Foreign Aid

[Machaut]

I saw this post, and this particularly made me think we should have a thread on the issue.

...the libertarian view of foreign aide is inhuman.

Is it really?

Personally, I think that the US should zero out all foreign aid, which was $48.4 billion in 2012 alone.

While I generally dislike welfare spending, especially when done by the federal government, it seems to me that an additional $48 billion per year could do a lot of good if used for the benefit of the American people rather than foreign governments. Of course, this is also true of the current welfare budget of over $1 trillion.

What are your opinions on what the foreign aid policy of the US should be?

 

[GHook93]

I saw this post, and this particularly made me think we should have a thread on the issue.



Is it really?

Personally, I think that the US should zero out all foreign aid, which was $48.4 billion in 2012 alone.

While I generally dislike welfare spending, especially when done by the federal government, it seems to me that an additional $48 billion per year could do a lot of good if used for the benefit of the American people rather than foreign governments. Of course, this is also true of the current welfare budget of over $1 trillion.

What are your opinions on what the foreign aid policy of the US should be?

The quote is right the Libertarian perspective is not only heartless and immoral, it's ignorant. First, foreign aid is rough 1% of federal budget. It's not making nor breaking us. I know the damn JJJJOOOOSSS need to stop getting foreign aid, along with those camel jockeys, etc. Yet taking the military aid out of it there is many important things that our foreign aid does, disaster Relief after god-wrath in tsunamis, hurricanes and earthquakes. Those people he AIDS relief and prevention in Africa, medical and food supplies to sick and starving people around the world is important and just and worthy cause. If it was 10% of the budget, you would have something, but it's 1%, so calm down.

 

[Machaut]

The quote is right the Libertarian perspective is not only heartless and immoral, it's ignorant. First, foreign aid is rough 1% of federal budget. It's not making nor breaking us.

I see. Can you provide a list of libertarian politicians and reporters who have claimed that foreign aid is "breaking us" so I know not to trust them?

I know the damn JJJJOOOOSSS need to stop getting foreign aid, along with those camel jockeys, etc. Yet taking the military aid out of it there is many important things that our foreign aid does, disaster Relief after god-wrath in tsunamis, hurricanes and earthquakes. Those people he AIDS relief and prevention in Africa, medical and food supplies to sick and starving people around the world is important and just and worthy cause. If it was 10% of the budget, you would have something, but it's 1%, so calm down.

You lost me. Above, you refer to cutting foreign aid as "heartless and immoral," yet seem to endorse that same "heartless and immoral" action when it represents a higher percentage of the budget. Why is that? What changes about the ethics of the situation?

 

[Rikurzhen]

The quote is right the Libertarian perspective is not only heartless and immoral, it's ignorant. First, foreign aid is rough 1% of federal budget. It's not making nor breaking us. I know the damn JJJJOOOOSSS need to stop getting foreign aid, along with those camel jockeys, etc. Yet taking the military aid out of it there is many important things that our foreign aid does, disaster Relief after god-wrath in tsunamis, hurricanes and earthquakes. Those people he AIDS relief and prevention in Africa, medical and food supplies to sick and starving people around the world is important and just and worthy cause. If it was 10% of the budget, you would have something, but it's 1%, so calm down.

That's not a worthy cause. Government aid, Christian charity, is a problem here because it's interfering with strong signals that nature is sending. There is an overpopulation crisis in some areas such that the land/economy can't support the number of people living there, so when you save someone from starving you're only adding to the problem when they bring children into that world.

Keven Myers, an Irish newspaper columnist, got right to the heart of the matter:

No. It will not do. Even as we see African states refusing to take action to restore something resembling civilisation in Zimbabwe, the begging bowl for Ethiopia is being passed around to us, yet again. It is nearly 25 years since Ethiopia's (and Bob Geldof's) famous Feed The World campaign, and in that time Ethiopia's population has grown from 33.5 million to 78 million today.​

If Ethiopia couldn't feed it's 33.5 million population in a famine, what sense is there is providing aid to them so that they could grow their population to 78 million. This is cruelty and madness.

So why on earth should I do anything to encourage further catastrophic demographic growth in that country? Where is the logic? There is none. To be sure, there are two things saying that logic doesn't count.

One is my conscience, and the other is the picture, yet again, of another wide-eyed child, yet again, gazing, yet again, at the camera, which yet again, captures the tragedy of . . .

