Foreign Aid Cut By Cost of Parking Tickets

[BlackShanglan]

Story here.

You know, I thought that this sounded needlessly cold-hearted and petty. Then I saw the dollar figure. $195 MILLION in parking tickets?!

Staggering.

 

[R. Richard]

You know, I thought that this sounded needlessly cold-hearted and petty. Then I saw the dollar figure. $195 MILLION in parking tickets?!

Staggering.

If you ever lived in NYC and saw the illegaly parked cars, with diplomatic license plates, in Manhatttan day after day, you would understand even more why THEY GOT IT COMING!

The $195 million is SWEET icing on the cake!

 

[ABSTRUSE]

Amazing, just amazing.

 

[cantdog]

Add up the tax dodges for churches and whatnot, sometime. In a city of any size, the non-taxable properties make up a sizable proportion. Likewise, visitors. Many times in larger towns, the proposal is made to prorate services so that the out-of-towner, who isn't paying for their upkeep, is charged more for an ambulance run, for example, or billed for a police service call.

It usually dies a deserved death. Many people in the town still aren't paying any taxes to support these things. And many childless people are paying for the schools. The list goes on. It's not a can of worms most political entities want to open. The rationale should be a group-centered one. We all have an interest in education, for the furtherance of our society's children. We all are better served if there is an ambulance, and so forth.

Diplomatic folks are, ostensibly, doing the race the service of helping to resolve disputes, preventing wars, particularly wars of aggression. Stuff like that. We all have a stake in that. That's why it seemed a bit petty. It sort of was a bit petty.

OTOH, NYC pays a staggering amount of city welfare and maintains an incredible number of firemen and police and other service personnel. The figures for trash pickup alone are incomprehensible.

Still, i think this was a blow to the UN as such, to the people of it, and the countries who support it. The current administration, like every one since Truman, in my opinion, has an interest in the withering on the vine of all international law. We violate it every fuckin day, and the UN is constantly reminding us of our criminal status. Particularly the Bushites, who invented a doctrine of "pre-emptive war," which even Ray Charles could see is nothing but an excuse for wars of aggression. It is a doctrine which says explicitly, without any prevarication, that you don't need a credible provocation to attack, that unprovoked aggression is just ducky.

The UN has always stood for a civilized world where an aggressive and unprovoked invasion is seen for what it is, a threat to world peace and stability in the first place, and a crime against humanity in the second.

So I think the UN is being targeted here just because the government and the empire-builders all hate it.

cantdog

 

[R. Richard]

So I think the UN is being targeted here just because the government and the empire-builders all hate it.

cantdog

Cantdog:
I do not wish to start a flame war here. However, if you live in NYC, you see cars wirth diplomatic licenses illegally parked outside of hotspots at 2AM. If there is some govenmental/political function being served here, I would like to know what it is.

The diplomatic immunity thing was originated so that a country could not use police pressure to make life unlivable for foreign diplomats. However, at least in NYC, it is running out of control.

There was a case a few years back when a diplomat (Russian IIRC) got drunk and caused a terrible auto accident. Whe the police arrived, he showed them the diplomatic plates on his car and flashed his dipomatic passport. Under international law he had to be released. Finally, enough international pressure was put on the Russian(???) diplomatic service that they waived the immunity and the diplomat was successfully sued in civil court by the victims. (The normal procedure was to just recall the offending diplomat and the victims be damned.)

You have to live in NYC where the UN headquarters are to actually see the day by day abuses.

 

[BlackShanglan]

I think what made me ponder it further than "that seems petty," cantdog, was the dollar figure. It's not in terms of revenue for the city - I realize that parking fines are a sort of "funny money" generated when services are not really being used most of the time - but the indication of the scale of the thing. It did seem to suggest a truly insouciant disregard for law and civility on the part of the diplomats. It's unpleasant behavior, and hardly diplomatic. In a city as crowded as New York, parking will always be a major hassle; $195 million seems to indicate a very large number of contributions to that problem from people who feel that they are above the laws that govern those around them. Surely the answer would have been for individual countries to work with their diplomats to respect the laws of the country in which they were staying?

