Minnesota Dems strike language excluding pedophilia as protected category under discrimination laws

[Bradskii]

One other thing, population isn't really what makes a country rich and powerful.

You need to start investigating this. GDP works out at between $60k and $70k per head of population for Sweden, Australia and the US. So the smaller countries are doing pretty much the same as the largest country as regards GDP. So please don't start thinking you lead in this regard either.

Want to compare apples with apples? Let's do Europe and the US. From wiki:

'In total aid (military, financial and humanitarian combined), the European Union and its countries have provided the most to Ukraine, according to Kiel Institute'.

 

[Aldebaran]

You really did skip economics. Do you actually know what GDP means? It's a means to describe the wealth of a country. How much they can afford to spend on defence, on infrastructure, on health...and on foreign aid.

Rich countries can afford to pay more in absolute terms. The US is richer than most. It can therefore afford to spend more dollars than literally anyone else. Tiny countries - like Sweden (only 10 million population compared to your 330 million) OBVIOUSLY can't match your dollar figure. Their GDP is less than 3% of yours. But as a function of their GDP they are streets ahead.

Do you know what "32 Trillion dollars in national debt" means? It means we can't afford to spend hundreds of billions more to pay the majority of someone else's war.

 

[Bradskii]

Do you know what "32 Trillion dollars in national debt" means? It means we can't afford to spend hundreds of billions more to pay the majority of someone else's war.

Have we gone from 'But they don't pay as much!' to 'We can't afford it...'. That's a better argument. Then you might need to see why you can't afford it and who was responsible. Check out the graph for debt to GDP here: Fiscal Data Explains the National Debt

You'll see that it rocketed up during Reagan and Bush snr, actually fell during Clinton, went off the scale during Bush jnr, rose slightly under Obama and then went almost vertical under Trump (albeit he had to deal with covid).

So if you say you can't afford, then you know who to blame. But dig deep when the plate comes around. Every little helps.

 

[Ceallaigh]

Apparently you needed to edit out the rest of what I said to make your argument.

You need to start investigating this. GDP works out at between $60k and $70k per head of population for Sweden, Australia and the US. So the smaller countries are doing pretty much the same as the largest country as regards GDP. So please don't start thinking you lead in this regard either.

As if that's evenly distributed. There's about 135 million in the US on either social security or welfare, so that would come in at $0 per head for all of them. Then there's the 27 million refugees and 53 million internally displaced people. So that brings the number to 215 million so far.

Want to compare apples with apples? Let's do Europe and the US. From wiki:

'In total aid (military, financial and humanitarian combined), the European Union and its countries have provided the most to Ukraine, according to Kiel Institute'.

Now factor in how much Europe spends on their military compared to the US. Then add up the national debt of each nation in Europe and compare that to the US national debt.

 

[Ceallaigh]

Have we gone from 'But they don't pay as much!' to 'We can't afford it...'.

No, that's always been a major factor.

That's a better argument. Then you might need to see why you can't afford it and who was responsible. Check out the graph for debt to GDP here: Fiscal Data Explains the National Debt

You'll see that it rocketed up during Reagan and Bush snr, actually fell during Clinton, went off the scale during Bush jnr, rose slightly under Obama and then went almost vertical under Trump (albeit he had to deal with covid).

So if you say you can't afford, then you know who to blame. But dig deep when the plate comes around. Every little helps.

That doesn't change the fact that the US can't afford to fork out hundreds of billions to pay the majority of someone else's war. I bet Europe as a whole doesn't carry the overall financial burden of the US and probably doesn't even come close.

Keep in mind what would happen to the rest of the world if the US goes bankrupt.

 

[Ceallaigh]

LOL it's amazing how far off topic this thread has gotten.

 

[Bradskii]

That doesn't change the fact that the US can't afford to fork out hundreds of billions to pay the majority of someone else's war. Europe as a whole doesn't carry the overall financial burden of the US. Probably doesn't even come close.

Keep in mind what would happen to the rest of the world if the US goes bankrupt.

This started as you saying that you thought that you paid more than everyone else put together. If gdp is taken as a relative indicator, that has been comprehensively dismantled. Now if you wa to say that you can't afford it then complain to someone else. Who might be able to tell you why. I've given you info above. Pick the bones out of that.