Sorry. My conscience has toured this territory on foot and financially. Unlike most of you, I have been to Ethiopia; like most of you, I have stumped up the loot to charities to stop starvation there. The wide-eyed boy-child we saved, 20 years or so ago, is now a priapic, Kalashnikov-bearing hearty, siring children whenever the whim takes him.

There is, no doubt a good argument why we should prolong this predatory and dysfunctional economic, social and intimate system; but I do not know what it is. There is, on the other hand, every reason not to write a column like this.

It will win no friends, and will provoke the self-righteous wrath of, well, the self-righteous, letter-writing wrathful, a species which never fails to contaminate almost every debate in Irish life with its sneers and its moral superiority. It will also probably enrage some of the finest men in Irish life, like John O'Shea, of Goal; and the Finucane brothers, men whom I admire enormously. So be it.

But, please, please, you self-righteously wrathful, spare me mention of our own Famine, with this or that lazy analogy. There is no comparison. Within 20 years of the Famine, the Irish population was down by 30pc. Over the equivalent period, thanks to western food, the Mercedes 10-wheel truck and the Lockheed Hercules, Ethiopia's has more than doubled.

Alas, that wretched country is not alone in its madness. Somewhere, over the rainbow, lies Somalia, another fine land of violent, Kalashnikov-toting, khat-chewing, girl-circumcising, permanently tumescent layabouts.

Indeed, we now have almost an entire continent of sexuallyhyperactive indigents, with tens of millions of people who only survive because of help from the outside world.

This dependency has not stimulated political prudence or commonsense. Indeed, voodoo idiocy seems to be in the ascendant, with the next president of South Africa being a firm believer in the efficacy of a little tap water on the post-coital joystick as a sure preventative against infection. Needless to say, poverty, hunger and societal meltdown have not prevented idiotic wars involving Tigre, Uganda, Congo, Sudan, Somalia, Eritrea etcetera.

Broad brush-strokes, to be sure. But broad brush-strokes are often the way that history paints its gaudier, if more decisive, chapters. Japan, China, Russia, Korea, Poland, Germany, Vietnam, Laos and Cambodia in the 20th century have endured worse broad brush-strokes than almost any part of Africa.

They are now -- one way or another -- virtually all giving aid to or investing in Africa, whereas Africa, with its vast savannahs and its lush pastures, is giving almost nothing to anyone, apart from AIDS.

Meanwhile, Africa's peoples are outstripping their resources, and causing catastrophic ecological degradation. By 2050, the population of Ethiopia will be 177 million: The equivalent of France, Germany and Benelux today, but located on the parched and increasingly protein-free wastelands of the Great Rift Valley.

So, how much sense does it make for us actively to increase the adult population of what is already a vastly over-populated, environmentally devastated and economically dependent country?

How much morality is there in saving an Ethiopian child from starvation today, for it to survive to a life of brutal circumcision, poverty, hunger, violence and intimate abuse, resulting in another half-dozen such wide-eyed children, with comparably jolly little lives ahead of them? Of course, it might make you feel better, which is a prime reason for so much charity. But that is not good enough.

For self-serving generosity has been one of the curses of Africa. It has sustained political systems which would otherwise have collapsed.

It prolonged the Eritrean-Ethiopian war by nearly a decade. It is inspiring Bill Gates' programme to rid the continent of malaria, when, in the almost complete absence of personal self-discipline, that disease is one of the most efficacious forms of population-control now operating.

If his programme is successful, tens of millions of children who would otherwise have died in infancy will survive to adulthood, he boasts. Oh good: then what?I know. Let them all come here. Yes, that's an idea.​

 

[Two Thumbs]

I saw this post, and this particularly made me think we should have a thread on the issue.



Is it really?

Personally, I think that the US should zero out all foreign aid, which was $48.4 billion in 2012 alone.

While I generally dislike welfare spending, especially when done by the federal government, it seems to me that an additional $48 billion per year could do a lot of good if used for the benefit of the American people rather than foreign governments. Of course, this is also true of the current welfare budget of over $1 trillion.

What are your opinions on what the foreign aid policy of the US should be?

It's not welfare to help people from starvation.

the aide is being done wrong, but libers would let people die rather than help.

feel free to roam the forum, you will see this view to be true. Your own callous nature comes through loud and clear

 

[Machaut]

It's not welfare to help people from starvation.

