Editor's Note: Stewart Patrick is a Senior Fellow and the Director of the Program on International Institutions and Global Governance at the Council on Foreign Relations. He is the author of Weak Links: Fragile States, Global Threats, and International Security.
By Stewart Patrick, CFR.org
Unsurprisingly, foreign aid has once again become a political football in this year’s primary season. Today’s GOP presidential candidates regularly bash it, echoing “Mr. Republican” Robert Taft—who dismissed overseas assistance more than six decades ago as “pouring money down a rat hole.”
But public opposition to providing foreign aid is one of the hoariest misconceptions in U.S. foreign policy.
In fact, U.S. citizens support foreign aid, particularly when it is targeted to alleviating poverty and humanitarian suffering. This is remarkable, given the magnitude by which Americans consistently overestimate the percentage of the federal budget actually devoted to foreign aid. These findings emerge from a newly updated digest of U.S. and international pollingon global issues developed by CFR and the Program on International Policy Attitudes. They suggest that bashing foreign aid—as most of the leading GOP candidates for president have done—is a campaign strategy of dubious value. It may provide red meat to the Republican base, but it ignores the generous impulses of the American majority.
All of this brings to mind a famous lyric from the Broadway show, Porgy and Bess. To paraphrase Gershwin, things you’re liable to read in the (GOP foreign policy) bible ain’t necessarily so.
In the United States, there is actually a broad consensus that developed countries have “a moral responsibility to work to reduce hunger and severe poverty in poor countries”—81 percent of the U.S. public holds this view (WPO, 2008). Americans also believe that it is in rich countries’ own interest to help poor countries develop, but that wealthy nations are not doing enough to help poor nations.
U.S. public support for foreign aid has proven resilient despite the global economic downturn and the struggles of many Americans to get by. In a 2010 poll by the Chicago Council of Foreign Affairs, 74 percent of U.S. citizens polled favored providing “food and medical assistance” to other countries, and 62 percent favored delivering “aid to help needy countries to develop their economies.” To be sure, the recession had dragged down these numbers slightly from 2004 (when the equivalent figures were 82 percent and 74 percent), but both propositions retained clear majority support.
As in years past, when asked, Americans initially tend to say that their government should reduce economic assistance to other nations (CCGA, 2010). But this attitude rests on persistent misperceptions of the share of the U.S. federal budget devoted to aid. For decades now, U.S. citizens have overestimated U.S. foreign aid spending by several orders of magnitude. When WorldPublicOpinion.org asked the public in 2010 to estimate the percentage of the federal budget going to foreign aid, respondents on average reckoned 27 percent—and suggested that a more appropriate percentage might be 13 percent. The actual figure is less than one percent. (When informed of the actual figure, Americans tend to be initially incredulous). When given accurate information, a clear majority of Americans favors either increasing current aid levels or keeping levels constant. In addition, a large majority of Americans say they would be willing to increase spending on foreign aid to meet anti-poverty targets, provided other nations agree to do the same.
During recessions, legislators are quick to target overseas assistance for the scalpel. Unlike military spending, after all, there is no powerful domestic constituency that will be alienated by draconian cuts.
But here the public parts company with politicians.
When asked by pollsters to engage in an (imaginary) budget-cutting exercise of their own, Americans did not single out foreign aid, especially its more altruistic forms, for disproportionate cuts. In 2011, for example, the Program for Public Consultation provided a representative sample of Americans with an online exercise, allowing them to manipulate the U.S. federal budget, broken down into 31 categories. Participants actually increased funding for humanitarian aid by 18 percent and nicked global health by just 2 percent, while cutting development assistance by a more significant 14 percent. On average, respondents cut these three aid programs by 3 percent—significantly less than the average of 11 percent they advocated across the 31 programs. By contrast, respondents placed heavier cuts on U.S. aid programs with less altruistic motives, recommending a 15 percent decline in military assistance and a 23 percent reduction in Economic Support Funds (essentially political support for U.S. allies).
