Foreign swimmers training in the U.S.

How does it work with U.S. based companies? Are the tax dollars other countries receive from conglomerates based in the U.S. helping U.S. students go to universities abroad? Can you name any examples of foreign companies donating money to a university? Just curious about the details surrounding these types of transactions. Maybe it's my paranoia, but I'm always skeptical of donations - from any company wherever they are based. A hidden agenda of some sorts is sometimes involved. Not too many companies do the right thing just for the sake of doing the right thing.

I've been gone a couple days, but have really enjoyed catching up on the ongoing debate, although I did get a little lost during the "swimming is, or isn't, war" side-issue. I think the article Skip Thompson directed us to is an excellent, balanced look at the issue. It echos our own debate and folks have made great and valid points on both sides. Here's a slightly different slant on the issue. I was disturbed by a couple of the article's quotes from Frank Busch, the Arizona coach. In speaking about the South Africans' 400 Fr Relay victory, he says, "we'd talked about it for a long time, emotionally it was an incredible experience." And, "...recruiting a kid from Australia or Arizona, it really doesn't matter." Look, I can understand that he wants to see the swimmers he coaches do well even outside of collegiate competition. And, I understand that his job is to put the best team in the pool within collegiate competition. But, his first quote makes it sound like he helped plan, and then took great pleasure in the South Africans putting to the U.S. His quotes speak to a program philosophy that I don't agree with. In my opinion, it DOES matter whether he recruits a kid from Arizona or Australia. Recruit from Arizona first! Australia takes care of itself just fine, thank you very much. They don't need our help in the pool. The reason Australia is so good despite being a smallish country is that they make the committment to being great in swimming. Canada could do it, Great Britain could do it. Even South Africa could do it. But, they're not committed to swimming excellence like the powerful swimming countries are. Many of the foreign swimmers on athletic scholarships that we're talking about come from these countries I've mentioned, or similar countries. Occasionally, there's an Anthony Nesty from Surinam that I actually feel good about. He trained at Florida and beat Matt Biondi in the 100 Fly in 1988. But, seemed o.k. because I KNEW he didn't have any resources at home. But, what about Duncan Armstrong, who also beat Biondi (in the 200 Free in 88). Armstrong was from Australia, but went to U of Florida. Did he really need a swimming scholarship to train in the U.S.? I don't think guys like that should get financial support to swim in the U.S. I think it all comes down to program philosophy, which is probably determined almost 100% by the head coach. Guys like Frank Busch have one philosophy and guys like Eddie Reece have another. They both come from state schools and have the same pressure to win. I know athletic scholarships aren't need-based (with respect to a swimmer's own financial or training resources), but I would like to see collegiate coaches making the committment to developing U.S. swimmers--and I can live with a few foreign athletes on scholarship who have no resources at home.

Well, gull, you're right, nothing is actually free. The question is how we all pay for it: by screwing the middle to make money for private companies or by charging people what they can afford yet delivering a constant standard, also known as taxation and national health service. The cigarette argument is inane precisely because they are not essential--you can not buy cigarettes and live a full life, even if it is unpleasant for the first few weeks. The same cannot be said of food or housing or healthcare. Thus providing the latter regardless of ability to pay is both civilized and ethical. Aquageek: Americans pay less in taxes than almost any other advanced nation. I know how much of my money goes to taxes (more than yours dollar for dollar probably since about half my income is freelance and thus taxed at a higher rate because no company is paying half). Geez, I pay for roads I don't even use, seeing as I take the subway. Then again, when anyone needs emergency services, they're glad the roads are there. I pay for schools even though I don't have kids. Then again, an educated populace is good for all of us. If I can buy fewer books, CDs, and vacations so that others can have a roof, some food, and decent healthcare, I am ethically obligated to do so. I'm proud to pay my taxes, not bitter. They are the dues of a decent society. Then again, paying more taxes doesn't necessarily equal less money for you. People in countries with higher taxes have no health insurance to pay for and generally they don't pay for higher education either. In fact, the US population pays more for comparable healthcare than do people in lands with nationalized healthcare. The point about the French trains is just that sometimes public systems are better than the private alternative.

Originally posted by some_girl Americans pay less in taxes than almost any other advanced nation. Are you saying that a sign of an advanced nation is the tax burden on it's citizens? Isn't one of the reasons the colonies had their little war was the whole concept of taxation? Why is it more ethical for you to pay more taxes than for me to pay less taxes? Is there some arbitrary percentage where you can take the moral high ground on taxation but I can't by paying less? Is it OK for me to give to charitable organizations that use their money wisely in addition to my tax load? I do believe the country recently roundly repudiated the notion that in order to be a better nation we have to tax ourselves to death.

