Obama announces new U.S. approach on development

"And yet he wants Americans to be dependent on the government."

The topic is US international aid, my friend. Just because you can't find anything to bash the guy about his proposition, try to stick to the subject.

“That’s dependence, and it’s a cycle we need to break,” Obama said.

And yet he wants Americans to be dependent on the government. So my question is, where is the line here? How dependent does he think people should be?

In that Obama is talking about not just throwing money around, I mean (pretty self-evident, but you know how these guys like to twist things). If djuice is speaking strictly of Muslims, he seems to forget that 'our own' includes a whole lot of Muslims as well, whose taxes go to relief efforts as well as his own.

Klein: You gotta love comments like djuice's above. Here he is talking about EXACTLY what Obama is proposing and doesn't even know it while he bashes the man. Quite hilarious, in a very sad fashion.

@ Klein2...we need to take care of our own, and stop supporting ideologies that are contrary to our way of life. Sorry if you don't like that, but this needs to happen.

Countries like Mexico have crap economies in part because the kleptocrat Lefties who dominated for decades knew "strengthening" the economy would mean losing "aid money," and yes that includes the billions of dollars that expat Mexicans in the US remit each year.

You'd be doing the Mexicans greater favor by writing to the State Dep't or supporting a Latino group affiliated with the Tea Party. I highly doubt reps of CLINTON's State Dep't frequents this newspaper for tidbits (and if they do, they're probably ideologically close to their boss which won't change anything one bit) =/

Does anyone think for a minute that the US would have an illegal immigration problem if the Mexican economy were stronger?

I'd be curious to see what measures you would consider the sort that could make a given economy "stronger." I suspect they'd be things you are ideologically opposed to for your own nation - - tax cuts, increased competition, free trade, rule of law, stronger property rights etc.

Let's not kid ourselves. Countries like Mexico have crap economies in part because the kleptocrat Lefties who dominated for decades knew "strengthening" the economy would mean losing "aid money," and yes that includes the billions of dollars that expat Mexicans in the US remit each year.

Why not use that same method for promoting birth-control? I find it arrogant how Obama speaks about what "America's" new policy is. Obama doesn't speak for a majority of Americans, and neither does the UN.

I agree with you on comprehensive campaigns to educate people on AIDS and HIV in African and other Third World countries. The question of course is would you really trust the efforts of some in OBAMA's own political base (the left) when it comes to politicizing 'population control'?

dijuice:

" First thing we need to do is quit sending money to any country that practices sharia law, and reinvest that money into the US economy! "

That would be obvious sane first step. But don´t count on the current administration to even consider that.

Obama supporters don't believe in choice

Agree, I don't trust them myself =/

Unless the result of that choice weakens the dignity and liberty of the individual (and here I mean the individual vs. the collective), the institution of the family, or the nation's capacity to assert its sovereignty.

In short, you're worried about deflation eating your family savings.

For too long, Obama said, U.S. policy has been defined by the amount of money spent and food and medicines delivered.

“But aid alone is not development,” he said. “Development is helping nations to actually develop, moving from poverty to prosperity. And we need more than just aid to unleash that change.”

And if there's any foreign policy legislation from the previous administration that both sides of US politics can agree to be positive to American image abroad then it should be the MCC--I believe I have, in other threads, commented on this area-- giving GW's Millennium Challenge Corp as a vital example of how a responsible multilateral aid framework should be conducted. MCC is not without its caveat but I'm generally happy.

"is quit sending money to any country that practices sharia law, "

Yeah, because only countries with governments that do as we say should have their people live. Everyone else should just die.

One thing that people need to realize is that giving money is a lot easier. Providing volunteers and trade assistance and actual development requires a whole infrastructure and it is hard. It works though.

Does anyone think for a minute that the US would have an illegal immigration problem if the Mexican economy were stronger? Who would think that the US could not help that along? In the long run, the world will only reach stability in ways that matter if people can get what they need for themselves without taking it from someone else.

It seems like a very long term goal. But progress has to start somewhere.

First thing we need to do is quit sending money to any country that practices sharia law, and reinvest that money into the US economy!

Give a man a fish and you feed him for a day. Teach him how to fish and he'll be out on a lake with a cooler of beer all weekend.

Obama is using an old idea that already taking place around the world. Plus, the UN and Peace Corps are already doing what Obama said. There are non-profit organizations and other organizations that have done that and continues doing it.

Last administration, if you got money from the US, you were required to kill Iraqi citizens. Whether you believe the falsified facts or not.

I think Obama is more talking about the quote:

Give a man a fish and you feed him for a day. Teach him how to fish and you feed him for a lifetime. Lao Tzu

Help other countries, not just give. I like the concept. < :-)

The problem is the UN. Capitalism is the answer to third world countries plight of moving up. For example, China did not changed because of the UN, China changed because of capitalism.

“We will not abandon those who depend on us for lifesaving help,” he said. “We keep our promises and honor our commitments.” “Put simply, the United States is changing the way we do business,” Obama said as he announced the administration’s new development policy in a speech at the outset of a three-day visit to the United Nations. “But aid alone is not development,” he said. “Development is helping nations to actually develop, moving from poverty to prosperity. And we need more than just aid to unleash that change.”