However, the Republican presidential candidates have read the field differently. Mitt Romney and Newt Gingrich have both endorsed Texas Governor Rick Perry’s idea of “zeroing out” the U.S. foreign aid budget, and eliminating all assistance “to countries that don’t support the United States of America.” Gingrich has stated, “I think it’s a pretty good idea to start at zero and sometimes stay there.” Romney has agreed that the United States should “start everything off at zero.” Unsurprisingly, the libertarian Ron Paul has been most scathing, calling foreign aid to Africa “worthless.” As he said at Tuesday’s presidential debate, “I think the aid is all worthless. It doesn’t do any good for most of the people. You take money from poor people in this country and you end up giving it to rich people in poorer countries.”
Indeed, among the remaining GOP candidates, only former Senator Rick Santorum has rejected “zeroing out” foreign aid, describing it as a form of “pandering.” Of aid to Africa, Santorum argues, “it’s absolutely essential.” His rationale is partly strategic, noting that the continent has in the past been “on the brink of complete meltdown and chaos, which would have been fertile ground for the radical Islamists to be able to get a foothold.” But he’s also been among the most ardent GOP champions of HIV-AIDS assistance in Africa.
Such positions suggest that Santorum, alone among the GOP hopefuls, would help preserve George W. Bush’s greatest presidential legacy: his enormous expansion of foreign aid, notably his President’s Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief (PEPFAR), which has saved hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of lives worldwide. Bush also launched the Millennium Challenge Account, to channel more aid to countries that rule justly, promote economic growth, and invest in their people. These investments testified to the generosity of the United States and to the president’s conviction that well-targeted aid could advance human dignity worldwide.
The views expressed in this article are solely those of Stewart Patrick.
© 2012 Cable News Network. Turner Broadcasting System, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
| Advertising practices | Advertise with us | About us | Work for us | Help
Here goes Stewart Patrick, another mouth-piece for the right-wing thugs in Washington explaining away why we need to go on propping up forein dictators in other countries with our tax money! It just goes on and on!!!
I agree 100%
Foreign aid to starving people in other countries is a good thing. Indiscriminately handing that aid over to whatever group has enough guns to call itself the government is where the problem lies. Oh, and also indiscriminately handing it over to the UN. The UN aid programs have more corruption in them than D.C.
We should only consider giving foreign aid AFTER we have made sure that all our own homeless have a place to sleep (not a cardboard box in an alley) and a nutritional meal. Also I think its unacceptable to be giving money away when our own people are dying because they can't afford to see a doctor! Take care of our own first. If anything is left, then by all means, help the starving overseas. We can't help EVERYBODY who needs help all over the world so we should take care of our own first.
I couldn't have said it better, Tom. Take care of ALL our people FIRST, then allow charities to help other countries, funded by money given voluntarily to them, NOT BY MY OR ANY OTHER AMERICAN'S TAXES!!!!!!!!!
Another thing we don't know is how much of the humanitarian aid actually gets to the people who need it. I think a good deal of this money is intercepted by the dictators to build themselves luxurious homes and to hire Usher, Beonce, and Mirah Carey to perform.
Even if we attempt to help all the homeless people in our country, there will always be homeless people. I can be brutally honest by saying that even though there are those who have a valid reason as to why they are on the streets, there are also those lazy idiots who, if helped off the streets, would simply go back. Like you said, we can't help everyone. Not even everyone in our own country.
OH please – Haiti is a perfect example of foreign aid in action. The petty Dictator got the money the people still starve and their economy is still third world and dropping. I can name other countries but why bother. The liberal left seems to believe that every single person in the world who is poor needs our tax dollars. It just doesn't work that way.
I just finished reading an article in Congress.org that most American do not favor foreign aid. They want to see it gone.
Interesting that no mention was made that Israel, not exactly a poor backward nation, is the largest American foreign aid recepient, Wonder why?
No mention of Israel because the aurthor doesn't want to lose his job and media doesn't want to lose its license.
Most of the aid we give Israel is military aid and most of that is spent in the United States.
