In the wake of our President’s pledge to give financial assistance to Greece last week, many Americans are beginning to wonder whether it’s a good idea to be giving billions of dollars away to other nations when we are currently borrowing over a trillion dollars a year to finance Congress’ mind-bending spending habits.
According to the Census Bureau, the national government gave “economic assistance” to countries all over the planet last year amounting to a grand total of 34 billion dollars.
My question is, despite what elitist, save-the-world-with-your-money folks think, should Congress and the President really be handing out cash to foreign nations?
In principle, the authority to do so was actually never granted to any branch of the federal government in the Constitution. In fact, when a bill arose in Congress in 1794 authorizing money to be spent on French refugees from Haiti, James Madison stood on the floor of the House of Representatives to declare that “he could not undertake to lay his finger on that article in the federal Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending, on objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents.”
Simply put, Mr. Madison believed that the United State Congress had neither the right, nor the power to give charity. This is not simply a mean-spirited ideological stand. A closer inspection reveals that Congressional charity is not charity at all. If I were to go out, withdraw money from my neighbor’s bank account against his will, and proceed to give it to an irresponsible, over-spending friend of mine, it would rightly be called theft. When the government does the same thing, it’s called “economic assistance.” Unfortunately, pleasant-sounding euphemisms cannot take an immoral act and make it noble.
Because this blatant fact is rather unpleasant for politicians to confront, most would rather avoid it altogether by attempting to play on your emotions. Once the issue of principle is set aside, the debate can be framed as being between the compassionate members of Congress that want to help others and those greedy individuals who want the world’s less fortunate to suffer in want.
For the sake of argument, let us set aside these issues of principle and assume that Congress does have authority to give taxpayer money to foreign nations, and that it isn’t immoral to steal from one individual to give to another. The question remains, is Congress actually helping poor individuals around the world by showering cash on foreign governments?
Judging by the view of history, the answer is clearly, no. Seldom, if ever, does foreign aid ever reach the impoverished masses, and when it does, it rarely provides lasting or material relief. Most often, the cash is given to despotic foreign governments where it usually lines the pockets of wealthy politicians and well-connected and theirentrenched interests. In the case of Greece, it’s simply subsidizing the empty promises of socialist Greek politicians, giving other countries incentive to take similar actions without fear of going bankrupt.
Most responses to the epic failure of foreign aid over the years, as with poverty-elimination programs in general, is that we just aren’t giving enough. A more rational view would be that throwing more cash at foreign nations will not solve their problems, it never has.
In fact, it’s making them worse. The only solution to global poverty is the only one that has ever succeeded: encouraging free citizens to improve their own lives and the lives of others through voluntary exchange and free enterprise.
Congress has given enough false charity as it is. It ought not carry out its repetitive streak of injustice by continuing to do something that was neither wise nor virtuous to begin with.
Steven Christopher is a first year graduate student in the C.T. Bauer College of Business and may be reached at [email protected].
despite what elitist, save-the-world-with-your-money folks think, should Congress and the President really be handing out cash to foreign nations?
elitist and save the world people are completely opposite.
our govt doesn't 'hand out' money to anyone. nothing is free in this world. if they're giving them money, you can bet it's for a non-altruistic reason. the author should have carried this realization further and tried to figure out what they are getting in return and what that implies. is the evil tax funded charity or misguided pseudo-charity? only a conservative would criticize charity and disregard the invasions and bombings we "donate" so often when there's a clear tie in (we're doing it for us, not them -this lie is the fundamental problem.) if we were doing it for the right reasons and it actually benefited other countries beyond their elite sector, then it would be silly to argue against it due to the diplomatic points it would achieve.
“he could not undertake to lay his finger on that article in the federal Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending, on objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents.” – misplaced quotation mark. – first result for this quote is from Cato institute. hmmm
Cato: "Individual Liberty, Free Markets, and Peace." What of it?
It's not a misplaced quotation mark, the federal register was originally published in the third person. See the quotation here: ( http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llac&… )
As for elitists being completely opposite of save-the-world-with-you-money types, You're wrong again. I originally made reference to Bono, who, among other wealthy celebrities, demand that the US government tax its citizens (most of which are vastly less wealthy than Mr. Bono), and then give the money of its constituents to foreign nations.
You clearly missed the ENTIRE point of my article. If you steal from someone and then give it away to others as if it is yours to give, clearly this is not "charity" in any rational or reasonable sense of the term. Individuals are free to give as much to others as they please. This is a good thing. Government redistribution cannot be equated to private charitable giving.
