Obama's Global Poverty Tax

[Suburbanite]

Firstly, Ghook, thanks for going beyond bullshit speculation on this point. I appreciate this more concrete analysis. Now, according to Obama, he is going to reduce federal spending over all by ending the war in Iraq and the war on drugs. And instead use that money to help American citizens. It just doesn't HAVE to correspond to a tax increase. If they, for example, shut down our bases in Japan we could use that money to give all college students a free education.

Spending money isn't a bad thing, intrinsically, it is balancing the budget thats crucial and we're talking about a budget thats been ROBBED by the Bush administration and their friends. Clinton offered many similar "expensive" social policies that republicans called a burden on taxes. But look how prosperous the middle and lower class was during his presidency.
It doesnt scare me that my taxes are being used to help people, it scares me when they're being used to kill people

[phoenix_fire]

Quote by: Suburbanite Firstly, Ghook, thanks for going beyond bullshit speculation on this point. I appreciate this more concrete analysis. Now, according to Obama, he is going to reduce federal spending over all by ending the war in Iraq and the war on drugs. And instead use that money to help American citizens. It just doesn't HAVE to correspond to a tax increase. If they, for example, shut down our bases in Japan we could use that money to give all college students a free education. Spending money isn't a bad thing, intrinsically, it is balancing the budget thats crucial and we're talking about a budget thats been ROBBED by the Bush administration and their friends. Clinton offered many similar "expensive" social policies that republicans called a burden on taxes. But look how prosperous the middle and lower class was during his presidency. It doesnt scare me that my taxes are being used to help people, it scares me when they're being used to kill people

They all seem to think that ending the Iraq War will magically solve all the nation's problems. They think the terrorists will suddenly leave us alone. They think that money will come pouring from the sky. Well, guess what? We're in debt. And the value of a dollar continues to decline. Are we supposed to pay that debt off by incurring more? Cutting and running from Iraq may stop the bleeding, but it by no means creates money. Likewise, shutting down overseas military bases won't help much and as far as Japan goes...well, I'd rather we have a nice perch to keep an eye on China. But it certainly wouldn't be enough to finance each and every college student's education. It probably wouldn't be enough to finance your asinine "let's give all black people a free college education for no good reason" plan.

Spending money is a bad thing when we're shipping all our wealth overseas. Obama's Global Poverty Tax is an even more direct means of doing so. We're in debt up to our eyeballs, and much of the rest of the world holds the mortgage on American business and interests. So the spend-o-crats want to fix the problem by pretending it doesn't exist and selling off the country a bit more all the time.

[The Decider]

Quote by: GHook93 Article 8 section 1 states that "Congress has the right to lay and collect taxess...to pay the debts and provide for the common defesne and general welfare of the UNITED STATES!"

Since when is foreign aid inconsistent with "common defense" and "general welfare" of the United States? Nothing in the US Constitution says that tax money can only be spent within the borders of the United States. In fact, nothing in the document prohibits the government from using money as part of American foreign policy. Nothing. Whether we "should" or not is a political question, not a constitutional/legal one.

[GHook93]

Quote by: The Decider Since when is foreign aid inconsistent with "common defense" and "general welfare" of the United States? Nothing in the US Constitution says that tax money can only be spent within the borders of the United States. In fact, nothing in the document prohibits the government from using money as part of American foreign policy. Nothing. Whether we "should" or not is a political question, not a constitutional/legal one.

True, but the question can go both ways. Nothing in the constitution states that we can tax Americans to pay for world poverty!

[The Decider]

Quote by: GHook93 True, but the question can go both ways. Nothing in the constitution states that we can tax Americans to pay for world poverty!

Why not? Congress can levy taxes for "the common defense" and "general welfare." An argument can be made that reducing poverty overseas improves foreign relations and therefore national security (the common defense). Less poverty means more markets for American goods, an improvement for "the general welfare."

