Congresscritter Ron Paul (R-Texas) agrees with me on this one: “Forced charity is not charity at all.”
Source: http://www.house.gov/paul/tst/tst2006/tst060506.htm
Is it possible that -- for once -- all 3 of these groups can agree on an issue?
(1) The left-winged Liberals, who support Government stealing and spending of OTHER PEOPLE’S MONEY on dumbed-down “education”, welfare that keeps people poor, health care monopoly, and pseudo-cures for global warming.
(2) The right-winged Neo-Cons, who support Government stealing and spending of OTHER PEOPLE’S MONEY on terroristic wars, building a police state, forced “Patriotism” with anti-flag-burning laws, and terrorizing immigrants.
(3) The wingless me, who does not support Government stealing of OTHER PEOPLE’S MONEY, period.
It really seems like all of you would agree with me on this foreign aid issue. So, I would like to know who disagrees. (And those in agreement can state that for the record.) The Frihosters in countries other than the US should feel free to speak as well, for there’s the issue of receiving these kinds of stolen dollars; there’s the issue of your own country doing similarly; and there’s the issue of your Government being bribed by Uncle $am.
Those posting here do not need to identify which of the above 3 groups (or other non-listed groups) you’re in, but do please state why you hold your opinion, and you do need to read this article first. Wouldn’t it be great to find something on which we are all aligned, for a change? 
| U.S. Rep. Ron Paul wrote: |
The Annual Foreign Aid Rip-Off
June 5, 2006
This week, Congress will vote to send more than 20 billion of your hard-earned dollars overseas, when it passes the Foreign Operations Appropriations bill for 2007. Our annual foreign aid bill is one of the most egregious abuses of the taxpayer I can imagine. Not only is it an unconstitutional burden on America’s working families, but this yearly attempt to buy friends and influence foreign governments is counterproductive and actually results in less goodwill toward the United States overseas.
Why is foreign aid so bad? Isn’t it our obligation to help those less fortunate? What is not mentioned by proponents of foreign aid is that it very seldom gets to those who need it most. Foreign aid is the transfer of US dollars from the treasury of the United States to the governments of foreign countries. It is money that goes to help foreign elites, who in turn spend much of it on contracts with US corporations. This means US tax dollars ultimately go to well-connected US corporations operating overseas.
Foreign aid distorts foreign economies and props up bad governments. It breeds resentment among citizens of foreign countries, who see the United States as keeping oppressive governments in power. Also, it is important to remember that forced charity is not charity at all. While I believe strongly in the moral value of helping the less fortunate, charity must come voluntarily from the heart, not under threat from the IRS.
This year’s bill is even worse than last year’s bill. Aside from the almost 600 million dollar increase, the bill will spend half a billion dollars on something called the “Trade Capacity Enhancement Fund.” This is nothing but an enormous fund to bribe foreign governments to “liberalize” their trade policies. As one of the strongest proponents of free trade in Congress, I know well that open and free trade is its own reward. Countries that trade freely with each other are wealthier and far less likely to go to war. We shouldn’t kid ourselves: this new program is not about free trade. Its purpose is to encourage countries to enter into new so-called trade agreements with the US government. Government to government trade agreements produce government-managed trade relationships, which are not free trade at all. This fund is a colossal waste of money that will result in less free trade worldwide.
Also, this year Congress will nearly double funding for the monstrous Millennium Challenge program. This is billed as a different kind of foreign aid, in that it only goes to governments that pursue “free market” economic and social reforms. Of course this is a waste of money: governments that pursue wise economic policies will attract much more in foreign private investment than the US government can send them. The true reward for sound economic policies is increased prosperity. Foreign aid does not purchase that prosperity but in fact distorts internal markets and props up inefficient companies.
Americans concerned about high taxes, out of control gas prices, and economic downturn should think hard about what the US government is doing with the money it takes from them. The greatest “foreign assistance” we can give to other countries is to demonstrate to the rest of the world that limited government and the rule of law ensure freedom and prosperity. |
I have to agree, Political Aid is just a tool to help serve the governments agenda. Most of the money that gets into the hand of governments don't use it for their intended purposes, But instead use it for themselves to live their rich life while their own people that they where put in power to serve end up being the ones suffering.