Best reason for not mentioning that "Israel is the largest recipient of foreign aid" is that it isn't true.
A matter of symantics, really. Israel has been the most consistent top recipient of US aid for several decades. They have only been beaten out in the last several years by Iraq, Afghanistan, and, of course, the other "friend" of the USA: Pakistan.
http://www.census.gov/compendia/statab/cats/foreign_commerce_aid/foreign_aid.html
http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2011/02/foreignaid.html
EasySE,
I salute you for being one of the tiny few here who makes statements and then is scholarly enough to site sources!
Good for you!!! Well done.
Mostly because after the war the allies divided up the middle east. I think there is a certain amount of guilt they feel because Israel is there all by themselves and constantly under attack. As for Palestinians – there was never a country of Palestine so how could Israel give back something that never exited?
Stop all foreign aid? What about all the foreign aid we get from other countries such as China in the form of T-notes?
all foreign aid, even food aid sent to other countries are given over to the governments. almost none of the food ever reaches hungry people for free. the governments divide the aid among themselves even selling relief food to the black market. the rest of the food goes to feed the military. i worked on merchant ships sending fod to nigeria, ivory coast, senagal and liberia. the fod was corn, sorgham, and wheat in 100 lb bags with a lage american flag. on the bags of food is printed "from the people of the united states of america, not to be sold". i have seen these bags of food in the markets being sold. in the ports where the food is being unloaded, i have seen police and military beating people trying to take food that sliped out of the cargo nets and broken on the ground. ALL U.S. FOREIGN AID SHOULD STOP!
I totally agree with that, snake.
You know that for a fact Snake? All foreign aid? For some reason I don't quite believe you...
The analysis requires a definition of what is included in one's definition of "foregn aid". If one considers all dollars dedicated to assisting foreign governments and organizations, whether it is for military, politicall, economic, cultural, or social, plus, the costs to Americans for housing U.S. troops in foreign countries- for the immediate benefit of regional stability- then "foreign aid" is far more than the amount pedalled by the author of this article.
Exactly. Still waiting for someone to explain how Mubarek (in Egypt) became a billionaire.
why feed starving foreigners over starving americans
Why feed anybody? Because it's the decent thing to do. We have programs to feed Americans. Aid is meant not just to feed starving people, but to help them develop the agriculture, markets, roads, wells and even schools to help them feed themselves. It's not meant as charity, but a way to get their homes stable enough that people can live there. Not here. You are aware that the US uses up a vast majority of the worlds resources to maintain a rich lifestyle? We are less than 10% of the population and use up about 70% of the available anything. We are feeding Americans first, and a lot.
How do we know if it is going to the people that needs it.
I agreed too
Shame that these dictators of the corrupted countries should be removed they just like those greedy pigeons have all and the people has no basic living at all..
Well, he DID provide some actual information and percentages...and you didn't.
Foreign aid is a conversial theme. Nationalists and militant groups in many countries often see foreign aid as act of charity and that the generosity of the donor is with strings attached.
Actually, U.S. foreign aid is no more than another form of bribery. This is how the right-wing thugs in Washington assert their stranglehold on third world countries!!!
I believe you mean 'left-wing thugs', because it's the right that primarily opposes such aid, and the left which primarily supports such aid.
Giving charity to those less fortunate than you it a good thing. However, would anyone encourage a family that already has more credit card debt than they make in a year to get a cash advance on their credit card to give to a neighbor when some people in their own family are going hungry? That is what we are doing with US foreign aid.
Marine5484 your the first to call obama a right wing thug
Marine 5484 is quite right, steve. Anyone with half a brain knows that Barack Obama is a right-wing thug, judging by his foreign policy alone!!! He sold out his moral principles to the MIC(military-industrial-complex) upon assuming the Presidency, if he ever had any to begin withll!
You don't give away money to your next door neighbor when you have to take out a loan to pay your own bills – not even less than 1% of your money. Until we have money to give away, we need to stop giving away money we don't have.
now now...we do have money, it comes from china! That's why we give it away (plus, for every $1 we give, we get $4 back...)