 

[cantdog]

I think what made me ponder it further than "that seems petty," cantdog, was the dollar figure. It's not in terms of revenue for the city - I realize that parking fines are a sort of "funny money" generated when services are not really being used most of the time - but the indication of the scale of the thing. It did seem to suggest a truly insouciant disregard for law and civility on the part of the diplomats. It's unpleasant behavior, and hardly diplomatic. In a city as crowded as New York, parking will always be a major hassle; $195 million seems to indicate a very large number of contributions to that problem from people who feel that they are above the laws that govern those around them. Surely the answer would have been for individual countries to work with their diplomats to respect the laws of the country in which they were staying?

But, aside from the can of worms which such a regulation by individual case opens up (see above post), let us recall that everything in NYC is a massive figure. The city is a bigger political entity than a lot of the countries these people represent.

We have people in bases all over the world, often placed on that country's land by threat of force or other sanction. The people stationed on that base make use of the country as a rec area. In many places the troops and whatnot are indeed not subject to local law, by dint of the same reasoning. Meanwhile a zone of bars and brothels and whatnot develops nearby.

Do the boys in Saudi Arabia get the public floggings if they transgress local Saudi law? Look to the beam in thine own eye, as the fellow says.

You may call them abuses, but the same thing protects diplomats everywhere. Diplomats lie. Diplomats bribe. Diplomats spy. There are many people who would like to do something to diplomats.

I think these things come and go as issues because of the political climate. The budgetary considerations for NYC will always be there. But the pressure to do this kind of move is not, not always.

 

[Colleen Thomas]

Diplomatic immunity should and does exist to keep one government from imprisoning and or threatening the diplomats of another when they need leverage. Without it. no country could afford to keep embassys in another, the risks of having your ambassador imprisioned for "reckless philandering in the tenth degree" when you and said country were at odds would make it impossible to maintain the system of diplomatic corps working between governments across the planet. Can you imagine the difficulty if east timor and South Belorus were at oddw over the price of grain and the diplomats for both had to meet on neutral ground? Agreed up on in advance by both? The process could be stalled months before you found a truly neutral power both trusted.

That said, parking fines are not something that threatens a diplomat's freedom of action. R. richard is absolutely correct, I don't live in the city, but have seen the cars of diplomats double and sometimes even tripple parked outside of clubs, blocking off entire roads or focing traffic to onelane. While double parking isn't rare, it is pretty heavily policed. It only takes two butt heads who don't think they are like regular folks and are too good to walk and you can bring an east west or north south artery to a standstill.

I don't see any problem in simply accesing them the fines and subtracting such moneys from what they recieve from us, essentially free gratis. We, the Us. or the state of New york or the City of NYC can't put any pressure on them to simply pay their fines, fines they defintely earned and the majority not in the line of duty as parking around the U.N. building is not heavily policed. Their own governments however, can order their diplomats to quit acting like twerps if it starts to cost them.

it seems a good way to deal with it, to me.

-Colly

 

[cantdog]

As an adjustment to gratuitous money. A lot of these "aid" monies are treaty obligations, agreed to in return for a concession. Especially arms deals, but ordinary foreign aid, as well. Part of diplomacy as she is practiced.

Diplomacy is the whole picture of relations between states. A vindictive reduction in treaty obligations in the amount of parking fees and a little for the vig is also diplomacy. It changes the relations between the states. We can afford to be arrogant to a great extent. Maybe it doesn't matter. Do people do without medicines? Food? Seed? What did the aid go for? Who is paying?

All these decisions exist in a context. I submit that the Newts of the world always resented both foreign aid money and also the UN. But I agree there are even more pugnacious ways of settling accounts with the roadblockers.

It's pointless to pursue this, though. In this day and age, there's no budget for anything any more.

