfere with regional policy while securing US military bases and power centers around the globe.

Sounds like manifest destiny to control the world through petty bribery and a global military presence to me. No?

I said we should just let the world sort itself out. If we are not peacekeeping someone else will step up, while pointing out that our foreign policy and constant meddling in other peoples affairs have put the world in a worse position, not better. Oh and cutting aid and global military presence is probably a good idea since we have a skyrocketing national debt. Oh and amounts of money totaling less than $.25 would usually be considered pennies.

That's about it.

look for yourself.

Oh and cutting aid and global military presence is probably a good idea since we have a skyrocketing national debt. Oh and amounts of money totaling less than $.25 would usually be considered pennies.

Go into your wallet and pull out $.30, now throw it away do you miss it. No, good. Thats how much 90 million cost you.

also id don't know how many times i have said this on this forum but i will reiterate in as simple terms as possible.


debt is not bad

debt is not bad

A little debt is actually healthy, IF you are using the money in a positive way to improve your economy at a rate higher than that of the interest on said debt. At that point it is investment and you MAKE money in the process

A giant amount of debt that you can't pay the interest on much less ever pay off the principle IS BAD. It means sacrifices and cuts to vital things like infrastructure that are the lifeblood of your economy. It means falling behind your competitors. This amount IS BAD.

If you have dedicated threads to this I'd like to see them and not turn this into one.

Andrew1975 wrote:

debt is not bad

A little debt is actually healthy, IF you are using the money in a positive way to improve your economy at a rate higher than that of the interest on said debt. At that point it is investment and you MAKE money in the process

A giant amount of debt that you can't pay the interest on much less ever pay off the principle IS BAD. It means sacrifices and cuts to vital things like infrastructure that are the lifeblood of your economy. It means falling behind your competitors. This amount IS BAD.

If you have dedicated threads to this I'd like to see them and not turn this into one.

What is your definition of too much debt then, because you said that the u.s. debt of last 200 years was a bad thing

That was in response to someone saying we actually had a surplus a decade ago. We didn't we had a one year budget surplus, not a national surplus. I was just stating how long we had had debt for if I remember correctly.

As for how much is bad, top of my head mind you, any amount where the interest is greater than the growth of your economy is what I would consider unhealthy, the current amount for the US is almost suicidal. However there are successful countries (Japan) that have a much large percentage of national debt. It's an interesting debate and you could start it as a topic and see what happens, but I really don't want it hijacking the thread please.

Andrew1975 wrote:That was in response to someone saying we actually had a surplus a decade ago. We didn't we had a one year budget surplus, not a national surplus. I was just stating how long we had had debt for if I remember correctly.

As for how much is bad, top of my head mind you, any amount where the interest is greater than the growth of your economy is what I would consider unhealthy, the current amount for the US is almost suicidal. However there are successful countries (Japan) that have a much large percentage of national debt. It's an interesting debate and you could start it as a topic and see what happens, but I really don't want it hijacking the thread please.

except a definition of how much is to much is necessary to continue the discussion of what to cut. But again the total foreign aid that we give is a drop in the bucket compared to our budget. Yet it is a spending measure that directly benefits the u.s. economy (through the purchase of goods) and improves our standing and relations with other countries, wich allow us to obtain cheap resources

Also do you realize that if a nation ever has a total budget suplus they have done something very wrong

youbedead wrote:

Andrew1975 wrote:That was in response to someone saying we actually had a surplus a decade ago. We didn't we had a one year budget surplus, not a national surplus. I was just stating how long we had had debt for if I remember correctly.

As for how much is bad, top of my head mind you, any amount where the interest is greater than the growth of your economy is what I would consider unhealthy, the current amount for the US is almost suicidal. However there are successful countries (Japan) that have a much large percentage of national debt. It's an interesting debate and you could start it as a topic and see what happens, but I really don't want it hijacking the thread please.

except a definition of how much is to much is necessary to continue the discussion of what to cut. But again the total foreign aid that we give is a drop in the bucket compared to our budget. Yet it is a spending measure that directly benefits the u.s. economy (through the purchase of goods) and improves our standing and relations with other countries, wich allow us to obtain cheap resources

Also do you realize that if a nation ever has a total budget surplus they have done something very wrong

I never said anything like we should have a surplus. I also don't know if that is worse than having debt that is 62% of your GDP. Maybe we have to define what aid is? And look at what is really costs.
Military aid is not just aid, you have to factor in the cost of having the ginormous military in the first place the factor in the cost of maintaining that ability, the cost of getting it to where it is going..etc. That's just military aid now factor in all the other types and you see where I'm coming from.

I still don't see what we will be getting from Egypt that we wouldn't have gotten without doling out 90 million dollars. Sorry but it still counts to me as petty bribery to increase US foreign policy, which I can say that from birth till today, I have not been impressed with. Today is the first time I can remember going hey not good job. That's only because the decision is to support allies, I really think we have meddled in the middle east and the world for quite sometime.

Tell me what does Israel do for us?
What did Afghanistan do for us?
What did Iraq do for us?
What does Pakistan do for us?
What did Somalia do for us?
What does keeping all the military bases in Europe do for us?
etc...etc. Someone please show me what these "investments" do or did for us that could not be accomplished some other way, by somebody else, and why that accomplishment matters.

If you can explain it to me in a rational way I will admit I'm wrong. I'll label you king of this thread! I just don't see these "Investments" and policies working.

Military intervention does not equal foreign aid. I wholeheartedly agree that we spend to much on our military presence overseas, but thats not what you where arguing against. You said you opposed to the the apparently frivolous spending on foriegn aid.

Andrew1975 wrote:
Tell me what does Israel do for us?

They're an attack dog in our pocket, that serves to destabilize a region we want to keep off balance. If there's something unsavory we want done in the region, you can bet the mossad and shin bet will be chomping at the bit to get to do it, while our own operatives get to keep their hands relatively clean. It's win/win.

What did Afghanistan do for us?
What did Iraq do for us?

Nothing really, but they were the brainchild of a sickeningly incompetent regime that cared more about appearance than results. To look at it in a more pragmatic light: they provided an excuse to give exorbitant sums of money to American arms dealers, who employ a not-insignificant number of Americans (same effective rational behind the money we gave Mubarak: it all got spent buying arms from those same companies, and so flowed right back into our hands and economy), as well as providing an excuse to hire more people into the military, which means giving decent sums of money to and paying for the tuition and healthcare of lower and lower middle class Americans.

What does Pakistan do for us?

Pakistan has nuclear weapons. They pose an existential threat to everything within their missiles' range, and pose a threat of proliferation. It's in our best interests to keep them stable.

What did Somalia do for us?

Had it been successful, it might have been able to curtail the rampant actual piracy off its shores. But it was mishandled, lacked coherent goals, and we up and left after one operation went pear shaped.

What does keeping all the military bases in Europe do for us?

