News of today.....

[WDRacing]

You've done nothing to apologize for. Any topic spins off related sub topics that are relevant to the topic. If we didn't allow that, we'd have frustrated members here.

We'll follow the "reasonably related" rule here. As long as the "off track comment" is reasonably related to the OP's topic, it's fair game. Even an occasional off topic comment to make a point is fine.

To this end, Brian's comment was unnecessary and that the members of this forum have nothing to apologize for. Brian will be back soon enough.

My comment was aimed souly at you Bob. The other members would be discussing the Foreign Aide Policy if you hadn't pushed your personal agenda about the Iraq war. Which isn't a relevant sub topic at all. You can't compare money already spent to money that is proposed for spending...especially if it is being spent on a totally different thing. But because the thread brought Obama under a slightly negative light you took it off topic all by yourself by mentioning the Iraq war over and over again rather then making a single comment about taking our tax dollars and giving them away. Why? Because you simply can't admit that Obama isn't perfect in every way.

You are forcing your own personal agenda into every thread. THAT is why I am not going to post in here anymore. So you can keep on ruining threads with your propaganda...but it's the members that lose out. Who knows where this conversation could have gone had you not littered it with unrelated crap in order to cover up Obama's clearly unpopular proposal.

... and once again, the subject drifts away....

Looks like I'm not the only staff member that feels this way either

Have a nice day

WD

[smockers83]

Which is also the reason why I left for a few days and am no longer posting in hot topics. Its not about being linear in thought. I hope we can return to what this used to be after November where everyone looked at things objectively, looked at the facts, and weren't pushing agendas.
Modified by smockers83 at 1:34 PM 7/27/2008

[WDRacing]

One can only hope man...

[rn79870]

Brian, just because you missed the point you don't need to have a hissy fit and slam the door. What's $2500 - nothing, $200 a year per person, $3.50 per week? That's really a drop in the bucket compared to the other money we're wasting, especially in Iraq.

ALL money would be better spend in America for Americans - for instance, those whose economic position has suffered due to the downturn in the economy, those who have lost their jobs to outsourcing, or face losing homes they have worked hard to get. Let's help them before we help the world, but seriously, how can you PMS so over $200 a year per person when you aren't equally willing to insist on an immediate stop to the other more wasteful spending.

Your "straying off topic" comments are not an appropriate response to a relevant discussion, especially a discussion that looks at things in relation to the bigger picture.

[smockers83]

One thing that is being forgotten is that there are more revenue streams for the government than just personal income taxes. Putting debts and projects into perspective like that is nice, but it doesn't serve too much of a purpose as there are other factors that need to be taken into account as well. Also, no country has fully paid for a war in its entirety, at least in recent history with the exceptions of some civil wars.

[WDRacing]

Your "straying off topic" comments are not an appropriate response to a relevant discussion, especially a discussion that looks at things in relation to the bigger picture.

They are very relevent Bob and I'll continue to point out where you dissemble in order to cause the straying of the original topic. I didn't miss any point at all, what I said was fact and you're just upset cause I called your dissembling out in the open.

As far as a drop in the bucket is concerned that kind of thinking gets us further in debt. I'm not even sure what you're trying to point out here. If you would have initially said that all money spent would be better spent on Americans and not in some type of foriegn aide we would have no issue here. But you didn't...you diverted the topic to aim at the Iraq war and it's wasteful spending so that your candidate wouldn't look so bad...period.

how can you PMS so over $200 a year per person when you aren't equally willing to insist on an immediate stop to the other more wasteful spending.

What does that even mean Bob? I'm all for not wasting anymore money...where did you even dig that up? We are fiscally irresponsible...and have been for quite some time now. Giving away 845 billion over any length divided any way you slice it sucks.

[skylndrftr]

actually WD your the one doing that. Your trying to limit the discussion to one candidate on a very relevant foreign policy issue. Confedup picked an utterly biased attack piece from a source that is at best sleazy.

You don't respond to factual discussions about McCains flaws, and when you do its simply to attack Obama again. Then you get upset about dismissing attacks against Obama by a simple comparison to McCain. You say we dont know want to discuss Obama, but you dismiss anythign we say. go look at all the Obama attack threads on this forum. Its frankly ridiculous and shows how close minded you and your ilk really are.

Obama has just shown that he is a candidate who will help not hurt the view of us in the world. Thats never a bad thing. Sure this program takes money out of this country. But as the worlds richest nation we have a moral obligation to help those less fortunate. And before you start throwing out acky arguements about tax dollars, well we're already financing a whole war not from the taxpayers, but on credit. The good will this will build easily outweigh the cost.

[WDRacing]

actually WD your the one doing that. Your trying to limit the discussion to one candidate on a very relevant foreign policy issue. Confedup picked an utterly biased attack piece from a source that is at best sleazy.

You don't respond to factual discussions about McCains flaws, and when you do its simply to attack Obama again. Then you get upset about dismissing attacks against Obama by a simple comparison to McCain. You say we dont know want to discuss Obama, but you dismiss anythign we say. go look at all the Obama attack threads on this forum. Its frankly ridiculous and shows how close minded you and your ilk really are.

Obama has just shown that he is a candidate who will help not hurt the view of us in the world. Thats never a bad thing. Sure this program takes money out of this country. But as the worlds richest nation we have a moral obligation to help those less fortunate. And before you start throwing out acky arguements about tax dollars, well we're already financing a whole war not from the taxpayers, but on credit. The good will this will build easily outweigh the cost.