[Technosoul]

I would guess that about 80 percent of the world's people live in some stage of poverty, even if they spent 7 percent of our national product profit it would hardly cover those poor folks right here in the USA alone, let alone the worse off places like Africa (that people imagine would get the loot).

But at least it is better then spending millions of create poverty in places like Iraq with our unlawful wars.

Now I am all for the idealism of ending world poverty, including my own personal poverty, but so far I do not see or know of any governmental or religious programs that are constructed to have good results, and I doubt if they can do it because they "love red tape" and "applications for approval" more so then they do helping people out.

[G. Adams]

Quote by: The Decider The US Constitution and specifically the 16th Amendment gives the federal government "the right" to collect taxes. What "theory" are you talking about? Please cite the constitutional provision that limits foreign aid.

1. The theory I was using was that, if property is respected, no third party has a right to take any part of a transaction between two individuals engaging in voluntary trade - no income tax can be levied if the individuals rights over their property are respected.

2. For some reason I had come under the impression that one part of the Constitution said that no taxes can be levied upon individual labour for redistribution unless evenly distributed. As I can't find that now, I'll have to admit I was wrong on this point.

[Winter wind]

Quote by: GAdams On a theoretical level, a government doens't have the right to take from you to feed others, unless we accept that might makes right. In which case, there is also no justification other than whim that governemnt should at all be giving it's money to poor states.

Well according to you the government doesn't have the right to take much money, really, at all. But like I said. This is a practical threat. It is in the interest of national security which is one of the ways the Constitution allows government to tax.

And finally, I would argue that you are simply keeping foreign states in a state of dependance rather than fostering their own growth through such measures. But this law wouldn't be about helping poor people, it'd be about making rich people feel good.

Well, by that argument, all charity is ineffective.
A flat out argument against that is John D. Rockefeller provided major funding for Spelman College. Gave 80 million (in 1900s) to the University of Chicago when it was just a small Baptist College. Both are huge Colleges. You can read the rest here.John D. Rockefeller - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"To help an inefficient, ill-located, unnecessary school is a waste...it is highly probable that enough money has been squandered on unwise educational projects to have built up a national system of higher education adequate to our needs, if the money had been properly directed to that end."

--John D. Rockefeller.

Charity needs to be wisely spent, not thrown around. Yet when it is, it doesn't create dependence, it actually helps.

So none of that dependence garbage. It makes for a poor argument (and is generally lacking in evidence.)

Quote by: Ghook OH please! There are so many flaws in that rationale its overwelming

Thank you very much for remembering I'm playing devil's advocate and for pointing said flaws. I mean your stunning insight into my post only surpassed by that wonderfully polite tone you have adopted in your post.

Quote by: GAdams It is not the solution. It is the basic reason welfare doesn't work. This is an inexperience naive proposal by Comrade Obama!

Yes it is the solution. (we could do this for a while). And calling Obama a communist is childish name-calling and achieves no purpose but to annoy his supporters.

Oh and if you have actually responded to these things. I haven't had time to read your other posts addressed to other people, so please reiterate your argument.

[G. Adams]

Quote by: Winter wind Well according to you the government doesn't have the right to take much money, really, at all. But like I said. This is a practical threat. It is in the interest of national security which is one of the ways the Constitution allows government to tax. Well, by that argument, all charity is ineffective. A flat out argument against that is John D. Rockefeller provided major funding for Spelman College. Gave 80 million (in 1900s) to the University of Chicago when it was just a small Baptist College. Both are huge Colleges. You can read the rest here.John D. Rockefeller - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia "To help an inefficient, ill-located, unnecessary school is a waste...it is highly probable that enough money has been squandered on unwise educational projects to have built up a national system of higher education adequate to our needs, if the money had been properly directed to that end." --John D. Rockefeller. Charity needs to be wisely spent, not thrown around. Yet when it is, it doesn't create dependence, it actually helps. So none of that dependence garbage. It makes for a poor argument (and is generally lacking in evidence.)

The government can raise sufficient wealth for the national defence by way of duties. It needn't levy a tax upon income.