Russia, despite the end of the cold war, is still considered an existential threat to the west, especially with a former KGB-agent running the show.

Military intervention does not equal foreign aid. I wholeheartedly agree that we spend to much on our military presence overseas, but thats not what you where arguing against. You said you opposed to the the apparently frivolous spending on foriegn aid.

Not to exclusivity I didn't, I think that is the point people are missing maybe. I'm against all this spending I see as frivolous. It just so happens I saw the article about 90 million and it set me off. Does military aid equal foreign aid? Whats the limit here. Its money spent to aid a foreign country.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Sir Pseudonymous wrote:

Andrew1975 wrote:
Tell me what does Israel do for us?

They're an attack dog in our pocket, that serves to destabilize a region we want to keep off balance. If there's something unsavory we want done in the region, you can bet the mossad and shin bet will be chomping at the bit to get to do it, while our own operatives get to keep their hands relatively clean. It's win/win.

But it doesn't work that way. We get so much hate for our support of Israel that I don't see it being worth it. If we were not aligned with Isreal we could have made friends with the rest of the middle east much easier and they are the direct source for oil. It's one of the main reasons we have never been able to become allies with Iran.

Why do we want to keep it of balance? So we send in troops to stabilize it. This is the BS foreign policy and meddling I'm totally against.

Big stupid dangerous waste of money and political capitol.

What did Afghanistan do for us?
What did Iraq do for us?

Nothing really, but they were the brainchild of a sickeningly incompetent regime that cared more about appearance than results. To look at it in a more pragmatic light: they provided an excuse to give exorbitant sums of money to American arms dealers, who employ a not-insignificant number of Americans (same effective rational behind the money we gave Mubarak: it all got spent buying arms from those same companies, and so flowed right back into our hands and economy), as well as providing an excuse to hire more people into the military, which means giving decent sums of money to and paying for the tuition and healthcare of lower and lower middle class Americans.

So it was a big unnecessary money drain and waste of political capitol! Bonus: Where we actually wiped out Iran's two largest military threats and incurred the wrath or the Muslim world. Also directly responsible for 911 as that was a response to US troops in Saudi Arabia.

What does Pakistan do for us?

Pakistan has nuclear weapons. They pose an existential threat to everything within their missiles' range, and pose a threat of proliferation. It's in our best interests to keep them stable.

It's in our best interest, maybe. I'd be more interested if I was a country in their missile range. Let someone else pay them off. Maybe they wouldn't be so hostile if it wasn't for out "Investments" in Iraq, the middle east and Muslims in general.

What did Somalia do for us?

Had it been successful, it might have been able to curtail the rampant actual piracy off its shores. But it was mishandled, lacked coherent goals, and we up and left after one operation went pear shaped.

So another money pit, meant to protect something that other people should be protecting. Let someone else do it! Bonus: Made the US look like a bunch of stumbling, incompetent, and spineless p&%$@s that couldn't handle cracked up militia while we attempt to provide aid. But at least that was UN with all their crazy rules of engagement.

What does keeping all the military bases in Europe do for us?

Russia, despite the end of the cold war, is still considered an existential threat to the west, especially with a former KGB-agent running the show.

Military intervention does not equal foreign aid. I wholeheartedly agree that we spend to much on our military presence overseas, but thats not what you where arguing against. You said you opposed to the the apparently frivolous spending on foriegn aid.

Not to exclusivity I didn't, I think that is the point people are missing maybe. I'm against all this spending I see as frivolous. It just so happens I saw the article about 90 million and it set me off. Does military aid equal foreign aid? Whats the limit here. Its money spent to aid a foreign country.

Thats what people weren't getting when you said that foreign aid was a massive drain on the economy it made no sense, but you were lumping military spending (wich is a massive drain on the in the budget) into the definition of foreign aid, You can't do that, they're two different terms and two vastly different problems.

Thats what people weren't getting when you said that foreign aid was a massive drain on the economy it made no sense, but you were lumping military spending (wich is a massive drain on the in the budget) into the definition of foreign aid, You can't do that, they're two different terms and two vastly different problems.

Sure, but it's the same attitude. Let's trough money that we don't have at people. Sure Military aid is much larger, but the whole attitude with which we spend has got to change. It's a discipline, it's unlikely that you can cut spending in one place, and not another. Well we will just cut the really big wastes, but not the others. The fact is that politicians spend without thinking, it's a lazy attitude. Do you think Hillary Clinton actually thought for two seconds before she offered the money, no it was a knee jerk reaction to spend. That is the epidemic.

Andrew1975 wrote:

Thats what people weren't getting when you said that foreign aid was a massive drain on the economy it made no sense, but you were lumping military spending (wich is a massive drain on the in the budget) into the definition of foreign aid, You can't do that, they're two different terms and two vastly different problems.

Sure, but it's the same attitude. Let's trough money that we don't have at people. Sure Military aid is much larger, but the whole attitude with which we spend has got to change. It's a discipline, it's unlikely that you can cut spending in one place, and not another. Well we will just cut the really big wastes, but not the others. The fact is that politicians spend without thinking, it's a lazy attitude. Do you think Hillary Clinton actually thought for two seconds before she offered the money, no it was a knee jerk reaction to spend. That is the epidemic.

Let's trough money that we don't have at people

Thats were you're confused, a nation is not a business. The U.S. has money up to the point that everyone else says we don't thats why we can have a debt.

Also if your trying to reduce costs in a business what you going to worry about more, cutting something that 20% of your total income or something that costs .0006% of your income

Look waste is waste.

Lets look at aid in all it's forms here.

First aid can really be all lumped together. Anytime you are providing resources into an area, you are allowing shuffling to take place. If i give someone 90 million cash they can spend it any way that they please. Ok so lets earmark it, you have to spend it on a hydro electric plant. Well then the recipient can just shuffle money they previously had earmarked for infrastructure and spend that money on anything they want. OK, so instead lets send contractors to build it, same thing happens but at least some contractor, hopefully US contractors get that money. The recipient still gets a plant and can spend the budgeted money on whatever they want. If they really want military, you know what that's defacto military aid.

Well what about disaster aid?

Pretty much the same thing in most cases.

Case in point Pakistan. The US tries to stabilize an area because they have nucs and are a hot bed for fundamental Islam. We give them humanitarian aid, much of it get lost. Even if it didn't any aid money Pakistan gets is money that is not being drained from their military budget. Not to mention that the floods are essentially man made because of deforestation which is linked to overpopulation. So instead of the heard getting culled aid has now exasperated the situation by saving lives of people that have be fed, clothed and housed. The Pakistani Infrastructure can not handle the people that it has! Poverty is worse, unwashed masses love fundamental Islam. Deforestation is still there so you know what, it's gonna flood again, just this time it will be worse because there are more people, angry people. So better open up the pocket book again next year. So they still have nucs and are still a hotbed for fundamentalist muslims. Bonus: aid workers get shoot in the process. BIG WASTE OF MONEY.