Then what would you call it? Defense spending? Education? Economic incentives? Science grants?

the aide is being done wrong, but libers would let people die rather than help.

How is it being done, and why is it wrong?

feel free to roam the forum, you will see this view to be true. Your own callous nature comes through loud and clear

Here's a quote from my OP: "$48 billion per year could do a lot of good if used for the benefit of the American people rather than foreign governments."

What is callous about this? Do I have a duty to support the propping up of overseas dictatorships and the development of military weaponry in foreign countries? I literally advocated for the US to stop funding the Israeli military--which is what part of our foreign aid money goes towards, despite them saying they don't need the money--and use that to feed the hungry and cure the sick here in the US, and this is an example of my "own callous nature"?

Do you not read other people's posts, or do you simply not comprehend them?

 

[Indeependent]

Why do you assume a Libertarian economic policy would help anyone?
The whole point of Libertarianism is NO government policy.
You want a road or a tunnel or a bridge? Build it yourself.

 

[Machaut]

Why do you assume a Libertarian economic policy would help anyone?

When you say "you," who are you addressing?

The whole point of Libertarianism is NO government policy.

Are you sure you're not confusing libertarianism with anarchism?

You want a road or a tunnel or a bridge? Build it yourself.

I'm curious as to how you came to this conclusion. Which great libertarian thinker made this declaration? Failing that, which school of libertarian thought advocates this position? What libertarian activist groups in the US are pushing this?

Further, have you read and do you understand the entirety of Article I, Section 8 of the US Constitution?

 

[Indeependent]

When you say "you," who are you addressing?



Are you sure you're not confusing libertarianism with anarchism?



I'm curious as to how you came to this conclusion. Which great libertarian thinker made this declaration? Failing that, which school of libertarian thought advocates this position? What libertarian activist groups in the US are pushing this?

Further, have you read and do you understand the entirety of Article I, Section 8 of the US Constitution?

If you're going to invoke the US Constitution and ignore the "Common Welfare" clause you've already lost the argument.
And no, we all know it doesn't mean Welfare check.

What you are arguing is the use of common sense and discretion in selecting our allies and the methodology by which we offer them assistance.

 

[Machaut]

If you're going to invoke the US Constitution and ignore the "Common Welfare" clause you've already lost the argument.

And now we're playing the "YOU LOSE CUZ I SAY SO" game. How nice. Since it appears to be my turn, I'll say that you lose because you didn't respond to my question on Section 8.

And no, we all know it doesn't mean Welfare check.

You'll have to be more specific and target your response to an actual quote.

What you are arguing is the use of common sense and discretion in selecting our allies and the methodology by which we offer them assistance.

While those things do appeal to me, I can't find where I was arguing for all them. This thread, as stated in the OP, asks for user opinions on American foreign policy. I gave mine. Would you care to give yours, or would you like to continue your derail?

 

[paulitician]

The People have no say in Foreign Aid currently. That needs to change. The Politicians dole out the Taxpayer money with no input from Citizens whatsoever. Also, we need to clearly define what Foreign 'Aid' is. We all want to help in a humanitarian sense, and there are international agencies that exist to do that. We need to scrap the current system and seriously reexamine the Foreign Aid issue. Because clearly, the current system is broken.

 

[Claudette]

I'm all for stopping foreign aid period.

Hell. We give these countries money. They love us till they don't need us anymore and then they are all anti-American.

I wouldn't give one red cent in foreign aid.

 

[LiberalMedia]

The quote is right the Libertarian perspective is not only heartless and immoral, it's ignorant.
Yet taking the military aid out of it there is many important things that our foreign aid does, disaster Relief after god-wrath in tsunamis, hurricanes and earthquakes. Those people he AIDS relief and prevention in Africa, medical and food supplies to sick and starving people around the world is important and just and worthy cause. If it was 10% of the budget, you would have something, but it's 1%, so calm down.

Stop right there, thought criminal scum! Take a look at your signature:

Help Win the Trade War with China, Japan, India and the 3rd World!

So in literally every post you make, you encourage U.S. economic dominance over and destruction of foreign countries, yet now you're playing the "hurrr ur heartless cuz u dnt wanna help othrs" card? I call bullshit. Massive amounts of bullshit. You're a libertardian extremist, just like the OP, and quite clearly a racist as well--but I repeat myself.

