Rob, whoever did that math needs a refresher course.
0.07% of $12 trillion works out around to $8 billion
On another note we have Senator Obama to thank for demonstrating once again that the global warming jihad isn’t so much about saving the Earth as much as it is about robbing from the rich to give to the poor nations third-world totalitarian leaders in a pointless exchange of revenue.
Carrick - 10:02am on 02/16/2008
I find it interesting that the lefties are always telling us that we can’t be the “world’s policeman”, or that we shouldn’t try to provide freedom for the world’s oppressed peoples or to share our hugely successful free enterprise economic system with them, but it’s just fine for us to be the world’s welfare provider.
robert108 - 10:02am on 02/16/2008
Carrick: No matter what the number, it’s too much. We can’t afford it, and we certainly can’t afford a Barack Obama as President.
robert108 - 10:02am on 02/16/2008
Just a followup on that comment, I think anybody who is genuinely interested in changing the state of poverty in these third world countries should spend a few minutes researching the consequences of blank checks sent to these impoverished third world nations.
What one realizes is that the reason that poverty exists in most of those countries is because of the totalitarian socialist governments running those countries. Without launching into a treatise on why socialism is a necessary prerequisite for a stable totalitarian government (you are buying out the poor), I’ll just point out that if you hand these governments a blank check you are just propping up the government, and therefore indefinitely extending the poverty and suffering that the peoples of these countries are undergoing.
Bono has had a number of comments on this along the lines “no more blank checks, please” addressing exactly this issue. I do think that he is right and it is in our common interests to end poverty in those nations, but having your heart “in the right place” as most liberals do pretty much guarantees that they have their heads stuck in a warm, most and dark place at the same time.
Carrick - 10:02am on 02/16/2008
Robert108, $8 billion we could afford if it were going to the right place. $800 billion is a gigantic amount, that would slam our country into a major recession, on the other hand.
If we say it as part of a process of democratizing these countries, and extending to them a true free market environment, it would be in our mutual interests for that to happen.
But I agree with you that we can’t afford to send even one red cent to these governments, since we are guaranteed it will just prop up their corrupt regimes even longer.
Carrick - 10:02am on 02/16/2008
But I agree with you that we can’t afford to send even one red cent to these governments, since we are guaranteed it will just prop up their corrupt regimes even longer.
Exactly.
robert108 - 10:02am on 02/16/2008
Corrected the post. I should have read a little closer.
As for helping the poor, it often seems to me that we could do that more effectively (and at no cost to the taxpayer) simply by liberalizing a number of our international trade regulations.
Rather than give them money, why not let them earn it?
Of course, that probably wouldn’t sit well with the unions and protectionists at the left. We can give these people billions of dollars in tax dollars, but god forbid we engage in open trade with them.
Rob - 10:02am on 02/16/2008
I do think that he is right and it is in our common interests to end poverty in those nations…
I should hope the debacle of the so-called “War on Poverty” has taught us that poverty can’t be “ended” by simply throwing money at it. If that doesn’t work in our country, which has economic and personal freedom, why would we think it would work in countries where they don’t enjoy those freedoms? The problem in socialist countries is structural; they are using a bad economic model, and no amount of outside money will make it productive. We should give freely of our economic expertise, not our money.
robert108 - 10:02am on 02/16/2008
Rob, there are ways we could spend our money in those countries that are much better than giving them the money directly.
For example, reforms in their agricultural practices would make a huge difference, especially in times of “drought”. (A relative word when it comes to agriculture, because changes in farming practices can have a major effect on what a given shortage of rainfall does in terms of agricultural production.)
Doing things that improve their educational systems is another, especially in countries where the only way you can get your kid educated is to send him to some mind-indoctrinating religious “school.”
There are plenty of others, these are the two that came to my head immediately. Both involve spending some of our resources, but neither involve propping up dictators, which is essentially what Barrack is proposing to do.
Carrick - 10:02am on 02/16/2008
Maybe, Carrick, but it seems to me that free and open trade (prompting an influx of capital and know-how) is a much more efficient way of accomplishing those goals.
Of course, I don’t think the two solutions are mutually exclusive either. It’s not like we have to do one and not the other.
Rob, whoever did that math needs a refresher course.
0.07% of $12 trillion works out around to $8 billion
On another note we have Senator Obama to thank for demonstrating once again that the global warming jihad isn’t so much about saving the Earth as much as it is about robbing from the rich to give to the
poor nationsthird-world totalitarian leaders in a pointless exchange of revenue.I find it interesting that the lefties are always telling us that we can’t be the “world’s policeman”, or that we shouldn’t try to provide freedom for the world’s oppressed peoples or to share our hugely successful free enterprise economic system with them, but it’s just fine for us to be the world’s welfare provider.
Carrick: No matter what the number, it’s too much. We can’t afford it, and we certainly can’t afford a Barack Obama as President.
Just a followup on that comment, I think anybody who is genuinely interested in changing the state of poverty in these third world countries should spend a few minutes researching the consequences of blank checks sent to these impoverished third world nations.
What one realizes is that the reason that poverty exists in most of those countries is because of the totalitarian socialist governments running those countries. Without launching into a treatise on why socialism is a necessary prerequisite for a stable totalitarian government (you are buying out the poor), I’ll just point out that if you hand these governments a blank check you are just propping up the government, and therefore indefinitely extending the poverty and suffering that the peoples of these countries are undergoing.
Bono has had a number of comments on this along the lines “no more blank checks, please” addressing exactly this issue. I do think that he is right and it is in our common interests to end poverty in those nations, but having your heart “in the right place” as most liberals do pretty much guarantees that they have their heads stuck in a warm, most and dark place at the same time.
Robert108, $8 billion we could afford if it were going to the right place. $800 billion is a gigantic amount, that would slam our country into a major recession, on the other hand.
If we say it as part of a process of democratizing these countries, and extending to them a true free market environment, it would be in our mutual interests for that to happen.
But I agree with you that we can’t afford to send even one red cent to these governments, since we are guaranteed it will just prop up their corrupt regimes even longer.
Exactly.
Corrected the post. I should have read a little closer.
As for helping the poor, it often seems to me that we could do that more effectively (and at no cost to the taxpayer) simply by liberalizing a number of our international trade regulations.
Rather than give them money, why not let them earn it?
Of course, that probably wouldn’t sit well with the unions and protectionists at the left. We can give these people billions of dollars in tax dollars, but god forbid we engage in open trade with them.
I should hope the debacle of the so-called “War on Poverty” has taught us that poverty can’t be “ended” by simply throwing money at it. If that doesn’t work in our country, which has economic and personal freedom, why would we think it would work in countries where they don’t enjoy those freedoms? The problem in socialist countries is structural; they are using a bad economic model, and no amount of outside money will make it productive. We should give freely of our economic expertise, not our money.
Rob, there are ways we could spend our money in those countries that are much better than giving them the money directly.
For example, reforms in their agricultural practices would make a huge difference, especially in times of “drought”. (A relative word when it comes to agriculture, because changes in farming practices can have a major effect on what a given shortage of rainfall does in terms of agricultural production.)
Doing things that improve their educational systems is another, especially in countries where the only way you can get your kid educated is to send him to some mind-indoctrinating religious “school.”
There are plenty of others, these are the two that came to my head immediately. Both involve spending some of our resources, but neither involve propping up dictators, which is essentially what Barrack is proposing to do.
Maybe, Carrick, but it seems to me that free and open trade (prompting an influx of capital and know-how) is a much more efficient way of accomplishing those goals.
Of course, I don’t think the two solutions are mutually exclusive either. It’s not like we have to do one and not the other.