What is your opinion on foreign aid?

  • Thread starter Thread starter RCIAGraduate
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
R

RCIAGraduate

Guest
  • Yes
  • No
  • Mixed (explain if you wish)
0 voters
What do you think about foreign aid? Do you believe foreign aid programs sucessfully pursue social justice goals and objectives? What are your reasons for supporting (or being skeptical of) foreign aid such as humanitarian assistance and international development? Just to remind everyone I want this thread to remain civil and not too heated.
 
Last edited:
Unless the country giving those tax dollars is in a state of total utopia or something, they should stay at home and help those who ‘gave’ it (read: had it stolen from them)
 
Last edited:
Government to government aid (how it usually work) is rarely very effective; governments in third world countries are the reason those countries are third world.

Foreign aid should seek efficacy.

When it does, it can make a big difference.
 
Last edited:
This is like being asked if I think it is good for the government to spend tax money generally. There is aid to foreign countries that furthers the common good of mankind and the interests of our nation specifically. There is aid with good intentions that is a waste of money or far worse. It depends on the situation.

For instance, of course aid to Britain during WWII was a good idea. The Marshall plan was a better plan than the Treaty of Versailles.
Aspidistraflyer said:
…governments in third world countries are the reason those countries are third world.
Click to expand...
Would you like to name the countries you mean? I’m not sure what you’re getting at. Do you just mean countries which are impoverished because some warring factions has always been trying to gain power purely for self-enrichment? Or what? I’m not quite sure what you mean.
 
I mean the major cause of poverty in the world is kleptocratic and totalitarian regimes. Some easy examples are Zimbabwe; the DRC; etc.

Giving these governments more money does not mean the people get more money. Going through NGOs or the Peace Corps is a better choice here.
 
Last edited:
Except we are one of the richest nations on the planet that throws away more food than many nations have in their whole country, and yet people still go hungry and kids still don’t have coats in the winter, Baltimore’s schools had little to no heat last year, Flint has terrible water, the DOD has just admitted many military bases (which people including me live on!) have had horrible water…I could go on and on and on.

Yeah. I include us in there on a regular basis. Yet when you say “we need to take care of our own first” you’re accused of being closed minded, racist (yep, gotten that too), and uncharitable.
 
Last edited:
Aspidistraflyer said:
I mean the major cause of poverty in the world is kleptocratic and totalitarian regimes. Some easy examples are Zimbabwe; the DRC; etc.

Giving these governments more money does not mean the people get more money. Going through NGOs or the Peace Corps is a better choice here.
Click to expand...
Wasn’t it deduced that the famine in Ethiopia all those years ago was contributed to greatly by the government’s corruption? I’m too lazy to look it up, I must admit.
 
Actually the biggest overabundance is in the US “breadbasket”, where tons of grain and produce are tossed every year. It’s horrifying. Look it up (not a smart remark) - I promise it will blow your mind. That area of the country isn’t exactly affluent.

I didn’t grow up rich and saw plenty of waste every day - by corporations, by other people, stores, shops. I remember when we used to take things for repair (electronics, televisions, appliances) over just tossing them and getting new ones because it’s pretty much cheaper. Society has changed.

My parents were raised during the Depression and seemed to be able to get blood from turnips sometimes.
 
Last edited:
“foreign aid” is largely stolen or misdirected ; charity begins at home, shipmates

the USA is currently carrying $22,000,000,000,000,00 in national debt

http://www.usdebtclock.org/

we can’t take care of ourselves, much less anybody else

why doesn’t english, whose nation spent millions on a six hour wedding between a divorced catholic & an infantry captain ever step up to the plate?
 
Last edited:
you are kidding me, right… ?

please justify the english spending on that wedding
 
No more than what we spend on inaugurations (which for the most part are unnecessary), Olympic Games (yep, the taxpayer pays for a big chunk of that), and the like.

And don’t get me wrong, I think all that stuff is great. But we spend far, far more on events of that nature than the cost of a Royal Wedding.
 
Last edited:
I don’t think I missed the point at all.

People need symbols, and when you boil down the cost per head of the British Royal Family it’s negligible. I would no more slight them that event than I would deny the next President a grand inaugural parade. Those events can unify a nation and I see no issue with them.

But if you’re going to talk about frivolous expenditures (we really don’t need all the stuff that goes on during Inaugural Week in DC and it costs millions to pull it off - but having been to one I’m all about blowing that dough because it’s AWESOME), we do our share as well. I think that’s a fair observation.

I don’t know how much President Trump’s inaugural festivities cost, but I bet it would’ve done a lot of good for those cold kiddos in Baltimore. That’s what I mean.But this country works hard and we deserve a party now and again. Cut some foreign aid and cut their heat on.

What the Brits do with their Royals is a British issue. Not mine.
 
Last edited:
you are over-specifying on justifying the moronic, british tax-payer (what few there are of them) paid for wedding between CAPT Harry & little meghan;

ultimately you are right; in the face of TRILLIONS in debt; it is meaningless

what i am saying is that THE USA is DEEPLY in potentially catastrophic debt

USA CANNOT AFFORD FOREIGN AID

please click on the link i posted
 
Last edited:
I’m not over specifying at all. I don’t have to justify a thing because it’s not my cash being spent, so I honestly couldn’t care what they do.

And I believe I agree with you on the foreign aid front.

I’m married to a “moronic British taxpayer”, for the record (he is part owner in a business with his brother), and my in-laws are “moronic British taxpayers”.

That’s their business. It’s not my Royal family - it’s theirs.
 
Last edited:
i already knew that

whatever

maybe england got some tourist $ out of it

maybe even made a profit

USA can’t afford foreign aid anymore; that is my main point
 
Last edited:
The purpose of a government providing foreign aid is to further the nation’s geopolitical positioning and good will. If there are no national interests involved , there is no reason for a government to be involved in providing foreign aid…

HOWEVER, private and church based relief services are a different story, its a way to show love to our neighbors around the world and salutary.
 
brian_custer said:
USA can’t afford foreign aid anymore; that is my main point
Click to expand...
I would augment that a bit before I agree.

We can’t afford to keep funneling money to governments who’d like to see us dismantled. Foreign aid buys diplomacy - that’s just the way it is. But I think we need to be a bit more selective in who receives what, and I think we should start cutting up the checks to governments who try to back stab us.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top