Monday, June 15, 2009

Debt, Aid, and Zimbabwe

Why, you ask, are we sending money overseas when our own country is in a mountain chain of debt?

I don't know.

Ask our President.

Of course, he's likely to tell you that "we continue to be concerned about consolidating democracy, human rights, and rule of law", so we have to help people overseas, too!

Let's forget the fact that the US is trillions of dollars in debt, China virtually owns us, every single country in the world hates us, we're single handedly funding the UN, and people hate what our government is doing.

Forget all that, because after all, we have to help others!

I'm all for helping others, but let's let private citizens and charities do so; not the government of the United States of America!!


Christopher said...

Liberty, I understand your perspective. That's why I marked it as interesting instead of infuriating. But the thing is, humanity can't really thrive as a people if one country is rich and one country is undeveloped and in extreme poverty. Yes, I said America is rich. We have problems with debt, which will soon end just like the economic problems in the Great Depression did. Zimbabwe and other countries are different.

The fifth paragraph was rather a large exaggeration. Not everybody hates America. Also do not forget that America is a superpower. That's important. Being a wealthy country, it is our duty to assist other countries, even if that means prolonging the end of temporary economic problems. Keep posting and keep ignoring me.

Kendra Logan said...


Christopher said...

That's good to hear!

Christopher said...

.........or. Now that I look back on it. Was that kind "AMEN" in address to me? Probably not.

Liberty said...

Christopher- while I see what you mean, in a limited sense, I don't see why it is our government's 'duty' to rescue other countries. Private citizens', maybe, but not the government's. The tax dollars we pay are not going to fund the world, they are going to fund this country and OUR programs, not OTHER country's programs.

(BTW- I disagree with our social programs, but that's another blog post.)

Secondly, I don't think we'll EVER be out of debt. Not at the rate we're going.

hersupernature said...

The fact of the matter is that though we ourselves suffer from poverty, poor education and the like due to lack of funding, isolationism on the U.S. part would be selfish. The citizens in need overseas and elsewhere are not the governments, and especially in third-world countries, are being victimized by their own leaders. In their countries, there are often little or no private citizens and charities to help - they are all no better off than the rest of the starved country they reside in. If you mean private citizens and charities from this country, well, there is a real lack of charitable output from such an affluent society as it is. Within the country, yes; exported charity, no. Not without government financial interventions and the like. Our aid is partially why millions of people (most of them innocent families and civilians) have improved ways of life, including access to education.

Liberty said...

hersupernature- I see the point that there are starving people and that they need to be helped.

However, they should NOT be helped by the federal government. THAT is what is in dispute here. It is NOT the federal government's job to do something like that. The FEDERAL government's job is to take care of AMERICA, not the WORLD. Where does 'foreign aid' come into the Constitution? I'll give you a little hint: nowhere.

The reason private Americans are not charitable is due, I think, in large part to the forced charity that is imposed on us by the government. If I'm already sending half my taxes overseas, why do I need to worry about it. Reduce taxes, stop sending foreign aid, and watch what happens.

Next- we are NOT affluent. At least, our government isn't. It is TRILLIONS of dollars in debt. And we're sending more money overseas because...?

Lastly- we send trillions of dollars to Africa every year. Where does it all go? Not to the people, obviously, since none of them have improved lifestyles. I'll tell you where it goes- it is eaten up by the traditional clan warfare that is rampant in that area of the world. Our money is doing nothing but feeding that.

So, in conclusion- the FEDERAL government has absolutely no business giving aid, like I have said before. I am not for isolationism- I think we need to TRADE with those countries. But we should not be sending them 'aid'. That is so against what the federal government was designed to do.

hersupernature said...

Oh, and I forgot to mention, we've sent nearly one trillion in aid since the 1960s (with the abolishing of apartheid), not trillions per year.

Liberty said...

Would you care to comment on my other points?

hersupernature said...

Damn, my comment got smashed. I hate that. Have to write it all over again.

Of course the Constitution does not say anything about foreign intervention, it is written on the branches of governments' responsibilities, states' rights, and the like. Rarely is foreign policy ever even mentioned.
Other historical documents, however, are another story.

We are in fact an affluent society, take a look at our gross domestic product, consumption, quality of life. I sponsor a child in Africa who has to carry water because his at home is unsafe to drink (compared to our PUR water-filtered taps) and who grows and eats 5 things (compared to an American's millions of supermarket options) because his family is too poor to buy food. He considers us extremely rich, as a third of Africa's population lives on less than $1 a day.
Affluence does not just refer to the width of our wallets, but also, the quality of our environment, way of life, and government - as frustrated as I am with the current one, as always, they are gods compared to, say, the Sudanese government, who are the driving force behind their own country's genocide. We've got it GOOD.

It would be incredible if our taxes were to be reduced and foreign aid to go, consequentially, up on the people's part, but the fact is almost 1 in 6 adults hardly or never read the news, and only half of them make the effort to read regularly - so why should we expect Americans to give when they're ignorant and uninformed about the state of the rest of the world? Call me Thomas Hobbes, but people in this day and age are greedy and ignorant - I think if taxes were reduced, some considerate people like you would be inspired to give overseas aid out of their own pockets more, but the vast majority would go on shopping sprees - you see how people act when they get a tax return in the mail, they go to the mall! They don't for a second think of Somalia's poverty rate or Korea's hunger, they're caught up in trends and Gossip Girl. Kudos to you for being into something important like politics.

Liberty said...

While I definitely see your point, I just still can't see how it is the GOVERNMENT's job to take care of the rest of the world. If we have extra money that they want to send over, fine.

But we don't. We are over 11 trillion in debt, something that will not be fixed by wasteful spending. I count things like medicare, the hundreds of thousands we throw at a failing education system, and the billions we send to other countries in 'wasteful spending'. It's ludicrous. China OWNS us, a fact many Americans don't get. If China chooses, tomorrow, we'll all be Chinese. A pretty scary thought, but a true one.

My whole point in this is to say that yes, as a people, we are affluent. Our government, however, is not. Despite their professed overflowing coffers (at least, that's the way they act), they have drummed us into so much debt and wasteful spending, that there will be no way out in just a few more short months. Right now, it's getting to that point.

For a nation to try to tax itself into prosperity is like a man standing in a bucket and trying to lift himself up by the handle.
Winston Churchill