want to weigh in on a debate - foreign aid

[MSNative]

DH and I have an ongoing debate and I'm interested to hear the views of the hive. The question - given that the US has a tremendous debt, should it still be giving billions in foreign aid?

 

Two lines of thought that we debated -

No - It is irresponsible for the US to keep spending money it doesn't have.

 

Yes - foreign aid is necessary to help those less fortunate and it creates goodwill toward the US.

[spradlin02]

I'd rather spend billions on foreign aid than wars and unnecessary military expenditures.

[QueenCat]

I voted no but my really answer is we should drop some of it but not all of it.

[cdrumm4448]

We spend billions we don't have on foreign aid and we're still highly disliked in many parts of the world. I don't believe in spending money we don't have. What we do have should help people here first. Then, if there's anything left over, help other countries.

[kokotg]

This is one of those questions where it's difficult to have a debate until you define some terms. If you poll people (you as in professional pollster, not you as in you), they will regularly say that the US spends too much on foreign aid. And then if you ask them what percentage of the budget the US should spend on foreign aid, the same people will give you a figure much higher than what the US actually does spend.

[Embassy]

I'd rather spend billions on foreign aid than wars and unnecessary military expenditures.

:iagree:

[catz]

I'd rather spend billions on foreign aid than wars and unnecessary military expenditures.

:iagree:

[Mama Geek]

The American citizens always donate to charities to help out in time of great disasters. The government shouldn't be spending our tax dollars on this.

[Melinda in VT]

I'm a huge believer in a balanced budget.

 

I also have reservations about who benefits from foreign aid. There's a saying that I fear might be true: "Foreign aid, the transfer of money from the poor of one country to the rich of another."

[WishboneDawn]

Two lines of thought that we debated -

No - It is irresponsible for the US to keep spending money it doesn't have.

 

 

If I were in a pile of debt of my own doing and not only that but still enjoying the benefits of the things purchased by that debt and making little attempt to curb it, do you think it would be responsible of me to cut out charity to save money? Wave away the person collecting for the Cancer society by begging poverty even as I piled my golf clubs into the Hummer?

[Mejane]

Nope. We are spending billions supporting other countries' peoples while many of our own live in poverty. We are building other countries' infrastructures while our own crumbles. We are guarding other countries while our own borders are open and vulnerable. Some countries depend on our aid to indefinitely sustain them and we use that as a method of control. Bad policy, imo.

 

I have no problem with sending food and water to catastrophe-stricken areas, but I think people expect too much of the US. As far as engendering goodwill toward us, there really isn't much of that, is there? :glare:

Edited August 17, 2010 by Mejane

[Mejane]

I'd rather spend billions on foreign aid than wars and unnecessary military expenditures.

 

How about NOT spending money we don't have on either? ;)

[angela in ohio]

No, but not because of our debt. That is another issue.

[katemary63]

Some foreign aid is needed. But considering we are broke, most of it should be stopped.

[Rosie_0801]

We spend billions we don't have on foreign aid and we're still highly disliked in many parts of the world.

 

Uh huh. Your aid money is not spend very wisely.

 

I don't get the concern about debt. I don't think I know much about economics and finance, but "national debt" seems to be the buzz phrase for election year fear campaigns. So what if your country or mine pays off all its debts? What then? Countries aren't like households which need to save money in case the washing machine blows up. If there is a major disaster, a nation's version of a blown up washing machine, the rest of the world chips in. The whole world can't be debt free. The real problem I see with national debt, is it allows other countries to interfere in your domestic affairs, often to their advantage and not yours. The US is powerful enough to withstand that, yes?

 

Rosie

Edited August 16, 2010 by Rosie_0801

[ladydusk]

It is just keeping them poor and dependent.

 

My husband was talking with one of the young men at our church who just returned from a summer in Uganda. This young man said that when the food aid comes, prices for the Ugandan farmers drop drastically and that the boxes of clothing sent as aid hurt the local seamstresses. It seems a shame to me to be hurting local producers with "aid."

[Rosie_0801]

Why can't the world be debt free?

 

Well I don't see how the world can be debt free because it is populated with people and people suffer from this affliction called 'human nature,' for one. Secondly, our territories are not equally blessed with resources.

 

 

Why shouldn't we save up money for when things go poorly?

Saving up money for when things go poorly works just fine on an individual scale, individual countries, I mean. Shame about the people who can't pay their immediate bills, though. Unless there is enough resources for everyone plus a bit extra, stockpiling is taking from someone.

 

What if things go badly for the whole world? How are they going to chip in when our preverbal washing machine breaks down?

If that's the case, how are you going to chip in when their proverbial washing machine breaks down? We'd all be up the creek, I guess, and have to do without washing machines. Except maybe the Middle Eastern oil countries, until their oil runs out.

