$100B

[rockfist]

My post was about the US debt burden. International aid is socialism and its stupid as hell. My point is we are borrowing money and raising taxes to give away money not even within our own country.

"Did I hear that Hillary Clinton pledged that the US (and other "rich nations" but we know what that means) would give third world countries $100B a year for global warming issues???? So its not enough to redistribute wealth in our own country - we need to redistribute it globally? What a fucking idiot administration we have.

I can't wait till November 2010 the seat losses are gonna make 1994 look small!

There is a label for this and it is Socialism - that's not me using scarewords that's the truth"


No mention of debt burden in there, seems to mostly be a rant about "socialism" . The whole idea is to co-operate with developing nations so they develope cleaner industires. If we want them to develope cleaner industries, well we have to give a little too. There will be significant investment on their part as well since western aid can't do it allone. The developing nations don't want to be riduculously polluted either they just need some help getting there. You can allready see this in china, they have invested allot in clean industry it is true they are still very polluted but they are making efforts to change .

It was something the reader was to infer from the title.

[rockfist]

My post was about the US debt burden. International aid is socialism and its stupid as hell...

Ah, so it's ok for the U.S to take whatever resources and goods they want from the third world (and use of the cheap labour) but it's a different matter when it's about helping them out..
.
I understand

No just about all foreign aid is dumb.

[thegreekdog]

My post was about the US debt burden. International aid is socialism and its stupid as hell...

Ah, so it's ok for the U.S to take whatever resources and goods they want from the third world (and use of the cheap labour) but it's a different matter when it's about helping them out..
.
I understand

If one lives in the US, it's okay.

Frankly, it's probably in our best interest to aid people abroad, if only to create more consumers for US products and services. That being said, international aid is actually a redistribution of wealth. I'm not really sure that's even debatable. We're redistributing China's wealth (the proceeds from Chinese loans) to other countries (probably China).

[snufkin]

Whos polluting today? Per capita, as continents, which is highest?

By country the highest carbon dioxide pollution per capita seems to be the USA..

..but I think it would be Australia by continent and capita - although it isn´t very useful information since they only are responsible for less than 1.5 % of the worlds pollution.

except thats not PER CAPITA. The US ends up paying over 40%, usually. Its just over 100B per YEAR!! Per capita, im pretty sure is Asia.

What are you talking about? I was not mentioning payment.. the figures are definitely carbon dioxide pollution PER CAPITA.
US paying 40% of what? You make no sense at all..
You being "pretty sure" of something does not mean a thing when it isn´t based on evidence.

Chemicals causing great damage locally in parts of Africa is something else..

[BigBallinStalin]

My post was about the US debt burden. International aid is socialism and its stupid as hell...

Ah, so it's ok for the U.S to take whatever resources and goods they want from the third world (and use of the cheap labour) but it's a different matter when it's about helping them out..
.
I understand

No just about all foreign aid is dumb.

No, it's not dumb at all. Foreign aid is an investment, which would later bring in some money. If not just money, foreign aid may also develop or strengthen ties between the US and recipient country. It's a great tool we use in order to reach whatever objectives or goals we may have in a set area.

Pakistan's a good example. Recently, we gave them a few billion dollars for economic use, which then allows them to allocate more money into their military operations against the different groups of the Taliban and other enemy factions residing in their western and northwestern borders.

[Phatscotty]

My post was about the US debt burden. International aid is socialism and its stupid as hell...

Ah, so it's ok for the U.S to take whatever resources and goods they want from the third world (and use of the cheap labour) but it's a different matter when it's about helping them out..
.
I understand

No, not at all. I have a serious problem with the way the elitists do(no matter what party!) exactly what you are describing Jake. My policy papers in 2001 was about just that issue in Argentina. nailed it my first A+.....

While hardly a single American would disagree that we could and should help the thrid world, there is more than 1 way to do so, and we can start with something that isnt an "organized crime racket" in Europe, and the fact that it's related to Al gore's theory? no way in hell is that the way to go about helping people.