No matter how much aid is given if people don't want to change then there is no change. The aid given to the UN is really up to what the UN do with the aid. Obama will have to assign his people to oversee the aid and the development in order for his statement to come true.

“But aid alone is not development,” he said. “Development is helping nations to actually develop, moving from poverty to prosperity. And we need more than just aid to unleash that change.”

That means eradicate unfair trade barrier and subsidies to farmers? Somehow I doubt that first world countries made that happening any time soon. Some credible plan there or just another project that is going to get so amended by lawmakers that is going to be a very small improvement?

The new strategy, which administration officials said was the product of a nearly yearlong effort, also includes anti-corruption measures and calls for accountability from the U.S. and the countries it partners with.

I like that, in Japan we have a lot of corruption. Please tell us more.

Charity is an individual choice, and the UN should not be bullying nations to ante up to their agenda.

Obama supporters don't believe in choice, unless the result of that choice weakens the dignity and liberty of the individual (and here I mean the individual vs. the collective), the institution of the family, or the nation's capacity to assert its sovereignty.

@ smithinjapan :

If you heard that the GOP had input on this (which would be impossible because all they know how to say is 'no') you would quickly change your stance.

Saying "No" is imput. Charity is an individual choice, and the UN should not be bullying nations to ante up to their agenda. To give without knowledge or choice, is a tax.

“But aid alone is not development,” he said. “Development is helping nations to actually develop, moving from poverty to prosperity. And we need more than just aid to unleash that change.”

Prosperity ? Poor Mr Obama has grown more gaffe-tastic than his sidekick Joe Biden. He can't bring prosperity to America;he can't even bring prosperity to the state of Illinois, whose infamous 'Daley Machine' politicians and cronies got him to the national level. Why is he jabbering about how America is going to bring prosperity to the rest of the world by ending decades of policy because his fraudulent banner of 'change' needs to unfurled every few weeks. I think many of his conservative critics are right - - this guy is bored with being president of the US, he wants to some kind of World President. Blowhard pronouncements like this are why no one even listens anymore. Turn the teleprompter off. Get off your high horse. Take a stroll down main street. See the misery, the havoc and hopelessness you and your party have brought America.

pamelot: "It is arrogant, but at least it's honest."

No, it wouldn't be. Clearly you don't decide this kind of thing on your own (regardless of how arrogant you think the man is), but through deliberation and the needs of the nation. If you heard that the GOP had input on this (which would be impossible because all they know how to say is 'no') you would quickly change your stance.

@McC72 : When it comes to charity, every single individual can speak for themselves.

People who choose to give time, money and effort to help their chosen causes in this world, don't need Mr. Obama or the UN to dictate how.

@smithinjapan :

If he said "MY approach" you'd turn around and say he's arrogant for that.

It is arrogant, but at least it's honest.

pamelot: "I find it arrogant how Obama speaks about what "America's" new policy is. Obama doesn't speak for a majority of Americans, and neither does the UN."

Give the anti-Obama rhetoric a rest. He is the representative of the US at this meeting, and of course the president. If he said "MY approach" you'd turn around and say he's arrogant for that. You don't like the man, we get it, but he does speak for the American people as their chosen (by a landslide) representative. Are you saying you are against what Obama is promoting here (not simply handing out more money but promoting other means of reducing poverty), or is it just more of you huffing and puffing at Obama?

Pamelot, Can you be kind enough to tell us who speak for the majority of American?

Sub-Saharan Africa's AIDS new infections rates are way down, after the comprehensive campaign to educate its people, and try and change thinking...

Why not use that same method for promoting birth-control?

I find it arrogant how Obama speaks about what "America's" new policy is. Obama doesn't speak for a majority of Americans, and neither does the UN.

I agree that all future developement programs should include massive amount of family planning, i.e birth control.

So I guess destroying countries to save them is now off the table?

I would also add a strong birth control and especially condom promotion program to the list, and if the Vatican opposed, I would destroy it to save it.

alladin: "Obama needs to find ways to bring money into America rather than looking for ways to have the money leave America."

Perhaps you missed the point of the 'new approach': which is to provide OTHER WAYS of reducing poverty than by simply giving out money. He admitted that the use will STILL (active word here) provide emergency assistance, but he's looking for ways to keep the money at home, my friend.

"moving from poverty to prosperity"

That's what the U.S. is going to start to do as soon as we get rid of Obama and the Democrat mis-leadership.

"Wednesday that the United States is changing its approach to development and will use diplomacy, trade, investment and other policies to help poorer countries instead of just giving them money."

Time to start bashing this idea simply because Obama has suggested it! Personally I think using diplomacy instead of simply doling out money when your economy is in dire straights is a great idea; and something other countries should take not of (like money-happy Japan).

Obama needs to start to create productions in America rather than in China to boost Americas economy. He needs to create more exporting rather then importing. Americas money has been going out of the country for so many years and that is what is hurting Americas economy. Obama needs to find ways to bring money into America rather than looking for ways to have the money leave America.