It's true! Nancy Pelosi said so!
Well, I'm glad I don't live next to you. If my neighbor is a hard working, honest guy, and is in a bad way, I would still help them out even if I was in debt.
I'm glad I'm not related to Jim if he's feeding his neighbor while his family goes hungry.
Actually, he would be left wing for suggesting the continuation of foreign aid. Aside from that, it's a convenient article. The problem is not the percentage of our budget we spend, the problem is, we americans are the worlds welfare. You didn't touch on the fact that we give the VAST majority of the funding to the UN. Other well off countries like China and Russia and India give damn near nothing. That is what the point is, and by hiding it under the less than one percent BS, you do no justice at all. In fact, you weaken your case.
Calling someone "left-wing" for supporting foreign aid is idiotic. The terms "left" and "right" mean very little to begin with, but when they do, they refer to domestic policy. In foreign policy, neo-conservatives are just as quick as Wilsonian idealists to support foreign aid.
Not true. I know for years the U.S did not pay any UN dues. The republicans held it back because they did not want it spent on family planning. Even so, the U.S does not pay the majority of the UN budget, not even close. More misinformation.
what a horrible article. of course no one wants humanitarian aid to decrease but its not the gov job to do it. This is work best left up to charities, they are better at it and more effective. If the gov decreases the american public will pick up the slack.
I agree. European countries love to publish statistics showing that they give more in foreign charitable assistance than the U.S. but they are only counting government funding. Private sector Americans (individuals, Churches, Charities) give more in foreign aid than the rest of the world's countries combined. This is rarely ever mentioned anywhere. I contribute to charities both inside and outside the U.S. because it feels good to do so, and I enjoy it. When the government takes my money in taxation and gives it away, I don't get the same feeling.
Uhhhh, No. The public would not pick up the slack, the public would not even increase their contributions.
Speaking for yourself Jimmy
All this article really proves is how truly large the federal budget truly is since we're sending billions of dollars to other countries but it's still less than 1% of the budget.
It is fascinating that one by one, everyone on each side makes the case that this particular program or that particular program should not be touch because it is not very much. When you are broke you have to make cuts everywhere, it is not about whether we want to give or not, it is that either way we do not have the money- any money sent is borrowed money. All these small percentages add up, so we need to stop foreign aid along with many, many other things. It is no longer about what we do or do not want to do. We have no money.
We have to borrow money from China to give to other nations as aid. Madness.
Foriegn aid to countries that are hostile to the US- most of the islamic countries- and to military and police state countrires is self defeating. Charity begins at home. Take care of US first. WHen the rest of the so calde 3rd world work on reducing over population and get rid of their tyrants- who skim most of the aid to themselves than and only then should we help with any aid at all.
Ok, so how do your propose they get rid of the dictators without any help? The dictators have the guns, not the citizens.
What I find most interesting is that the party that most tries to align itself with the Christian beliefs would sponsor something that would be un-Christian? If the problem is accountablity of the money the US contributes to other countries to help with poverty, then we can use that same money with NGOs with processes which allow for transparency in how that money is used. There is no point in throwing out the baby with the bath water, no matter what our debt situation is, we are still a blessed nation, and we should share our blessings with those less blessed. This only goes to show how much the Republican party only uses Christianty only when it suites their poltical agenda.
Government giving away tax money is not exactly Christian. I do contribute to my Church and to a variety of charities at home and overseas as I believe it is my Christian duty to do so. I don't feel that I am being Christian when my national government gives billions to Egypt, Israel, Iraq, or whoever. Especially since this money goes to their governments, not the poor ordinary people who most need the assistance. If you truly want to help people, get the hopelessly inefficient government out of it and let the private charities take over. One charity I donate to manages to get 94% of every dollar to the people who need it. Government can't come anywhere close to that.
