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.

Emperors Faithful wrote:I doubt that graph agrees.

True, that graph is showing straight aid, which is about $25 billion. Military aid is another $17 billion or thereabouts, although that is really high right now because $12 billion being given to Iraq and Afghanistan, normally military aid is around $5 billion, basically going to Israel, Egypt and Pakistan.

Military aid to Israel is included in the foreign aid budget.

I don't know about the other countries.

The point is that even if you include all military aid within the foreign aid budget, it is still a tiny proportion of GDP, maybe half a percent at most.

I'm not attacking the USA for this, just pointing out a fact.

People who say that the US needs to concentrate on solving its domestic problems before helping anyone else, need to understand that the US spends almost none of its money helping other countries.

To put it another way, cancelling all foreign and military aid would add proportionally little to domestic aid.

To put it a third way, the reason for disasters like the Malibu wild fires or the Hurrican Katrina floods, isn't that you haven't got enough money to stop them. It is other things like mentioned by Frazzled earlier in the thread.

Apparently the UK public is "leading the way" and "shaming the worlds politicians"

Ok so thats the money sorted, now we commence the psyops campaign to convince the people of Pakistan that we are the good guys and offer some financial incentives to rat out the Taliban and this natural disaster can be turned into a big bag of win!

Maybe a vigorous leaflet campaign to convince them that the Taliban/Islamic Extremist elements invented a flood machine?

Erk. He's back!

mattyrm wrote:Apparently the UK public is "leading the way" and "shaming the worlds politicians"

Ok so thats the money sorted, now we commence the psyops campaign to convince the people of Pakistan that we are the good guys and offer some financial incentives to rat out the Taliban and this natural disaster can be turned into a big bag of win!

Maybe a vigorous leaflet campaign to convince them that the Taliban/Islamic Extremist elements invented a flood machine?

The best way of convincing people we are the good guys is to fly around in helicopters, rescuing victims from drowning and disease, and dishing out plenty of food, blankets and stuff like that.

Yeah we can do that mate, i like helicopters!

sebster wrote:

Frazzled wrote:So brilliantly wrong its not funny.
It was the responsibility of the local and state government, not the Fed.

That's completely and utterly wrong. FEMA was created with the express purpose of providing resources for disaster relief when the resources of local and state governments were overwhelmed.

CT GAMER wrote:Who are say the top three?

As I posted on the previous page;

FEMA was created as a support mechanism. It wasn't designed to be an emergency response unit.
Pro tip Aussie. It helps to live in the region and seen FEMA in action before stating what FEMA does.

...Isn't FEMA a Governmental institution? (As in, not county or State based)

Kilkrazy wrote:Military aid to Israel is included in the foreign aid budget.

I don't know about the other countries.

The point is that even if you include all military aid within the foreign aid budget, it is still a tiny proportion of GDP, maybe half a percent at most.

I'm not attacking the USA for this, just pointing out a fact.

People who say that the US needs to concentrate on solving its domestic problems before helping anyone else, need to understand that the US spends almost none of its money helping other countries.

To put it another way, cancelling all foreign and military aid would add proportionally little to domestic aid.

To put it a third way, the reason for disasters like the Malibu wild fires or the Hurrican Katrina floods, isn't that you haven't got enough money to stop them. It is other things like mentioned by Frazzled earlier in the thread.

So if its "not material" klets quit giving it. PLus you ginored the money we give to the UN and payments in kind-primarily through the US Navy support of relief operations. It wasn't Chinese, Australian, or German aircraft carriers off Asia after the Tsunami rescuing people.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Emperors Faithful wrote:...Isn't FEMA a Governmental institution? (As in, not county or State based)

Yes a Federal entity. Now under Homeland Security and way more crappy as a result.

Frazzled wrote:

Emperors Faithful wrote:...Isn't FEMA a Governmental institution? (As in, not county or State based)

Yes a Federal entity. Now under Homeland Security and way more crappy as a result.

But...doesn't that defeat your argument?
FEMA isn't state based, so therefore it doesn't matter which state you live in to know how it works.

Frazzled wrote: It wasn't designed to be an emergency response unit..

okay, but it is the Federal Emergency Management Agency isn't it ? Or am I confusing this with something else.

Emperors Faithful wrote:

Frazzled wrote:

Emperors Faithful wrote:...Isn't FEMA a Governmental institution? (As in, not county or State based)

Yes a Federal entity. Now under Homeland Security and way more crappy as a result.

But...doesn't that defeat your argument?
FEMA isn't state based, so therefore it doesn't matter which state you live in to know how it works.

1. FEMA's activities are in areas where disasters have occurred. Unfortunately on the Gulf Coast that occurs often.
2. It doesn't do much in say, Montana. It does way less in Australia.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

reds8n wrote:

Frazzled wrote: It wasn't designed to be an emergency response unit..

okay, but it is the Federal Emergency Management Agency isn't it ? Or am I confusing this with something else.

