What America Owes The World...

That's up to you Scrat. That's just a goal most western countries agree on. What you think about the goal and whether it should be reached is up to you and your ideology in regard to economics and aid.

I expect that we differ in that regard.

0 Replies

Okay, I'm going to straddle the fence here.

<commence rant>

First, the U.S. could do more. No one is arguing against that. Whether or not we should is the question being raised so... (just getting myself organized)

First, the idea that America does not do enough with foreign aid is a hard thing to comment on. We ARE giving a lower percent amount, BUT, our comparatively small amount is more than anyone else is giving. Those are things that cannot be argued.

On Foreign Aid:

A big problem with foreign aid is that in the countries that need it the most, a lot of our foreign aid is intercepted by the government, especially medical aid. Big surprise. Another is that if we give and give and give then all that really happens is that we find a lot of countries leaning on us and still not becoming self-sufficient. The whole "give a man a fish and he eats for a day, teach him to fish and he'll have food for life" idea. Now these things don't happen everywhere, granted, but they happen, and with general regularity. Is foreign aid bad? No! But it is really hard to make sure it gets where it needs to, and is used correctly.

On Other Humanitarian Causes:

Foreign aid is not the only thing out there we can spend money on. While, yes we only donate a small percent of our income on foreign aid, we do spend a lot of money on medical research and such inside our own borders, and this also is a way of using money to better mankind. AIDS research, the fight against cancer, and a million other medical causes are all need funding in our own borders, and it's money well spent. Now, before anyone says anything, I'll say it first. If America developes a way to end cancer or kill aids or a million other things, we'll probably not do much good with it because we'll sel it to other countries at massive prices.
Yes, we would. But so would any other country that developed it. And once it has been developed, the way to do WILL be leaked. Stuff like that always is.

One Last Note:

America may spend only a fraction in humanitarian aid, but I believe (unless I am greatly mistaken, in which case someone please correct me and the friend that told me this) that we are the main force behind the U.N. and keeping it intact, and were one of the most powerful forces behind its creation.

Anyway, that's not all I wanted to say, but I type slowly, so...
Thanks for listening to my opinions

<end rant>

0 Replies

montypython43 wrote:

Foreign aid is not the only thing out there we can spend money on. While, yes we only donate a small percent of our income on foreign aid, we do spend a lot of money on medical research and such inside our own borders, and this also is a way of using money to better mankind. AIDS research, the fight against cancer, and a million other medical causes are all need funding in our own borders, and it's money well spent. Now, before anyone says anything, I'll say it first. If America developes a way to end cancer or kill aids or a million other things, we'll probably not do much good with it because we'll sel it to other countries at massive prices.
Yes, we would. But so would any other country that developed it. And once it has been developed, the way to do WILL be leaked. Stuff like that always is.

This is an interesting sidenote. AIDS is a good example. Most of this research is done by private institutions but the US has gone to bat for them to keep their medicine at exhorbitant prices.

Brazil is a poor country with an exemplary track record at containing and fighting AIDS. The Brazilian government stood up to the US and decided to produce generic medicine and infringe on the patents because the prices were exhorbitant.

The US eventually backed down in the WTO but initially we were pressuring Brazil because of this.

Medicinal R&D is expensive and few are doing it for eleemosynary reasons. I do not think our technological dominance is a measure of our benevolence at all.

The fact that we come up with so many innovations is a bonus for us more so than anyone. It's our private corporations doing this and they do so for profit.

0 Replies

Expand frame
Charts and graphs are fine, and useful and all that, but what about the bigger picture?

If America had been elevating the status of other nations around the world all this time, so that Chinese sweatshops and African child slave labor no longer existed, our corporations would not be outsourcing in search of cheaper labor, and Americans wouldn't be losing jobs. We had every chance in the world to make the world more like America, but now we are becoming more like the world. We will never have free and fair trade while labor systems are widely diverse and contradictory. If every nation paid about the same wages to turn about the same profits, we truly would be able to globalize and create a truly open and expansive marketplace. Too late now, of course, but what might have been, had only greed not dominated our economic policies. I'm not saying we needed to create one world economic order, only that we needed to level out the playing field somewhat so that middle classes could grow all over the world, instead of just a small portion of it. The current status quo will lead to the same economic collapse that has afflicted all systems in recorded history because of the disparity of benefits that results when an economic system takes the form of an hierarchy of wealth.

0 Replies

But isn't the purpose of owning a business to be profitable? I have yet to meet one business owner who just wants to get by in life while making sure his/her employees are well cared for. If profit = greed, then I would think that about right. Show me a wealthy liberal who surrenders their paycheck for those less fortunate and chooses instead to live in a hovel down by the river. Show me a liberal business owner that does not care about the profitability of their business.

0 Replies

What Umbagog forgets is that the Socialist cant of

"From each, according to his ability. To each, according to his need"

very quickly degenerated to the Soviet mockery of

"We pretend to work, and they pretend to pay us."

Not all efforts produce the same level of outcome - much depends of the organization of the effort itself and of the wisdom in the design of the system in which it operates.

Not all people exert the same level of effort: some are inactive through lack of incentive, others due to lack of motivation - even with an incentive.

Correcting the system, better organization of the efforts of those who work, better incentives for those who might be induced to work, and better rewards for those who do it all are the only proven approach.

0 Replies

georgeob1 raises an excellent point.

the main problem with many ideas about improving society is the deadweight our socoiety carries around. you know who i'm talking about. the people who are too lazy, wasted, self-centered, or whatever else, to give a crap what happens in society. the sad part is that most of these people end up producing children like them. so as long as this deadweight exists, it will multiply. society cannot progress past a certain point with this deadweight keeping it down.

0 Replies

Scrat wrote:

Interesting. Okay, then what inference am I supposed to take from this "fact"?

You are supposed to draw from this fact that America is giving pathetically less than other nations, and is even pathetically distant from reaching its own self-imposed goals.

"The" quotation marks "on" "the" word "fact" are "unneccessary."

Quote:

That we should do more?

No. You are supposed to draw the conclusion that we should do more from the other facts in this thread.

For example, the fact that 2 million Africans are infected with AIDs every year and 2 million more die.

The fact that, in the small nation of Swaziland, there are 500 households headed by children under the age of ten. Thier parents have died of AID's. Cheap generic drugs could have prolonged thier lives, but the United States of America prevents access to those drugs in order to pump up the profits of multi-national drug companies.

The fact that America could easily and sustainably alleviate this suffering simply by giving the same percentage that several other countries accross the world give.

Of course, you could always take the morally repugnant and indefensible stance that we should not, or could not, give more. Instead of dipping your tippie toes into the water with vague questions wrapped in a incredulous tone, why don't you explain your stance. Are you for or against an increase in foriegn AID? Do you think we should give more or not? Why?

0 Replies

When you have people like Mugabe destroying the agricultural life of his country, and the guy in Nigeria who won't allow the polio vaccine to be administered and civil war in almost every country in central Africa, do you really think foriegn aid is the answer to the problems in Africa? Until they have stable governments and the people can actually live in peace, I think all foriegn aid should be halted as the only thing most of it's buying is arms and food for soldiers.

Either that or we need to try some agressive negotiations with some of the more despicable leaders.

0 Replies

ILZ - Thanks. Of course, now that I know what I am supposed to think, what do I do about the fact that I don't think that at all? However am I going to overcome my inability to see the world through anti-American eyes? Rolling Eyes

Oh, and you might want to read up on current news regarding US foreign aid to Africa for famine and AIDS.

Let me share the words of Bob Geldof (Of "USA for Africa"/"We Are The World" fame) on the matter:

Quote:

"You'll think I'm off my trolley when I say this, but the Bush administration is the most radical - in a positive sense - in its approach to Africa since Kennedy," Geldof told the Guardian.

