Stop funding undeveloped nations keep the money in the USA?

Question

Should the United States continue to fund undeveloped nations around the world when there is undeveloped areas right here in the United States of America. These nations have no intention of paying back billions in loans so why give it to them.

Answer 1

I don't mind us helping developing nations. Even though we spend billions of dollars on these countries it brings much needed help to these underpriveldged people. Many other countries also find the need to help these countries. I guess the reason is they see past just the dollars. Also speaking of the actual cost compared to our budget we spend less then 1% on foreign affairs (not counting military conflicts) to help these people.

Answer 2

Many developed nations and not just the US give to undeveloped nations with no expectation of receiving the funds back. It makes economic sense. It you lived in a block where every one was well off but areas around you were impoverished then your value would decrease and your economic power would lessen. In the economic world businesses are always trying to expand and find more customers. The undeveloped world offers unlimited opportunities. Yes the US should help out its own citizens but that becomes unpopular as many Americans think our own citizens are satisfied living on the so-called dole. We call this welfare in US. There is plenty of money to do both if we start to realize we do not have to have such a large defense budget. We own thousands of nuclear warheads as an example. Why?

Answer 3

Who ever said that we are 'obligated'? It's irritating that so many people swallow the altruistic dogma.

Smart money goes toward things that are already showing success. If we spent money (as a govt) only on promising ventures (since we know that the govt just has to spend money) far more people would benefit than do under the current system of redistribution of wealth that punishes productivity and rewards failure.

On a private enterprise versus government note, we'd all be better off letting a strong company move a few jobs into a country that needs help as opposed to just sending a check to the thug in charge of the country.

I have always thought that if someone really wanted to topple America, all they'd have to do is send US a check for $1 trillion with a mandate that it only get spent on social programs that have to be maintained long after the money is spent. The US would have to tax its few remaining workers within an inch of their lives in order to keep the programs funded. Then we could be a third world country and take our own medicine.

Answer 4

Thank you for asking this question. We as a nation care more around Christmas time about other people. i.e. - Toys for Tots and that sort of thing. For most people it seems they only care once a year about the less fortunate. It's sad but true. And there are exceptions of coarse. We as a nation could use that money on a health care system and maybe give more funding to kids and adults that are trying to get an education. But, as a whole, we suck at taking care of our own and I'm 51 and it hasn't changed yet, and I'm not going to hold my breathe!

Answer 5

If the US as well as the EU would stop subsidizing it's farmers to produce a lot of unneeded/ surplus crops, then farmers in these undeveloped nations could actually compete. US is also trying to keep friends. You can be really cynical as to who the US really supports. By giving overseas, these countries are more open to US multinational firms. There's also the intagible cultural exchange and peace. It's called aid or an investment in the future.

Answer 6

I wrote a overview on the UN not too before. the U. S. in undemanding terms grants approximately 23 - 25% of the UN's entire investment. even though if, if united statesa. stopped offering that 23%, it would be devastating to the UN. united statesa. allready makes use of the UN to sell its objectives international. The UN is united statesa.'s invention...why might we would prefer to undermine it? The UN replaced into certainly going to have some corruption because of the undeniable fact that it fairly is a peacekeeping business enterprise subsidized via the main important, maximum efficient conflict making business enterprise interior the international. The oil for food scandal and the UN's lack of ability to interdict issues in SUDAN and ethnic cleansing - without direct intervention via American/Nato forces, is my best subject with it. in my opinion, the UN needs its very own military and technologies. looks style of an anachronism to have a peace conserving tension that could not look after itself or rescue people from the worst of the worst circumstances.

Answer 7

Your idea gets some traction; however, there are a few stars in IMF repayment--Mexico, for example, repaid early, and with interest.

So why keep taking chances on dead-beat nations? A couple reasons, in my opinion: 1. Moral; no one can sit on their hands when other humans are suffering, regardless of economics, politics, or religion. 2. Capitalistic Investment; developing trade and infrastructure in a future "client" nation can potentially be financially rewarding for investing governments and their country's companies (via increased business tax collections).

Answer 8

Well, the question is- who is funding whom & at whose cost?

The USA as a nation is BROKE. It owes TRILLIONS of Dollars in debt, is a regular defaulter to various UN obligations.

The money it apparently aids 'poor' countries with is more on a quid-pro-quo basis than anything else.- It buys CHEAP material- raw materials, Oil, minerals, et al from them, gains disproportionate concessions for its companies, ....

Again, a huge part of the supposed 'dole' is ploughed back into USA in form of highly profitable Weapons & technology sale- in some cases, more profits than the aid given out.

Cost of Agriculture in the US is actually at par or higher than in these nations. By 'bribing' these nations into not subsidizing their farmers while hugely subsidizing their own, USA is actually serving the cause of its farmers. Else, imported food products would flood US markets & kill its farming.

It s all compulsion & hard business sense.

Answer 9

I totally agree! Why are we helping other countries when our own is in such a mess? How can we send all of that money out in foreign aid when millions of people here don't have insurance, our schools are broke and American workers are losing their jobs? When there are no more hungry, homeless or needy Americans then let's see if we can offer charity.

Answer 10

Amen! Any money spent by the U.S. on foreign aid is wasted. It's a double-standard -- all the other countries hate the American people but they're only too happy to take our money. Best way to teach other countries a true object lesson in foreign policy is to cut off the flow of U.S. currency to their countries.