Global Poverty Act

[chapmac]

I don't understand why we are always having to borrow money from China. Do they have more than we do? Where are they getting all their money?

[irishcowboy]

I don't understand why we are always having to borrow money from China. Do they have more than we do? Where are they getting all their money?

Yeah, they (China) is buying our grade one steel and using it over there, and we are buying grade two and three from them at about the same price as they were/are buying our grade one.

they (CHina) are building a city the size of Philli about once a week (maybe a month, not sure which, but either way, that takes a lot of material, and is quite a bit of building going on with our grade one steel.)

so, yea, we could borrow from them... and that means they are actually buying some of america.

mike

[MorningGlory]

Yes, I know. That is why I am so frustrated with obamas bill.

We cant get our government to stop giving away money we dont have.

Oh the mexico money is so they can secure their southern border!

Can you believe that?

Mexico is mad because immigrants are coming to mexico illegally from the south.

But it's okay for mexico to encourage illegal immigration to America.

It's okay for our government to spend money on securing mexicos borders but not our own.

ARGHH!! I could just scream!

Me too, Giaour, me too......scream, that is.

[redwing]

Obama has a bill up before congress called the Global Poverty Act which gives $845 BILLION to the United Nations so that they can dispese to the poor around the world as THEY see fit. Oh by the way, the United States does not qwualify to receive ANY of the poverty money.

Now, why in the world would we go and spend $845 BILLION dollars of money we borrow from China and give it to the United Nations for poor children when we have poor right here in AMerica?

Besides, if we had that kind of money, we could start to balance the budget.

I agree Giaour. We are running a huge annual deficit as it is, and it is irresponsible to give away more money we don't have. Obama is a typical liberal. He will not only give away other people's money, but will give away money the government doesn't have, and add to the national debt.

While what you say is true, I have to point out that Mr. Bush just pledged $158,000,000,000 to Mexico and about $85,000,000,000 to Kenya...yesterday. Where is that money coming from and shouldn't it be used to aid our own citizens?

indeed! it should.

[forrestkc]

Does anyone disagree with the premise that a major priority of U.S. foreign policy should be to reduce global poverty and eliminate extreme poverty?

If you do, please speak up.

I most certainly do. Even if we had the power to do so, which we do not, why should we do it outside of our own country when we have poverty here? If individuals wish to "reduce global poverty," let them at it. Besides, the whole premise is completely wrong, for the problem isn't poverty, it's sin. That is, if we still believe in the Bible.

Marnie, you are smarter than this. Doing what we can to mitigate extreme poverty is very much in our national interests as well as being in the national interests of every other nation on earth. The more we can help the 3rd world increase its literacy rates, grow its own food, stop the spread of diseases like aids and malaria, and become more productive societies the better off we all are both in economic and national security. For example, when we build a school in the Middle East (or when any NGO or other developed nation does so), then those villages we build them in don't have to look to radical islamists who would build madrases there. When we teach a village in sub-Sahara Africa modern farming techniques and help them live sustainable lives, dictatorship does not foster so easily, and just as important, American countries can invest there (like oil companies).

If developed nations got nothing out of foreign aid, then none of them would do it. In the end, just like individuals tend to be selfish, so do nations. Most foreign aid is not based in some liberal altruism, but rather it is purely pragmatic. After all, doing what we reasonably can to promote stability, education, and sustainability in the third world is a lot cheaper than fighting wars there.

Of course, as a side note, if anyone is that concerned over the money, in terms of a percentage of GNP, we have the second smallest foreign aid budget in the developed world. Of course, because we are such a rich nation, the dollar amount is higher, but as a percentage of GNP, its tiny (we rank 21st in that regard).

[MorningGlory]

Does anyone disagree with the premise that a major priority of U.S. foreign policy should be to reduce global poverty and eliminate extreme poverty?

If you do, please speak up.

I most certainly do. Even if we had the power to do so, which we do not, why should we do it outside of our own country when we have poverty here? If individuals wish to "reduce global poverty," let them at it. Besides, the whole premise is completely wrong, for the problem isn't poverty, it's sin. That is, if we still believe in the Bible.