I'm saying the sign of an advanced nation is the willingness to provide a decent standard of living for all its citizens regardless of their economic situation. And the sign of a decent human is a willingness look beyond your own narrow interests. And no one ever died from paying taxes, so let's not get histrionic. And frankly, your appeal to the founders is poor. They also thought women, blacks, and white men without property shouldn't be allowed to vote; that slavery was okey-dokey; and that genocide was just peachy. Forgive me for not genuflecting to those paragons of progressivism. We learn from the mistakes of our forbears. Or else we used to until we let fear and anti-intellectualism make up our minds for us. Gull, again you are right. There might be a non-nationalized alternative that is fair and reasonable. I haven't seen it, but I don't know everything. Any suggestions?

Originally posted by some_girl I'm saying the sign of an advanced nation is the willingness to provide a decent standard of living for all its citizens regardless of their economic situation. And the sign of a decent human is a willingness look beyond your own narrow interests. And no one ever died from paying taxes, so let's not get histrionic. Why is the only way to accomplish this by levying more taxes? I doubt anyone on this forum wants folks to not have a decent standard of living. I just find it incredible that some believe the only way for this to be possible is to have greater taxes. Throwing more money at an inefficient gov't system has never proven a good use of that money. I personally believe the interests of our country, not just my own narrow interests, are fewer taxes and less gov't. Have you been to a gov't office lately? Were you impressed with your level of service?

Yeah, the VAs are in pretty bad shape. My mother does work at one here in the state. I think I read where Walter Reed was on the closure list earlier this month. But, I'm not convinced more tax dollars is the only answer for this situation.

Yeah, Blue, pointing out that the founders weren't right about everything clearly makes me a Constitution-hating commie. Thanks for your nuanced argument. Geek and Gull, have you been to a hospital that serves only poor communities, say the one that serves Bed-Stuy, Williamsburg, and parts of Bushwick, Brooklyn (all poor neighborhoods, though the second is gentrifying quickly)? People who go there would be freaking thrilled to go to a VA hospital. (As the kids in the neighborhood put it, you go in there with a scratch and come out in a box.) Not to mention, VA hospitals would be a lot better if the government wasn't cutting their funding like nobody's business. And to answer you, I was totally pleased the last time I went to a government office. I got my expedited passport from a wonderful lady who not only did her job well, but had awesome benefits and a decent salary. When my friend dropped her keys down the sewer grate, she called 311 (the city's public line), and the next day a bunch of city workers showed up with a machine to remove the grate and find the keys. Do you know what a nation with low taxes and less government looks like? Read some books on the Gilded Age, then check out some Jacob Riis and Walker Evans photos and get back to me. When was America great? The fifties? Do you know what tax rates were in the fifties? I'll give you a hint, it isn't lower. But if you really think your vision is compelling, argue for it, give positive examples of how it would help the least fortunate among us. Tell me how low taxes are going to make people too poor to pay taxes afford healthcare. Why then are other nations moving away from socialism? Two main reasons: (a) globalization is a race to the bottom and they are trying to compete with nations where it's okay to force eight year olds to work for pennies a day, and (b) European nations have a combination of againg populations and antipathy to immigration that makes it difficult to sustain themselves. Anyway, yeah, this is long and off topic. Sorry. I'll be happy to leave it here if you are.

Originally posted by justforfun Geek, you said you are a Democrat, but you sound more like a Libertarian. I did vote libertarian in '04, good observation. Unfortunately in NC, you can't vote in the primaries unless you are either registered with either party AND then you can only vote in that party's primary. Regardless of affiliation, I don't think being a democrat means you have to believe that raising taxes is the only way to solve problems. We've strayed from the original topic. There have been some good comments on foreign swimmers and scholarships. While still not a big deal to me, I do some valid concerns but not enough to think our country is in peril from the mad swimming foreigners.

Okay, I lied about leaving it. I just wanted to respond. Pool_monkey, if you think people are poor because they won't work, I'd look at _The Working Poor: Invisible in America_ and _Nickel and Dimed_. Laziness isn't the problem. Genocide: see Native Americans. But yeah, the founders were wrong and we've rectified those wrongs. That was my point, my response to people who were trying to say the founders were for low taxes and thus low taxes are good. And yeah, America is better than lots of other places and not as good as some others. When you swim, are you happy to be in the middle, or do you want to keep getting better?