 

[BlackShanglan]

Hmmmm. Interesting points all around, and I do take your point on the value of diplomatic immunity, cantdog. But I think that the local areas need to have some options available. US soldiers might not be subject to floggings, but they ought to be subject to court martial and military justice. Handing anyone, soldier or diplomat, a complete blank check for his/her behavior will invite all sorts of ignorant actions. I certainly agree that the country sending the diplomat should be the one to enforce the rules in order to preserve the useful tool of diplomatic immunity. But likewise, if the officials of that country refuse to act to curtail offensive behavior on the part of the diplomat, surely the host country should have some response available to them short of expelling said diplomat? I would hope than in an ideal world, sending the parking fines home to the country of origin might at least quantify for the diplomat's superiors the degree to which s/he is being decidedly undiplomatic in his/her public behavior.

 

[Guest]

I'd like to know the names of the mean, spiteful, undiplomatic congressmen who got that addendum put into the budget.





'Cause I want to buy them all a fuckin' drink.

The one I want to see next is the one that cuts ALL aid to countries that have bitched about our foriegn policy.

 

[Lauren Hynde]

I just want to know when all foreign diplomats will be kicked out of the US. I'm iffy on whether or not all foreign nationals should be put in special camps just yet. But they should definitely wear tags.

 

[Lucifer_Carroll]

I'd like to know the names of the mean, spiteful, undiplomatic congressmen who got that addendum put into the budget.





'Cause I want to buy them all a fuckin' drink.

The one I want to see next is the one that cuts ALL aid to countries that have bitched about our foriegn policy.

I'm pretty sure that would guarantee a new era of isolationism for America.

Since we would effectively be removing all foreign aid since almost every country has complained about either pre-emptive war or diplomatic bullying/non-compliance, these same countries would have no incentive to parrot consent to our initiatives or even feign kindness towards our leaders. Our "military activities" overseas would become entirely unilateral and the UN, probably after being removed from New York to a Western European country would begin to bring us to heel for war crimes. Similarily the move would prompt punitive movements by the Europeans to stop funding our currency and economy thus leaving us to shovel the money we save on aid to trying to prop up our out-of-control deficit and recession.

I'm not sure of all the monetary totals for all these movements, but I'm pretty sure this would leave the US economy pathetic, UN 60-70% impotent, third world even more destabilized, autocratic movements increased, and Nuclear Weapons sales in the former Soviet Union openly conducted and expanded.

Should be a glorious day for Hell.

 

[Guest]

I'm pretty sure that would guarantee a new era of isolationism for America.

Since we would effectively be removing all foreign aid since almost every country has complained about either pre-emptive war or diplomatic bullying/non-compliance, these same countries would have no incentive to parrot consent to our initiatives or even feign kindness towards our leaders. Our "military activities" overseas would become entirely unilateral and the UN, probably after being removed from New York to a Western European country would begin to bring us to heel for war crimes. Similarily the move would prompt punitive movements by the Europeans to stop funding our currency and economy thus leaving us to shovel the money we save on aid to trying to prop up our out-of-control deficit and recession.

I'm not sure of all the monetary totals for all these movements, but I'm pretty sure this would leave the US economy pathetic, UN 60-70% impotent, third world even more destabilized, autocratic movements increased, and Nuclear Weapons sales in the former Soviet Union openly conducted and expanded.

Should be a glorious day for Hell.

Our out of control deficit and recession are due, in no small part, to funding these countries and sending American jobs overseas.

You want to see a jump start to our economy? Bring back the jobs that we have allowed corperations to send to Canada, Mexico, Japan, Taiwan, Indonesia, Pakistan, India and a hundred other countries. Put a half million americans back to work and see what happens to our economt and our deficit. Cut off the spending in these countries that take the billions of dollars a year we send them and build new palaces with it, then piss and moan because we expect something for it.

And as far as I'm concerned, when a country send the US a mesage after something like 9/11 saying, "This is a tradgedy and an outrage! The people who did this should be brought to justice! They should be punished! Oh, but we don't want to help you with that." our policy should immediately be "Fine, we don't need your help. But the next time the kid next door steals your bike, you're on your own."

