The US and Foreign Aid, Is It Too Much Of A Burden?

[Frosty Fire 12]

Hello everyone of the inter-web! I bring you another question about the US government.

 

Today's topic is " Should the United States Suspend Foreign Aid until they get their own debt under control?"

 

Please let minnow your thoughts in the comments

 

If you're interested in these kind of topics, I post them very frequently and already have one out about the NSA, so feel free to check up on those along with my page and Have a Wondertastic day

[Scootalove 10,684]

I don't think the United States should suspend foreign aid, because they still have to get their own debt under control since we owe China a lot of money and we need to make the right decisions to fix our debt.

[repsol rave 2,963]

no they shouldn't

look at the shape of this world with america's aid. got that? pretty miserable, huh?

now take away all that aid and help. yeah, no big improvement is it?

it doesn't care how much money you owe, if you stop helping people you are becoming inhumane, and incredibly selfish too.

Edited October 23, 2013 by repsol rave

[LED Dasher 228]

no they shouldn't

look at the shape of this world with america's aid. got that? pretty miserable, huh?

now take away all that aid and help. yeah, no big improvement is it?

it doesn't care how much money you owe, if you stop helping people you are becoming inhumane, and incredibly selfish too.

 

I don't think that the United States is giving aid for humanitarian reasons. The United States is wants to advance its interests and promote its agenda, just like many other nations. The governments of nations seek power and control.

 

I believe that it is up to a country's people to support their country and solve their own country's problems. So, I do not believe that support by the US government is essential to developing a country.

Edited October 23, 2013 by LED Dasher

[Passion 3,478]

I'll actually answer the question stated in poll instead of digressing:

 

 

 

 

Man, I could ask a question "When did US became so full of themselves?", but I have a feeling it would be quite rhetorical.

 

For a developing country, any forms of aide are most pleasing. But I don't see why ANY country couldn't develop without US help? That's a ridiculous statement. Still, such support does not come free, and there's a price that 2nd country is obligated to pay. Whether it's now, or in the future.

[Hell Patrol 41]

no they shouldn't

look at the shape of this world with america's aid. got that? pretty miserable, huh?

now take away all that aid and help. yeah, no big improvement is it?

it doesn't care how much money you owe, if you stop helping people you are becoming inhumane, and incredibly selfish too.

 

Remember who the money comes from, the citizens. The U.S. government is not a person, it's a system of people and everyone plays a role in some way.

 

"To compel a man to furnish funds for the propagation of ideas he disbelieves and abhors is sinful and tyrannical." ~~Thomas Jefferson

[Galen 1,353]

I don't think that the United States is giving aid for humanitarian reasons. The United States is wants to advance its interests and promote its agenda, just like many other nations. The governments of nations seek power and control.

 

I believe that it is up to a country's people to support their country and solve their own country's problems. So, I do not believe that support by the US government is essential to developing a country.

 

So every country for themselves, others be damned, right?

 

Personally, like I said in another thread of similar nature, it should not be America's responsibility, but the world's. The world should be responsible of helping those in need and providing peaceful support and intervention. The kind of support that the US has provided in its history is the kind motivated purely by self-interest and greed, something I don't and can't support like some others do.

[Planty 1,052]

@, All I see from america is greed.

 

To be honest, it's the west that cause the world to be such an awful place as it is. We are hypocritical enough to scream for world peace, but what we actually mean is "lets protect our own lifestyles and who cares about anyone else".

 

The US spends such a small portion of its money on Aid that its ridiculous that you can even suggest stopping it. 

[Galen 1,353]

@, All I see from america is greed.

 

To be honest, it's the west that cause the world to be such an awful place as it is. We are hypocritical enough to scream for world peace, but what we actually mean is "lets protect our own lifestyles and who cares about anyone else".

 

The US spends such a small portion of its money on Aid that its ridiculous that you can even suggest stopping it. 

 

Western intervention has been more of an aggravating force, causing existing conflicts to grow worse if not outright creating them. This isn't the type of aid I would consider ridiculous to suggest stopping.

[Planty 1,052]

@, Thats because the America's idea of aid as "lets bomb some of the leaders and station armed forces in the country" is horrifically misguided.

 

They even have a "military aid" part in there budget! 

 

There are so many without basics like food and water, and I know there are always problems when trying to distribute aid in a corrupt country, but that's not the point. Abandoning billions of people to live without sufficient food and water and without basic needs that in the west we would even consider a human right is not the right decision to make.

[MichaelxXxTrixie 433]

I don't think we should do foreign aid at all to developing countries, we are basically throwing money away. I think personally we'd be doing awesome if we just would've kept our noses out of everyone's problems. 

[Michael DeSanta 258]

@, Thats because the America's idea of aid as "lets bomb some of the leaders and station armed forces in the country" is horrifically misguided.

 

They even have a "military aid" part in there budget! 