Now Japan. OK. Aid is good here, no problem with it. Good ally needs a hand. I don't think aid workers are gonna get shot there. Great. Love it.

Africa. Any time you inject large amounts of money into a system you are introducing forces that are generally destabelising. Farm subsidies, and free food have not effected Africa positively one bit. I mean you could write books on that.

Aid in most cases it wasteful and stupid. It's a lazy and easy fix that usually fixes nothing, there are better ways to spread US influence if that is the purpose. Unfortunately it seams to be all that many politicians know and usually doesn't accomplish any of the goals that it sets out to.

World war II. I can get behind that. Aiding the allies with mostly material materials and then landing troops after the thing is pretty much decided against EVIL. OK. Great, love it. Rebuilding Europe so that we can sell them products made from the war machine turned economic monster. Great, love it.

Post WWII we then build and maintain bases in Europe that are still there today! Defending against what? Russia? Really? BIG WASTE OF MONEY

If you have better examples provide them.

Andrew1975 wrote:

How is estranging Egypt a good thing?

How is not giving them 90 million dollars estranging them? I never said we should take it back now that we have promised it. I just said we (Hillary Clinton) shouldn't have promised it. Did I say break off diplomatic relations or cancel trade agreements. I never said that. Open markets, share technology, sell them stuff they don't need that will break after 5 minutes in the grand American tradition.

You have a warped view on how the international stage works (and should work).

Andrew1975 wrote:I highly doubt it would be in Egypt's best interest to cut ties with the US over the amount of aid we provide them. Are you serious?

You haven't really stopped to consider the idea that 'having ties' is not the same thing as being allies, which is again quite different to 'using your military to do exactly what the US wants you to do with it'.

No, of course you haven't considered it. Because all you've done in this thread is start with the idea that 'giving US money to other countries is bad and is a significant reason the US is in debt' and just invented whatever arguments came to mind in order to justify that position. This has resulted in you coming up with a wide range of silly, silly arguments, none of which you or anyone else would ever consider, except that it keeps you from having to re-consider your original argument.

And we send firefighters to Australia for the same reasons. Sounds fair to me. Sounds like a mutually supportive act if you ask me. Monetarily it makes sense to pull resources, so it pays. If the US had to pay enough full time firefighters to handle brushfires it would be much more expensive. Now if the US was sending firefighters to Australia and funding the entire Australian fire department because well it's in our interest to not let Australia burn down I'd call BS.

Pay attention to your own argument. You claimed nation's accepting aid weren't self-sufficient, which would mean by your argument that neither the US nor Australia were self-sufficient because they are dependant on aid from the other.

At which point you should have realised your point made no sense, and should have been withdrawn.

Who isn't having those debates? I'll have those debates too.

The US is not having substantial, honest debate on what actually needs to be done to reign in the deficit. Your argument that foreign aid is in any way a relevant cause of the Federal deficit is just one example of how terrible the current US debate on the issue is.

Again with this. Can I only have one exclusive argument?

You can have lots of different arguments. But each of those arguments need to be sensible. Your argument that US foreign aid is in anyway relevant to the deficit is nonsense.

If so fine I'll switch to something else. Are you interested in a comprehensive plan to cut the budget from me right now? It does matter as an attitude of cutting spending. You seam to think that the US should cut spending everywhere except foreign aid. Then everyone else will say why should we cut this when we give out so much foreign aid. So there must be comprehensive cuts everywhere.

No, I haven't said anything of the sort. That's a completely terrible reading of my argument, which I had explained in plain English several times. It is not possible to misread my argument so terribly if you'd made any kind of honest attempt to try and understand what I was saying. Here it is again, though...

Foreign aid is an utterly trivial element of the US federal budget. It and all sorts of similarly trivial amounts are currently being talked about as if they represent any meaningful part of the solution. This should make you angry, because it means a problem you say you're very concerned about is not being addressed in a way that will come even close to solving it.

You've followed the lead of the people who avoid talking about the politically sensitive, actually relevant parts of the budget (health, social security, defence and tax revenue) and tried to make out that foreign aid has a material impact on the deficit. It should make you angry that you were led into a nonsense argument, because you should worry about how much your arguments are based in reality.

But it doesn't seem to worry you at all. Which is weird.

Yeah, you are gonna have to provide documentation for that. Anwar did not leave the Soviet sphere of influence based soley on a promise of US monetary or military aid. It didn't go down like that. It's part of it sure, but not the only reason. Soviet influence was already waning globally, the US presented much better economic possibilities.

Even if they were not our ally, I don't see them becoming openly hostile or cutting diplomatic ties it would be economic suicide for the last regime or the current one that steps up. Egypt's economy improved by leaps and bounds because of it's ties to the US, little to none of that has to do with US aid but US influence and trade.

You are, once again, ignoring the very fething obvious distinction between trading partners, aliies and 'client state who does what you tell him to'.

The idea that the US would have anything like the influence over Egyptian policy that it had if you hadn't been funding a large portion of their armed forces is absurd. And it is one of many ridiculous things you've claimed in this thread, all of which have been a product of you showing almost no interest in


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Andrew1975 wrote:As for how much is bad, top of my head mind you, any amount where the interest is greater than the growth of your economy is what I would consider unhealthy

That's a completely non-sensical comparison. You can't just make things up.

For the record, the almost universal benchmark is debt as a percentage of GDP. Exactly what level of overall debt is acceptable is debated (I've seen 10%, 25%, and 50% and even 100% argued by various people) but what everyone agrees on is the idea of sustainable deficit spending. That is, regardless of what the overall deficit is, the question that really matters is whether the current debt can actually be sustained long term.

The idea that the US would have anything like the influence over Egyptian policy that it had if you hadn't been funding a large portion of their armed forces is absurd. And it is one of many ridiculous things you've claimed in this thread, all of which have been a product of you showing almost no interest in

You haven't really stopped to consider the idea that 'having ties' is not the same thing as being allies, which is again quite different to 'using your military to do exactly what the US wants you to do with it'.

No, of course you haven't considered it. Because all you've done in this thread is start with the idea that 'giving US money to other countries is bad and is a significant reason the US is in debt' and just invented whatever arguments came to mind in order to justify that position. This has resulted in you coming up with a wide range of silly, silly arguments, none of which you or anyone else would ever consider, except that it keeps you from having to re-consider your original argument.

Again you seam to think the US needs to control what other countries do, and can't do it any other way but bribery. It's silly. Just admit that you like the US meddling in the affairs of sovereign states. Even though most data would show our meddling has created a state of almost constant chaos in the region. Yes 90 million is a drop in the bucket compared to the 1.75 billion we gave Egypt last year, but according to you that was money well spent giving money to a government that couldn't even hold on to power.

Now maybe you subscribe to the idea that a constant state of chaos in the region is good. I don't, it would seam that a region that has a supply of something we need should be secure (not necessarily secured).