That is why I would advocate using NGOs as the ones who provide the aid, I would NEVER advocate just giving money over to government that don't provide a COMPLETELY transparent system to tracking how the money is dispursed. Also, I would not provide any money to any government (or NGOs) in countries which have the resources to serve their own people (Israel, Egypt, Lybia, and Iraq); the only exception would be in cases where there is calamity that would be beyond that government's ability to resolve in a timely fashion (i.e. earthquakes and tsunamis).
What a lot of people don't realize is that a lot of the so-called "foreign aid" is actually just corporate welfare for American corporations. When the U.S. builds all those roads, schools, and hospitals in Afghanistan, who do you think builds them? Answer, "Halliburton" and similar American corporations. When we provide "military assistance," that money ends up as orders placed with American defense contractors. We pay, they benefit. And to think we are running up the deficit to pay for this cr@p. I'm okay with the humanitarian aid - who isn't - but I agree with Ron Paul about stopping the rest of it. It may only be 1% of the budget, but 1% wasted could be better spent on American projects to benefit the American people in America.
Are you kidding me? Over 14 TRILLION in debt and we should give any money away? NO, not unless and until we are OUT OF DEBT AND HAVE TAKEN CARE OF OUR OWN! DUH! The foreign give-away just gets siphoned off to wealthy thieves in power anyhow.
I think what some people have a problem with is government giving away our tax dollars, when not everyone who paid into those taxes wants to give that money to other nations. It should be done by private, charitable organizations so that the people who want to give can, and those that don't aren't forced to.
No mention of the majority of foreign aid going to Israel so they can build bombs to kill all those brown people that the other foreign aid is trying to support (read: indoctrinate).
Not surprised CNN...not surprised at all.
I read the article and I did not find a single myth dispelled. Really, there were no facts in the article to agree with or challenge. It was basically a hit piece against those evil republicans. The article smells like a drooping diaper.
Foriegn Aid equals Welfare on the grandest of scales. It has got to stop else what incentive do those countries have to better themselves? Much like the "Welfare mommas" of a few years ago. Once the funds are sent they are almost impossible to track so most likely relatively few dollars actually go to the purposes they were intended.
Yeah, letting people starve sure will teach 'em to be poor!
Well if you "let" them starve, perhaps they'll take a look around at their situation and realize hey, maybe I shouldn't have children I can't take care of and I should stop living WHERE NOTHING GROWS YEAR AFTER YEAR. But when food supply needs are met – even barely – where's the incentive to improve? Why look for airable land and plant crops? And for the most part it's a subsistence existence anyway even under the best of times, so it's not like you're feeding them Ramen when they're used to steak. They can either bust their butts for long hours growing enough to survive or they can do nothing and be fed. It's not an insult to suggest that even someone with a work ethic is going to quickly do the math and take the easier of the two options.
My feeling is we stop all foreign aid until our problems in this country are solved. We should use that money at home first and foremost.
You cannot be serious. What makes you think we CAN solve our problems here? When would you declare everything fixed? Do we have to fix drunk driving before you would feed a starving child? What about school test scores? Do we have to bring everyone up to grade level in math before we help someone else learn how to read? Wouldn't just gaurentee that the US is the only place worth living in and make us an immigration target? We are. We ought to make it possible for othr people to live in their lands or they will all want to be here. No walls are high enough. Also: Starving fathers will take up the gun.
Wow! Rick Santorum is actually right and rational about something.
Most foriegn aid is "money down a rat hole", not because there is no need and not because there is no moral imperative, but because there is no effectiveness.
The money really goes to the dictatorships that force poverty upon their people. The money does not reach the needy. The money goes to rich individuals who are incentivized to keep a visible population of extremely poor people as a means of pulling in aid.
Please look at Hans Rosling's talks on Ted.com. He has a lecture on "Doing the impossible" where he discovers that Senegal and Mali, while often thought of as unbelievably, even permanently poor are really about where Sweden was in 1935. ":I was born in 1935" Hans says, "I assure you; no one in Sweden in 1935 thought they lived in a poor country." . "Go back to work, be encouraged. We ARE doing the impossible, I just proved it to you."
