Occupy Pittsburgh is pretty big. (condo, to buy, camping)

[BrianTH]

Originally Posted by Aqua Teen Carl

We already give away an unprecedented amount of foreign aid all over planet Earth via your tax dollars

Foreign aid is about 1% of the federal budget these days, and has been around that level since the 1970s. It was about 5% during the Johnson Administration/Vietnam War.

Compared to other developed countries, our net foreign aid as a percentage of GDP is very low:

[Aqua Teen Carl]

Originally Posted by BrianTH

Foreign aid is about 1% of the federal budget these days, and has been around that level since the 1970s. It was about 5% during the Johnson Administration/Vietnam War.

Compared to other developed countries, our net foreign aid as a percentage of GDP is very low:

Fair point, interesting. My point was that we do give a huge sum of cash out worldwide which was in response to a poster saying they wouldn't mind giving money away, etc. In the same vein I don't think countries that are receiving foreign aid from Sweden are burning Swedish flags either.

Also, if we're talking our tax dollars going into the wrong hands, let's not forget about the biggest scam in human history totaling $12.3 trillion dollars. Maybe that's a little slice of why these protestors are so upset eh?

[Aqua Teen Carl]

Also, on topic:

5 Occupy Pittsburgh Protestors Arrested « CBS Pittsburgh

[CaptainPittsburgh]

Originally Posted by UKyank

To the rest of the world the average American is the 1% (well actually we are the 19%), but I don't think any of the occupy people would advocate for a more global distribution of their income.

I feel like you're just being generally dismissive, which is fine. If not, I will point to the wiki for this movement which states that US Occupy protests have had some overlap with similar protests in 80 countries worldwide. The guiding philosophy behind them as a group, vague as it may be, does seem to concern economic and social inequality on a global scale.

That being said, I haven't participated in any of this, nor do I have a clear sense of the movement's purpose or goals, let alone the idealistic commitment of its progenitors. The whole affair seems woefully unfocused to me.

I am quite sympathetic to the issues at heart here, but at their base level these are social problems that have existed since Rome. Barring some extra-terrestrial or divine intervention, I really don't imagine there is a viable solution to greed and its resulting inequalities. I do find some measure of reassurance in the knowledge that at any give time in history a portion of our race is actively attempting to even the balance, regardless.

[BrianTH]

Originally Posted by Aqua Teen Carl

Fair point, interesting. My point was that we do give a huge sum of cash out worldwide which was in response to a poster saying they wouldn't mind giving money away, etc.

I'm suggesting that whether our spending on foreign aid amounts to a "huge sum" is probably best considered in relative terms. At a minimum, I think it is very important to note that foreign aid is not meaningfully subtracting from the overall level of government spending in the United States. I also think it is worth noting that on the whole, among developed nations the United States is considered very stingy by this measure--you might think that is a good thing, but people like the poster you are referencing could reasonably disagree.

In the same vein I don't think countries that are receiving foreign aid from Sweden are burning Swedish flags either.

It is certainly true that the idea that you can simply buy good-will with foreign aid is probably mistaken. On the other hand, I also think it is true that in general, economic distress does tend to lead to higher risks for U.S. interests, and economic development does tend to lower those risks.

So whether they are grateful for it or not in any direct sense, it is potentially smart to do relatively inexpensive things to reduce economic distress in other countries, and/or encourage economic development in other countries. And some people would suggest we have a moral obligation to do so as well.

In any event, this started with someone questioning how people in the Occupy Pittsburgh movement would view these issues. My suggestion remains that rather than making any assumptions about that, those who are interested should try engaging some such people in a discussion.

[gg]

Originally Posted by BrianTH

Foreign aid is about 1% of the federal budget these days, and has been around that level since the 1970s. It was about 5% during the Johnson Administration/Vietnam War.

Compared to other developed countries, our net foreign aid as a percentage of GDP is very low:

That might be, but our foreign aid seems to go to other countries military while Sweden's certainly wouldn't. There is a huge difference in comparing us. Also, I have to wonder about that chart. Does it include our huge yearly gift to Israel, so they can ramp up their military, or is that just aid for the needy?

[I_Like_Spam]

Originally Posted by BrianTH

Foreign aid is about 1% of the federal budget these days, and has been around that level since the 1970s. It was about 5% during the Johnson Administration/Vietnam War.

Compared to other developed countries, our net foreign aid as a percentage of GDP is very low:

That chart can be misleading, because it fails to consider the billions in private American money that goes abroad for charitable causes. Not only do the American ultrarich give huge sums abroad but plenty of ordinary folks as well.

To consider only the money given by the Federal Government really doesn't do justice to the overwhelming generosity of Americans in general.

[Denton56]

Originally Posted by SteelCityRising

I actually wouldn't mind having a new "Foreign Goodwill Tax" (or something of the sort) enacted upon me so I'd annually have to contribute $100 (or some other arbitrary amount) for the greater good of those residing within developing nations. $100 is a hard hit in the pocket for me, but I could earn that back by working just one extra shift. That $100 might feed a small family in Cambodia for an entire year for all I know.

So do it! No one is stopping you from giving money to any charity that you choose. You just don't get to decide to take more of my money to give to the charity of YOUR choice.

We give thousands a year to charities. There's nothing stopping you from giving whatever amount you want, to whomever you choose.

[Denton56]

[quote=SteelCityRising;21739852]All I know for certain is that after watching Michael Moore's documentary about Capitalism yesterday with my partner I am more infuriated than ever in regards to our nation's incessantly deteriorating economic conditions. I can't believe Wal-Mart secretly took out life insurance policies on their employees so they could collect benefits when they died. I can't believe that workers in Chicago had to stage a sit-in at their factory for days just to receive an average of $6,000/each in back-pay, benefits, and severance owed to them when their employer abruptly shuttered and left them unemployed with a three-day notice. At one point in time it was possible (and commonplace) for just a husband (or wife) to work full-time while providing his or her family with a comfortable standard of living that would include never having to worry about paying for groceries, never having to worry about taking little Timmy to the doctor when he had a high fever, and being able to take at least one paid vacation annually. Today? I struggle daily to make ends meat just to support myself. I don't have health insurance. I don't receive any sort of paid time off. My scheduling is at the mercy of my employer. I still have neck pain from a car accident six weeks ago, and I'm afraid to seek treatment because my auto insurance policy will only compensate medical bills up to $10,000.<<<<

You were not at fault in the accident. Why would your insurance policy be paying anything? The woman who hit you should be paying ALL your medical bills. That's how it works.

Your insurance company only pays $10,000? Next time, you need a better policy. With such a low income, why aren't you on Medicaid? They'll pay all your doctor's visits, and any therapy that you need to recover from the accident.

Please, please, do not listen to Michael Moore. He lies. It's well known. Don't let him scare you, that's his intent. Don't fall for that crazy stuff he says to scare you.

[PeterRabbit]

Originally Posted by Denton56

You were not at fault in the accident. Why would your insurance policy be paying anything? The woman who hit you should be paying ALL your medical bills. That's how it works.

No, that's not how it works. The at-fault person who hit you can have $100,000 in medical coverage but if you only have $10,000 on your policy that's all they'll pay.