• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

US must pay for Ebola!

spangledbanner

spangledbanner

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 30, 2012
Messages
1,234
Reaction score
164
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Socialist
Recently the US side has urged the global community to "step up" and contribute fiscal treasury to fight the Ebola outbreak. The IMF has also begged the rest of us for more money. In my opinion the USA as holders of the Reserve Currency have the responsibility to pay for Ebola and not any of us. Who the hell does John Kerry and the US think they are begging us all for money when the US has Reserve Currency. We dont have Reserve Currency and the ability to contribute like the USA does. Why isnt the US contributing more to global emergencies when they have the Reserve Currency and the ability to do it?
I am sick of hearing Americans pat themselves on the back for printing money to send to other nations for 'aid' that always comes with political strings. The US as holders of the Reserve Currency have a responsibility to manage and protect the global community so we need not thank them for any 'aid' that they send to other nations, especially if it is 'military aid'. The US as holders of the Reserve Currency are not doing enough and are not using the Reserve Status for global good as intended but instead use Reserve Status to extend US influence.

Giving the Reserve Currency to the US side was not the only option discussed at Bretton Woods. The more fair, just and sensible option was the plan suggested by British economist John Maynard Keynes. Keyens proposed that an International Clearing Union ( ICU ) be established which would be a global bank with the role of clearance of trade between nations/regulation of currency exchange. All international trade would be demominated in the ICU unit - the Bankor. Most agree that the proposed ICU mechanisms would have given developing and emerging nations a greater say in decision making and been the fairest option. The US proposal was shockingly audacious and selfish in comparison to the suggestions of Keynes. The US side forced their way and got Reserve Status along with their other institutions, the IMF and World Bank.


The US side is forever complaining that they contribute the most to the IMF, World Bank, UN, etc but why shouldnt they? They have the Reserve Status and love to explain to us that they cannot ever run out of money so why the hell do they complain about their responsibilities? Why is a nation like Australia contributing anything to the World Bank, IMF and UN? USA should pay for it all. It is Americas responsibility while ever they keep Reserve Status. Why should Australia use our fiscal treasure to deal with ebola when the US side has Reserve Status?

The US side having Reserve Status is a privilege and a responsibility. How dare the Americans complain to us that we do not contribute enough to 'aid'. Who the hell do the Americans think they are patting themselves on the back constantly for their so-called 'aid' that is never enough and always comes with political strings? Why should we be impressed that the US side prints USD and uses it for aid and PR for their nation? Why are we not more disgusted each time some moronic American threatens that the US side will 'cut off aid' if some poor nation does not follow US orders?

The US side do not seem to understand the responsibility that comes with being holders of the Reserve Status. It seems obvious that while ever the nation of the USA is responsible for managing the Reserve Status it will be used primarily for US interests. Triffin explained long ago that it is a conflict of interest for a nations currency to act as both a domestic currency and Reserve Unit with the 'Triffin Dilema'. The US are happy to print insane amounts of cash to help wealthy American with QE but they cant deal with ebola without begging to the rest of us? It is time to take the Reserve away from this deluded parasite nation and move to a Reserve that is closer to Bankor suggested by Keynes.

The US side only uses the Reserve to help themselves and they act as though they have the right to do it. Wouldnt it be nice to live in a world that does not have smug Americans telling us that they dont need a budget because they cant run out of money? Do we really want to hear more idiotic ideas coming from America like their brilliant idea to mint trillion dollar coins to pay their unpayable debts? The sooner we unseat the USD as reserve - the better and safer the global community will be.



 
How the hell does your post equate to the US needing to pay for ebola?

You're talking monetary policy, not disease control.
 
So basically, you want America to foot the bill for the entire world?
 
The Mark said:
How the hell does your post equate to the US needing to pay for ebola?

You're talking monetary policy, not disease control.
Click to expand...

The theory seem to be that if we liquify and inject ebola patients with $1000 bills it will be a sure fire cure. My guess is that the OP is running for Congress.
 
Lutherf said:
My guess is that the OP is running for Congress.
Click to expand...

I've seen some insults around here but I think that's really crossing the line.
 
I must have missed it...who were 'you' again?
 
Kobie said:
So basically, you want America to foot the bill for the entire world?
Click to expand...

I think his argument is we should do just that because, well.....we can. :slapme:
 
Kobie said:
So basically, you want America to foot the bill for the entire world?
Click to expand...

and he's a "socialist." i thought only the neoconservatives wanted us to do that*.


































































*as long as they personally don't have to pay more in taxes to fund it.
 
azgreg said:
I think his argument is we should do just that because, well.....we can. :slapme:
Click to expand...
A better argument would be that the faster we kill it, the less likely it'll show up here in significant volume.

Since the trickle so far is controllable, as I understand it.
 
Lutherf said:
The theory seem to be that if we liquify and inject ebola patients with $1000 bills it will be a sure fire cure. My guess is that the OP is running for Congress.
Click to expand...