No, not all charity is inneffective. If the goal of charity is to feed a person for another day, it is quite easily effective, If it is to allow a person to achieve self-sufficiency (not autarky, of course), it is much more difficult. And the people who have failed to improve thrid world states for 50 years, Western governments, are the ones who want more money to squander.

Okay, if you want to deal with facts in particular, look at India. A very large 3rd world state that has been in a hot and cold war with Pakistan since the seperation. It remained neutral throughout the Cold War,so it never recieved anything like the aid it could have. The aim of Nehru's India was to achieve actual independance and self-sufficiency. So yes, they may well have suffered in the short term, but look at it now. It is booming. Yes, it has great poverty as well as great wealth, but at the turn of the 20th century, so did the US.

I can also point to the other East Asian tigers who embraced capitalism instead of socialism and have achieved great things.

Now let's compare it to a state that recieved aid for almost it's entire life, Cuba. Untill the Soviet Union fell, it recieved massive amounts of aid. It improved to a certain level, but remained entirely dependant. When the Cold War ended and the money flow stopped, it almost collapsed. It suffered greatly. Why? Because it became dependant upon help rather than seeking to become self-sufficient. And unlike most African states, Cuba has had a long time of stability.

If you want to claim 'oh well Cuba is a dictatorship', where do you think the aid will be going if not authoritarian regimes? Africa's countries are ran mostly by tin pot dictators. Only recently we saw Kenya fall into a grave crisis, and it was held up as a stable, developing state.

Now why don't you show me a success for aid. Where a country that has almost no middle class and no real civic culture, as this is where generic aid goes (as opposed to disaster relief). The only places where aid was of significant benefit was Marshall Aid. However, those states that benefitted from it had middle classes and had proud civic traditions. And it was 10% of the US revenue, not 1%.

[G. Adams]

Quote by: Winter wind "To help an inefficient, ill-located, unnecessary school is a waste...it is highly probable that enough money has been squandered on unwise educational projects to have built up a national system of higher education adequate to our needs, if the money had been properly directed to that end." --John D. Rockefeller.

So Rockefeller invested in a business that he thought would be succesful, and it was. Good for him. He risked his own money on what he thought would work. He didn't risk anyone elses. and I note he advises against squandering it on unwise projects because that has already happened enough. Again, I agree with him very much. Government aid is just such a squandering of other peoples money.

[Domino]

No, not all charity is inneffective. If the goal of charity is to feed a person for another day, it is quite easily effective, If it is to allow a person to achieve self-sufficiency (not autarky, of course), it is much more difficult. And the people who have failed to improve thrid world states for 50 years, Western governments, are the ones who want more money to squander.

It's not difficult, for charity to help a person achieve self-sufficiency. Instead of giving him a fish, you have to both give him a fishing pole, and show him how to use it. Tricksy, but it costs far less by the next day.

Now let's compare it to a state that recieved aid for almost it's entire life, Cuba. Untill the Soviet Union fell, it recieved massive amounts of aid. It improved to a certain level, but remained entirely dependant. When the Cold War ended and the money flow stopped, it almost collapsed. It suffered greatly. Why? Because it became dependant upon help rather than seeking to become self-sufficient. And unlike most African states, Cuba has had a long time of stability.

Cuba's only problem is America. They could easily trade for everything they need, and rapidly become a prosperous economy, if we'd lift the sanctions. They're already a far more prosperous nation than anyone to whom we give aid. The big difference is that Cuba's an isolated tropical island, whereas we give aid to nations that are stuck out in the middle of a desert, with wars raging all about.

[GHook93]

Quote by: Domino Cuba's only problem is America. They could easily trade for everything they need, and rapidly become a prosperous economy, if we'd lift the sanctions. They're already a far more prosperous nation than anyone to whom we give aid. The big difference is that Cuba's an isolated tropical island, whereas we give aid to nations that are stuck out in the middle of a desert, with wars raging all about.

