Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Posted: 12/18/2003 6:39:40 PM EDT
Link Posted: 12/18/2003 7:19:57 PM EDT
You got a link or something to back this info. up. My peep will ask for it. Not a bitch and I do believe the numbers, I just got a lot of lib. friends and family that are going to question this.
Link Posted: 12/18/2003 7:21:55 PM EDT
It's long time that we got out of the UN and kicked the UN out! Let France or Germany or some other country put up a building and host these Third World losers. Uh another reason taxes are so high..... [b] ILLEGAL ALIENS [/b] The US taxpayers probably spend around 100 billion dollars a year to educate/medicate/ incarcerate etc. 7.4 Billion just to educate their children. We cannot afford to keep going down this road.
Link Posted: 12/18/2003 7:22:17 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 12/18/2003 7:23:42 PM EDT by Juell]
Some Americans unwillingness to stand up, lying politicians, bleeding heart liberals, and the half of all voting age americans who don't vote are to blame for a whole lot of it. But then again, who am I to judge? Excuse me while I bend over........
Link Posted: 12/18/2003 7:24:38 PM EDT
If I'm to spread the gospel, I also need a source.
Link Posted: 12/18/2003 7:30:58 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 12/18/2003 7:44:05 PM EDT by imposter]
I don't think foreign aid that is making taxes so high. $13.3 billion is small potatoes. The federal budget was over $2,000 billion last year. Hell, we spent almost $500 billion on social security, and $250 billion on Medicare. I agree that foreign aid is money down the toilet though. Much of that money is actually for the benefit of the Jewish state. For example, in 2000 we gave away about $17 billion in military and economic assistance. $4 went direclty to Israel, and anther $2.5 went to Egypt and Jordan as protection money for Israel.
Link Posted: 12/18/2003 7:33:07 PM EDT
Despite their voting records, this foreign aid is addictive. Sure, Egypt will give an "aye" vote to the latest "We Hate Israel" resolution, but they haven't engaged in a military campaign against them for the last 30 years. Pull the two billion dollar rug out from underneath President Mubarak and he's going to have a hard time making the already precarious Egyptian economy stay afloat. If Egypt tanks, he tanks. Sure, Egypt and others will talk a lot of crap, but what happened when Israel bombed Syria this year? Nothing. They cried and whined but in the end, nobody made a move.
Link Posted: 12/18/2003 7:33:40 PM EDT
Link Posted: 12/18/2003 7:33:47 PM EDT
[b]FUCK[/b] the [blue]u.n.[/blue]
Link Posted: 12/18/2003 7:37:05 PM EDT
Believe it as well. Need a link so it can be shared.
Link Posted: 12/18/2003 7:50:38 PM EDT
Alot of that is blood money so they leave us alone. They vote against us but they also cooperate. I doubt the higher ups in the US are giving the money away for nothing.
Link Posted: 12/18/2003 8:05:43 PM EDT
I also believe the info but need a link to back it up before I pass it on.
Link Posted: 12/19/2003 5:05:23 AM EDT
Link Posted: 12/19/2003 5:15:27 AM EDT
I think your logic is somwehat flawed. If you look at foreign aid as a PERCENTAGE of GNP, the U.S. actually gives WAY less than other developed countries. To the extent that it affects the taxpayer, it really i smore accurate to look at how large a percentage of GNP is given in foreign aid - and that percentage is much lower than other comparable (i.e. european) countries. Because the relative percentage the U.S. gives is quite low, it really doesn't affect how much taxes you pay in any significant way compared to other government programs. Partly, it's a matter of perspective - who's really "giving more"? Bill Gates giving $1000 to charity, or a working class Joe giving $100 to charity? If you look at it from the perspective of the charity, obviously Bill Gates, but if you ask who is the more generous and giving person, obviously Joe is. In addition, U.S. "foreign aid" is very often tied to requirements that benefit U.S. businesses abroad, or tied to using that aid to buying U.S. products. A lot of U.S. foreign aid is also comprised of food aid - which is really just left-over grains that the U.S. government has a surplus of because they heavily subsidize U.S. agriculture. S
Link Posted: 12/19/2003 5:20:49 AM EDT
The problem BEGINS with 435 idiots on the House and the 100 Boobs in the Senate. They all see themselves as Lords & Ladies of Political Society and they see us as serfs! Time to attack the Castle!
Link Posted: 12/19/2003 5:24:43 AM EDT
The best way to reduce the credibility of anything posted on the internet, add the part in red below :
Originally Posted By MickeyMouse: [red]Pass it along. Everyone needs to know this. [/red]Might even mention it to your congressman, who knows it anyway...what a disgrace... no wonder the world has no respect for us
View Quote
Link Posted: 12/19/2003 5:29:33 AM EDT
Originally Posted By DK-Prof: I think your logic is somwehat flawed. If you look at foreign aid as a PERCENTAGE of GNP, the U.S. actually gives WAY less than other developed countries. To the extent that it affects the taxpayer, it really i smore accurate to look at how large a percentage of GNP is given in foreign aid - and that percentage is much lower than other comparable (i.e. european) countries. Because the relative percentage the U.S. gives is quite low, it really doesn't affect how much taxes you pay in any significant way compared to other government programs. Partly, it's a matter of perspective - who's really "giving more"? Bill Gates giving $1000 to charity, or a working class Joe giving $100 to charity? If you look at it from the perspective of the charity, obviously Bill Gates, but if you ask who is the more generous and giving person, obviously Joe is. In addition, U.S. "foreign aid" is very often tied to requirements that benefit U.S. businesses abroad, or tied to using that aid to buying U.S. products. A lot of U.S. foreign aid is also comprised of food aid - which is really just left-over grains that the U.S. government has a surplus of because they heavily subsidize U.S. agriculture. S
View Quote
So you're saying that it should be something like "From each according to their ability. To each according to their needs"? That Marxist BS might fly in Europe, but it's not so popular here. [nono] Note to staff: We need a "flipping the bird" smiley.