 

[Lucifer_Carroll]

Our out of control deficit and recession are due, in no small part, to funding these countries and sending American jobs overseas.

You want to see a jump start to our economy? Bring back the jobs that we have allowed corperations to send to Canada, Mexico, Japan, Taiwan, Indonesia, Pakistan, India and a hundred other countries. Put a half million americans back to work and see what happens to our economt and our deficit. Cut off the spending in these countries that take the billions of dollars a year we send them and build new palaces with it, then piss and moan because we expect something for it.

And as far as I'm concerned, when a country send the US a mesage after something like 9/11 saying, "This is a tradgedy and an outrage! The people who did this should be brought to justice! They should be punished! Oh, but we don't want to help you with that." our policy should immediately be "Fine, we don't need your help. But the next time the kid next door steals your bike, you're on your own."

K, my only point would be the ramnifications would be very interesting to muse. Especially in the former Soviet Union where we prop up economies with a lot of desirable WMDs. Though it would be an interesting economics project if someone calculated the effect on the economy of separating ourselves completely and utterly from all other countries (no more European investments, no more American subsidaries of European owned companies, no companies owned by Foreign Nationals, no outsourcing, no allowing Americans to internationalize businesses, no importation of materials, no diplomatic meddling with other countries, etc...). At the very least, I see a post WW1 progression and at the very worst temporary global collapse. Though, I reckon that Colly would be the best one to postulate the results of this course of action.

 

[rgraham666]

The U.S. spends less than one percent of it's budget on foreign aid.

It's been fifty years since The Marshall Plan. The U.S. is a skinflint when it come to helping others.

 

[Colleen Thomas]

K, my only point would be the ramnifications would be very interesting to muse. Especially in the former Soviet Union where we prop up economies with a lot of desirable WMDs. Though it would be an interesting economics project if someone calculated the effect on the economy of separating ourselves completely and utterly from all other countries (no more European investments, no more American subsidaries of European owned companies, no companies owned by Foreign Nationals, no outsourcing, no allowing Americans to internationalize businesses, no importation of materials, no diplomatic meddling with other countries, etc...). At the very least, I see a post WW1 progression and at the very worst temporary global collapse. Though, I reckon that Colly would be the best one to postulate the results of this course of action.

LOL, why me?

 

[rgraham666]

LOL, why me?

Because you're a genius? Well read? Not prone to idealization and confabulation?

I dunno.

 

[Guest]

The U.S. spends less than one percent of it's budget on foreign aid.

It's been fifty years since The Marshall Plan. The U.S. is a skinflint when it come to helping others.

You're saying Canada spends more?

 

[rgraham666]

You're saying Canada spends more?

As a percentage of the budget, yes. Our foreign aid makes up about 1.5% of our budget.

In absolute terms, no. We're a much smaller country in population and have a slightly lower standard of living.

 

[Lucifer_Carroll]

LOL, why me?

<impressive God voice> Because only thou knowest the path the future shall take! Givest thy vision unto the world at once</impressive God voice>

Eh. In truth it's because you know the most about history and politics out of all of us, something like this sounds like something you'd prove to be an unknown expert in, and finally, because your predictions usually are more spot on than anyone else's.

Oh yeah and the genius thing too. The genius thing is a big reason.

 

[cantdog]

The foreign-aid thing, the bugaboo of the Right, is largely a chimera. We do not "support these countries," unless you mean Israel. Israel is in a class by itself; we lavish billions on it, especially in arms. They DO have WMD. They have a gigantic military establishment. You generally hear about its use to shoot up refugee camps full of wretched people with nothing to call their own. Boom! More terrorists blown to shit and sent to hospitals, provided the Israelis let them across the checkpoints. But right now, the Israel defense forces are penetrating across the northern part of Iraq, where we dare not go.

They are training Kurds and fortifying.

Anyway, yeah. The next biggest beneficiary is Egypt, and after that it goes downhill sharply. A little here, a little there, around the world. Less and less every year, except Israel, whom we shovel billions at whether we can afford it or not.

