Please turn on javascript in your browser to play chess.
Debates Forum

Debates Forum

  1. 20 Aug '12 03:34
    http://www.thedailybeast.com/newsweek/2012/08/19/niall-ferguson-on-why-barack-obama-needs-to-go.html


    right on now..
  2. Subscriber AThousandYoung
    Poor Filipov :,(
    20 Aug '12 03:42 / 1 edit
    The ratio that matters is debt to revenue.


    Hmm. How can we improve such a ratio?

    Well, we can try to reduce debt. How do we reduce debt? We need revenue.

    Or we can increase revenue. Sounds like both ends of this "ratio that matters" are requiring higher taxes.

    You think Romney/Ryan can improve that ratio with their plans to cut taxes?
  3. 20 Aug '12 04:19
    Originally posted by AThousandYoung
    The ratio that matters is debt to revenue.


    Hmm. How can we improve such a ratio?

    Well, we can try to reduce debt. How do we reduce debt? We need revenue.

    Or we can increase revenue. Sounds like both ends of this "ratio that matters" are requiring higher taxes.

    You think Romney/Ryan can improve that ratio with their plans to cut taxes?
    U.S. foreign aid has a variety of goals. Among them, lifting people out of poverty, promoting democracy and economic stability worldwide, and bolstering strategic alliances. According to the government’s user-friendly Web site, www.foreignassistance.gov, Uncle Sam doles out “more than $58 billion a year in foreign assistance through more than 20 agencies.” More than half of that, roughly $37 billion, is managed by the State Department and USAID.

    You may be surprised to learn that most countries outside of Western Europe, Canada and Australia get foreign aid from the U.S. This year the requested amount for Russia was $68.7 million. For China, it’s $12.9 million. A whopping $647.7 million has been allocated for Nigeria. Even $20 million is set aside for communist Cuba. Again, these figures are the requested amounts for 2011–Congress is still trying to figure out how much to spend during the current fiscal year–and they only include aid to be managed by State and USAID. They don’t include money that finds its way into these countries through U.S. regional foreign assistance offices or offices that deal with specific issues like health or agriculture.

    Start by doing a gut check on this...... a total review of all aid doled out..has to be some savings there.
    Those shovel ready jobs we were promised seem to have disappeared...? But the bridges here in Oregon are in terrible shape, so where are the jobs? .. upgrade the power grid? We need people working and paying taxes again... a sore spot with the Liberals,, but that pipe line should be heading south.... the economies in the Dakotas are doing quite well.... drilling on privately owned land?
    Jobs, jobs and more jobs....and some responsible spending cuts... what's up with aid to China and Russia? CUT it...
  4. 20 Aug '12 04:25
    Originally posted by AThousandYoung
    The ratio that matters is debt to revenue.


    Hmm. How can we improve such a ratio?

    Well, we can try to reduce debt. How do we reduce debt? We need revenue.

    Or we can increase revenue. Sounds like both ends of this "ratio that matters" are requiring higher taxes.

    You think Romney/Ryan can improve that ratio with their plans to cut taxes?
    haven't seen their plan to cut taxes.....
  5. 20 Aug '12 04:46 / 1 edit
    In China and Nigeria, more than half of the requested budget for foreign aid to those countries is aimed at helping those countries fight HIV/AIDS.

