Discussions
Should America help poorer countries?
Posted by DealingBlog • 6/07/09 • Subscribe to this Discussion [RSS] • Report This Topic
Topics: imperialism, international aid, marxism, socialism
Do richer nations have an obligation to poorer countries? One famous line of thinking (it starts with "imperial" and ends with "ism") argues that rich countries got rich by exploiting poorer countries. That's why poor countries are poor and rich countries are rich.
Do you buy this? Who is responsible for poor countries being poor? Is more development aid the solution? Have the billions poured into the Third World in the past produced long lasting positive effects?
User Comments
-
Why is there a marxism tag on this thread?
Why telegraph your bias via tags when you can state it up front?-
The concept of imperialism is a Marxist concept. Actually, the concept came from the uberMarxist himself--V.I. Lenin.
-
-
Look, we have always and I mean always helped other countries in need. I have no problem with that, however, when are we going to start taking care of our own?
I say it time to help our own people in the United States first and the hell with anyone else for right now. We have people in this country hungry, homeless, sick, out of work, losing their homes and yet we keep aiding other countries?
Bailouts hell, we're the ones bailing out these corporations, not the government. Where are we suppose to get the money from? People are hurting yet we have to pay more on this and that to get the ones who got us into this mess out of there mess, yet who is going to help us. -
90% Developed Nation Aids are based on their own conditional political Interest.-
Good point. Ever notice that most, if not all, that money "finds its way back" to the US or Europe?
-
-
Like web log said the foreign policy in regards to countries is always about securing either the business interests, other best interests, or security of the country from which the aid comes. This is the deterrent to real change which is why aid aid development from private sources even the newer models of profit aid in the long run do a much better job. -
Foreign policy is often about business. Development money is mostly nonsense. It is often focused on gaining trade concessions. Give us your stuff. The problem is that we are exporting jobs to these places and importing cheap goods which is neither good for us nor good for them. I think that it should be the other way around, we keep our jobs and they sell us their goods. Things have been going backward for a little while. The best thing that can happen is that we jump start trade and stop exporting jobs. -
Why? this will only encourage the dependence of poor countries on powerful ones. America progressed and so can all countries if they work towards it. But if we depend on other counties' help, we won't prosper. -
no
America needs to sort itself. How many billion are you guys in debt? This is no accident or just bad management, this is intentional. Someone is stealing your money and country
What is required is intelligent people with no private agendas apart from the well being of human beings, going in and advising on irrigation, health, etc . Most foreign involvement usually is about control and manipulation and extraction of the resources for corporate multi-national greed.
There is genocide happening in many poorer nations and a lot of it comes from outside the country. And I am not directing this at America at all, because those that rape the various nations have no particular allegiance to any particular country but are strictly building their own massive empires which are without boundaries and without any form of principles or integrity.-
spot on. -
If there's money in providing infrastructure, people will do it.
If the government monopolises that market, nobody else will look into it.
Same principle applies to America "helping" other countries: America tends to help countries with natural resources. If America didn't do that, those countries would be forced to exploit their own natural resources for themselves. Right now, America can't even afford to help General Motors but the powers that be owe a few favours.
The best way America can help poorer countries is by free trade. Buy their goods if they are good goods at a reasonable price. Don't buy them if they're not good goods.
-
-
Money and food are not everything.
How about some love?
Or send Gordon Ramsey that way to the third world... -
We have a miraculous bounty in the United States and we are at least morally obligated to share it with others. That's the kind of people we are.-
that's a great attitude, to be concerned about the welfare of others is magnificent, but do you realize your country is in so much debt that it's ridiculous and this could easily lead to some very serious problems in the future
-
But you could argue it is not the obligation of our governments but of our citizens, and that governments are too inherently evil to be trusted with anything of moral equity anyways. -
jeremy, compassion is our nature, not an obligation
-
Ah but what is an obligation? Surely an obligation can be nothing but what you should do with your life!
