Ok, without going and looking up the answer can you guys answer these two questions for me? We discussed it in my class today and I was curious what you guys think.
What percentage of the U.S. federal budget is spent on foreign aid?
Based on whatever you think this percentage is, do you think this is appropriate and if not, how much do you think we should be spending on this?
I know this is random...but I would like to see how smart educated people (you guys) answer this question.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
7 comments:
What a great (and loaded) series of questions! I love it. Here are my thoughts:
I couldn't tell you percentage-wise how much is used for foreign aid - but I know its a small amount. In fact, I think it is the smallest percentage of the budget. But I do think that in terms of amount given by all countries we give the "most" but in terms of percentage of income, the US gives the lowest (or something like that).
We were talking about federal funds and food assistance in class a while ago and I remember hearing that the reason we give the highest amount of aid is that we give more "stuff" which can amount to a greater cost - whereas other countries often just give funds. (I think) Which is interesting because our "stuff" isn't necessarily what other countries need (in that moment in time and/or to help them in the future). For example, a GMO corn donation was rejected by Zambia for a variety of reasons (cultural, economical etc).
Anyway, I think its interesting how much we give in terms of what we have and the type of aid we do give. I have heard arguments for and against giving more aid. I feel like we could clean up the way aid works (etc) which might contribute more appropriately to the countries that need it and still having enough resources to use nationally.
But then again there is so much we're not addressing in our own country...ah who knows.
What did you guys talk about in class? What's your take Kali?
I would guess well under 1%, probably on the order of 1/10 of a percent. As for whether it is appropriate, I think the answer is no considering on what we are spending it on. If we were spending it on social welfare programs and education I might have a different opinion, but as far as I'm concerned, if we split up every dollar we're spending in Iraq and spent half of it on nationalized healthcare and divided the rest up between foreign aid, education, alternative energy research and any number of other worthy causes, I bet we would double or triple the amount of foreign aid
I agree it is very small. Considering how much wealth we have, it should be easy to give more money to better causes. The attitude of America, or at least suburban America, is that money can solve any problem. It wouldn't matter how much money we dump into countries, unless we help them use it efficiently, it is worthless. Education is invaluable.
On a side note: Oil companies have started to realize that even though they have been paying countries for oil none of that money goes to the people of the countries. They are now starting to help build schools and teaching people how to farm so that they can begin to actually help countries. That was just so you wouldn't hate on oil companies so much...corporate America is beginning to see problems and use it's wealth to help out where it can whether or not the American government catches on.
Kevin I 100% agree with you.
i love these questions too!! however, i'm sorry to say, whether it's bc i hate politics or that i never took a class about that sort of thing, i had no idea how much money we were spending. marge, does that make me an uneducated citizen? i assumed it was a small amount, but i didn't really think about how much money we gave when u asked the question...instead, your question made me wonder more about how it came to be that we now as a country believe we owe other countries money just because we have it. and can we ever send enough? don't get me wrong...i have a bleading heart for helping those who can't help themselves. but when did it become a governmental issue? why don't average citizens want to contribute instead of bugging the govt about it?
marge i totally agree with you that education and societal programs are key. i went to the park today and parked my car where by the river. all of a sudden, there were 50 ducks surrounding my car and quacking for breadcrumbs. in a similar way (but not comparing ducks to humans, just the behavioral patterns), one can assume that by sending food overseas, the people will begin to expect it (in the same way that welfare in our country is being exploited), thus creating a dependency on help from outsiders. the government's money shoud be helping people to learn how to make their lives what they want them to be, instead of simply throwing breadcrumbs at them to make themselves feel like they're doing some good.
plus, bc of govt corruption in so many countries, not all the funds are getting to the people. education is definitely the way to go.
An aside: I don't know if anyone pays attention to the politics of South America but right now the people of Venezuela are trying to decide if they should take away the law that says a president can only serve for 7 years in order to let Chavez rule for what may be the rest of his life. This could instill politics similar to what we see in Cuba (not necessarily a bad thing). The reason? Chavez is the only president they've ever had that is willing to share the wealth of oil with the people instead of just and making himself rich.
If anyone's looking for a one-sided argument about how we are spending our financial problems as a country and has time on their hands you can check out this article.
http://www.bestcyrano.org/THOMASPAINE/?p=459#more-459
Post a Comment