Since it's a little slow, we'll just skip over Ford, Nixon, Johnson and Kennedy to go right to this highlight from the Eisenhower Administration:

From a 1992 column by Michael Kinsley about George H.W. Bush.

Don't hold your breath waiting for Norm Coleman to talk about this.
 

Come on, Hank. You're usually muich better at obfuscating the fact that you were talking shit. "I can't support my claims because the Clintons will kill me?"

Try to ease up on the drinking Sterno, will you?

question
 

Accept, for the sake of argument, that America isn't stingy with foreign aid.* If we took the resources that we have spent on Iraq, and had spent the same money and effort on other forms of foreign aid, wouldn't we and the world surely be better off today?


* I saw the UN official's comments on CNN, and it is clear beyond dispute that he was talking about industrialized countries in general, and not specifically the U.S. So the reaction by American conservatives makes clear that they either had no idea what he said, or have something they feel defensive about.

question
 

I'm not sure that a proper use of US tax payor money is to make the world better off. I think the proper use is to make the US tax payor better off. Now, you may say that these are not mutually exclusive, but I think we need an agreement on this basic premise first, no?

question
 

Does that mean that we're going to stop pretending that what motivated the invasion of Iraq was the desire to stop Hussein from brutalizing his own people? You and bilmore get on the same page, and then we'll talk.

In point of fact, I think we'd be better off, but I went back and edited the post specifically to avoid the rejoinder from bilmore that Hussein was a bad man and that the invasion was justified if only to save Iraqis from him.

question
 

Perhaps, instead, they were simply very misguided.

question
 

That's a fair point. However, although I believe we are morally obligated to stop genocide where we can, that was not the primary basis for my support for the war.

Why do you think this?

question
 

There are real, obvious limits to what you can do with military power, and we are exploring them in Iraq. We've spent a fantasic amount of money there, partly because the way we blow things up is expensive. If we had devoted those same resources to assisting the economic, social and political development of certain countries, and had made it the same sort of national priority, I think we would be closer to winning the war on terrorism. Our standing in the region and in the world would be much higher, reducing the support for those fighting us, and we would have done a better job of creating a better alternative to the kinds of regimes that most Arabs live under.

question
 

We send Egypt 2 billion dollars a year, and they hate us. But you keep your rosy worldview.

question
 

Not necessarily; I'd wager most of it would be wasted. Aid doesn't do much good unless it is directed to fairly specific types of programs (quite a lot of which are very low-tech and not capital intensive, such as well digging and vaccinations*), and directed only to countries with stable and fairly non-corrupt local governments. That, unfortunately, reduces the universe of aid projects that can effectively absorb and make use of additional funds, and very greatly reduces the number of countries to which it can be effectively directed. Within those parameters, though, more money would very probably make a very good difference in the QOL of a large number of people.

* I am not considering spending on projects that do not come out of traditional "aid" budgets, and that are not actually conducted in aid-recipient countries, but that nevertheless have huge beneficial effects in aid-recipient countries. Specifically, I'm thinking of vaccine and GM crop research.
concur with your characterization of his comments, and concur that the admin's response (not the "conservative" response) was defensive, but do not concur that therefore they felt they had something to be defensive about. Hearing a European UN diplomat start complaining of "stinginess" just after the US had announced its initial aid package, it is not unreasonable (or much of a stretch) to assume that there was a backhanded slap at the US in particular intended, particularly given the miscellaneous nastiness flying about over the last few years. Many people, in G and out and of all political flavors, are quite aware that the US is held to a different, and significantly higher, standard of behavior, including w/r/t generosity, compared to other rich or democratic countries. Frankly, even though I think it is appropriate to hold the US to a higher standard, believing as I do that the US is in fact superior to just about any other country in its moral and political underpinnings, the US spends one hell of a lot of time being badmouthed by people who are simultaneously holding out their hands for our money, and I fully understand getting touchy about it.

question
 

Which would pay for what, a couple days of our Iraq escapade? And that money is being spent to shore up the government, not to change it. What if you spent real (in Iraq terms) money there, but told the Egyptians that they wouldn't get it unless they cleaned up their government, etc.?

question
 

Agree with much of your assessment of traditional foreign aid, but surely minds smart enough to reject our traditional foreign policy towards Iraq in favor of a bold departure could do the same with regard to foreign aid as well as the military. Put Donald Rumsfeld in charge.

I felt the same way from the initial reporting until I saw what he actually said, which -- as a simple matter of English grammar -- really couldn't have been interpreted as singling out the United States. He said that "we" are too stingy. And certainly you don't have watch CNN for very long these days to feel some sympathy there (even if, for the moment, there's not much way to get aid to the worse hit because communications and logistics are so completely destroyed).

question
 

The Egyptian press would say we're trying to annex Egypt as an Israel puppet, and a new al queda offshoot would spring up in Cairo.

question
 

S'ok. They'd just go to Fallujah anyway, right?

question
 

I hate to disagree with you Ty, but this stikes me as awefully naive.

Not that I disagree that the billions and billions of dollars spent on Iraq in the last two years couldn't have been put to better use in protecting our country and otherwise generally improving the welfare of the world. By putting another 50,000 people on the search for OBL, for example. But I don't think that any country in the world is going to positively respond to the message: we'll give you some money if you become less corrupt. What's in it for the people who are corrupt/in power?

question
 

Why? The moderate Dems should be disagreeing like mad with Ty and his ilk. Club and the rest here disagree all the time with the Reps in power. Ty is right now the closest thing to a nationally elected Dem. office holder.

question
 

Say you want to spend $200 billion to make Egypt a beacon for its neighbors. You spend the first $1 billion to bribe the corrupt leaders to move to Switzerland. That still leaves you $199 billion to work with.

question
 

Then should we give it nuclear technology?

question
 

If by give it, you mean launch an all-out nuclear attack, I don't think that's what Ty meant, but it would turn the area into a beacon for the Mid-East.

question
 

That's for sure. I got in some trouble with the Mr. for sending my Xmas money from his parents (which we'd sort of earmarked for the house fund) to Dr.s w/o Borders. He got over it after the nightly news.

