Obama
-
Josh Gray wrote:
you'll see I gave credit where it's due
sorta kinda ;) Certainly there was no reason to single out your country. To the best of my knowledge there is no non-African country, including a number that have taken it upon themselves to lecture the U.S. at length regarding equality of racial opportunity who have even come close to electing someone of African descent at their Chief Executive.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
Oakman wrote:
Josh Gray wrote: you'll see I gave credit where it's due sorta kinda [Wink]
Thats the best you're gunna get so take it or leave it :)
Oakman wrote:
Certainly there was no reason to single out your country. To the best of my knowledge there is no non-African country, including a number that have taken it upon themselves to lecture the U.S. at length regarding equality of racial opportunity who have even come close to electing someone of African descent at their Chief Executive.
Because comparisson between any two countries is worthless Now, how does it go again...... I, Barack Hussein Obama, do solemnly swear that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States.... ;P
-
John Carson wrote:
The guy just keeps getting better and better.
Presumably Oz is altready meeting this goal?
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
Oakman wrote:
Presumably Oz is altready meeting this goal?
No, Australia's record is pretty miserable (albeit better than that of the US) --- currently around 0.3%. The Rudd government has promised to increase it to 0.5% by 2015. I would certainly like to see it go to 0.7% or higher and before 2015. The Scandanavian countries (Sweden, Denmark, Norway) exceed the figure and have done so for some years.
John Carson
-
John Carson wrote:
Sounds like another reason for voting for Obama.
Good thing you can't vote. Seriously... we're already WAY into the red and getting deeper every day. Why would it make sense for us to give away money?
Mike Mullikin wrote:
Why would it make sense for us to give away money?
Well...it might bother you that something like 20 million people die preventable deaths each year due to lack of medical treatment etc. Or that hundreds of millions lack basic education, clean drinking water, basic medical care etc. Just a thought. Yeah, I know that third world governments are pretty crappy and that the problems are difficult to solve. But the fact that success is difficult doesn't stop people from spending untold millions on beauty treatments, diet plans, counselling and all manner of other things that produce very little result for the money. If people care about things, they are willing to spend money on them. People just don't care enough.
John Carson
-
Mike Mullikin wrote:
Why would it make sense for us to give away money?
Well...it might bother you that something like 20 million people die preventable deaths each year due to lack of medical treatment etc. Or that hundreds of millions lack basic education, clean drinking water, basic medical care etc. Just a thought. Yeah, I know that third world governments are pretty crappy and that the problems are difficult to solve. But the fact that success is difficult doesn't stop people from spending untold millions on beauty treatments, diet plans, counselling and all manner of other things that produce very little result for the money. If people care about things, they are willing to spend money on them. People just don't care enough.
John Carson
John Carson wrote:
People just don't care enough.
Yeah but it starts with the people in the situation themselves. If they don't care enough to help themselves there is little point for anyone else. In that scope, I care about America and I think we can help ourselves and do a lot of good around the world later on if we solve our financial problems first. As a country, if we implode or fade away like previous empires we can help no one.
-
John Carson wrote:
People just don't care enough.
Yeah but it starts with the people in the situation themselves. If they don't care enough to help themselves there is little point for anyone else. In that scope, I care about America and I think we can help ourselves and do a lot of good around the world later on if we solve our financial problems first. As a country, if we implode or fade away like previous empires we can help no one.
Mike Mullikin wrote:
Yeah but it starts with the people in the situation themselves. If they don't care enough to help themselves there is little point for anyone else.
I'm sure there are lots of individuals in these countries who are helping themselves. Then again, two year old children who die of disease cannot be expected to assume a high level of responsibility for their fate. We are talking about the result of hundreds of years of development or the lack thereof. Had you been born in some African country to an impoverished peasant, your situation would likely be rather different from what it is today. In the end, it still gets back to people not caring enough. They will spend vast sums on, say, another diet program or another counsellor or another educational program for themselves or their children even after the first one failed because they didn't take advantage of the opportunity to "help themselves". And not all aid fails anyway. Do you think Bill Gates is wasting his aid money? I think the main reason aid fails is that, once again, people don't care enough to demand accountability in the way aid is spent.
