NationStates Jolt Archive


Foreign Aid

Roach-Busters
28-08-2004, 04:52
I say we eliminate it immediately, entirely, and permanently.
Elvandair
28-08-2004, 04:53
And I say we dance on into the night
LordaeronII
28-08-2004, 04:54
Well... to the original poster... it'd be nice if you gave some reasons why you feel that way.... that way we actually have something to debate about...
Kwangistar
28-08-2004, 04:59
I said we should increase it. There's more than one way to aid poor countries, of course. We could probably aid them more by cutting import taxes and subsidies than by sending them boatloads of cash.
Kerubia
28-08-2004, 05:00
Well, I see nothing wrong with helping them out, but at the same time, I don't want them to become dependant on our aid to the slightest bit.

I say we feed the starving, as well as give them medicine, and not a penny more.
Roach-Busters
28-08-2004, 05:01
And I say we dance on into the night

The hell's that supposed to mean? :confused:
Roach-Busters
28-08-2004, 05:06
Well... to the original poster... it'd be nice if you gave some reasons why you feel that way.... that way we actually have something to debate about...

1.Nowhere in the constitution is foreign aid permitted.
2.It's not in our nation's interest.
3.A lot of the time the aid is misused or pocketed by other nations' leaders' coffers (Ngo Dinh Diem, Suharto, etc.)
4.It doesn't increase our international prestige (not that I care about that...)
5.It doesn't earn us friends.
6.It makes other countries dependent on us.
7.We're not the world's fairy godmother.
8.It's a big waste of the taxpayers' money.
9.It could instead be spent on much more worthwhile things.
10.It usually doesn't make a difference. We sent the Republic of Vietnam billions of dollars, yet they remained extremely poor, and they were unable to repulse the communists without our help. Billions of dollars and thousands of lives flushed right down the drain.
Elvandair
28-08-2004, 05:08
The hell's that supposed to mean? :confused:

You give me a whack thread I give you a whack answer.
Incongruency
28-08-2004, 05:08
The hell's that supposed to mean? :confused:

Hell, it makes more sense to me than your post.
Roach-Busters
28-08-2004, 05:12
Hell, it makes more sense to me than your post.

What about it doesn't make sense?
Elvandair
28-08-2004, 05:12
Hell, it makes more sense to me than your post.

Thanks i appreciate that.
Kerubia
28-08-2004, 05:13
Well, like I said before (my post seems to be drowned in a makes sense, doesn't make sense floor), I think we should give only enough to feed the starving and some medicine. Anything other than that their government should provide. No guns; no money; no nothing, other than food/medicine.
Roach-Busters
28-08-2004, 05:15
Well, like I said before (my post seems to be drowned in a makes sense, doesn't make sense floor), I think we should give only enough to feed the starving and some medicine. Anything other than that their government should provide. No guns; no money; no nothing, other than food/medicine.

Sounds good. However, I think only private charities and individuals should provide these things, not our government.
Roach-Busters
28-08-2004, 05:16
Well, like I said before (my post seems to be drowned in a makes sense, doesn't make sense floor), I think we should give only enough to feed the starving and some medicine. Anything other than that their government should provide. No guns; no money; no nothing, other than food/medicine.

Then why did you pick 'I think we should end it altogether' instead of the fourth choice?
Enodscopia
28-08-2004, 05:20
I think we should end it all forever because it is a drain on AMERICAN tax money. I know I don't want my money going to someone that hates me unless its in the form of a bomb.
Antebellum South
28-08-2004, 05:24
1.Nowhere in the constitution is foreign aid permitted.
But nowhere in the constitution is foreign aid not permitted.

2.It's not in our nation's interest.
3.A lot of the time the aid is misused or pocketed by other nations' leaders' coffers (Ngo Dinh Diem, Suharto, etc.)
4.It doesn't increase our international prestige (not that I care about that...)
5.It doesn't earn us friends.
6.It makes other countries dependent on us.
7.We're not the world's fairy godmother.
8.It's a big waste of the taxpayers' money.
9.It could instead be spent on much more worthwhile things.
10.It usually doesn't make a difference. We sent the Republic of Vietnam billions of dollars, yet they remained extremely poor, and they were unable to repulse the communists without our help. Billions of dollars and thousands of lives flushed right down the drain.
True, true

See my signature
Roach-Busters
28-08-2004, 05:25
I think we should end it all forever because it is a drain on AMERICAN tax money.

