Why We’re Fasting

[Platapus]

Originally Posted by tater

Go to walmart. Look at the poor. They look hungry to you? Didn't think so.

How about the people who can't afford to shop at Walmart? I bet they look hungry.

Since when did shopping at Walmart become a datapoint for who is or is not poor?

[AngusJS]

Originally Posted by The Third Man

So others have seen through this opinion piece also. Its not the folks in the US who will be without food it is those who have been on the tit of the US which now have to find another tit to suckle from. Let other nations (EU nations) contribute more of their GDP.

They already do.

[Skybird]

Maybe I am a damn Vulcan, but I never saw what is so convincing about actions like this.

[tater]

Originally Posted by AngusJS

They already do.

That chart is complete BS.

One, it doesn't account for the fact that private donations from Americans to world aid exceed the US government contribution. So the US is the number one (in dollars) aid contributor by government, AND the private sector in the US donates considerably more than the US government.

Two, it doesn't count non-monetary aid. What is the value put on the US Navy in that chart, for example? Need helicopters in Japan. OK, we got them—in the next day or two. How many CVs does Sweden operate in each of the world's oceans? Is that the primary purpose of the USN? Nope. But it is A purpose of the USN, and the only way to have ships all over the world is to have a multi-ocean navy. So what is the annual contribution of the entire USN since WW2? Ditto for the USAF. Dwarfs the rest.

Three, a % is completely meaningless. Sweden gives almost 1% Wow! That's 4 billion dollars. We give closer to 30 billion, not counting intangibles like, you know, having a navy that can help people everywhere on earth. The total dollars is all that matters, not the %.

Four, we spend more on "aid" to Europe defending it (so that they can spend far less of their GDP on defense than we do) than places like Sweden spend on aid totally. The chart doesn't seem to include that.

[gimpy117]

Originally Posted by tater

Three, a % is completely meaningless. Sweden gives almost 1% Wow! That's 4 billion dollars. We give closer to 30 billion, not counting intangibles like, you know, having a navy that can help people everywhere on earth. The total dollars is all that matters, not the %.

Four, we spend more on "aid" to Europe defending it (so that they can spend far less of their GDP on defense than we do) than places like Sweden spend on aid totally. The chart doesn't seem to include that.

and defending Europe is our problem?

also, so what about Private donations. It just goes th show the Government isn't ponying up.

[tater]

Originally Posted by Platapus

How about the people who can't afford to shop at Walmart? I bet they look hungry.

Since when did shopping at Walmart become a datapoint for who is or is not poor?

It's not, but WIC goes up to incomes we might not consider "poor." As I said, a family of 4 can have 40k a year and qualify. How "poor" that is is very location dependent.

[gimpy117]

i can tell you that 30K on a family of 3 is pretty bare bones

[tater]

Originally Posted by gimpy117

and defending Europe is our problem?

also, so what about Private donations. It just goes th show the Government isn't ponying up.

We have no problem. My point is that Europe pays less on her own defense, because we pay for them. We're talking about a fraction of a % of GDP. We easily spend that much on "excess" defense of the ETO, freeing them to give a pittance to foreign aid unfettered by realistic defense costs.

The government IS the people. That's the point. In your typical way, you want the government to confiscate money to donate as it wishes, instead of letting the people actually decide. All that matters is what we give. The US gives more than 2X what that chart shows do to private contributions. We are the number one contributor in dollars. The ability to use military assets for relief is incalculable... it alone is worth what we spend in cash. How much do YOU give, or do you merely whine that other people's money should be taken, and given away to another country?

PS—a surprisingly large amount of "bailout" money in fact went to foreign banks. More than all the aid contributions of all other countries combined (and combined for several years). That in the chart?

[gimpy117]

Originally Posted by tater

We have no problem. My point is that Europe pays less on her own defense, because we pay for them. We're talking about a fraction of a % of GDP. We easily spend that much on "excess" defense of the ETO, freeing them to give a pittance to foreign aid unfettered by realistic defense costs.

see i don't think so. were not so much defending Europe as we are sticking our nose into other people's business

[Bakkels]

What the hell are you talking about 'defending Europe'? From what?
And a large part of the bailout money went to foreign banks?? I'd sure like to see some proof of that. What's next? Europe is the cause of the financial crisis?
Well thanks for a good laugh anyway....

[Sailor Steve]

Originally Posted by gimpy117

It just goes th show the Government isn't ponying up.

Government? Pony up? When are you finally going to figure out that government, by nature has NO money? At all? It only has what it can take...from the private sector. Any money the Government "ponies up" it first has to take from you. If the Government gives enough there won't be any private sector left for it to take money from. Then there will be no economy, and you'll blame "the other side", whoever that may be when there are no sides left.

^^^ This

[gimpy117]

Originally Posted by Sailor Steve

Government? Pony up? When are you finally going to figure out that government, by nature has NO money? At all? It only has what it can take...from the private sector. Any money the Government "ponies up" it first has to take from you. If the Government gives enough there won't be any private sector left for it to take money from. Then there will be no economy, and you'll blame "the other side", whoever that may be when there are no sides left.

yes, but i was meaning more that it tends to like to spend vast amounts on killing people rather than helping our own citizens.

Originally Posted by gimpy117

yes, but i was meaning more that it tends to like to spend vast amounts on killing people rather than helping our own citizens.

It is difficult to make an argument that the gov't doesn't take care of its citizens.

Even defense spending takes care of citizens by allowing the other spending to occur.

[Sailor Steve]

Originally Posted by gimpy117

yes, but i was meaning more that it tends to like to spend vast amounts on killing people rather than helping our own citizens.

There is some merit to that. On the other hand, a lot of that is spent being prepared when others call for help. While we can debate whether that is really necessary, if those 'others' want that kind of help, they really aren't in a good position to point out how little we spend on other kinds of help.