Get a Widget for this title
RSS FeedShould the US government continue to spend money to boost other countries' economies when the US budget is in a deficit?
Results so far:
| Yes | 29% | 87 votes | Total: 301 votes | |
| No | 71% | 214 votes |
Yes
Write now
Print
Invite a writer™
Add to FavoritesU.S. foreign aid requested by president Bush for 2008 was 20.27 billion dollars. The theoretical basis for the increase over 2007 is that poverty and conflict in the second and third world tends to create more strife and defense responses necessary by the U.S. Department of defense. It is an interesting theory because of the obvious incompetence in economic reconstruction in the aftermath of the 2003 Iraq war, but Sect. Rice has a plan to reconstruct U.S. foreign aid methodology.
http://w ww.ynetnews.com/arti cles/0,7340,L-336240 2,00.html
http://www. fr.org/publication/1 3248/transforming_us _foreign_aid.html
The United States borrows a lot of money from China, India and Japan directly, and redistributes much wealth to the Muslim world through gasoline purchases. Corporatism has trained American consumers to instantly support personal 'foreign aid' policies in disregard for national interests. In some instances such as in Mexico increased U.S. federal support for economic development could help to stem the tide of illegal migration to the United States, yet corporatist policy is to reduce the standard of living in the United states and increase the profit of corporate collectives. comparative advantage flows toward corporations and democracy declines.
U.S.. foreign and domestic policy today suffers from an incoherence effect consequent to globalization and transformation of the federal government after the cold war into complete domination by transnational corporatism. Empirically the United States is a geographical area, and has historically benefited from the coherence of one language, one people and a government that in pursuit of the interests of the people could claim somewhat reasonably to accord that premise with economic development by capitalized interests. The decoherence and fracturing of an empirical domestic political focus has allowed federal policies to develop inimical to national interests in pursuit of pure corporate, global interests, while rational political deliberations upon the state of the nation have decayed into near non-existence.
Social security is one such federal program in a dysfunctional vector/time tensor. From its inception in an era when American families had several children and the average life span was age 65 or so into a reversed era now where people live to perhaps an average about 80 and families average less than 2 children Social security has broadened its roster and decreased its support base simultaneously with the public demand that it be an entitlement program instead of a safety net; it isn't just an emergency retirement policy for the poor as it was perhaps intended to be...In the 1930's people had a more modest standard of living including the working and middle classes.
To compensate for the public demand that social security be fully funded for all that pay into it regardless of the demographic pyramid scheme structure in the modern demography public policy requires that tens of millions of highly fecund Mexicans become Americans to pay for social security while inflation costs and manufactured good costs become cheaper in the United States through cheap Chinese labor for exports to Wal-Mart and so forth- Hillary Clinton's former company as board member. A better public policy would be to limit social security to those earning less than the average pay of working Americans, while also increasing the standard of living to such a level for Americans generally that social security wouldn't be needed much because of the general prosperity even of retired people.
Corporatism is a raging fire that has taken capitalism out of the fireplace of democracy and set the entire house of democracy on fire. Capitalism wasn't ever intended to replace rational democratic government, yet with the end of the cold war and the necessary partnership of capital and government to defeat the threat of global socialist tyranny or communist totalitarianism the logic of corporate profits have completely overcome the U.S. public. The broadcast media in the United States is a propaganda intercom in real time for global corporatism-a profit driven greed compulsion that consumes government logic destructively.
Capitalism isn't a 'creative destruction', it is a phenomena of competition creatively towards efficiency, yet when it's attractions and compensations overcome the proximally non-profit paradigm of democratic government it does become destructive like a fire escaping it's purposed place of 'creative destruction/combusti on etc.' In government corporatism is a locomotive without an engineer driving the U.S. toward self-destructive ends in the blind pursuit of profit held to be the only alternative to communism. That dialectical choice isn't true; a third choice exists called democracy. Democracy, corporatism and socialism are a trialectical compresent political course choice with democracy taking a beating presently from the collectives of corporatism and socialism. The socialist oil fields of Hugo Chavez and the corporatist oil fields of Exxon-Mobil and services of Halliburton each form powerful collective social phenomena that drive the U.S.A. away from the individualist ethic required for democracy with civil rights.
The amoral profit goals of corporatism effect national morality in a way similar to it's incendiary combustion of enlightened democratic national interests in security, environmental, comparative technological economic, manufacturing, health and quality of life interests. Consumption and short term 'profits' are advanced to the highest place in the public's idea of moral good. Moral choices must be fast and product consequences non-existent, and generally all good individuals would rave without reason as corporate global employees, become heavily in debt as good interest payers to the financial 'fire' sector of the economy while paying rent and high taxes that finance more deficit spending as national income is redistributed to corporations and favorite government spending projects.
Corporatism pressures the public to allow it to foul its environment with mining pollution and other gross exploitation that train society to consume like an infant and back blast the mess out without clean up. The costs of environmental conservation are descried by corporate profit motives, and a corporatist government seeks to pollute without cleaning its 'diapers'.
