Our way or the highway-The end of U.S. aid to 35 nations

[johnny]

Now who made up that story about the Dutch being greedy bastards ?

[Timber Loftis]

Originally posted by Moiraine: Who ? Denmark, Sweden, Netherlands, Norway, ... Look here. "The United States gives little aid for its size, ties much of it, and allocates it to countries generally richer or more corrupt than recipients of aid from other donors."

Well, thanks for the info, but to paraphrase George Washington I prefer a national government who represents her own citizens first and who make no nation its permanent friends nor enemies. I prefer it this way. There is no use in success unless you use it to make the world better -- and better is always in the eye of the beholder.

[Grojlach]

Originally posted by Timber Loftis: Well, thanks for the info, but to paraphrase George Washington I prefer a national government who represents her own citizens first and who make no nation its permanent friends nor enemies.

Then why didn't you paraphrase George Washington during the Iraqi war?

I like that paraphrase TL.

Well I suppose that since the USA doesnt give anything, no one would miss what we do give, so we might as well stop. It really isn't appreciated any way.

Oops, wait...even though we don't give as high a percentage of the GDP our overall official governmental charity still outweighs that of all of europe combined...(I should say EU). I notice also that the figures quoted do not count all the dollars contributed by private groups and organizations, by churches, and individuals. Doesn't count goods and services donated by doctors, lawyers and educators. Statistics...funny numbers those....you never really kow what they are telling you, unless you are the one generating them.

Now lets look into just who is sponsoring the "Center for Global Development" and find out what biases and motivations may be behind their numbers....

Ok at first blush, they are all Globalists and are basicly against any kind of national sovreignty for the US or any other country.... I guess you could get that from the name. Lets dig deeper.

Ok there are a lot of people who call themselves Economists. From the track record for economists in the USA..thats not good for their rep. They are wrong as often as they are right, which basicly just makes them legal bookies.

Ok now for their Partners....Harvard University's Center for international development, International center for research on women, UN Development program, Global Development network...I see a very clear pattern of socialistic liberal organizations. (now that isn't an insult, It is a fair assessment.)

So is it really any wonder that the numbers that would shed a good light on the USA are eschewed for ones that make Globalizatio seem like THE answer promoted?

Just a reminder, my previous post was not ment to refute the actual numbers displayed. I just wanted to bring to light the motivation that the stats chosen were influenced by.

[johnny]

Originally posted by Timber Loftis: quote: Originally posted by Moiraine: Who ? Denmark, Sweden, Netherlands, Norway, ... Look here. "The United States gives little aid for its size, ties much of it, and allocates it to countries generally richer or more corrupt than recipients of aid from other donors."

Well, thanks for the info, but to paraphrase George Washington I prefer a national government who represents her own citizens first and who make no nation its permanent friends nor enemies. I prefer it this way. There is no use in success unless you use it to make the world better -- and better is always in the eye of the beholder. [/QUOTE]That was the not point, you said there can be no quid, without pro quo. She only proved your wrong.

[Moiraine]

Originally posted by Timber Loftis: Well, thanks for the info, but to paraphrase George Washington I prefer a national government who represents her own citizens first and who make no nation its permanent friends nor enemies. I prefer it this way. There is no use in success unless you use it to make the world better -- and better is always in the eye of the beholder.

So you recognize that it is not a matter of "everyone is doing it that way" but of "I make the political choice of doing it that way", which is somewhat different.

[Moiraine]

Want other sources, MagiK ? Here.

[ 07-07-2003, 10:18 AM: Message edited by: Moiraine ]

[Timber Loftis]

Fair enough, Johnny and Moiraine, some national governments are more outright charitable. I think MagiK's point on private charity is well taken, and VERY important. I don't pay taxes so my government can give money away for nothing. If I want to be purely charitable, I'll re-up my membership to the Sierra Club or PETA, or save a starving kid in Africa through the Sally Struthers network, thanks very much. My government dictates plenty of my life without dictating my charity. In it's giving my money away -- it damn well better be getting something in return.

Sorry, that's my stance.

"Your egalitarianism is an affront to determinism" -- Viconia to Nalia.

[ 07-07-2003, 10:44 AM: Message edited by: Timber Loftis ]

[johnny]

Damn... you can't argue these SoA statements.