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.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

You are the one who brought up the past.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

BACKPEDAL BACKPEDAL!

Not remotely. My point about Afghanistan was valid

UNRELATED UN-SOURCED ACCUSATION THATS LUDICROUSLY FALSE!

This on the other hand is back pedaling

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

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

You are the one who brought up the past.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

We've run a deficit for over 200 years

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Keep not learning from past mistakes

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Andrew1975 wrote:Saudi Arabia can defend itself!

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

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

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

Andrew1975 wrote:
Keep not learning from past mistakes.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Irrelevant. And an attempt to derail, next.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


Automatically Appended Next Post:

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

Yes, it does.

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


Automatically Appended Next Post:

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

YMMV.

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

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


Automatically Appended Next Post:

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

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

Yes, this. Completely and entirely this.

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


Automatically Appended Next Post:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Per gallon of gas, yes it is!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Andrew1975 wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Holy cow I think Dogma is really Charlie Sheen!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Are we now claiming that intervention isn't belligerence?

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

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

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

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

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

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

Andrew1975 wrote:
Because these issues affect you also.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Perhaps, but you still made the comparison.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Are we now claiming that intervention isn't belligerence?

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

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

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

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

Two trillion USD and one cent qualifies as pennies?

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

You aren't very good at this argument thing.

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

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

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

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

Two trillion USD and one cent qualifies as pennies?

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

You aren't very good at this argument thing.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


Automatically Appended Next Post:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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




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


Automatically Appended Next Post:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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