U.S. Gives Jordan $100 Million To Help Host Syrian Refugees...

[TakeAStepBack]

You really do not understand money and credit at all, do you?

Try not to be so fucking stupid, please.

 

[DiamondDave]

Why should it matter if we're $16T in debt? Are we only a gracious, Christian country when we don't have debt?

I know, right?

$100M is a 0.000625% increase in our debt and Pauli is crying about it! Like somehow that outweighs the good this money will do.

Sorry... even in your big debt world... 100M is still a lot of money that we have no business just funneling to another country

 

[paulitician]

Because we do not exist to be Santa Claus to all these other countries

This isn't about being "Santa Claus". This is about being humanitarian.

And we have no responsibility as a GOVERNMENT to fund the recovery of problems in other countries... You want humanitarian aid, that is what private charities are for...

Why do that, when he can freeload and spend other peoples' money? That's how these people think. It is what it is.

 

[DontBeStupid]

You really do not understand money and credit at all, do you?

Try not to be so fucking stupid, please.

Explain it to me then. Because, as I understand it, if we can borrow at 2% and grow at 3% and help others along the way, we should do that every day.

Why not?

 

[Katzndogz]

That's a big windfall for Al Quaeda. I'm sure they will spend it wisely.

 

[TakeAStepBack]

 

[paulitician]

Don't bother. I've never met a Socialist/Progressive who didn't just love spending other peoples' money. You wont get anywhere with them. You just wont. But nice try.

 

[DontBeStupid]

Don't bother. I've never met a Socialist/Progressive who didn't just love spending other peoples' money. You wont get anywhere with them. You just wont. But nice try.

Interest rates are at historic lows, for everyone, our government included. The fact that you think we should NOT take advantage of this shows not only your limited grasp of economics, but also what a huge coward you are.

 

[auditor0007]

Nothing worse than flinging around the idiot insult while one makes basic grammar mistakes in the same sentence.


As for the OP, while I am not in favor of spending our money on others while we need it at home, the reality is that it isn't taxpayer money anymore. It's just numbers. The debt is so large it will never be repayed. Ever. So spend it up! I say. The sooner we break the system the sooner we can decentralize power in this corrupt nation.

While our debt is very large, you completely misunderstand economics. This is quite evident from your belief that we can never pay back the debt. Of course we can, if we cut spending a little and increase revenue a little. Even if we continue to run with a small amount of deficit spending, so long as the economy grows by a greater amount than the deficit, over the long haul, the debt will become a much smaller percentage of GDP. While a balanced budget amendment would do the trick, I do not support one because it would tie our hands at times when we might actually need deficit spending. What we need are fiscally responsible representatives who understand that we must cut spending and increase revenue substantially.

If we had representatives from both sides who were truly serious about reducing the debt, we would be discussing legitimate cuts to spending and realistic tax increases that would actually increase revenue. While both parties are at fault on this, I do blame the Republicans more for insisting that we continue to cut taxes at a time when revenues are extremely low. The Bush tax cuts were originally instituted because the CBO was projecting long term surpluses at the time. After the cuts though, spending increased dramatically and revenues did not increase at the same rate. The idea behind the Bush tax cuts is that they would be rescinded should revenue fall. Well, revenue has fallen dramatically. In fact, in 2010 it had fallen by 30% compared to 2000, as a percentage of GDP. Those are not made up numbers, they are a fact. On the spending side, spending increased by 25% from 2000 to 2010. So we have a 25% increase in spending and a 30% reduction in revenue.

With those numbers, it is obvious that we need to both reduce spending and increase revenue. Considering our yearly deficit is now in the $1 trillion plus range, I would really like an explanation as to how cutting taxes further will help, and please do not tell me it will increase revenues by expanding the economy. It's a major fail as an argument; it doesn't work, and we have proof of that. The next argument that is made by the right is that all of our debt is due to too much spending, yet we know that revenue has dropped by 30%, yet those on the right insist that we can cut over $1 trillion in spending. Again, I would like an explanation as to how you think we can effectively cut over $1 trillion in spending. I can think of a number of ways to cut some of that, maybe even half, but more than that and you better start talking about cutting military spending drastically, otherwise you are just spitting into the wind.

 

[TakeAStepBack]

A lot of IFs in there on your belief. You actually think that the govt. is going to curtail its ability to continue to spend?

 

[DontBeStupid]

A lot of IFs in there on your belief. You actually think that the govt. is going to curtail its ability to continue to spend?

It doesn't need to. We can continue to spend more and more every year, so long as revenue grows at a faster rate. This can be accomplished by adjusting tax rates back to historic norms and getting the economy growing again.

It's not rocket science. It's just math.

 

[TakeAStepBack]

That's right, it is math. Real math. Where the economy is not in a vaccuum.

