Foreign aid.

Boyish-Tigerlilly · Post by **Boyish-Tigerlilly** » 2004-10-06 04:37pm

How much money could be saved by cutting off foreign aid to some countries? Is it profitable? I always get different numbers from sources.

Joe · Post by **Joe** » 2004-10-06 04:56pm

IIRC the US spends about 10-15 billion a year on foreign aid.

TheDarkling · Post by **TheDarkling** » 2004-10-06 05:02pm

The US spent $15 billion on aid in 2003 (up from 9 billion in 2000), which placed them top in monetary terms and bottom as a % of GDP (out of Western nations).

Admiral Valdemar · Post by **Admiral Valdemar** » 2004-10-06 05:13pm

Retracting foreign aid really would be the last straw for the world stage. You'd get the impression that the US is keen on invading other nations and helping them build so long as there's cash in it for them rather than the whole moral aspect of it (which is constantly preached by Reverand Bush).

Boyish-Tigerlilly · Post by **Boyish-Tigerlilly** » 2004-10-06 05:34pm

despite the problematic political stage, would it be helpful to pay for home -projects like universal health? Could it potential defray the cost of something worthwhile?

The Kernel · Post by **The Kernel** » 2004-10-06 05:51pm

Boyish-Tigerlilly wrote:despite the problematic political stage, would it be helpful to pay for home -projects like universal health? Could it potential defray the cost of something worthwhile?

The US today spends less per capita on foreign aid then almost any other first world nation. It is easy to think that cutting off said aid would free up more money for domestic projects, but looking at the big picture it is easy to see plenty of other cuts that could be made to the budget before foreign aid. If we want universal health care there are a series of fundemental changes that need to be made to the health care system, money is just one aspect of it.

If anything we should be increasing foreign aid, and not just through direct funds. The HIV epidemic in Africa has reached increadible proportions and needs to be addressed by pushing drug companies to offer affordable HIV medication to people in impovished nations as well as HIV prevention education. These programs cost money but what is the alternative? Letting millions die from a disease that is ravaging their nation just to free up a relatively small amount of funds that amounts to a very small percentage of tax cuts to the upper 1% of America? Where's the fucking logic in that?

Boyish-Tigerlilly · Post by **Boyish-Tigerlilly** » 2004-10-06 08:37pm

Well, what could be cut, in your opinion? I don't think we can increase aid without getting the money somewhow, and I don't think taxation will go over big. I don't know what people might want to cut. Has to come from somewhere.

The Kernel · Post by **The Kernel** » 2004-10-06 08:47pm

Boyish-Tigerlilly wrote:Well, what could be cut, in your opinion? I don't think we can increase aid without getting the money somewhow, and I don't think taxation will go over big. I don't know what people might want to cut. Has to come from somewhere.

First, roll back the tax cuts to the upper 1% of earners just on general principle. There is no reason for those who earn over $200,000 a year to get tax relief.

As for health care specifically, what is needed is not more money at first, but a refinement of all the waste in the system. First, medical malpractice needs a complete overhaul in the courts in order to drastically cut the number of frivalous lawsuits. Edwards made an excellent point last night in the Vice Presidential debate about holding malpractice lawyers financially and professionally accountable for frivalous lawsuits filed, and this is but one of many reforms that will help reduce the enormous costs of medical malpractice insurance (which will lead to huge reductions in overall health care costs).

The next group to be targeted is the drug companies. These corporations have insane profit margins that are not affecting their R&D budget whatsoever (despite their bickering to the contrary, all one needs to do is take a cursory look at their P&L statements) so heavier regulation, particularly in the areas of critical drugs, is mandated. This will leave them free to make money on the so called "cosmetic" medications, while making the necessary drugs that people need in order to survive orders of magnitude cheaper.

If both these actions are taken and meet with even limited success, you will see saving of hundreds of billions of dollars in Medicare/Medicaid costs alone while giving workers better health benefits and taking pressure off of businesses to keep headcount numbers lower then they might otherwise be.

