Why doesn't the US pays its debts ?

Originally posted by Timber Loftis: I went looking briefly for this info and found out two things: 1. The US and Japan are the #1 and 2 donators of money worldwide by HUGE margins. I'll note that the UN budget is not a drop in the bucket when a quick search will give you 250+ US foreign aid *projects* each with their own budget. 2. The US and Japan donate the lowest percentage of the GDP among OECD countries. What do these tea leaves mean? I don't know. I'm sure you can argue both ways.

On a strictly cost/benefit analysis do you really think we and by we I mean the USA and Japan (Japan especially) get their moneys worth?

[Spelca]

But, as I said before, USA and Japan make more money. So, I don't know if my theory is correct, maybe other countries are giving just as much money compared to how much they're worth, if you know what I mean. [img]smile.gif[/img] But I don't know for sure, I just know that the UN calculations I did looked right.

[Spelca]

Originally posted by Wutang: True but when a country is asked to pay debts....you have to figure in costs of that country in forgiving its debts as well. It justs doesn't seem right to pay for debts while other countries are being forgiven. It's like the US is adding their debts to our debts. Maybe the US should be forgiven in it's debts too

Yes, but those were debts to the UN. And the US forgave debts to countries. If you understand what I mean...

Other countries are being forgiven their debts because they are poor. And they can't develop because they have debts. Their situation goes worse and worse, especially because they have debts. They try to pay off their debts first, which means they have no money left for development. Which means it gets harder for them to pay off debts next year. And compared to them, USA has absolutely no problems. You can manage with your debts. [img]tongue.gif[/img]

PS: Which debts has the US forgiven? Does anybody know?

Edit --- spelling.

[ 03-05-2003, 01:53 PM: Message edited by: Spelca ]

[Timber Loftis]

Spelca, we have what you suggest here in the USA - it's called a "progressive tax." Ideally, it hits the wealthy harder. In reality, it forces the rich to do things with their money to avoid tax. Invested money can't be taxed. Invested money makes more money. You then, in turn, invest more to avoid tax, and consequently make more.

Internationally, a similar thing will occur. Rather than give Djabutu $500 million, the USA goes there and "invests" in projects that will either be US controlled or benefit the US in some way. The same cycle occurs, and then in 20 years everyone bitches because we control too much of Djabutu. Well, wasn't it demanded we spend the money? Can you blame us for trying to control what our expenditure does? I mean, let's be real, if we just hand over the $500 million, the leaders will pocket half. (In a hypothetical country - I'm not knowledgible on or picking on Djabutu specficially).

The World Bank and IMF face the same problem. Their only job is to give out money. But, they are villified because they try to make sure the money is used in fiscally responsible ways. It's seen as forcing the Anglo-Euro culture of the OECD countries down the throats of, oh, say, ARGENTINA.

In the end you've got two choices: (1) do without the money or (2) accept the fact that the more you take the more the USA will control of your country.

Well, Spelca, do you choose (1) or (2) for the "developing" countries which take aid? Quit sticking their hands out and starve or take the money and embrace Mickey Mouse and Coca Cola? Which is it?

TL you make it sound like countries are out there saying "Give us your damn money and shut up". I always really thought it worked like that anyway, but the way you detailed it firms up my thoughts.

Seems everyone wants the cash, but as a gift or tribute. Seems pretty cheeky to me.

Originally posted by Spelca: PS: Which debts has the US forgiven? Does anybody know? Most of Europe is as you see it now due to the (Monroe Doctrine My mistake I did not mean the Monroe Doctrine) Marshall Plan, this was the US rebuilding Eurpoe after World War II. Nearly all of this debt was forgiven or written off. The US has also had debts nationalized....as in investors made deals with nations, and paid for things...only to have the nation turn around and say, get out, this is all mine now. (nearly the entire middle east oil infrastructure was obtained in this manner.) Another debt that was forgiven was the Lend Lease program of world war II. Equipment and materials were "lent" to England and Russia, these debts were also forgiven. Those are just two quick examples.

[ 03-05-2003, 05:42 PM: Message edited by: MagiK ]

[Spelca]

I thought that's what charity was about. [img]tongue.gif[/img]

Edit - grammar

[ 03-05-2003, 02:34 PM: Message edited by: Spelca ]

[Wutang]

I need some charity too

How much US aid money actually gets to the people who really need it? Or merely swallowed up by the beauracracies that monitor the aid?

I'd like to think that all the billions of dollars spent is actually doing some good.

I keep seeing underdeveloped countries being wracked by hunger, famine, and disease.

I mean what gives?

[Ronn_Bman]

Magik was it a Freudian slip? [img]tongue.gif[/img]

For those who don't know, the Monroe Doctrine is from the early 1800's. It was bascially the US flipping off the colonial powers. This policy was proclaimed by President Monroe as a way of telling European Powers to stay the heck out of the Americas. It was a thinly veiled threat that we couldn't really backup...."Stay out of the Americas, and we'll stay out of Europe."

The Marshall Plan is the one Magik is eluding to. That was a 4 year and nearly 15 billion dollar plan used by the US to rebuild Europe after WWII. It was implemented after 20 billion in loans to Europe failed to get reconstruction moving. The money from the Marshall Plan wasn't money meant to be repaid, but most of the 20 billion in actual loans was forgiven. Of the money actually repaid from the loans, over 2 billion was put directly into the Marshall Plan.

[Timber Loftis]

Originally posted by Spelca: I thought that's what charity was about. [img]tongue.gif[/img] Edit - grammar

A. Thanks for not responding AT ALL to my questions directed at you and blithely ignoring the fact that until you can address them the legs are cut out from under your argument.

B. Charity that is expected is not Charity. Now, I know the Catholic Church, which gives % guidance on tithes, may not agree with this, but it's the way I see it. If it's charity, shut up about not getting the $$$$. You'll get it when the charitable giver decides you deserve it.