Thats not what it does, or did for 50 years anyway. After Katrina, who knows? It didn't do after Rita or Ike.

Frazzled wrote:

1. FEMA's activities are in areas where disasters have occurred. Unfortunately on the Gulf Coast that occurs often.

Fair enough. So you're saying that you've seen FEMA actually in action? Where were you?

2. It doesn't do much in say, Montana. It does way less in Australia.

The hell you know.
FEMA is the manfodder first line of defence between the shores of Tasmanian and the Mainlaind, ensuring the natives do not escape into the greater part of civilisation. They've got their work cut out for them.

Emperors Faithful wrote:

Fair enough. So you're saying that you've seen FEMA actually in action? Where were you?

Said Gulf Coast.

The hell you know.
FEMA is the manfodder first line of defence between the shores of Tasmanian and the Mainlaind, ensuring the natives do not escape into the greater part of civilisation. They've got their work cut out for them.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

reds8n wrote:I believe he's arguing more about seeing their inaction , rather.

yep.
Their original intent was to come in after the disaster and provide aid-loans and other aid. They weren't first responders.
Unfortunately like most of governemnt adn the sad state of the US, their ability to do anything is no bureaucracy crappytown. This is compounded by people now often expecting the government to take care of them for the long term. Thats not how it works nor should it be. Thats a post Katrina phenomenon.

Frazzled wrote:
So if its "not material" klets quit giving it.

Its not material to us, but it is often quite significant to the states to which it is given; what with proportionality and all.

Frazzled wrote:
PLus you ginored the money we give to the UN...

This varies from year to year, but a generous average would be 2.5 billion (including contributions outside of nominal dues, and Helms-Biden). Add this to the total foreign aid of ~42 billion and we reach an aggregate of 44.5 billion.

Frazzled wrote:
...and payments in kind-primarily through the US Navy support of relief operations. It wasn't Chinese, Australian, or German aircraft carriers off Asia after the Tsunami rescuing people.

No, but the carriers used in the course of relief efforts were already at sea incurring operational costs. Folding that into the aid budget is ridiculous, and even if you want to include it were're talking about, at most, 2 billion dollars; bringing the total to 46.5 billion.

Even if we, generously, round up to 50 billion the total amount of aid given by the US is insignificant to its overal budget.

You give it. I'm sick of paying for it.

Whether or not your sick of paying for it is irrelevant. If its an effective measure of contributing to national defense (and in my view it is), then its money that should be spent.

He is right though Frazz, i dont like it either, but we gotta throw some cash their way at the end of the day, as we always used to say in the marines, the guy with the bigger pay grade makes the theatre wide decisions, think of the big picture!

dogma wrote:Whether or not your sick of paying for it is irrelevant. If its an effective measure of contributing to national defense (and in my view it is), then its money that should be spent.

Its not irrelevant. I vote. more importantly I give to political candidates. Giving a lot this year.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

mattyrm wrote:He is right though Frazz, i dont like it either, but we gotta throw some cash their way at the end of the day, as we always used to say in the marines, the guy with the bigger pay grade makes the theatre wide decisions, think of the big picture!

Every time we give someone money they hate us. We don't give squat to Canada and they are usually just perplexed by us, except when we make fun of Hockey of course.

West Europe act like we're a mix of scum and Darth Vader
East Europe loves us.
Lose good men trying to feed people in Somalia, and take an inordinate amount of immigrants. How many plots now involving Somalis again?

No, as a nation we owe them nothing, we owe no one.

Frazzled wrote:

dogma wrote:Whether or not your sick of paying for it is irrelevant. If its an effective measure of contributing to national defense (and in my view it is), then its money that should be spent.

Its not irrelevant. I vote. more importantly I give to political candidates. Giving a lot this year.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

mattyrm wrote:He is right though Frazz, i dont like it either, but we gotta throw some cash their way at the end of the day, as we always used to say in the marines, the guy with the bigger pay grade makes the theatre wide decisions, think of the big picture!

Every time we give someone money they hate us. We don't give squat to Canada and they are usually just perplexed by us, except when we make fun of Hockey of course.

West Europe act like we're a mix of scum and Darth Vader
East Europe loves us.
Lose good men trying to feed people in Somalia, and take an inordinate amount of immigrants. How many plots now involving Somalis again?

No, as a nation we owe them nothing, we owe no one.

West Europe doesnt hate you mate, the UK is classed as Europe right?

Its not a nation thing, its a poltical thing.

Im centre right and i think America is awesome. I think i have more in common with people from the US than anywhere else.

I dont hug people mate, im too manly for that. Here have a hearty backslap instead!

No I consider Britain its own little bit of reality, like your currency. I'm quite certain you can actually hear "God Save the Queen" from 30,000 feet.

I hadn't realised that Israel hated the US.

Frazzled wrote:
Its not irrelevant. I vote. more importantly I give to political candidates. Giving a lot this year.