In sum 1) Governmental "charity" is theft
2) The government is probably not doing it for the right reasons
3) it doesn't benefit "other countries beyond their elite sector."
And for the record, I'm a Libertarian, not a conservative.
You're an economic conservative – it's plain to see in your rhetoric. Call it libertarian if you want, but it's so similar to what the so called conservatives say that it doesn't need to be hashed out. That you call government spending and "redistribution" "theft" speaks volumes as to your mindset. Focusing on poverty programs and foreign aid instead of real issues like better regulations, better democracy, better education, less military, less prisoners, etc is right out of the right.
We need government. There's no way around it. Arguing about more or less government as a whole is a waste of time. Saying that collecting taxes is theft is a waste of time. Arguing that we should spend our taxes differently is reasonable. Arguing that because a founder says something, we should do it is religion.
All of the wealthy artsy lefty celebs I've seen talking about taxes are saying increase taxes for the wealthy – INCLUDING THEMSELVES. They are the ONLY people I hear say this – including Jon Stewart and Bill Maher (satan incarnate.) And if you want to single out Bono for saying we should spend money in other countries, I only say this reflects your extreme bias once again.
My mistake on the quotation mark – it was phrased the same in the Cato article,and I figured that's where you found it.
As for Cato…they are misguided in their desire for deregulation, I think. And I was implying that maybe it wasn't a coincidence that Cato showed on top of google for the quote, and that you are fiscally conservative – and that the Madison quote is just a talking point probably taken out of context (like many of the libertarian/conservative emails I always see on their forums.)
I think your focus on the government is narrow. The problem is concentrated wealth/power. Whether it be in the hands of government or businessmen. The distributions arose from crazy times, and don't reflect nature. One person doesn't deserve 10,000 times as much power/money as someone else. I don't care who it is. Capitalism is supposed to bring us to that realization of fairness through freeness, but you are naive if you think it's a free market just because the rich get to do what they want without government interfering. That's just really well marketed economic garbage. The truth is the rich run the govt and the business and the country, and there's no way around it except increasing their taxes – often in only conciliatory amounts to prevent the kind of poverty that can set off revolutions. Skimming a little off the top of their huge cornucopia of wealth to quell the hungry.
If you join a group that takes a fee (taxes) for you to be in that group (modern society) and that group spends those taxes trying to improve fellow human beings across the world (nationalism is religion) then I'm guessing there are a lot worse things out there to complain about. If they are doing it for some sinister reason and not to help people – fine. Focus on that. Look into that. What are we gaining? But don't equate taxes with theft. You're a business student so I know it's crucial that you have to believe that it works this way, but it's not too late to change your major. Show how much you care about charity, and come experience the trickle down economics from the bottom with the rest of us liberal arts, etc. majors who are trying to improve the world and don't care about salary and profits like businessmen/gangsters.
Foreign Aid is clearly a “real issue” when you are giving away 34 billion dollars a year while simultaneously borrowing 1.4 trillion. While it would be nice to discuss regulation, democracy, education, military, and prisons all in one article, it would be a bit hard to discuss all of that in the span of 600 words.
Your claim that “arguing about more or less government as a whole is a waste of time” is patently stupid. It is because of people like you that a free society can slowly be sucked dry by the leviathan.
I made a mark in regards to James Madison because I agree with his views on government. There are other “founders” that I profoundly disagree with, such as Alexander Hamilton. Additionally, anyone with half a brain knows Mr. Madison was one of the most active members in the Constitutional convention and therefore he provides special insight into what the Constitution was and wasn’t designed to do.
Celebrities argument that government should increase taxes on all wealthy people is just empty posturing. If they want to give more money to the treasury they can write a check any day of the week. Their argument is the same thing as seeing a someone in need and then saying… ‘I’ll help them, but only if all the other wealthy people around me are compelled to first… then I’ll help.’ I picked Bono merely as an example. Obviously, there are hundreds of others.
You, like many on the left, confound advocacy of free markets with being “pro-business”. It is precisely because big business has control of government that the government’s coercive abilities should be strictly limited. Clearly if “the rich run the govt” then having those same people write laws that you think are supposed to punish them is not going to work. In fact, you will only end up hurting the less wealthy in the process. Again, limiting the size, scope and goal of government avoids these problems.
As for current distributions being the product of “crazy times” , the best course of action would be to end the government’s current capacity to hand out cash to businesses and well-connected individuals, not simply try to re-re-distribute. We can not credibly promote the principles of a free society if we first agree that they must be violated in order for them to be observed.
I most certainly will equate taxes with theft when the government is taking the assets of its citizenry not to protect their life, liberty, and property but to actually violate them in favor of one group of individuals over another.