This aid should really go to NGO which have better accountability and transparency. They actually serve the people and not the government.
I just got back from a delegation to Colombia that was hosted by an NGO. They gave us a tour of Colombia and we spoke with campesinos and indigenous groups who are all worried about the new Free Trade Agreement that might be signed this summer.
I agree that aid should be directed to accountable sources but I completely disagree with the idea that we shouldn't send any aid to other countries. One of the biggest conflicts in Colombia, if the FTA passes, a lot of farmers will be forced to compete with US markets, which have a 6 to 1 advantange over Colombia markets. If the US does NOT give them the aid they need to grow alternative export crops then they will have no choice but to grow coca, which is used to make cocaine.
The whole point of the $5 billion "Plan Colombia" military aid package is to erradicate coca. It would be another slap in the face of the many Colombian campesinos not to give them support to grow alternative crops so they can support their families who have very little social support from their own govt. I think we need to stop our govt from passing unfair free trade agreements and failing military aid agreents like Plan Colombia before we go all out against foreign aid.
More info about FTA: http://www.witnessforpeace.org/pdf/FacesofColombiaFTAfinal.pdf I think it depends on how people identify with their government. In Sweden, the government was once a "we," but is lately becoming more like, say, the US where the rhetoric is often "we, the people, against them, the government."
Forced charity is indeed not charity at all, but not all government charity is forced charity. The country's a democracy, after all, and that means that the people have agreed on doing this as a whole, agreed to let their government handle charity so that they don't have to take the time to. That's what government is for anyway.
If I had a vote in the US I would likely be voting for the dems - unless they changed their system to something that doesn't suck and lets you actually choose a third party without wasting your vote. Then I'd vote libertarian.
I have worked with an organisation through which some of Finnish foreign aid is channelled. I have seen it do a lot of good: schools, literacy education, hospitals, health care, clean water - the list goes on and on.
I don´t know what kind of hidden agenda is behind this aid: maybe Finland is not so blatantly seeking for allies in the third world as US is. I don´t know if any money is diverted on its way to the suffering. What I know, is that the people affected by these programs have been truly aided and truly grateful for the help they get. Despite being muslims, they can appreciate "christian" aid and embrace the aid workers as brothers.
Could it be, in the case of US foreign aid, that while the other hand is feeding, the other hand is holding a mighty big stick? Although you take the food from the other hand, the shadow of the stick is still blocking your sun.
From outside, it seems that the current US administration has portrayed an image of being very much interested in protecting oil-related aspects of US economy. Although overthrowing "terrorist regimes" and "condemning genocide" is an applaudable achievement, the way it has been carried out has not contributed much to the world peace.
But no regime is perfect - anywhere. Living in a democracy, we also live in compromise.
Thank y’all for the thoughtful statements so far. I will comment more later, but for now I’d like to clarify a definition.
In the context here (and when no other specific definitional qualification is made), the term foreign aid, should be understood to mean funds transferred from one nation or country to another one. In other words, Governments are, by definition, always involved in foreign aid.
So, when private charitable groups and individuals transfer their own funds to other nations, countries, groups, individuals, etc., it may be so-called foreign, and it may be aid, but for definitional purposes it’s not being called foreign aid. Understanding that should also help one understand the following:
A person might be against all foreign aid, but support plenty of real charity towards “foreign” countries.
Theoretically, a person could be against all real charity, but support foreign aid. (Think about that one. ) I don´t know about US, but in some countries foreign aid is channelled through organizations that get funding also through charity. That is, official government money, tax-collected, is given to an organisation for a particular purpose to advance a thing or another in a third world country.
Now, in some countries foreign aid seems to be given to show support for a regime. This could be called foreign "aid", at least for the purpose of this discussion.
As to what rep. Ron Paul wrote, "limited government and the rule of law" might not always suffice for prosperity. I have been to third world countries that are good examples of democracy for any nation. Still, the trade imbalance, foreign debt, limited resources, low level of education, sanitary problems and even forces of nature severely limit the ability of these countries to prosper.