 

I don't know. That's just what I think with the info I have. If anyone can explain economics so it sounds sensible, please do so!

 

I would much rather give that seamstress the money to upgrade her equipment, or give the farmer a flock of hens, or send a team to teach new farming methods that produce more food, or something like that. Those things actually improve the standard of living for everyone in the community. This is why we do micro loans, support Heifer Int., Samaritans purse, and those kinds of things as a family.

 

Mm. My sister is working towards an aid project in Western Kenya, which is devoid of all aid organisations, currently. Apparently there is one village that is starving, despite being right next to a river, because no one has helped set up an irrigation system. If they could do that, they could grow wheat. If someone financed bread ovens in the next village over, and built a mill or hand powered querns, the two villages could be selling to other villages around and over the border to Uganda. That'd solve their bread problems and may even allow them to earn a little more money to buy other things, green veggies being one of the most important, from what my sister has said.

 

It doesn't sound so complicated or difficult, so why hasn't the resident aid organisation done it already? Maybe it is more difficult than it sounds, or maybe my sister is quite correct in the negative things she says about them. One of those things being that they don't want to give their veggie garden surplus to the villages because it'll make them lazy and dependent on charity. Funny, in a very humourless way, huh?

 

Rosie

[Nakia]

I cannot vote. This is not a black and white issue.

Edited August 16, 2010 by Nakia

[Sebastian (a lady)]

DH and I have an ongoing debate and I'm interested to hear the views of the hive. The question - given that the US has a tremendous debt, should it still be giving billions in foreign aid?

 

Two lines of thought that we debated -

No - It is irresponsible for the US to keep spending money it doesn't have.

 

Yes - foreign aid is necessary to help those less fortunate and it creates goodwill toward the US.

 

I would have to say that there are many instances where money is spent in "foreign aid" that is in fact money well spent.

 

For example, if you have allies that you want to be able to work with in combat, then it is worth investing in compatable radio systems, training at the unit level and leadership training for their up and coming leaders.

 

Given the way that diseases don't seem to regard national boundaries, it can be worth US investment in vacinations and health care in developing countries.

 

Education and food relief can be in our interests to help foster conditions that don't prompt people to desperate measures in order to emigrate to more hopeful situations.

 

There are of course also instances of waste and fraud. Food that is delivered to the "government" of a country only to be used as a means of controling the populace for example.

 

I'm not absolutely against foreign aid. There are many countries (now and in history) who gained much influence and even some measure of stability and peace through the way they spent their assets abroad. But I also think that part of the strength of such aid is that it can have strings attached and there can be a real risk that it will be withheld. On the other hand, we also have to realize that if we aren't giving support in a certain area, there may be another country who is willing to give aid. And the concessions they get may be much less in our interests.

 

What I don't think is that the US is obligated to give money away just because it is "rich" and other nations are "poor". The US has often prospered because its citizens, who are individuals with individual families, have worked hard, grown businesses, taken risks or worked tremendously long hours and have created a situation that produces a well functioning society with a broad tax base. Some of the countries that are poor are places where oligarchies, kleptocracies or criminal thugs reign at the top, where courts rule based on who is the most important person or who gathered the best bribe, where personal property is not respected so it is much riskier to start a company or a farm. (See for example Zimbabwe, which used to be the breadbasket of Africa but now can't feed even its own populace.)

[Photo Ninja]

I don't think the U.S. gov't should be giving foreign aid. It forcefully takes money from those who pay taxes and gives it to other nations. Often the aid money actually harms the locals in those nations (gifts of food aid harm the local farmers, etc.) or the aid goes into the coffers of the powerful or politicians and doesn't trickle down to those who really need the help.

 

Instead, I would support private organizations giving aid. People can then freely donate to those groups, who can do a better job of delivering aid where it is needed, without the political attachments. Those who are needy can still be helped. Americans give more per capita than in other countries, so the money is still available for aid.

[Rosie_0801]

I don't think the U.S. gov't should be giving foreign aid. It forcefully takes money from those who pay taxes and gives it to other nations. Often the aid money actually harms the locals in those nations (gifts of food aid harm the local farmers, etc.)

 

Not being snarky, but where did you get that info from? Why would food aid be given in situations where they would be in competition with farmers? Doesn't food aid go to people who are starving? This isn't making sense to me. The largest problem with agriculture that I'm aware of is farmers being required to convert to cash crops to repay debts, instead of growing food to feed themselves and others.

 

:confused:

Rosie

[AuntieM]

I can't really make an unqualified selection.

 

Foreign Aid is foreign aid - as in, money sent from our government to aid a foreign country.

 

Money sent to aid earthquake victims in Haiti? Yes.

 

Money sent to Brazil to add to their already-funded-in-the-billions offshore oil drilling projects? No way.

[Carrie12345]

Other.

We need to learn the difference between aid and effective aid, and THEN talk about money.