Mike Mullikin wrote:
In that scope, I care about America and I think we can help ourselves and do a lot of good around the world later on if we solve our financial problems first.
America's financial problems are a mere trifle in comparison to those of most countries in Africa.
John Carson
-
Mike Mullikin wrote:
Yeah but it starts with the people in the situation themselves. If they don't care enough to help themselves there is little point for anyone else.
I'm sure there are lots of individuals in these countries who are helping themselves. Then again, two year old children who die of disease cannot be expected to assume a high level of responsibility for their fate. We are talking about the result of hundreds of years of development or the lack thereof. Had you been born in some African country to an impoverished peasant, your situation would likely be rather different from what it is today. In the end, it still gets back to people not caring enough. They will spend vast sums on, say, another diet program or another counsellor or another educational program for themselves or their children even after the first one failed because they didn't take advantage of the opportunity to "help themselves". And not all aid fails anyway. Do you think Bill Gates is wasting his aid money? I think the main reason aid fails is that, once again, people don't care enough to demand accountability in the way aid is spent.
Mike Mullikin wrote:
In that scope, I care about America and I think we can help ourselves and do a lot of good around the world later on if we solve our financial problems first.
America's financial problems are a mere trifle in comparison to those of most countries in Africa.
John Carson
Can I assume that you are living VERY near poverty level yourself because ALL of your "extra" money is going straight to Africa? How can you justify a PC and internet access plus the electricity to run it all when even a single child is dying? [EDIT] More appropriately, can we assume that you have borrowed HEAVILY to the point that 10% of all your income is used to pay the interest on your loans? Are you still ready to risk EVERYTHING to help children on another continent whose distress is mostly caused by their own ancestors and governments?
John Carson wrote:
I think the main reason aid fails is that, once again, people don't care enough to demand accountability in the way aid is spent.
John Carson wrote:
America's financial problems are a mere trifle in comparison to those of most countries in Africa.
Agreed, but if the former isn't fixed all 1st world governments are throwing money away while going broke themselves with the end result being a 3rd world planet. Essentially a world wide "dark age".
John Carson wrote:
Do you think Bill Gates is wasting his aid money?
Not at all - but charity is meant to be an individual act of kindness. Taxing people to "aid" other's failures is welfare / socialism. Two things that I do not agree with.
modified on Thursday, June 5, 2008 10:32 AM
-
Can I assume that you are living VERY near poverty level yourself because ALL of your "extra" money is going straight to Africa? How can you justify a PC and internet access plus the electricity to run it all when even a single child is dying? [EDIT] More appropriately, can we assume that you have borrowed HEAVILY to the point that 10% of all your income is used to pay the interest on your loans? Are you still ready to risk EVERYTHING to help children on another continent whose distress is mostly caused by their own ancestors and governments?
John Carson wrote:
I think the main reason aid fails is that, once again, people don't care enough to demand accountability in the way aid is spent.
John Carson wrote:
America's financial problems are a mere trifle in comparison to those of most countries in Africa.
Agreed, but if the former isn't fixed all 1st world governments are throwing money away while going broke themselves with the end result being a 3rd world planet. Essentially a world wide "dark age".
John Carson wrote:
Do you think Bill Gates is wasting his aid money?
Not at all - but charity is meant to be an individual act of kindness. Taxing people to "aid" other's failures is welfare / socialism. Two things that I do not agree with.
modified on Thursday, June 5, 2008 10:32 AM
Mike Mullikin wrote:
Can I assume that you are living VERY near poverty level yourself because ALL of your "extra" money is going straight to Africa? How can you justify a PC and internet access plus the electricity to run it all when even a single child is dying?
That is an interesting discussion in itself. At one point in my distant youth, I would have met your standard (for example, I sold off my cassette recorder as an unjustifiable indulgence and abstained from going to a picture theatre or any other form of commercial entertainment for several years for the same reason). My current lifestyle is more indulgent. But all that is rather beside the point for present purposes, since I am not asking you or anyone else to live near the poverty line. Foreign aid at the level being discussed would barely be noticed. As I commented elsewhere in this thread, a number of countries (Sweden, Denmark, Norway and Holland) already meet the target.