Whether or not you like something, or will vote against someone if he does something, is not relevant to the effectiveness or propriety of an action; which is what we were discussing. Now, if you said that you didn't like something and could then come up with a compelling basis for that dislike, then we would have something to discuss. I doubt you're interested in doing that though.

Remember, there are people that like the idea of banning firearms in the United States, and will vote for candidates that support such measures. However, doing so is neither appropriate due to the Second Amendment, nor effective in terms of reducing gun crime or controlling the social order.

Frazzled wrote:
Every time we give someone money they hate us.

That's because, very often, we give money to unpopular, but relatively friendly, governments.

Frazzled wrote:
No, as a nation we owe them nothing, we owe no one.

Its not about owing anyone anything, and it never has been.

Sure it is. We're broke. Let China do it. We're done. You can't get blood from a turnip. If you want to do it individually as charity great. You do it. The American Empire is over. Like Britain before us we can no long afford these burdens. Time to let the next empire do it or let the world survive without it.

In the words of the immortal bard: "You won't have Nixon to kick around any more."

Frazzled wrote:Sure it is.

Sorry, but no. Rightness is not about popular consensus. You can't have a valid opinion about something that you don't have significant knowledge of.

Frazzled wrote:
We're broke. Let China do it. We're done. You can't get blood from a turnip.

So broke, apparently, that we're arguing over 46.5 billion dollar instead of actually trying to determine what can be realistically cut , like procurement, that actually has a significant impact on the overall budget.

Frazzled wrote:
The American Empire is over. Like Britain before us we can no long afford these burdens. Time to let the next empire do it or let the world survive without it.

Unfortunately it isn't that simple, and it certainly isn't about empire. Nuclear terrorism, which is what I'm predicating this argument on, is a global issue because the economic ramifications of it are inherently global. RAND estimated that if a nuclear bomb were detonated in the port of Long Beach the instant economic cost to the world would be, at least, 3 trillion dollars. In the face of that type of risk, 50 billion dollars hardly seems significant.

Frazzled wrote:
In the words of the immortal bard: "You won't have Nixon to kick around any more."

This doesn't make sense in context.

Frazzled wrote:FEMA was created as a support mechanism. It wasn't designed to be an emergency response unit.
Pro tip Aussie. It helps to live in the region and seen FEMA in action before stating what FEMA does.

So living in the US makes you immune to a plain text reading of the stated purpose of a federal agency? FEMA's stated purpose was to provide aid where state and local government resources are not adequate.

They didn't perform their handle that at all well during hurrican Katrina. Whether I live in Australia, the US or on the moon, this can't be disputed.

Now, you can make a number of complaints against state and local government handling of the issue, but that doesn't lessen FEMA's own failures in the issue.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Frazzled wrote:Sure it is. We're broke. Let China do it. We're done. You can't get blood from a turnip. If you want to do it individually as charity great. You do it. The American Empire is over. Like Britain before us we can no long afford these burdens. Time to let the next empire do it or let the world survive without it.

So if you're really not interested in interacting with the rest of the world you'd be quite keen to stop all that military spending? You only need it to protect US interests overseas, because no nation on Earth has anything like the capability needed to invade the US. Even if you kept the national guard you'd be saving around 800 billion dollars. Which is quite big saving compared to the foreign aid budget.

Frazzled wrote:

Every time we give someone money they hate us.

Be fair : there's lots of countries you don't give money to who hate you as well.

reds8n wrote:

Frazzled wrote:

Every time we give someone money they hate us.

Be fair : there's lots of countries you don't give money to who hate you as well.

Point.

sebster wrote:

Frazzled wrote:FEMA was created as a support mechanism. It wasn't designed to be an emergency response unit.
Pro tip Aussie. It helps to live in the region and seen FEMA in action before stating what FEMA does.

So living in the US makes you immune to a plain text reading of the stated purpose of a federal agency? FEMA's stated purpose was to provide aid where state and local government resources are not adequate.

No it means I have real world experience. You've read on a computer. Big difference.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Frazzled wrote:Sure it is. We're broke. Let China do it. We're done. You can't get blood from a turnip. If you want to do it individually as charity great. You do it. The American Empire is over. Like Britain before us we can no long afford these burdens. Time to let the next empire do it or let the world survive without it.

So if you're really not interested in interacting with the rest of the world you'd be quite keen to stop all that military spending? You only need it to protect US interests overseas, because no nation on Earth has anything like the capability needed to invade the US. Even if you kept the national guard you'd be saving around 800 billion dollars. Which is quite big saving compared to the foreign aid budget.

Frazzled wrote:
I am keen on stopping the military spending and bringing all troops home except for one or two strategic locations. Let the rest of the world fend for itself thank you very much. If we protected our own borders and adopted a Swiss attitude we would have avoided every war since WWI.

You mean WWII, but that's still false given the manner in which 'borders' were understood following the rise of the Soviet Union.