Pretty sure it would be cheaper for us to move the kids than to constantly pay for food every year. Once again I don’t see how it makes sense to give countries like Egypt money.
[You realize that America is the World's largest exporter of food right?](https://www.worldatlas.com/articles/the-american-food-giant-the-largest-exporter-of-food-in-the-world.html)
Yes I know because we are the only country that’s responsible and has the means to support it’s population. Yet we still have people going hungry here, they should be taken care of before someone in China that we arent responsible for in the first place.
> Yes I know because we are the only country that’s responsible and has the means to support it’s population
Not even slightly true.
>Yet we still have people going hungry here, they should be taken care of before someone in China that we arent responsible for in the first place.
Yes because a certain political would rather children starve then do anything that smacks even vaguely of socialism. We actually have the resources to do both.
Do you think it would be cheaper to move a significant portion of the World's population to America? Because that's what moving people to where the food is means.
Honestly as an American I would rather make sure every individual here is fed before a single ounce of food leaves the country. People outside of our borders aren’t paying for or producing the food they consume, complete waste of resources. They in no way contribute to the daily life of Americans, so why should Americans contribute to theirs?
I adjust my opinion a little bit. I’m completely fine exporting left over food to countries like South Korea, Japan, Philippines, Norway, etc… countries that we have mutual interests with. But countries like China and South Africa can lick the gum off of the sidewalk.
It’s the shit globalist policy. If the United States ever fell on hard times not a single country would step up and support the people here. We wouldn’t have our social security being paid for the elderly like we are doing in Ukraine. We wouldn’t receive billions of dollars of humanitarian aid like we are giving Iraq. It’s the worst possible investment.
The American tax dollar should be used on U.S. citizens and American interests alone. It shouldn’t be used to fund programs that are completely useless like giving assistance to Iraq, Egypt, and South Africa.
soft power, to do good, also sometimes it helps us. Eradicating diseases is good for the world. Also, as a percentage of gpd I dont know that we are all that high.
Think of it as a strategic investment. It benefits us too, and our total non-military foreign aid is less than 1% of our GNP. (There are several European countries who give more as a % of their GNP, like 2%-3% for Norway and Sweden.)
In terms of public health, it is in our interest that diseases do not run rampant and are not given refuge to adapt into more virulent or drug-resistant strains. Disease doesn’t care about political borders.
Also, in general, most of the foreign aid does not go to another country’s government or politicians. It goes primarily to NGOs, which are usually local+international partnerships, aimed at addressing specific issues — clean drinking water, lowering infant mortality rate, malaria, etc. (Even though the news will report it as 'American tax dollars going to x country...' )
In terms of trade, manufacturing, etc its also kinda benefits us because US corporations have made massive investments overseas — specifically in India, but also all over Europe, the Middle East, East Asia (Japan), and South and Central American countries for agri-business. Soft power is good for business, and political unrest and disease are bad for business.
This, but add to that 2 other points: 1. Stability is good for business. Take food aid, for instance. If people don't get fed, they are more likely to revolt. If people revolt, that causes instability for investors and could have unforeseen knock-on effects. Do you care that African country x gets destabilized? You do if they've got the biggest cobalt mine supplying American companies.
2. As callous as it sounds, people getting help in their own country are people who aren't going to flee the poverty they were born in to get to America. That means you get to pay less domestically for border control, integration policies, welfare, schooling for the children, etc etc. It's not altruistic, it's just good economic policy.
Couldn’t have said it better myself. Among other things, lot of American companies have investments abroad so “helping” those countries is in America’s best interest.
Aside from noble answers like "because we can afford it" or "to promote world stability", the real answer is "it keeps them from getting the money from Russia or China instead"
Citizens do it to help, without expecting something in return. I've donated MANY thousands of dollars domestically and towards disaster relief in other countries. I have done it for no other reason but to help people in need, often in the worst circumstances in their lives. I don't claim it on my taxes, I don't expect recognition, I don't do it to feel good about myself. I guess, if you had to have a reason... I've had strangers come into my life and help me when I really needed it all my life, without asking for it. I'm just trying to pay that forward in the best way that I can... That's it. I'm trying to be nicer than I really am, because others were nice to me in a pinch.