If there weren´t "forced charity" (and I am not talking just about US), there might be even less funds available to help these nations. But, of course, using the umbrella of charity for political purposes lessens even more the willingness of tax payers to participate in voluntary foreign aid.
Wow, you came off incredibly self-righteous there. Perhaps I didn't read it in the correct "tone", but at any rate I am somewhat inclined to agree with you.
On one hand:
[sarcasm]How terrible of the U.S. to try to help the rest of the world, pull them out of poverty, and introduce them to the splendors of democracy.[/sarcasm]
On the other:
More seriously, a campaign to force charity on people won't work if they're not willing to receive said charity, it just exhausts us and makes us look overbearing.
| adhoc wrote: |
| Forced charity is indeed not charity at all, but not all government charity is forced charity. The country's a democracy, after all, and that means that the people have agreed on doing this as a whole, agreed to let their government handle charity so that they don't have to take the time to. That's what government is for anyway. |
Point 1. All Government money is taken from people by force. Therefore, nothing given by Government is real charity.
~~~~~~~~~~
Point 2. There is no democratic method to decide who gets foreign aid, or what it’s used for. Foreign aid (as the big countries practice it) is used as a tool to get other countries to do their bidding. Who gets what from whom is decided the old fashioned way: behind closed doors with only politicians making the decisions.
There is a story told, which I relay here from memory, about a petty dictator of a small country in Central America being visited by the leader of a small country in Africa. The African leader was impressed by the lifestyle of the Central American and asked, “With your country so poor, how can you afford this palace and fancy cars and everything?”
The dictator pointed across the valley at a new hydroelectric project and said, “That was a foreign aid project of the U.S. I took half the money for myself.”
A couple years later the Central American dictator visited the African leader and was surprised at the opulence of his palace. “How did you afford all of this?!” he asked in amazement.
“See that hydroelectric project across the valley?” asked the African leader.
“No,” replied the dictator.
“I was smarter than you,” boasted the African. “I took 100 percent of the foreign aid.”
This would be funny except that there are so many instances of leaders and their cohorts taking most, or all, of the foreign aid for themselves and their pet projects, and little, if any, goes for the purposes that the public is told it is for. Then, the US politicians look the other way, because they need those votes in the UN, or those troops in a coalition, or it would be politically awkward, etc. And then in the next round, there is more money going down the same hole.
~~~~~~~~~~
Point 3. Even if there were a democratic vote on foreign aid, it still wouldn’t be voluntary charity.
Just because a majority of your neighbors decides that you should give a percentage of your income to the local homeless shelter, doesn’t give them the right to take your money from you to redistribute. Neither does a majority of your politicians, or a majority of the voters in an election, make it right to take from some to give to others. Theft is still theft, even if the thieves are in a majority.
Something is either voluntary, which means the person doing it has a choice whether to do it or not, or it is forced, meaning there is no choice. Charity is giving voluntarily for a perceived good cause. Being forced to give cannot be charity, even if the cause were indeed good.Points 1 and 3: It's called democracy, and, nopes, it's not perfect, but that's how it works. Compromise. Participating in a democracy is voluntary, and by extension everything that comes with that becomes voluntary - even having to do things you'd rather not. If you don't want your money taken - create opinions and votes: play the democracy game. Your other option is to move to a better country, and there are plenty - even though that is not always easy.
Point 2 is irrelevant as it does not pertain to just government aid. A dictator may as well do the same with Red Cross aid. Are you claiming that all aid should be discontinued because of corruption on the receiving end? Instead of removing foreign aid - why not just make a greater effort to ensure that the money really is reaching its intended recipients?
Regarding how foreign aid is used for influence. The problem there lies with having a non-transparent - thereby a lying - government. In a transparent government, people can see and, either through their representatives or through direct voting, decide what goes where and why. A non-transparent government screws up much more than just foreign aid. Once again, instead of removing foreign aid - why not fix the government?
the money given to the gonvernment is indeed not a "charitible contribution"....but there are times when that money is used for charitible works both here and abroad.
Some monies collected by private organizations (corporate, religious, etc.) can also come under the same understanding.
I give you the Catholic Church and it's "mandatory tithing(sp.?)"....they don't just pass the collection plate around anymore (they still do however), they now what you to sign an agreement to turnover a percentage of your gross paycheck in order to be considered a member of a congregation.
