Results 1 to 9 of 9

Thread: US foreign aid to Latin America should be ended

  1. #1
    Cooler than Jesus
    Type
    intp
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    2,083

    US foreign aid to Latin America should be ended

    One of the criticisms about Trump that I've thought is silly is the one aimed at his threat to cut off foreign aid to Latin American countries. The argument is that, without that aid, you'll have even more refugees coming over. Bullshit. How naive do you have to be to think that the foreign "aid" we send actually makes a (positive) difference to the lives of the people that are coming over as refugees? I read through this report and feel mostly justified in that opinion. A large portion of the aid we send is to "support democracy, the rule of law, economic reform, education, agriculture, and natural resource management." E.g. bribing governments to make sure they keep selling off natural resources to global corporations and to help them keep the commies away (to be fair, if someone told Trump this in exactly those words, he'd probably be all for the foreign aid. Which may have already happened since I haven't heard anything about him threatening to cut it off lately.) Another chunk of change goes to fighting crime, especially drug related crime. You know, the drug related crime that exists almost exclusively because of the U.S. It's like shitting on someone, and then handing them a tissue to make up for it. Not to mention how our efforts in fighting crime typically make things worse, like by funding the Sinaloa cartel to try to keep the other cartels away.

    In general, I'd be more than happy to see us do away with these funds altogether and to let Latin America handle their own business. The only exception to this is relating to disaster relief, although even there I'd prefer seeing the funds directed first to an internationally managed disaster relief organization rather than the U.S. directly handling it ourselves. Medical assistance is another area I'm not too suspicious of. These two areas are the least susceptible to corruption and general malfeasance.

    How do you think the U.S. should handle foreign aid? Cut it off completely? Ramp it up? Put it all in a piggy bank labeled "Trump's Wall"? Discuss.

  2. #2
    Hasta Siempre Madrigal's Avatar
    Type
    INTP
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Location
    Maņana
    Posts
    8,517
    Quote Originally Posted by NedLudd View Post
    Medical assistance is another area I'm not too suspicious of.
    Huh? That's the most suspicious one. We should be sending medical assistance to the United States.
    Quote Originally Posted by Hephaestus View Post
    Heh. We've been here years now.

  3. #3
    Senior Member jyng1's Avatar
    Type
    intp
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Posts
    3,958
    Quote Originally Posted by Madrigal View Post
    Huh? That's the most suspicious one. We should be sending medical assistance to the United States.
    Some aid to support democracy probably wouldn't go amiss either...

  4. #4
    Cooler than Jesus
    Type
    intp
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    2,083
    Quote Originally Posted by jyng1 View Post
    Some aid to support democracy probably wouldn't go amiss either...
    I think Russia's been trying to help us out with that lately.

  5. #5
    Senior Member Sinny's Avatar
    Type
    INTP
    Join Date
    Feb 2015
    Location
    Birmingham, UK
    Posts
    4,190
    American's make me laugh in how they want to blame Putin's Russia for everything.
    If a foreign power holds more sway over your own people than you do, then you have serious issues of your own to consider.

    Maybe if the majority of Americans weren't so bloody dumb...
    Those who begin coercive elimination of dissent soon find themselves exterminating dissenters. Compulsory unification of opinion achieves only the unanimity of the graveyard.

    ~ Robert Jackson, Statesman (1892-1954)


  6. #6
    Cooler than Jesus
    Type
    intp
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    2,083
    Quote Originally Posted by Sinny View Post
    American's make me laugh in how they want to blame Putin's Russia for everything.
    If a foreign power holds more sway over your own people than you do, then you have serious issues of your own to consider.

    Maybe if the majority of Americans weren't so bloody dumb...
    It's a scapegoat, Russia's influence was a drop in the bucket. But it is funny to see what happens when Americans get the "democracy building" treatment applied to them.

  7. #7
    Senior Member
    Type
    INFJ
    Join Date
    Oct 2017
    Posts
    1,207
    the US could take money from latin america that came from the US to reinforce border security; they can seize el chapos $14 billion and use it to build a wall:

    Ted Cruz: How we can make 'El Chapo' pay for Trump's wall


  8. #8
    Sysop Ptah's Avatar
    Type
    INTP
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Location
    Chicago
    Posts
    5,098
    Quote Originally Posted by NedLudd View Post
    How do you think the U.S. should handle foreign aid? Cut it off completely? Ramp it up? Put it all in a piggy bank labeled "Trump's Wall"? Discuss.
    As just one part of a comprehensive sweep through all such inessential and errant government spending, I'd nix the whole notion of foreign aid.

  9. #9
    Senior Member Spartan26's Avatar
    Type
    INTP
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Posts
    1,578
    Quote Originally Posted by NedLudd View Post
    How naive do you have to be to think that the foreign "aid" we send actually makes a (positive) difference to the lives of the people that are coming over as refugees? I read through this report and feel mostly justified in that opinion. A large portion of the aid we send is to "support democracy, the rule of law, economic reform, education, agriculture, and natural resource management."
    I didn't read the article yet but will get to it. But from first pass at your OP, I'd say there's a cost of doing business, so to speak, that's gonna be figured into anything. Take the world of non-profit. Like ones targeting people, underrepresented or with specific needs. Operations can be staggering. Say Easter Seals. If 34 cents of ever dollar went to the patients, that'd be tremendous. And often those figures of money to the people includes research. So you have that tough decision of splitting up money for quality of life vs prevention. So to ask, what percentage goes to positively effecting people, it could be 5-10%. And that would be legit, not lining people's pockets money. But you generally need that $66 million dollar arm to get that $5million to the patients.

    In the case of pharmaceuticals, it can be hard to measure how the money goes or is calculated from aid subsidies. Say the US promises $10M for companies that provide antibiotics in 3rd world countries. Does the company set up distribution of free pills to people or do they knock down the price from $10 a bottle to $5.99 across the board to reach more people? Or again put that $10 Mill towards research?

    One problem is oversight. To monitor and enforce regulations can be costly and arduous to say the least dealing with each country's laws and judicial systems and determining what can be prosecuted in the US. What would be great if there was some sort of repo company we could send after violators. But to get to that point would take a trail. And to get to a conviction would need an investigation. Who's got the time or money?

    This is all without the added notion of cartels, corrupt politics or meddlesome middlemen.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •