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.

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.