|
They learned it to survive because they weren’t getting the money to begin with The money was being kicked back to the Democratic Party Let’s not kid ourselves, politicians were lining their pockets on both sides of the aisle, but we were essentially funding the Democratic Party and all of their pet projects like BLM , left-wing organizations, and the various gun control organizations with USA ID |
Free at last, thank god I am free at last
|
Originally Posted By extractr: So the trade-off is there are now many in our country that can't speak English, and can barely pass basic math or reading. Maybe before we invest in other countries, we should try and solve our own problems. What country was giving America handouts after the revolutionary war? The reason America became the greatest country in the world is because the people had to work for things and earn their way. Now with all the welfare leaches, we are sliding backwards rapidly. If Nepal had been forced to stand on it's own sooner, They could possibly be even further along then they are now and investing in their own education and healthcare. Originally Posted By extractr: Originally Posted By Fallen: Yes, I'm sure the $12 per capita allowed them sit back in Lazy-boys watching TV and stuffing their faces. It's not like the money that went to education and healthcare had any effect. Like the author says "Then there’s the burgeoning labor force, a result of the population swelling after a decline in infant mortality and increase in fertility rates, yielding a cohort of young people, many of whom speak English." Oh, maybe education and healthcare was a good investment. So the trade-off is there are now many in our country that can't speak English, and can barely pass basic math or reading. Maybe before we invest in other countries, we should try and solve our own problems. What country was giving America handouts after the revolutionary war? The reason America became the greatest country in the world is because the people had to work for things and earn their way. Now with all the welfare leaches, we are sliding backwards rapidly. If Nepal had been forced to stand on it's own sooner, They could possibly be even further along then they are now and investing in their own education and healthcare. Can you be more specific? Do you mean like after the revolutionary war when the US defaulted on interest payments to France? Do you mean like in 1895 when a European bailout saved the US Treasury from default? Or do you mean like after the 1906 earthquake in San Francisco where other countries donated millions of dollars to support rebuilding? |
Joined:
Jul 2026
Posts:
466
EE: 0% (0)
TN, USA
|
Originally Posted By MTSNIPER: You mean without taking money from US taxpayers and giving it to another country. Not our Circus. Not our Monkey's. American Taxpayer's money should be used soley for America. (Primarily paying down our $40 Trillion in National debt) IMHO If any of you bleeding hearts want to pool Private resources and give YOUR money away - have at it. |
Joined:
Jul 2026
Posts:
467
EE: 0% (0)
TN, USA
|
Originally Posted By intercooler: The money was being kicked back to the Democratic Party. Let’s not kid ourselves, politicians were lining their pockets on both sides of the aisle, but we were essentially funding the Democratic Party and all of their pet projects like BLM , left-wing organizations, and the various gun control organizations with USA ID ^^^^^^^This^^^^^^^ The whole "World Aid" thing, turned into a HUGE Grift. F' all That Noise. |
|
Originally Posted By Fallen: Can you be more specific? Do you mean like after the revolutionary war when the US defaulted on interest payments to France? Do you mean like in 1895 when a European bailout saved the US Treasury from default? Or do you mean like after the 1906 earthquake in San Francisco where other countries donated millions of dollars to support rebuilding? You mean this default, which was resolved by an American private entity? "The United States did not permanently default on its French debt but did stop making interest payments in 1785 and missed installments due in 1787. This temporary default occurred because the new U.S. government under the Articles of Confederation lacked sufficient tax authority to generate revenue. The debt was eventually resolved in 1795 when American banker James Swan privately assumed the entire obligation to France at a slightly higher interest rate and resold the debt on domestic U.S. markets at a profit. This transaction allowed the U.S. to clear its official foreign government debt, though it continued owing money to private investors in Europe and the U.S." You mean this "European" bailout, which was also resolved by an American private entity? "The 1895 U.S. Treasury gold bailout was orchestrated by J.P. Morgan to prevent a sovereign default after the Panic of 1893 depleted federal gold reserves to roughly $9 million by early 1895. Although it involved European banks, it was a U.S. government intervention, not a European treasury bailout." And where the US government declined any state to state assistance in 1906, but any help came from private organizations? "President Theodore Roosevelt officially declined all foreign government donations, citing that the U.S. could handle the disaster independently, although private international contributions and aid were still received and utilized. Despite the presidential refusal of state-to-state aid, substantial private and institutional foreign assistance flowed into San Francisco. The total foreign assistance recorded included $244,960 from Japan, $135,412 from Canada, $40,000 from China, and $21,235 from France. Other contributors included Mexico ($14,480), England ($6,570), Cuba ($734), Australia ($385), and Russia ($199)" Wow, did you even research what you posted as examples of foreign government aid? 
|
Selling your guns to a buyback because you feel criminals have too many firearms, is like getting yourself castrated because you feel the neighbors have too many children.