It worked for Magic Johnson on South Park.
 
Kobie said:
So basically, you want America to foot the bill for the entire world?
Click to expand...

That's what reserve currencies do--buy the world a Coke, and all that, lol.
 
Helix said:
and he's a "socialist." i thought only the neoconservatives wanted us to do that*. as they personally don't have to pay more in taxes to fund it.
Click to expand...
Neocons like...the president? Not sure I understand your point...you might have to be more clear. I assume your assertion is due to the US playing world policeman and engaging across the globe. That being the case...thats a hell of an indictment of the elected democrats since...say....Roosevelt.
 
The Mark said:
How the hell does your post equate to the US needing to pay for ebola?

You're talking monetary policy, not disease control.
Click to expand...

Don't bother trying to make sense of this poe post.
 
spangledbanner said:
Recently the US side has urged the global community to "step up" and contribute fiscal treasury to fight the Ebola outbreak. The IMF has also begged the rest of us for more money. In my opinion the USA as holders of the Reserve Currency have the responsibility to pay for Ebola and not any of us. Who the hell does John Kerry and the US think they are begging us all for money when the US has Reserve Currency. We dont have Reserve Currency and the ability to contribute like the USA does. Why isnt the US contributing more to global emergencies when they have the Reserve Currency and the ability to do it?
I am sick of hearing Americans pat themselves on the back for printing money to send to other nations for 'aid' that always comes with political strings. The US as holders of the Reserve Currency have a responsibility to manage and protect the global community so we need not thank them for any 'aid' that they send to other nations, especially if it is 'military aid'. The US as holders of the Reserve Currency are not doing enough and are not using the Reserve Status for global good as intended but instead use Reserve Status to extend US influence.

Giving the Reserve Currency to the US side was not the only option discussed at Bretton Woods. The more fair, just and sensible option was the plan suggested by British economist John Maynard Keynes. Keyens proposed that an International Clearing Union ( ICU ) be established which would be a global bank with the role of clearance of trade between nations/regulation of currency exchange. All international trade would be demominated in the ICU unit - the Bankor. Most agree that the proposed ICU mechanisms would have given developing and emerging nations a greater say in decision making and been the fairest option. The US proposal was shockingly audacious and selfish in comparison to the suggestions of Keynes. The US side forced their way and got Reserve Status along with their other institutions, the IMF and World Bank.


The US side is forever complaining that they contribute the most to the IMF, World Bank, UN, etc but why shouldnt they? They have the Reserve Status and love to explain to us that they cannot ever run out of money so why the hell do they complain about their responsibilities? Why is a nation like Australia contributing anything to the World Bank, IMF and UN? USA should pay for it all. It is Americas responsibility while ever they keep Reserve Status. Why should Australia use our fiscal treasure to deal with ebola when the US side has Reserve Status?

The US side having Reserve Status is a privilege and a responsibility. How dare the Americans complain to us that we do not contribute enough to 'aid'. Who the hell do the Americans think they are patting themselves on the back constantly for their so-called 'aid' that is never enough and always comes with political strings? Why should we be impressed that the US side prints USD and uses it for aid and PR for their nation? Why are we not more disgusted each time some moronic American threatens that the US side will 'cut off aid' if some poor nation does not follow US orders?

The US side do not seem to understand the responsibility that comes with being holders of the Reserve Status. It seems obvious that while ever the nation of the USA is responsible for managing the Reserve Status it will be used primarily for US interests. Triffin explained long ago that it is a conflict of interest for a nations currency to act as both a domestic currency and Reserve Unit with the 'Triffin Dilema'. The US are happy to print insane amounts of cash to help wealthy American with QE but they cant deal with ebola without begging to the rest of us? It is time to take the Reserve away from this deluded parasite nation and move to a Reserve that is closer to Bankor suggested by Keynes.

The US side only uses the Reserve to help themselves and they act as though they have the right to do it. Wouldnt it be nice to live in a world that does not have smug Americans telling us that they dont need a budget because they cant run out of money? Do we really want to hear more idiotic ideas coming from America like their brilliant idea to mint trillion dollar coins to pay their unpayable debts? The sooner we unseat the USD as reserve - the better and safer the global community will be.
Click to expand...

I had hoped that when I saw the title of the thread that it was meant as a joke thread. Yet at the same time I just knew that it wouldn't be. And I was right. On both counts. I'm right in that the OP is actually serious about this. I'm also right in that this is a joke thread. Because quite frankly the US doesn't HAVE to do jack to help any country. And quite frankly I wish we'd pull all of our troops out of ALL countries except those stationed at embassies. I also wish we'd stop spending money on other countries. We need to take care of our problems before even thinking of helping others with theirs.
 
American said:
Don't bother trying to make sense of this poe post.
Click to expand...


