Should the U.S. forgive the debts of new democracies that were incurred by their former dictators?

That's a bit of a loaded question.

The more I look at this, the less I understand it. Meh.

Well, since the US owes a ton of money to China, can we just transfer these loans to China?

Other

I must be in an "other" mood.

The way I see it we as the United States (the American people) have forgiven debt to both friendly and hostile governments as form of political leverage for decades. I also think that policies and approach to diplomacy ultimately have monetary motivations, so ether we provide economic support to governments like North Korea in attempts to control their military intentions, or we forgive newly democratic governments to gain political advantage it all boils down to diplomacy thru economics. Debt is debt, unfortunately the people bear the weight of their leaders, but even mortgages, and personal debt can be renegotiated to avoid default on the loan. So to post a wishy washy answer it depends on the ultimate good of both governments, after all it is only money.

No they should pay off their debts to the U.S.

Other--- Its a complicated issue. Its kind of a judgment call as to what constitutes a "bad" debt. Theres a lot of gray area. Also, some dictators where known to invest in factories rather than schools and hospitals under the belief that many people will die in the short term but the investment will pay off in the future, and in a lot of cases it worked out for them. But if those countries were democratically ruled, most likely the dictators wouldn't have made those same choices, instead doing whats good for the present day voters. Theres also the question of are we talking about Uncle Sam debt and private companies, but I assume the former.

The word "forgive" also sounds a bit condescending, since theres nothing that one country can do to force another to pay off their debts, short of war or sanctions. The most the US can do is what collection agencies normally do, put a "mark" on the countries "credit rating" so other countries won't lend them money. Credit ratings for countries don't exist in the traditional sense since theres only like 200-something of them where everyone knows everyone. So US "forgiving" these countries is rather moot. Its more a question of whether it wants to lend this country any more $$ in the future, as well as if other countries, and if so at what interest rates. And thats up to them.

To make a human analogy, a hospital debt can force someone into bankruptcy the same way piling up credit card debt. However, smart creditors would know that something beyond the persons control won't likely happen again (unless their disease is chronic, something you don't know if you don't have access to the medical records) as opposed to irresponsible spending. They can make real good profits if they find this target who everyone else wants to overcharge. Now, only apply that same logic to other countries. On the one hand, countries and private firms will be reluctant to lend money to such countries. I mean seriously, if you got taken over a coup, chances are you are unstable enough for it to happen again. So if you play the "I was a dictatorship" between x and y so I don't have to pay back the $$ card and you are deemed to be a risk and countries will be reluctant to lend you money in the future knowing that you can just have another coup and say that the previous people were a coup. On the other hand, if you show evidence that you are stable it won't happen again they may forgive you.

Theres also the moral issue on the part of the US to consider if it wants to "forgive" the debt, meaning delete the evidence that someone owes its money. Well, lending others money comes with that risk of them not paying you back, as well as you should have known they're a coup, especially if you backed it. So to a certain extent you should eat it. On the other hand, other countries hate the US so much they'd probably not take our word for it anyway so the "debt" will be meaningless as long as they take their side of the story over ours.

I think the U.S. loaning monies to communist regimes, is disgraceful. In essence, we were and are supporting dictatorial governments, at taxpayers expense.
DISGRACEFUL.

Don't know, don't care

The loans shouldn't have been given to the dictators in the first place. If we're going to give loans to coutnries to beenfit the people then we shoudl make damn sure it GOES TO THE PEOPLE. But yeah, debts collected fraudently should be forgiven.

> No they should pay off their debts to the U.S.

But it wasn't theirs, it was icnurred by their dictators who they've just overthrown. And if the debt is like in the cases of Bolivia or Nigeria larger than that country's GDP, colecting on that debt is goign to destory them econimically. Which, inc ase you don't know your history, creates the kind of enviroment that we created in Germnay post World War I that allowed you-know-who-with-the-moustache to come to power.

I really don't know enough about it. I would want to know what kinds of impact this would have on various economies and anything else that might be affected.

> |> No they should pay off their debts to the U.S.
>
> But it wasn't theirs, it was icnurred by their dictators who they've
> just overthrown. And if the debt is like in the cases of Bolivia or
> Nigeria larger than that country's GDP, colecting on that debt is
> goign to destory them econimically. Which, inc ase you don't know
> your history, creates the kind of enviroment that we created in Germnay
> post World War I that allowed you-know-who-with-the-moustache to come
> to power.

No I do not know my history and I see what your saying

No, not fully forgive them. Make them payable by forgiving part of it, waving the interest, and/or work out a feasable schedule.

Isn't that a little bit like asking abused kids to pay of any debts their father incurred?

I guess that's one way to look at it. But I still don't think you should just forgive it.

It makes me sad that the majority of votes so far have been for No.

The count as of now is:

No: 6
Yes: 6
Not Sure/ other: 6

Typical. It was 6;5;6 when I wrote that. It's like when I call my Dad for help with my computer problem but by the time he gets here it suddenly starts working.

Damn. I was just pointing out the current tally. I figured it was something like 6 to 3 when you made your post. But you've only weakened you're case, as 6 to 5 doesn't exactly sound like an overwhelming majority, and a very small sample at that, where the counts shift very fast. You should have anticipated the 6 to 5 count wouldn't stay for long.

I never said it was an overwhelming majority, and also I hadn't seen any new votes for awhile.

ok. Fair enough.

I only wanted to draw your attention to the current count. I figured it was closer to 6 to 3 when you made your comment so I figured I put in my .02

Well, I did use the phrase "so far." It's not as though this survey has gone inactive.

Ok, I've missed that.

It happens.

Using that same line of thought, If our dim-bulb politicians in Washington incur a huge debt such as the Shrub is in Iraq, we, the taxpayer should not have to pay for it when he is gone. If we as taxpayers are expected to pay for their idiotic spending, shouldn't others have to pay theirs incurred by their own local idiot and despot?

It should be considered on a case by case basis. Not so much that the debt be forgiven, but who actually owes the money.