|
Another "coincidence" after USAID cut? https://dailycaller.com/2026/06/22/rooke-trump-usaid-funding-ngo-latin-america-elections-right-wing/ Following the Trump administration’s aggressive restructuring of the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID), a striking pattern emerged across Latin America. Left-wing governments, long dominant in several countries, suddenly stopped winning national elections. |
Selling your guns to a buyback because you feel criminals have too many firearms, is like getting yourself castrated because you feel the neighbors have too many children.
|
Originally Posted By extractr: You mean this default, which was resolved by an American private entity? "The United States did not permanently default on its French debt but did stop making interest payments in 1785 and missed installments due in 1787. This temporary default occurred because the new U.S. government under the Articles of Confederation lacked sufficient tax authority to generate revenue. The debt was eventually resolved in 1795 when American banker James Swan privately assumed the entire obligation to France at a slightly higher interest rate and resold the debt on domestic U.S. markets at a profit. This transaction allowed the U.S. to clear its official foreign government debt, though it continued owing money to private investors in Europe and the U.S." You mean this "European" bailout, which was also resolved by an American private entity? "The 1895 U.S. Treasury gold bailout was orchestrated by J.P. Morgan to prevent a sovereign default after the Panic of 1893 depleted federal gold reserves to roughly $9 million by early 1895. Although it involved European banks, it was a U.S. government intervention, not a European treasury bailout." And where the US government declined any state to state assistance in 1906, but any help came from private organizations? "President Theodore Roosevelt officially declined all foreign government donations, citing that the U.S. could handle the disaster independently, although private international contributions and aid were still received and utilized. Despite the presidential refusal of state-to-state aid, substantial private and institutional foreign assistance flowed into San Francisco. The total foreign assistance recorded included $244,960 from Japan, $135,412 from Canada, $40,000 from China, and $21,235 from France. Other contributors included Mexico ($14,480), England ($6,570), Cuba ($734), Australia ($385), and Russia ($199)" Wow, did you even research what you posted as examples of foreign government aid? Originally Posted By extractr: Originally Posted By Fallen: Can you be more specific? Do you mean like after the revolutionary war when the US defaulted on interest payments to France? Do you mean like in 1895 when a European bailout saved the US Treasury from default? Or do you mean like after the 1906 earthquake in San Francisco where other countries donated millions of dollars to support rebuilding? You mean this default, which was resolved by an American private entity? "The United States did not permanently default on its French debt but did stop making interest payments in 1785 and missed installments due in 1787. This temporary default occurred because the new U.S. government under the Articles of Confederation lacked sufficient tax authority to generate revenue. The debt was eventually resolved in 1795 when American banker James Swan privately assumed the entire obligation to France at a slightly higher interest rate and resold the debt on domestic U.S. markets at a profit. This transaction allowed the U.S. to clear its official foreign government debt, though it continued owing money to private investors in Europe and the U.S." You mean this "European" bailout, which was also resolved by an American private entity? "The 1895 U.S. Treasury gold bailout was orchestrated by J.P. Morgan to prevent a sovereign default after the Panic of 1893 depleted federal gold reserves to roughly $9 million by early 1895. Although it involved European banks, it was a U.S. government intervention, not a European treasury bailout." And where the US government declined any state to state assistance in 1906, but any help came from private organizations? "President Theodore Roosevelt officially declined all foreign government donations, citing that the U.S. could handle the disaster independently, although private international contributions and aid were still received and utilized. Despite the presidential refusal of state-to-state aid, substantial private and institutional foreign assistance flowed into San Francisco. The total foreign assistance recorded included $244,960 from Japan, $135,412 from Canada, $40,000 from China, and $21,235 from France. Other contributors included Mexico ($14,480), England ($6,570), Cuba ($734), Australia ($385), and Russia ($199)" Wow, did you even research what you posted as examples of foreign government aid? You don't know what you're talking about. The French debt was resolved, after the US defaulted, by a "private entity" borrowing money from the Dutch to buy back the US debt at a discount because the debt wasn't considered good anymore. In 1895 there wasn't even an illusion of a private entity, it was a bailout funded by European governments through JP Morgan. |
|
Originally Posted By Fallen: You don't know what you're talking about. The French debt was resolved, after the US defaulted, by a "private entity" borrowing money from the Dutch to buy back the US debt at a discount because the debt wasn't considered good anymore. In 1895 there wasn't even an illusion of a private entity, it was a bailout funded by European governments through JP Morgan. Banks and investors are not foreign governments. There was no free handouts. So even if helping during a disaster is justified, how would you remotely justify unilateral assistance for nearly 75 years to a country. Nepal could have potentially been a 1st world country, if they had been required to stand on their own during that entire time. |
Selling your guns to a buyback because you feel criminals have too many firearms, is like getting yourself castrated because you feel the neighbors have too many children.