(Applause)
Kerubia
28-08-2004, 05:30
Then why did you pick 'I think we should end it altogether' instead of the fourth choice?

Because it was fun. And because I can. :)
Roach-Busters
28-08-2004, 05:31
See my signature

Where?
Roach-Busters
28-08-2004, 05:31
Because it was fun. And because I can. :)

No need to be rude, I was just asking.
Kwangistar
28-08-2004, 05:32
Where?
You have to enable the ability to see signatures. (Profile tab in the upper left corner)
Kerubia
28-08-2004, 05:32
No need to be rude, I was just asking.

I wasn't trying to be rude, sorry if I came off that way.
Roach-Busters
28-08-2004, 05:35
I wasn't trying to be rude, sorry if I came off that way.

It's okay, I'm the one who should be apologizing. Sorry for making false accusations.
Roach-Busters
28-08-2004, 05:37
See my signature

I did, and I agree entirely.

YAHOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!! I'm no longer a Cabbage Patch Girl!!!!! :D:D:D:D:D:D:D
Independant Turkeys
28-08-2004, 05:42
I say kill "Humanitarian Aid" - that all should be done by private charities. They can do a much better job and tend to really help instead of throwing money, food and medication down a deep hole.

Most governments screw up when they try to do "social programs".

Military Aid needs a overhaul along with the U.S.A. State Department. I don't know if other nations have the same problem as we do but I would bet that they do share some of if not all of them.
Kerubia
28-08-2004, 05:47
Well, hate to say it, but the way the US handles foreign aid probably won't change for a while.

I get the feeling that if we do cut it completely, then it'll just spur more anti-American nonsense. If foreign aid is all they like us for, what will it be like if we take it away?
Independant Turkeys
28-08-2004, 06:01
Well, hate to say it, but the way the US handles foreign aid probably won't change for a while.

I get the feeling that if we do cut it completely, then it'll just spur more anti-American nonsense. If foreign aid is all they like us for, what will it be like if we take it away?

The Feds can give us a Tax Credit for giving money to charities that do humanitarian aid to non U.S.A. countries. Let the people decide instead of some government flunky.

Anti-American groups are like our Liberals - they will always make up something to complain about and should be ignored.
Globes R Us
28-08-2004, 06:24
1.Nowhere in the constitution is foreign aid permitted.
1) But is it forbidden?


2.It's not in our nation's interest.
2) Yes it is, it garners friends and promotes good-will. It is also far better for the nation to help wherever possible rather than encourage the growing of drugs, arms dealing etc.

3.A lot of the time the aid is misused or pocketed by other nations' leaders' coffers (Ngo Dinh Diem, Suharto, etc.)
3) True but that's not the fault of the people that need help. Western nations can 'by-pass' corrupt officials if they chose.

4.It doesn't increase our international prestige (not that I care about that...)
4) It most certainly does.

5.It doesn't earn us friends.
5) See 4.

6.It makes other countries dependent on us.
6) Only if given carelessly. NGO's can find many ways to helo poor people to help themselves with the cash.

7.We're not the world's fairy godmother.
7) Fair enough. Leave it to the Europeans then.

8.It's a big waste of the taxpayers' money.
8) No, see answers above.

9.It could instead be spent on much more worthwhile things.
9) More weapons?

10.It usually doesn't make a difference. We sent the Republic of Vietnam billions of dollars, yet they remained extremely poor, and they were unable to repulse the communists without our help. Billions of dollars and thousands of lives flushed right down the drain.
10) That was a uniquely American blunder.
Kerubia
28-08-2004, 16:04
2) Yes it is, it garners friends and promotes good-will. It is also far better for the nation to help wherever possible rather than encourage the growing of drugs, arms dealing etc.


