Lol

[Blubbartron]

You won't answer my questions, even though you were one of the people that suggested there was a direct financial benefit to foreign aid?... Uh, ok then...

As far as the videos are concerned, there is nothing new in them. Of course 1 dollar in a shitty country can be stretched much further (though I'm dubious at the "100x" claim they made) than in America. I could see 10-20x more effective, maybe. And sure, our aid can help to mitigate the spread of and fatalities due to malaria and HIV *in those countries*, but please explain to me how that helps America? It's not like Africans or people from tropical climates are coming to America and spreading those diseases en masse, with or without our aid. They're impoverished for fuck's sake.

You brought up brand name recognition and national security again, though I touched on those (I think, anyway) in my post which you conveniently decided not to comment on. Would you like another opportunity? I stand by my claim that brand name recognition doesn't mean dick when the impoverished country you're helping can't afford your brands. And again, foreign terrorism that touches American soil is not so widespread that using foreign aid as a deterrent is necessary or even worth mentioning.

As far as the effect of keeping aid in America goes, you and the videos are guilty of trying to look at things as a percentage instead of absolute dollars. Sure, that 0.5% of the budget for foreign aid sounds so miniscule, but it's billions of dollars. In 2011 it was nearly 32 billion dollars. If you're telling me that we can't make an incredibly meaningful difference in the lives of the homeless and very poor right here in America with 32 billion dollars, I don't even know how to respond to that kind of a claim. Honestly, we probably wouldn't even need the whole 32 billion to make sure every person had a bed to sleep in at night (even if it's a homeless shelter) and food to eat. It's like we ignore the fact that these people exist because it's not as widespread of a problem as it is in Africa.

It seems like all of your argument is an emotional appeal, effectively the same as "won't somebody PLEASE think of the children?!" But I find that attitude ignorant and callous to the plight of (I'm assuming) our countrymen. Does it suck that things are terrible in 3rd world countries? Yes it does. I'm more than willing to help them out, but only after we take care of ourselves. As it stands, the immediate effect of foreign aid that gives basic medical support and food/clean water isn't economic growth (for them or us) - it's population growth. If we really want to help shitty countries we should be helping them build infrastructure, schools, etc. All we're doing right now is ensuring that more children are successfully born into and grow up in very shitty living conditions.

Think of it as the "give a man a fish" idea. Right now we're giving away fish.

[archibaldcrane]

Um, you realize the greatest recipients of US foreign aid are Israel, Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan right?

Not exactly "Africa or people from tropical climates".

[archibaldcrane]

I'm not saying that's better or worse, but let's actually talk about reality here.

[Kohan]

It seems like all of your argument is an emotional appeal, effectively the same as "won't somebody PLEASE think of the children?!" But I find that attitude ignorant and callous to the plight of (I'm assuming) our countrymen.

No, it isn't. However, you don't want to believe what perhaps the most educated and experienced American alive (in relation to foreign aid and charitable causes) is saying, nor do you understand any of the "bigger picture" scenarios I've described (e.g., stymieing diseases that could devastate our own poor as well). As mentioned previously, you're looking for strict dollar signs, which shows a gross misunderstanding of how foreign aid has different forms of worth, and how the consequences of cutting it would in fact be expensive. If you think that's just an emotional appeal, and that this money would actually cause a significant impact here, you can think that all day long, but it's utter nonsense. You're concentrating on squeezing blood out of a stone, and you're saying it's patriotic? Ludicrous.

If none of what has been provided can convince you, I suggest seeking out educational material on your own that satisfies whatever curiosities you have left. I have to forewarn you, though: practically the only sites that clearly discourage foreign aid are less "well-researched" and more "batshit crazy."

[archibaldcrane]

Guys, guys...

we aren't investing foreign aid into Israel, Iraq, Afghanistan, or Pakistan for the goal of "fighting diseases".
http://media.nj.com/njv_impact/photo/10263376-large.jpg
Also, the amount of our foreign aid (as a % of GDP) is a joke.

http://www.designlessbetter.com/blog...d-spending.jpg

[Kohan]

Guys, guys...

we aren't investing foreign aid into Israel, Iraq, Afghanistan, or Pakistan for the goal of "fighting diseases".

