Why should the government care more for people in the international community than its own citizens?
They could be starving to death or suffering from a shitty illness. I think we can all agree that starving to death or slowly dying is painful and not fun, so why not relieve the pain in some way?
Why should we relieve their suffering when our own suffering is looming across the horizon? Both trust funds for social security are going to become insolvent within 17 years, and instead of actually try to fix it, we decided that frivolous expenditures of foreign aid that has not helped said developing countries due to unrestrained corruption within their governance. You can even look at the graph I've provided; for the most part, we see a trend in which increased foreign aid correlates with less GDP over all. You cannot help others before you can help yourself; it is not sustainable.
Meanwhile, like I've said, our infrastructure is becoming more decrepit by the decade. Disasters like Oroville Dam crisis would've been avoided had there been proper funding for our infrastructure. Highway and road infrastructure in states like South Carolina are crumbling and becoming even more expensive to fix.
And finally, foreign aid is NOT a long-term solution for many of these country's problems, which are not limited to food shortages, wars for resources between multiple factions, poverty, economic disasters, genocide, very little job growth and unsustainable population growth. Even food aid is not sustainable for some unfortunate countries.
My arguments are well within the realms of this discussion; I am giving my justifications on why the US shouldn't be giving foreign aid. It just so happens that part of my argument is supported by arguments about the inefficiency of foreign aid and the fact that a nation-state has the moral imperative to aid its populations over the international populations.I'm not saying the current process of aiding other countries is the right process, that is not the subject of the thread. What I am saying is that helping other people from other countries is fine for rich countries like the US and Canada, even when places in the US and Canada are troubled. We can solve our own countries problem at the same time we help people in other countries.
And I do agree Foreign aid is not a long-term solution. But that doesn't mean we should only focus on our own country.
My arguments are well within the realms of this discussion; I am giving my justifications on why the US shouldn't be giving foreign aid. It just so happens that part of my argument is supported by arguments about the inefficiency of foreign aid and the fact that a nation-state has the moral imperative to aid its populations over the international populations.
What is the moral imperative to aid its populations over the international populations? I understand the economic imperative, but not the moral one.
Easy. If the government does not aid its citizens, civil unrest follows. Civil unrest is already high within the states over Trump's election right now as we speak. It isn't a good idea to make civil unrest even worse.
That makes sense. But I think you can agree that aiding people from foreign countries who are suffering and dying of hunger or illness and relieving their pain and suffering is a good thing, correct?
Obviously the money used to help people from foreign countries could be used to aid people within ones own country, but the cases are often different. Still not sure why we can't help both people from other countries and people in our own country. Even if we don't see an economic benefit to helping people from other countries, I don't think that means we should just let them suffer. Furthermore, I know that not all foreign governments are going to steal money (not implying you said that, im just saying that some foreign governments are good and can help their citizens) and not help their citizens, even if the foreign governments handled the money poorly, I still think that if the money helps decrease and/or prevent suffering it is money well-spent. Would you disagree?
While yes, it does cost money, our foreign aid money is sadly not being spent on that. That is why it is not a long-term solution.Building water and agricultural infrastructure does cost money.
And I do not think we need a profit to help people. Again, not all countries' governments are corrupt and even in the corrupt countries, we still need to help their citizens. We can't just let people suffer and die because it doesn't bring us profits. That is a line we cannot cross regardless. We can work on fixing foreign governments (something US does a lot) and helping their citizens, in fact, that happens very often.
Do you think that rich countries like the US or Canada should still be lending foreign aid despite the fact that many here are in poverty? Or do you think we should help our own instead?
Sorry if this is worded badly!
If the United States is considered "rich" by having a $20 trillion deficit, than my shitty acting could win me an Oscar.
If the United States is considered "rich" by having a $20 trillion deficit, than my ****ty acting could win me an Oscar.
While yes, it does cost money, our foreign aid money is sadly not being spent on that. That is why it is not a long-term solution.
Quite simply, if we are to help countries with foreign aid, the money should be going back into our corporations and bring a profit. The United States, as a nation, should be trying to ensure its own survival. It is not a sound idea to go throw a bunch of money that will eventually just cause more suffering and we both know that if they were to use the money for infrastructure, they would be giving the money to cheaper alternatives.
China has been scrambling in Africa for quite a while, for example, and has been using similar means to what I am describing. There's no doubt Russia will try to do the same in the Middle Eastern countries we are supporting right now (such as Libya and Afghanistan). If we are to prevent them from becoming a global hegemon, then our foreign aid policy must be similar to ensure we do not have another superpower competing with us.
Now, why don't we take a look at our current recipients during 2013? Granted, Wikipedia can be changed on a dime, but this is just an example. See a trend?
How people forget history.
The US wasn't always the 'hands in everyone elses' pot' country it is today. It was originally internalist, it focused on its own problems. It wasn't until the World Wars that the US became the powerhouse it claims to be. World War I bolstered the US economy, leading into the 1920's, but the thing is that's what caused Black Tuesday. Then, again, when the US entered WWII after 'attempting' to remain neutral, the economy bolstered again following the war, and ever since then the US keeps sticking its hands in pots.
Simply said, the US' economy is heavily subject around war. Think of it. The US is rarely ever NOT at war. I believe it's usually a span of maybe 5-7 years of peace at most before they get shooty again. Don't believe me? while I hate using wikipedia as a source, this is pretty accurate. Note, most of them are wars of expansion.
And that's where the problem sits. The US puts it's hands in so many pockets, it doesn't pay attention to itself. The US needs to look to itself instead of trying to be everyone's so-called hero. It's infrastructure is falling. Hell, here in MN the bridges are crumbling in the middle of rush hour traffic. Drugs plague poor communities, and many people can't even afford to see a doctor when they are sick. We need to fix ourselves before we fix anyone else. That's why we don't need more refugees, we don't need to send aid.
As for the moral standpoint on it, my heart hurts for them, it does, but if we can't take care of our own people first how can we take care of them?
Think of it this way, if I pass a poor man on the street and he asks for money, but I have none, am I morally wrong for not giving what I don't have? No. There are other ways of helping people other than financial means. That's where people come in. Volunteers, educators, doctors without borders, private donors and charity funds. The money and support doesn't have to come from the government. Just as long as people don't forget the home front.
Building water and agricultural infrastructure does cost money.
And I do not think we need a profit to help people. Again, not all countries' governments are corrupt and even in the corrupt countries, we still need to help their citizens. We can't just let people suffer and die because it doesn't bring us profits. That is a line we cannot cross regardless. We can work on fixing foreign governments (something US does a lot) and helping their citizens, in fact, that happens very often.