(Rosling works in Public Health so he uses those measures for progress)
The solution to this debate is actually quite simple. Let's ask US taxpayers, whose money is used for this aid, to check off a box on their federal tax forms. Will you allow your taxes to be used for foreign aid? My bet is an overwhelming number of people will check no. US foreign aid to third world countries should be used exclusively for contraception and agriculture. Providing aid to people who reproduce on the level of rabbits only increases the population which then translates into a higher number of deaths. Teach them how to grow crops while reducing the population at the same time and you'll see these people prosper instead of suffering. Right now the US government is an enabler of death and suffering.
Oh so USA you owe me trillions of dollars but yet you still manage to give money away!!??!!!.Oh you can pay your congressmen and senators incredable salaries while your people struggle?...You can bail companies out!!??....Bam!!! Now that was your arm!! How about I's break your both legs next time!!
My entire life we've been trying to feed the poor in Africa. I'd like a status report on the progress on eliminating hunger there. At present, it seems all we do is feed them so that they'll have the energy to haul away the next sack of rice we give them. That's not progress.
Now if we has stopped feeding them, a long time ago one of two things would have happened: Either they would have created a sustainable economy or the entire continenent would now be empty land suitable for colonization. Harsh you say? Which is harsher – keeping unlimited millions in poverty and starvation for generations with no end in sight, or having the entire situation worked out in just a few years with the loss of a few million?
So, how much foreign aid do we actually give? Not the percentage how much actual money is given in foreign aid. I'd like to see an amount in dollars before I can even think about "a can or can't we afford it question". It seems that a few years ago the figure of 1% or 2% was used. How much food aid do we send overseas and does that impact the overall cost of food in the US? Since we are constantly bombarded with "there are people starving in the US", how can we make better use of the food grown in the US to feed US citizens?
This isn't a news article about dispelling myths.... it's a propaganda piece.
The article is complete garbage. I dont believe for a minute that the american people think we give 27% of our income to foreign countries. Nor do I believe that upwards of 70% of Americans believe that we should be giving all of that aid when we are borrowing money to exist. I would like to know when all of these "organizations" did there polling.
Perhaps we should use that foreign aid for our own people for once. I think it would be better served; just a thought.
isnt it interesting how no mention of military foriegn aid was made, or the largest foriegn aid recipient, israel. i support foriegn aid for food , medicine, and economic devolpment in poor nations. cutting foriegn aid barely puts a dent in anything , and it turns the opinions of the planet agaisnt the US. if ur going to cut any foriegn aid, cut military. second largest recipient of military aid was egypt, and alot of good it did that country.
time to cut off foreign aid, especially to terrorist nations like israel
What there needs to be is a better way to distribute foreign aid if we are going to provide it. I agree completely that handing aid to most third world governments accomplishes nothing for the good of the majority of the population.
We have a similar problem right in this country. We pay the poor, alcoholics and druggies to have children. These people receive as much as $1000 per child (do you really believe it goes to the welfare of the child?).
The foreign aid question is very susceptible to framing. For instance:
"Do you think the US could do more to help alleviate disease and poverty around the world?"
Is way more likely to draw a yes than:
"Do you think the US should keep raking up massive debt to give handouts to countries that hate us?"
They always do the same thing "oh the foriegn aid is such a small part of our budget". Sure it is because you are not including the military aid that we provide to oh so many countries, from Afghanastan to Isreal to Pakistan. These two budgets together are huge and need to be drastically curtailed. For example we spent $1.2 Billion on military aid and $1.4 billion on Economic aid to Pakistan in 2010. I could put alot of folks to work and fix one he11 of alot of roads with nearly 3 billioin dollars! That's just one country!
60 billion a year for foreign aid is a lot of money for a nation whose balance sheet is dripping in red.
The establishment ignores that the average US citizen does not what or care about an empire.
Any candidate who will reduce or cut this whole spending is my hero.
No more bribes for friends.