Yea and all the Soviet money did nothing right?

[G. Adams]

Quote by: Domino It's not difficult, for charity to help a person achieve self-sufficiency. Instead of giving him a fish, you have to both give him a fishing pole, and show him how to use it. Tricksy, but it costs far less by the next day. Cuba's only problem is America. They could easily trade for everything they need, and rapidly become a prosperous economy, if we'd lift the sanctions. They're already a far more prosperous nation than anyone to whom we give aid. The big difference is that Cuba's an isolated tropical island, whereas we give aid to nations that are stuck out in the middle of a desert, with wars raging all about.

Oh right, well let's just give out fishing rods to the world then

That principle is right, but is so often spouted with no effective result that it is almost a joke. The complexity of what is needed in the long run is so complicated no one person, or even committee, of people could comprehend it. If they could, socialism would work. The only thing chairities in Africa can do to help, I think, is supporting schools, field clinics and disaster relief. However, it is important not to allow dependance, because the governments of those states will operate on the basis that someone else is taking care of education, so we don't have to.

Do you know what is actually helping in Africa? Mobile phones. Set up by an African businessman. Not a charity, but a businessman who saw a gap in the market.

Cuba's only problem is America? So the denial of free speech, the gulags Che set up, the theft of property the moment a private individual makes a success...these are America's doing?

Cuba isn't denied anything by states other than the US. Do you really think the cost of buying anything from Argentina or Venezuala, or Europe, instead of the US is what is crippling Cuba? Crap. What do you think will happen if the US lifts the sanctions? That Cuba will suddenly allow it's entrepeneurs to keep their money and businesses, allow them to expand and become globe straddling companies? No. Because it is an authoritarian socialist state that rapes the property of anyone who does well. That's why Cuba is a mess.

[Winter wind]

First, I would like to make amends to my previous post. The last one was directed at Ghook and not GAdams (typo). Also, "pointing" should have an "out" behind it.

Thank you

Quote by: GAdams The government can raise sufficient wealth for the national defence by way of duties. It needn't levy a tax upon income.

Really? I need proof.

No, not all charity is inneffective. If the goal of charity is to feed a person for another day, it is quite easily effective, If it is to allow a person to achieve self-sufficiency (not autarky, of course), it is much more difficult. And the people who have failed to improve thrid world states for 50 years, Western governments, are the ones who want more money to squander.

Could somebody please find out about this tax. I have no idea what the tax is exactly.

Second of, I'm not going to judge this tax based off of past failures without seeing where this money is going.

Okay, if you want to deal with facts in particular, look at India. A very large 3rd world state that has been in a hot and cold war with Pakistan since the seperation. It remained neutral throughout the Cold War,so it never recieved anything like the aid it could have. The aim of Nehru's India was to achieve actual independance and self-sufficiency. So yes, they may well have suffered in the short term, but look at it now. It is booming. Yes, it has great poverty as well as great wealth, but at the turn of the 20th century, so did the US.

Was Pakistan's goal different? How has that turned out for them?
And I've been to India, and they have real poverty issues. The number of hawkers is insane, nothing like the 20th century in America. Booming isn't the word I would use when describing what I saw.

Plus, not every country is India. You think we should just let the things that are happening in Darfur happen? Leaving countries to themselves will work out for some and not others. Some of that could come back to haunt us like as in WWI and II.

I can also point to the other East Asian tigers who embraced capitalism instead of socialism and have achieved great things.

Slowly, one step at a time. Not like Russia which was a disaster on wheels. (not a fan of "shock therapy")

Quote by: GAdams Now let's compare it to a state that recieved aid for almost it's entire life, Cuba. Untill the Soviet Union fell, it recieved massive amounts of aid. It improved to a certain level, but remained entirely dependant. When the Cold War ended and the money flow stopped, it almost collapsed. It suffered greatly. Why? Because it became dependant upon help rather than seeking to become self-sufficient. And unlike most African states, Cuba has had a long time of stability.

