Foreign Aid?

[Corrin]

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!

 

[kanoguti]

Depends. For one, there is the issue of supporting a country too much, and it is unable to stand on its own two feet. We have to let certain countries develop an economy for themselves.

Secondly, in the United States and Canada, people in poverty are given aid. The amount of people who die of starvation in the United States and Canada is pretty low compared to countries such as Africa. If the governments goal is to decrease suffering afflicting people around the world, then yes, foreign aid is fine.

We should help everyone, regardless of where they were born. The truth is, poor people in Africa, on average, have it a lot worse than poor people living in America, so we should help them.

 

[Varius]

The nation-state should worry about the people within the jurisdiction of it's governing body before it worries about people in other territories. Within the US alone our infrastructure is decaying and we are wasting our money on frivolous "aid" that does not go to the people it needs.

Our money should be going into our own infrastructure to fix and upgrade it, bringing jobs with it. In addition, we need to fix our own social services. Money is depleting from Social Security at a rate in which is will become insolvent by 2034, which would set-up many millennials' and Gen Zers' retirement plans into jeopardy. Why should the government care more for people in the international community than its own citizens?

 

[kanoguti]

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?

 

[Varius]

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.

 

[kanoguti]

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.

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.

 

[Varius]

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.

 

[kanoguti]

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.

 

[Varius]

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.

 

[kanoguti]

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?

 

[Varius]

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?

But are we really relieving their pain if highly corrupt individuals in these government are embezzling the money that was supposed to go to them? A good bit of these countries currently have corruption problems in their government. We are essentially funding the people that are putting them in such a position and trying to "fix" their woes by throwing money at them instead of doing something productive like building their water and agricultural infrastructure to help end their food shortages. Many of the countries that we are aiding that are in high levels of civil turmoil happen to have some of the most corrupt governments out there. Some countries, such of South Africa, are starting to delve deeper into civil turmoil as tensions become worse.

Unless the foreign aid in question does not give us any profit in question (such as using the money to get American corporations, businesses and the such to help build infrastructure), then it is simply not worth the time or money. We are currently the biggest donor for international aid right now; that $30 billion could've been going to our infrastructure instead or help fund Social Security if it isn't changed to a private account system.

 

[kanoguti]

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.

 

[Varius]

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.

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?

 

[El Héroe Oscuro]

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.

 

[Phantom1]

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.

 

[Hands]

I mean the USA's infrastructure is like 50 years behind most of Europe's, you don't even have a nationwide form of single payer healthcare. Sort that out first.

 

[Corrin]

If the United States is considered "rich" by having a $20 trillion deficit, than my shitty acting could win me an Oscar.

Did not know lol, I was just going by what Wikipedia says

 

[Ivysaur]

If the United States is considered "rich" by having a $20 trillion deficit, than my ****ty acting could win me an Oscar.

Actually, it is. In fact, it can only afford having such a massive deficit precisely because it's obscenely rich as a country. Otherwise, nobody would lend them a penny. And having a bigger or smaller government deficit has nothing to do with "being rich"- that's measured by the GDP.

And, talking about this topic, I wholeheartedly support foreign aid as long as it's handled by trustworthy organisations/institutions and not corrupt governments. But yeah, despite the "but there are poor people here too!" argument, money spent in impoverished countries has a much bigger effect dollar by dollar and helps more people than spending the equivalent at home (so, in an utilitarian way, it creates more good) and also helps stabilise the international scene- if poor countries (most of which are poor because of past exploitation at the hands of current rich states) get help, they are less likely to collapse in civil wars like the ones that currently ravage the Middle East and North Africa. That also affects the US- do you think ISIS would exist in its current form if Irak or Syria didn't have millions of poor, desperate people looking for a goal for their lives?

And furthermore, foreign aid is less than 1% of budgets. I think there are other places to look at if you want to cut useless expenditures- and raising taxes is always an option, especially in the US, one of the lowest-taxed countries in the developed world (if not the absolute lowest).

 

[Vragon]

Regardless whether the US is considered "rich" there's still the question to consider.

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?

I agree there is corruption in the government and as a result the proper due isn't given. I personally don't know exactly the profit we could muster from it or that it should be our main intention, but I see your point.

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.

I concur to some extent with this as well. However, I believe the reason why the putting it's hands in so many pockets alone doesn't necessarily decrease the US economy. One reason related to that I think is recent events of not retrieving the rewards that come from the war that is a good explanation. The Iraqi war for example. Plus we're to focused on long drawn wars and giving "protection" to countries that take advantage of the US as well.

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.

While I can agree that there doesn't need to be a profit to help people, we're talking about a country here. I can understand that mentality for a charity or business, but America as it is needs to keep it's feet together if it doesn't want to fall down. There already is enough unrest and while yes the people in Africa are worse than the poor in America, that's because America has made way more advances than Africa. The issue is that we're giving aid to countries to help them and not to improve them. Countries need to be self-sustaining otherwise they should be subparts of another country. Show them how to do things, teach them about agriculture and well building. Show them how to make technology and make it an instinct for them to learn even more advanced stuff.

The US and Canada may be "Rich" like countries but they aren't the mother arms of the world and I wouldn't want them to be. Countries need to support themselves and not rely on aid to treat their people well. I know this sounds heartless, but giving aid is pointless unless there's a way they can use it to better their lives and push off from that on their own.

 

[Trev]

You can teach people how to do things, yes (and we do), but they still need physical resources. If I teach you how to fish but you can't afford a fishing rod and you don't have the resources to build one, I just taught you a useless skill that you can't use to feed your family.

The U.S. budget is disproportionally spent on the military, so if you look at the small amount we spend on foreign aid and think cutting that is going to allow for the necessary reallocation of resources to aid our citizens out of poverty, well, okay. We honestly could solve a good chunk of our financial problems if we took even 5% or 10% out of the military budget.