Maybe instead of telling me what I should “focus on” you could actually make an argument for yourself instead of taking weak pot-shots at mine.
As for being a business student, I am earning my master’s degree to increase my technical knowledge of financial instruments to help me do my job as a Risk Analyst better in the workplace. I just finished my degree in economics (which is in the college of liberal arts and social sciences by the way) in August. I recommend you try to learn some more economics yourself, based on your pitiful “trickle-down economics” comment that is merely a wimpy strawman that describes no view that any serious free-market economist has ever advocated. You could start with ‘Basic Economics’ by Thomas Sowell.
Finally, why is it that you think you know me well enough to make blanket statements regarding my character, my charitable giving, and my motives?
Foreign Aid is clearly a “real issue” when you are giving away 34 billion dollars a year while simultaneously borrowing 1.4 trillion. While it would be nice to discuss regulation, democracy, education, military, and prisons all in one article, it would be a bit hard to discuss all of that in the span of 600 words.
Your claim that “arguing about more or less government as a whole is a waste of time” is patently stupid. It is because of people like you societies are allowed to descend into centrally-planned police states.
I made a remark in regards to James Madison because I agree with his views on government. There are other “founders” that I profoundly disagree with, such as Alexander Hamilton. Additionally, anyone with half a brain knows Mr. Madison was one of the most active members in the Constitutional convention and therefore he provides special insight into what the Constitution was and wasn’t designed to do.
Celebrities’ argument that government should increase taxes on all wealthy people is just empty posturing. If they want to give more money to the treasury they can write a check any day of the week. Their argument is the same thing as seeing a someone in need and then saying… ‘I’ll help them, but only if all the other wealthy people around me are compelled to first… then I’ll help.’ I picked Bono merely as an example. Obviously, there are hundreds of others.
You, like many on the left, confound advocacy of free markets with being “pro-business”. It is precisely because big business has control of government that the government’s coercive abilities should be strictly limited. Clearly if “the rich run the govt” then having those same people write laws that you think are supposed to punish them is not going to work. In fact, you will only end up hurting the less wealthy in the process. Limiting the size, scope and goal of government lessens these problems.
As for current distributions being the product of “crazy times” , the best course of action would be to end the government’s current capacity to hand out cash to businesses and well-connected individuals, not simply try to re-re-distribute. We can not credibly promote the principles of a free society if we first agree that they must be violated in order for them to be observed.
I most certainly will equate taxes with theft when the government is collecting taxes from its citizenry not to protect their life, liberty, and property but to actually violate them in favor of one group of individuals over another.
Maybe instead of telling me what I should “focus on” you could actually make an argument for yourself instead of taking weak pot-shots at mine.
As for being a business student, I am earning my master’s degree to increase my technical knowledge of financial instruments to help me do my job as a Risk Analyst better in the workplace. I just finished my degree in economics (which is in the college of liberal arts and social sciences by the way) in August. I recommend you try to learn some more economics yourself, based on your pitiful “trickle-down economics” comment that is merely a wimpy strawman that describes no view that any serious free-market economist has ever advocated. You could start with ‘Basic Economics’ by Thomas Sowell.
Finally, why is it that you think you know me well enough to make blanket statements regarding my character, my charitable giving, and my motives?
"and that it isn’t immoral to steal from one individual to give to another. "
You are a moron.
Steven Christopher is a first year graduate student in the C.T. Bauer College of Business
How did you finish your undergrad and get accepted to the business school?
LOL. Nice insult with absolutely no substance to back it up. I graduated Summa Cum Laude with a 4.0 major GPA. Boo-ya!
You’re not even brave enough to put your own name behind your words. What a chump.
Foreign aid isn't a real issue. There's nothing inherently wrong with it. Look up diplomacy. International diplomacy falls under the responsibilities of national bodies – the federal govt. To leave it up to charity is surely what the less charitable want, but oh well. If you want to argue about the specifics of particular instances of foreign aid – then I'd be open to hear it, but when you frame the discussion in foreign aid vs. no foreign aid, it just reeks of nationalism and right-winger digging for anything to criticize the president on.
It's not hard to tie in important issues like education, the military, etc. if you can see the big picture. I think most people can't or don't want to.
It's due to people like me who look at things unattached and unemotionally with an open and curious mind that human kind has progressed into a better understanding of the world.
Saying that because a founder says something or the Constitution says something means it's true (like many Americans do) doesn't make it so and is religious thinking in my opinion.