Cuba isn't a great example because the USSR wasn't using the money to foster democracy, but to have a red ally near America.

Quote by: GAdams If you want to claim 'oh well Cuba is a dictatorship', where do you think the aid will be going if not authoritarian regimes? Africa's countries are ran mostly by tin pot dictators. Only recently we saw Kenya fall into a grave crisis, and it was held up as a stable, developing state.

You can put requirements on this aid. Getting them to lean towards democracy. We screwed that play during the cold war, but now that that is over, maybe the method of giving aid would change.

Plus, you don't have to give it only to the governments and it isn't always in the form of money.

Quote by: GAdams Now why don't you show me a success for aid. Where a country that has almost no middle class and no real civic culture, as this is where generic aid goes (as opposed to disaster relief). The only places where aid was of significant benefit was Marshall Aid. However, those states that benefitted from it had middle classes and had proud civic traditions. And it was 10% of the US revenue, not 1%.

The elimination of small pox is a great one. I'm not an expert on what countries get foreign aid. But I do know that aid has helped with AIDS, malaria, and helped Germany get back on it's feet.
Mexico's is a little more controversial, but I do know that when the economy collapses, you don't just let it go to pieces. I'm pretty sure the global organization have brought Mexico back from the brink a few times.

[Domino]

That principle is right, but is so often spouted with no effective result that it is almost a joke. The complexity of what is needed in the long run is so complicated no one person, or even committee, of people could comprehend it. If they could, socialism would work. The only thing chairities in Africa can do to help, I think, is supporting schools, field clinics and disaster relief. However, it is important not to allow dependance, because the governments of those states will operate on the basis that someone else is taking care of education, so we don't have to.

It is not necessary to provide a whole, working economy to them, so complexity is easily limited. For example, we can look at the agricultural sector of Africa, and it's pretty easy to see that they need lots of industrial farm equipment. They can't make it themselves, and they can't afford to buy it, so someone's gotta give it. Once Africa is providing food to its own people, they can all take a collective sigh and get to work on building their own economy. Of course, there's further, basic ways to help that don't demand umpteen levels of bureaucracy, and which are difficult for the local warlords to abuse.

Do you know what is actually helping in Africa? Mobile phones. Set up by an African businessman. Not a charity, but a businessman who saw a gap in the market.

[brag]My brother and I have been preaching this for the last decade. We saw, long ago, that cellphones would be a simple and cheap way to encourage the various social, political, and economic upheavals that Africa needs. If anyone were listening, Africa would, apparently, be ten years ahead of where it is today.[/brag]

Instead, we have to wait for some guy to decide he can make a buck. At this rate, Africa will be able to get that farm equipment within two generations!

Cuba's only problem is America? So the denial of free speech, the gulags Che set up, the theft of property the moment a private individual makes a success...these are America's doing?

I'll grant you, the imprisonment of political dissenters is not a good thing. Basic human rights really ought to be observed (though, I must point out, "property" need not be among them).

Cuba isn't denied anything by states other than the US. Do you really think the cost of buying anything from Argentina or Venezuala, or Europe, instead of the US is what is crippling Cuba? Crap. What do you think will happen if the US lifts the sanctions?

I may be under a false impression, but I thought the US wasn't allowing Cuba to export anything, and they're only allowed to import basic needs like food and medical supplies. The way I've heard it, we're doing what we can to keep them in the Stick Age, and they are nearly prospering in spite of our efforts. It turns out, people can get what they need to be happy, even when they can't buy a PS3 or go to Disneyland.

That Cuba will suddenly allow it's entrepeneurs to keep their money and businesses, allow them to expand and become globe straddling companies? No. Because it is an authoritarian socialist state that rapes the property of anyone who does well. That's why Cuba is a mess.

It's kinda hard to determine how Cuba runs its economy when we won't let them have one. I'll grant you, it may be run by dumbasses who behave the way you say. Personally, I think the main thing holding back Cuba's entrepreneurs is the complete lack of demand for anything they might produce, since we won't allow them access to any markets, not the government ransacking businesses that have no reason to open.