-
ok
-
Selfish maybe, but also common sense. I agree we should help others, but we're really hurting right now. It's just not the time for that stuff. I wouls also have to agree with the folks saying that America has ulterior motives to helping others such as being able to set up camp while invading other countries as well as economics such as the 40 Billion barrels of oil in Kurdistan. Let's do it later, and for the right reasons. -
@JohnCrippen: There is nothing more selfish then denying others their rights, including their right to their property. All true evil starts with power.
-
That's exactly the kind of attitude which promotes laziness and feelings of entitlement.
-
-
Anything in moderation, but right now charity begins at home. How can we help others, if we can't help ourselves. I see so many things as a paradox right now. Hundreds of unsellable homes in my town, and the business district complains about the homeless folk. Corporation with their hands out, but not to do the right thing such as protect the laborers pensions. Instead, they're trying to take the cash and run. I believe in free commerce, but corporations have shown that they cannot be left to their own devices. They need the regulation of the FTC and other organizations to keep them real. Politics is about money and as you watch the economic trends of presidents, you can get a good idea where their head is at. Instead of listening to FOX NEWS, I pick up a copy of the IBD or the business section of newspaper. In short, Yes, but not right now.
-
So, what? We should let people starve while food goes to waste in this country? That's the kind of attitude that the word "selfish" was designed to describe.
-
-
We are wrapped up in a global economy which at a certain point and can not at this point in time be separated from the rest of the world.
GDP, or national wealth) that a country devotes to foreign aid here is not as high as one would think. We waste millions 501 million to fight AIDS in Kenya for example with part of that going to abstinence education, we based the aid we gave countries on their teaching abstinence. We gave billions to Israel but most of that is to buy US MADE weapons.
We give million to the Dole food program, most of the food is bought here from already subsidized farms - need I go on
This is the last foreign aid budget it is for 2009 but i proposal the year before so this is a Bush gov proposal.
www.state.gov/documents/organization/101368.pdf
You can see by the scope of it that there is not really any going back, most of this stuff is done because we have been financially controlling many things for a long time and it is because we wanted(want) control, and or security that this money is spent.-
This begs the question: How effective has foreign aid been in lifting countries out of poverty?
-
-
It benefits us to help other countries, as then they will feel a need to help us, often times meaning military bases, for which they will receive substantial rents.
-
Personally America REALLY needs to look to it's own people's needs FIRST and FOREMOST.-
Sure, but foreign aid may help America buy foreign favors, like preferential trade and foreign bases, cooperative aggreements, et cetera.
-
yes, its true. -
America must repair itself first before it can continue to support others. This country is crumbling around us. This is not to say that we are no longer compassionate about the rest of the world's needs, but if this country collapses completely there really will be no one else to donate the way we have in the past. What good is a bridge if it has no foundation on which to support the weight of the travelers? -
Do you realize that in terms of foreign aid, the US actually spends far less as a percentage of the budget than most European nations?
Helping developing nations is in our own best interest as it invariably leads to the money trickling back to us by making those countries friendlier to US goods,services and policies.
Also, as far as money spent in Iraq and Afghanistan, we created the mess and now it's our responsibility to clean it up. Afghanistan never would have fallen to civil war and led to the rise of the Taliban if we hadn't armed the Mujahadeen in the 80's. If we had followed through with nation building after the Soviets pulled out, 9/11 never would have happened and Afghanistan would not the be world's largest heroin supplier.
Ultimately, foreign aid benefits the US just as much as it benefits the nations who receive it. -
Definitely true
-
cooper www.blogcatalog.com/discuss/entry/should-america-help-poorer-countries#comm...
sillthinking Ultimately, foreign aid benefits the US just as much as it benefits the nations who receive it.
IMHO cooper and stillthinking have said it all. Foreign aid from America is aimed at benefiting America and that's what it accomplishes. -
@stillthinking: In terms of government spending. In terms of private charity, however, we are towards the top.
@timethief: It's government spending, which means the people from whom it is taken didn't have a choice to give it. Therefore, it is right and moral that it only be done to support the national good, and preferably, only when absolutely neccessary.