"Simply put, Mr. Madison believed that the United State Congress had neither the right, nor the power to give charity" – your explanation for this is a misguided metaphor that makes me think you haven't really thought about the issue and are just accepting the religious, right wing position that taxes are bad and if we give all of the money to businesses they won't send it overseas to sweatshops and tyrants who will make people work for a much more reasonable rate, but will invest it in American society just like the govt was doing, but better -because they loveeee us. Corporations are so sweet and don't send money overseas to bad people without Explicitly demanding something in return.
The celebrity argument is really off base, I think. They're not waiting for the wealthy to contribute before they help – they are devoting their time, money and risking their reputation to help people and take up causes that the mainstream media often neglects (because MSM is virtually completely economically conservative) – like caring about Africa, AIDS, poor people, etc. The Dixie Chicks gave up their careers by daring to speak up about Iraq before it was 'acceptable' – the powerful and elite enhanced their careers with Iraq.
Confounding free marketeers with pro-business is a Very easy thing to do.
"Clearly if "the rich run the govt" then having those same people write laws that you think are supposed to punish them is not going to work. In fact, you will only end up hurting the less wealthy in the process. Limiting the size, scope and goal of government lessens these problems."
That's where Democracy and Education and Smart Regulation come in (see how they can all be mentioned at once – they're connected.) We need a Good Press that is not run by rich capitalists so that the public is informed. We need an informed, engaged public so that democracy can work. Why doesn't this happen? Because money is power and we've always had an insane wealth distribution in every place ever since the agrarian revolution, so this is what emerges – insanity. Creating a more equal and reasonable wealth/power distribution solves this problem. Nowhere in this formula does "more" or "less" government come into the equation because it's not important – maybe we need a lot more better government, and a lot less bad government. Maybe we will get to a point where we don't need government at all again – maybe we will revert to our tribalistic ancestry. Until then, we need government – we need good government. Framing it as "big" or "small" govt just doesn't do justice to the Real problems in my opinion. And most of the people you hear talking about Small government, if not all of them, only mean in the areas that They deem unnecessary – like banking regulations, welfare, childhood obesity programs, etc.
"As for current distributions being the product of "crazy times" , the best course of action would be to end the government's current capacity to hand out cash to businesses and well-connected individuals, not simply try to re-re-distribute. We can not credibly promote the principles of a free society if we first agree that they must be violated in order for them to be observed."
How do you propose we do that when the rich can lobby and manufacture consent so easily? How do you get people politically active and mobilized against something that harms the rich when the rich control everything? Do you think the rich will just let the people win like that? They will want to debate it live on the national TV stations they own and dumb people down with horrible shows every night with? The best course of action is to break the government and businesses down – redistribute the power- so that the people have more control of their environment and their life. The only way to this is an informed public. Judging from what I read in this paper on a regular basis, I'm not optimistic I will live to see such a thing as an "informed public" in this country.
Who says the government isn't protecting us by donating that money? Maybe if you had looked deeper and seen what their motives were, we would know. http://www.cjr.org/the_audit/the_press_notes_the_…
We are trying to prevent an economic meltdown once again. That would have been better than just saying we are giving them "financial assistance" and allowing readers to infer that perhaps we are being altruistic by giving "charity." It hints at deeper issues – deeper than the US just giving foreign countries money. It has to deal with banks, the elite, etc. – but yeah, probably best to just focus on the government's role.
We've never "credibly" promoted promoted the principles of a free society then.
I avoid economics. Something about it seems to suck the soul out of people. Just kidding.
Financial instruments….risk analyst….workplace. You're well trained haha
I don't know what free market economists advocate, you're right. I'm just generalizing about what I see from the right because they're what scares me. If you're in some fringe that believes just in free markets, but isn't in love with business, but only criticizes government, well then nice to meet you. At least you didn't recommend Atlas Shrugged. Thanks.
I think I've made plenty of arguments. You're just not seeing them.
What statements are you referring to? I make assumptions sometimes. I do it because I don't think it's a huge deal when it's not done with too much arrogance. With me it's more like asking a question. Maybe I assume you are a certain way for the sake of timeliness, but I listen carefully and with an open mind when you tell me why you're not. If you're referring to me saying that you being a biz major means you have to believe in business over govt, I hope you will forgive this huge leap of faith I made.