On topic: That our foreign aid is so low as a percentage of our budget is truly shocking. We should funnel our entire defense budget into foreign aid, bolstering their economies, creating jobs, curing diseases, fighting hungry and homelessness, etc. Libertardians are so big on guns rights, so why not let them defend the country with their stupid guns if a big military invasion comes? Which, by the way, it won't, because that kind of thing just doesn't happen any more. Libertardians would do well to remember that this is the 21st Century and people are simply more civilized than that.

 

[LiberalMedia]

The People have no say in Foreign Aid currently.

Do you not vote? Because that's how you influence every government policy, including foreign aid. Or rather, that's how informed, educated, and highly responsible cytyzyns like mysylf influence policy.

That needs to change.

Then stop being such a whiny bitch, get off the couch, and go vote.

The Politicians dole out the Taxpayer money with no input from Citizens whatsoever.

More bullshit. Find me ONE member of Congress without a "contact me" section on their website. ONE. Protip, you can't, because you're either willingly lying or have no idea what you're talking about.

Also, we need to clearly define what Foreign 'Aid' is. We all want to help in a humanitarian sense, and there are international agencies that exist to do that.

The UN can't always help because its hands are constantly tied by butthurt isolationists like the US and Switzerland, and we can't rely on entities like Feed the Children etc. because their underlying purpose is indoctrination, not secular humynitarian aid. Only big governments like ours can distribute aid to foreign countries in an efficient, unbiased manner free of bigotry.

We need to scrap the current system and seriously reexamine the Foreign Aid issue. Because clearly, the current system is broken.

"Clearly"? When was that established? What in the "current system" doesn't work?

 

[GHook93]

Stop right there, thought criminal scum! Take a look at your signature:



So in literally every post you make, you encourage U.S. economic dominance over and destruction of foreign countries, yet now you're playing the "hurrr ur heartless cuz u dnt wanna help othrs" card? I call bullshit. Massive amounts of bullshit. You're a libertardian extremist, just like the OP, and quite clearly a racist as well--but I repeat myself.

On topic: That our foreign aid is so low as a percentage of our budget is truly shocking. We should funnel our entire defense budget into foreign aid, bolstering their economies, creating jobs, curing diseases, fighting hungry and homelessness, etc. Libertardians are so big on guns rights, so why not let them defend the country with their stupid guns if a big military invasion comes? Which, by the way, it won't, because that kind of thing just doesn't happen any more. Libertardians would do well to remember that this is the 21st Century and people are simply more civilized than that.

You took my sign out of context. First, that is about supporting the fair tax to which would make the US must more competitive in the manufacturing and R&D sector. Second, I don't see the less than 1% of the budget as the biggest issue with out national debt. Much of it goes to good causes like disaster relief and fighting the spread of AIDS etc.

 

[eagle1462010]

bump

 

[eagle1462010]

1. Our debt and borrowing will come home to roost one day, and we are giving aid that we have to borrow to give.

2. Interest on the debt is growing higher every year. 415 Billion last year alone. 384 Billion so far this year. This is unsustainable. Period, and eventually it will exceed the budget of the Defense Dept..........This is the REALITY of the situation and EMOTIONS will not change a dang thing.

3. Having to borrow to give is plain stupid. We have to take care of ourselves before we take care of others. And we need large cuts across the board to help deal with this.........

4. Average Federal Revenues are at 18.1% of the GDP since WWII with bumps and dips along the way.We are spending at 25% of the GDP and rising. Again, Unsustainable.

5. Why should we give money we don't have to other countries when our own infrastructure is crumbling..........

On our budget, PEOPLE'S EMOTIONS DON'T PAY THE BILLS..................

 

[Rikurzhen]

1. Our debt and borrowing will come home to roost one day, and we are giving aid that we have to borrow to give.

2. Interest on the debt is growing higher every year. 415 Billion last year alone. 384 Billion so far this year. This is unsustainable. Period, and eventually it will exceed the budget of the Defense Dept..........This is the REALITY of the situation and EMOTIONS will not change a dang thing.

3. Having to borrow to give is plain stupid. We have to take care of ourselves before we take care of others. And we need large cuts across the board to help deal with this.........

4. Average Federal Revenues are at 18.1% of the GDP since WWII with bumps and dips along the way.We are spending at 25% of the GDP and rising. Again, Unsustainable.

5. Why should we give money we don't have to other countries when our own infrastructure is crumbling..........

On our budget, PEOPLE'S EMOTIONS DON'T PAY THE BILLS..................