-
-
U.S. is always generous and nicely trying to 'help' in everything... -
I agree with wagerwitch.
America should take care of it's own citizens first. I don't live there, but my dad and family are living in L.A. I've been there several times, and I think the poorer ppl in U.S.A are really having a tough time. Here in the Netherlands, everyone is taken good care of, whether you're old, young, capable or not. -
It is in a country's interest to help its nieghboring poor nations, in order to stem the flow of immigration that may overwhelm that country's social services etc.
in the case of the U.S. much could simply NOT have been done to increase the vast descrepancies of social conditions in our neighboring poor nations
-
No. We gain more from immigration then we lose from it. However, immigration as wonderful as it is cannot get us preferential trade, votes at the UN, nudge-nudge nepotism to pressure our adversaries, and foreign millitary bases, intel and involvement.
-
-
All I have to say is watch the documentary "Life & Debt". It tells a LOT of what the USA did to screw the little countries. Maybe they should consider fixing it now.-
The policies of the lender nations and world bank are bad also
In countries like Nicaragua we have done worse...
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicaragua_v._United_States
-
-
In most cases, they've remain unstable and are not performed for altruistic reasons. My wife was a missionary for a church and did a year in Africa. If you really want to help, your best shot is probably through an independent organization, not through the government. just ask the folks in Louisiana. FEMA was a train wreck. We need to build up our reserves for our own disasters, education, and infrastructure right now. if not, we will become a reactionary third world country our selves. When we are back on our feet and pay off our debts, absolutely. We cannot keep robbing Peter to pay Paul. It's just like shuffling credit cards. Sooner or later, they want to collect.
Oh, my wife was on Losotho in the 1970's as a nurse. There was no sign of intervention by the British or American Governments when other tribes slaughters Losotho. These governments were too busy extracting chromium and diamonds from the mines in Africa. The African males would work 9 months straight, then go home to beat their wives and knock them up. A few months later, they were back in the mines. It was the churches, not the goverments that were spreading medications, food, and educating these villages.-
South Africa and Lesotho are very different today...the 1970s were a long time ago and the apartheid was in force back then.
I moved from California to South Africa five years ago. The government here does a better job of taking care of its citizens, especially its poor, than America does. The poor, here, are a greater percentage of our population than in the US, mostly as a legacy of the policies of the apartheid government. And while it has been gone for more than a decade, its legacy will continue for decades more.
America needs a serious overhaul and an attitude adjustment as well. My grandfather used to say "clean your own house first" when it came to dealing with others. Before America goes around doling out dollars and playing Lady Bountiful, first she needs to feed and house her own poor, provide healthcare to her citizenry, and step back from the ethically bankrupt attitude that what is good for big business is good for America.
-
-
I believe rich countries have no "obligations" towards poor ones, it is more like showing off their wealth what they are doing, and it is okay, the poor countries are to be blamed for accepting it.-
I don't think it's so much a showing off thing, but an ulterior motive. we "help" them because they are rich in some kind of resource.
That's not the right reason to do so, and it's not the right time to be doing so. I have pictures of poverty from my area and unoccupied homes, yet plenty of homeless people. It's bizarre, people need homes and we have tons of empty ones. Clearly we need to invest in our own for a while. -
Well not just that but if we are talking about "countries" we are talking about stealing from tax payers. Those taxpayers better be getting something out of it. Charity is not defined as stealing from people at gunpoint.
-
-
Ok - great - but if USA crumbles because we aren't taking care of our own people - then what will happen?
No one will be taken care of.
I am seeing so many wrongs in the budget and spending.
Honestly - instead of giving the big company BAILOUTS - if they gave every citizen the money - then there would be no need for the bailouts.
Priorities are wrong.
We need to take care of our own family before we take care of others.
That doesn't mean if we can help out - that we shouldn't.
But we should be looking at helping US out too.
Do you realize that a white male has almost no chance of getting Welfare?
