• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

US aid the lowest of any industrialized nation in the world

S

Siwy

Senior member
Does anybody else find it ironic that US aid is the lowest of any industrialized nations, yet at the same time the administration?s excuse for the war in Iraq is not saving the world from WMD any more but simply helping ?poor Iraqis??

What?s even worse is that the little money US gives out in aid is mostly politically motivated and given to countries like Egypt, Russia, Israel, Pakistan, etc. In light of these facts, can anyone really say that US administration attacked Iraq in good faith of helping poor Iraqis?
 
I'd like to see US contributions including private charities. Whoever wrote that link completely dismissed private generosity, which I'm guessing was done deliberately in an effort to make the US look much, much worse than it is. ?Private charity is an act of privilege, it can never be a viable alternative to State obligations,? is quoted as fact, when it is anything but.

Amazing that you can take this and somehow apply it to Iraq. :roll: I think we need to develop an alternative form of Godwin's law that inserts Iraq instead of Nazis.
 
we still have the most aide of any country in the world, so shh and stop complaining we are aiding ENOUGH.
 
Originally posted by: Stunt
Originally posted by: eigen
Good.We should deal with our own before we help others.
Click to expand...

Helping our own = tax breaks for upper/upper middle class??
Click to expand...

I dont exist so that the fruits of my labor, can be exported to the third-world for the needy.
I dont like being taxed for anything, but if the coercion must occur I would rather it go to things that benefit me.I would be alot happier if the money was used to send more deserving american kids to college than to feed kids in, lets say, Africa.
 
It look to me that we gave the most money. I'm sure the people eating off our dime don't give a damn if it was .1% or 1% or 10% of the GNP.
 
From the first link:

Nonetheless, it is interesting to note for example, per latest estimates, Americans privately give at least $34 billion overseas -- more than three times U.S. official foreign aid of $10 billion
Click to expand...
Anyone have any figures on private contributions for the other industrialized nations?
 
Originally posted by: ntdz
we still have the most aide of any country in the world, so shh and stop complaining we are aiding ENOUGH.
Click to expand...

And if you looked on a state-by-state basis? If you were not a United Nation, would you still say you are doing "enough?" The fact that you are bigger than everyone else isn't good enough. A per-capita evaluation, perhaps modified by income differentials, is the only way to fairly determine how much each person is actually doing to help. If the average American is doing less for the world than the average Swede, then you should ask why you are doing less than Skjorb, or whatever his name is.

That being said, I agree with Cylo that private contributions should be a factor in the calculation. Although the free-rider phenomenon would likely kick in and under-supply charitable resources, so that probably won't be enough to fill the gap. I would, however, be open to statistics which would debunk the theory.
 
Originally posted by: eigen
Originally posted by: Stunt
Originally posted by: eigen
Good.We should deal with our own before we help others.
Click to expand...

Helping our own = tax breaks for upper/upper middle class??
Click to expand...

I dont exist so that the fruits of my labor, can be exported to the third-world for the needy.
I dont like being taxed for anything, but if the coercion must occur I would rather it go to things that benefit me.I would be alot happier if the money was used to send more deserving american kids to college than to feed kids in, lets say, Africa.
Click to expand...

Welcome to the global community. What happens over there affects you here.

Investment in the aids epidemic will limit the spread to the whole planet.
New diseases are poping up and the only way to limit the likelyhood of getting to us is to help invest in their health programs. I've been to a few lectures on this here at uni. The SARS thing was nothing compared to some of the things out there. And we do not have the policies created to counter this, the resources are needed there to contain it over there.

Also as the world becomes the manufacturers of your goods, it is important that incentives be given to the countries to practice good environmental regulation. I'm sure you are aware of the out of control asthma cases in the US. The last thing we need is drastically increasing hospitol costs due to our lack of involvement in evironmental issues globally.

These are just 2 examples why we should give foreign aid...if not for them, for your health and safety.


Asthma Study

These asthma cases have more than doubled in the last 15 years.

Asthma?s Annual Impact in the United States

*Approximately 5,000 deaths annually

*Two million emergency department visits

*Nearly 500,000 hospitalizations

*14 million missed school days

* 14.5 million missed work days

*$14 billion in medical and indirect expenses
Click to expand...
 
Originally posted by: ntdz
we still have the most aide of any country in the world, so shh and stop complaining we are aiding ENOUGH.
Click to expand...

You do not want to match countries on a %gdp basis for aid, but do on a military basis.

