In America, over a million people die every year from starvation and homelessness. Every year America spends billions of dollars on foreign aide. Why is America spending so much money on other countries when our own country already has its own problems to deal with. America spends all of this money on its invested capitalist interests.
The wars in the Middle East for instance, were started to maintain our positive relations and support with the many nations. America wants to keep this relationship to keep the same relationship with the oil companies in the area.
President Bush has talked many times about freeing the nations of their oppressions and promoting democracy. This is absurd. If America wanted to stop oppressions, why are we not spending as much on countries that are worse off like Darfur and Uganda?
It would not be right to just take all of the funding away from those countries that America is currently providing “aid” to. Instead the funding should be slowly cut so the countries can learn to be independent of America. Once funding is cut, the money should go toward fixing the problems here in America. Keep the money where it belongs. We do not have to go as far as socializing medicine or establishing a communist workforce, but something needs to be done.
Just think, a few billion dollars to be spent to help the million starving Americans equals a few hundred dollars per person. That money could mean life or death for those people.
Tuesday, February 13, 2007
Team America: World Police?
The United States of America is not the world police, nor should we try to be. George Bush and the former Republican controlled Congress got so much criticism for going to Iraq in the first place. What would they get if they decided to invade Darfur or other countries like Iran which pose a much bigger threat toward the U.S.A.? The same criticism they received for going to Iraq. What makes people think that if we do invade Darfur it will be any easier than Iraq or Vietnam? Don’t get me wrong I think that the genocide that is happening in this place is a horrible thing, but why is it the United States’ responsibility to invade and liberate these people?
The government went to Iraq with more intentions of just getting Saddam Hussein out of power. They were trying to stop the harboring of terrorists, find the “WMD”s, that seemed to disappear, and there is one key ingredient in Iraq, OIL. Darfur and the Sudanese are posing no immediate threat to the people of the United States. Their government is not threatening us, they are not harboring terrorists, and they don’t have the weapons of mass destruction, as far as we know. If we started to invade every country in the world that has problems, then we would get so many more people killed and spend so much more money that we don’t have. America has to look out for its best interest, even if the public wants to think otherwise.
The government went to Iraq with more intentions of just getting Saddam Hussein out of power. They were trying to stop the harboring of terrorists, find the “WMD”s, that seemed to disappear, and there is one key ingredient in Iraq, OIL. Darfur and the Sudanese are posing no immediate threat to the people of the United States. Their government is not threatening us, they are not harboring terrorists, and they don’t have the weapons of mass destruction, as far as we know. If we started to invade every country in the world that has problems, then we would get so many more people killed and spend so much more money that we don’t have. America has to look out for its best interest, even if the public wants to think otherwise.
United States: Doing the Best We Can
The United States is often criticized for spending huge amounts of money on the War in Iraq. Many people state that we need to be spending this money on our own country, helping our own citizens who are indeed struggling and starving right here on our own soil. Yet, it seems to me these are also the same people criticizing the United States for not spending enough money in places such as Uganda and Darfur. Yes, it is true the people of these countries are starving and living in poverty levels that most people in the United States cannot even imagine, but what are some of the reasons for this? I think that what most Americans do not understand is the incredible amount of corruption within the governments of these countries. Former Secretary of State Colin Powell called the current situation in Darfur “genocide.” These corrupt governments are in fact responsible for their starving citizens. When aid is sent to these poverty stricken countries it doesn’t get to the people who need it. The aid is stolen by these corrupt leaders of these countries.
The more I focus on this issue at hand, the more I find myself asking; why these countries? Why are people fighting so hard for aid in Darfur and Uganda? There are poverty stricken countries all over the world. There is poverty and corruption in South American countries, Asian countries, and even Russia. Should we be giving aid to these countries as well? The United States is a country that spends billions of dollars giving aid all over the world. What is our limit? Our limit is whether or not spending billions of dollars “liberating” a country is in the best interest for the future of the United States. Obviously there are benefits for our country by “liberating” Iraq. There is the issue of oil, but more importantly there is the issue of terrorism that threats the United States. We are not at war in Africa because it would not benefit our country. The United States government must protect its citizens and must do what is best for the country first and foremost.
