Hostage? Really? Prove it! And dont tell me about political allegiances because they can be easily changed.CameronPoe wrote:
The world would learn to pull itself up by its own bootstraps and the governments of aid-receiving nations would no longer be held hostage by the US. I think it would be a good thing.
We would be looked upon as the devil. Oh wait........
He is only including government aid. Nothing on the private sector. If you include that, the GDP percentage would increase. Again, please read the op. I know that I donate more then .3% of my income. I donate more then that for Zimbabwe alone.
You think the European private sector doesn't give generously as well? Newsflash: the GDP percentage for European nations would increase also....nlsme wrote:
He is only including government aid. Nothing on the private sector. If you include that, the GDP percentage would increase. Again, please read the op. I know that I donate more then .3% of my income. I donate more then that for Zimbabwe alone.
Quoted from the OP article. This is the IMPORTANT PART.CameronPoe wrote:
You think the European private sector doesn't give generously as well? Newsflash: the GDP percentage for European nations would increase also....nlsme wrote:
He is only including government aid. Nothing on the private sector. If you include that, the GDP percentage would increase. Again, please read the op. I know that I donate more then .3% of my income. I donate more then that for Zimbabwe alone.
Index of Global Philanthropy combines all aid from developed countries – government and private – an approach that its authors say is a more accurate measure of a nation’s generosity. According to the index, the United States is the top donor in absolute amounts and the seventh of 22 in terms of GNI percentage.
News flash, not as much as the U.S. sry Poe, but America is BETTER then YOU give credit for.
Last edited by nlsme (2007-07-24 09:12:44)
Are you seriously trying to tell me that the US doesn't lean on nations like Egypt, who receive massive amounts of aid from the US, to 'be nice to Israel', etc? Are you seriously telling me that the US doesn't say 'Halliburton gets this contract or your aid gets pulled' when a big defence contract is up for grabs? Please... The US aren't the only ones who play this game: the UK, France - the entire west loves to shaft the developing world up the ringpiece. We give them aid - that keeps them dependent - then we take their resources or use them for cheap labour. It's a form of slavery: butter up the dictators and we can have the people sow soccer balls for us for 10c an hour.David.P wrote:
Hostage? Really? Prove it! And dont tell me about political allegiances because they can be easily changed.CameronPoe wrote:
The world would learn to pull itself up by its own bootstraps and the governments of aid-receiving nations would no longer be held hostage by the US. I think it would be a good thing.
cant we all just agree that the ultimate goal of all form of aid from any nation is selfish in nature...lets keep it real here.
America has laws against some of the things your mentioning. And honeslty only pertains to a smaller percentage of foreign aid. Other then that, it does happen. That is why we choose to take the more PRIVATE sector. Our government can't lean on Egypt with the money our CITIZENS give them now can they.CameronPoe wrote:
Are you seriously trying to tell me that the US doesn't lean on nations like Egypt, who receive massive amounts of aid from the US, to 'be nice to Israel', etc? Are you seriously telling me that the US doesn't say 'Halliburton gets this contract or your aid gets pulled' when a big defence contract is up for grabs? Please... The US aren't the only ones who play this game: the UK, France - the entire west loves to shaft the developing world up the ringpiece. We give them aid - that keeps them dependent - then we take their resources or use them for cheap labour. It's a form of slavery: butter up the dictators and we can have the people sow soccer balls for us for 10c an hour.David.P wrote:
Hostage? Really? Prove it! And dont tell me about political allegiances because they can be easily changed.CameronPoe wrote:
The world would learn to pull itself up by its own bootstraps and the governments of aid-receiving nations would no longer be held hostage by the US. I think it would be a good thing.
Also, the money givin by the private sector is far more efficient then Government aid programs. In some cases, going twice as far with half the money.
Last edited by nlsme (2007-07-24 09:26:22)
Not really - if we were talking about purely government sourced aid, then I would agree, but we're not. As far as private philanthropy goes, most nations give lots to places they have some sort of connection with, not for any sort of gain. The UK gives mostly to India, Spain gives mostly to latin America, the US gives mostly to Mexico - do you see a pattern emerging? People give to countries they feel connected to.GunSlinger OIF II wrote:
cant we all just agree that the ultimate goal of all form of aid from any nation is selfish in nature...lets keep it real here.
Heh - Switzerland is ahead of the USA. *smirks*
We're pretty much a country of immigrants anyway (20%)
-konfusion
We're pretty much a country of immigrants anyway (20%)
-konfusion
i would be $27.3 billion richer muahahaha
What would happen?
We wouldn't have to listen to so many people harp on about how much aid the US gives the rest of the world!
We wouldn't have to listen to so many people harp on about how much aid the US gives the rest of the world!
If the US cut off it's government aid, a lot fewer people would be dying from the millions in weapons we willfully give to countries like Israel.
Aid is never given by ANY country unless there is a benefit to the country giving the money. So my thought would be that it would be more difficult to exert global influence.