I'll leave you with another Madison quote "…a people who mean to be their own Governors, must arm themselves with the power knowledge gives." Do you really think Americans are armed with enough knowledge to govern themselves (aka let the rich govern them unencumbered) at this point? Do you think the state of our media, our schools, our people warrant more self-governance? I shudder to think of what would happen if the government was removed completely as many libertarian/anarchists want and all that was left to control things were businessmen. We need to focus on better informing the public before we can move on to things like a functioning democracy and a decent society. A good start would be focusing on this newspaper which doesn't really inform students of what happens at this school at all. It takes quotes from administrative officials, it runs stories that completely lack depth, and this costs us – the students -100s of thousands of dollars each year. We are actually paying people to run this paper – can you believe it? If you hate government waste and corruption so much – start with The Daily Cougar. Dig through the archives and show me one story that merits the ink and paper it was printed with. When you come up empty handed – try doing a story on that and see what happens when people with little oversight (except from their friends) run an organization. If power was more properly distributed, and there was great transparency and regulation – this paper wouldn't be an utter waste.
and by the way, i enjoyed this. it's too bad this is against daily cougar policy and will be erased. you don't want to encourage discourse of the issues because it's 'unprofessional.' you give the news/opinion and the reader receives it. it's called the transmission model of communication. debating the issue is below you as a writer for this prestigious paper.
Does any other country give us economic assistance??? Well a 5 second google search would've told you that they do. http://articles.cnn.com/2005-09-04/us/katrina.wor… – "Among those offering assistance are India, Sri Lanka, Thailand and Indonesia, the four countries hardest-hit by the December 26 tsunami." Undeveloped countries giving the richest country economic assistance.
Yeah, I seriously said it. When you say things like it's people like me that are responsible for fascism, I can't help but match your overly cynical personal interpretations. Plus it makes sense. People who don't want to pay taxes because they go to helping the poor (or giving them Cadillacs and crackrocks if you are in the Right) are naturally going to say that charity shouldn't be forced, etc.
Where did I argue what govt charity is? I said leaving it up to charity – as in removing the govt "coercion" from helping people – is what those who don't want to help people surely want (as well as those who just hate the govt.) Charity is the only "moral" way to provide assistance??? Well, maybe if you want to be idealistic, which I have no problem with, but, until we have no need for govt, diplomacy includes things like assisting other countries with our govt.
"I also specifically criticized Congress, which has the sole power of appropriations, not the President. You drew that inference because you continue to make absurd assumptions and conclusions about my motives that you have clearly been wrong about. "
-"My question is, despite what elitist, save-the-world-with-your-money folks think, should Congress and the President really be handing out cash to foreign nations?" – I didn't infer anything. Balderdash! Clearly, sir, I am vindicated.
"I find it laughable that you believe you "look at things unattached and unemotionally.""
I should point out that I'm not really that arrogant, and that was just a response to you saying I make fascism possible. I do think I'm better at looking at things with an open mind than most people, or at least being open about it when I do.
It feels religious to me when you call it a "blatant fact" that what Madison says is true because govt taxation is theft (despite your strange addendum about giving it to an irresponsible friend – something I've never heard tacked on as a condition of the 'govt taxation is theft' argument.) Religious in how you call to the Founding Father to give you evidence with a simple statement of opinion lacking any depth about your religious belief in capitalism (religious because you seem to just accept what you read and not look at things with an open mind – because if you did look at things with an open mind this article wouldn't be so shallow as to just be about the government giving money to Greece when you had a whole page to fill [the rest of the page was filled with ads for the daily cougar because they can't sell any ads, but we're still paying a lot of money to people who are supposed to be finding advertisers – govt waste – get on it!!! here's something Local that you can actually have an Effect on.])
Your comment must be approved by the site admins before it will appear publicly. -guess my 2nd half won't get posted
if you want to continue this debate somewhere with free speech, and i hope you do, send me an email at [email protected]
Hmm… I stand corrected. We requested aid from other nations after a natural disaster 6 years ago. How sad.
A just government exists as an extension of man's natural right to defend his life, liberty, and property. When the law is perverted to violate these it becomes legalized plunder.
That being said, someone didn't complete their reading assigments. It's a shame. Join me on Facebook to debate in a public forum. Anything else would be a waste of time. Hopefully you won't continue to argue with tor false opponent that you assume me to be.
Ok. I will find you on facebook later.
By the way – I was just looking through your old story titles and saw one was something like "Dean not fit for job" and thought "OMG SOMEONE WROTE SOMETHING CRITICAL OF A SCHOOL ADMINISTRATOR?!? SOMETHING RELEVANT TO UH?!?!?SOMETHING INVESTIGATIVE?!?!?HOW DID I MISS THIS?!?!?!" and sure enough it was about Howard Dean hahahaha
i told you – the paper is too Prestigious to allow it's writers to debate the readers. promoting discourse could lead to community and different ideas. can't have that.