A Pretty Good Idea from Trump: Loans

That seems a meaningless point.

Congrats?

 

You can't just look at these situations as "give aways".
There are numerous reasons to keep a foreign government solvent.
Are they trading partners?
Are they in a strategic location?
Is it less expensive to support them now or worry they'll become centers of terrorism later?
Could they be a future trading partner?
Will military instability cause more expensive problems in the future?

The problem I see with Trump is that he views everything through one mindset of "what can you do for me now".
He's a fast food junkie in politics.

 

While we're casually talking about the fun pastime of throwing mult-billions of dollars in 'aid' around here and there, would someone please refresh my memory about exactly why we need Ukraine -- for anything?!

Was Ukraine ever an important trading partner for the U. S.? What do they have that we even want? Is it located in a part of the world that would give us an advantage in the timing of a thermonuclear exchange of missiles during war? The Poles would be thrilled to have us base nukes and the missiles in their country, so what would putting them maybe forty-seconds closer to Moscow (if that) do for our strategic positioning if we put them in Ukraine instead? I just don't get it... what is it about Ukraine that's so damned important to us? * People, this is money we don't have! We're so deeply in debt right now that it becomes increasingly likely that before very much longer we won't even be able to pay the interest required on our national debt -- let alone the debt itself! *

And, NO, that doesn't mean that Russia is justified in making war on its Slavic 'first-cousins' and former Soviet Union countrymen -- but I'm just asking the admittedly selfish question of "What the hell's in this for US, the United States of America?!" Billions upon billions upon billions of dollar's worth -- for WHAT exactly...?!

And a last question, please. If we do make Ukraine a series of 'loans' going forward, who's going to be responsible for paying the loans back? Ukraine's billionaire oligarchs?

 

You mentioned several reasons for aiding foreign nations, but you didn't explain why that couldn't be done via loans rather than straight up give aways.

 

You’re the one who brought it up, when you were falsely claiming that the US lent money to foreign governments BEFORE Lend Lease.

Your words, not mine.

Even with that, the Lend Lease deals were based on the political fictions that they represented an exchange of material assets (islands, for instance), and not a loan per se.

 

You are the one that made the association, let alone thinking Trumps idea is anything new.

 

You missed it Mike. He's more concerned about keeping foreign countries solvent but doesn't give a damn about America's insolvency.

He's America Last.

My only hope is when the country collapses, the liberals pushing us off the cliff get hit the hardest.

Some people are just ignorant. They bitch about inflation yet want to print billions we don't have and then send it to shitholes around the world with their hands stuck out. Shitholes that are not our allies, but the allies of the MIC, NGOs and politicians getting kickbacks

 

That isn't sticking it to the rich, so the socialists arent gonna go for it. Nevermind that its not the rich ultimately being emburdenned by our giveaways, that part it seems is impossible to get across to the collectivists....

 

Please provide the quote where I allegedly stated the US did lend lease before lend lease.

Again, the Brits had to pay us back...with money.

Now if you are saying Ukraine should give us something...how about a province? Ready for some good old fashioned imperalism?

 

Could you source me saying that?

 

I think I got it all right. I've just been enjoying the all day twisting and turning on this issue. I guess that's what happens when you don't care about policy, only about who/whom.

 

Giving the money away for free isn't sticking it to the rich either. Now adding an income tax surcharge to pay for this would...

 

#44.

 

Before we entered...World War II.

LOL!

 

This sort of short sighted, pathetically infantile zero sum brain fart of a philosophy is part of why most of Donald's businesses have ended up failures or frauds. He cannot conceive of a mutually beneficial exchange.

 

* Half black

 

The twisting and turning has been most entertaining to watch. This thread has been about an idea, yet most respondents have only been able to focus on who's idea it was. Eleanore has some insight into that phenomenon.

"Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people." - Eleanore Roosevelt

 

We have killed the incentive to be productive, to earn self-respect, in a great many Americans by giving them money that enabled them to stay down and become dependent- and then become resentful because they weren't getting all the free stuff they thought they were entitled to. There are times when the "help" we give away- does far more damage than good. The terms matter.

Human dignity depends on being able to stand on your own. Sometimes that means NOT helping, but it always means helping them stand up, not making it unneccessary.

 

I continue to be amazed how people that are totally incapable of doing a job insist they are qualified to tell those who are how to do it.

 

Reactively I liked the concept, but in essence it rewards countries that that are corrupt and mired in poverty --and penalizes countries that improve or become a true ally to US.

 

Did I miss something that said we didn't have the power to choose who we would loan money to?

 

We do have the power to choose. And foreign aid should always be for the benefit of the United States. Our power is to give and take a way. Sometimes that means giving money to corrupt governments who laugh at the thought of paying off a loan. Their main concern would be to lose the stream of money, which in itself would be a deterrent to turning against us. Where a third world country that improves its governance and economy would have to deal with debt on top of sustaining and growing what it has. Why would we demand payment from a country growing to be a true ally?

The easy loan terms being described would allow corrupt no good countries to not have any consequences, while proactive advancing countries would be burdened.

 

I do see the argument for this and think it may be sound, however I would have two issues with this before going forward with it:

1. Ukraine appears to be a puppet state of the USA. If that is so, and if the CIA or USA is otherwise pulled the strings in Ukraine that triggered the Russian attack, the USA should be financially responsible for it. The US growing NATO, rejecting Russia from NATO, declaring Russia its reason for NATO existing also falls into this category. These wars are also testing grounds for US weapons manufacturers and that should probably factor into this in some way.

2. If the USA gets into regular lending to other nations rather than aid, especially to fund wars, it makes the USA look like a mercenary group, and I don't like what that could turn into.

 

Lend-Lease was NOT a loan.

 

I’m confused!

Trump’s utter incompetence in the White House was in daily display for four years.

His most recent adolescent monologue about international lending only underlines the point.

Anyone with more than a sixth grade eduction should have easily spotted the fact that Trump’s comments are total nonsense.