The neo-conservatives and religious rightwingers who surrounded President George Bush were proving unexpectedly receptive to appeals for help, he said. "You can get the weirdest politicians on your side."

Former president Bill Clinton had not helped Africa much, despite his high-profile visits and apparent empathy with the downtrodden, the organiser of Live Aid, claimed. "Clinton was a good guy, but he did **** all."

Link: http://www.guardian.co.uk/famine/story/0,12128,965311,00.html

So, you say we're not doing enough? Geldof says we're doing more under Bush than we did under Clinton. So take some solace in the fact that we're improving. Cool

0 Replies

Duplicate

0 Replies

IKZ,

The fact that others here disagree with you does not necessarily mean they are ignorant, or even stupid or evil. On the contrary, the fault could be yours. Among the likely possibilities are (1) You have not fully informed yourself as to the facts of the matters at hand; (2) You do not fully understand the meaning of the facts you have; (3) You have not bothered to read or understand the information and arguments provided you by others on this thread.

For example, Thomas has already explained how, all relevant factors considered, The United States contributes about as much to developing countries as do any of the other G-8 nations. You have not rebutted the facts he offered, yet you persist in your inaccurate claims. You have labelled others as ignorant and stupid for such actions. What shall we call you?

You have also made some sweeping, but wholly inaccurate statements concerning AIDS in Africa. While the HIV rate in the continent is high at about 8.6% of the population, the rates in various countries vary quite significantly, depending mostly on the wisdom (or lack of it) exercised by the various govermnments. For example the HIV rates in Senegal and Gambia are 0.5% and 1.5% respectively. This compares favorably with rates in the developed world. In Uganda and Angola the rates are 5.0% and 5.5% respectively. While in Zimbabwe, Botswana, and South Africa they are many times that at 33.7%. 38.8%, and 21.8% respectively.

The difference isn't due to poverty at all - South Africa, Botswana, and (until recently) Zimbabwe enjoy(ed) the highest per capita GDPs on the continent, while Uganda and Angola are relatively quite poor. The explanation is the persistent stupidity and blindness of the governments of these countries which indulged themselves in fantasies about the origins and causes of AIDS, and took no preventive action, while the disease ran rampant in their populations. Ten years ago Uganda and South Africa had about the same HIV infection rates. Uganda embarked on a well organized public awareness program while South Africa, Zimbabwe and Botswana indulged themselves in fantasies about a conspiracy by racist white men. During those ten years the infection rate exploded in South Africa, Zimbabwe and Botswana: in Uganda the rate declined - today the rate in Uganda is less than half that in South Africa and one- third that in Zimbabwe.

Hard to blame this on any suposed lack of generosity on the part of the United States.

It is important to have some knowledge and understanding of what your talking about - even if you aren't the President of South Africa.

0 Replies

Scrat wrote:

ILZ - Thanks. Of course, now that I know what I am supposed to think, what do I do about the fact that I don't think that at all? However am I going to overcome my inability to see the world through anti-American eyes?

When all else fails, you claim that I am anti-American?

Please don't do that.

I'm not anti-American, I'm anti-stupidity. I'm anti-massive-death-due-to-rich-and-wastefull-nations-inscoucience. Further, I - with my uncanny ability to speak and think constructively about my country - am more of a patriot than you, with your sheep-like blind faith. So, please, don't play the 'hate America' card - you have no leg to stand on.

Quote:

Oh, and you might want to read up on current news regarding US foreign aid to Africa for famine and AIDS.

Let me share the words of Bob Geldof (Of "USA for Africa"/"We Are The World" fame) on the matter:

Quote:
"You'll think I'm off my trolley when I say this, but the Bush administration is the most radical - in a positive sense - in its approach to Africa since Kennedy," Geldof told the Guardian.

The neo-conservatives and religious rightwingers who surrounded President George Bush were proving unexpectedly receptive to appeals for help, he said. "You can get the weirdest politicians on your side."

Well, as good a source as rock stars are, I'd like to point a few things out to you.

