Mr. President

[-EnVus-]

While I agree that the homefront is in great need right now I completely disagree that he is turning his back on the American people or in any way saying fuck you to us by giving money to other countries.

You imply that he is giving money to other countries for nefarious reasons. I believe that he is spending that money because he thinks it is America's best interest. A great many people in the Arab region do not like us and yet we still need to work with them whether it be for oil or for fighting terrorism. You think Egypt is going to let us keep military resources in their country for nothing? Money can be a necessary lubricant for those negotiations which serve America's interests abroad.

I can tell you are not a fiscal conservative republican because most of them are completely against "bail outs". They believe if an entitity is in fiscal trouble, it's their own fault and they should suffer the consequences. I'm waiting for the calls of "communist", "spreading the wealth", and "goverment doesn't create jobs" to come.

I understand you are upset but you probably won't get much sympathy on these boards.

Yeah we bailed out Greece and now they are asking for $60billion more to keep them from going under lol WTF
It's sad the senate has to try to pass a vote to stop them from giving any more money to the EU.
Spain is next on the list of crimping economy and want money.
I guess if we want money we should move to Europe or the middle east.
Oh and if we are getting funds for our use then take a look at Detroit it's looking like a scene from an apocoylpse.
Many cities are turning to ghost towns and rundown cause the government is with holding funds.
If we have to pay to have our troops sit over seas to miss Thier families and get killed well that's just smart spending...

[bu villain]

Yeah we bailed out Greece and now they are asking for $60billion more to keep them from going under lol WTF
It's sad the senate has to try to pass a vote to stop them from giving any more money to the EU.
Spain is next on the list of crimping economy and want money.

I thought it was the IMF and EU who are bailing out Greece, Portugal, Ireland, etc. not the US. They aren't doing it out of the good of their hearts either. They are doing it to avoid a domino effect.

I guess if we want money we should move to Europe or the middle east.

Who is we? Wanting money is not a good enough reason for giving money to someone. If anyone wants money, they have to trade something for it. The middle east countries trade oil, use of thier land, and intel. The Europen situation is different in that they are basically holding the rest of the Euro zone hostage. Either way, the money going to these places is not a "charity". How would the rest of the country be better off for "bailing out" Detroit?

Oh and if we are getting funds for our use then take a look at Detroit it's looking like a scene from an apocoylpse.
Many cities are turning to ghost towns and rundown cause the government is with holding funds.

Is your entire argument that Detroit is a shitty city so therefore we should give them money? What makes Detroit so special, or do you think we can and should bail out every city and state that has fiscal problems?

If we have to pay to have our troops sit over seas to miss Thier families and get killed well that's just smart spending...

I actually agree with you we should not be spending so much of our resources over there. I was against Iraq from the beginning. I'm not defending that part, I'm just saying some people truly believe that it is necessary.

[BanginJimmy]

I thought it was the IMF and EU who are bailing out Greece, Portugal, Ireland, etc. not the US.

US contributes about 18% of the IMF's total funds.
http://www.imf.org/external/np/sec/memdir/members.aspx

Find the US and look at SDR's. That is the number of dollars the US contributed.

They aren't doing it out of the good of their hearts either. They are doing it to avoid a domino effect.

Agreed. It hurts the US in the long run if the Euro collapses.

Who is we? Wanting money is not a good enough reason for giving money to someone. If anyone wants money, they have to trade something for it.

I guess you only mean this in foreign relations discussions? In the US, people are handed money for nothing more than being stupid and lazy every 1st and 15th.

The middle east countries trade oil, use of thier land, and intel.

Much of that money pays for access and influence. The oil trade and foreign aid are 2 very different things.

Is your entire argument that Detroit is a shitty city so therefore we should give them money? What makes Detroit so special, or do you think we can and should bail out every city and state that has fiscal problems?

We agree here. If a city or state is poorly run then they should be allowed to default. Maybe then they will wake up to reality and get their fiscal house in order. The only grey area in this are unfunded federal liabilities. If the fed govt or regulators pass a financial liability onto a state govt, the feds should be the ones to pay for it.

I actually agree with you we should not be spending so much of our resources over there. I was against Iraq from the beginning. I'm not defending that part, I'm just saying some people truly believe that it is necessary.

As has been pointed out on MANY occasions by me and others, Iraq and Asscrackistan arent even the start of the problem. When speaking of the fiscal issues in this country discretionary spending, including defense, could be cut to $0 for the next year and Obama's last 2 budgets would not be in the black.