Mike Mullikin wrote:
Agreed, but if the former isn't fixed all 1st world governments are throwing money away while going broke themselves with the end result being a 3rd world planet. Essentially a world wide "dark age".
This is pure nonsense. Foreign aid of 0.7% wouldn't send the US or any other Western country broke or anything remotely like it.
John Carson
-
Mike Mullikin wrote:
Can I assume that you are living VERY near poverty level yourself because ALL of your "extra" money is going straight to Africa? How can you justify a PC and internet access plus the electricity to run it all when even a single child is dying?
That is an interesting discussion in itself. At one point in my distant youth, I would have met your standard (for example, I sold off my cassette recorder as an unjustifiable indulgence and abstained from going to a picture theatre or any other form of commercial entertainment for several years for the same reason). My current lifestyle is more indulgent. But all that is rather beside the point for present purposes, since I am not asking you or anyone else to live near the poverty line. Foreign aid at the level being discussed would barely be noticed. As I commented elsewhere in this thread, a number of countries (Sweden, Denmark, Norway and Holland) already meet the target.
Mike Mullikin wrote:
Agreed, but if the former isn't fixed all 1st world governments are throwing money away while going broke themselves with the end result being a 3rd world planet. Essentially a world wide "dark age".
This is pure nonsense. Foreign aid of 0.7% wouldn't send the US or any other Western country broke or anything remotely like it.
John Carson
-
John Carson wrote:
a number of countries (Sweden, Denmark, Norway and Holland) already meet the target.
How much government debt do they have?
Mike Mullikin wrote:
How much government debt do they have?
You can do your own Googling, but it is really beside the point. In Western economies, taxation takes up roughly 30-50% of national income (depending on the country). The tax increase necessary to raise foreign aid to 0.7% of national income is trivial in comparison.
John Carson
-
Mike Mullikin wrote:
How much government debt do they have?
You can do your own Googling, but it is really beside the point. In Western economies, taxation takes up roughly 30-50% of national income (depending on the country). The tax increase necessary to raise foreign aid to 0.7% of national income is trivial in comparison.
John Carson
John Carson wrote:
In Western economies, taxation takes up roughly 30-50% of national income (depending on the country). The tax increase necessary to raise foreign aid to 0.7% of national income is trivial in comparison.
Cool. Then it should be no problem for the non-US "Western economies" to pony up just a tiny bit more until the US pays off it's own debt. Thanks!
-
John Carson wrote:
In Western economies, taxation takes up roughly 30-50% of national income (depending on the country). The tax increase necessary to raise foreign aid to 0.7% of national income is trivial in comparison.
Cool. Then it should be no problem for the non-US "Western economies" to pony up just a tiny bit more until the US pays off it's own debt. Thanks!
Mike Mullikin wrote:
Cool. Then it should be no problem for the non-US "Western economies" to pony up just a tiny bit more until the US pays off it's own debt. Thanks!
The US currently has the lowest tax burden of any Western economy (as a percentage of GDP), so it has vastly more scope to raise it than most Western economies. The relative size of the US economy also means that other Western economies would need to increase their foreign aid substantially in percentage terms in order to compensate for a failure of the US to raise its foreign aid. No doubt they could do it. No doubt the US could do it more easily. Just by the way, Australia's foreign aid record is not much better than that of the US and Australia also has a comparatively low tax burden.
John Carson
-
Oakman wrote:
Presumably Oz is altready meeting this goal?
No, Australia's record is pretty miserable (albeit better than that of the US) --- currently around 0.3%. The Rudd government has promised to increase it to 0.5% by 2015. I would certainly like to see it go to 0.7% or higher and before 2015. The Scandanavian countries (Sweden, Denmark, Norway) exceed the figure and have done so for some years.
John Carson
-
John Carson wrote:
albeit better than that of the US
Are we counting the cost of providing security for the South Pacific as part of foreign aid?
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
Oakman wrote:
Are we counting the cost of providing security for the South Pacific as part of foreign aid?
To the best of my knowledge, no.
John Carson