I would say our constant aid and interventions along with with the cost of maintaining that ability is a big reason the US is in such debt. But you must subscribe to the idea that US foreign policy has been a shinning star over the last 50 years...good for you now accept responsibility for the large debt that that has incurred.

Again it's not just aid! It's everything including irresponsible domestic spending to. But you would have to agree that aid, military aid, and military interventions along with the machine that provides it are responsible for a huge amount of the debt and in turn are responsible for a infrastructure that while not crumbling, is not headed in the right direction. This idea of "Empire light" is unhelpful and unnecessary.

Andrew1975 wrote:As for how much is bad, top of my head mind you, any amount where the interest is greater than the growth of your economy is what I would consider unhealthy

That's a completely non-sensical comparison. You can't just make things up.

For the record, the almost universal benchmark is debt as a percentage of GDP. Exactly what level of overall debt is acceptable is debated (I've seen 10%, 25%, and 50% and even 100% argued by various people) but what everyone agrees on is the idea of sustainable deficit spending. That is, regardless of what the overall deficit is, the question that really matters is whether the current debt can actually be sustained long term.

Now you are making stuff up and not really giving an answer. Just because some countries have larger debt does not mean that is the optimal situation to be in. At least when I take a guess I say "Well off the top of my head". Can you tell me how having a debt where the interest is equal to GDP growth is not optimal? Any more than that and you are acquiring additional interest debt every cycle. You are in effect losing money. Sure if you have an action plan (lets say 5 year plan) for a huge investment that will pay off dipping further is ok, (still not optimal). That is not the present case.

And we send firefighters to Australia for the same reasons. Sounds fair to me. Sounds like a mutually supportive act if you ask me. Monetarily it makes sense to pull resources, so it pays. If the US had to pay enough full time firefighters to handle brushfires it would be much more expensive. Now if the US was sending firefighters to Australia and funding the entire Australian fire department because well it's in our interest to not let Australia burn down I'd call BS.

Pay attention to your own argument. You claimed nation's accepting aid weren't self-sufficient, which would mean by your argument that neither the US nor Australia were self-sufficient because they are dependant on aid from the other.

At which point you should have realised your point made no sense, and should have been withdrawn.

Pooling resources is vastly different that underwriting a countries military or providing them billions in aid to influence their government (Pakistan). Again I say show me the benefit. I think I made that point pretty clear using the Australian firefighters that someone else mentioned. We don't underwrite Australia's fire services or provide them aid, we collectively pool a resource. We certainly don't do it to gain influence over the Australian government either. Why? Because they are true allies not bribed thugs. They see the benefit of being an ally. Bribery creates alliances that are tenuous and parasitic at best. How many US funded armies have we eventually had to destroy? Only when countries actually have shared values can they be counted on for much of anything, that requires building an actual relationship, not bribery.

Are you against aid to Israel?

Kilkrazy wrote:Are you against aid to Israel?

Yes. It could be argued that aid to Israel is one of our biggest foreign policy blunders and has done the US more harm than good.

Edit: No not specifically if that's what you mean. I don't really have anything against Israel, but I have no love either. In general if it's aid then yes I am against it. If it is aid basically only to influence and control a sovereign nations policies, then I am really against it. I'm for unilateral aid cuts not targeting Israel. Don't need this to turn into one of those Israel/Palistien threads. The fact that we provide aid to both sides is ridiculous.

If there were ever two groups that needed to be thrown into thunderdome, these are them. I'd probably prefer two go in and none come out, over the standard rules.

Why not complain about the 3.6 billion to Israel, then, rather than the 90 million to Egypt?

It's 33 times more money, if you're worried about government spending.

Kilkrazy wrote:Why not complain about the 3.6 billion to Israel, then, rather than the 90 million to Egypt?

It's 33 times more money, if you're worried about government spending.

I'm complaining about it all actually if you follow the post. The 90 million just set me off after reading cnn one day. People asked why I was against it and I have repeatedly said I'm against most if not all Aid.

Israel and Egypt, two countries the US regularly pays off with aid so they don't fight each other. The same aid pays for their military's, so that when they do finally get it on, it will only be worse. Great thinking.

Andrew1975 wrote:Again you seam to think the US needs to control what other countries do, and can't do it any other way but bribery. It's silly. Just admit that you like the US meddling in the affairs of sovereign states.

Seem to think...? As though it's some great secret that resource flows are extremely important to modern economies, and that nations do what they can to secure those resource flows.

What's actually happening here is that you have an extremely simplistic view of world affairs, and refuse to question that worldview no matter how many people have come into this thread to explain to you how poor an understanding it is.

Even though most data would show our meddling has created a state of almost constant chaos in the region. Yes 90 million is a drop in the bucket compared to the 1.75 billion we gave Egypt last year, but according to you that was money well spent giving money to a government that couldn't even hold on to power.

Most data? What the feth does that even mean?

And don't try and put words into my mouth. It's pathetically lazy. We've all seen that you can't be bothered to properly explore your own arguments, don't add 'will make up things about other people's arguments instead of actually address their arguments' to your list of failings.

Now maybe you subscribe to the idea that a constant state of chaos in the region is good.

Your assumption that the regional instability is entirely the product of outside forces is absurd. I have disagreed with specific US, British and French actions in the middle east, particularly the overthrow of the democractic government of Iran to be replaced with the Shah, but the idea that nations should simply keep out of the affairs of others or it will produce instability is childishly simple.

I would say our constant aid and interventions along with with the cost of maintaining that ability is a big reason the US is in such debt.

And you'd be objectively wrong. That you'd form such an opinion is one thing, and somewhat acceptable given the terrible nature of the discussion of the federal budget in the US, but the fact that you've continued to insist on something that is objectively wrong throughout this thread

But you must subscribe to the idea that US foreign policy has been a shinning star over the last 50 years...good for you now accept responsibility for the large debt that that has incurred.

Noting that I accept that foreign involvement is necessary and then assuming that I believe the US has done it well is really poor arguing on your part. You need to consider what you did there, and then start to consider the idea that you are really bad at debate. And then consider that maybe you'd be better off giving up on arguing, and be better of listening to other people.

And again, US intervention overseas is not a major cause of the deficit. The large standing army is, but that exists for political reasons entirely distinct to overseas adventurism.

Again it's not just aid! It's everything including irresponsible domestic spending to. But you would have to agree that aid, military aid, and military interventions along with the machine that provides it are responsible for a huge amount of the debt and in turn are responsible for a infrastructure that while not crumbling, is not headed in the right direction. This idea of "Empire light" is unhelpful and unnecessary.

No, I would not have to agree. Because it's wrong, and something I and several other posters have explained to you over and over again is wrong. The money sent overseas is not a material cause of the deficit.

