International Aid

[daleduke17]

To split from the healthcare topic.

IMO, the US should stop all international aid temporarily and get the economy back on track. The IA I'm talking about is the "peace keeping missions", the "police actions", "wars" and anything else that is helping countries other than the USA currently. Yes, that includes Darfur and the rest of Africa. Cut the food being exported out on these peace keeping missions as well and feed it to the US citizens that need it. Maybe once we get ourselves set back up with a thriving economy, an infrastructure that isn't crumbling and a citizenry that isn't being pretty much ignored for people in other countries, then we can look at how to better help other nations.

What do I think about private citizens helping out? I don't give a damn. Their money/resources. They earned it, they can spend it how they want. I would just like to see the US taxpayers' money spent on US citizens for a change (true change, not Obama's "change" he supposedly got elected for).

[Sylvia727]

I think that if the USA stopped providing foreign aid, then it should also stop foreign trade, stop immigration and emmigration, shut down the internet, lock its doors and pull down the curtains. If we want to live peacefully with our neighbors, then we need to behave neighborly. It's just common decency to help with disaster relief or hunger missions. Wars would need to be addressed on a case-by-case issue, but in general I don't think the USA should become militarily involved in other people's wars, but only diplomatically.

Of course we need to provide for American citizens as well. Our government did basically nothing to help New Orleans after Katrina. I've heard of medical missions that specialize in helping citizens of third world countries coming to urban America and helping our citizens who don't have healthcare! But I think there's enough fat that could be trimmed to provide for both at once. Change doesn't need to happen overnight, it can be done gradually. While all of the changes you mentioned do need to occur, we don't need to close out our neighbors while we do it.

[Rapscallion]

Which aid do you mean?

There's aid to drought-ridden areas, where thousands of people would simply die from lack of food or water.

There's military aid in the form of peacekeeping troops stopping people from killing each other.

There's billions of dollars (give or take) going to Israel and probably a few others in military aid to help them defend themselves.

I don't think trimming aid would require cutting off all contact - you can be neighbourly without spending a huge amount of money.

Rapscallion

[protege]

My problem with foreign aid? We're sending millions to other countries to combat starvation...yet many of our *own* citizens are starving. No aid for them? Also, New Orleans (pardon the French) got fucking shafted. Yet, there was some aid sent to Sri Lanka's victims? What the fuck?

[Greenday]

We help so many other countries with their sick, their starving, their oppressed. But we ignore our own sick, starving, and oppressed? Yea, I agree that unless it's a major, MAJOR world changing issue, like world war or something, then we need to just worry about our own problems and no one else's.

[Seshat]

Aid is a tricky issue. Sometimes it's desperately needed and beneficial to the recipients, sometimes ongoing aid can actually be a destabilising influence. That said, I think there's plenty of resources in the USA for both domestic and foreign aid.

After all, the US GDP per capita is roughly equivalent to the per capita GDP of many nations who provide both local and foreign aid. (Examples include, but are not limited to, Canada, the UK and Australia.)

(Source of the per capita GDP figures: CIA factbook, as I remember it from a couple of weeks ago when I actually looked it up for a fratching discussion.)

[Boozy]

Aid doesn't really do much. So much of it ends up in corrupt hands.

If the US wants to help people, they can do so by helping themselves at the same time. Africa, for example, would be helped if the US and European Union would drop all the trade restictions on agricultural imports. Not only would Africa be able to start supporting themselves, but the US consumer would benefit greatly from lower food prices.

Supporting grassroots democratic movements in many of these impoverished countries would be the one place where aid could really make a difference. Africa is rich in resources and human capital, but they're being held back by corrupt governments.

[Seshat]

So-called 'fair trade' seems to me to be much better than aid anyway, for long-term stuff.

Short-term stuff, like recovery from a natural disaster, is a totally different matter. If the community hit from the disaster gets enough resources and expertise to not only recover from the disaster, but plan against future disasters, there's long-term, not just short-term help.
(Examples: New Orleans getting Dutch advice on flood prevention. Victoria, Australia assessing which communities should be rebuilt, which should not, and how to avoid the next once-in-a-hundred-years fire being such a disaster.)

For long-term aid, I recommend education and medical expertise being delivered direct to the community; microloans (such as lending someone the money for a sewing machine or a pair of chickens); clean water provided if necessary; and fair trade.
If a community has the education and health to improve their state, the money to buy the small things that can make a huge difference, and an honest market that pays a fair price for their goods, they have the ability to improve themselves.

[Giggle Goose]

Doing that would completely devastate our trade and international relations. We really don't need that right now. I got this info from a professor at Georgetown University who used to work as a congressional staffer.

And we ARE giving money to our own citizens in the form of a stimulus package the likes of which the country has never seen. But that's a different issue entirely.

[Boozy]

You're right, GG. US foreign aid is always linked to trade.

As a general rule, you've always gotten more than your money's worth. But I still don't like it, because some of this "aid" is in actuality predatory lending. The US gives "aid" with the caveat that they spend that money on US exports, which are often military weapons, which the recipient then uses to oppress their populace. The US is the only one that comes out ahead in many of these deals.

[daleduke17]

And we ARE giving money to our own citizens in the form of a stimulus package the likes of which the country has never seen. But that's a different issue entirely.

No, that is just giving the taxpayers their money back. All that is is a glorified rebate check.

[Evandril]

No, that is just giving the taxpayers their money back. All that is is a glorified rebate check.

That's why I got *more* back than I paid, because I got my money back? Even with interest, I didn't give the government nearly what they gave me.