As a percentage of GDP, the USA looks very stingy when it come to foreign aid. We give 0.16% of our GDP. Almost all Northern European countries give between 0.56% and 1%.
Other than emergency food aid for disaster relief...it shouldn't be our governments place to give charity when times are great much less when her operate at deficits. That is supposed to be our job so we can give to the charities we believe in.
Charity begins at home and sending one half a billion dollars to Israhell to kill Palestinians is not what I call foreign aid. Feeding people in Banladesh is charity, feeding the poor in America is Charity but sending money to developed countries with thriving economies such as Israhell and Pakistan is not foreign aid it is a waste of money that can be used in America on American people for food, and education and housing.
OK everyone, read the last paragraph.
I'm sure Obama will be taking credit for this very soon.
So to all you windbags who have absolutely nothing positive to say about GWB I say maybe you should get your head out of the donkey's rear-end and actually watch something other than MSNBC.
The best foreign aid I can think of is to give the Arab countries advanced weaponry, especially bombs, but Instead of delivery by truck we could just dump them out of planes. Alternatively we could contract with Israel to deliver the bombs to the Arabs – the Israelis know how ...
You guys are talking billions, when we are oh so much deeper in trouble than that. Some of you just are unable to grasp the difference between millions, billions and trillions. It's like having a bank account with $10,000 in it, you're worried about losing 0.50 cents. The numbers however don't lie, like potlicians and the media do.
60 million dollars believe it or not will pay our state unpaid bills and prop up the economy putting to work the 600,000 unemployed ppl and increase our tax base working as a force multiplier.
How would that happen exactly? the government had NEVER ONCE created a job in the private sector. In fact the government is the sole cause and effect of what's happened today.
cost of Iraq's war 4 billion.....billion per month!!!!!!!! this is after combat slowed down just to keep peace. War cost in that context are considered foreign aid. Training foreign militaries is part of foreign aid!!! How many months we were there after 2003? hummm?
yes, Americans support giving aid to POOR countries....NOT Israel, who happens to be the largest recipient of aid from the US, which they use to kick people out of their homes and abuse human rights....
Aid should come to America first which is not the case.
That is the case. What some people here are saying is that all money in the federal budget should be spent here It's upsetting that many people commenting on an article about myths simply ignore the surveys results and repeat their own opinions. Rather shrilly too. Look at what was said, people. It does say YOU support foreign aid it says "most" Americans do, and at a level more than ten times what it is today. It does not say YOU have to agree. But in a Democracy, you don't have to agree. You DO have to agree with the idea that a majority wins, and go along even if you don't like the outcome. It's not like you get to say "Well, most people voted this way, but I didn't so I'm going to ignore that law." You don't get to pick and choose which laws you'll support. (Well, I do sometimes speed when the roads are clear, but that's why God made turbochargers..) We are a democracy. so everyone gets a vote. One. Majority rules – live with it. It works pretty good so far. Thank you for your input. Now sit down. Pass the brownies..
@fredagain- when did foreign aid spending come up for a vote, do you mean the majority of Americans agrees because our "representative" in congress agreed. dude you need to add a little less harsh to those brownies next time..
I think the sentiment against foreign aid is not actually against foreign aid, but ,,,
why we are paying billions to countries that clearly do not love us, who conspire against us.
It's called status – we (the politicians and elites that runs us) need to show the world that we are strong and wealthy.
Not in particular against foreign aid but how you can explain laying off thousand of public employees that are essential for our society like firefighters,police and teachers because there is absolutely no money to pay them, opening up a pandoras box like a chain like reaction creating foreclosures,store closings,tax debasing and a following economic depression just because there is absolutely no money anywhere to pay these folks....come on people!!!!!
How about getting our students in permanent debt with student loans by sallie mae instead of using that money to subsidize education for students with talent and desire to work right here in the USA. Not someone from China coming to use our scholarships while our people gets to take up loans. Then the Chinese students goes home and builds a new generation of nuclear reactors while our students work in three fast food jobs to repay their loan.
The USA doesn't give scholarships to Chinese nationals. Where did you hear that?