Most countries, we owe them money.

Since the Bushies got in, we've become the world's largest debtor nation.

Meanwhile, our deficit is staggering and the tax revenues have decreased. The ones with the money, that is to say, corporations, we hardly tax any more.

Check your figures, Dran. Look at the real "foreign aid."

Canada has what? 33 million people total? (32,507,000 people, estimated 2004 figure) Check out the pop of the states of the U.S. That ain't a lot of people. They do more of it than we do, proportionally.

The jobs sent overseas are largely sent to the prison-industrial system of China and to sweatshops around the hemisphere and the world. By corporations. Oh, we subsidize the corporations, but the jobs are not U.S. government jobs, but corporate jobs like yours and mine, ordinary jobs which the U.S. government would have to step in as a regulating bureaucracy to affect.

The U.S. government jobs are all here in the U.S., and only overseas where diplomatic, military, and intelligence personnel are involved.

Would you have the government regulate these companies to prevent them from closing plants here and opening sweatshops overseas?

cantdog

 

[Colleen Thomas]

Well, I expect witholding of aide would be used like a bludgeon, not withdrawn whole sale. I imagine the first victims would be countries with whom we don't have very strong ties, but whom we send aide to. The main thng would be more fear of us pulling out of a country in toto rather than us actually doing so in most cases.

The world has advanced to a point where practical isolationism is simply not an option any longer. Corporations are all gloabal, if they aren't they are failing. To withdraw yourself from the global community would be pretty close to national suicide. In all honesty, much of what keeps us a world power is the ability to sway folks to do what we want. The carrot and stick approach of offering monies or other rewards serves us a lot better than threats usually. A lot of our foerign aide is making good on the carrot for folks who came around to our way of seeing things.

If we ignore the impracticality of simply turning off the taps, the results are pretty much a grand experiment in chaos theory. Britan will most likely back us no matter what. Israel too, assuming we kept the taps open for them, which we would since they always back us up. I suspect the rest of western Europe would do a lot of crayfishing. If we withdraw from NATO, they would all suddenly have to build armies and provide for their own defense. We would probably profit from the arms race we created in the short run.

A re militarized europe would eventually come to rival us in gross might, asuming the Eu holds up. I feel pretty strongly the old USSR would go back to communism or at least a totalitarian government. China would most defintely move in to take up our slack with aide, building their influence. The mid east would probably explode then, since europe pretty much solidly backs the Palestinians and we would be forced to back Israel. It would eventually lead to a shooting war. There is just too much at stake there to let it lie for both of us and I suspect the arabs would impose an embargo or something to percipitate it. Politicaly adroit thay have never been.

How it would fall out is very hard to say. I suspect the U.S. would eventually come out on top, since we would carry a significant techological edge into it and europe would have trouble both manpowerwise and especially projecting that power.

I think the big winner would be China. She isn't as dependant on oil, could sit back and goad both sides, then make her own land grab once the U.S. and Eurpoe had torn each other's military capacity down.

At the least, with us taking an isolationist slant, they would reoccupy taiwan and probably take japan too, since we really defend both of those nations as well in realistic terms. Thats a lot of money and power to suddenly be left for the taking. Whether they would persue old grudges and claims against the USSR is anyone's guess.

The problem with projections here is there is no way to know how the dominos would fall. Everything is so interrelated now. I would have to really study who we send aide to and how much, as well as how that aide is used beore I could give a hard guess, this one is just off the top of my head.

-Colly

 

[Colleen Thomas]

<impressive God voice> Because only thou knowest the path the future shall take! Givest thy vision unto the world at once</impressive God voice>

Eh. In truth it's because you know the most about history and politics out of all of us, something like this sounds like something you'd prove to be an unknown expert in, and finally, because your predictions usually are more spot on than anyone else's.

Oh yeah and the genius thing too. The genius thing is a big reason.

thanks LC

i think the Great Oggs is probably as ell rounded if not more so, but I appreciate it. Also love it when you use the godlike bvoice

*HUGS*