PDA

View Full Version : Marshall Plan: Revised Addition 2007


Shintao
12-10-2007, 10:18 PM
(pardon the mispells)
In essence there is nothing wrong with helping other nations better themselves, if the end result helps better the world for democracy. But the current method being used to dole out YOUR dollars is unproductive and not in Americas best interest, as it offers no return and in no way benefits the American taxpayer in these economic times. I first wrote this Revised Marshall Plan around 1990.

The idea for the plan recognizes that it is our tax dollars, and they should be invested in a way that benefits you, much like a savings account with a rate of return. Foreign Aid (FA) should be run like an American business, and Americans should be involved in that business.

The Revised Marshall Plan takes a percentage of you tax dollars and put them into the business account. The FA Fund Account is run separate from the clutches of gov., so as the funds can only be used to work the business and provide annual returns of profit to the tax payers. The loan interest flucuates and matches the rates US banks charge for loans to our own citizens.

For a country to receive American FA Funding, they agree to the following guidlines.

Foreign Country of Loan=========

1.They must surrender land as security for the loans, just as you have to do if you take a loan from a Bank. The apprasial value of the land securing the loan is determined by the FA office.

2. 50% of the loan is held by the FA fund to pay American citizen settlers to improve the land and to purchase American materials to be used to develop the land.

3. Any improvements to the land are added to the total loan value, and must be repaid before the land is returned to the country.

4. Any future FA loans require the country to surrender a different plot of land for development, and for US citizen security of the loan.

American Settlers=======
1. The settlers can come from anyone wishing to improve and develop land for profit, such as homeless, unemployed, or any citizen. They sign up for a country of FA loans, and pick of plot of ground to develop from those still available

2. In respect for their efforts at building homes, farming, and making other development to the land, they receive 50% of the value of the land when the country pays off the loan, monthly supplies from a general store, and a monthly amount of foreign currency to spend inside the country. At that time, they can then enter into a new settler agreement for working in another country under the FA Plan.

United States Gov.==========
1. The US Government is used to protect the settlers. Thus they must develop a military compound, runway, build roads, put in utilities to plots of ground, deliver US materials, etc. They are the back bone of establishing the FA loan development & funded from Defense.

2. The Government decides where there compound will be built, and divides the land into plots. Most likely the blueprint will develop into a common design for the developments.

United States citizens=========

1. All resources for FA development will come from US citizen run businesses in America, using US citizen employment, using only US resources.
2. Materials delievered by the US government are export/import free.

3. No other FA loans will be made by congress. Foreign countries must use our citizen FA sponsored loans.

That pretty much explains the Revised Marshall Plan. We Americans would actually make foreign Aid improve a country. Our settlers can intermingle with foreigners and show them technologies in various fields, introduce them to freedom one on one, and create Democracy.

Once the idea catches on, other FA loaning countries will follow in pursuit, so it isn't like a borrowing country is going to get a better load deal somewhere else.

Buck Laser
12-11-2007, 02:56 AM
The Marshall Plan was probably the best thing the US ever did, and I think most of the credit for it goes to Truman, although FDR may have had a hand in it, as the end of the war was so close when he died.

I have some deep misgivings about your proposal to encourage American citizens to settle in lands owned by recipients of US aid. My first reaction is that the potential aid recipients would likely see the program as thinly veiled imperialism. US foreign aid has always been a tool of American foreign policy, and I think your proposal might make that so explicit that no one would want to accept it.

Please note that these are off the top responses, and not the result of serious consideration. I'll be thinking about it some more, though.

Shintao
12-11-2007, 03:08 AM
I am thinking of the US Taxpayer, and trying to make his hard earned dollars have a profitable return. I am also thinking of giving Americans the opportunity to work instead of taking your social dollars for existing (lil bit of self-esteem), especially those who's educations failed them, but who have a strong back could make them a good living.

And I am thinking of way of tying democracy to our loans, letting our people mingle with their people, teach them how to do things, learn how to do things from them for ourselves.

And I am thinking of way we can have free military bases and maintain a precense. This idea cropped up before I changed my mind & decided we should stay the heck out of other peoples business & bring all troops home. Perhaps the military base would be given up as well, when the country pays off the full loan and takes back the secured property. We need to protect American settler while they are living there.