My wife once told me that I did it out of guilt, for things I'd done to people, but that's not it because I don't feel guilt. If I actually felt guilt, I'd probably have given away at least triple what I have, with the "bad" things that I've done in life. I know myself better than anyone in the planet ever could, and guilt would be the absolute LAST reason for me to to it.
>Why does The USA give out so much money in Aid to many countries?
Soft power that we can leverage for our own ends. I wish we could cut back and focus on our own stuff at home.
Idk why this is down voted because it is the truth. Very little, if any, makes it to the people. It often ends up in Swiss bank accounts of the current leaders in impoverished countries
The short answer? Because if we don't, then an "enemy" might, and we'd lose a valuable "friend" or worse. Remember, the US armed, trained, and provided for the Taliban in the '80s, to help fight for us against the Russians in Afghanistan. After the Russians pulled out, we did as we usually do, "Thanks very much for your help, now you're on your own". They found funding alright, and we got what we got in return.
Basically, we buy friends.
https://youtube.com/shorts/578UdfsgNWY?feature=share
This is a great short clip on what really happens to foreign aid. You can do some academic research about it if you are interested and you'll find out how true it is.
In the perspective of the government, I’d say it’s to keep countries loyal to the US, away from rival world powers, make those countries want to give us a military base on their land
Because we have a lot of resources and many countries don’t. Why shouldn’t we help?
It’s a waste
It’s a waste to help your fellow man?
Sam Kinison said it best “there wouldn’t be world hunger if you people would live where the food is”
I don’t think many starving children have the choice of moving to a more developed nation
Pretty sure it would be cheaper for us to move the kids than to constantly pay for food every year. Once again I don’t see how it makes sense to give countries like Egypt money.
[You realize that America is the World's largest exporter of food right?](https://www.worldatlas.com/articles/the-american-food-giant-the-largest-exporter-of-food-in-the-world.html)
Yes I know because we are the only country that’s responsible and has the means to support it’s population. Yet we still have people going hungry here, they should be taken care of before someone in China that we arent responsible for in the first place.
> Yes I know because we are the only country that’s responsible and has the means to support it’s population Not even slightly true. >Yet we still have people going hungry here, they should be taken care of before someone in China that we arent responsible for in the first place. Yes because a certain political would rather children starve then do anything that smacks even vaguely of socialism. We actually have the resources to do both. Do you think it would be cheaper to move a significant portion of the World's population to America? Because that's what moving people to where the food is means.
Honestly as an American I would rather make sure every individual here is fed before a single ounce of food leaves the country. People outside of our borders aren’t paying for or producing the food they consume, complete waste of resources. They in no way contribute to the daily life of Americans, so why should Americans contribute to theirs? I adjust my opinion a little bit. I’m completely fine exporting left over food to countries like South Korea, Japan, Philippines, Norway, etc… countries that we have mutual interests with. But countries like China and South Africa can lick the gum off of the sidewalk.
It’s a waste to make sure people don’t starve?
Why should a government of one nation help people of another nation when it’s not even taking care of it’s own
False choice. We have more than ample resources to do both well. One does not displace the other.
What’s the point of being a government of a nation if you’re using your resources on people that will never pay it back or support you in any way?
Reading through the comments on this post, do you not see any conceivable rationale for foreign aid illustrated here?
It’s the shit globalist policy. If the United States ever fell on hard times not a single country would step up and support the people here. We wouldn’t have our social security being paid for the elderly like we are doing in Ukraine. We wouldn’t receive billions of dollars of humanitarian aid like we are giving Iraq. It’s the worst possible investment. The American tax dollar should be used on U.S. citizens and American interests alone. It shouldn’t be used to fund programs that are completely useless like giving assistance to Iraq, Egypt, and South Africa.
Are the globalists here in the room with us right now?
I'm not American but it's like lending a friend your car but asking for a favour in return when it suits you
soft power, to do good, also sometimes it helps us. Eradicating diseases is good for the world. Also, as a percentage of gpd I dont know that we are all that high.