I applaud George Bush for the $15 billion dollar 5 year plan he has launched to combat AID's in Africa. It's a step in the right direction - at least in spirit if not in action. However, it is still not nearly enough.

Further, since May 2003, when Bush made the pledge, he has reneged on his promise. Somewhat amusingly, I found this article, where the group Bob Geldoff represents rescinds its support:

Quote:

Africa lobby group DATA, co-founded by U2 rocker and Africa campaigner Bono, expressed extreme disappointment at the move [to renenge on funding].

"It is deeply disappointing that the House turned away from America's promise to Africa by proposing deep cuts in spending promised to fight AIDS and poverty," said DATA Executive Director Jamie Drummond said.

As the cameras are clicking in Africa, the House is cutting funds in Washington, DC," said Drummond in a statement.

"While the president is holding the hands of people in Africa, he needs to be forcing the hands of people in Congress.

"This is what the president has asked for, and now the president and the Congress must work together to make good on their promise by delivering the resources that will save millions of lives", Drummond said.

"Americans know the difference between promises made and promises kept -- real leadership means keeping your promise."

Some more things to keep in mind, Scrat:

Out of the 15 billion dollars, which is to be spread out over 5 years, only 10 billion is new. The other 5 billion will be taken out of existing aid programs. Robbing Peter to pay Paul, as they say.

In keeping with his tendency to shun the international community, Bush has chosen to distribute the funds his own way - which often involves handing it over to churches and other religious groups - rather than funneling the money through the Global Fund. The UN affiliated Global Fund has by far the most extensive structure to deliver aid while minimizing overhead costs.

Although Bush has agreed to teach *some* safe sex, the focus of the 15 billion dollar fund will be on abstinence. History has shown this is an ineffective approach. It is yet another example of religious influence.

Consider: Bush originally promised to give 15 billion over 5 years ( which was later cut by a third.) Africa already doles out 15 billion dollars a year to repay its 300 billion dollar foriegn debt. We are giving with one hand and taking with the other.

Consider as well: A huge proportion of Bush's pledge is allocated to buying dying people life-extending drugs. However, at the same time, Bush passes laws to prevent these people from buying cheap generic drugs. The reason? To protect the profits of American pharmaceutical companies. We are essentially sending money to Africa and then sending it back to America. Again, giving with one hand while taking with the other.

Quote:

Quote:
Former president Bill Clinton had not helped Africa much, despite his high-profile visits and apparent empathy with the downtrodden, the organiser of Live Aid, claimed. "Clinton was a good guy, but he did **** all."

So, you say we're not doing enough? Geldof says we're doing more under Bush than we did under Clinton. So take some solace in the fact that we're improving.

That is debatable. Especially when one looks at each president's foriegn aid philosophy as a whole, rather than focusing on this one policy. Although, I'm leaning towards your side of the fence, truth be known.

However, so what if Bush is better than Clinton?

The conclusion that you're drawing is a blatent logical fallacy. Watch, as I do the same:

Mussolini was better than Hitler. Ergo, Mussolini is okay.

It is just degrees of insouciance.

0 Replies

IronLionZion wrote:

Scrat wrote:
ILZ - Thanks. Of course, now that I know what I am supposed to think, what do I do about the fact that I don't think that at all? However am I going to overcome my inability to see the world through anti-American eyes?

When all else fails, you claim that I am anti-American?

I did no such thing. I wrote that to espouse the view you suggest I should espouse I believe I would have to view the world through anti-American eyes. My point was that I do not. I made no comment as to whether you do or do not. I will say that you seem far more willing to assume the worst of our country and to suggest that our best course is to check with other nations what we should be allowed to do around the globe. I can't get behind either notion.

0 Replies

ILZ, you are discrediting Bush for cuts made in the House? The House doesn't even necessarily pay depts that are decided on by the Supreme Court of our land. It is dishonest to attribute this to Bush. You have provided no factual basis for doing so.

I would very much like to see you use your "uncanny ability to speak and think constructively" to refute Georgeob1's last post.