Most other developed nations send more, and they don't have the deficit problems. Understand this. Accept this. Realise the opinion you formed before you got the facts was wrong, and now that you know the facts you need to change your opinion.

Now you are making stuff up and not really giving an answer. Just because some countries have larger debt does not mean that is the optimal situation to be in.

For feth's sake read what I'm telling you. I never mentioned other countries, I said "Exactly what level of overall debt is acceptable is debated (I've seen 10%, 25%, and 50% and even 100% argued by various people)". That means, quite fething plainly, that the exact level of acceptable deficit is debated among economists, and can range from 10%, all the way up to 100%.

At least when I take a guess I say "Well off the top of my head". Can you tell me how having a debt where the interest is equal to GDP growth is not optimal? Any more than that and you are acquiring additional interest debt every cycle. You are in effect losing money. Sure if you have an action plan (lets say 5 year plan) for a huge investment that will pay off dipping further is ok, (still not optimal). That is not the present case.

Now, because the things you're comparing are incomparable. They're not related, they don't exist on the same scale. It would be like saying a good measure of height is how blue your eyes are. It's nonsensical.

Instead you look at total debt as a measure of GDP, and whether or not the current deficit is sustainable. That's what economists do. Accept this. Leave the thread knowing something, and maybe this won't have been a complete waste of everyone's time.

Pooling resources is vastly different that underwriting a countries military or providing them billions in aid to influence their government (Pakistan).

You assumed countries receiving aid meant they weren't self-sufficient. This is wrong, and I demonstrated this by giving you the example of the US, which has received emergency services aid from Australia, but is not a country anyone would describe as dependant on foreign aid. You ignored this obvious point and went off on an irrelevant tangent about pooling resources, pretending there was a deliberate, mutual arrangement between our two countries.

You missed the simple point that receiving aid doesn't automatically make you a dependant state. Another example I could give would be Japan, who right now are receiving aid, but no-one would sensibly call them dependant.

Because they are true allies not bribed thugs. They see the benefit of being an ally. Bribery creates alliances that are tenuous and parasitic at best. How many US funded armies have we eventually had to destroy? Only when countries actually have shared values can they be counted on for much of anything, that requires building an actual relationship, not bribery.

You've made the vast, sweeping assumption that aid is given to bribe a country, and that no more complex arrangement could exist. That's a terrible assumption, producing a terrible understanding of the nature of foreign aid programs and the effect they have in influencing another country.

I'll give you a good example of how aid actually works. Right now Australia is funding the construction of public schools in Indonesia. It is doing this because this helps Indonesia run state school programs. If Indonesia cannot provide spots in schools for young kids, they are likely to receive their education in religiously funded schools, many of which preach extreme versions of Islam.

Another example is the bridge building program we've run through Indonesia. The improved road network has vastly improved trade throughout the nation, increasing employment and the prosperity of local citizens.

We don't use that aid as a bribe, Indonesia and Australia still have a long history of significant disagreements on foreign policy, they've even used proxies to fire on Australian troops in East Timor. We do it because we believe that Indonesia having a more secularly educated population, that is more prosperous and more tied to the world economy is better for us. It means that long term they're more likely to agree with our view simply because they're more like us.

sebster wrote:

Andrew1975 wrote:Again you seam to think the US needs to control what other countries do, and can't do it any other way but bribery. It's silly. Just admit that you like the US meddling in the affairs of sovereign states.

Seem to think...? As though it's some great secret that resource flows are extremely important to modern economies, and that nations do what they can to secure those resource flows.

What's actually happening here is that you have an extremely simplistic view of world affairs, and refuse to question that worldview no matter how many people have come into this thread to explain to you how poor an understanding it is.

Obviously resources are important, never said they weren't. I don't agree with your view of obtaining them. Whats is actually happing here is that you are drinking the cool aid. In that you believe the only way to get and or secure these things is by bribery, military might, and intervention.

Even though most data would show our meddling has created a state of almost constant chaos in the region. Yes 90 million is a drop in the bucket compared to the 1.75 billion we gave Egypt last year, but according to you that was money well spent giving money to a government that couldn't even hold on to power.

Most data? What the feth does that even mean?

And don't try and put words into my mouth. It's pathetically lazy. We've all seen that you can't be bothered to properly explore your own arguments, don't add 'will make up things about other people's arguments instead of actually address their arguments' to your list of failings.

I'm not putting word in your mouth you have stated that aid is the proper and only way to do things. I gave you an example of a complete waste of billions of dollars. As far as most data well you are on the internet so I'm sure you can see that the Middle east is pretty messed up. You can deny it if you want, but a lot of those problems have been created and or exasperated by US intervention.

Now maybe you subscribe to the idea that a constant state of chaos in the region is good.

Your assumption that the regional instability is entirely the product of outside forces is absurd. I have disagreed with specific US, British and French actions in the middle east, particularly the overthrow of the democractic government of Iran to be replaced with the Shah, but the idea that nations should simply keep out of the affairs of others or it will produce instability is childishly simple.

I'm not saying the world would be perfect without US intervention and aid, it's not perfect now. It would just be. See the world doesn't stop if the US stops shelling out cash and bullets, it'll still be there, and it will figure itself out.

I would say our constant aid and interventions along with with the cost of maintaining that ability is a big reason the US is in such debt.

And you'd be objectively wrong. That you'd form such an opinion is one thing, and somewhat acceptable given the terrible nature of the discussion of the federal budget in the US, but the fact that you've continued to insist on something that is objectively wrong throughout this thread

Yeah, your right, the cost to maintain a military that has a bigger budget then the rest of the worlds militaries combined has nothing to do with US debt. Not to mention all the other militaries in the world the US underwrites.

But you must subscribe to the idea that US foreign policy has been a shinning star over the last 50 years...good for you now accept responsibility for the large debt that that has incurred.

Noting that I accept that foreign involvement is necessary and then assuming that I believe the US has done it well is really poor arguing on your part. You need to consider what you did there, and then start to consider the idea that you are really bad at debate. And then consider that maybe you'd be better off giving up on arguing, and be better of listening to other people.

And again, US intervention overseas is not a major cause of the deficit. The large standing army is, but that exists for political reasons entirely distinct to overseas adventurism.

Really, I suppose the US military is there to stop a domestic rebellion then? The military is used to protect it's people and expand foreign policy. We need a giant military because we have giant foreign policy.

Again it's not just aid! It's everything including irresponsible domestic spending to. But you would have to agree that aid, military aid, and military interventions along with the machine that provides it are responsible for a huge amount of the debt and in turn are responsible for a infrastructure that while not crumbling, is not headed in the right direction. This idea of "Empire light" is unhelpful and unnecessary.

No, I would not have to agree. Because it's wrong, and something I and several other posters have explained to you over and over again is wrong. The money sent overseas is not a material cause of the deficit.

Most other developed nations send more, and they don't have the deficit problems. Understand this. Accept this. Realise the opinion you formed before you got the facts was wrong, and now that you know the facts you need to change your opinion.