Good points. Let me add one more. The interest RATE on our borrowing is low. When the rate rises, imagine what happens to the amount of the yearly budget that is dedicated to paying the interest.

The problem here is going to be bilateral - it's going to be godless liberals and pious Christians. They'll sink our nation in order to provide help to others.

Nature is sending a very strong signal - too many people live in countries with repeated famines. They need to die. Harsh, very harsh. Ethiopia has 91 million people living there. Germany has 80 million. Germany can feed itself. Ethiopia can't.

 

[eagle1462010]

I'd like to address post number 4 who informed me of this thread. I'd like to thank Rikurzhen for the invite and for what he has done overseas. Your work and knowledge are very Praise Worthy...................

Currently about 890 million people in this world are suffering from Malnutrition or Starvation. A child dies every 11 seconds mainly do to this. Food prices have soared on the globe, and their is drought and famine. His post on Ethiopia is an eye opener, as I've also been looking at the birth rates in Africa which are very high with no way to feed the increasing populations. His point, I believe is that we must push for birth control in these areas of Aid because they can't sustain the rapidly increasing populations. I believe the birth rate of Somalia is at 6.2. With no way to feed them.

I don't like what I see out there right now. Drought conditions and starvation are growing again. The price of food led to Food Riots in 2008 and 2011 which triggered the Arab Spring. There are many factors in this equation. Cost of shipping going up due to fuel prices, Ethanol has increased to 143 Metric Tons of corn a year, Severe drought conditions. Plant diseases. Over Grazing of farm lands have turned the land into dust bowls in places like China. and Commodity speculation....................

The Worlds population is at 7.1 Billion. 80 Million more a year on average, and food production is not going up, and prices have tripled for agricultural products such as food since 2000. We are facing a global crisis, and it is time to pony up to look into this situation about how to solve it and increase food production, increase water production in areas near the oceans via large evaporator systems to produce potable water from sea water......and push for birth control in areas where they cannot sustain the population.

We need to look at dealing with this with other countries involved to find a way to try and deal with it before it becomes worse. I'm in agreement with aid in this area even with my last post stated, because the lives that can be lost will be in the millions...............

I don't think the world should stand by and not try and deal with this one.

 

[eagle1462010]

1. Our debt and borrowing will come home to roost one day, and we are giving aid that we have to borrow to give.

2. Interest on the debt is growing higher every year. 415 Billion last year alone. 384 Billion so far this year. This is unsustainable. Period, and eventually it will exceed the budget of the Defense Dept..........This is the REALITY of the situation and EMOTIONS will not change a dang thing.

3. Having to borrow to give is plain stupid. We have to take care of ourselves before we take care of others. And we need large cuts across the board to help deal with this.........

4. Average Federal Revenues are at 18.1% of the GDP since WWII with bumps and dips along the way.We are spending at 25% of the GDP and rising. Again, Unsustainable.

5. Why should we give money we don't have to other countries when our own infrastructure is crumbling..........

On our budget, PEOPLE'S EMOTIONS DON'T PAY THE BILLS..................

Good points. Let me add one more. The interest RATE on our borrowing is low. When the rate rises, imagine what happens to the amount of the yearly budget that is dedicated to paying the interest.

The problem here is going to be bilateral - it's going to be godless liberals and pious Christians. They'll sink our nation in order to provide help to others.

Nature is sending a very strong signal - too many people live in countries with repeated famines. They need to die. Harsh, very harsh. Ethiopia has 91 million people living there. Germany has 80 million. Germany can feed itself. Ethiopia can't.

I can't fully agree with this post as explained in the last one. I understand that we are living beyond our means and must cut back dramatically across the board. If we do not then we'll destroy ourselves economically. I feel the ethanol situation is ludicrous..............We are driving up our own prices as a result and using 40% of our corn crops to do so. Which is causing feed prices to go up, and basically every food to go up. Secondly we pay people not to farm which is absurd.

We have more than enough natural gas to make changes without using food as fuel.

My other point is Evaporator systems and possibly pipe lines to for potable water in drought stricken areas. To ensure they don't die from lack of water, and to irrigate fields to allow crop production, but only if the locals don't want to chop our heads off with a dull knife and they push birth control to stop the out of control birth rates.

This is an area that we should not go alone at. Needs many countries to pitch in and help deal with it. If countries refuse to comply with aid terms then they are on their own.