Tsk, tsk. These wingnuts and their fuzzy math.

As Paul Krugman once said of Flightsuit Boy’s Social Security plan, they believe that 2-1+4.

Oops… better make that 2 – 1 = 4

Two months later:

“Hey, what happened to our economy?”

Apropos of this, “After the Empire” by Emmanual Todd.

I remember reading about a poll where Americans were asked if we spent too much on foreign aid. The vast majority said yes. A follow-up question was how much should we spend, given as a percentage of the U.S. budget. Most picked the middle number, 5%, which is of course considerably higher than we actually spend.

Which proves 1) people have no idea what we do spend or what we should spend and 2) people with such ignorance can easily be convinced to pick any number.

Actually, I agree with much of the proposed speech’s text. I have significant concerns regarding all money going overseas, and to the UN. My concern is that it never reaches the people who need it. Instead, bureaucrats, politicians, and dictators pocket the bulk of it.

Interesting that the dollar figure is the single thing you could find to dispute.

Interesting that the dollar figure is the single thing you could find to dispute.

The rest of the speech consists of:

* Having cars belonging to diplomats in NYC with outstanding tickets towed;
* Severing diplomatic relations with France, Germany and Russia, dropping out of NATO;
* Dropping out of NAFTA

How does one “dispute” that? A shorter version of the speech would consist of: Wouldn’t it be great if Bush told the rest of the world to suck his dick? While that might make some feel better, it would do nothing to help solve America’s problems, and help create many new ones.

Instead, bureaucrats, politicians, and dictators pocket the bulk of it.

Yes, and eliminating foreign aid would “pretty much” pay for the costs of the war in Iraq. In other news: Bush Requests $25 Billion ‘Contingency Fund’ for Iraq

Back to the safe answer?

I dislike the UN. We fund 25% of its budget. The amount paid by each country is based on its own GDP. The US produces something like 29% of the world’s GDP, so we get a real break in some people’s eyes. In my view, a more equitable distribution would be that every nation who wants to belong should pay 0.5% of the budget. That leaves a balance such that the five permanent members of the Security Council would pay 1.5% each. If that were to happen, I would be far more amenable to UN concerns.

Whoever wrote the proposed speech was wrong in their numbers. Okay. That doesn’t change the nature of the sentiment expressed. Is there anything in that sentiment you feel is out of line? I don’t agree with the whole thing, but it certainly makes sense to consider the ideas.

By the way, thanks for the intelligent discussion. It is the only way we can ever make progress on issues.

The Freepers seem to be an order-of-magnitude wrong about everything.

Speaking of shooting fish in a barrel

Sadly, No! alerts us to the solutions the Freepers give us… logic be damned….

In my view, a more equitable distribution would be that every nation who wants to belong should pay 0.5% of the budget. That leaves a balance such that the five permanent members of the Security Council would pay 1.5% each. If that were to happen, I would be far more amenable to UN concerns.

Fine – IF every nation got one 40th of a vote, and the big five got 3 40ths. No vetos.

Or did you think you could change only the rules that suited you?

Make that 1 200th. I really should check these things before posting.

Voting can remain as is: one nation, one vote. The reason for higher dues for permanent SC members is they have more power than the rest. When last I checked, there were 191 member nations and the budget numbers worked out.

Do you mean to suggest with the distribution as it stands the US should have votes equal to dues payment?

Or did you think you could change only the rules that suited you?

Why assume that?

That doesn’t change the nature of the sentiment expressed. Is there anything in that sentiment you feel is out of line? I don’t agree with the whole thing, but it certainly makes sense to consider the ideas.

You feel how you feel — S,N! is not staffed by psychologists. We don’t share your anger and annoyance at much of the international community, but you’re welcome to it. Besides helping you feel better, what/how does severing diplomatic relations with F/G/R help? Much as is the case with dropping out of NAFTA, this is little more than cutting off your nose to spite your face. That the person who wrote the proposal is wrong on an order of 10+ about the cost of the war is indicative (in our humble opinion) of how little attention he paid to the consequences the proposals would have.

I can understand the freeper outrage. My car got a flat the other day. The clear solution was to blow it up.

Ah you should have let that one go for a bit, let Instapundit and the rest pick it up and then do the math for them.

Of course they also don’t realize that a good chunk of that aid is used to buy U.S. goods and services so the money flows back.

There are days when I wish I were that simple, it must be so peaceful to not worry and fret over reality.

Voting can remain as is: one nation, one vote.

Which part of “no vetos” did you not understand?

I could not resist the temptation to correct the math aptitude of the Freeper quoted here, (s)he goes by “Hillary’s lovely legs”. I used no foul language, merely pointed out the figures with a suggestion that those who supported the war should pay for it. My posting was deleted by the moderator and my access has been denied. I am so bummed. Funny though how My views could be censored on a site named FREE Republic. I should have believed it when I read during the sign up process that it was a site for conservative views. It is ironic that conservatives who want minimal government ask for your credentials before you can join in their little playhouse, while the liberal blogs just ask for your name. You would think with all the noise these people make about freedom that they might actually believe in it just a little bit.