Learn more about this author, Gary C. Gibson.
Click here to send this author comments or questions.
No
Should the US government continue to spend money to boost other countries' economies when the US budget is in a deficit? My answer to this question should be fairly easy for any thinking person to comprehend. Whether or not someone will agree with me is another story.
In my opinion the answer to this question is no. The simple reason the answer is no is because when someone takes what they do not have, to give to someone else who is expecting to be rescued you will cause a problem.
Not to mention in my opinion the American economy and the American dollar is devalued and made unstable at a rapid rate, leading to a serious depression.
In order to be able to help other countries effectively who may need or want help from the US., we need to have the ability to manage and maintain our own citizens. If our own citizens and communities are facing economics crisis taking money that the citizens of your country have paid in taxes to go assist another country, is wrong.
It is wrong because you are in effect taking the tax money that has been paid into the government that is meant to benefit the American people, and using it to support people who have not learned how to manage what they already have. It is also teaching the American public as a whole to not be too concerned about their own household budgets.
Because if someone lives well above what their income or savings can support when the economy takes a down turn, this is not good. It is also not good if someone is not able to save enough to help their families through economic hardships, due to paying out over half of their income in taxes. Which they will not be able to use at all, because that money that was taken in taxes is being used to support many programs abroad while at the same time funding for programs intended for a short-time crisis, has funding cut.
To me this sends the message to the people of the US that no matter how difficult it is for you to live within your means, you must continue to agree to allow the government to withdraw as much of your income as possible, so that the good works programs designed for other countries is maintained.
By the time taxes are taken from someone's paycheck, and they have paid their income taxes, and paid taxes on their purchases, and taxes on their personal property, there is very little left out of the average working persons check.
Yet when this same person finds that the pay check they were expecting is short by a whole lot, after all the taxes and deductions, the government still says that person does not qualify for any assistance whatsoever, because they have too much income on the gross, or if they have been frugal and saved, they are told they can not receive any type of assistance without they deplete their savings and assets.
This to me makes absolutely no sense, and I know this is slightly off topic, but seriously if the government will make more restrictions on who can receive assistance that is a native to this country, why is it the restrictions to other countries not the same, or even more strict.
Because when you take what one person has worked hard for, and then give it to someone who has not worked for it, you are teaching that it is better to take than to receive. It is not a good thing in my opinion.
I can't see boosting another countries economy when our own is failing. Also something to consider, just how many nations know that the US is in an economic crisis? Of those countries which ones are coming here and setting up programs to help the citizens of this country? Which ones are providing free or reduced cost medical care, housing, helping to rebuild the areas that have been destroyed by the hurricanes, floods, fires and other natural disaster's, or even man-made disaster's.
I think the countries who are standing by silent as the American economy collapses have said a lot. And it is time that the American government takes time to listen.
It is my personal opinion that all imports of any product that could or was at one time made in the US be stopped effective immediately. That any products that are imported are subject to the exact same standard of manufacturing as manufacturer face in the US, also that the tax on any items imported be high enough so that the item imported is truly a luxury item.
The tax gained from imports could go to help fix the budget problems that the US is currently facing.
After the US budget has been balanced and after the economy here is stable, then and only then should the US go and help other countries that may desire or need help. The reason is because if you are bankrupt just who is it that you will be able to help? I mean seriously, there is going to come a time when there are no more resources, to be had from the American people especially if the economy continues to spiral downwards.
If manufacturer find they can produce their products cheaper some place else they will, because it is a business decision, not a personal decision. The people who create jobs are in that market to make money not to loose money. If someone cannot make money in a business, that business will fail, and people will loose jobs.
When there are no jobs, in an area you will soon have people who have spent up their resources, who will then turn to an already bankrupt government to help meet their needs. But the money won't be there, because of being spent for programs that enable dependency.
So the government will start borrowing money from countries that will want a say on how our country is governed, and what they want may not be what the thinking American person would want or even remotely like. But because of the government taking loans there will be very little that can be done. The loans will have to be repaid, and the one who has borrowed will be the slave to the lender.
It is not a good thing to bankrupt yourself or your country just so that you can help someone else, no matter how much you may want to help them.
It is better in my opinion that you teach by example, and learning to manage a budget is something that everyone should be encouraged to do, whether it is an individual or a country.
Learn more about this author, AnnaB.
Click here to send this author comments or questions.
Difference of opinion? Debate now.
- Political Issues
- Our economic prosperity is directly related to the recent decreases in taxes enacted by Congress
- Should National Institutes of Health scientists be allowed to consult for private drug manufacturers?
- Does the war on terror threaten civil liberties in the US?
- Does the Congressional Water Bill have a chance of becoming law?
- Should the US continue to honor Columbus Day?
- Should the US Congress support funding to help the Capitol go green, despite budget constraints?
