Personally I think it helps poverty in places like Africa. It should be abolished because our money is being taken and given to a foreign government that is usually oppressive and/or corrupt in Africa. They don't use the money for what it was intended for and use it to add to the problem. IE: Military spending. In some cases were funding both sides of wars with foreign aid and/or giving money to the oppressive government that is killing the people in the first place. With private charity you know where the money is going and that it is actually helping. That's why I adopted 2 sponsor children. Because I know our foreign aid isn't going to help them. So I feel that I should help them through private charity.
Well, this is kind of how I see it. Everybody is trying to take control of sections of the world. While it may suck that sometimes that money falls into the hands of less-than-desirable leaders, it provides leverage should we ever need to use that territory. It's shitty, but that's just the way things work and it's not going to change anytime soon. It's not like every single cent of foreign aid isn't going to humanitarian issues too, there is good that comes from foreign aid.
What organization do you go through? Do you have any idea what percentage of your donation actually goes to charity? Some organizations (yes private ones) out there use 75 -90 percent of their donations in employing people and paying salarys to the people up top on that organization. " Not for profit" does not mean there are not people making money from your donations. I'm only telling you so you can " know exactly where the money is going" As far as foreign aid, I believe its politics as usual for the people in control. Money and resources are given as diplomatic gestures, not as something thats meant to make it to the real people in need. Its no surprise given the state of corruption present in almost ALL government, that they don't care what happens to it once its political message is made.
I prefer domestic aid. I hope those 2 children don't grow up to be terrorist cause then you would be supporting terrorist... Just messing with ya man. I got into Microloans recently. But who really knows what that money is going to. Since there are many hungry people here and people still starving to death, I know I can hand someone a 20 and he is going to get a hamburger, pack of cigarettes and a 40oz
Idealistically, I would prefer a pretty hands off policy to all things foreign. We're obviously struggling domestically right now and should be more concerned with our own problems then the problems of others. Unfortunately, we are so invested in the affairs of the world, that cutting off foreign spending would be devestating to the entire world, including ourselves. I think it would take decades to reform the way we conduct foreign spending without doing more damage than good.
World Vision. They sent me a chart telling me where exactlly my money is going. I can't find it but I remember it saying like 80% to 85% of my money is going to help the child.
Hey man, send me your money and ill tell you that 110% is going to help starving babies who are being tortured and have aids Ill call it,"Peace for beaten babies."
simmer down sparky...You asked. You are free to do what you want with your money. Including giving it to me. Ill tell you what you want to hear
How about a... 'Temporary Hold' on all foreign aid, until we see unemployment and poverty on our soil lower to about .5% /blatant solution
I'm not even going to argue with you. Obviously you don't understand. Fraud charities get shut down and thrown in jail.
Absolutely not!!! We must give everything we have away in order to make "bad people" equal. I hope nobody found the term bad people offensive.
I feel only tiny % is for what it is approved for and is little more than buying the allegiance of some very undesirable governments as well as few just ones. If we don't prop up these regimes things destabilize and that is bad for bidness. I hope some good is done with our tax dollars but judging by the level american hate I guess that ain't happening.
I would go with the libertarian view here. If US citizens want to contribute to foreign countries out of their own pocket then let them but do not use taxpayers money.
I totally agree. I would prefer my money, however small it is, to go to my buddy Gypsy who lives under a bridge in dallas...Between Medieval Times and the shell station. He has 2 dogs Rose and i dont know the other.
General foreign aid, no. It creates more problems than it solves. Besides, most the money are "lost in translation". That is, end up in the swiss bank-accounts of corrupt officials or regime leaders/henchmen control, used mainly to enrich themselves and spend a sizeable chunk on the security measures to upkeep an oppressive regime. Very few success stories exist, where general foreign aid have actually improved conditions for the population in the receiving country. What do have more success though, is targeted foreign aid through special-interest NGOs. Clinics set up by Medics Sans Frontiers and the Red Cross. Orphanages and schools run by SOS Children Villages. And so on. Aimed efforts to do a specific task, all the while keeping the funds away from the officials and politicians responsible for the mismanagement in the first place. And then ofcourse you have disaster-relief. An obvious candidate for public funding. How much of the funding should be public, and how much private, is a matter of political taste. But personally I don't mind letting say between 0.5% and 1% of the national-budget beeing set aside for such aid. But any aid must only be given under the condition that it is entirely temporary, and that when all is said and done, each recipient country must themselves take responsibility to make sure conditions improve to such a level that further aid will not be necessary. Rather than be a client, they must seek through education, modernization and democratization to be an emerging player.