Personally, IMO, I thought America's policy about taking people in from ALL OVER THE WORLD, helping them get an education and living, and hopefully they can either support their home country with the money they make here (as is and has been the case for over a century) or even to go back to their home country and open or work for a hospital, or dentist, or ANYTHING YOU CAN STUDY HERE IN THE USA

[rockfist]

If foreign aid actually lead to a return on investment it might not be dumb, but we give money to countries that are at best unfriendly to us and at worst hostile and we have given money to dictators who are unpopular in their own countries, which makes the general population dislike or hate us.

[BigBallinStalin]

If foreign aid actually lead to a return on investment it might not be dumb, but we give money to countries that are at best unfriendly to us and at worst hostile and we have given money to dictators who are unpopular in their own countries, which makes the general population dislike or hate us.

Well, we also give money to countries that are very friendly or at least have warm relations with us. Although we do give money to dictatorships, Washington generally sees that as outweighing the negatives... I don't like it, but that's how it is. Saudi Arabia is almost as extreme as the Taliban in Afghanistan concerning religious matters, yet the King is given free reign to do whatever he wants to his people. Why? US wants a secure source of oil, whose supplier is dependent on our military prowess to keep him in power.

It's bad and good. What's the alternative? Not supplying such regimes would make the central authority weaker; thus, increasing the likelihood of democratic movements and at least more democratic or representative governments. But, would the United States really want a democracy in any Middle Eastern country--especially Saudi Arabia? It's easier to deal with and influence one guy and make sure he has all the power compared to dealing with the majority. Which is why we'll continue supporting and influencing dictators, kings, and whoever else has something that we want and who can't refuse our "aid."

[Titanic]

If foreign aid actually lead to a return on investment it might not be dumb, but we give money to countries that are at best unfriendly to us and at worst hostile and we have given money to dictators who are unpopular in their own countries, which makes the general population dislike or hate us.

Shouldn't we also give money to those countries who are messed up because of us? Imperialism, proxy wars, interfering in internal affairs etc.. A lot of the developed world is fcked because of us (a lot is their own doing, I don't think their innocent at all) and we should at least try to give them some kind of standing. Also as the richest nations in history, should we really be turning blind eye to all the starvation, diseases and suffering in those countries?

[rockfist]

How long do we have to give money until its "fair?" Forever?

No, we do not have to give money as reparations. Did we ask the Germans or Japanese to give us money after WWII. No, because they tried that after WWI. Sometimes you don't get dealt the best hand and you make due. My generation and my children's generation of Americans maybe aren't getting the best hand either.

[oVo]

That's $80 Billion less than AIG received in their bailout,
so maybe this is a bargain eh?

[SultanOfSurreal]

Did I hear that Hillary Clinton pledged that the US (and other "rich nations" but we know what that means) would give third world countries $100B a year for global warming issues???? So its not enough to redistribute wealth in our own country - we need to redistribute it globally? What a fucking idiot administration we have.

I can't wait till November 2010 the seat losses are gonna make 1994 look small!

There is a label for this and it is Socialism - that's not me using scarewords that's the truth.

this is a pretty good last-minute bid for stupidest post of the year '09, but you're facing some stiff competition from bk barunt's "sarah palin is leaving politics forever because she's too feminine to handle it" and gabon's "black people are dumb but they have FAST TWITCH MUSCLE FIBERS so i'm not a racist"

[rockfist]

You still take it with your empty headed quote I think. It would take a hell of a lot to top it.

[SultanOfSurreal]

You still take it with your empty headed quote I think. It would take a hell of a lot to top it.

first off the wording i used was "vacant skull"

second off that single post was more entertaining than anything you've ever written

[rockfist]

No arguement there it was entertaining and accurate. It was the only accurate thing you've written that I've come upon.

[SultanOfSurreal]

No arguement there it was entertaining and accurate. It was the only accurate thing you've written that I've come upon.

i'm sorry but woodruff, john, and greek already took that completely unexpected and brilliantly witty angle on my post in the thread i made it

i know you don't think you can possibly find a more novel insult for me than "lol ur right about that scarasic tihng u sed" but there is a language of fully 1,000,000 words available to you, at least 1,000 of which you know, so do please try a little harder next time

[rockfist]

I posted something about your comment in that thread also the other day.