The Cleric · Post by **The Cleric** » 2004-10-07 12:44am

The Kernel wrote:
Boyish-Tigerlilly wrote:Well, what could be cut, in your opinion? I don't think we can increase aid without getting the money somewhow, and I don't think taxation will go over big. I don't know what people might want to cut. Has to come from somewhere.

As for health care specifically, what is needed is not more money at first, but a refinement of all the waste in the system. First, medical malpractice needs a complete overhaul in the courts in order to drastically cut the number of frivalous lawsuits. Edwards made an excellent point last night in the Vice Presidential debate about holding malpractice lawyers financially and professionally accountable for frivalous lawsuits filed, and this is but one of many reforms that will help reduce the enormous costs of medical malpractice insurance (which will lead to huge reductions in overall health care costs).
Agreed.

The next group to be targeted is the drug companies. These corporations have insane profit margins that are not affecting their R&D budget whatsoever (despite their bickering to the contrary, all one needs to do is take a cursory look at their P&L statements) so heavier regulation, particularly in the areas of critical drugs, is mandated. This will leave them free to make money on the so called "cosmetic" medications, while making the necessary drugs that people need in order to survive orders of magnitude cheaper.

Sure, but good luck pulling it off.

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2004-10-07 12:50am

The Kernel wrote:As for health care specifically, what is needed is not more money at first, but a refinement of all the waste in the system. First, medical malpractice needs a complete overhaul in the courts in order to drastically cut the number of frivalous lawsuits. Edwards made an excellent point last night in the Vice Presidential debate about holding malpractice lawyers financially and professionally accountable for frivalous lawsuits filed, and this is but one of many reforms that will help reduce the enormous costs of medical malpractice insurance (which will lead to huge reductions in overall health care costs).

The next group to be targeted is the drug companies. These corporations have insane profit margins that are not affecting their R&D budget whatsoever (despite their bickering to the contrary, all one needs to do is take a cursory look at their P&L statements) so heavier regulation, particularly in the areas of critical drugs, is mandated. This will leave them free to make money on the so called "cosmetic" medications, while making the necessary drugs that people need in order to survive orders of magnitude cheaper.

If both these actions are taken and meet with even limited success, you will see saving of hundreds of billions of dollars in Medicare/Medicaid costs alone while giving workers better health benefits and taking pressure off of businesses to keep headcount numbers lower then they might otherwise be.

Mind you, even if all of this actually happened, it would still not solve the absurdity of the wealthiest nation in the world being unable to provide medical coverage for more than a tenth of its population.

Illuminatus Primus · Post by **Illuminatus Primus** » 2004-10-07 01:07am

90% of Americans don't have health insurance now? Citation please.

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2004-10-07 01:12am

Illuminatus Primus wrote:90% of Americans don't have health insurance now? Citation please.

I'm saying that more than 10% of the population is uninsured, not that they can only provide health insurance for 10% of the population. Don't be a jackass; I know perfectly well that the line I used could be interpreted both ways depending on how pedantic you want to be, but this is ridiculous.

EmperorChrostas the Cruel · Post by **EmperorChrostas the Cruel** » 2004-10-07 02:05am

The Kernel wrote:

"The US today spends less per capita on foreign aid then almost any other first world nation. It is easy to think that cutting off said aid would free up more money for domestic projects, but looking at the big picture it is easy to see plenty of other cuts that could be made to the budget before foreign aid. If we want universal health care there are a series of fundemental changes that need to be made to the health care system, money is just one aspect of it."

The old misinterpitaion of figures. Is this intentional, (America bashing) or an error in math and logic?
As of 2001, Germany had a poulation of 82m.
http://www.cheshire.gov.uk/R&I/CCFF/PDF ... PopEU1.pdf
France, Italy, and the UK are aprox 60m each.
The USA has a population of 240m. http://www.census.gov/popest/states/asr ... 003-05.pdf

THEREFORE, the USA would have to spend 3 times as much in government foreign aid to EQUAL the per capita forign aid by these first world counties.
(I left Australia out because I am being lazy, and it is only 20m)

And by the way, in per capita PERSONAL charity, Americans are by far the most generous with their own personel money.