That's a little hipocritical...:roll:
 
Originally posted by: Kibbo
And if you looked on a state-by-state basis? If you were not a United Nation, would you still say you are doing "enough?" The fact that you are bigger than everyone else isn't good enough. A per-capita evaluation, perhaps modified by income differentials, is the only way to fairly determine how much each person is actually doing to help. If the average American is doing less for the world than the average Swede, then you should ask why you are doing less than Skjorb, or whatever his name is.

That being said, I agree with Cylo that private contributions should be a factor in the calculation. Although the free-rider phenomenon would likely kick in and under-supply charitable resources, so that probably won't be enough to fill the gap. I would, however, be open to statistics which would debunk the theory.
Click to expand...
:beer: Exactly.
 
we already are giving records amounts of dollars, via the TRADE DEFICIT, to the tune of $6 trillion per decade. this is helping our enemy greatly, a 3rd world country (technically 2nd) named China, the world's largest. Saudi Arabia whose most citizens are rather poor, as well, but their government, Prince Bandar from Texas, has choosen not to distribute wealth in a way that benefits anyone but the royal family
 
Originally posted by: ReiAyanami
we already are giving records amounts of dollars, via the TRADE DEFICIT, to the tune of $6 trillion per decade. this is helping our enemy greatly, a 3rd world country (technically 2nd) named China, the world's largest. Saudi Arabia whose most citizens are rather poor, as well, but their government, Prince Bandar from Texas, has choosen not to distribute wealth in a way that benefits anyone but the royal family
Click to expand...

But not all countries have things to sell you.

a) China has people
b) SA has oil

There are a lot of nations out there that are so unstable there are no companies willing to invest (lack of well and able people). That is where the aid should go.

The benifits of trade are not an aid. It helps the country, i am not going to dispute that. But most of the margins come back to the US to pay dividends and admin here. Also US citizens get far cheaper products. US wins on the outsourcing by far.
 
Originally posted by: Stunt
Originally posted by: ReiAyanami
we already are giving records amounts of dollars, via the TRADE DEFICIT, to the tune of $6 trillion per decade. this is helping our enemy greatly, a 3rd world country (technically 2nd) named China, the world's largest. Saudi Arabia whose most citizens are rather poor, as well, but their government, Prince Bandar from Texas, has choosen not to distribute wealth in a way that benefits anyone but the royal family
Click to expand...

But not all countries have things to sell you.

a) China has people
b) SA has oil

There are a lot of nations out there that are so unstable there are no companies willing to invest (lack of well and able people). That is where the aid should go.

The benifits of trade are not an aid. It helps the country, i am not going to dispute that. But most of the margins come back to the US to pay dividends and admin here. Also US citizens get far cheaper products. US wins on the outsourcing by far.
Click to expand...

Agreed,

Buying products that you want for prices cheaper than can be had at home benefits you. If you want to pay more to suport American manufacturing, read the bloody label.
 
Originally posted by: RabidMongoose
What about food aid, military aid, and so on? I wonder if there is a site that keeps track of all of that.
Click to expand...

I am interested in these values as well.

Military aid will skew these values as the US gives a lot of stuff to nations like Columbia and Israel either for their own personal ambitions (drug trade) or increasing instability (israel nukes)
 
Originally posted by: Stunt
Originally posted by: RabidMongoose
What about food aid, military aid, and so on? I wonder if there is a site that keeps track of all of that.
Click to expand...

I am interested in these values as well.

Military aid will skew these values as the US gives a lot of stuff to nations like Columbia and Israel either for their own personal ambitions (drug trade) or increasing instability (israel nukes)
Click to expand...

Flamebait.
 
Originally posted by: Stunt
Originally posted by: RabidMongoose
What about food aid, military aid, and so on? I wonder if there is a site that keeps track of all of that.
Click to expand...

I am interested in these values as well.

Military aid will skew these values as the US gives a lot of stuff to nations like Columbia and Israel either for their own personal ambitions (drug trade) or increasing instability (israel nukes)
Click to expand...

Aid is aid, but I agree that some US aid is mainly politically motivated so we can't forget that either.

Anyone know what France's aid breakdown is like? I'm curious to see if another 'world power' type nation has its aid also very politically motivated.
 
Originally posted by: Stunt
Originally posted by: eigen
Originally posted by: Stunt
Originally posted by: eigen
Good.We should deal with our own before we help others.
Click to expand...

Helping our own = tax breaks for upper/upper middle class??
Click to expand...

