$2.3 trillion dollars, this was how much was spent on foreign aid in four decades. This idea began after the end of World War II to help war-torn countries rebuild. Although this idea was acceptable at that time, the concept is becoming unreasonable and impractical as the current economy continues to destabilize. Even though this may be considered egocentric and harsh, America must be able to support all the people in its land before donating money to other countries. After 60 years of giving out thousands of billions of dollars to emergent countries, foreign aid must be stopped and be spent on helping America become more prosperous than before.
Many people in the world argue that foreign aid is necessary for developing countries and should not be stopped from being given out. Scores of people argue that foreign aid is vital for the survival of the world’s economy. However, American aid has been going to countries that do not contribute to global development and is usually unknown to the charitable donator. When comparing America’s reason for foreign aid to other powerful nations, they do not share America’s views. As of now, America’s national debt is around $15 trillion, owing around $1 trillion to China. Even though countries like China expect to be paid back in full, America is only continuing to build up its debt. With this, the purpose of foreign aid is impractical and does not benefit the American populace in the long run. Another claim by Americans is that foreign aid for developing nations will benefit them and support the development of other superpowers. Simply put, this statement is false and foreign aid for budding nations only slows their economy and increases poverty. Evidence is put into light ...
... middle of paper ...
...ved. Also, without foreign aid, the people of the developing nations will become self-sustaining and will eliminate the need for external assistance.
The reasons for donating money to a cause always will have a purpose. As everybody knows, nothing happens without an intention. Without being able to even support the poor in the donor’s land, public welfare must be prioritized and foreign aid should not even be considered. After all that the United States of America has done for other countries, it is time to step down from the plate. It is time for developing nations to take their responsibilities into their own hands and start becoming self-sustaining. It is time for the American government to take the needs of its people into its own hands. It is time for the United States of America to eliminate poverty and hunger within its borders once and for all.
The United States continues to give around $550 billion in aid to other countries each year, making America the world's top donor by far (Richardson). While the United States government only supplies $252 billion to needy Americans each year. Former Assistant to the President for Communications, Patrick Buchanan said, "The idea that we should send endless streams of tax dollars all over the world, while our own country sinks slowly in an ocean of debt is, well, ludicrous" (Foreign Aid). The United States need to give money to support the domestic impoverished rather than supporting developing foreign countries because the poverty and homelessness in America is increasing faster than the aid necessary to reduce this trend. Part of the reason that the United States should aid the domestic impoverished is that some foreign countries cannot be trusted with the money given to them and in certain cases, the money intended to aid countries are harmful for that country’s well-being.
Before extending aid to other countries, we should focus on our more prevalent domestic problems. Patrick Buchanan said, "The idea that we should send endless streams of tax dollars all over the world, while our own country sinks slowly in an ocean of debt is, well, ludicrous. Almost every American knows it, feels it, believes it." The topic of United States foreign policy is greatly debated, and a decision on how to handle is very hard to come by. It seems as if we are finally leaning towards less aid to foreign countries, as we try to cut wasteful spending. The American government is finally opening its eyes to the realization that all of the aid we are giving out may not be worth it. Our priority should be to help our homeless, instead of other countries' poor.
... aid across the world. As we have established that we do have an obligation to redistribute globally in a cosmopolitan perspective, distributing wealth however we may need to rethink what the best assistance is. Amaryta Sen conveys that before sending aid to the third world state, we would need to fully understand the limitation of freedom in the country. Redistributing wealth to global countries requires it to be evaluated by the economic shortage that they are suffering and to see whether it will be efficient in the long run. The more effective ways to contribute would be to international relief agencies or NGO’s that would pursue international development projects to help those in poverty or the alternative option by Tom Campbell’s idea of a ‘Global humanitarian levy’ which suggests a more appropriate taxation on all citizens to collectively aid those in need.
On average the United States spends $529 billion on foreign affairs that will never be able to return the money to the US government. Thus, it falls into the lost money category. If the government were to stop sending meaningless money in outlying areas that have no capital to return, the debt will be greatly reduced. Many of the solutions stated above are possible, but it is our recommendation that the U.S. government stop spending money overseas first. The country may still need to look into other solutions afterwards, but we believe this is a crucial first step to reducing the national deficit.