    ouch, so we borrow money from China, then turn around and give it back so they can fight AIDS....... that sounds screwed up. Review all aid packages....
  6. Subscriber AThousandYoung
    Poor Filipov :,(
    21 Aug '12 05:48
    China doesn't have to lend us money you know. The aid might be part of the deal.
  7. 21 Aug '12 07:13
    Originally posted by Hugh Glass
    U.S. foreign aid has a variety of goals. Among them, lifting people out of poverty, promoting democracy and economic stability worldwide, and bolstering strategic alliances.
    A large percentage of 'foreign aid' actually returns to the donor country. This is especially the case when it is governmental aid. Usually at least half the funds go to pay salaries of employees from the home country.
    You are also incorrect about 'promoting democracy and economic stability worldwide' as the US is often involved in deliberately destabilizing regions and aid is one of the tools they use to do this. They also frequently do not promote democracy - but rather promote american style politics which consists of bank rolling your preferred candidate into power (not democracy in my book).
  8. 21 Aug '12 07:18
    Originally posted by Hugh Glass
    In China and Nigeria, more than half of the requested budget for foreign aid to those countries is aimed at helping those countries fight HIV/AIDS.
    And you will probably find that much of that money is used buying overpriced drugs from US companies - and the real purpose for doing so is to stop generics from India and Brazil.
  9. 21 Aug '12 09:32
    Originally posted by Hugh Glass
    U.S. foreign aid has a variety of goals. Among them, lifting people out of poverty, promoting democracy and economic stability worldwide, and bolstering strategic alliances. According to the government’s user-friendly Web site, www.foreignassistance.gov, Uncle Sam doles out “more than $58 billion a year in foreign assistance through more than 20 agencies. ...[text shortened]... jobs....and some responsible spending cuts... what's up with aid to China and Russia? CUT it...
    The US government gives out money to everone it can. Forieng countries, the rich through corporate welfare, the poor through welfare etc. In fact, if we found alien life in the universe they would probably try to buy them off as well. All they ask is for our submission. Is it too much to ask?
  10. 21 Aug '12 10:18
    Originally posted by whodey
    The US government gives out money to everone it can. Forieng countries, the rich through corporate welfare, the poor through welfare etc.
    In fact, according to Wikipedia, “only about one fifth of U.S. aid goes to countries classified by the OECD as ‘least developed.’". In other words, they strongly prefer giving to the rich.
  11. 21 Aug '12 10:23
    Originally posted by twhitehead
    In fact, according to Wikipedia, “only about one fifth of U.S. aid goes to countries classified by the OECD as ‘least developed.’". In other words, they strongly prefer giving to the rich.
    Because they depend on the rich to keep them in power.

    Both parites do it.
  12. 21 Aug '12 22:41
    anyway, stop giving it out.. why not help people here...?? it looks like we will bail out most of the homeowners in default in CA now,, what gives, let them fail..
  13. 21 Aug '12 23:33
    Originally posted by Hugh Glass
    anyway, stop giving it out.. why not help people here...?? it looks like we will bail out most of the homeowners in default in CA now,, what gives, let them fail..
    So you want to "help people here"... but then, when a possible means of doing so (bailing out homeowners in default in California) becomes apparent, you refuse to do that to.

    Anyway, foreign aid is a long-term investment. A friend of mine went to Kenya recently and said that it was full of development projects sponsored by Saudi Arabia during the last few years. Which would you rather spread in Africa: Salafism, or liberal democracy? If the former, you're going the right way about it by encouraging Western governments to cut their aid budgets.
  14. 22 Aug '12 01:08
    Originally posted by Hugh Glass
    http://www.thedailybeast.com/newsweek/2012/08/19/niall-ferguson-on-why-barack-obama-needs-to-go.html


    right on now..
    Niall Ferguson isn't some right wing radical, and Newsweek isn't Fox News. When you run on hope and change, and the changes leave little hope, it is time to go.
  15. 22 Aug '12 01:16
    Originally posted by AThousandYoung
    The ratio that matters is debt to revenue.


    Hmm. How can we improve such a ratio?

    Well, we can try to reduce debt. How do we reduce debt? We need revenue.

    Or we can increase revenue. Sounds like both ends of this "ratio that matters" are requiring higher taxes.

    You think Romney/Ryan can improve that ratio with their plans to cut taxes?
    "Hmm. How can we improve such a ratio?"

    Two possibilities, increase revenue, or decrease spending. The truth is that both need to be used, but revenue is increased in two ways.

    1. Increase taxes, and further depress the economy without getting any appreciable new revenue perhaps even none, or

    2. grow the economy which will produce more revenue. Instead of stimulating the economy by giving away billions to boondoggles you like, just let the people who earned it keep more.

    Along with economic growth, limiting or cutting spending has to be done anyway. How is any budget going to be in control and balanced, with built in spending increases of baseline budgeting. When reduced increases can be labeled cuts, we are lost.