|
"blah blah.. create an environment where you still felt like you had dignity.." WTF? We were paying for 30,000 jobs for them? They had no dignity, it was false bullshit from free money that someone else had to work hard to provide. If people knew the extent of all this crap and had it shown to them each week on their paychecks there would never be another democrat vote again. IMO the payroll tax should be shown on paychecks too. Thieves. |
|
Originally Posted By Fallen: Yes, I'm sure the $12 per capita allowed them sit back in Lazy-boys watching TV and stuffing their faces. It's not like the money that went to education and healthcare had any effect. Like the author says "Then there’s the burgeoning labor force, a result of the population swelling after a decline in infant mortality and increase in fertility rates, yielding a cohort of young people, many of whom speak English." Oh, maybe education and healthcare was a good investment. How much do you give to them? |
|
Originally Posted By intercooler: They learned it to survive because they weren’t getting the money to begin with The money was being kicked back to the Democratic Party Let’s not kid ourselves, politicians were lining their pockets on both sides of the aisle, but we were essentially funding the Democratic Party and all of their pet projects like BLM , left-wing organizations, and the various gun control organizations with USA ID This |
|
Originally Posted By extractr: Another "coincidence" after USAID cut? https://dailycaller.com/2026/06/22/rooke-trump-usaid-funding-ngo-latin-america-elections-right-wing/ Following the Trump administration’s aggressive restructuring of the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID), a striking pattern emerged across Latin America. Left-wing governments, long dominant in several countries, suddenly stopped winning national elections. Not only that, the USAID cut was able to go back in time and make it possible for left-wing governments lose elections even before it happened! For example, in 2023 Paraguy, Argentina and Ecuador all placed conservatives in the presidential chair and only Guatemala elected somebody on the left. Amazing, isn't it? DOGE cannot be constrained by ordinary space/time continuum. |
|
Originally Posted By extractr: Another "coincidence" after USAID cut? https://dailycaller.com/2026/06/22/rooke-trump-usaid-funding-ngo-latin-america-elections-right-wing/ Following the Trump administration’s aggressive restructuring of the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID), a striking pattern emerged across Latin America. Left-wing governments, long dominant in several countries, suddenly stopped winning national elections. Our tax dollars were funding left-wing governments, oppressing their people. Damn. |
|
Originally Posted By CameToTruth: "blah blah.. create an environment where you still felt like you had dignity.." WTF? We were paying for 30,000 jobs for them? They had no dignity, it was false bullshit from free money that someone else had to work hard to provide. If people knew the extent of all this crap and had it shown to them each week on their paychecks there would never be another democrat vote again. IMO the payroll tax should be shown on paychecks too. Thieves. |
|
Originally Posted By extractr: Banks and investors are not foreign governments. There was no free handouts. So even if helping during a disaster is justified, how would you remotely justify unilateral assistance for nearly 75 years to a country. Nepal could have potentially been a 1st world country, if they had been required to stand on their own during that entire time. Originally Posted By extractr: Originally Posted By Fallen: You don't know what you're talking about. The French debt was resolved, after the US defaulted, by a "private entity" borrowing money from the Dutch to buy back the US debt at a discount because the debt wasn't considered good anymore. In 1895 there wasn't even an illusion of a private entity, it was a bailout funded by European governments through JP Morgan. Banks and investors are not foreign governments. There was no free handouts. So even if helping during a disaster is justified, how would you remotely justify unilateral assistance for nearly 75 years to a country. Nepal could have potentially been a 1st world country, if they had been required to stand on their own during that entire time. Handouts are for peasants, the proper term for when a foreign government is the one providing the money, is a bailout. Just because it went through a third party doesn't change where the money came from. Also, thinking Nepal is just some boot straps away from being a first world country is pretty laughable. |
|
Originally Posted By extractr: Another "coincidence" after USAID cut? https://dailycaller.com/2026/06/22/rooke-trump-usaid-funding-ngo-latin-america-elections-right-wing/ Following the Trump administration’s aggressive restructuring of the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID), a striking pattern emerged across Latin America. Left-wing governments, long dominant in several countries, suddenly stopped winning national elections. Jesus Christ this entire thing is a conspiracy..  and all the weirdos around here complaining about Trump slapping his name on some trivial BS... what unserious children |
Arfcom's favorite midnight DG shelf stocker
Joined:
Apr 2004
Posts:
77569
EE: 100% (26)
UKR
|
Aid should only be directed when it complies with the original intent of USAID set up by JFK. Fighitng communism is a good goal. Supporting American interests is another. When it becomes a personal slushfund for activism and politics is when it needs to be cut and re-evaluated. |
connoisseur of fine Soviet and European armored vehicles since 2007.
Thank you to the unknown person who bought me a membership.
Thank you to the unknown person who bought me a membership.
|
Remember - 84% of US federal tax revenue comes from the individual - YOU and ME. 9% comes from corporate taxes. 7% comes from excise taxes and duties (i.e. taxes on foreign goods). The left likes to repeat the lie that "oh, taxes mostly come from big corporations". It's bullshit. |
|
Originally Posted By MtnMusic: Remember - 84% of US federal tax revenue comes from the individual - YOU and ME. 9% comes from corporate taxes. 7% comes from excise taxes and duties (i.e. taxes on foreign goods). The left likes to repeat the lie that "oh, taxes mostly come from big corporations". It's bullshit. 
|