Anyway, your challenge to my knowledge of Cuba has cast doubt upon it, and I don't care enough to remedy my sudden sense of ignorance. If you find fault in my Cuba-specific points, I concede them, though I retain the right to argue principles.

[Suburbanite]

Quote by: phoenix_fire They all seem to think that ending the Iraq War will magically solve all the nation's problems. They think the terrorists will suddenly leave us alone. They think that money will come pouring from the sky. Well, guess what? We're in debt. And the value of a dollar continues to decline. Are we supposed to pay that debt off by incurring more? Cutting and running from Iraq may stop the bleeding, but it by no means creates money. Likewise, shutting down overseas military bases won't help much and as far as Japan goes...well, I'd rather we have a nice perch to keep an eye on China. But it certainly wouldn't be enough to finance each and every college student's education. It probably wouldn't be enough to finance your asinine "let's give all black people a free college education for no good reason" plan. Spending money is a bad thing when we're shipping all our wealth overseas. Obama's Global Poverty Tax is an even more direct means of doing so. We're in debt up to our eyeballs, and much of the rest of the world holds the mortgage on American business and interests. So the spend-o-crats want to fix the problem by pretending it doesn't exist and selling off the country a bit more all the time.

Seriously, a good understanding of economics and history is going to be essential to this debate. Unfortunately, my understanding is only mediocre. However, I feel I must inform you about FDR's deficit spending and how spending more money DID get us back on track. I'm afraid that I can't keep debating with you personally on this issue, because while I only know a little bit about the topic at hand, you know nothing. You have a really base understanding of economy, it isn't starcraft, where you acquire resources (wealth) and then you spend them building your city.
Debt is NOT the reason why our economy is sinking directly. Thats now how economies work. In fact, we could be twice as in debt, but with a better attitude, still have a sounder economy.

[phoenix_fire]

If you don't know a lot about the issues, then don't presume to tell others where to get off. If I only knew a little bit about physics and chemistry, I'd tell someone who'd just quoted the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle to me that they were full of it...or at least that the crap had a much greater probability of being found in their person and ideas than not.

Interestingly, however, the thing that really pulled the U.S. out of the Depression was WWII. But that's neither here nor there. FDR's success is always a function of who's telling it. But however you feel about welfare states and the such, the money was still being spent in the U.S. on U.S. citizens and businesses. It wasn't being shipped overseas. So I really don't see your point.

[Suburbanite]

US businesses exist overseas. In fact the WTO and IMF are responsible for a fair share of this poverty. We use American tax money every day to make people in other countries poor, why not try and counteract that? And what, beyond, like I keep saying, speculation do you have to show me that this will somehow negatively affect our economy. Further, about FDR, the money for the war was deficit spending as well, which did put our country into debt.

[G. Adams]

Quote by: Winter wind First, I would like to make amends to my previous post. The last one was directed at Ghook and not GAdams (typo). Also, "pointing" should have an "out" behind it. Thank you Really? I need proof. Could somebody please find out about this tax. I have no idea what the tax is exactly. Second of, I'm not going to judge this tax based off of past failures without seeing where this money is going. Was Pakistan's goal different? How has that turned out for them? And I've been to India, and they have real poverty issues. The number of hawkers is insane, nothing like the 20th century in America. Booming isn't the word I would use when describing what I saw. Plus, not every country is India. You think we should just let the things that are happening in Darfur happen? Leaving countries to themselves will work out for some and not others. Some of that could come back to haunt us like as in WWI and II. Slowly, one step at a time. Not like Russia which was a disaster on wheels. (not a fan of "shock therapy") Cuba isn't a great example because the USSR wasn't using the money to foster democracy, but to have a red ally near America. You can put requirements on this aid. Getting them to lean towards democracy. We screwed that play during the cold war, but now that that is over, maybe the method of giving aid would change. Plus, you don't have to give it only to the governments and it isn't always in the form of money. The elimination of small pox is a great one. I'm not an expert on what countries get foreign aid. But I do know that aid has helped with AIDS, malaria, and helped Germany get back on it's feet. Mexico's is a little more controversial, but I do know that when the economy collapses, you don't just let it go to pieces. I'm pretty sure the global organization have brought Mexico back from the brink a few times.