The complete collapse of infrastructure has got the relief orgs rethinking how to assess need, though. For instance, apparently the indonesian gov and various relief organizations have started doing flyovers of some of the islands off the coast of sumatra to assess damage. On a number of them, some with sizeable populations (in the 100,000-200,000 range) there are no signs of life at all. And a number of populated islands are just gone. None of those are included in the current reports of fatalities because no one has gone out there to account for the dead - they are just doing flybys to figure out if there is anyone there left to help. Some ngos are unofficially estimating the dead (first wave, before disease, etc.) at well over 400,000 for indonesia alone.

BR(sharing your depressed and horrified obsession)C

question
 

Whereupon a new generation of corrupt leaders arise, it costs you $2 bill to get rid of them, and on and on, until you someday reach a point where either the exploitation of the masses no longer pays, you're out of money, or nobody is still living in Egypt.

For all there may be some merit in the argument that war isn't the most efficient use of funds, your theory is charmingly naive. Decidedly un-Tylike. How did Hank get your login, anyway?

question
 

Since installing a new government at the point of a gun isn't working so well, maybe we should have tried buying ourselves one. By your theory, democracy in Iraq sounds kind of like a pipe dream, so why are American soldiers dying there?

question
 

Like others have already posted, I think this is a bit of wishful thiinking. Aside from that, the specific problem I have with it is that it doesn't solve the main cause of the threat IMHO, i.e., the lack of democracy and modern capitalism in those regions. Until that is established, the middle east will continue to be the cradle of terrorism for a variety of reasons, including because the tyrants will continue with impunity to be able to blame their countries' failures on the US/West and the lack of a discernable future for 80% of the 18-35 year olds.

Democracy by peace was never going to be established in the ME.

question
 

Hell Ty, lets give it a few more months. At least let them vote. What are you afraid of?

What's This About?
 

What's This About?
 

People are complaining that the Bush Administration is setting up a rival coalition to provide aid. Some of the more politically charged complaints certainly come from those who have an interest in using the existing structures, but from what I've read, other presumably objective observers are somewhat baffled as well, because (a) apparently, the existing aid organizations actually do this stuff pretty well, and (b) for conservatives who wail about scandalous waste in international aid and development efforts, setting up parallel organizations is at best a counterintuitive means to that end.

What's This About?
 

But Ty said we should start throwing our money around, and as our money, if we want people to start liking us.

What's This About?
 

Using existing structures wouldn't prevent the recipient from knowing that the US was behind the aid. Maybe an informative sticker would work.

What's This About?
 

Do you think the Annan family would offer to give up its usual take, in view of the magnitude and all.

What's This About?
 

I'm sure Annan will agree to a nice sticker saying something like "This food parcel was brought to you by the U.S. of A. Other countries may contribute other items, but note that this is only one theory among many."

In any event, let's try a different tack. Any libertarian with a hair on his ass will declare that the US should give NO money at all to tsunami victims, because it's not the government's to give. So sayeth the Ayn Ran Institute.

Such industrial-strength libertarianism even make private giving suspect. (emphasis added)

• As the death toll mounts in the areas hit by Sunday's tsunami in southern Asia, private organizations and individuals are scrambling to send out money and goods to help the victims. Such help may be entirely proper, especially considering that most of those affected by this tragedy are suffering through no fault of their own.

I wonder which of the victims brought their fate on themselves.

Club, you up for this? 'Cause otherwise, it's back to the coconut monument.

Gattigap

What's This About?
 

That's kind of the direction I was going yesterday with Ty (i.e., that the only proper end for government spending is to help US tax payors).

I did, however, give a private donation.

From the sounds on the ground, what they all really need is:

- kerosene
- heavy equipment
- water
- meds

and, most importantly,

- NO MORE USED CLOTHING.

(From a good blog by a guy wandering around the desolation)

http://indiauncut.blogspot.com/

Our best response is probably to get the military in there ASAP, with offshore delivery of labor and equipment to start body disposal, followed by sanitation experts, and sufficient resources to implement what those experts want.

And, all you rich lawyers, go to Amazon now, at

http://s1.amazon.com/exec/varzea/ts/...704607-4258367

Anybody bitching about our government's stinginess who hasn't been particularly generous personally at this point is simply unmasked as someone for whom it is very important to give away Other People's Money only, and I can't see a lot of moral weight in that.

Just for leagle
 

Those 125,000+ dead from the tsunami?

Just collateral damage from God's chosen method of wiping out 2,000 Swedish homosexuals. (Spree: worksafe article)

According to our friends at Westboro Baptist Church.

Just for leagle
 

From the same friends, celebration of the decimation of the "fag towers" and the resulting decrease in diseased fag feces and semen. Yep.

question
 

We could offer a $100 billion prize to the first country in the region to establish a real democracy. $50 billion to the runner-up.

[bilmore]You think it's possible in Ukraine but not in the Middle East because the people are swarthy and primitive?[/bilmore]

question
 

I'm afraid it's not working and not going to work, and that we are wasting too much money and too many lives as we watch the country make tighter and tighter spirals in the toilet bowl.

What's This About?
 

How come you are so ready to trot out the libertarian objection to helping people, but don't think that way when we discuss blowing them up?

I think the point was that no one has been bitching about our government's stinginess.

question
 

When we had our first election 95% of the land was under the control of people seen as savages.

question
 

We're more PC now. We just call them Red States.