As we try to get things in order here it is clear many millions of citizens are hurting and we don't seem to have found ways to help them get on their feet. Sometimes I think Dems trot out people with stories just for the sympathy, ( many of the stories turn out to not be true but that is another thread) Millions are hurting here and we have hurt our children's future with our spending so What obligation do we have to help the world? I am excluding help given to disaster areas. It would be nice to save the whole world at once but we can't. socould the billions we routinely send to Israel Egypt Indonesia Russia etc be better used for now here for Americans? This sparked my questionThe Link "The United States announced on Thursday that it will donate $40 million to the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Arabs in the Palestinian Authority-assigned areas, Jordan, Lebanon and Syria " and "The American funding comes despite a report commissioned by the European parliament, which showed that Hamas terrorists have been chosen by the agency's labor union to oversee its Gaza facilities, which was part of a Canadian decision last month to stop its UNRWA funding." Are there Americans who could make use of 40 million? How about we use it to keep some hospitals open?
forever What is not pertinent in my OP? perhaps you'd care to comment on the actual question instead of another snide remark about me?
I agree. Money should be spent here first. I'm not sure why you singled out Muslim countries and Israel. More money is spent elsewhere. This includes the cost of maintaining military personnel and bases in allied countries. Those countries should pay for all costs or we should pack up and leave, especially wealthy countries like Japan and Korea. We are actually providing nationalized healthcare for Japan right now since we provide for the grand majority of their national defense.
I agree largely with the OP. We need to keep our money here, helping Americans, not giving it to other countries. There are lots of problems on our own soil that need attention.
Fondren Not sure why you made that point but 2 I listed were muslim and 2 were not.There was no motive in the countries I listed. I chose those countries from the top recipients I could have included Colombia and Peru also Pakistan, Kenya Jordan Liberia Ethiopia Bosnia etc. which of those would you have preferred to see?
So where and when do you start pulling out of countries and collapsing their local economies that are propped up by American soldiers and their families? I'm not an isolationist, and I don't think the OP is either. I do agree that we should be spending more time/resources on domestic issues and stop giving money to other countries to do fossil research.
Its the same excuse used to bail out mega banks over, and over, and over, and over..... you CANT let them fail for their stupidity because it will cause mass job loss..... Sorry. These excuses are getting old. Its becoming a situation, if it wasnt already, where its become a tactic to say you are too big to fail, and then repeat ridiculous poor decisions over and over.
I don't believe we owe the rest of the world crap..Before I go clean my neighbors house, I should make sure mine is clean!
The United States has global interests that provide economic, strategic, political, and security benefits to US citizens. Aid solves or placates a problem prior to a situation escalating and requiring a more overt and expensive course of action. Is $40 million dollars help stabilize a situation that will cost Billions is it were to escalate – then aid makes sense. Just cut the defense budget 2% and it covers the annual aid budget. Isolationism is just short-sited and dumb foreign policy.
Lone Star In looking at the top recipients I would question how sending millions helps us economically in Bosnia, Liberia, Kenya , Ethiopia,Bangladesh to name a few. is it the right thing to do to help poor countries ? ABSOLUTELY, but how about when it is at the expense of people here in our country? The 40 million BTW is on Top of money we send directly to the countries. This 40 million goes to the UN to disperse and we know how efficient the UN is. Plus if you read the article you read that the EU discovered Hamas is ending up with the money. How about in these tough times we cut foreign aid, not completely but enough to fund some needed areas here at home where people are hurting? As has been pointed out by many on here, sometimes you have to make hard decisions. Whose welfare should come first?
would you rather cut foreign wars or foreign aid in order to concentrate on America aid? I could get behind both, but it is hard for me to justify cutting aid to an improvished country, while spending money "destroying" another country via a war effort. err.. i meant to say "spreading democracy".. not "destroying"
Lone Someone asked why 2 of the top countries I listed were muslim so I just listed other top recipients who don't contribute to our economy and included muslim and non muslim. I also made clear that if we could afford it we should give as much as we can but NOT at the expense of our own citizens. You posted this, " A $14 Trillion dollar economy and we are impoverished? " Remind us how much our deficit is? How many are unemployed? How many are sinking into impoverishment? Are you suggesting our economy is not in distress?That would be really silly wouldn't it? So if we have hard choices to make how would you prioritize the money we are borrowing? use it here at home ? or give it away? Please keep in mind we are borrowing what we are giving away.