Before the introduction of income tax, how was tax raised for the national governments? Import/Export taxes. Only when war came around did the government begin looting the people's pockets directly.

The fact the tax will be administered via government can give you a clue to how well it is spent. In the past, how well has government spent money? For example, in my local area, the council takes all of the money it hasn't spent by the end of the financial year and blows it on speed bumps and overpriced repairs (my friend worked as a Body Repair worker in a garage for years, and every year the council would have them fix vans and cars paying by choice more than double what the garage asked). This is so that the council can then say "oh look, we're stoney broke and need money. Won't somebody please think the children???" instead of saying "good news folks, we didn't need all that money, we'll cut council tax next year". Now I know this is only a local council, but I have no doubt that further up the chain of command they are like this.

Compare India to another country that was left by the British Empire after the war. Any you like. Now show me one doing as well as India. Note, all of the others have taken aid.

India isn't perfect. It has only gotten rid of it's socialist barriers in the last ten-15 years bit by bit, and some areas (like Calcutta) are still ran by the Communist Party. The comparison to Western countries in the industrial revolution is probably unfair, as they had nothing like the population to deal with that India has, but don't doubt that large parts of London and Paris we're stinking cesspits rife with extreme poverty.

Pakistan has had different goals, like maintaining a stable government, trying to conquer Indian Kashmir, at various times inflict a political Islam upon it's population and have control over who runs Afghanistan.

No, not every country is India. Most are ran by Big Man authoritarians in suits who rig elections if they hold them at all while all the while embezzling money into off shore bank accounts. If a country is lucky enough, it is wealthy enough to afford the corruption. In many cases, they can't.

In the case of Darfur, what do you suggest to help the local population? I personally think arming the villagers would be the best option, so they can shoot these raiding tribesman.

Russia hasn't embraced capitalism, it embraced cronyism. It sold off government assets to party members and Mafiosa. Although now, 17 years on, it is improving and the rubel stabilising. It may be rough for a country coming out of communism or heavy socialism at first, eg if Cuba ever does, but if your choice is poverty for the forseable future, or a rough decade or so followed by stabilisation and growth, hell I'd pick the latter.

How is Cuba not a great example? They spent the aid to fund schools and hospitals, making sure everyone was fed. How would you have aid spent, if not on these things?

Ahh, so now your attatching political measures on to your aid. And why should a vastly wealthy corrupt leader want aid to a people he doesn't care about if it means him risking losing his power? Indeed, he may not want you there at all if the aid doesn't came through him, because then the populace are dependant upon outsiders and not him, which weakens his power.

The elimination of small pox is an example of something with a specified goal with a clearly achievable steps. Eliminating poverty is not such an example, so isn't really comparable.

Germany had a middle class and a strong civic culture. A middle class is important because these people have money and the ability to make money. They are well educated. They do not go begging for handouts for long because they want to get more money than just the scraps tossed at them. So they start businesses, or strive to get up the company ladder by showing they can make more money than the next guy. This generation of wealth spreads across an economy. The civic culture in Germany was important for it's rebuilding because the German political culture is one of getting things done. If you pick any random African state, say Kenya, they don't really have these qualities in great amounts yet. If other politicians are corrupt, why shouldn't you be corrupt, it's the way thing are done aka the poltical culture. They have an emerging middle class. This middle class may have been kept alive by aid in times of struggle, but they moved from working class to middle class when they started their own businesses and expanded them, when some parents busted their asses off to make sure their kids went to school so they could become top members of these businesses.

What binds all of that stuff above? Aspiration, ambition, and the will power to do it. Those qualities are best fos