Yes, those places are where the majority of our aid is going, and no, it's not solely for that reason, but I wasn't making a point of it because it's what all the money is being spent on (as it isn't). Rather, I was trying to explain that foreign aid is useful to us in a great variety of ways, and that is one of them.

Everything you've just posted is going to be dismissed as the videos were, as they talk about what's in those images.

[Plow]

Guys, we can't profit off of them until they're at least able to make profits themselves, so there's no reason to help them get to that point.

Spoiler: show

- every libertarian argument about anything ever

[Blubbartron]

Archi - I was (and am) intentionally ignoring military aid. Military aid is most often used to help protect our allies and our interests. I wish it would stop too, because we don't need to support Israel, and we don't need military bases across the world, but at least I can understand why people would want to do those things. There are rational reasons for doing it, but I don't agree with them (too much Team America for me). With economic aid, I'm failing to see any rational reason for prioritizing 3rd world countries over our own. If we didn't have any homeless and starving people in America, then fuck yeah, help out everyone. But we do have homeless and starving people here. Quite a lot of them in fact.

No, it isn't. However, you don't want to believe what perhaps the most educated and experienced American alive (in relation to foreign aid and charitable causes) is saying, nor do you understand any of the "bigger picture" scenarios I've described (e.g., stymieing diseases that could devastate our own poor as well). As mentioned previously, you're looking for strict dollar signs, which shows a gross misunderstanding of how foreign aid has different forms of worth, and how the consequences of cutting it would in fact be expensive. If you think that's just an emotional appeal, and that this money would actually cause a significant impact here, you can think that all day long, but it's utter nonsense. You're concentrating on squeezing blood out of a stone, and you're saying it's patriotic? Ludicrous.

If none of what has been provided can convince you, I suggest seeking out educational material on your own that satisfies whatever curiosities you have left. I have to forewarn you, though: practically the only sites that clearly discourage foreign aid are less "well-researched" and more "batshit crazy."

Kindly don't use a logical fallacy like the appeal to authority (Bill Gates is awesome, you should believe everything he says). I'm simply looking for evidence or a rational explanation of how his (and others') claims could be true, as they defy logic. I'm not looking for strict dollar signs, I'm asking for how economic aid to foreign countries benefits us (other than making us feel good), as has been claimed several times.

Please explain how $32 BILLION will have no significant impact on the lives of the <1 million homeless people in America. I don't deny that it could have "more" impact in a shitty country, but you're implying that we can't help the people in our own country that need help, and we fucking can.

Please explain why we need to worry about stymieing diseases that could affect our poor when our first priority should be helping our poor not be poor. While you're at it, explain the prevalence of diseases like malaria spreading into 1st world countries. Because frankly, I've never heard of anything so ridiculous. Malaria is tough to spread human to human (like HIV) - protected sex, safe blood transfusions, and sanitized needles stop it in its tracks. It's also curable, which is how we eradicated it back in the 50's in America.

And one more time, although the % of GDP (or budget) is very, very small, the actual amount is quite large. I'm not saying we should save that money like some kind of penny-pinching miser - I'm saying we should prioritize our own people that need help first.

I'm not trying to be a dick or anything, it's entirely possible that it's completely logical to invest in other countries, but no one has provided a "how" explanation. Every video, every post is just saying "it does ALL this stuff, really!" I need information/data/explanations, not opinions. Examples in history to help draw conclusions. Fuck, I'll take anything that even tenuously correlates foreign aid with positive impact on the U.S., but I need it to be more than just some guy (even if it's Bill Gates) saying it does. Humanitarianism is an emotional game, and emotion frequently overrides logical thought and reasoning (that's why I don't believe claims like this automatically - even from educated/experienced people).

[Plow]

whynotboth.jpg?

[Blubbartron]

whynotboth.jpg?

Because we simply don't have the ability to help everyone. Obviously we have to choose who we help and how much. Personally, I consider it a moral imperative to take care of yourself before you help take care of others. You can't help other people for very long if you let your own shit get fucked up.

