It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Netherlands government to counter Trump abortion funding ban

page: 5
<< 2  3  4   >>

log in


posted on Jan, 25 2017 @ 02:18 PM

originally posted by: DanDanDat
Great; so Trump has gotten another country to step up so that the US doesn't always have to be the world’s savior. I’m pretty sure that’s what he campaigned on; looks like he is keeping his promise.

The question I have is why wasn't the Netherlands doing this before Trump?

You mean give foreign aid?

Yes, 0.76% of our gross national income.

Germany, 0.52%

USA, 0.17%

The Netherlands gives 5.81 billion dollar.

The US gives 31.08 billion.

The first few posts of this thread sure were inaccurate, unfair, and flatout BS, but off course, I am a biased Dutchman.

edit on 25-1-2017 by AngryManagement because: (no reason given)

posted on Jan, 25 2017 @ 02:47 PM

originally posted by: digital01anarchy
The nethercucks will fold lol how long do you think that small arse country will be able to support abortions lol a year maybe two.

Sorry, but what was your problem again. How does this Dutch proposition affect you or anything related to you?

Furthermore from the OP,

Lilianne Ploumen, a Dutch minister, said it would set up "a well-financed fund" to allow other governments, businesses and charities to donate.

Can you read it now?

From the article,

"Obviously, the Netherlands cannot do this by ourselves, we need support," she added. "Other governments, foundations, but many, many citizens have approached me and said let us know how we can contribute.

Maybe if you focus on actually reading what is being posted instead of trying to be a cool loudmouth you wouldn't be making irrelevant posts.
edit on 25-1-2017 by AngryManagement because: (no reason given)

posted on Jan, 25 2017 @ 04:56 PM

originally posted by: VinylTyrant
I guess this is one of the reasons they became part of the coalition of the willing to begin with. It certainly wasn't their desire to fight terrorism.

What are you talking about?

posted on Jan, 31 2017 @ 07:49 AM
a reply to: Xcalibur254

(sorry for the late response)

Maybe instead of complaining about DoD spending (which I agree is out of control in many aspects), you should find it pertinent to note that defense spending is prescribed by the Constitution; USAID, not so much. One must be funded by (supreme) law, the other could be wiped away fairly easily.

Let's not play in the realm of false equivalencies in order to try and prove a point.

posted on Jan, 31 2017 @ 07:58 AM

originally posted by: crazyewok
Ok well that th Netherland tax payers money.

If Netherland citizens are happy with there money being wasted abroad....good on them I guess.

Love or hate Trump, i really don't understand this mindset that we are suddenly seeing so prevalent, both in society and also here on ATS.

Since when has helping those less fortunate been a waste of money? If that is genuinely how people feel now then God help us all.

posted on Jan, 31 2017 @ 08:01 AM
a reply to: SlapMonkey

The difference being that since 1945, Denfence spending in the US accounts for about a 1/4 of all US Government spending. This was never intended by the founding fathers. Even Eisenhower warned against the rise of the Military-Industrial complex..........

Seriously people, what is going on? Trump wins an election and all of sudden people from all sides of the political spectrum in every nation lose all sense of rational / logical thought.

posted on Jan, 31 2017 @ 08:37 AM
a reply to: Flavian

Calm down. I already said that I agree that we over-spend on the military (and I'm a veteran and see this truth). But, the founding fathers never intended a lot of things, like social security, or Medicare/Medicaid, or bank bailouts, or car-industry bailouts, or housing bailouts, or meddling in other countries' elections, or the rise of crony capitalism, or all of the limitations being applied to the second amendment, or political office being a career with a retirement, or myriad other things that are not prescribed in the Constitution as something that the federal government should do or how government should function.

Yet, here we are.

Seriously, Flavian, what is going on? Trump wins an election and all of a sudden you only want to cherry-pick items that were never intended by the founding fathers to try and make some crude point about rational/logical thought? It's very easy to sit back way over across the pond and pass judgment about America--and it's relatively easy to do from within her borders, too--but it's not as if the UK isn't in the top-10 nations who spend the largest percentage of their GDP on the military. Just because America spends the most in the world doesn't mean that it does so in a massively disproportionate way to what the nation produces (wealth-wise). We (America) comes in at 3.5% of GDP, whereas the UK comes in at 2.2%. Saudi Arabia, Israel, and Russia all beat the U.S. at 10.4%, 5.2%, and 4.5%, respectively. So, in absolute amount, we drastically spend more, but when looking at the priority of spending of GDP on the military, I think that we have a fairly healthy balance compared to a few other countries (Saudi Arabia is out of control!).

My point still stands: Defense spending is constitutionally mandated, whereas foreign aid is not. We cannot even afford to keep our own house in order, yet we sent billions upon billions of dollars trying to help other countries keep themselves in order. I'm out here with a big magnifying glass, but I can't seem to locate the implied logical thinking in that sort of policy.

ETA: And another difference is that, after seeing the second world war happen (and our influence once again turn the tide of the war and aid in a victory), we, along with many other countries, realize that it's very important to have a strong, powerful, standing military. But, again, I know that we overspend, but comparing military spending to foreign aid is a false equivalency--a logical fallacy--on which to base an argument, and that's what the person to whom I responded did.
edit on 31-1-2017 by SlapMonkey because: (no reason given)

posted on Jan, 31 2017 @ 08:53 AM
a reply to: SlapMonkey

To be fair, i aimed that comment at all sides of this argument. I responded directly to you as you had posted that comment - the hysteria seems to have sprung from all over. I understand Trump supporters losing it with the Democrat side as there seems to be huge random hysteria and sour grapes a plenty. But equally you cannot say the plethora of threads all over ATS and other social media from the Trump supporters are not equally bat # crazy in terms of hate and fear mongering.

It is like Trump winning has emptied minds and reduced most people to base levels with no rational thought. And that is what i am lambasting. I am not a Trump fan but i actually feel sorry for the bloke so far. And the fact everything is being carried out over social media makes society more dangerous globally, in my humble opinion.

posted on Jan, 31 2017 @ 02:19 PM
a reply to: Flavian

We'll agree to agree on that one.

new topics

top topics

<< 2  3  4   >>

log in