When you include military spending, military aid and aid, none spends more than the US. I understand that it is convenient for you to ignore military spending as a cost of foreign policy, but you can't do that.

Now you are making stuff up and not really giving an answer. Just because some countries have larger debt does not mean that is the optimal situation to be in.

For feth's sake read what I'm telling you. I never mentioned other countries, I said "Exactly what level of overall debt is acceptable is debated (I've seen 10%, 25%, and 50% and even 100% argued by various people)". That means, quite fething plainly, that the exact level of acceptable deficit is debated among economists, and can range from 10%, all the way up to 100%.

Yeah you will never get all people to agree on anything. There is however an overwhelming consensus by experts that the current situation is not a good one to be in. Some think it's not bad, and others think it's not too much to worry about. Very few think it is actually an optimal situation to be in. The consensus it that the current amount is quite large, but they have no idea what the actual breaking point is. Unfortunately the experts say that with all the variables the only way to really know what the breaking point is, is to get there, but by then its too late.

At least when I take a guess I say "Well off the top of my head". Can you tell me how having a debt where the interest is equal to GDP growth is not optimal? Any more than that and you are acquiring additional interest debt every cycle. You are in effect losing money. Sure if you have an action plan (lets say 5 year plan) for a huge investment that will pay off dipping further is ok, (still not optimal). That is not the present case.

Now, because the things you're comparing are incomparable. They're not related, they don't exist on the same scale. It would be like saying a good measure of height is how blue your eyes are. It's nonsensical.

Instead you look at total debt as a measure of GDP, and whether or not the current deficit is sustainable. That's what economists do. Accept this. Leave the thread knowing something, and maybe this won't have been a complete waste of everyone's time.

The measure of National debt is a benchmark used to measure the health of a nation economy.

"In economics, the debt-to-GDP ratio is one of the indicators of the health of an economy. It is the amount of federal debt of a country as a percentage of its Gross Domestic Product (GDP). A low debt-to-GDP ratio indicates an economy that produces a large number of goods and services and probably profits that are high enough to pay back debts. Governments aim for low debt-to-GDP ratios and can stand-up to the risks involved by increasing debt as their economies have a higher gdp and profit margin. The level of public debt as % of GDP around 2008 in Japan and Germany was around 60%, which was also one of the EU's criteria for member states to participate in the Euro. As of 2011, the United States holds a debt-to-GDP ratio of around 97%."

Pooling resources is vastly different that underwriting a countries military or providing them billions in aid to influence their government (Pakistan).

You assumed countries receiving aid meant they weren't self-sufficient. This is wrong, and I demonstrated this by giving you the example of the US, which has received emergency services aid from Australia, but is not a country anyone would describe as dependant on foreign aid. You ignored this obvious point and went off on an irrelevant tangent about pooling resources, pretending there was a deliberate, mutual arrangement between our two countries.

You missed the simple point that receiving aid doesn't automatically make you a dependant state. Another example I could give would be Japan, who right now are receiving aid, but no-one would sensibly call them dependant.

Of course it doesn't automatically make it a dependent state. Stop taking generalizations as empirical statements. Oh I assume most cooperation between nations in reciprocal relationships is completely by accident.

I've already said I have no problem with Japanese aid.

Because they are true allies not bribed thugs. They see the benefit of being an ally. Bribery creates alliances that are tenuous and parasitic at best. How many US funded armies have we eventually had to destroy? Only when countries actually have shared values can they be counted on for much of anything, that requires building an actual relationship, not bribery.

You've made the vast, sweeping assumption that aid is given to bribe a country, and that no more complex arrangement could exist. That's a terrible assumption, producing a terrible understanding of the nature of foreign aid programs and the effect they have in influencing another country.

I'll give you a good example of how aid actually works. Right now Australia is funding the construction of public schools in Indonesia. It is doing this because this helps Indonesia run state school programs. If Indonesia cannot provide spots in schools for young kids, they are likely to receive their education in religiously funded schools, many of which preach extreme versions of Islam.

Another example is the bridge building program we've run through Indonesia. The improved road network has vastly improved trade throughout the nation, increasing employment and the prosperity of local citizens.

We don't use that aid as a bribe, Indonesia and Australia still have a long history of significant disagreements on foreign policy, they've even used proxies to fire on Australian troops in East Timor. We do it because we believe that Indonesia having a more secularly educated population, that is more prosperous and more tied to the world economy is better for us. It means that long term they're more likely to agree with our view simply because they're more like us.

Andrew1975 wrote:Obviously resources are important, never said they weren't. I don't agree with your view of obtaining them. Whats is actually happing here is that you are drinking the cool aid. In that you believe the only way to get and or secure these things is by bribery, military might, and intervention.

I said "that nations do what they can to secure those resource flows". You interpreted this as "you believe the only way to get and or secure these things is by bribery, military might, and intervention".

That's a completely incompetent reading of my very simple statement, effectively changing the emphasis from the recognition that all nations do all kinds of things, including foreign aid and military intervention, to secure supplies, to a statement where the only way of securing supplies was through foreign aid and intervention. It's the kind of thing you've done throughout this thread, and it's a very large part of why your understanding of how the world works is as poor now as it was when this whole thing started.

If this is how you generally try to discuss things, I guess that would explain how you managed to come up with such a naive worldview in the first place.

I'm not putting word in your mouth you have stated that aid is the proper and only way to do things. I gave you an example of a complete waste of billions of dollars. As far as most data well you are on the internet so I'm sure you can see that the Middle east is pretty messed up.

The 'middle east is messed up' is a broad generalisation, not data, and the observation that it is messed up doesn't in any sensible way support your conclusion that foreign aid and intervention are poorly spent.

And yes, you put words into my mouth when you pretended that I was saying that aid to Egypt was money well spent. You made that poor assumption because you've assumed that because I recognise foreign intervention is necessary, I must be in favour of every instance of foreign policy that's ever happened. That's just one of the many assumptions you've made throughout this discussion that's resulted in you having learned nothing about how the world actually works. If you'd just stop making such silly assumptions and start thinking about things this might not end up a waste of time.

So, please, just... think, question your assumptions, read what I'm writing, okay?

You can deny it if you want, but a lot of those problems have been created and or exasperated by US intervention.

Why would I deny that? I believe that. The problem is not with the observation that intervention has caused problems, but the stupidity of your conclusion that therefore all intervention is destined to cause more harm than good.

I'm not saying the world would be perfect without US intervention and aid, it's not perfect now. It would just be. See the world doesn't stop if the US stops shelling out cash and bullets, it'll still be there, and it will figure itself out.

Obviously the world will keep turning. The question is whether or not it will work in a way that's any better for people in general, and for the nation that's given up on intervention.

Your answer, that it would be at least as well set up for the nation that is no longer willing to intervene, is absurd.