How much does China and Russia spend on foreign aid? America is broke so it borrows money to give to other countries. What is wrong with that picture?
shutterbug
Don't get me wrong, I'm all for helping anyone who needs help. But as far as foreign aid goes, I think our government should do what we do in our family. We always take care of our family first in the typical way, pay the rent and bills, buy the food and clothing, etc., and if there is anything left over, then by all means help anyone else who needs help. In other words, the government should take care of Americans first before they give away our money. After all, that is where they got the money they are giving away in the first place. I'm not saying the government should stop giving money to poor countries, just that they should take care of their own people first.
As an example, President Obama said during his State of the Union speech that colleges need to stop raising tuition. I agree with that. But I also think that if someone is going to college and they apply for Food Stamps because they don't have enough money to buy food while they are in college, they should not be turned down. Just because you get student loans, grants, scholarships or actually work to pay for college does, that not mean you have enough money to pay for everything you need, and that most certainly includes food.
Why dont they put up a list of how much and where the money is going?
Eliminate ALL foreign aid. It does not buy loyalty or friends. Most of the countries who benefit from US aid do not bother to support the US when push comes to shove.
BS
The fact that the USA continues to provide aid to more than less of the entire worlds countries, especially during this economic downturn is irresponsible, and completely insane. I know there are varies "reasons" whey thye do, but none good enough to justify putting the American peoples current quality of life at risk, and the quality of future americans lives in to question is UN-AMERICAN!! We continue to gicve away hundreds of millions of dollars to the rest of the world while our trillion dollar debt is all but crippling the very exsitance of alll Americans.ALL FORIEGN AID SHOULD BE SUSPENDED INDEFINATELY until; OUR TRILLION DOLLAR(S) DEBT IS PAID OFF, ALL AMERICANS GET A FAIR CHANCE AT SECONDARY EDUCATION that wont bankrupt them upon graduation, ALL AMERICANS GO TO BED without hundger, NO AMERICAN IS DENIED HEALTH CARE. Until then why do we continue to throw money at the rest of the world while americans here are homeless, hungry, uneducated, and uninsured!!???? It is the very definition of Insanity!
Carrie? Did you read the article? It clearly says that MOST American's disagree with your far out view of America first view. You don't have to agree, We don't need an absolute agreement with everybody on everything. We are a democracy, You are clearly out voted. If you feel so strongly about this or that you are welcome to get out there and work on it – whatever seems important to you, But face facts, on this matter you would be outvoted. Most Americans are much more compassionate than you are. This is a good thing.
Nice Propaganda piece...
This makes me feel like I am in the Soviet Union. Yes Comrade Foreign Aid is supported by the People of the Glorious Nation.
according to current US census, 1 out of every 8 american and 1 out of every 4 kids do not know where their next meal will come from.
This is why we should donate more money to other countries. Not like our people need food or anything. Just give it to those libyian dictators to give among their rebels
OK this is just off the rails here. Nobody gave money to Gaddafi so he could give it to the rebels who wanted him out. Nothing in the article implied anything like that.
My fathers parents were not rich, 7 kids to raise.They didnt anything to spare so to speak. Anyone, family or friend was always welcome at the dinner table on Sundays, no appointment needed. My grandfather said his aunt did the same for himself and his siblings growing up, after thier parents had both died. So thats the way I approach 'aid' in life. I dont have much, but will always help in a reasonable manner, according to the situation.Peace
"We are brwnoriog from China to do nothing more than fund an escalating arms race."That resonates strongly with previous years spent on "arms race," and people will really recognize it.
wow I thought 81 % of Americans supported foreign aid, at least according to this article. but in reality it looks like 99% oppose and 1% approve of it and the 1% once again are controlling the country. Like it or not the world looks at America as suckers and I think they are right, i feel like a sucker every time I write a check to the government for property tax. Here's an idea, use the trillion dollars we give to foreign countries to fix the deficit, and then let the banks we bailed out pay back their debt to the government, then we can give whats left over, to the other counties.