0 Replies

OCCOM BILL wrote:

ILZ, you are discrediting Bush for cuts made in the House? The House doesn't even necessarily pay depts that are decided on by the Supreme Court of our land. It is dishonest to attribute this to Bush. You have provided no factual basis for doing so.

You're right, Bill. The House of Representatives made the cuts, not Bush himself. Poor wording on my part. However, as the President, it is his job to work with the House to ensure the promises he makes materialize. Or, more to the point, if you don't hold enough sway in the House to back your promises up.... don't make them in the first place.

Quote:

I would very much like to see you use your "uncanny ability to speak and think constructively" to refute Georgeob1's last post.

Edit: I mixed up Georgeob with Scrat. I will respond to Georgeob later.

Its late. Embarrassed

0 Replies

Interesting discussion - wish I had got in here earlier.

So which Peter we going to rob to pay Paul? Or Tax? Offer Solutions??

0 Replies

Wow, I'm out for a weekend and I miss all the good stuff. In response to the "America needs to give more" thread, I first would like to mention my signature:

"I swear by my life and my love of it that I will never live for the sake of another man , nor ask another to live for mine."

The reason the second part is in bold is because it's easy to live up to the first part, not so easy to live up to the second.

One premise of yours ILZ that I'd like to challenge is that actual numbers don't matter, only percentages; it's not how much we give, but how much we could give. I think it's quite the opposite. If we can give more actual dollars than some or most countries, but still give less in percentage, why not? Why is that a problem? That is still a lot of money.

I'm not totally against foreign aid, but I do think it should be looked at differently than it currently is. I try to put myself in the shoes of a grateful recipient of such aid and try to determine how I would feel.

If I were poor and a rich man gave me free money, I would thank him, and not scold him for not giving me enough.

If I were poor and a rich man gave me money, but put stipulations on that money such as "you have to stop mistreating your people", "you have to have free elections", or "you have to use this money in a manner I the giver see fit"; I would take the money, thank him, and begin living up to the stipulations (if the stipulations were consistent with my values, if not then I'd refuse the money). I would not take the money while scolding him for not giving enough as I tell him how I run my country isn't his business.

In other words, if we as a country decide to help others, then fine. But I see nothing wrong in wanting to see some results from the given money. And there is nothing wrong in making that money dependent on those results, "if you want $, then you have to do X".

One thing I do get tired of is reading how we gve aid to poor countries only to have that aid snatched up by the local thug warlord, while scolding us for not giving enough.

To summarize to the world: you are not entitled to our help, if we give it, please be grateful.

0 Replies

IronLionZion wrote:

You're right, Bill. The House of Representatives made the cuts, not Bush himself. Poor wording on my part. However, as the President, it is his job to work with the House to ensure the promises he makes materialize. Or, more to the point, if you don't hold enough sway in the House to back your promises up.... don't make them in the first place.

Sorry ILZ, but I can't let you off the hook that easily. By that rationale; the Supreme Court should never have ruled in favor of the people of Bikini Atol in the first place. Rolling Eyes

0 Replies

OCCOM BILL wrote:

IronLionZion wrote:
You're right, Bill. The House of Representatives made the cuts, not Bush himself. Poor wording on my part. However, as the President, it is his job to work with the House to ensure the promises he makes materialize. Or, more to the point, if you don't hold enough sway in the House to back your promises up.... don't make them in the first place.
Sorry ILZ, but I can't let you off the hook that easily. By that rationale; the Supreme Court should never have ruled in favor of the people of Bikini Atol in the first place.

I don't think decisions made in the House and decisions made by the Supreme Court are analogous at all. One is a matter of politics and the other is a matter of law.

You know as well as I what kind of politics goes on to ensure that bills get passed. Its routine.

The fact that the Bush administration flaunted thier hefty promises for months only to be proven impotent by the House...doesn't reflect well on them.

I wasn't bashing Bush - I can do that in other threads - I was merely pointing out that he failed to keep his 15 billion dollar promise.

0 Replies

What America Owes The World...

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know