Thank you realist, now to the point of the straw. One country gives 13 billion while "if you combine dozens of nations in Europe you get 30 billion. I did not know that Europe was a nation. Thanks for the update. Of course add UN & nato defense costs and it is the same program. Add dozens of different nations together and ignore that the US is one nation to get to the desired goal that America does nothing for the world and Europe (The fictious nation) is the mother of the globe. Thanks again.
To: Reporter
by Amazing 24 Replies latest social current
-
-
Realist
jayson,
hmmm is it really possible that you do not understand what we are saying? or are we misunderstanding you? what is your point? do you PRAISE the US for spending more than any other nation?
-
Jayson
Realist, I said that I don't want to talk to you anymore because either you are insane or just like to debate for debates sake. You were someone who put up facts so I said thank you. But debating you is a waste of time. I do find it very selfish that a country with no GNP to speak of turns to a nations with a massive amount of GNP that puts out awsome numbers (in dollars) of aide is so disrespected. If the US agreed to match all of Europe the same people would take every opportunity to dis America. It's not about "anti-americanism" or "bush" or "war" or "poor" it is about jealousy. It's about wanting to sack the person in the castle because they are there and you are not. It is impossible to make you understand how much more productive it is to decide to become that person in your own castle yourself. I did. I started with nothing and built a series businesses. While my friends were off getting laid in college, or smoking pot, or doing whatever I worked very hard. I studied, I tried, and it worked. I know what it is to be poor. I know what it is to work your way out of it. Government can't do it for you if it wanted to. Only you can do it for yourself. It's the same with dictatorships and famine/war torn countries. They have to want to fix it. Many just can't want to want to. And again realist everything about you represents a person who will never understand me. It's a waste of time to explain it. You promote parasitic ideology imo.
Edit to add- I will take the time to read your link. It is in-depth or at least l-o-n-g. But so far I'd have to say communist ideology & writing by any other name is still communism pipe dreams.
You should read "World on Fire" by Chua
-
Realist
jayson,
to me it is amazing that someone who is able to run a buisness is not able to understand the simple principle of taking the percentage of the GNP as measurement.
by the way the numbers are from the OPEC - so no matter who wrote the article the numbers are accurate!
and one last thing...that you view a slightly more just wealth distribution as parasitic ideology is very telling.
adios!
-
czarofmischief
How is viewing the forcible seizing of wealth and giving it to the poor anything other than parasitic? From his own experience, Jayson showed us that the acquisition of wealth is possible in our nation. Not easy, but possible. It requires hard work and effort. Long nights spent studying, avoiding bad choices like early pregnancy or marriage, being willing to sacrifice to attain your goal of wealth (if that's what you want).
Most of the wealthy people I know worked really hard to get what they wanted. Doctors study and work their asses off to get rich. The indolent wealthy are the most annoying people on earth.
Equitable wealth distribution will only happen when enough people decide that they want to work hard enough to get it. If you screw up your life, well, there is a social net that'll keep you from getting too messed up.
But just getting a check from the government does not promote wealth distribution. The money just flows back where it came from, with bureaucrats taking a slice off every exchange.
You want to redistribute wealth? Free education! Public transportation! Military service! The ways already exist to give yourself a leg up.
CZAR
-
Jayson
Realist you who don't even think people are able to have choice over their actions are lecturing me? HA!
I said thank you.
I took your posts statistical accuarcy on your good name as fact without even autheticating them.
I also said that I would read your link in spite of it's anti American theme (Which the site admits to fyi) Saying I would read it is far more fairness than you have ever shown me. Parasitic ideology is very fair when talking about "wealth redistribution." Maybe "suckle" ideology is better sounding but it gives to much merit to the idea that the State has a right much less obligation to rob from one citizen to dole as it sees fit to another.
-
Simon
Jayson. If someone regular guy donated $100 to charity and Bill Gates donated $250, who do you think really "gave more" and was more generous?
It's the reason why nearly all measures of things to do with economics are expressed as a percentage of GDP.
-
plmkrzy
adding up the european numbers for 2002 gives about 30 billion - for the US 13 billion! That amounts to 43 billion!
Gee, you would think a poor starving child would at least get a cup of soup out of all that money. Isn't that what the bottom line is anyway? NOT WHO GAVE MORE!
It makes absolutely no difference what-so-ever who gave more as long as people are still starving TO DEATH!
It's about wanting to sack the person in the castle because they are there and you are not.
I personally wouldn’t be in such a hurry to attempt to statistically out-do anyone in the numbers department while there are still thousands of hungry children dieing everyday that are supposed to be fed with all that money and are not. Why would anybody want to claim bragging rights to that?
-
Simon
The problem is that the institutions are setup so that most of the money given comes right back to the giver or is really spent on subsidies to their own farmers.
-
Jayson
Simon I do understand your point. The thing is the $100 & the $250 when donated to the JW's isn't really feeding the poor or helping the inferm. (UN being the JW) Accountability and responsibility. The UN was a great idea in its day but it is outdated. It's funtion was to serve a need who's time is past. Something new, something better should take it's place in due time. Something where there is a standard of human & civil rights that have to be met to join. Dictatorships would be an instant disqualification. And, not submiting to the standard of conduct (the court for example) would mean disqualification. Just this idea of not pretending that dictators are legitimate civilized governship meaning that they can't be exploited by be it the US, France, or anyone else for an agenda would change a lot. It potentially could help people to stand on their own feet and not have to be so dependent for life on the charity of others. Something where humanitarian aide and nation building is it's key funtions. Taking away the protection of International Law to rouge countries would change some things.. Americans maybe more so than Europeans fail to see that there is a class system in America AND they (we) are totally oblivious to reasons for ethnic wars and hatred. We fail to see what damage the export of raw capitalism and democracy has done to the world. These things also make "charity" nearly irrelevent or impossible in many parts of the world.
The comparison in my opinion would be better served to say that the whole church (meaning a group) donated "350" and while 250 was donated by the entire collective it was one "guy" who donated 100. That "guy" equals nearly one third of all that is given to the coffer. And the guarding & police are basicly also paid for by the "guy." Which his and the groups protection costs another 250, in fact as high as 400 because of a chosen "issue" this year. Could he give more, yes, and are the other members appreciated for their donation, yes. But sometimes the "guy" gets tired of the lack of appreciation for what he does. The "guy" is thinking maybe he should find another church where he is respected for all that he does. The problem with statistics is that they can be made to favor whom ever is the desired good guy and then dis the desired bad guy. That is why I put up a link that shows every country and what it recieved in US aide in 2002. Not just a blanket percentage to "charity" but the exact number of dollars given. (It's not peanuts.) I understand that what I am saying is much deeper than your point on GNP (which is not wasted on me) I just see all these issues as tied together. Individualism is a big deal to me after all I am a bloody American (It's why I'd make a crappy JW) and it also clashes with neo-marxism ideology I.e. wealth redistribution. I know that some redistribution is nessesary but when it starts getting to a scale, not of exact required needs to meet, but a blanket status card to meet others perceived expectations of "a giving guy" as you say, "rubbish."