The first food aid program in the world was started during the Great War by soon to be President Herbert Hoover. Food production kicked in and the United States started to feed areas under Bolshevik control in Russia literally right outside the Tsar’s palace in the hopes that hunger – and therefore the main void and driver of need that communism fills could possibly be tackled. In a time absolutely different from our own where the United States gives foreign aid as a matter of routine, Hoover’s program was given over $700 million from France and Britain in order to feed Belgium and wartime
The United States is one of the leading suppliers of Foreign Aid in the world, and even though the US gives billions, European countries give aid money to the same countries, this causes many areas of the Middle East, Africa, and Asia to be almost fully dependent on foreign aid. This means that without aid from other countries, they would not be able to support themselves at all. Foreign aid is meant to help countries that are struggling with civil unrest, disease, or natural disasters, it is not meant to help keep the country out of debt, but that is where more and more of the US and The EU’s foreign aid budget is going. The question is, does all this money actually go where it is intended? It should be going towards the government and to help the people, but in many cases, the countries government does not have the resources to properly track the flow of money. The countries in most cases have poor infrastructure and corrupt or oppressive leaders, not always at a national level, but in the towns and cities. So this means there is almost no way to oversee the flow of foreign aid through the country, all we can see is that their situations aren't getting any better and the countries are still impoverished. If this is the case, where are the millions of dollars going? Countries like Afghanistan and Iraq receive the most money from American foreign aid and European aid, yet they are still under oppressive governmental rule and there is still an extreme difference between the rich and poor. Garrett Harding’s theory of “Lifeboat Ethics” exemplifies how not giving aid to others will allow the strongest of society to thrive, while teaching the impoverished to help themselves. He believes that giving aid to poor countries will only make ...
To be exact 173 billion dollars were used for the war and if that's equivalent to 770 billion dollars in 2003 and this in total. If you looked at just the money used for weapons, bullets, and bombs would be somewhere around 150 billion dollars which could have had a better use in America. Such as development in medicine, technology, and many other things. Money was used not an effective way it was used very poorly. The money America used in that pointless war could have benefited America in millions of ways.
By taking a look at the donations from such an angle, these countries generosity can be said to take a drastic dive when compared to their other expenses. One could say that these governments care more about their transport system, for example, than they do about the millions of lives that they could affect with such money (Singer). However, in realistic terms, especially from an economic point of view, it is essential that a government participates in projects that will bring back financial returns in a proposal to provide a healthier, stable economy from which they can operate.... ... middle of paper ... ...
Poverty has conquered nations around the world, striking the populations down through disease and starvation. Small children with sunken eyes are displayed on national television to remind those sitting in warm, luxiourious houses that living conditions are less than tolerable around the world. Though it is easy to empathize for the poor, it is sometimes harder to reach into our pocketbooks and support them. No one desires people to suffer, but do wealthy nations have a moral obligation to aid poor nations who are unable to help themselves? Garrett Hardin in, "Lifeboat Ethics: The Case Against Helping The Poor," uses a lifeboat analogy to expose the global negative consequences that could accompany the support of poor nations. Hardin stresses problems including population increase and environmental overuse as downfalls that are necessary to consider for the survival of wealthy nations. In contrast, Peter Singer's piece, "Rich and Poor," remarks on the large differences between living conditions of those in absolute poverty with the wealthy, concluding that the rich nations possess a moral obligation to the poor that surpasses the risks involved. Theodore Sumberg's book, "Foreign Aid As Moral Obligation," documents religious and political views that encourage foreign aid. Kevin M. Morrison and David Weiner, a research analyst and senior fellow respectively at the Overseas Development Council, note the positive impact of foreign aid to America, a wealthy nation. Following the examination of these texts, it seems that not only do we have a moral obligation to the poor, but aiding poor nations is in the best interest of wealthy nations.
In discussing if people would be motivated to relinquish their own prosperity to aid o...
Poverty is an undeniable problem in America. In 2014, 14.8 percent of the United States was in poverty (“Hunger and Poverty Fact Sheet”). There are more people in the United States than it seems that do not have their basic necessities. In an
Poor countries have been receiving aid from the international community for over a century now. While such aid is supposed to be considered an act of kindness from the donor nations or international bodies, it has led to over dependence among the developing countries. They have adopted the habit of estimating and including international aid in their national budgets to reduce their balance of trade deficits. It is believed that foreign aid is necessary for poor nations in order to break the cycle of poverty that ties their citizens in low productivity zones and so their economy will not be weak. However, some critics view the extension of aid to poor countries as means of keeping the nations in economic slumber so that they can wake up from only by devising ways of furthering self-sustainability. Because of these two schools of thought concerning the topic, debate has arisen on which side is more rational and factual than the other. The non-sustainable nature of international aid, however, leaves the question of what may happen in the event that foreign aid is unavailable for the poor nations. After thorough consideration on the effects of the assistance to poor countries, it is sufficient to state that giving international aid to the poor nations is more disadvantageous than beneficial to the nations. This point is argued through an analysis of the advantages and disadvantages of giving international aid to the poor countries with appropriate examples drawn from various regions of the world to prove the stance.
Peter Burnell and Lise Rakner 2008 Governance and Aid Conditionality in a Globalizing World. United States of America: Oxford University Press
In recent discussion about helping the poor, one controversial issue has been whether to help or not to help. On one hand, some say that helping the poor is very simple and doesn’t take much. From this point of view, it is seen as selfish to not help the poor. On the other hand, however, others argue that by helping others you are in fact hurting yourself at the same time. In the words of Garrett Hardin, one of this view’s main proponents, “prosperity will only be satisfied by lifeboat ethics.” According to this view, we are not morally obligated to help other countries. In sum, then, the issue is whether to help poorer countries or not.
Through individual, national, and global aid, we can take steps to decrease the overwhelming amount of poverty in less-developed countries and even in our own lands.