How about offering to increase foreign aid if Europe ups their defnse budgets to carry their weight in promoting stability?
Mike (Unverified) at 1/23/2008 2:52PM
I admit, I would like to cut foreign aid back to zero. But I recognize this isn't realistic soon. We've set up the expectation, so we can't rescind it without major repercussions.
Fine.
So Mike's plan is the next-best. Make them agree to take on more responsibility for themselves, so ultimately they won't be so dependent on us. It's kind of machiavellian, in a way. So I like it.
I don't like the idea of committing a completely arbitrary number to foreign aid. Its an irresponsible way to govern and doesn't have as much substantive meaning as making public actions on a case by case basis for each of the places we send aid. Its almost like saying to people - hey we're giving you money, not really because we care about your cause but because we just needed to find someone.
The figure is 2% of GDP, a very poor showing for a country with so many billionaires. Micro-credit (Finca), supplying farms with farm animals (Heifer International) are among the ideas that really work that government could assist. Government is alone in being able to build infrastructure in countries where there is insufficient transportation to move goods, a lack of clean water or a working sewage system.
Isisells (Unverified) at 3/17/2008 6:59PM
In what couuntry are you livinvg, isisells. The things that you think that we American taxpayers should supply to other countries are exactly the things that we need right here in our country! We borrow from Japan to give it to Israel to keep them supplied with arms to kill Palestinians. We borrow from China to keep the war on Iraq going. What really should be done is to stop all foriegn aid and use the taxpayers money in our own country and pay off our outrageous debt.
How about offering to increase foreign aid if Europe ups their defnse budgets to carry their weight in promoting stability?
I admit, I would like to cut foreign aid back to zero. But I recognize this isn't realistic soon. We've set up the expectation, so we can't rescind it without major repercussions.
Fine.
So Mike's plan is the next-best. Make them agree to take on more responsibility for themselves, so ultimately they won't be so dependent on us. It's kind of machiavellian, in a way. So I like it.
Where the Wilder Things Are
I don't like the idea of committing a completely arbitrary number to foreign aid. Its an irresponsible way to govern and doesn't have as much substantive meaning as making public actions on a case by case basis for each of the places we send aid. Its almost like saying to people - hey we're giving you money, not really because we care about your cause but because we just needed to find someone.
It appears that Kay would rather spend taxpayer money in the 3rd world and ignore places like New Orleans, south Chicago and North Philly.
Foreign aid without strings and tricks to get greedy multinational corporations into their affairs. No more military aid.
The figure is 2% of GDP, a very poor showing for a country with so many billionaires. Micro-credit (Finca), supplying farms with farm animals (Heifer International) are among the ideas that really work that government could assist. Government is alone in being able to build infrastructure in countries where there is insufficient transportation to move goods, a lack of clean water or a working sewage system.
In what couuntry are you livinvg, isisells. The things that you think that we American taxpayers should supply to other countries are exactly the things that we need right here in our country! We borrow from Japan to give it to Israel to keep them supplied with arms to kill Palestinians. We borrow from China to keep the war on Iraq going. What really should be done is to stop all foriegn aid and use the taxpayers money in our own country and pay off our outrageous debt.
Post new comment