I think the poster is saying that since the USA printed $3 trillion to bail out the big banks with no collaterol, why not print some to pay for ebola mitigation. We printed enough to pay for wars in Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, Syria, and Ukraine, and we can't print to pay for Ebola. It is a very simplistic view but not too far off the mark. The poster is stating outright that the USA misuses the rest of the World by using the Reserve currency status as a political weapon instead of an economic stability tool. As you all know, the USA is still living on Trillons of dollars borrowed from China, Japan, India, and almost all others, but those three are stuck with most of the debt.
 
Kal'Stang said:
I had hoped that when I saw the title of the thread that it was meant as a joke thread. Yet at the same time I just knew that it wouldn't be. And I was right. On both counts. I'm right in that the OP is actually serious about this. I'm also right in that this is a joke thread. Because quite frankly the US doesn't HAVE to do jack to help any country. And quite frankly I wish we'd pull all of our troops out of ALL countries except those stationed at embassies. I also wish we'd stop spending money on other countries. We need to take care of our problems before even thinking of helping others with theirs.
Click to expand...
The problem with that strategy is that in some cases, helping them with their problems prevents said problems from becoming our problems.
 
DaveFagan said:
I think the poster is saying that since the USA printed $3 trillion to bail out the big banks with no collaterol, why not print some to pay for ebola mitigation. We printed enough to pay for wars in Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, Syria, and Ukraine, and we can't print to pay for Ebola. It is a very simplistic view but not too far off the mark. The poster is stating outright that the USA misuses the rest of the World by using the Reserve currency status as a political weapon instead of an economic stability tool. As you all know, the USA is still living on Trillons of dollars borrowed from China, Japan, India, and almost all others, but those three are stuck with most of the debt.
Click to expand...
For the US, printing more money is like taxing the world without consent.
 
DaveFagan said:
I think the poster is saying that since the USA printed $3 trillion to bail out the big banks with no collaterol, why not print some to pay for ebola mitigation. We printed enough to pay for wars in Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, Syria, and Ukraine, and we can't print to pay for Ebola. It is a very simplistic view but not too far off the mark. The poster is stating outright that the USA misuses the rest of the World by using the Reserve currency status as a political weapon instead of an economic stability tool. As you all know, the USA is still living on Trillons of dollars borrowed from China, Japan, India, and almost all others, but those three are stuck with most of the debt.
Click to expand...
Sigh...if only thewy had given all that money to the poor...

Come on dood...people LOVE debt spending...they just want it spent on THEM. They LOVE stickin the rich with higher taxes...as long as those taxes are given to them. For all your bull**** about what we are spending, all you really care about is where that money is spent, not that it is spent.
 
VanceMack said:
Neocons like...the president? Not sure I understand your point...you might have to be more clear. I assume your assertion is due to the US playing world policeman and engaging across the globe. That being the case...thats a hell of an indictment of the elected democrats since...say....Roosevelt.
Click to expand...

Obama has been disappointing where interventionism is concerned. he should have accepted that those who hate him will still hate him even if the US carpet bombs the Middle East with thermonuclear weapons. change in the Middle East has to come from within.
 
Helix said:
Obama has been disappointing where interventionism is concerned. he should have accepted that those who hate him will still hate him even if the US carpet bombs the Middle East with thermonuclear weapons. change in the Middle East has to come from within.
Click to expand...
Right. He couldnt have done it because he believes it was the right thing to do. Democrats that support him cant support his decision because it is the right thing to do. Democrats that supported war during the Clinton and Bush admin cant have done it because they believe it was the right thing to do. No...according to people like you, ALL democrats that support those actions are just weak simple minded morons that bow to republican neocons.

Hmmmm...You actually might have a point.
 
VanceMack said:
Right. He couldnt have done it because he believes it was the right thing to do. Democrats that support him cant support his decision because it is the right thing to do. Democrats that supported war during the Clinton and Bush admin cant have done it because they believe it was the right thing to do. No...according to people like you, ALL democrats that support those actions are just weak simple minded morons that bow to republican neocons.

Hmmmm...You actually might have a point.
Click to expand...

i certainly have a point. the point is that the US is not the world's pro bono military force, and that change in the Middle East has to come from within.
 
Helix said:
i certainly have a point. the point is that the US is not the world's pro bono military force, and that change in the Middle East has to come from within.
Click to expand...
Funny...that had NOTHING to do with your previous 'point'.
 
Helix said:
Obama has been disappointing where interventionism is concerned. he should have accepted that those who hate him will still hate him even if the US carpet bombs the Middle East with thermonuclear weapons. change in the Middle East has to come from within.
Click to expand...

And we independents (supposedly) who appear to defend Obama at all cost. That's what I don't understand.
 
Helix said:
i certainly have a point. the point is that the US is not the world's pro bono military force, and that change in the Middle East has to come from within.
Click to expand...

And that has what to do with Ebola?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom