Would the U.S be better off spending more of its money domestically?

[Xanikk999]

Im reposting this post I made from another thread.

Anyway it's my belief we have enough domestic problems as it is so we should stop pumping money from our budget into developing foreign nations that are sometimes hostile towards us and wont benifit us in the long run anyway.

The United States is generous with its foreign spending, too generous I say. We have people at home losing their homes, prisons incarcerating people and releasing them with no help only get reconvicted, and our economy is hurting; so why do we keep spending a huge portion of our budget to handing out foreign aid?

It's nice and all but it makes little sense to borrow money to give it away to others. Let's help ourselves before we play world police and world doctor.

This is exactly why so many european countries with a small military and taxes aimed at helping the welfare of its own citizens have a much higher standard of living overall then most of the lower classe citizens in the United States.

Bottom line is we need to be more focused on ourselves.

Do you think we would be better off focusing more of our tax money into bettering our state schools, creating universal healthcare, and combatting a variety of other domestic problems rather then wasting (in my opinion anyway) that money on the global war on terror and foreign aid to third world countries?

I am a humanitarian first and foremost. I think its a nations duty to ensure the well being and livelyhood of its citizens first and foremost before trying to help others. I think we have failed for the most part in that regard in our country. What do you think we should be doing?

 

[Ajidica]

Yes, but we can't do that because it is socialism. Spending money in other countries is building freedom.

 

[Arwon]

You're aware of how tiny a sliver of the pie foreign aid is, right?

 

[Xanikk999]

You're aware of how tiny a sliver of the pie foreign aid is, right?

Well our military budget isnt that small. Regardless why should we spend a dime on foreign aid when we are in a crisis at home?

 

[Cutlass]

Foreign aid is pretty trivial. Strike that, it's very trivial, on the scale of the federal budget.

What it buys us is not necessarily friends, but opportunities. Not all of it is well spent, but we'd be in an even worse place without it.

 

[Arwon]

Well our military budget isnt that small. Regardless why should we spend a dime on foreign aid when we are in a crisis at home?

Because foreign aid plays an important role internationally in building soft power, because all first world countries have certain obligations to assist, and because ending foreign aid won't make a lick of difference to your "crisis".

 

[metatron]

Regardless why should we spend a dime on foreign aid when we are in a crisis at home?

Cause other people still manage to do that while in crisis, too?

The most part of that is paying for stuff in Iraq and Afghanistan, that you have to do (or want to do to be precise) anyways.
Most of the rest of it is paying people to do stuff on your behalf in their country. Some of that is either destructive, or repairing damage you caused in the first place or otherwise very political and of distinct use to you.
Here is a list.

Well our military budget isnt that small.

If you replace equipment used in Afghanistan you don't pay any Afghans, do you?
The pay of your Troops there doesn't exactly help the local economy that much either. Your troops aren't exactly spending it at Hooters in Kandahar. They'll probably take it home.
So for the most part you do effectively spend the money at home. Your precious air superiority fighter supposedly useful to fight the Soviet Air Force of 2016 isn't built in Afghanistan either. Your military is by and large domestic spending.
Think of it as an alternative form of unemployment benefits. Workfare, if you want to call it that. Rumor has it a fair share of people join up for precisely that reason.

What could make a real difference in the way you are suggesting is changing priorities of private aid (charities). But i suppose that is allready happening to some degree.

 

[JollyRoger]

We need to spend money on free lunches for libertarians. Feed them all the food that flunked government inspection.

 

[GhostWriter16]

Yes, but we can't do that because it is socialism. Spending money in other countries is building freedom.

Meh. Its socialism because we are taxing people to death and putting the state in charge of everything. Cut the budget across the board and cut the taxes.

 

[Ajidica]

Meh. Its socialism because we are taxing people to death and putting the state in charge of everything. Cut the budget across the board and cut the taxes.

Yet spending it in foreign countries building freedom and liberty isn't socialism?

 

[bhsup]

Nope. We'd be better off spending less money domestically, to the point that our budget is balanced.

 

[GhostWriter16]

Yet spending it in foreign countries building freedom and liberty isn't socialism?

You could argue against it, but its not socialism because its not government control of businesses.

There are cases however where the situation will never clean itself up, and the country is better off just being invaded and liberated one way or another. I cite North Korea and Sudan as two examples that will probably never have freedom unless we make them.