If you think we can tax our way into a surplus at this point, you're completely delusional. At least Auditor007 realizes that both tax increases and spending cuts are needed. The problem is that spending cuts are never done. The politicians of today pull it over the plebs by claiming cuts, but those are cuts based on increased future spendings, not actual cuts on current spending.

Raise the tax rates back to the pre-Bush tax cuts, and we bring in an additional 687 billion over ten years if only the top earners rates rise, and close to 1 trillion over 10 years if everybody gets a rate hike. With 1.3 - 1.4 trillion and rising in annual deficit spending, that doesn't conquer the deficit spending, let alone the debt.

You are seriously in need of economic and mathematical remediation.

And you too fall intot he IF of things. If this, IF that. If a lot of things, fellas. Are we going on current realization, or are we going on a feeling here?

Please, try not to be so fucking stupid.

 

[DiamondDave]

A lot of IFs in there on your belief. You actually think that the govt. is going to curtail its ability to continue to spend?

It doesn't need to. We can continue to spend more and more every year, so long as revenue grows at a faster rate. This can be accomplished by adjusting tax rates back to historic norms and getting the economy growing again.

It's not rocket science. It's just math.

We CAN continue to spend more... but we will end up like Greece.. we already spend TOO MUCH on things the government should not be doing

We should be adjusting tax rates to an equality based system, not looking to tax 1/2 the people more on their income while 1/2 are taxed zero for theirs

Higher tax rates do not stimulate the economy.. quite the opposite./.. and before you say it, it was not higher taxes during the Clinton years that caused the economic boom. This has been pointed out time after time to you people, but you still love to spout it off anyway.. figured a preemptive strike was in order

 

[TakeAStepBack]

It's the Fourier Complex.

In the life of the neurotic the "saving lie" has a double function. It not only consoles them for past failure, but holds out the prospect of future success.

 

[Full-Auto]

Don't bother. I've never met a Socialist/Progressive who didn't just love spending other peoples' money. You wont get anywhere with them. You just wont. But nice try.

Interest rates are at historic lows, for everyone, our government included. The fact that you think we should NOT take advantage of this shows not only your limited grasp of economics, but also what a huge coward you are.

Nice projection....

Now can you stick with reality. Is that too much to ask?

 

[High_Gravity]

Where do they get all this Money from? Oh well, milk the American Taxpayers somemore i guess. Why not? It's not like they matter or anything.


A top US official said on Sunday that Washington has given $100 million in aid to Jordan to help host tens of thousands of Syrians who have fled the unrest back home and taken refuge in the kingdom.

US ambassador to Jordan, E. Jones, said that the US aid will also help Jordan meet its growing energy needs in light of the repeated cut-offs occurring from unstable gas supplies from Egypt.

He said the aid will address "the strains on the national budget as a result of the repeated disruption of the Egyptian natural gas, and especially the added cost of providing services and basic commodities to those fleeing the appalling violence in Syria."

"Nowhere outside of Syria are the effects of the Syrian regime's violence felt as acutely as in Jordan," he said at a joint news conference with Jordanian Planning Minister Jaafar Hassan.

The latest aid comes over and above the $660 million approved by Washington in December as military and economic aid to Jordan, which has received $2.4 billion from Washington in the past five years.

Debt-ridden Jordan, a major beneficiary of US aid, is hosting more than 140,000 Syrians, and the kingdom is building more camps to house the refugees...

Read More:
US Gives Jordan $100 mn to Help Host Syrian Refugees

What in the fuck? why are we giving them all this cash? I can tell you right now the Jordanians are going to pocket most of it.

 

[TakeAStepBack]

As is always done with aid like this. Because govt. does not give this money to those who need it, they take it from working folks and hand it over to foreign governments who dole it out to their friends and so on.

Same as it ever was.

 

[High_Gravity]

You're such an idiot.

I take it, you support this? Figures.

Boosting our image in the Middle East and helping citizens there without killing hundreds of thousands and invading and occupying a country?

Yes. I support that.

Why don't you?

Wake the fuck up, giving cash to these guys won't boost our image. We have been giving billions of dollars to Arab shit holes for decades, if thats all it took was giving cash they would all love us by now.

 

[Avorysuds]

You're such an idiot.

I take it, you support this? Figures.

Boosting our image in the Middle East and helping citizens there without killing hundreds of thousands and invading and occupying a country?

Yes. I support that.

Why don't you?

But yet you supported Libya, Afghanistan and Iraq the whole time Obama and Dems put billions upon billions into it.

Hey ReallyFuckingStupid, answer the question... How are we going to pay for this when we have a 1.5 Trillion dollar deficit?

You know in that really well known speech where Obama claim “If you have a business, you didn’t built that?” Yeah Obama says he will balance the budget by cutting it by “a trillion or two.” How can he do that when projected spending is on the rise?

 

[High_Gravity]

God we are so fucking stupid, none of the Arabs would piss on us if we were on fire but yet we give them billions.