[SultanOfSurreal]

I posted something about your comment in that thread also the other day.

ah yes how could we ever forget your thoughtful contribution to the august field of theological study, re: whether fdr was the motherfucking antichrist holy f*ck you are so dumb

[Snorri1234]

Pakistan's a good example. Recently, we gave them a few billion dollars for economic use, which then allows them to allocate more money into their military operations against the different groups of the Taliban and other enemy factions residing in their western and northwestern borders.

They have to buy the weapons from you of course, so that's kinda a dick move.

[rockfist]

I posted something about your comment in that thread also the other day.

ah yes how could we ever forget your thoughtful contribution to the august field of theological study, re: whether fdr was the motherfucking antichrist holy f*ck you are so dumb

Is not open for debate. He was. Whether I am smart, dumb, or in between won't change that he is the father of every transfer payment program in the US and thus is the anti-Christ.

[thegreekdog]

No arguement there it was entertaining and accurate. It was the only accurate thing you've written that I've come upon.

i'm sorry but woodruff, john, and greek already took that completely unexpected and brilliantly witty angle on my post in the thread i made it

i know you don't think you can possibly find a more novel insult for me than "lol ur right about that scarasic tihng u sed" but there is a language of fully 1,000,000 words available to you, at least 1,000 of which you know, so do please try a little harder next time

Technically, I thought it was a brilliant post and it is now my signature (and you know it's brilliant because it replaced the greatest quote ever about Greeks).

[SultanOfSurreal]

No arguement there it was entertaining and accurate. It was the only accurate thing you've written that I've come upon.

i'm sorry but woodruff, john, and greek already took that completely unexpected and brilliantly witty angle on my post in the thread i made it

i know you don't think you can possibly find a more novel insult for me than "lol ur right about that scarasic tihng u sed" but there is a language of fully 1,000,000 words available to you, at least 1,000 of which you know, so do please try a little harder next time

Technically, I thought it was a brilliant post and it is now my signature (and you know it's brilliant because it replaced the greatest quote ever about Greeks).

i was under the impression you made it your sig because hurr i called myself stupid hurr, not because it was an awe-inspiring put-down (which automatically applies to at least 95% of all my posts)

[thegreekdog]

No arguement there it was entertaining and accurate. It was the only accurate thing you've written that I've come upon.

i'm sorry but woodruff, john, and greek already took that completely unexpected and brilliantly witty angle on my post in the thread i made it

i know you don't think you can possibly find a more novel insult for me than "lol ur right about that scarasic tihng u sed" but there is a language of fully 1,000,000 words available to you, at least 1,000 of which you know, so do please try a little harder next time

Technically, I thought it was a brilliant post and it is now my signature (and you know it's brilliant because it replaced the greatest quote ever about Greeks).

i was under the impression you made it your sig because hurr i called myself stupid hurr, not because it was an awe-inspiring put-down (which automatically applies to at least 95% of all my posts)

Awe-inpsiring put-down is the correct answer. You are easily the most entertaining poster on this site (notwithstanding the departed b.k. barunt, who was more entertaining but for a different reason).

[Baron Von PWN]

It was something the reader was to infer from the title.

What "$100b" ? The $100b that is being handled by the western nations? that was how you chose to tell us this was about US debt burden? See when I see you write $100b and then complain about "socialist" foreign aid to improve environmental standards it makes me think the thread is about socialism and foreign aid. My mistake, I should have known those things really mean "the USA has too much debt".

[BigBallinStalin]

Pakistan's a good example. Recently, we gave them a few billion dollars for economic use, which then allows them to allocate more money into their military operations against the different groups of the Taliban and other enemy factions residing in their western and northwestern borders.

They have to buy the weapons from you of course, so that's kinda a dick move.

A dick move for a dick empire, but it makes sense. Why miss out on all that money?