Do you know that I have a friend who is CRIPPLED with Fredriech's Ataxia and is getting worse - but can barely afford to eat... And they are refusing him home healthcare? He can freaking barely walk without falling down - is almost wheelchair bound and he is ONLY 21 years old.
But because he is WHITE - he doesn't qualify UNTIL he is in a wheelchair.
I'm amazed at our country at times.
I am a firm believer that the USA is wonderful and the ONLY place I want to be - but I do see the wrongs...-
We won't crumble, we've been through worse before. Now not having any foreign allies, that, on the other hand, might hurt us.
-
-
america's idea of helping always involves some self-serving purpose - this much is certain. as an alternative, poorer countries should weather their own storms, align themselves with second-rate countries whose political goals have yet matured to the extent that it hinders its own and that of other economic developments.
by nature, superpowers will always exploit in order to advance its own interests and preserve its well-being. therefore by refusing help from countries like the u.s., third-world countries save themselves from economic fluctuations that result when a superpower agrees to help then suddenly abandons its cause because it ceased to see benefit (that is, its political goals) in furthering its charitable work. i read somewhere (although i'm not certain whether the source was reliable, but its assertions, i recall, were persuasive) that poorer countries remain rutted in poverty precisely because of sharp changes in the economy. even if countries prosper for a period and suddenly collapse, the article argues, then the economy of the country plunges deeper than when it began its climb. in other words, the erratic charity work that superpowers engage in perpetuates poverty in the countries they ostensibly help. america does more harm by helping...and i think the current situation reflects exactly this.-
Are you talking about governments or charities, because if you are speaking of the government, they should, as otherwise they are playing Robin Hood with their taxpayers and I don't like being held up at gunpoint by the federal government.
-
Amen
-
-
governments and to some extent supposedly private organizations. federal governments will always hold their taxpayers at gunpoint because that's what they do.
-
Of course, and that's why any government aid should be for interests so fundamentally selfish that it is worth holding your citizens at gunpoint over them. As for charities, in America they actually give more then government does if you disclude millitary "aid."
-
i agree, except in the context of this discussion, two parties are involved. you seem to think that the only thing that matters is what one government might say and do, forgetting that their efforts are nothing if their offer is rejected. poorer countries should exercise more awareness whenever they deal with countries like the united states. if they can't do this, then nothing can help them.
-
Understand AG, although all the same, most of the time it's actually a win-win. They get development money, we get an air base, and then they get rent for the air base.
-
that's certainly a very american way of looking at it. substitute 'air base' for 'weapons' and america essentially equips countries with enough fire power to start an insurgency within the country's borders once america hastily leaves. iraq steadily moved in that direction, which is why america could not pull out so easily. i doubt that having an air base, if capable of being used against one's own, can be called a win situation. if someone else is renting it, then who? if the country rents it to another country which has poor relations with the us, then what? possibly war on that territory, which means what? more american money, more american bases to rebuild the country? it's a never-ending cycle.
-
@AG: Some of the countries where we have airbases (like Iceland and Costa Rica) are able to give up their millitaries as a result. The only millitary that Iceland has is a small Coast Guard for police activity, rescue Op's, and maybe some minor antipiracy though the GIUK area is hardly a hotbed for that. The only downside to taking an American airbase is that you can't be massively adversarial (on a level that would elicit warfare) against the US -otherwise it means money and protection from everyone else. If a country wishes to retain the right to be adversarial against the US on that massive of a level (and has France and Canada have shown, you can still speak out against the US) they need not accept the air base or any foreign aid coming from us as that is simply dishonorable.
-
-
Are poorer countries poor because of America and other 'rich' countries? How can this situation be fixed?
-
Probably not in most cases. There are likely some rare cases but actually the nation historically most responsible for trashing the developing world was the USSR, and they're gone now. Most of the time though, the poor countries are poor because of their own internal problems, even if a foreign entity may have exploited them.