Link Posted: 12/19/2003 5:42:21 AM EDT
MickeyMouse - I agree with you that the US funding of the UN is a burden we should stop bearing. You'll need to help me understand some of the facts quoted because I must be missing something. For example, if the US provides 25% of the operating budget for the UN contributing 13.3 billion we may be the single largest contributor, but we cannot contribute more than all nations COMBINED because the other 75% of funding does not come from us. Did you mean to say that we, the US, contibute 75% of the funding because that would mean we contibute more than all other nations combined? To included the additional 1.4 billion in aid for programs and agencies mentioned would not be the deciding factor for saying we contibute more than all other combined because the total operating budget based on the facts would be 53.2 billion. To contribute more than one-half of that total, say 51% would mean that the US contributes 27.13 billion in ovrall aid and would be more than all others combined - the remaining 49%. Like Luckystiff mentioned, need the facts to back this up and from I read I cannot get the statements to match the data provided. If you could help clarify or provide the link to the original story that would help. I agree with the senitments of the information reported, but at this tiome could not use them as factual. Hopefully you or someone else can help clarify this for me. Thanks
Link Posted: 12/19/2003 6:02:15 AM EDT
I used to work for a guy that was from africa. He explained how foreign aid worked. The money is "given" to the countries, but there are alot of strings attached to it. First off, if you want to buy materials with it, you have to buy US made goods, from a US supplier. If you want to have something built, you have to use a US contractor. There are also alot of fees, and other costs associated with using this foreign aid. Everyone has their hand stuck out. So you see, most of the foreign aid is really corporate welfare. The money "given" to these countries is not really just handed to them to do as they please.
Link Posted: 12/19/2003 7:19:42 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 12/19/2003 7:20:40 AM EDT by Juell]
Originally Posted By 338winmag: I used to work for a guy that was from africa. He explained how foreign aid worked. The money is "given" to the countries, but there are alot of strings attached to it. First off, if you want to buy materials with it, you have to buy US made goods, from a US supplier. If you want to have something built, you have to use a US contractor. There are also alot of fees, and other costs associated with using this foreign aid. Everyone has their hand stuck out. So you see, most of the foreign aid is really corporate welfare. The money "given" to these countries is not really just handed to them to do as they please.
View Quote
That might be for the better of the US though, you don't want your tax-dollar going to Just Anybody. I say we cut them all off, their problems are their problems, not mine, and I shouldn't have to pay for it.
Link Posted: 12/19/2003 7:26:06 AM EDT
For you guys looking for a source, I have seen this on the net before. Do a google search with the first paragraph.
Link Posted: 12/19/2003 8:38:23 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 12/19/2003 8:39:47 AM EDT by metalrocks]
OK, I did theGoogle search and here's the link for what it returned... [url]http://search.msn.com/results.aspx?srch=105&FORM=AS5&q=The+United+States+gives+out+%2413.3+billion+tax+dollars+in+direct[/url] The link shows multiple occurances of the article. I still don't see the math adding up in that we provide 25% of the overall budget and yet we continute more than all others combined. That's a contradictory statement. Of the few additional articles I viewed I did not see any footnotes or referneces to back the statements up. Just becasue this is on the net, doesn't make it true - let's be more like MO and have someone show us the facts. In any case, still agree that US should be out of UN and stop funding it all together. However, I would not quote anything from that article as a backing statement for my position on this issue.
Link Posted: 12/19/2003 5:10:58 PM EDT
Originally Posted By Jarhead_22:
Originally Posted By DK-Prof: I think your logic is somwehat flawed. If you look at foreign aid as a PERCENTAGE of GNP, the U.S. actually gives WAY less than other developed countries. To the extent that it affects the taxpayer, it really i smore accurate to look at how large a percentage of GNP is given in foreign aid - and that percentage is much lower than other comparable (i.e. european) countries. Because the relative percentage the U.S. gives is quite low, it really doesn't affect how much taxes you pay in any significant way compared to other government programs. Partly, it's a matter of perspective - who's really "giving more"? Bill Gates giving $1000 to charity, or a working class Joe giving $100 to charity? If you look at it from the perspective of the charity, obviously Bill Gates, but if you ask who is the more generous and giving person, obviously Joe is. In addition, U.S. "foreign aid" is very often tied to requirements that benefit U.S. businesses abroad, or tied to using that aid to buying U.S. products. A lot of U.S. foreign aid is also comprised of food aid - which is really just left-over grains that the U.S. government has a surplus of because they heavily subsidize U.S. agriculture. S
View Quote
So you're saying that it should be something like "From each according to their ability. To each according to their needs"?
View Quote
No, that's not what I'm saying at all. What I'm saying is that (1) the relative amount of U.S. foreign aid as a percentage of GNP is so small that it doesn't really affect taxes - it CERTAINLY is not the reason "why taxes are so high" as the title of the thread implied. (2) a lot of this "foreign aid" actually helps U.S. industry and businesses, and some of it is not really "aid" at all because we're just giving away crap we don't need anyway.
That Marxist BS might fly in Europe, but it's not so popular here. [nono] Note to staff: We need a "flipping the bird" smiley.
View Quote
No sure what you're talking about here, but I guess it's marxist now to disagree with people or try to explain how the U.S. doesn't really give so much in foreign aid that it has a significant effect on domestic tax rates.
Link Posted: 12/19/2003 5:36:00 PM EDT
If you look at total aid, government and private aid combined, in 2000 the US gave out twice as much aid as the EU. $56 billion vs. $25 billion.
Top Top