Confusion at the White House

[Guerilla poster]

http://www.msnbc.com/news/726702.asp

[Gore Tree Lover]

I knew it! Dick goes out of town and all hell breaks loose - Did you get into Dick's booze stash again, George?

[Aaron Brachowitz]

WASHINGTON, March 20 — The Bush administration quietly announced a gradual 50% increase in aid to poor nations, less than a week after the president appeared to announce a much-smaller boost amid great fanfare.

Gee, and the previous money was put to such good use. You know, building love and respect for America among poor nations and so forth.

[Ronald Reagan]

When I read the thread title, I thought to myself, "Is that really news?"

[Ronald Reagan]

Just wanted to keep this title near the top!

[The Drunken Actuary]

Why? There will surely be something equally inane in a day or two.

[Lee Mellon]

So Aaron, the point of foriegn aid is to buy friends? I'm not overfond of feeding the hand that bites me (stolen from a vietnam era editorial) but I don't think that I need the love and reverence of foriegn peoples to make a decision about sending economic aid.

[Aaron Brachowitz]

Lee, it took us a few decades and many hundreds of billions of dollars, but we finally figured out that welfare doesn't work. In fact, it was actually harmful. We've seen absolutely zero results from all the billions in foreign aid to most countries. They're still poor. This shouldn't surprise us, because most have made no effort to privatize industry, end repression, or get rid of corrupt governments who line their pockets with our aid money. And yet we're now made to feel guilty because they're still poor.

A little tough love is in order -- Country A, please make the following reforms by 2006 or we'll cut current aid in half, then to zero in another five years. We'll redirect the funds to reputable charitable organizations who will attempt to keep your people from starving, something you've shown no aptitude for.

[Paddyboy1]

1. Almost all of American aid is already directed through charitable NGOs or in grants of food or goods. Very little is of the kind where we give $X in direct aid.

2. We do give X$ in direct aid through loans, however, and this is the problem, its hard to force a country to spend a loan how we watn them to. This is why America is in favor of giving cash. The europeans want to give loans, but they are wrong.

3. AB has a very simple-minded goal. He wants to be a prick to other countries, but within a prescribed republicrat box of being a prick. Realize if the debate was whether we should give money or no money in foreign aid, he'd say no money. If the debate was whether to triple or double foreign aid, he'd say double. But in his ignorance has stumbled upon the right solution, George BUsh's solution: we need to tie the money to economic reforms, we need to favor the poorest countries, and we need assurances that the money is reaching the people. The only part that is missing is that we need to be assured that our foreign aid stops buying guns. Which is where most of it goes today. Think of all the billions lost down a hole in Israel, Taiwan, Colombia, Iran, Iraq, South Africa, Indonesia, etc. that we could have used as capital for wealth creation.

[Aaron Brachowitz]

Wow, even when I agree with him I get called names -- nice. Truthfully, I would love for us to help other countries pull themselves out of poverty. But all the money we've spent hasn't done that, and it chaps me a little that we're supposed to feel guilty for not throwing more money down the same hole. Let's "teach a man to fish" -- here's how you run a market economy, here's how you set up a representative government, here's how you run a professional law enforcement agency, etc. -- all the things we know how to do that make us a prosperous nation. Money and wealth is the output, not the input, for a prosperous nation.