View Single Post
  #12  
Old 04-26-2008, 02:00 PM
UGAalum94 UGAalum94 is offline
GreekChat Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Atlanta area
Posts: 5,372
Quote:
Originally Posted by Drolefille View Post
Here you seem to be advocating more government support,
Here you're saying it's not the government's job to go further than it has.

I didn't give a value judgement on the funding. 1/5 of the cost, based on an ability to pay, is not "basically funding the UN ourselves."

UNICEF and the like are not part of the UN and don't have an effect on the functioning of the UN.
Fair enough, as long as you're comfortable with other countries owning that debt. We do not "have" to assume government debt.

And as I said, we shouldn't change our policies because Belgium is really pissed off, but we should give a damn that we are pissing off even those countries considered our allies. We should change our policies when they're bad ones.
I'm not advocating more government support, other than possibly tax credits for private companies or revising farm subsidies that pay people not to grow (ETA: or to grow for the sake of ethanol, just to make the subsidies talk fresh. We currently pay money to people to do things with their farm land other than to grow food. I don't regard it as the government offering more support if we stop or reduce such subsidies although it's certainly the government acting in a way that might produce more food.)

I see all UN programs as being part of the UN. When one figures in all aid to all UN programs the US share is even greater. But this point is neither here non there, other than to say I don't have the same problem in not paying what we "owe" to the UN, but I agree that it's problematic to say we will pay and then withhold funding. Sometimes I'd support completely pulling out of the UN; sometimes I moderate my urge for this extreme because of the other UN programs like UNICEF, which our contribution to the UN does help.

You're right that we don't have to assume debt. I'd favor the government doing less as a way to reduce expense. (We can start with the billions we pay to the UN if you want.) Others favor taxing more. Apparently it's beyond the will of anyone elected to public office just not to spend more than the government takes in and to reduce spending further to allow for debt to be paid off. I don't see anyone is the race who is going to be willing to do that, Hamas endorsed or not.

Last edited by UGAalum94; 04-26-2008 at 03:47 PM.
Reply With Quote