Oh, yeah, we all know how much foreign aid has made 3rd world countries like us. </sarcasm>
Superpower07
28-08-2004, 16:42
I say we try to ween other countries off of it - that way they can be finiancially stable
Independant Turkeys
30-08-2004, 01:11
Ween hell - COLD TURKEY.
Purly Euclid
30-08-2004, 01:18
We should continue to give foreign aid, perhaps more of it. Some countries, like Colombia and India, need aid to fight terrorism and drugs. Some, like Lebanon, have economic potential that needs to be tapped into. Some, like Israel and Russia, need military aid. In Russia's case, they need it to disarm their massive supplies of WMDs. And of course, foreign aid can be used as a carrot stick. For the most part, however, foreign aid for humanitarian reasons should remain with private citizens, and indeed, they give more money in foreign aid than the government does.
Sinuhue
30-08-2004, 01:37
A lot of foreign aid is organised poorly, funnelled through governments and NGOs alike. For example, many nations receive outdated medical equipment, that nonetheless requires personnel and expertise (or parts) that are beyond the capabilities of the hospitals that get them. So they become big paper weights. The same goes for a lot of technology exported to the Majority World (or Third World as some people still insist on calling it. Where is the Second World, anyone?), such as electric pumps, that break down and require parts too expensive for villagers to attain, when simple hand pumps would make more sense. A lot of foreign aid is given in the form of loans, (although China and other nations have agreed to forgive the debt owed them, thus freeing up important funds for infrastructure in indebted countries) and it is not free money, as nations receiving it must pay it back, usually at an impossibly high interest. Usually that loan money ends up in despot's pockets, and never reaches those it is intended to help. (well, some could argue the despots ARE the intended receivers of this money in return for politcal support)

A lot of foreign aid is directed through the IMF and the World Bank, and it isn't doing much of anything.

"Institutionalized Failure
In 2000, the Joint Economic Committee of the US Congress found a failure rate of 55-60% for all World Bank-sponsored projects. In Africa, the failure rate reached 73%.5 " http://www.newint.org/index4.html (Issue 365, FACTS page)

Should it be ended? NO!!!! It could actually do some good, and if the U.S is serious about improving the economies of struggling nations, with the idea of opening up newer and more prosperous markets, then the money needs to do what it is supposed to: HELP THE PEOPLE...so reorganise it I say....stop that money from "disappearing".
Purly Euclid
30-08-2004, 01:47
A lot of foreign aid is organised poorly, funnelled through governments and NGOs alike. For example, many nations receive outdated medical equipment, that nonetheless requires personnel and expertise (or parts) that are beyond the capabilities of the hospitals that get them. So they become big paper weights. The same goes for a lot of technology exported to the Majority World (or Third World as some people still insist on calling it. Where is the Second World, anyone?), such as electric pumps, that break down and require parts too expensive for villagers to attain, when simple hand pumps would make more sense. A lot of foreign aid is given in the form of loans, (and although China and other nations have agreed to forgive the debt owed them, thus freeing up important funds for infrastructure in indebted countries) it is not free money, as nations receiving it must pay it back, usually at an impossibly high interest. Usually that loan money ends up in despot's pockets, and never reaches those it is intended to help. (well, some could argue the despots ARE the intended receivers of this money in return for politcal support)

A lot of foreign aid is directed through the IMF and the World Bank, and it isn't doing much of anything.

"Institutionalized Failure
In 2000, the Joint Economic Committee of the US Congress found a failure rate of 55-60% for all World Bank-sponsored projects. In Africa, the failure rate reached 73%.5 " http://www.newint.org/index4.html (Issue 365, FACTS page)

Should it be ended? NO!!!! It could actually do some good, and if the U.S is serious about improving the economies of struggling nations, with the idea of opening up newer and more prosperous markets, then the money needs to do what it is supposed to: HELP THE PEOPLE...so reorganise it I say....stop that money from "disappearing".
The problem, however, is that the money tends to never go where it is needed, as you've pointed out. This is partially because of bad management on the donor end, but usually because of bad management on the recipient end.
For example, one of the biggest foreign aid projects of the US was a bunch of money to Latin America in the 1960s, under Pres. Kennedy. As all foreign aid is, it has extremely good intentions. This was to help build infrastructure. However, it was funneled by recipient governments into their militaries, and a fair share even ended up in the hands of rebels and drug dealers. Therefore, unless the donor can see how the money is spent every step of the way, or the recipient nations have responsible governments, foreign aid will never be effective, especially in humanitarian issues.
However, in the US, as I've said, private citizens give more foreign aid than the government does. Some goes through charity, but most is money sent by those in the US with family in the third world. That is arguably more effective because it goes into the hands of private citizens, not through a long, arduous bureaocratic process.
Communist Mississippi
30-08-2004, 01:56
I'm sick and tired of seeing tax dollars go for some losers in Somalia, Bosnia, and Cambodia, while people in the USA are falling into poverty from the crappy economy and job out-sourcing.