And a nation like Cuba should be taken out because they are right next to us, and its insulting to America to have a dictator in place we could conquer within 48 hours.

More moderate dictatorships or more difficult ones to be taken out need to be left alone. Those that do need to be taken, its worth debating how to determine to do it. I'd say consulting NATO is the best method, since like half of the UN is part of the problem, I don't think they are a good source at solution.

 

[Skwink]

ATTENTION: please when you read the poll subtract one vote from the the first option, I misread.

 

[Traitorfish]

Its socialism because we are taxing people to death and putting the state in charge of everything.

That is not what socialism is. I have explained this to you this several times before.

And a nation like Cuba should be taken out because they are right next to us, and its insulting to America to have a dictator in place we could conquer within 48 hours.

When you begin to talk about international affairs in terms of what is and is not "insulting" to your country, I begin to wonder if Libertarianism is really right for you. Perhaps Juche is more your thing?

 

[GhostWriter16]

That is not what socialism is. I have explained this to you this several times before.

Common usage eventually becomes correct

Fine though, I'll start using Social Capitalism. It doesn't matter to me. I still disagree with it.

When you begin to talk about international affairs in terms of what is and is not "insulting" to your country and your capacity to wage war, I begin to wonder if Libertarianism is really right for you. Perhaps Juche is more your thing?

Considering I think NK should be invaded and its leader hanged... I don't really get this.

But that wasn't my point, my point is, its an easy dictatorship to end since they are right next to Florida and we could take them out at minimal cost. I don't care if they want to have a Socialist/Communist government, but dictatorship is not an acceptable choice, especially when its completely easy to deal with.

 

[Ajidica]

The Cuban dictatorship is most likely going the way of the Soviet Dictatorship once Raul/Fidel get around to convienantly dying.

 

[Camikaze]

I would think that the US would be better off itself spending more domestically (as a proportion of the budget). But one of the major ideas of spending elsewhere is that it is beneficial to others. Using wealth to help others is a valiant effort, and I wouldn't want to see that diminished. Now, where the money is focused is a different issue, but spending outside of the US is not a bad thing in itself, even if it isn't the most beneficial thing for America to be doing.

 

[Traitorfish]

Common usage eventually becomes correct

That is not common use, though, that is an ideologically motivated misuse with consistent definition. That is common is a comment on the state of American political discourse, not on political terminology.

Fine though, I'll start using Social Capitalism. It doesn't matter to me. I still disagree with it.

That is also an incorrect usage, and made worse by your inability to proclaim "But this is how they use in Hicksburg!".

Considering I think NK should be invaded and its leader hanged... I don't really get this.

"They insult us! Death to them!" is not a very Libertarian sentiment, but it sits nicely alongside the rambling nonsense of any despot you care to name.

But that wasn't my point, my point is, its an easy dictatorship to end since they are right next to Florida and we could take them out at minimal cost. I don't care if they want to have a Socialist/Communist government, but dictatorship is not an acceptable choice, especially when its completely easy to deal with.

Oddly enough, that's not how civilised people go about things. You at least have to make up some semi-convincing story that Castro is breeding giant radioactive kangaroos, or something.

 

[GhostWriter16]

That is not common use, though, that is an ideologically motivated misuse with consistent definition. That is common is a comment on the state of American political discourse, not on political terminology.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/Socialism

"They insult us! Death to them!" is not a very Libertarian sentiment, but it sits nicely alongside the rambling nonsense of any despot you care to name.

Not because they insult us, but because he's murdered over two million people. Unfortunate we can only take one life from him, and torture is illegal and immoral. Just hang him and let God judge him!

Oddly enough, that's not how civilised people go about things. You at least have to make up some semi-convincing story that Castro is breeding giant radioactive kangaroos, or something.

Or he's a dictator and he deprives people of human rights.

 

[Traitorfish]

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/Socialism

Yes, exactly:

a theory or system of social organization that advocates the vesting of the ownership and control of the means of production and distribution, of capital, land, etc., in the community as a whole.

You should probably vet your own evidence before presenting it.

Not because they insult us, but because he's murdered over two million people.

[one hell of a citation needed]

Unfortunate we can only take one life from him, and torture is illegal and immoral. Just hang him and let God judge him!

Again with the medieval proclamations!

Or he's a dictator and he deprives people of human rights.

That is not generally considered to be legitimate grounds for military action, whatever your personal sentiments.