[bu villain]

US contributes about 18% of the IMF's total funds.
http://www.imf.org/external/np/sec/memdir/members.aspx

Find the US and look at SDR's. That is the number of dollars the US contributed.

But partially funding a group that gives money to a country is not the same as giving the money to that country directly. The OP stated he was upset we bailed out some European countries as opposed to partially funding the group who bailed them out. If his position is that we should leave the IMF, that was not clear.

I guess you only mean this in foreign relations discussions? In the US, people are handed money for nothing more than being stupid and lazy every 1st and 15th.

No I don't only mean in foreign relations. In the US, some people are handed out money and many of them may be lazy and/or stupid but that's not WHY they are given money. They are not required to fail an IQ test, or prevented from working hard in order to receive that money. There are a multitude of reasons for welfare programs but supporting laziness and stupidity are not among them. Those are just side effects.

Much of that money pays for access and influence. The oil trade and foreign aid are 2 very different things.

But they are both valuable and thus worth paying a certain price for are they not? The OP's implication was that no value is received for the money we spend there.

[BanginJimmy]

But partially funding a group that gives money to a country is not the same as giving the money to that country directly.

The United States is the only country that can singly veto any proposal in front of the IMF. It takes 85% of votes for them to act and the US controls about 18%. That said, we are in agreement concerning Greece. It was in our best interests to see them propped up. Just like it is in Germany's interest to prop them up again.

No I don't only mean in foreign relations. In the US, some people are handed out money and many of them may be lazy and/or stupid but that's not WHY they are given money. They are not required to fail an IQ test, or prevented from working hard in order to receive that money. There are a multitude of reasons for welfare programs but supporting laziness and stupidity are not among them. Those are just side effects.

Just because the consequences were not intended doesnt make them any less real. People arent prevented from working, but because of welfare programs they simply choose not to. Why work for your money when tax payers will pay you to do nothing?

But they are both valuable and thus worth paying a certain price for are they not? The OP's implication was that no value is received for the money we spend there.

I agree. Value or not though, the money we spend there is inconsequential to our overall budget problems. We MIGHT have spent 200B in foreign aid, not considering natural disaster relief. That amount isnt even 1/8th of the deficit for this year alone.

[bu villain]

Just because the consequences were not intended doesnt make them any less real.

We already both agree there are people that do not deserve money are getting it so we don't need to argue that point. Just like the IMF and the European bail outs, we don't only give money to people because they deserve it, we do it because it's better than the alternative.

People arent prevented from working, but because of welfare programs they simply choose not to. Why work for your money when tax payers will pay you to do nothing?

You should ask the 100+ million people who chose to work instead of living off welfare. I think you will find a large variety of compelling reasons. Motivation is complex and personal.

We should strive to constantly improve all our policies. But just because there are some abuses doesn't mean we should throw out the baby with the bathwater. If you have a good alternative to the current welfare system that wouldn't result in a significant increase of crime or the number of children going hungry, and protects those who are truly unfortunate rather than just lazy, I would be glad to discuss it.

[BanginJimmy]

You should ask the 100+ million people who chose to work instead of living off welfare. I think you will find a large variety of compelling reasons. Motivation is complex and personal.

Discount every one of those 150mil+ people that make more than 150% of welfare. That likely discounts around 90% of them. The rest of it is motivation. Some people are willing to work hard to gain a higher station in life. Others are happy to just live off the system.

We should strive to constantly improve all our policies. But just because there are some abuses doesn't mean we should throw out the baby with the bathwater. If you have a good alternative to the current welfare system that wouldn't result in a significant increase of crime or the number of children going hungry, and protects those who are truly unfortunate rather than just lazy, I would be glad to discuss it.

This is easy.

1. Require random drug tests to get a check.
2. Require eligible men and women join the military (does not apply to single mothers or fathers)
3. Spend the money up front and pay those receiving welfare money go to school or some other type of job training. Govt pays, or guarantees, 100% of bills for 4 years of college. This can be waived to 5 years if acceptable progress is made.
4. Cap length of time you can be on welfare. This does not apply to those also receiving disability benefits.


The college part would be expensive in the short term, but in the long term I believe it would pay for itself in the form of combined higher tax revenue and lower rolls. The vast majority of those on welfare right now are 2nd and third generation. We, as a society, need to break that cycel of dependence.