-
Doesn't it concern folks that we need military power over the entire world. Maybe if we weren't so busy policing the rest of the world to meet our own needs, we'd have more backup from other nations. This clearly was an issue regarding the United Nations and why old Europe did not back us up. And Jordan, we'll leave them high and dry to be retaliated on by surrounding nations. Iran, N. Korea, and Pakistan have nukes now. We'll have to learn to work with others rather than bully them. America is broke due to this very nonsense, so I don't buy the we need allies thing. We'd have plenty of allies if we'd practice democracy and diplomacy at the same time. We haven't even touched the the tip of the iceberg. How are we going to pay for the treatment of all the kids coming back from Iraq and Afganistan? for every one that dies, 10 will come back really screwed up thanks to modern body armor and technologies. The small foreign countries have handed our tailsides to us, we need to quit getting into these quagmires. The Middle East has been fighting for thousands of years before there was an America, how are we supposed to stop it. All we do is create an avenue for more insurgents, a breeding ground for resentment of the US.
-
@JohnCrippen: In history it is when there has not been a single great power that wars have ensued everywhere. And that hurts us too.
-
-
Jeremy, that's a partially true, but an incomplete statement because the only reason a single power can do this is through repression and tyranny. They eventually collapse... Rome, Egypt, China.... Not a very good idea. Switzerland almost never gets involved in all the nonsense, look how much prosperity they've had. Oh, larger, more advanced Civilizations have more volatile wars, too. By 2015 China will
have passed us up economically. Why make it happen sooner? Our days of occupying other nations are almost over.-
i don't know that i agree with switzerland. in my opinion, switzerland has managed to exist untouched by external political struggle only because the surrounding countries allow switzerland to maintain this position. i know little about switzerland's defense system, but i doubt it can withstand a blow without the support of its allies. in other words, switzerland isn't acting alone; it still complies (or is "involved") like any other country. another example: from what i remember, sweden, despite its ostensible neutral stance in wwii, was still, to some extent, complicit with germany; sweden permitted germany to transport arms within its borders. i'm not sure that this qualifies as "neutral." maybe it does. but it certainly doesn't mean being uninvolved.
-
@JohnCrippen:
No. Those nations you outlined were oppresive because they willed it, not because they had to be. And by the way, ALL countries eventually collapse, regardless of whether they rule or not. There is no nation in the world today of any significant size whose government has lasted for more then 312 years (the longest is England, whose government formed in 1688.) And of even those who have survived longer, they have suffered many setbacks - such is life. There is no collective paradise JohnCrippen, Rome survived a very long time for a country. 1000 years is no small feat, most nations don't even last 200. And may I remind you that China and Russia are still with us, though with new governments, and basically the same culture.
As for "trying to get along," may I remind you that this has never worked in the history of the world unless you are literally leeching off of others, as Sweden did playing off the US and USSR, and Switzerland does with it's banking. And it never will work until the world is turned upside down and ends as we know it because governments and governing will always attract the ambitious and the greedy. As long as it exists, government will be the throne of Satan.
-
-
Having said that, yes, they try getting along with others and hence have the support of the surrounding nations. They don't declare a doctrine to the entire world or bully all the little nations, they just try to get along with others. They do send doctors to help other nations at times, but not with all the strings attached and they don't write larger checks than they can cash. They have been successful through dilpomacy. Not bribery and a false sense of security.
-
they have succeeded only because they've avoided detection. you don't think that when switzerland sends out a message that they stand politically neutral, they're not generating a doctrine for others to follow? they absolutely are. they may not openly bully smaller countries, but they certainly leech off all the larger ones who shoulder the weight of international criticism so that neutral states can live a carefree life. moreover, they write checks that can be cashed because they simply have the money. strategic financial practice doesn't make switzerland a prosperous utopia to be copied and envied, but rather its deceptive methods of accumulating wealth by the most insidious, hypocritical means.
switzerland is no better than sweden during wwii (in fact, switzerland is probably still like present-day sweden which produces and sells arms to countries like iran). that switzerland ostensibly befriends and forms alliances with its neighbors and sponsors does not necessarily imply that it doesn't play in as much political roughhousing as the united states. their stealthiness deserves much applause, but they bear as much guilt as we do, if not more. neutrality is not diplomacy. it's cowardliness and parasitic at best.
