The United States is tops in giving to the world's downtrodden. Under this kooky plan proposed by Barrack Obama (he must be so proud; what is this, his FIRST piece of legislation or something?) the United States would be on the hook to spend .7 of GDP on poverty programs around the world. That would result in spending $845 billion MORE than the US already spends over a 13 year period.
Move on dot commies just don't get it: When the government takes over the role of the individual individuals don't feel impelled to act.
That means that this would undoubtedly have the net effect of REDUCING the US contributions to the rest of the world. Why? As I stated above, when the government takes over something people figure it's the government's job so, 'Why should I do it?'
Also, the obvious thing is if Barrack Obama really wants to encourage anti poverty programs he'd be a huge backer of capitalism and encourage business growth in those areas of the world where people could do for themselves with some capital backing.
More here.
Wednesday, February 13, 2008
From Global Test to Global Tax: Obama GLOBAL TAX on Docket for Thursday. CALL YOUR SENATORS AND SAY 'NO'
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
13 comments:
While I agree with you on the potential Net effect; it would be interesting to see if that really happened.
I have never been an advocate of the Government being in the Charity business.
But is it the "Charity" business, or is it good Global strategy, for building up good will toward the US in some very poor countries.
Having the masses of the world dislike us, can not be good for defense.
Eileen...I'm not willing to wait to find out if it "really happens."
If Obambi gets in look for his first appointment to the Supreme Court to be John Edwards. If there is a second appointment that comes available, look for it to be one of the Clintons.
THAT SCENARIO IS SCARY!!!!
Victoria wrote:
> The United States is
> tops in giving to the world's
> downtrodden.
In fact, this is quite wrong -- the US is near the bottom in foreign aid:
http://www.cgdev.org/section/initiatives/_active/cdi/_country/united_states
david:
Sigh.. I thought this straw man was put to sleep a long time ago.
Sure the USA the 14th out of 21 in foreign aid when you try and compare it to the Netherlands by GDP, How about you try and compare just plain old Dollars? Ohh and while your at it why don't you figure in the amount given privatively to NGO's.
Your friends at the CGD use the U.N. as a way to bash the USA.
> How about you try and compare just > plain old Dollars?
Why would you do that, and not on a per-capita, per-GNP basis? It's really easy for a huge country to give what appears to be a lot of dollars. But it's much more difficult, and meaningful, for a small country to give a relatively large amount.
> Ohh and while your at it why
> don't you figure in the amount
> given privatively to NGO's.
You mean NGOs like the NRA, John Birch Society, NRO, places like that? In any case, it's swamped, I bet, but how much the US government gives US corporations every year in the form of tax breaks, subsidies, and special legislation.
I believe that the US should give out foreign aid to those countries that truly need it. However, if one of those countries lets demonstrations against the US, demanding "Death to America" and all that other crap that goes with it (US flag burning comes to mind, for one), then the foreign aid should be cut off immediately for at least 5 years if not longer. And if the libs in Congress don't like it - too damn bad.
Some donate many dollars, but are low on GNI percent
Some interesting observations can be made about the amount of aid. For example:
* USA’s aid, in terms of percentage of their GNP has almost always been lower than any other industrialized nation in the world, though paradoxically since 2000, their dollar amount has been the highest. (Only since 2004 have they move up from last place, by just one or two places.)
* Since 1992, Japan had been the largest donor of aid, in terms of raw dollars. That was until 2001 when the United States reclaimed that position, a year that also saw Japan’s amount of aid drop by nearly 4 billion dollars (as tables and charts below will also show)
http://www.globalissues.org/TradeRelated/Debt/USAid.asp
On the claim that individuals will likely reduce their giving if the US takes over all the giving I give you this:
* International giving by US foundations: $1.5 billion per year
* Charitable giving by US businesses: $2.8 billion annually
* American NGOs: $6.6 billion in grants, goods and volunteers.
* Religious overseas ministries: $3.4 billion, including health care, literacy training, relief and development.
* US colleges scholarships to foreign students: $1.3 billion
* Personal remittances from the US to developing countries: $18 billion in 2000
* Source: Dr. Carol Adelman, Aid and Comfort, Tech Central Station, 21 August 2002.
http://www.globalissues.org/TradeRelated/Debt/USAid.asp#ForeignAidNumbersinChartsandGraphs
This issue alone is enough to make me vote for John McCain.
The US has an obligation to assist people all over the world. We need to offset the damage caused by Bush's war.
Obama is going to be the next president of the United States Of America. So sorry there Victoria. So you will be moving to Canada then, I expect.
The Democrats are so proud of
Barrack Hussein Bin Laden Osama Obama
King Socialist
Post a Comment