In other news, I was trying to search for some kind of evidence supporting Kohan's (and others') points, and found a nice long report. The opening summary leads me to believe there won't be as much evidence as either of us would hope for our opinions. It's long, and I doubt I'll get all the way through it today. Work to do.

http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/row/R42827.pdf

[hey]

http://www.designlessbetter.com/blog...d-spending.jpg

People think 10% should go to foreign aid? Wow!

[Plow]

Because we simply don't have the ability to help everyone. Obviously we have to choose who we help and how much. Personally, I consider it a moral imperative to take care of yourself before you help take care of others. You can't help other people for very long if you let your own shit get fucked up.

In other news, I was trying to search for some kind of evidence supporting Kohan's (and others') points, and found a nice long report. The opening summary leads me to believe there won't be as much evidence as either of us would hope for our opinions. It's long, and I doubt I'll get all the way through it today. Work to do.

http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/row/R42827.pdf

We can definitely afford both more foreign aid and massive steps against poverty here.

We simply choose other things. Like the 2/3 of our military budget we could cut and still be spending about $1.50 for every dollar the next guy spends. Or the super luxurious mattresses for mitt romney's money in the caribbean.

[Blubbartron]

We can definitely afford both more foreign aid and massive steps against poverty here.

We simply choose other things. Like the 2/3 of our military budget we could cut and still be spending about $1.50 for every dollar the next guy spends. Or the super luxurious mattresses for mitt romney's money in the caribbean.

Oh for sure there's a lot more we could do if we slashed the budget for defense (I always find it ironic they call it that, since it's really for offense). However, even then, we have limited resources. We'll be able to help more people, maybe even all people, but the question will simplify to "how much" instead of "which people and how much". At that point the questions regarding humanitarianism start to get really, really interesting. If you have the ability to take a 3rd world country and dump so much money into it that it has the infrastructure and government of a 1st world country, how would that impact the culture? Would people adequately adjust? Is it morally justifiable to only provide basic medical supplies and food/clean water if you could do more? We're talking about cultures that are, in some cases, one or two centuries behind modern civilization. It's a really "Prime Directive" type of situation.

[Acevalefor]

Oh for sure there's a lot more we could do if we slashed the budget for defense (I always find it ironic they call it that, since it's really for offense). However, even then, we have limited resources. We'll be able to help more people, maybe even all people, but the question will simplify to "how much" instead of "which people and how much". At that point the questions regarding humanitarianism start to get really, really interesting. If you have the ability to take a 3rd world country and dump so much money into it that it has the infrastructure and government of a 1st world country, how would that impact the culture? Would people adequately adjust? Is it morally justifiable to only provide basic medical supplies and food/clean water if you could do more? We're talking about cultures that are, in some cases, one or two centuries behind modern civilization. It's a really "Prime Directive" type of situation.

The Prime Directive really does apply here. I don't think people would adjust well at all.

[test123]

Seems to me foreign aid just makes problems worse.

http://www.leeds.ac.uk/demographic_e...%20imports.PNG

[GoggleHead]

That is the worst chart I've seen all week.

[Blubbartron]

It is a bad chart, but it's exactly what you would expect to happen when you suddenly and dramatically reduce the rates of starvation, malnourishment, and death due to lack of basic medical care/food/clean water. The only reason their culture still exists in the face of their staggering mortality rates is the obscenely high birth rates. They're not going to slow down the birth rates overnight, possibly ever, unless they're taught the value of population growth management.

edit: It's worth noting that most countries on the planet still need to be taught the value of population growth management, including America. China is the only exception I can think of, but their culture fucks up the entire concept by valuing males over females, which leads to lop-sided populations.

[BaneTheBrawler]

Seems to me foreign aid just makes problems worse.

http://www.leeds.ac.uk/demographic_e...%20imports.PNG

LOLOLOL did you draw that yourself? Should we hang it on the refrigerator with the "WORLD'S BEST DAD" magnet you gave us last father's day?

[Correction]

Right-click "open image in new tab" and check the parent URL

What in the actual fucking hell.

http://www.leeds.ac.uk/demographic_e...014%202012.png
http://www.leeds.ac.uk/demographic_e...uly%202012.png
This is the true face of crazy.

[Mrbeansman]

We could spend 1 million dollars on magic bullet cure for any current and future cancer and test would still be against it cause it didn't come from the LOL free market.