American money for Americans!
Globes R Us
30-08-2004, 02:01
I'm sick and tired of seeing tax dollars go for some losers in Somalia, Bosnia, and Cambodia, while people in the USA are falling into poverty from the crappy economy and job out-sourcing.


American money for Americans!

Why are poor Americans merely poverty stricken whilst poor foreigners are 'losers'. Such low self esteem you display.
Communist Mississippi
30-08-2004, 02:03
Why are poor Americans merely poverty stricken whilst poor foreigners are 'losers'. Such low self esteem you display.


Because jew and mason CEOs have been looting their own companies and then the American working man gets the shaft when the masons like Ashcroft refuse to bring charges against the jew and mason CEOs.

Masons refusing to prosecute Masons... Surprise, surprise!

Americans are a people who have always wanted to do hard work, to make something of value, and to feel responsible for it. Most Westerners were the same way, until the jewish doctrine of greed and materialism took hold. Submission to the basest of instincts, turning mankinds healthy urges down degenerate paths.


Third world scum on the other hand, they want it all free. They say "Free at last, free at last, great God almighty, give it to us for free at last!"
Globes R Us
30-08-2004, 02:06
Because jew and mason CEOs have been looting their own companies and then the American working man gets the shaft when the masons like Ashcroft refuse to bring charges against the jew and mason CEOs.

Masons refusing to prosecute Masons... Surprise, surprise!

Indeed. Quite a surprise. Is it only Jewish and Masonic CEO's that do this then?
Communist Mississippi
30-08-2004, 02:07
Indeed. Quite a surprise. Is it only Jewish and Masonic CEO's that do this then?


Seeing as 45% of CEOs, and a significant number of the remaining % are masons, there aren't many non-jew or non-mason CEOs.

All the recent scandals (World Com, Enron, Tyco) were all jew CEOs.


Let us not forget the jew Robert Maxwell.
Globes R Us
30-08-2004, 02:09
Seeing as 45% of CEOs, and a significant number of the remaining % are masons, there aren't many non-jew or non-mason CEOs.

All the recent scandals (World Com, Enron, Tyco) were all jew CEOs.


Let us not forget the jew Robert Maxwell.

That is very interesting. Where may I see these stats please?
Communist Mississippi
30-08-2004, 02:11
That is very interesting. Where may I see these stats please?


It's common knowledge.

Let me get some information on the Jewish Media Cabal. Give me your email address, I'll mail it to you (It's too long to post)


Look up information on the CEOs of the Fortune 500 companies.


Also in Russia, 8 of the 10 richest men are jews, the jews were complaining in a recent news article about how it portrays them all as rich. (They should be rich, they've had years to swindle gentiles)
Modinel
30-08-2004, 02:40
Well, for those of you who are interested, the old First-Second-Third World system was a Cold War invention. The First World was the countries on the U.S.'s side, the Second on the Soviet side, and the Third were developing countries that could basically go either way. They've put in a Fourth now, but I'll be damned if I can remember what it's for. Economically strong countries that xenophobes don't want in the First World, maybe.
Kerubia
30-08-2004, 03:07
Spooky thing is, I don't know if Communist Mississippi is joking about the jews causing all the trouble or not . . .
Globes R Us
30-08-2004, 03:10
It's common knowledge. Give me your email address, I'll mail it to you (It's too long to post)



I don't think so. My E-mail is kept for rational discussion thank you. Just PM it to me.
Communist Mississippi
30-08-2004, 03:15
I don't think so. My E-mail is kept for rational discussion thank you. Just PM it to me.


It's much too large for that.


Just goggle, "Molding American Minds" it's an article by the National Alliance, the leading group for racial sanity and cultural preservation in White America.
Snake Venom
30-08-2004, 03:27
We have a lot of aid already.