A 100 pound man lifts twice his weight, and a 300 pound man only lifts 1.5x his weight. Do you assume that the 100 pound man is the stronger?
PER POUND, he is, but in absolute amount, he is a poor second place.(only performing at 2/3 of the larger man's strength)Since there is no weight class in foreign aid like lifting competitions, foreign aid goes head to head, all comers, no classes.(like golf!)

See the logic?
Now apply it to money.
The USA may give by by per capita less GOVERNMENT money, but in absolute terms we out spend the rest of the world in charity by a huge margin.
Then if you throw in private money, the USA is by FAR the most generous nation of this Earth.

The Kernel · Post by **The Kernel** » 2004-10-07 02:07am

Darth Wong wrote: Mind you, even if all of this actually happened, it would still not solve the absurdity of the wealthiest nation in the world being unable to provide medical coverage for more than a tenth of its population.

Actually, Medicare could quite easily cover the entire population if said cuts were made, along with a few other changes. One of the biggest expenses for Medicare is spending billions on treatments for terminally ill patients. I am not against giving treatments to people who have a chance to live, but when an 85 year old is given Chemo for their terminal cancer, it is obvious that something is wrong with our system.

In any case, universal healthcare could easily be a reality in this country, we simply haven't fought hard enough to reform our health care system yet. Hopefully if Kerry gets elected he will work hard towards this goal (Clinton has been like a mentor to him and Clinton wanted very much to give health care to everyone in the nation, although he was unable to do so during his presidency) because I've seen jack shit from the Bush Administration in this regard.

The Kernel · Post by **The Kernel** » 2004-10-07 02:21am

EmperorChrostas the Cruel wrote: The old misinterpitaion of figures. Is this intentional, (America bashing) or an error in math and logic?

There is no error in the math or logic of my simple statement that the US doesn't give nearly as much per capita as almost any other first world nation.

THEREFORE, the USA would have to spend 3 times as much in government foreign aid to EQUAL the per capita forign aid by these first world counties.

So? We have more people, which means we have more tax income. Ergo, we have much more to give.

And by the way, in per capita PERSONAL charity, Americans are by far the most generous with their own personel money.

Interestingly enough, this is probably because America has the largest income disparity between the elite and the median income level.

A 100 pound man lifts twice his weight, and a 300 pound man only lifts 1.5x his weight. Do you assume that the 100 pound man is the stronger?
PER POUND, he is, but in absolute amount, he is a poor second place.(only performing at 2/3 of the larger man's strength)Since there is no weight class in foreign aid like lifting competitions, foreign aid goes head to head, all comers, no classes.(like golf!)

There is no question that in absolute terms, the US gives more than any other first world nation (although not by all that much, especially when you consider our massive population difference) but that is meaningless as per captia is all that matters. If you grouped all the EU countries together in foreign aid spending you would come up with more that triple the amount of direct foreign aid spending from the EU.

Your argument is merely a matter of borders whereas I am talking about how much we can afford in foreign aid spending based on our population and tax income.

See the logic?
Now apply it to money.
The USA may give by by per capita less GOVERNMENT money, but in absolute terms we out spend the rest of the world in charity by a huge margin.

Not so huge a margin and Japan was giving more than us as little as three years ago. Furthermore, absolute spending is meaningless; the amount we give as a percentage of our GDP is what matters. And guess what? On this list of countries that give the biggest percentage of their GDP towards foreign aid, the United States come in twenty-second. Can you really say that the US is so generous?

Then if you throw in private money, the USA is by FAR the most generous nation of this Earth.

When you consider the enormous income disparity gap between those at the top and the median income, you can afford some generosity. Besides, do you have any evidence to suggest that US private investors are that much more generous then their first world counterparts?