-
-
I guess, richer countries should help poorer countries but please avoid helping just to get something from them in return.
That would remove the 'imperialistic' sense of helping poorer countries.-
As long as they clean up their own back yards first, yes. We are not a rich country right now. We are living off of paper with nothing to back it but loans from other countries. We need more health care, emergency response funds, funds for SS and disabled people, and more for education. Not only do we owe it to are kids to give them a good educations and good integrity, we need to remember who's going to take care of us when we are old geezers. I'd rather have intelligent people with good intentions than uneducated idiots because we spent the money bribing other nations. While we're at it, let's add the special tax for the rich. It's absolute nonsense that they are not stepping up to help America on their own volition. I agree that we should take some responsibility for the poorer nation, but not when we are poorer than them when the numbers are crunched.
-
Why do you think America and other developed countries have a responsibility to help poorer countries?
-
-
HAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!! -
First about tags - When comunism (marksism, socialism, totalitarism) broke I was 17. It was the most beautiful day in my life. I do not wish to anybody spend a day in that system. Without freedom of speech, independent media, without freedom of travelling and many things which are obvious in democracy.
USA got enourmous responsibility now, it's only superpower I know with huge economic and military potential. Problem is many people all over the world hate USA because will to help is very often connectect with ignorance and arrogance.
Example - A tribe is living by the lake. In the lake is plenty of fish, and the land around is fertile but the tribe pains famine. What is done - international aid supplies the tribe in fish from Atlantic Ocean and cereal from Europe instead of sent to the tribe fishermen and farmers with equipment and knowledge.
I have no doubt world needs USA like in D-Day but all goes in wrong direction. -
Maybe the solution is a more compassionate OPEN IMMIGRATION system so citizens of poorer countries can share in the bounty of Europe and America?
-
i doubt it. it may drastically destabilize both economies: mass immigration means ineffectual administration which results in instability in the country of origin, and overpopulation in the host country leads to unemployment anyway and can trigger a host of social problems. look at russia for example. it is currently trying to enforce fingerprinting of immigrants and careful monitoring of immigrant activities because russia claims that immigrants are contributing to increased crime. whether or not this is merely symptomatic of russia's already well-known xenophobic tendencies is a point certainly worth considering. but if we take russia's word for it, this particular phenomenon signifies a correlation between immigration and changes in social norms. in any case, i think opening our borders will only bring harm to both sides.
-
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!
-
Nope.
-
I think a good restriction is you must learn English. That way instead of expressly telling anyone that they cannot come, we will simply let the weak find the door.
-
-
If you had a houseful of children and a limited income, would you feed your next-door neighbour's children at the expense of your own? Would you reduce your own children to two meals a day so that the children of your neighbour could eat one meal a day?
Would you reduce your children to one meal a day so that you could also feed the children of your other neighbour who are going hungry as well? And what about the hungry children who live in the house behind you? Will you deprive your children further or go into debt to feed these neighbours, too? Where does it stop? With the kids on the next street? across town? At what point do your own children become as deprived as those you are trying to help? And then who shows up at your door daily with food for your hungry children?
Or will you acknowledge that the situations of your neighbour children are sad, but they have parents who are responsible for them just as you are responsible for your own, and refuse to compromise their health, well-being and futures in order to help those whose parents cannot or will not properly care for them?-
Very well said SweetViolet. That's what I was trying to say.
-
I would, I have, but such help/assistance can only go so far.
If I am borrowing money to care for my family and care for another family, then my assistance would come to an end.
America is in that place right now and planning to continue to borrow money from China and hand some of that money to other nations.
Even when you assist a nation, the other nation would be best served usually by way of assisting to modernize and build infrastructure rather than by simply handing a government $$.
-
-
HAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!
-
Rich? RICH!? America rich? Are you kidding? The USA is the poorest country on the planet. The USA has a debt the size of the fucking MOON!-
And the sun put together!