Here again, this money is not exacty a charitable contribution....it is a membership fee, but as I previously stated....some of that money can indeed be, and is often, used for true charitable works.
True charity comes from the heart and not always from the wallet/pocketbook.
| The Philosopher Princess wrote: |
| Congresscritter Ron Paul (R-Texas) |
It's simply unfair to group Ron Paul in with the other, actual, Congresscritters. Ron Paul has spent his career legitimately trying to reduce the expanses of the federal government. I just wanted to make that quick point. He’s one of the few politicians in whom I see real character, and real devotion to liberty.
That said, I definitely fall into your third category. There are very few problems in the world that a true market system could not fix. This includes the case of “forced charity”. If it weren’t for taxes, more people, and more businesses would be able to donate (willingly) to charities of their choice. As it is now, the government already steals half of our money, and doesn’t let us choose how it’s spent, so there's little left to give willingly. | smalls wrote: |
| ...If it weren’t for taxes, more people, and more businesses would be able to donate (willingly) to charities of their choice. As it is now, the government already steals half of our money, and doesn’t let us choose how it’s spent, so there's little left to give willingly. |
I'm not exactly sure I agree with your sentiment here, it is a nice thought indeed, but, and this is only my opinion, the rich (or "well off") people use charities to thier advantage in the form of tax write-offs to reduce the amount the have to give the government...I'm afraid if it were not for taxes the amount of money going to real charities would drop dramatically.
As I stated....it is a pleasent thought that people and big biz may actually give more to charity if they (we all for that matter) didn't have to pay taxes....but I'm afraid it just wouldn't work out that way. There is simply far too much greed that is a natural by-product of a capitalistic society.
Just my opinion.Sorry for my arrogance in the previous post: of course foreign aid is a tool of political as well as humanitarian nature. United States has such an active role in the world politics that it becomes an easy target for accusations, too. As I a Finn, I should be more concerned about the percentage of Finnish tax money spent on foreign aid; it is ridiculously low.
I don´t know the facts, but I would guess that it is easier to donate to charities that are well know or current, such as relief for tsunami victims or are close to you (cancer in the family, neighbourhood projects) - not to infrastructural projects in a far-away land. Aid channelled through government might just get that power plant built, after all...
I wouldn't worry too much about the US foreign aid. The US govt. isn't stupid, so your money isn't going to waste. It is being used (as you rightfully said) to prop up dictators and other shoddy characters who is then willingly agreeing to use the money to buy US weapon systems, like fighter jets and tanks. Also, they agree to give up their labour for (almost) free, so that they can manufacure necessary consumables like TV-sets and jeans (XXL of course) for very affordable prices, which your tax-dollars, indirectly, has subsidized.
So, don't fret, your precious tax-dollars facilitates many a dictators and fundamentalist states, money laundry, drug production, sweat shops, buyers of US military hardware and training. Look at some of the top recievers of US foreign aid (without ranking them);
1. Israel
2. Colombia
3. Egypt
4. Turkey
5. ...
Not exactly human right champions. So before you start moaning about giving your money away, have a look what they are really used for. You are being set up by your government, and held under the impression that you are giving away money for nothing.
So although your main problem may be that you have to pay taxes at all, fine, but it should be clear what we are talking about. US give very little aid that does not come with any conditions of some sort.
That is the problem. You are being lied to.
So what do we do? Leave them to starve? Leave them to be homeless? Charity is political, yes, but that doesn't mean that's all it is. Both sides benefit from charity, whether political or humanitarian.
| Soulfire wrote: |
| So what do we do? Leave them to starve? Leave them to be homeless? Charity is political, yes, but that doesn't mean that's all it is. Both sides benefit from charity, whether political or humanitarian. |
Charity doesn't have to have political undertones or hidden agendas....when I donate money to an organization it is because I like what they are doing, not because I think it'll make any changes other than to help somebody out that needs helping. I also make my donations anonymously so I can't even use it as a tax write-off.
I don't think I have ever knowingly made any kind of political donation...but once any organization has your money, you can only hope it goes to whatever purpose you intended it for.