First thing first, I already voiced my opinion about those threads. I think all of the threads we have that attack a particular candidate suck. Anything that starts off biased only leads to a generally bad conversation. I'm honestly not that biased towards McCain...I was actually considering Obama for awhile. But that's a whole different thread. In short, I agree, the other threads went nowhere fast and really didn't yield any good conversation.

How did I limit it to one candidate? I'm all for talking about McCains ideas for giving away tax dollars in foreign aid. I'm not close minded at all dude...so don't presume to lump me in with some group just because I'm not supporting a Liberal candidate. I don't like either of the people running...

Wanna discuss flaws...by all means do so. McCain is far from the best we have to offer. I have never said otherwise.

I simply don't agree that spending money to improve how we look is a good thing. This is what the discussion should be about...it has nothing to do with Iraq. Although I'll readily admit that we come off as a war mongering nation that will stop at nothing to install our idea of democracy...whether you want it or not.

I'll talk about how we waste money ALL day and we'll probably agree on most issues. So please...continue on your train of thought. How is giving away more money going to improve how we look? and is it worth it? I'd rather get our troops back home safely, get out Nation back on it's feet and then and only then propose a plan to include tax dollars in foriegn aid.

WD

[rn79870]

Helio made an interesting post in response to what might solve the unrest in the middle east. Among his points was the contribution of foreign aid to help in the development of some of the middle eastern countries. Striving to create a peacful region, even at the cost of foreigh aid, is in our best interest. Our country is pursuing options that have resulted in a lack of peace in the area, and that appriach is probably more expensive than .8 trillion in aid.

How can you examine the issue of what benefit we will gain from the aid package without looking at what we're losing by not having it (our current obligation - yes, even Iraq).

It isn't a simple question, but blindly dismissing whatever benefits we might gain by offering this aid is not a wise approach. Would you rather spend for peace or for armed intervention?

Now, the only question is whether Obama's plan addresses any of these problems and to what degree it will work. We've already agreed that the current way isn't working.

[WDRacing]

IMO our commitment to the entire Middle East isn't fulfilled until we have rebuilt everything we've either destroyed or in some means disrupted. However, we have other area's of spending that could be curbed if not outright cut off in order to give said aide to the M E and other countries that need it. For instance, immediately cancel all Mars related study and research. Not forever...just for now. Since it has ZERO effect on anything and we could definitly use the money in other area's. The answer isn't increased taxes...

If you want money to be taken from the American people to be used as foreign aide then setting up a fund where people can voluntarily have money taken from there taxes every year to do so is the answer. Otherwise you're taking taxes from us to spend on something that doesn't directly benefit us, which is wrong. How the world sees us is not a warrant to tax the people in order to make up for our past indiscretions.

Increased taxes of 3.50 a day and 200/annual would be better spent on the homeless Veterans of America, or simple given to the VA to better take care of the troops that fought for our freedom...hell give it children for scholarship funding.

[Marenta]

Oh, here's a great one to curb! How about we STOP BUILDING SHIPS!!! Turns out we don't need 11 aircraft carriers.. or the fleets to go with them. Nor does the Air Force need the funding to retrofit C17s into hotels. Now, don't get me wrong, the military doesn't really get paid all that well, so the pay and the benefits are kinda lacking. But, there's no reason for the massive amounts of expansion that both Bush Sr. and Jr. have done. It's just insane. I can understand wanting to portrait military might, but this is just too much. Or go to a conscript military. Oye, that's a whole different topic.

Keep the funding here. Yes, we should clean up the mess we made in Iraq. But, as far as Afghanistan goes, I think we might want to consider just handing that hellhole back over to Russia.. maybe they might want it.

[96Qowner]

The big problem with foreign aid, as I tried to point out, is that very little of it reaches the people who need it.

It's like what we hear about our own local "charities", where 85% of the donations go to running the organization - 15% gets to the needy. And there are different kinds of "foreign aid". Some is for infrastructure, some is for anti-insurgent efforts, some is for crop equipment and subsidies, some is for famine relief. In nearly ALL cases, the money goes to locals, who are supposed to see that it gets spent wisely. Hah.

In these societies, there is no Capitalism as we know it. They are run in the old way, where the meanest, strongest, most dangerous guys get to control the money flow. You cannot bypass them. So, when we provide "poverty relief", most of the resources we provide go to strengthen the guys who already neglect the poor. The rich get richer, the poor stay the same. The only guys who win are the guys in charge.

The same thing applies to infrastructure, etc. - the guys who control the money flow divert most of the funds into their own pockets. We just reward the corrupt structure that caused the poverty in the first place.

So everyone should think about that when they think about spreading foreign aid around. It may be a good idea to bribe the guys in charge, but don't think that the needy will benefit much by it.

[skylndrftr]

In these societies, there is no Capitalism as we know it. They are run in the old way, where the meanest, strongest, most dangerous guys get to control the money flow. You cannot bypass them. So, when we provide "poverty relief", most of the resources we provide go to strengthen the guys who already neglect the poor. The rich get richer, the poor stay the same. The only guys who win are the guys in charge.

I think that is a completely unfair generalization that you are using to prove your point. Just because its not capitalism 'as we know it' doesn't a) mean there is no capitalism and b) mean its doing no good. The money we provide now makes little if any dent. If we provided a more constant and larger stream of money, their would be infrastructure in place to make the money do more good.

Also, part of where the current problem with distributing aid comes from is that the requirements for distributing aid in foreign countries (as laid out by Bush) are not knowledge, or competency, they are sharing his Christian faith. Thats helpful