Yeah, your right, the cost to maintain a military that has a bigger budget then the rest of the worlds militaries combined has nothing to do with US debt. Not to mention all the other militaries in the world the US underwrites.

So despite the fact that I began this thread by explaining to you the actual major causes of the US deficit, and included military spending as part of that, you're now pretending I'm claiming that military spending has nothing to do with the deficit? Pathetic.

The most basic reading of US military budgeting will show that spending is only vaguely related to overseas intervention. The relatively small number of troops needed for most possible overseas operations have little to do with the vast conventional standing army the US currently maintains.

Really, I suppose the US military is there to stop a domestic rebellion then? The military is used to protect it's people and expand foreign policy. We need a giant military because we have giant foreign policy.

No, it's geared to fight a conventional war against an enemy that doesn't exist.

You have a giant military because you have runaway military appropriations, and a culture that doesn't say no to military expansion, and military industrial complex that loves lobbyists and porkbarrelling. Even if you were to withdraw from overseas intervention you'd still need to overcome the giant institutional factors driving the ever expanding military budget.

When you include military spending, military aid and aid, none spends more than the US. I understand that it is convenient for you to ignore military spending as a cost of foreign policy, but you can't do that.

And here you are again, claiming I'm ignoring military spending, when I was the one who tried to draw your attention to that budget item in the first place, instead of the piddly foreign aid budget you were originally complaining about. You should be embarrassed by your effort in this thread.

Meanwhile, the assumption that withdrawing from overseas military operations will lead to a reduced US military budget is just another of your mistakes. You could slash the military budget massively without impacting force projection significantly, while withdrawing from any possibility of future overseas operations wouldn't in itself impact spending at all.

Yeah you will never get all people to agree on anything.

No, but in any given topic there is a range of basic concepts that experts will agree on. One of those is

There is however an overwhelming consensus by experts that the current situation is not a good one to be in. Some think it's not bad, and others think it's not too much to worry about. Very few think it is actually an optimal situation to be in. The consensus it that the current amount is quite large, but they have no idea what the actual breaking point is. Unfortunately the experts say that with all the variables the only way to really know what the breaking point is, is to get there, but by then its too late.

No-one is arguing that the current US deficit isn't bad, they are arguing that there are more important short and medium term issues, such as unemployment and wage stagnation.

And the problem with too great a deficit isn't just that it will one day reach a breaking point, the problem is that too much deficit spending draws funds away from potential investment, hurting long term growth.

The measure of National debt is a benchmark used to measure the health of a nation economy.

"In economics, the debt-to-GDP ratio is one of the indicators of the health of an economy. It is the amount of federal debt of a country as a percentage of its Gross Domestic Product (GDP). A low debt-to-GDP ratio indicates an economy that produces a large number of goods and services and probably profits that are high enough to pay back debts. Governments aim for low debt-to-GDP ratios and can stand-up to the risks involved by increasing debt as their economies have a higher gdp and profit margin. The level of public debt as % of GDP around 2008 in Japan and Germany was around 60%, which was also one of the EU's criteria for member states to participate in the Euro. As of 2011, the United States holds a debt-to-GDP ratio of around 97%."

So you've withdrawn your nonsensical interest payment measure, and accepted the common debt to GDP measure I told you to use? We can put that little issue to bed, then?

Of course it doesn't automatically make it a dependent state. Stop taking generalizations as empirical statements.

If you had meant it as a general statement, then you could have said so when I . Unfortunately you didn't extend me the courtesy of reading my post, resulting in you going off on some imagined reciprocal arrangement (because there isn't a reciprocal arrangement between Australia and the US, as I've already explained).

At which point I could go on to explain that even at the general level the receipt of aid doesn't make a nation dependant. In fact, there's barely any dependant nations in the world but a lot that receive aid, and you understanding of foreign aid creating dependancy is very mistaken, when it generally is used to increase capacity.

I've already said I have no problem with Japanese aid.

Which is irrelevant, as the point I made had nothing to do with whether you or I approved of aid to Japan. My point was simply that the receipt of aid by Japan didn't make them a dependant state. It was clearly written, and you've failed to follow the discussion once again. Do better.

And how far away from Australia is Indonesia. It is within your own sphere. Talk to me when Australia is funding programs in Mexico. You don't want kids going to Muslims schools because constant meddling has turned Islam into a tool of revenge against their meddlers. Maybe it would be better instead to raise them in an environment where they don't have a Great Satan to pin all their problems on. Then they can focus of their real oppressors and and turn on them.......Oh wait!

Meddling has turned Islam into a tool? Please go and read on the actual causes of radicalisation of Islam, you'll find it nowhere near as simple as that.

Meanwhile, your response is dependant on the idea that aid such as I mentioned is only possible if you're geographically close to a country. Which is stupid.

You've also missed the point I made, which was that your claim that aid is used to bribe countries into doing what you say is mistaken. Instead aid is used to help turn countries into forms that will tend to be closer allies due to the nature of what they are.


Seriously, Andrew, your effort in this thread has been terrible. You've ignored or missed the most basic arguments, misread simple sentences constantly (and almost never done so out of simple error, but in order to shift my argument into something you can actually mount an argument against), and you've forgotten major points I've explained to you multiple times, to the point where you've accused me of ignoring things I was telling you from the first post.

The result has been that you've learned nothing, and haven't made any useful contributions to what should be your thread. You're clearly quite interested in foreign policy and the spending of your own government, but you approach debate in such a way that you won't ever learn anything, or be able to effectively argue your point with others.

You need to change how you approach debate. You need to read other people's arguments, consider their point, reflect on your own argument and then respond with point that accepta what is true about their argument while dismissing what was wrong (acknowledgely which parts are known to be wrong and which parts you merely believe to be wrong).

I'm not saying this to be rude or dismissive, but because I like to discuss things, and you've failed to do so in this thread, almost completely.

There is however an overwhelming consensus by experts that the current situation is not a good one to be in. Some think it's not bad, and others think it's not too much to worry about. Very few think it is actually an optimal situation to be in. The consensus it that the current amount is quite large, but they have no idea what the actual breaking point is. Unfortunately the experts say that with all the variables the only way to really know what the breaking point is, is to get there, but by then its too late.

No-one is arguing that the current US deficit isn't bad, they are arguing that there are more important short and medium term issues, such as unemployment and wage stagnation.

And the problem with too great a deficit isn't just that it will one day reach a breaking point, the problem is that too much deficit spending draws funds away from potential investment, hurting long term growth.

The measure of National debt is a benchmark used to measure the health of a nation economy.

"In economics, the debt-to-GDP ratio is one of the indicators of the health of an economy. It is the amount of federal debt of a country as a percentage of its Gross Domestic Product (GDP). A low debt-to-GDP ratio indicates an economy that produces a large number of goods and services and probably profits that are high enough to pay back debts. Governments aim for low debt-to-GDP ratios and can stand-up to the risks involved by increasing debt as their economies have a higher gdp and profit margin. The level of public debt as % of GDP around 2008 in Japan and Germany was around 60%, which was also one of the EU's criteria for member states to participate in the Euro. As of 2011, the United States holds a debt-to-GDP ratio of around 97%."

