|
|||||||
| View Poll Results: what do you think | |||
| we should help them |
|
11 | 37.93% |
| we shouldnt help them |
|
18 | 62.07% |
| Voters: 29. You may not vote on this poll | |||
![]() |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
|
#1 |
|
FFR Player
|
so I'm having a debate and i need bolth side of this question because i don't know what side I'm going to be on when i get there so hear it is
"In regards to American foreign investment, should America help out struggling countries in debt ?" i need a pro and con side so please post your opinion tell me if we should or shouldn't |
|
|
|
|
|
#2 |
|
FFR Player
|
Edited
Personally, I do believe America should help out struggling countries with debt because it would help strengthen our diplomatic relationship with that country. A con to this however, would be that helping foreign countries with debt TO much makes them rely on us to heavily, if that makes any sense. What I'm saying is, if we help them to much, they will expect us to be there for all their other problems as well. We should help out other countries, but to an extent. They should learn, with our help, to take care of themselves. Last edited by Sullyman2007; 12-25-2007 at 09:52 PM.. |
|
|
|
|
|
#3 |
|
Very Grave Indeed
|
Mod Talking: This is an interesting subject, so I'm not going to close the thread off the top, but for future thread making reference, posting just a question and a request for opinions isn't really a CT quality thread. Try to have a little bit more on your end beforehand, since this reeks of "I have a school assignment and don't want to research"
Devonin talking: I think fundamentally, you can't be one of the wealthiest nations in the world and -not- be helping out the poorer nations. It would be really keen if more of their foreign aid wasn't military aid, and it would be really keen if they came a little closer to the suggested percentage of their GDP the UN reccomends first world nations be giving in foreign aid. I think it is perhaps telling that Japan is now the global leader in giving foreign aid, at the same time that the Euro is on the way up, the US dollar is on the way down, and China is slowly but inexorably entering the first world as a strong economic power. Perhaps more pragmatically, the US should continue giving aid if just to help deal with their terrible international reputation. If right now, with general international opinion the the US at nearly its worst ever, if not actually its worst ever, suddenly cutting off foreign aid is apt to be the straw that breaks the camel's back. I suspect that if the US decided to just cut off all of its foreign aid, a suitable response from the international community would be insisting that the United States repay all of -its- foreign debt. And since the US foreign debt currently stands at somewhere about 10 trillion dollars, they would be forced to either renege, or basically go bankrupt. I doubt there's much that could result from that except Fortress America versus the World, because they certainly couldn't repay all they owe. What would really be nice in terms of the global economy would be more debt forgiveness, though I'm quite positive that Kilroy_X will turn up and give us all a much needed and helpful economic discussion. |
|
|
|
|
|
#4 |
|
Little Chief Hare
|
Do you mean our government? I think our government should think about how it invests money like any investor would. (It should spend money differently). It needs to be handled on a country by country basis, looking at pros and cons.
Private citizens can invest however they want to. Arguably there is some sort of moral imperative to allocate resources where they result in most utility gain (a glass of water means more to a person dying of dehydration, for example). I don't have an opinion one way or the other on debt forgiveness. If it's obvious that someone is incapable of paying a debt without cutting spending on vital resources, and it doesn't hurt you to forgive the debt, you probably should. Even if it does hurt you to forgive the debt you probably should. I think it's very rare that it ever gets to that point though. Last edited by Kilroy_x; 12-25-2007 at 10:02 PM.. |
|
|
|
|
|
#5 |
|
FFR Player
|
Should the citizens of the United States have to help foreign countries with debt relief? The good people who pay tax money? The ones who essentially keep this country alive? We pay the government, then we also have to pay to help other nations? No, I don't think thats the peoples responsibility, but what I would like to see happen is some of that hard earned tax money go toward some sort of national relief fund.
Last edited by Sullyman2007; 12-25-2007 at 10:16 PM.. |
|
|
|
|
|
#6 | |
|
FFR Player
|
Quote:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
#7 |
|
FFR Veteran
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Tampa, Fl
Posts: 766
|
I would say help them but I think that we are in enough debt as it is. Or so I have heard.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#8 |
|
Very Grave Indeed
|
PROPER SPELLING, PUNCTUATION, AND GRAMMAR ARE MANDATORY ON THE ENTIRE FORUM. THIS IS NOWHERE MORE TRUE THAN IN CRITICAL THINKING.