The more I focus on this issue at hand, the more I find myself asking; why these countries? Why are people fighting so hard for aid in Darfur and Uganda? There are poverty stricken countries all over the world. There is poverty and corruption in South American countries, Asian countries, and even Russia. Should we be giving aid to these countries as well? The United States is a country that spends billions of dollars giving aid all over the world. What is our limit? Our limit is whether or not spending billions of dollars “liberating” a country is in the best interest for the future of the United States. Obviously there are benefits for our country by “liberating” Iraq. There is the issue of oil, but more importantly there is the issue of terrorism that threats the United States. We are not at war in Africa because it would not benefit our country. The United States government must protect its citizens and must do what is best for the country first and foremost.
Where does the money go?
The foreign spending policy of the United States is an ongoing debate, which incites emotion and political agendas from both sides of the issue. “Does foreign aid actually help the poor?”
In a recent article published by the National Post it stated, “True aid bestows benefits…. eases rich-nation guilt and makes those who favor government solutions very happy.”
According to Jeffrey Sachs in his book The End of Poverty, 30,000 children die every day from the diseases and malnutrition that go along with extreme poverty. Meaning, nearly 2 million children die a year from diarrhea, which could be easily prevented with 10-cent doses of oral rehydration therapy.
Also, the West has already spent $2.3 trillion on foreign aid over five decades, and babies with diarrhea are still not getting the 10-cent doses of oral rehydration therapy. Even in what the World Bank calls an aid success story like Ghana, 50 percent of babies with diarrhea never receive oral rehydration care.
The point is--this money never reaches the desperate poor. And the circular response when asked how can we help the poor in places like Uganda, Somali, Darfur--is to give more money. Yet it doesn’t answer the question of where the original funds went.
According to the Africa News, “not long ago the G-8 summit, in July 2005, agreed to double aid to Africa. They also agreed to double foreign aid a whole by the year 2010, and the aid campaigners will then ask for doubling aid again after 2010.”
Unfortunately, the mania with the amount spent substitutes for customer feedback, incentives, and accountability. It substitutes for focus on whether the money actually reaches the poor, so a second tragedy occurs. It also creates the perverse incentives in aid agencies just to spend money, because if money is the indicator of success, then all the incentives are just to spend aid money and not get results. So here in lies the conundrum.
Nobel prize winner in economics, F.A. Hayek said, “the success of action in society depends on more particular facts than anyone can possibly know.”
According to experts, “the Sub-Saharan Africa is an aid magnet--$400-billion has flowed in since 1970.” If foreign aid worked, Africa would be a prosperous nation, yet, living conditions continually deteriorate in poverty stricken areas like Uganda.
The African Times states monies allocated to help the migrant farmers in Africa went instead to build a new road for mining and drove “the few existing farmers out of business. This is the kind of mess-up on the ground that happens when you try to plan from the top down.”
While African baby stomachs remain distended from malnourishment—wars escalate from factions within corrupt government— the monies allocated to end world hungry and poverty will never produce the desired results. This will continue as long as hidden agendas go unchecked and propaganda in government continues to intercept the funds. That’s why you’ll often find fleets of Mercedes for government officials in aid-receiving nations while the poor stay poor.
When Austrian philosopher, Karl Popper was asked if there could ever be any sort of comprehensive plan to remake society in a way that eliminates poverty, he said, “it’s not reasonable to assume that a complete reconstruction of our social system would lead at once to a workable system.”
In a recent article published by the National Post it stated, “True aid bestows benefits…. eases rich-nation guilt and makes those who favor government solutions very happy.”
According to Jeffrey Sachs in his book The End of Poverty, 30,000 children die every day from the diseases and malnutrition that go along with extreme poverty. Meaning, nearly 2 million children die a year from diarrhea, which could be easily prevented with 10-cent doses of oral rehydration therapy.
Also, the West has already spent $2.3 trillion on foreign aid over five decades, and babies with diarrhea are still not getting the 10-cent doses of oral rehydration therapy. Even in what the World Bank calls an aid success story like Ghana, 50 percent of babies with diarrhea never receive oral rehydration care.
The point is--this money never reaches the desperate poor. And the circular response when asked how can we help the poor in places like Uganda, Somali, Darfur--is to give more money. Yet it doesn’t answer the question of where the original funds went.
According to the Africa News, “not long ago the G-8 summit, in July 2005, agreed to double aid to Africa. They also agreed to double foreign aid a whole by the year 2010, and the aid campaigners will then ask for doubling aid again after 2010.”