So you've withdrawn your nonsensical interest payment measure, and accepted the common debt to GDP measure I told you to use? We can put that little issue to bed, then?

The problem is that too much deficit spending draws funds away from potential investment, hurting long term growth. Hey you are right so does paying billions in interest.

Look I could just as easily fill pages telling you are wrong and denigrating your skills and miss steps while constantly insulting you, the way you do. I choose not to because it's childish and not the way two adults should conduct a conversation. But that doesn't mean I'm gonna stand for it. I'm tired of you.

I've listed my arguments, your only response is "you are wrong and have a warped view of the world" while providing little to no hard facts to substantiate your claims. You attempts to turn every generalization into an empirical statement are tiresome along with all your other ploys. If you want to play wordy games go find someone who wants to do that, there are plenty of them here.

In short if you want countries to receive aid (I'm sure I have to put all types of aid here mister wordy games) then let Australia pay for it. You live in a country that has no shared borders and free health care. Seriously what gonna happen to you? You quite practically live in your own world. Your justify US global aid by using Australian examples to credible threats that are in your own back yard. I can understand some aid to Mexico or Canada, but no I don't think we need to solve the worlds problems and spend our money doing what other countries should be doing.

You enjoy cheap oil and resources that are easily obtained because the world is (must put relatively here or you will send the word police after me) peaceful. I can understand that you feel frightened as to what would happen if the US stopped financing world harmony for you and the rest of the world. But you know what we (many,not all, possibly not even most) are tired of it. Enjoy your free health care and sandy beaches.

Whatever the experts say, foreign aid is a small item in the US government's budget, and will make no significant difference whether cut to zero or doubled.

The budget was 3.1 trillion dollars in 2009. Out of that, the foreign aid budget was less than half of the 0.1.

Try cutting Social Security 10% instead.

Whatever the experts say, foreign aid is a small item in the US government's budget, and will make no significant difference whether cut to zero or doubled.

The budget was 3.1 trillion dollars in 2009. Out of that, the foreign aid budget was less than half of the 0.1.

Try cutting Social Security 10% instead.

Depends on if you are speaking about only aid and not entire issue of aid, military aid, military intervention and the machine required to produce them.

Are there many many issues with domestic spending that are more important and need to be looked at, absolutely. There is obviously no one thing that needs to be changed and no silver bullet.

This whole thing started because I said 90 million to Egypt is an unnecessary waste. I've seen no evidence to the contrary. People have brought in all kinds of other topics and ideas. But none sway me from my original position.

I am talking about foreign aid because that is the topic that you introduced at the start of the thread.

I don't see how you expect to see a return on your 90 million dollar investment in the first two weeks.

I don't know if the US government has any imagination or skills of diplomacy and persuasion. If it were up to me, I would be using the 90 million to help bring in early elections, keep the Suez Canal open, and form an Egyptian flotilla against Somali pirates.

Early elections is a bad Idea. You need time for new political parties to form.

I don't know if the US government has any imagination or skills of diplomacy and persuasion. If it were up to me, I would be using the 90 million to help bring in early elections, keep the Suez Canal open, and form an Egyptian flotilla against Somali pirates.

All good ideas, and about the best argument I've heard. I just can't see why the US has to foot the bill for these things. Surely if Egypt can't afford to do them other players in the region should be very interested in paying for these things.

"As of Tuesday, the U.S. military has flown 212 sorties over Libya, while 124 were flown by other coalition forces. A total of 108 strikes have been carried out and 162 Tomahawk missiles have been fired, the U.S. military reported."

Now the US is doing the heavy lifting spending hundreds of millions of dollars in an operation that we don't need to be in and was started by French saber rattling. This is a perfect example of the "Aid" I am talking about!

Andrew1975 wrote:Hey you are right so does paying billions in interest.

Only if that money is going overseas, which only the case for around 30% of US government debt. Instead think about the 70% of the debt that's held by domestic sources, and think about how that money might have been better invested by the private sector in investment.

fething hell, man, the point I've made above is not secret knowledge. It's very basic economics. Fair enough it's something you might not be aware of if you haven't had much economics training, but if you haven't what fething moxie you must have to question every single statement made by someone who has.

Look I could just as easily fill pages telling you are wrong and denigrating your skills and miss steps while constantly insulting you, the way you do. I choose not to because it's childish and not the way two adults should conduct a conversation. But that doesn't mean I'm gonna stand for it. I'm tired of you.

No, seriously, I'm not doing this for any other

I've listed my arguments, your only response is "you are wrong and have a warped view of the world" while providing little to no hard facts to substantiate your claims. You attempts to turn every generalization into an empirical statement are tiresome along with all your other ploys. If you want to play wordy games go find someone who wants to do that, there are plenty of them here.

Andrew1975 wrote:

I don't know if the US government has any imagination or skills of diplomacy and persuasion. If it were up to me, I would be using the 90 million to help bring in early elections, keep the Suez Canal open, and form an Egyptian flotilla against Somali pirates.

All good ideas, and about the best argument I've heard. I just can't see why the US has to foot the bill for these things. Surely if Egypt can't afford to do them other players in the region should be very interested in paying for these things.

The reason why the USA has to foot this bill is because the USA pushed France and the UK out of the area in 1956, and involved itself by funding the Egyptian military to the tune of $1.5 dollars a year in recent times.

These actions put responsibility for supporting and influencing Egypt primarily on the USA.

The USA cannot trust other regional allies such as Israel and Saudi Arabia, so the USA is pretty much on its own.

This thread has been reported ( a lot). From this point forward consider this a public warning to all posters including myself. Rule #1 will be strictly enforced from this point forward. Slants, insults, comments about other posters' abilities, and attacks against other posters on this thread will not be tolerated.

Andrew1975 wrote:

Whatever the experts say, foreign aid is a small item in the US government's budget, and will make no significant difference whether cut to zero or doubled.

The budget was 3.1 trillion dollars in 2009. Out of that, the foreign aid budget was less than half of the 0.1.

Try cutting Social Security 10% instead.

Depends on if you are speaking about only aid and not entire issue of aid, military aid, military intervention and the machine required to produce them.

Are there many many issues with domestic spending that are more important and need to be looked at, absolutely. There is obviously no one thing that needs to be changed and no silver bullet.

This whole thing started because I said 90 million to Egypt is an unnecessary waste. I've seen no evidence to the contrary. People have brought in all kinds of other topics and ideas. But none sway me from my original position.

I am speaking about foreign aid.

The US foreign aid budget includes a significant amount of military aid to Egypt and Israel. I don't know if you want to count that or cut it.

Cut it.