Marnie, you are smarter than this. Doing what we can to mitigate extreme poverty is very much in our national interests as well as being in the national interests of every other nation on earth. The more we can help the 3rd world increase its literacy rates, grow its own food, stop the spread of diseases like aids and malaria, and become more productive societies the better off we all are both in economic and national security. For example, when we build a school in the Middle East (or when any NGO or other developed nation does so), then those villages we build them in don't have to look to radical islamists who would build madrases there. When we teach a village in sub-Sahara Africa modern farming techniques and help them live sustainable lives, dictatorship does not foster so easily, and just as important, American countries can invest there (like oil companies).

If developed nations got nothing out of foreign aid, then none of them would do it. In the end, just like individuals tend to be selfish, so do nations. Most foreign aid is not based in some liberal altruism, but rather it is purely pragmatic. After all, doing what we reasonably can to promote stability, education, and sustainability in the third world is a lot cheaper than fighting wars there.

Of course, as a side note, if anyone is that concerned over the money, in terms of a percentage of GNP, we have the second smallest foreign aid budget in the developed world. Of course, because we are such a rich nation, the dollar amount is higher, but as a percentage of GNP, its tiny (we rank 21st in that regard).

I don't doubt you, Forrest, but can you post the source of those figures?

[Giaour]

Does anyone disagree with the premise that a major priority of U.S. foreign policy should be to reduce global poverty and eliminate extreme poverty?

If you do, please speak up.

I most certainly do. Even if we had the power to do so, which we do not, why should we do it outside of our own country when we have poverty here? If individuals wish to "reduce global poverty," let them at it. Besides, the whole premise is completely wrong, for the problem isn't poverty, it's sin. That is, if we still believe in the Bible.

Marnie, you are smarter than this. Doing what we can to mitigate extreme poverty is very much in our national interests as well as being in the national interests of every other nation on earth. The more we can help the 3rd world increase its literacy rates, grow its own food, stop the spread of diseases like aids and malaria, and become more productive societies the better off we all are both in economic and national security. For example, when we build a school in the Middle East (or when any NGO or other developed nation does so), then those villages we build them in don't have to look to radical islamists who would build madrases there. When we teach a village in sub-Sahara Africa modern farming techniques and help them live sustainable lives, dictatorship does not foster so easily, and just as important, American countries can invest there (like oil companies).

If developed nations got nothing out of foreign aid, then none of them would do it. In the end, just like individuals tend to be selfish, so do nations. Most foreign aid is not based in some liberal altruism, but rather it is purely pragmatic. After all, doing what we reasonably can to promote stability, education, and sustainability in the third world is a lot cheaper than fighting wars there.

Of course, as a side note, if anyone is that concerned over the money, in terms of a percentage of GNP, we have the second smallest foreign aid budget in the developed world. Of course, because we are such a rich nation, the dollar amount is higher, but as a percentage of GNP, its tiny (we rank 21st in that regard).

Here's an idea. Let's spend that money on educating Americans, making college affordable for every American,helping American Farmers, medical research for disease cures, and feeding the poor Americans, getting the American homeless homes, getting the unemployed Americans jobs, reducing medical care costs for the uninsured Americans, and even spend that money on social security for Americans, and how about using that money to secure the AMERICAN borders.

[MorningGlory]

Here's an idea. Let's spend that money on educating Americans, making college affordable for every American,helping American Farmers, medical research for disease cures, and feeding the poor Americans, getting the American homeless homes, getting the unemployed Americans jobs, reducing medical care costs for the uninsured Americans, and even spend that money on social security for Americans, and how about using that money to secure the AMERICAN borders.

Amen! I fail to see any results from the billions poured into other countries, except Israel, so why do it?

[irishcowboy]

it has been said ( wish i could remember where I read the study )

that if all the money and all the assets were pulled in and divided up completely equal among every person on earth, that in 10 years, 90 - 95 % of it would be right back in the same hands it was in before it was all taken......

this is evident in those that win the lotteries, and other big money winners.....

how many of them still have their winnings? giving the money away is not always the answer, we have to be wise about it, good stewards.......

give a man a fish, he eats for a meal, teach the man to fish, and he can eat for a life time...

mike

[nebula]

Of course, because we are such a rich nation, the dollar amount is higher, but as a percentage of GNP, its tiny (we rank 21st in that regard).

So, if I gave $200 to a charity, and Bill gates gave $200,000 to that same charity, can I complain that I gave a greater percentage of my earnings away than Bill Gates did?