Empire (Good or Evil)

[Wrathchild]

what i dont get is that the government is spending billions of dollars on bombs. Yet not one cent is spent on saving the starving kids in south america.

[the Rook]

double post, man

[Wrathchild]

Originally Posted by the Rook

double post, man

thats right....i feel retarded right now

[ooda]

Originally Posted by Wrathchild

what i dont get is that the government is spending billions of dollars on bombs. Yet not one cent is spent on saving the starving kids in south america.

Do you have anything to back that up?

[the Rook]

Originally Posted by Wrathchild

what i dont get is that the government is spending billions of dollars on bombs. Yet not one cent is spent on saving the starving kids in south america.

Actually, foreign aid is sent all over the world. Including South America.
Not much, mind you...only a tiny fraction of every tax dollar ( less than 1% ) is used for foreign aid, but a whopping 50% is used by the Pentagon.

[AlanRay]

what i don't get is why the hell everyone thinks that we owe everyone who is poor something. they're poor, they're not in our country, why the hell should we have to deal with it?

[the Rook]

Originally Posted by AlanRay

what i don't get is why the hell everyone thinks that we owe everyone who is poor something. they're poor, they're not in our country, why the hell should we have to deal with it?

Your right. You should ONLY think of yourself. Always. And make as much money as you can. And make sure no one ever gets it.

Fuck the world. Fuck anyone poorer than you. Fuck any people other than those exactly like you...no, fuck them too.

Take everything. Consume all you can and waste as much as you can so you can consume more. Use up everything you can. Use more than everybody else, so they can't have anything. Fuck 'em if they can't keep up.

Kill anyone different than you. We should all be exactly the same.

Right?



jeez...

[rev_rend]

Originally Posted by the Rook

Actually, foreign aid is sent all over the world. Including South America.
Not much, mind you...only a tiny fraction of every tax dollar ( less than 1% ) is used for foreign aid, but a whopping 50% is used by the Pentagon.

Actually, that's not true. Defense costs are approximately 50% of the discretionary portion of the budget--the part that Congress actually has some control over. The rest--about 2/3 of the total budget--is made up of obligated expenditures such as social programs and the servicing of debt. The President's proposed budget for 2007 is $2.77 trillion. Of that, $439.3 billion is slated for the Department of Defense, making the amount of the actual budget used by the Pentagon a far less whopping 15.8%.

Of course, that means foreign aid is an even smaller part of the budget, but that's probably a good thing as government aid programs are nowhere near as effective as their supporters seem to assume they are. In Uzbekistan, a USAID official told some of my colleagues that their evidence of corruption at a USAID contractor's office didn't really matter because the reports going back to Washington looked far better than they ever had in the past. So, when the agency that handles aid seems more interested in producing the product of good reports for Washington than it is in doing its job well, I'm not sure we want to be upping their budget too astronomically. (By the way, many of the contractors are effective and great.)

[the Rook]

Originally Posted by rev_rend

Actually, that's not true. Defense costs are approximately 50% of the discretionary portion of the budget--the part that Congress actually has some control over. The rest--about 2/3 of the total budget--is made up of obligated expenditures such as social programs and the servicing of debt. The President's proposed budget for 2007 is $2.77 trillion. Of that, $439.3 billion is slated for the Department of Defense, making the amount of the actual budget used by the Pentagon a far less whopping 15.8%.

Of course, that means foreign aid is an even smaller part of the budget, but that's probably a good thing as government aid programs are nowhere near as effective as their supporters seem to assume they are. In Uzbekistan, a USAID official told some of my colleagues that their evidence of corruption at a USAID contractor's office didn't really matter because the reports going back to Washington looked far better than they ever had in the past. So, when the agency that handles aid seems more interested in producing the product of good reports for Washington than it is in doing its job well, I'm not sure we want to be upping their budget too astronomically. (By the way, many of the contractors are effective and great.)

You're right. I wasn't clear that I was talking about the discretionary portion of the budget.

And you are also right about corruption when dealing with the question of foreign aid. What to us is a minicule amount of money in comparison to the defense budget is a lot of money to poorer countries and to the people given the charge to distribute that money. If our money goes from us directly into a despot's coffers, we've wasted it. Placing an effective infrastructure to deliver foreign aid is also tricky, as it faces hurdles due to soverienty issues, cultural differences, and effiecent use of resources. It's a tough problem.

[klang]

Originally Posted by AlanRay

what i don't get is why the hell everyone thinks that we owe everyone who is poor something. they're poor, they're not in our country, why the hell should we have to deal with it?

True .. why not deal with poor people within your own country before dealing with the problems of other countries. On the other hand, you have to be sure, that poor people from other countries doesn't just flood your borders. So, you have to give something to them as well (so they stay the fuck at home).

Ther has to be some kind of balance between rich and poor (the balance being that the poor have to be able to survive so they woun't bother the rich) .. this argument is valid for countries as well as individuals..