 

There are so many without basics like food and water, and I know there are always problems when trying to distribute aid in a corrupt country, but that's not the point. Abandoning billions of people to live without sufficient food and water and without basic needs that in the west we would even consider a human right is not the right decision to make.

I would argue our problem with foreign aid is simple. We for years have given so much money to nations that we have never really even thought of stopping. I mean we are arming nations to attack us. I mean we sent Saddam Hussein weapons in the 80s to kill Kurds and Iranians now we arm Kurds to kill Iranians. I mean the united states is in a serious budget crisis and i think many of these nations would be better helped without foreign aid. Instead we should model more nations to follow suit of hong kong and sinapore. Instead we need to force other nations in the world to rely on themselves and the market for supplies.

[Galen 1,353]

I would argue our problem with foreign aid is simple. We for years have given so much money to nations that we have never really even thought of stopping. I mean we are arming nations to attack us. I mean we sent Saddam Hussein weapons in the 80s to kill Kurds and Iranians now we arm Kurds to kill Iranians. I mean the united states is in a serious budget crisis and i think many of these nations would be better helped without foreign aid. Instead we should model more nations to follow suit of hong kong and sinapore. Instead we need to force other nations in the world to rely on themselves and the market for supplies.

 

The situation with Hong Kong is a rather peculiar one because even tho it is part of China, it is able to operate as its own financial body because China enacted a ruling of "One country, Two systems" so that HK, along with Taiwan and Macau, would be able to retain its economic and political system based on capitalist ideals while the rest of China would follow a more socialist regime. This was a pact made in 1997 and is in effect for at least until 2047 (50 years). Nothing has been said about what will happen with HK afterwards, whether it'll remain autonomous or integrate further with China (but with China's latest shenanigans, one can guess what they intend to do).

 

As for the US, if all of your examples are what the country deems "foreign aid" then it's in sore need of reevaluating itself. When you arm one person for your own interests and then arm the side that fought the side you armed before, that sounds less like aid and more like deliberate instigation of animosity. "Force" is too strong a word when trying to encourage economic independence, especially when some nations are too deep in internal conflicts (and I wonder who's fault that is). What the US and more importantly the rest of the world needs to do is assist these countries in establishing peace with each other, both internally and externally, if they can achieve economic indepence. Leave them entirely as they are now, and a lot of them will end up destroying themselves with many more lives being lost.

[ReverseFaller 2,483]

I see no reason why America should be giving money to countries who hate us...I'ts pretty damn stupid actually. That money could go to a cause that could help people.

 

Giving money to developing countries, and humanitarian causes is a good thing. For that though, I think the entire world should be responsible. (For giving money to help, and such) 

[Michael DeSanta 258]

The situation with Hong Kong is a rather peculiar one because even tho it is part of China, it is able to operate as its own financial body because China enacted a ruling of "One country, Two systems" so that HK, along with Taiwan and Macau, would be able to retain its economic and political system based on capitalist ideals while the rest of China would follow a more socialist regime. This was a pact made in 1997 and is in effect for at least until 2047 (50 years). Nothing has been said about what will happen with HK afterwards, whether it'll remain autonomous or integrate further with China (but with China's latest shenanigans, one can guess what they intend to do).

 

As for the US, if all of your examples are what the country deems "foreign aid" then it's in sore need of reevaluating itself. When you arm one person for your own interests and then arm the side that fought the side you armed before, that sounds less like aid and more like deliberate instigation of animosity. "Force" is too strong a word when trying to encourage economic independence, especially when some nations are too deep in internal conflicts (and I wonder who's fault that is). What the US and more importantly the rest of the world needs to do is assist these countries in establishing peace with each other, both internally and externally, if they can achieve economic indepence. Leave them entirely as they are now, and a lot of them will end up destroying themselves with many more lives being lost.

I know the situation hong kong has been in. However before the British gave control of hong kong to the chinese they began to neglect hong kong after world war 2.  amazingly with little to no foriegn aid hong kong did not just merely survive as a nation but flourished without it. though it also speaks about the strengths of the free market.

[Planty 1,052]

 

 

Instead we need to force other nations in the world to rely on themselves and the market for supplies

 

This is impossible, how can you ask people around the world who have literally nothing and are dieing from lack of food who have no where to live, to fed for themselves?

 

This is not like the poor in the UK and USA who spend all there cash on SKY tv and then can't afford heating and food.

 

I also don't see giving guns and weapons to a dictator "aid". 

 

The massive irony, is the countries like the EU and the US also drive down the world market price of stuff like grain ect,  so basically the few people that can grow food and have more left over then they need, as a result get practically nothing for what they produce.

[FlutterSpike 30]

I think in some cases it is important for the US to help. Say after a natural disaster that threatens to cause a break down in a country's well being. Other than that I think we need to take care if what we have here first