I dont exist so that the fruits of my labor, can be exported to the third-world for the needy.
I dont like being taxed for anything, but if the coercion must occur I would rather it go to things that benefit me.I would be alot happier if the money was used to send more deserving american kids to college than to feed kids in, lets say, Africa.
Click to expand...

Welcome to the global community. What happens over there affects you here.

Investment in the aids epidemic will limit the spread to the whole planet.
New diseases are poping up and the only way to limit the likelyhood of getting to us is to help invest in their health programs. I've been to a few lectures on this here at uni. The SARS thing was nothing compared to some of the things out there. And we do not have the policies created to counter this, the resources are needed there to contain it over there.

Also as the world becomes the manufacturers of your goods, it is important that incentives be given to the countries to practice good environmental regulation. I'm sure you are aware of the out of control asthma cases in the US. The last thing we need is drastically increasing hospitol costs due to our lack of involvement in evironmental issues globally.

These are just 2 examples why we should give foreign aid...if not for them, for your health and safety.


Asthma Study

These asthma cases have more than doubled in the last 15 years.

Asthma?s Annual Impact in the United States

*Approximately 5,000 deaths annually

*Two million emergency department visits

*Nearly 500,000 hospitalizations

*14 million missed school days

* 14.5 million missed work days

*$14 billion in medical and indirect expenses
Click to expand...
Click to expand...

Agreed.lets spend that FA on kids here in the US with asthma.Lets use that dough to figureout ways to reduce the emissions of factories in the US.Put the money towards the NSF so we can work on vaccines etc...

I have no problem giving money to countries based on getting something in return.I like that idea its called being selfish.This charity thing is what I have a problem with.

M question how much of this money actually accomplishes anything.I see the high dollar values but I see no measure of success.
 
I'd like to see the aid figures of the former colonial powers and how much aid they give to their former colonies.

And like said before, the US population are considered the most generous in the world with their contributions, plus the US offers many other forms of aid such as anti-terrorism, military, etc.
 
Originally posted by: K1052
Originally posted by: Stunt
Originally posted by: RabidMongoose
What about food aid, military aid, and so on? I wonder if there is a site that keeps track of all of that.
Click to expand...

I am interested in these values as well.

Military aid will skew these values as the US gives a lot of stuff to nations like Columbia and Israel either for their own personal ambitions (drug trade) or increasing instability (israel nukes)
Click to expand...

Flamebait.
Click to expand...

israel does not need nukes to combat a militia...if anything it gives a distinction of power to a state in a region not representative of the people there. This encourages poitical instability, hindering economic development in the region, more specifically israel.

My point is that giving israel nukes COULD counter some of the development aid sent.

Aid is not aid...i'd much rather see projects like U waterloo creating an extremely cheap well such that poor people in developing countries can have access to water rather than giving some militia helicopters or weapons...

The issue is development aid, not destructive aid.
 
Originally posted by: Stunt
Originally posted by: K1052
Originally posted by: Stunt
Originally posted by: RabidMongoose
What about food aid, military aid, and so on? I wonder if there is a site that keeps track of all of that.
Click to expand...

I am interested in these values as well.

Military aid will skew these values as the US gives a lot of stuff to nations like Columbia and Israel either for their own personal ambitions (drug trade) or increasing instability (israel nukes)
Click to expand...

Flamebait.
Click to expand...

israel does not need nukes to combat a militia...if anything it gives a distinction of power to a state in a region not representative of the people there. This encourages poitical instability, hindering economic development in the region, more specifically israel.

My point is that giving israel nukes COULD counter some of the development aid sent.

Aid is not aid...i'd much rather see projects like U waterloo creating an extremely cheap well such that poor people in developing countries can have access to water rather than giving some militia helicopters or weapons...

The issue is development aid, not destructive aid.
Click to expand...

Your assertion that the U.S. "gave" Israel nukes is way off base, as is the one about the U.S. supporting the drug cartels in Columbia with aid.
 
Does it really encourage political stability?? Rather, while I believe that while that may be the illusion, in actuality, it merely serves as a deterrence. Say, Syria/ Egypt invading Israel, or vice versa, and nuclear weapons as a deterrent.

I also am sure that we don't supply Israel with our own nukes. Give me the link to the site that you're using.

WE give militia helicopters, etc. to the states, not the actual inhabitants themselves, so that the state can combat whatever instability is going on. Whether it actually works is anyone's guess.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top