Even a US prez says 'USA doesn't give a damn' ....

seems jimmy is still pissed he lost in 80

Of course, any discourse from Jimmy is devoid of any mention on how we might help them help themselves.

seems jimmy makes a good point -"U.S. foreign aid is approximately 0.18 percent of gross national product, the lowest of any G-7 nation".

I'm sure peeping and papa know better than this nobel prize winner. It's sad when ones agenda over-rides reason.

feminista said:

seems jimmy makes a good point -"U.S. foreign aid is approximately 0.18 percent of gross national product, the lowest of any G-7 nation".

I'm sure peeping and papa know better than this nobel prize winner. It's sad when ones agenda over-rides reason.

Click to expand...

Correct me if I am wrong. But once you look at the numbers, with out spinning them, the US is giving more than most nations.

Interesting point to consider is that it is the democrats who prefer to cut back on foreign aid. Their view is that they have so many problems with proverty, lack of health care and education that instead of spending billions abroad they should spend it domestically. I agree to a point actually. If they'd only cut back on that insane military budget... but that is another story.

Anyway I was never a big fan of slamming donors. Politics aside, is it fair to ridicule people for not donating enough money? Doesn't seen right.

Don said:

Interesting point to consider is that it is the democrats who prefer to cut back on foreign aid. Their view is that they have so many problems with proverty, lack of health care and education that instead of spending billions abroad they should spend it domestically. I agree to a point actually. If they'd only cut back on that insane military budget... but that is another story.

Click to expand...

Or cut back on PORK BARREL SPENDING. Eliminate programs developed to garner votes and keep people in poverty.

papasmerf said:

Correct me if I am wrong. But once you look at the numbers, with out spinning them, the US is giving more than most nations.

Click to expand...

Mr O'Reilly, is that you?

Peeping Tom said:

Of course, any discourse from Jimmy is devoid of any mention on how we might help them help themselves.

Click to expand...

Yea, those damn African peasants should invest in their own drug companies instead of asking us for help.

But seriously, one of Carter's main points over the years is teaching people how to help themselves, kind of the opposite of your point about him. He of course understands that money is needed for this help.

An analogy in the US would be welfare reform in the 1990s. A lot of people were taught how to help themselves, and provided with job training programs. But that cost money, didn't it?

Besides, helping other countries improve their lot is not only the humane thing to do, it's smart. Another phrase for a poor country is "developing market", or at least soon to be. There is money to be made, and I never can understand why conservatives want to abandon the rest of the world.

Look at the Last GWB Budget

This says it all on GWB PRIORITES:

$500 Billion for Defense

$5 Billion for .....Do-Gooder stuff

Faith-based development initiatives ?

Fixing the broken social systems of the underdeveloped countries has to proceed from the bottom up; stable market societies operating under a framework of law can't subsist unless certain cultural reforms are made. To this end, some development money should be set aside to fund Christian evangelical activities in the Third World. Religion has a unique ability to mould and form individuals at a ground-floor level where the State can't penetrate, instilling values such as the work ethic, the importance of the family, non-violence, respect for individual rights and the rule of law, and so on. They can also instruct the people about the errors of revolutionary socialism (especially in Latin America) and help thwart the epidemic of Islamic fundamentalism (especially in Africa).

(No, I'm not religious, in any sense of the word; but as long as these groups exist, the State might as well put them to work for what they're worth).

Truncador said:

To this end, some development money should be set aside to fund Christian evangelical activities in the Third World. Religion has a unique ability to mould and form individuals at a ground-floor level where the State can't penetrate, instilling values such as the work ethic, the importance of the family, non-violence, respect for individual rights and the rule of law, and so on. They can also instruct the people about the errors of revolutionary socialism (especially in Latin America) and help thwart the epidemic of Islamic fundamentalism (especially in Africa).

Click to expand...

Let me make sure I understand you. Since the discussion has turned to US foreign aid, are you suggesting that the government should "set aside" funds so that evangelical christians can promote their religious views to the rest of the world?

Asterix said:

Let me make sure I understand you. Since the discussion has turned to US foreign aid, are you suggesting that the government should "set aside" funds so that evangelical christians can promote their religious views to the rest of the world?

Click to expand...

Yes (for the developing world, not the "rest of the world"). I actually wouldn't be surprised if they're doing so already.

Truncador said:

Yes (for the developing world, not the "rest of the world"). I actually wouldn't be surprised if they're doing so already.

Click to expand...

Well, no, that is against the law. While religious groups receive money to help with humanitarian aid, according to the US Agency for International Development they can not, "promote religion at the public expense by using US government funds, or US government financed goods to promote sectarian purposes". A little thing called seperation of church and state, besides begging the question of when people needing of aid asked to be converted in the first place. Talk about kicking someone when they're down.

Encouraging people in the developing world to convert to modern forms of Christianity isn't a matter of kicking people when they're down; on the contrary, it's about helping to adapt them to the demands of modern, industrial market society. Animism, or worse yet, Islam, isn't going to help anyone in this respect; where the latter is concerned, it's a downright shame to let perfectly salvageable peoples become no more than a pool of terrorist recruits for a religion that doesn't wring its own hands over "separation of Church and State".

Look, I'm not going to get involved into a debate over which religion better serves "salvageable people". The phrase alone is insulting enough, but I'll let that go. My point was that those in need of aid should be given simply that, and spared the sermons. And in the case of public funding by the US government, trying to promote any particular religion, or for that matter religion at all, not only has no place it is in fact illegal.

That is exactly what I advocate. This means money for development of infrastructure and resource sectors - the starting point for any viable economic development - not those "humanitarian interests" which corrupt the entire process, often resulting in truckloads of money delivered to starving dictators. Aid must be given according to the worthiness of a proposal and not the greatest tug at the heartstrings.

BTW conservatives in general do not want to abandon the ROTW. That would be the fiscal extremists and hardcore isolationists - a small minority under the Big Tent.

irlandais9000 said:

Besides, helping other countries improve their lot is not only the humane thing to do, it's smart. Another phrase for a poor country is "developing market", or at least soon to be. There is money to be made, and I never can understand why conservatives want to abandon the rest of the world.

Click to expand...

That was my observation during the period I spent in one of South America's most wretched States. Religion A was pro development, B was only concerned with spiritual dominance and the state religion held the rest. Needless to say, when my trainees were A, they were very receptive and truly wanted to learn and would ask questions beyon the scope of what I wanted to teach; they were winners due to their ability to understand that they could benefit from the experience I had to offer. They typically held better levels of education than the position required. Group B cared little, here the task was to get them up to speed for the job, nothing extra was desired on their part. Group C was like dealing with the charateristic Canadian unionized slob, not only that they didn't want to learn anything but showed every intention of shirking their duties when possible and of course they constantly grumbled about their lot - despite holding the best jobs of the land.

Truncador said:

Encouraging people in the developing world to convert to modern forms of Christianity isn't a matter of kicking people when they're down; on the contrary, it's about helping to adapt them to the demands of modern, industrial market society.

Click to expand...

Sure you did Tom. The secrets you hold keep you from even mentioning the name of that wretched country, or the religious groups A, B and C, or your role there? Give me a flipping break.

Hey truncador. Is "that grand whig" something like *The Grand Wizard*???