Thinkmarble · Post by **Thinkmarble** » 2004-10-07 04:12am

Boyish-Tigerlilly wrote:despite the problematic political stage, would it be helpful to pay for home -projects like universal health? Could it potential defray the cost of something worthwhile?

It should be noted that a sensible universal healt care proposal is cheaper then the system in place right now.
Basically you could finance it by tax and the people would still be better off.

SirNitram · Post by **SirNitram** » 2004-10-07 10:33am

EmperorChrostas the Cruel wrote:THEREFORE, the USA would have to spend 3 times as much in government foreign aid to EQUAL the per capita forign aid by these first world counties.
(I left Australia out because I am being lazy, and it is only 20m)

I'm not seeing any facts cited to support the idea that this is utterly impossible.. Nope.. None at all.. How strange.. You'd think this site would require evidence..

And by the way, in per capita PERSONAL charity, Americans are by far the most generous with their own personel money.

Hey.. More totally unsupported assertions... Wow... I wonder if ECC will bother to actually back up his statements or expect others to do his work.

EmperorChrostas the Cruel · Post by **EmperorChrostas the Cruel** » 2004-10-07 02:39pm

Once again at slow speed.

http://www.city-journal.org/dev/html/4_2_the_other.html
The relavant point being,

Charitable donations are much higher in the United States than in Europe. In 1991, the mean monthly charitable donation for an American individual was $31.60, according to a study by the United Kingdom's Charities Aid Foundation. In France, which has the lowest rate of charitable giving, the comparable rate was $6.50 a month. In Britain it was $11.35 a month; in Spain, $12.60. (Interestingly, the North American cities with relatively low donation rates are Washington and Ottawa, the national capitals.)

Of course, one reason Americans give more to charity is that the tax code, unlike those of most European countries, gives them an incentive to do so. But these differences in tax policy themselves reflect cultural choices—in favor of voluntary idiosyncratic aid in the American case, and in favor of centralized state provision in the European case.

The second pargraph tells the tale.
The tax code dictates social policy. (like the encouragement of private ownership of a home via tax incentives)
I don't personaly believe all of the donations are made with good in mind, but a tax break. Doing good and good intentions are not always the same eh?
And YES, Americans ARE the most generous people on Earth at this time. In both foreign aid, and personal charity. Wheather it is for moral or fiscal ones.

As to Sir Nittam's lack of math skills, I don't care.

If you don't understand the difference in per capita and absolute??

Big round numbers. 250 X .001 = .25 60 X .004 = .24
So if if 250 and 60 are the population of the USA and 4 big EU heaveyweights, and .001 and .004, then the last numer would represent the amount of foriegn aid in absolute terms.
So they can spend 4 times as much per capita, and still spend less in absolute terms.

Any questions?

MKSheppard · Post by **MKSheppard** » 2004-10-07 02:44pm

EmperorChrostas the Cruel wrote:As to Sir Nittam's lack of math skills, I don't care.

/Sir Nitram watches as Sir Nittam is swallowed whole by the Space Slug and whistles cheerfully.

The Cleric · Post by **The Cleric** » 2004-10-07 02:47pm

MKSheppard wrote:
EmperorChrostas the Cruel wrote:As to Sir Nittam's lack of math skills, I don't care.
/Sir Nitram watches as Sir Nittam is swallowed whole by the Space Slug and whistles cheerfully.

Ummm.....

Did you mean to write that

?

The Kernel · Post by **The Kernel** » 2004-10-07 03:15pm

EmperorChrostas the Cruel wrote:Once again at slow speed.

http://www.city-journal.org/dev/html/4_2_the_other.html
The relavant point being,

Charitable donations are much higher in the United States than in Europe. In 1991, the mean monthly charitable donation for an American individual was $31.60, according to a study by the United Kingdom's Charities Aid Foundation. In France, which has the lowest rate of charitable giving, the comparable rate was $6.50 a month. In Britain it was $11.35 a month; in Spain, $12.60. (Interestingly, the North American cities with relatively low donation rates are Washington and Ottawa, the national capitals.)