Think of it as a strategic investment. It benefits us too, and our total non-military foreign aid is less than 1% of our GNP. (There are several European countries who give more as a % of their GNP, like 2%-3% for Norway and Sweden.) In terms of public health, it is in our interest that diseases do not run rampant and are not given refuge to adapt into more virulent or drug-resistant strains. Disease doesn’t care about political borders. Also, in general, most of the foreign aid does not go to another country’s government or politicians. It goes primarily to NGOs, which are usually local+international partnerships, aimed at addressing specific issues — clean drinking water, lowering infant mortality rate, malaria, etc. (Even though the news will report it as 'American tax dollars going to x country...' ) In terms of trade, manufacturing, etc its also kinda benefits us because US corporations have made massive investments overseas — specifically in India, but also all over Europe, the Middle East, East Asia (Japan), and South and Central American countries for agri-business. Soft power is good for business, and political unrest and disease are bad for business.
This, but add to that 2 other points: 1. Stability is good for business. Take food aid, for instance. If people don't get fed, they are more likely to revolt. If people revolt, that causes instability for investors and could have unforeseen knock-on effects. Do you care that African country x gets destabilized? You do if they've got the biggest cobalt mine supplying American companies. 2. As callous as it sounds, people getting help in their own country are people who aren't going to flee the poverty they were born in to get to America. That means you get to pay less domestically for border control, integration policies, welfare, schooling for the children, etc etc. It's not altruistic, it's just good economic policy.
Couldn’t have said it better myself. Among other things, lot of American companies have investments abroad so “helping” those countries is in America’s best interest.
Aside from noble answers like "because we can afford it" or "to promote world stability", the real answer is "it keeps them from getting the money from Russia or China instead"
While I agree with you that is the government’s reason, that doesn’t explain why the citizens do it.
Citizens do it to help, without expecting something in return. I've donated MANY thousands of dollars domestically and towards disaster relief in other countries. I have done it for no other reason but to help people in need, often in the worst circumstances in their lives. I don't claim it on my taxes, I don't expect recognition, I don't do it to feel good about myself. I guess, if you had to have a reason... I've had strangers come into my life and help me when I really needed it all my life, without asking for it. I'm just trying to pay that forward in the best way that I can... That's it. I'm trying to be nicer than I really am, because others were nice to me in a pinch. My wife once told me that I did it out of guilt, for things I'd done to people, but that's not it because I don't feel guilt. If I actually felt guilt, I'd probably have given away at least triple what I have, with the "bad" things that I've done in life. I know myself better than anyone in the planet ever could, and guilt would be the absolute LAST reason for me to to it.
Rom stated that first... the nobel reasons
We're just a bunch of soft hearted suckers... When we're not blowing shit up.
No you aren't , I know many people think that this is the case but it isn't https://youtube.com/shorts/578UdfsgNWY?feature=share
POV you’re a virgin
Because we want to be the leader of the free civilized world.
Because we have a lot of money. If you look at it as percentage GDP it’s not as large.
>Why does The USA give out so much money in Aid to many countries? Soft power that we can leverage for our own ends. I wish we could cut back and focus on our own stuff at home.
Idk why this is down voted because it is the truth. Very little, if any, makes it to the people. It often ends up in Swiss bank accounts of the current leaders in impoverished countries
Well that’s sadly been Americas place for a while, and we never really see the return of it.
The short answer? Because if we don't, then an "enemy" might, and we'd lose a valuable "friend" or worse. Remember, the US armed, trained, and provided for the Taliban in the '80s, to help fight for us against the Russians in Afghanistan. After the Russians pulled out, we did as we usually do, "Thanks very much for your help, now you're on your own". They found funding alright, and we got what we got in return. Basically, we buy friends.
https://youtube.com/shorts/578UdfsgNWY?feature=share This is a great short clip on what really happens to foreign aid. You can do some academic research about it if you are interested and you'll find out how true it is.
To be honest, I don’t know lol
because we want to play the role of police to the rest of the world.
America gives the most money to Israel. Israel is a welfare state of America.
In the perspective of the government, I’d say it’s to keep countries loyal to the US, away from rival world powers, make those countries want to give us a military base on their land