So you're saying that the number of people who die because US aid is cut off (food, medicine, clothing, economics, etc) would be less than supporting Israel? I doubt that highly.jonsimon wrote:
If the US cut off it's government aid, a lot fewer people would be dying from the millions in weapons we willfully give to countries like Israel.
So your saying cut off all aid? Ok then lets do it and when they come and ask us why we did that, We'll say "Some guy on the internet who thought it was in your best interest said we should do it"CameronPoe wrote:
Are you seriously trying to tell me that the US doesn't lean on nations like Egypt, who receive massive amounts of aid from the US, to 'be nice to Israel', etc? Are you seriously telling me that the US doesn't say 'Halliburton gets this contract or your aid gets pulled' when a big defence contract is up for grabs? Please... The US aren't the only ones who play this game: the UK, France - the entire west loves to shaft the developing world up the ringpiece. We give them aid - that keeps them dependent - then we take their resources or use them for cheap labour. It's a form of slavery: butter up the dictators and we can have the people sow soccer balls for us for 10c an hour.David.P wrote:
Hostage? Really? Prove it! And dont tell me about political allegiances because they can be easily changed.CameronPoe wrote:
The world would learn to pull itself up by its own bootstraps and the governments of aid-receiving nations would no longer be held hostage by the US. I think it would be a good thing.
I never realised I had such an impact on US governmental policy.David.P wrote:
So your saying cut off all aid? Ok then lets do it and when they come and ask us why we did that, We'll say "Some guy on the internet who thought it was in your best interest said we should do it"
I see poe isn't going to comment anymore after I pointed out the meat and potatoes of the OP. At least nothing that pertains to the op.
nlsme - I don't believe for one minute that the 'laws' you mention are adhered to in the very least. The US is the kind of country whose secret service will sponsor a coup of a democratically elected leader when the elected party doesn't fit in with their agenda. If you think your government is squeaky clean, when the business interests of the neo-conservatives are so intertwined with defence and oil, then you are more naive than I had originally given you credit for. Some people. Ever heard of the Iran Contra affair? The Venezuelan coup? Mohammed Mossadeq? Manuel Noriega?nlsme wrote:
I see poe isn't going to comment anymore after I pointed out the meat and potatoes of the OP. At least nothing that pertains to the op.
Blehm98 wrote:
the rest of the world falls apart and learns to appreciate having us on their side?
"you know life is what we make it, and a chance is like a picture, it'd be nice if you just take it"
lol "Dorothy, Dorothy, wake up!"d4rkst4r wrote:
Blehm98 wrote:
the rest of the world falls apart and learns to appreciate having us on their side?
Umm I conceded that arguement. It does happen, however I was pointing out that there ARE laws. And the meat and potatoes of the post is that Americans spend more (per GDP) then ANY other nation when including the private sector. A sector where the government holds no control over. And such, has no ability to lean on anybody with it. Read my sig, I hate our current administration. So do MOST Americans. I never stated our country is squeky clean, nor do I hold the perception it is. However, our citizens get the short end on everything we do when looked upon in foreign eyes. Nobody includes the private donations because the U.S. private donations exceed the 3 largest donaters on the government side. I just want some credit for the $308 dollars that go towards numerous charities every month. I'll admit, not all of that would be givin away if it wasn't for the fact it puts me just in a lower tax bracket. However, that number would still be well over $2400 annually if it wasn't the case.
And btw the "secret service" does not tangle in international affairs. They have a purpose, and tend to stick to that purpose.
And btw the "secret service" does not tangle in international affairs. They have a purpose, and tend to stick to that purpose.
Last edited by nlsme (2007-07-24 14:00:36)
When the US stops running a deficit then bitch about gdp percentages. Otherwise Beggars can't be Choosers. Federal aid is just a diplomatic tool anyhow. If you want the big picture have at it: http://rpc.senate.gov/_files/Feb2205foreignaidDF.pdf .
Xbone Stormsurgezz
The released funds could be assigned to a more charitable use. Thirty billion dollars would carry a whopping six months of the Iraq operation, for example.Harmor wrote:
So only $27.3 billion is government foreign Aid. What would happen if the United States stopped foreign aid?
Gives a scope on how much money we actually give away. I mean, we are able to support a war on less.apollo_fi wrote:
The released funds could be assigned to a more charitable use. Thirty billion dollars would carry a whopping six months of the Iraq operation, for example.Harmor wrote:
So only $27.3 billion is government foreign Aid. What would happen if the United States stopped foreign aid?
Less?nlsme wrote:
Gives a scope on how much money we actually give away. I mean, we are able to support a war on less.apollo_fi wrote:
The released funds could be assigned to a more charitable use. Thirty billion dollars would carry a whopping six months of the Iraq operation, for example.Harmor wrote:
So only $27.3 billion is government foreign Aid. What would happen if the United States stopped foreign aid?