Unfortunately, the mania with the amount spent substitutes for customer feedback, incentives, and accountability. It substitutes for focus on whether the money actually reaches the poor, so a second tragedy occurs. It also creates the perverse incentives in aid agencies just to spend money, because if money is the indicator of success, then all the incentives are just to spend aid money and not get results. So here in lies the conundrum.
Nobel prize winner in economics, F.A. Hayek said, “the success of action in society depends on more particular facts than anyone can possibly know.”
According to experts, “the Sub-Saharan Africa is an aid magnet--$400-billion has flowed in since 1970.” If foreign aid worked, Africa would be a prosperous nation, yet, living conditions continually deteriorate in poverty stricken areas like Uganda.
The African Times states monies allocated to help the migrant farmers in Africa went instead to build a new road for mining and drove “the few existing farmers out of business. This is the kind of mess-up on the ground that happens when you try to plan from the top down.”
While African baby stomachs remain distended from malnourishment—wars escalate from factions within corrupt government— the monies allocated to end world hungry and poverty will never produce the desired results. This will continue as long as hidden agendas go unchecked and propaganda in government continues to intercept the funds. That’s why you’ll often find fleets of Mercedes for government officials in aid-receiving nations while the poor stay poor.
When Austrian philosopher, Karl Popper was asked if there could ever be any sort of comprehensive plan to remake society in a way that eliminates poverty, he said, “it’s not reasonable to assume that a complete reconstruction of our social system would lead at once to a workable system.”
US: Doing Its Best
The
Monday, February 12, 2007
Share the Wealth
According to President Bush, the United States has been developing a plan over the past few years that can bring Africa into a "healthy, prosperous country." However, from what the media shows through newspapers and television, Africa is suffering more than ever.
In Africa, there are 12 million orphans who live with aids; and there are 38 million people who live under the threat of starvation. Ironically, private organizations such as missionarys and medical groups are traveling to Africa now more than ever before. Yet the countries in Africa continue to go down hill and the hope of reform seems so far off. It is the job of the government to step in and stop the horrors which occur every day. Rather than sending thousands more troops to Iraq, George Bush should send troops to suffering countries such as Uganda who are basically ignored. The national debt has reached an alltime high of $8 trillion dollars and 90% of that money has been thrown towards the Iraq conflict. Perhaps the government should have used some of that money to buy food for other humans to eat; rather than on guns to blow other humans up.
Knowing that there are other human beings in the world suffering because they were born into a horrible situation is heartbreaking. I remember being in second grade and having a class lesson about the starving children in Ethiopia. My teacher showed our class pictures of kids, the same age as me, laying in the African savannah dying because they hadn't eaten in months. Though this was many years ago, this particular instance still stands out in my head and made me question then, just as I am now, couldn't our rich country do anything to prevent the untimely deaths of these poor people?
In Africa, there are 12 million orphans who live with aids; and there are 38 million people who live under the threat of starvation. Ironically, private organizations such as missionarys and medical groups are traveling to Africa now more than ever before. Yet the countries in Africa continue to go down hill and the hope of reform seems so far off. It is the job of the government to step in and stop the horrors which occur every day. Rather than sending thousands more troops to Iraq, George Bush should send troops to suffering countries such as Uganda who are basically ignored. The national debt has reached an alltime high of $8 trillion dollars and 90% of that money has been thrown towards the Iraq conflict. Perhaps the government should have used some of that money to buy food for other humans to eat; rather than on guns to blow other humans up.
Knowing that there are other human beings in the world suffering because they were born into a horrible situation is heartbreaking. I remember being in second grade and having a class lesson about the starving children in Ethiopia. My teacher showed our class pictures of kids, the same age as me, laying in the African savannah dying because they hadn't eaten in months. Though this was many years ago, this particular instance still stands out in my head and made me question then, just as I am now, couldn't our rich country do anything to prevent the untimely deaths of these poor people?
Blog #3 Due Wednesday February 14
U.S. spending on the invasion, occupation and ongoing pacification of Iraq is approaching $400 billion. U.S. emergency humanitarian aid to Darfur this year, not counting food, will exceed $150 million. In Uganda, it may reach $7 million, even though mortality rates in northern Uganda are three times as high as in Darfur. What is your opinion about U.S. foreign policy and spending?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)