Seriously, run your posts through a word processor's spellcheck if you have to. |
|
|
|
|
|
#9 |
|
FFR Player
|
This is one subject which I've always been on the fence about.
There are several reasons or incentives for America to give copious amounts of foreign aid, such as the wealth of the country and the image that the county -wants- to have (promotion of democracy, peace, humanity, etc). However, there are also reasons to withhold money from foreign aid. The obvious one is the national debt, which as devonin pointed out, is in the trillions of dollars. With America so deep into the red, can we really afford to be spending money on countries other than our own? Of course, the problem if America stops is that the country's international reputation suffers even further. So my opinion is basically this: America should give as much foreign aid as it can without ruining its economy. With the national debt so high, any use of money for non-domestic purposes is risky, yet in order to keep the world from hating it even more than it already does, giving foreign aid is necessary. The country needs to be intelligent about where its money goes. One thing I'm particularly interested in, relating to this subject, is actually what will happen in Iraq after the inauguration of the new president (whoever it may be). In the event that a rapid pullout of troops occurs, just how much money would that save America, and what sort of relief would the economy see, if any? But that's more on the general topic of the American economy, and this thread isn't really for that. I may make another thread about it later. |
|
|
|
|
|
#10 | |
|
FFR Player
|
Quote:
I also don't think, even if it did happen, that it would have any effect on the economy. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
#11 |
|
FFR Player
|
I didn't say "rapid and complete pullout," just "rapid pullout." By that I meant a significant decrease in the number of soldiers over a relatively short amount of time. Such a thing would cut military expenses by quite a bit, and I'm wondering if that part of the budget would be allocated to something that has a noticeable effect on the economy.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#12 | |
|
FFR Player
|
Quote:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
#13 |
|
FFR Player
|
We are to far in debt ourselves to keep worrying about other countries right now. If we keep going the way we are, we're just going to be a barren gas drilled out land with no money because we owe trillions of dollars to other countries. First we need to help ourselves out.
__________________
My sleeping apathy.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#14 |
|
Very Grave Indeed
|
But my original point stands. If you start ignoring other countries, then the ones you owe ten trillion dollars to might decide to ask for their money back.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#15 |
|
(The Fat's Sabobah)
|
Should tax payer money be given away to other nations? Absolutely not. I don't think any tax payer money should leave the country. Not when 36.5 million US citizens are living in poverty. Not when 47 million American citizens don't have healthcare.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#16 |
|
FFR Player
|
I do believe we should continue helping other countries, but not to the extent of hurting ours. Right now, we are not doing as much with our country, fixing the problem with poverty in our own country, yet doing more with others.
I'm just going to laugh when the US falls beneath itself one of these days, haha.
__________________
My sleeping apathy.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#17 |
|
Very Grave Indeed
|
I'm pretty sure the US is spending more money to fund their own military enterprises in foreign nations than they are spending on humanitarian aid in the third world. Maybe the way to raise funds to better the lot of Americans is to cut some of the billions and billions of dollars being spent to meddle in foreign affairs, instead of cutting the money used for humanitarian relief efforts.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#18 |
|
FFR Player
|
ok so im going to play the devils advocate and say ,seeing how Americas own debt keeps on getting in to the mix, why dont we invested in country's that could benefit us back. meaning we invest money in to them and after thay get back on there feet they have favorable trade with us in turn helping our debt.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#19 |
|
Very Grave Indeed
|
That's kind of the explicit purpose of foreign aid loans. You give money to a country that doesn't have its own strong economy, to allow them to build up the infrastructure to start earning money internationally on their own. Then they pay back the loan out of future profits.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#20 |
|
Beach Bum Extraordinaire
|
TO THE OP: The US is in debt.
It's our responsibility to take care of our own debt. If we were debt-free, I wouldnt mind my taxes helping out a few countries in the form of loans but why should I pay taxes and help someone get out of a jam their most likely put themselves into when I could pay my own debt. |
|
|
|
![]() |
| Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests) | |
| Thread Tools | |
| Display Modes | |
|
|