Totally meaningless, the article you quoted has to do with domestic spending on welfare and social security, not foreign aid.

Of course, one reason Americans give more to charity is that the tax code, unlike those of most European countries, gives them an incentive to do so. But these differences in tax policy themselves reflect cultural choices—in favor of voluntary idiosyncratic aid in the American case, and in favor of centralized state provision in the European case.

Which is still unproven by you, not to mention that there is little incentive to turn this into international aid.

The second pargraph tells the tale.
The tax code dictates social policy. (like the encouragement of private ownership of a home via tax incentives)
I don't personaly believe all of the donations are made with good in mind, but a tax break. Doing good and good intentions are not always the same eh?

What the hell does this have to do with foreign aid? I have an idea, how about coming up with some SOLID NUMBERS and answering my first response POINT BY POINT.

And YES, Americans ARE the most generous people on Earth at this time. In both foreign aid, and personal charity. Wheather it is for moral or fiscal ones.

Prove it you fucking evasive little shit.

As to Sir Nittam's lack of math skills, I don't care.

If you don't understand the difference in per capita and absolute??

Aparently you do not understand the actual difference between the two and their respective meanings.

Any questions?

Yes, do you suffer from an ailment that makes it impossible for you to make a relevent point?

EmperorChrostas the Cruel · Post by **EmperorChrostas the Cruel** » 2004-10-07 03:43pm

Fuck, shit, piss!

I had the info at hand, and linked to the WRONG web site!

The quote I gave did NOT come from the same link! There was much more as well. But like the cooking school student told his teacher, "The dog ate my homework, but I don't expect you to believe that, so I am prepared to accept a failing grade."

I can not retrace my steps and find it again.

(How man times will this happen to me before I learn to book mark rather than trust my browser's history function?)

I must therefor concede all points on the provision of lack of ADMISSABLE evidence to support my claim.

(or, as my drill sergant would say, "Even IF you're right, (technicaly correct) you're wrong!" (Failed!)

SirNitram · Post by **SirNitram** » 2004-10-07 04:23pm

EmperorChrostas the Cruel wrote:As to Sir Nittam's lack of math skills, I don't care.

If you don't understand the difference in per capita and absolute??

For those who can't read fucking English, do you understand that I was asking for you to back up your shit, since you provided no numbers or references whatsoever in your first post? Should I speak in your native language, gibberish, next time I ask you to provide something more than assertions without even numbers?

EmperorChrostas the Cruel · Post by **EmperorChrostas the Cruel** » 2004-10-07 04:34pm

Ahh Sir Nittam,
I knew I could count on on last hit after tapping out.
"Just how not guilty do you want to BE, Mrs. Furillo?"

Cookie for the obscure reference.

tharkûn · Post by **tharkûn** » 2004-10-07 05:56pm

Cutting US government foreign aid is a drop in the bucket, unless you count the outright bribery of certain states so they comply with the interests of the US government. This, of course, ignores the services provided to the world community by the US government; i.e. GPS, policing the high seas to ensure free passage of global commerce, public domain research funding, etc. The exact percentage of these budgetary items which should be "counted" towards US philanthropy is extremely debateable, but the world does tangibly benifit without paying.

Private charitable giving in the US stands at about 240 billion, of which 2.2% is specifically earmarked for international affairs. This is likely an undercount. 10% of all charitable giving is not categorized (at least according the IRS), the 35.9% of charitable giving that goes toward religious organizations undoubtedly has some overseas compotent not specifically designated as such, and most of the other categorizations have the potential for overlap.

A very nice pie chart on what Americans give privately can be found at:

http://www.aafrc.org/about_aafrc/bytypeof67.html

Frankly though I'm not all that impressed with the amount of money anyone, country or individual, gives out. Many nations have been balck holes for international aid and few countries seem to ever get off the aid recipient list. Effective charity, which actually stops the need for more charity, is far more impressive ... what little of it exists.