The Cons of U.S. Foreign Aid
As time progresses humankind seeks to better itself. We strive to make life easier, faster, and more efficient. Currently we have telescopes that can see objects light years away, satellites that can track you around the planet, cars that adjust the seat and steering wheel to separate drivers, and computers that fit in your hand and perform a million calculations a second. But not everyone in this world has this technology. In parts of the world there are people who are still advancing, they are hundreds of years behind the technological leaders of this world. They only have the simple hand tools we discarded decades ago. They might have cars and trucks but those are technologies developed elsewhere. These people are falling behind in the world and appear to be falling faster. The people in the country are hungry and in need of jobs but we cannot be responsible for their welfare. We cannot make them dependant on our handouts they need to become educated and learn to support themselves within their borders. United States foreign aid is a bad thing because it hurts their economies, creates over-population, and we spend money that could be used closer to home.
United States aid hurts Third World countries because we blanket them in security and their economic problems remain hidden. Their failing economic system will not collapse as long as we keep feeding them money. The point of foreign aid is to help the country "get back on its feet", and they never will if they never fix their broken economic system. The country can sit and ignore the underlying problems because they no longer have to worry about the screwed up system they have, as long as the United States keeps pumping the money ...
... middle of paper ...
...we increase our aid and its cost to us. The solution is to stop sending the food.
Because it causes overpopulation, hurts foreign economies, and spends money that could be used closer to home, United States aid is not a good thing. Although the United States is known as the "helping hand" throughout history, foreign aid is not helping as much as it is hurting other countries. These countries shouldn't be given money and food, but rather be educated as to ways they can improve themselves. Once the aid runs out they will need to fend for themselves. If we were to give them some of our technologies and educate them, we would make a bigger difference. Foreign aid is not a necessary thing that the United States has to partake in. We need to adjust our techniques for helping other countries rather than dumping money and food on a problem and hope it cures itself.
The U.S. has been sending troops to over-sea countries to aid the needy, and take certain measures to try to keep our country safe. We want to help the innocent lives, care for the civilians, and want them to be free. We help other countries so that maybe one day they can stand on their own! Power is everything. Power is what controls the world, and without it, you become weak. When we help other countries, that shows how powerful we are, and how strong we are to stand on our on and help! The U.S is considered to be the superpower in the world. Therefore, it should use its power to help other countries in need. Yes, we have a lot of problems with our government,
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.
I do believe that we have the obligation to help people in our world but no in the way Peter Singer puts it we should let people live their lives make choices to help themselves but we should make it easier for them to help themselves. Financial aid from global powers is a good step but until we have the freedom to join a nation without going through checkpoints and bureaucracy the problem will still exist. Money can't fix the problem but better diplomatic relations and the freedom to do and be who and what you want would be a good
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.
As a child growing up in America, we have all been taught by our parents, teachers, and adults in general to lend a helping hand to others when we can as if it is a part of our social responsibilities. Often politically driven agendas lead the Unites States to help other countries in various capacities, this however isn’t always requested by these countries. The perception is that we are fulfilling some moral, universal responsibility. This isn’t how this behavior is often viewed from the other perspective. There are certainly times when this aid is both needed and appreciated. This can also be a very destructive process for a number of reasons if there are cultural boundaries crossed. When one country imposes itself within the borders of another regardless of the reasons, there is an impact felt from the those in power all the way down to lowest parts of their society. Expectations of repayment for help that was not requested to begin with, can
Despite these criticisms, it is unlikely that foreign aid programs will be dissolved any time soon, and at least in the United States, there are two primary reasons for this. First, aid giving only accounts for one percent of the United States’ gross domestic product, thus there is not a large incentive for change (Eischen 2012). Secondly, aid has historically been used as a political tool, not solely for altruistic reasons (Alesina and Dollar 2000). It follows that even if aid were shown to hinder long-term economic growth in recipient countries, it would still be prevalent if it were effective at promoting donor state interests.
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 ...
Many people use the excuse that they don’t need to help developing economies when many other people do anyway however from a utilitarian point of view, the fact that other people could help doesn’t lessen your responsibility.
Whenever there is a problem in other countries the United States is always willing to help, but at the same time reassure the world that the United States is a friendly country which cares about the well-being of other individuals who are not American citizens. The message sent to troubled nations in times of difficulty is always the same; the U.S is always providing a helping hand with “no strings attached” or at least that is what they try to make individuals believe. However, in reality the United States helps other countries because by doing so the U.S will gain certain benefits and rights. Take for example the aid that the U.S sends over to Mexico in order to help Mexico combat the drug industry, at first sight this seems like a good deed from a friendly neighbor; however, there are several reasons why politicians here in the United States authorize that aid. As described in “The Media-Entertainment Industry and the “War on Drugs” in Mexico” the
As the world aid came in to allow the refugees to start a new in a refugee camp, they already formed, and would try their best to make the lives a little better for all the refugees. The aid came mainly to help the camps after they were set into place, bringing in more food, more shelter houses, and some clothing. I would be super happy if I saw richer helping other countries and there not be oil, precious metals, or other resources as a reason. The U.S only goes into a country who is struggling, after they have either public uprising or if it would heavily benefit the
For example, instead of handing out aids to corrupt Haiti leaders, western countries can assist non-governmental organizations that have been thoroughly vetted, in providing schools for the children in Haiti, teaching adults skills that will help them start their own business which in turn helps the economy. Providing perishable items like free food, free shoes and all do not help. There is this Chinese proverb that states: “give a man a fish and you feed him for a day. Teach a man how to fish and you feed him for a lifetime” reiterates why it is never a good idea to give handouts or aids that make developing nations dependents. Yes, in the short term, Western nations might make benefit from the handing out aids (handing out aids to developing nations tend to make them subservient to your demands) but in the long run it will not solve developing nations’ problem. Instead, arming them with the means to turn their economy around would help western nations in the long run as these developing nations would eventually transform into global trading partners. Developing nations will suddenly have the capacity to trade goods and services from western nations and this will elevate the global
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.
Countries in need are not given aid because they hold no interest to the countries capable of providing assistance. When the Rwandan Genocide occurred, the United States gave no aid because Rwanda had nothing to offer, and American lives would have been at risk.
aid? Is it not true that it was Britain and the US who, in the 1980's,
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.