 

[Ceallaigh]

This started as you saying that you thought that you paid more than everyone else put together. If gdp is taken as a relative indicator, that has been comprehensively dismantled. Now if you wa to say that you can't afford it then complain to someone else. Who might be able to tell you why. I've given you info above. Pick the bones out of that.

The GDP is only one of many factors, as I'm sure you realized going into this. It shouldn't come as a faux pas to you that those other factors came to light as this line of off topic discussion progressed. But the progression of a thread never seems to get anywhere in discussions with you, as you usually dismiss everything else that's brought up and go back to square one.

 

[Bradskii]

The GDP is only one of many factors, as I'm sure you realized going into this. It shouldn't come as a faux pas to you that those other factors came to light as this line of off topic discussion progressed. But the progression of a thread never seems to get anywhere in discussions with you, as you usually dismiss everything else that's brought up and go back to square one.

If you had started the discussion saying that you didn't think the US could afford it, then you might have had some sympathy for the position. Not much. But some. But you didn't. Having been shown that your estimate as to your share was completely wrong, a simple 'fair enough, but we I don't think we can really afford it' would have been the end of it.

You keep making claims to me that are clearly wrong and I will respond accordingly.

 

[Ceallaigh]

If you had started the discussion saying that you didn't think the US could afford it, then you might have had some sympathy for the position. Not much. But some. But you didn't. Having been shown that your estimate as to your share was completely wrong, a simple 'fair enough, but we I don't think we can really afford it' would have been the end of it.

You keep making claims to me that are clearly wrong and I will respond accordingly.

I think when everything it taken into consideration, the US still by far gives the most significant financial sacrifice in foreign aid. You focused on the GDP and left out all the overhead. I and I'm sure Aldebaran already knew overhead was a factor in how much the US has compared to how much is being forked out. Now you're going with the premise that the first of many factors to came out (which you introduced) is where the line was drawn. I think you've failed to prove that the US is obligated to fork out hundreds of billions of dollars for someone else's war. You could have said 'oh yeah that's right, I hadn't thought of that' instead of trying to turn it into a complaint of how the sequence of all the factors involved being brought forth was wrong.

 

[Bradskii]

I think when everything it taken into consideration, the US still by far gives the most significant financial sacrifice in foreign aid.

I see you've now slipped the term 'sacrifice' into the claim. With the Ukrainians suffering over 130,000 casualties to date, it seems an unsuitable term to use. But your call.

 

[Aldebaran]

LOL it's amazing how far off topic this thread has gotten.

Probably my fault for the comment I made in post #104. I didn't intend for it to become the new topic.

 

[Ceallaigh]

I see you've now slipped the term 'sacrifice' into the claim. With the Ukrainians suffering over 130,000 casualties to date, it seems an unsuitable term to use. But your call.

That's an absurd misconstruance. Not to mention maudlin.

 

[Bradskii]

That's an absurd misconstruance. Not to mention maudlin.

You said you were making a significant sacrifice. I'm just comparing your perceived financial sacrifice with the sacrifices of those that need our help. It's your call which is greater.

 

[Ceallaigh]

You said you were making a significant sacrifice. I'm just comparing your perceived financial sacrifice with the sacrifices of those that need our help. It's your call which is greater.

No, said the US still by far gives the most significant financial sacrifice in foreign aid compared to anyone else. That's not saying the US shouldn't make a financial sacrifice, it's saying everyone else sacrifices a lot less. You do know that it's not being said the US should completely stop supplying aid, even though you act like that's what's being said. It's just saying the US needs to trim down some. Maybe the real complaint in that is Australia might have to sacrifice a little extra than the 2% its contributing.

 

[Bradskii]

No, said the US still by far gives the most significant financial sacrifice in foreign aid compared to anyone else. That's not saying the US shouldn't make a financial sacrifice, it's saying everyone else sacrifices a lot less. You do know that it's not being said the US should completely stop supplying aid, even though you act like that's what's being said. It's just saying the US needs to trim down some. Maybe the real complaint in that is Australia might have to sacrifice a little extra than the 2% its contributing.

3% as it relates to GDP. To your 2. To be honest, we can't afford it either. But I'm not complaining.

 

[Ceallaigh]

3% as it relates to GDP. To your 2. To be honest, we can't afford it either. But I'm not complaining.

You got GDP on the brain. I meant your 2% of the pie.