Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

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.