-
-
some said if your country are having problem, dont get america's help because your problem might turn worst.-
Exactly. Personally, I think Americans need more help than they could give.
-
-
All men are brothers.
I sincerely believe that countries who are capable of helping poorer ones should take the initiative.
The US need not be the only one to help others. -
I think richer countries should help out poorer countries only in terms of humanitarian aid such as medicine and natural disaster relief, etc... I don't think we (i.e. the USA) should go to other countries and solve their political or economic problems. If a country wants freedom from tyrants, they should do it themselves. If they want change, they should do it themselves. If a country wants to be run by military communist dictators it is their right. -
While that is a very popular viewpoint, LadySwan, it is worth noting that your suggestion and selfstudys' cannot be done simultaneously.
-
After the Second World War, much of Western Europe was devastated, poor, disease ridden: we forget this now, but tuberculosis and typhus were rampant, for example. Europe wasn't even producing enough food for its own needs; rationing continued in Britain until the 1950's.
America decided to help through the Marshall Plan, which extended loans, expertise and organisation to help Europe rebuild; this turned the Europeans into trading partners and strong allies. Without Europe, the world economy would be in much worse shape than it is; without that generosity, Europe might have gone communist in response.
The moral of the story is - do not ask for whom the bell tolls, it tolls for thee - thus help the poor and you help yourself.-
As of a few years ago I knew only what I had read in school of the Marshall Plan.
Not that I've spent the years since in deep research of it, but I have to say it seems the American government saw the Marshall Plan more as a business venture than they did a method by which to help Europe.
I'm waiting for Chinas Marshall Plan for the United States.
-
-
Not unless there is a natural disaster or something along those lines. Why? Many of the countries we throw money and/or supplies at let them go to waste or misuse them. We have poverty too, starving children, an underfunded educational system, a homeless epidemic. With the way we toss it out it is no wonder we are in financial trouble. Once we stabilize and take care of our own then I have no issue with helping others. In my mind, it's like having a house full of children and one box of cereal for the month, then donating that box to someone else. Yeah it's good publicity but since we never call in the debts or even trade resources it's a drain-
Yes. We should take care of our own first.
(I meant "yes" as in I agree with Endlessly)
It's like this: Would you give money to your neighbor's kid so he could eat, and let your own starve? of course not.
-
-
Right now this is more difficult question than it has been in the past. Granted America's economy needs help and as a person who is being affected by the economy I want to yell at the government, "help me!" But then I look at poor countries where people are dying trying to find wood to make fires to cook the tiny bit of food they have then I see my half empty fridge. But at least I have a fridge and I can get something to eat. And I won't die trying to cook it. Then I think I realize that it does not take much to help other people. In many poor countries very little money goes a very long way. So I can't just say not help them. Maybe we have to cut down some but not all. Not now. -
I hear a lot of "help the poor", but I don't hear "help the poor over here". Sometimes I think a take for granted that we are the lucky ones who are managing to get by here in the United States. We are blinded about the fact that there are plenty of starving people right here in our own back yards. The mentally ill, the elderly, the disabled, that veterans that went to those other countries to "liberate" them... right now there's a constant trend to take away from all the above people in need. The jobless rate is second only to the Great Depression and we haven't even hit bottom yet. I live in a tract of approximately 30 homes, yet only 12 are occupied. Meanwhile, the homeless rate is rapidly increasing. Businesses large and small are folding right and left, often causing people to loose their hard earned pensions that they worked 30 years for. Medications and health care have gone through the roof. We cannot produce nurses fast enough to properly maintain our hospitals and take care of the sick. Workers rights are being violated and trampled on. Right now, while folks are debating the issue of helping other nations, we are turning into a third world country, over extended to China and many other nations, we continue to spend money we don't have. It would be irresponsible to take all this borrowed money, and give it away. The reality is, the people and/or nations that can afford to, should be getting involved in the U.N. , W.H.O, NATO, Red Cross, and other support sytems that were designed to help the entire world. Don't let our own people starve because of are own arrogance and ignorance.
Add Your Comment
Login to leave a message.
