Who should give foreign assistance?

aielen · 31-08-2009

The UN? World Bank+IMF? Individual countries? Or NGOs?

aielen · 31-08-2009

No reponse?

Fire2box · 31-08-2009

balancedchaos · 31-08-2009

I vote for isolationism.

Foreign aid is just a way for white people to feel superior, warm and fuzzy inside. lol

And hell...let the international bankers do it. They control all the money anyway.

h3g3l · 31-08-2009

Quote:

Originally Posted by aielen

No reponse?

You should, if you've the means to do so.

adaffme149 · 01-09-2009

I say, nobody. ESPECIALLY not, for one, the US. It's got enough of its' own debt to deal with, so hell with other countries, they're on their own. But no, the President [and not nearly just him] and government tends to care more about the starving people in Zimbacluckzeiksmichastan than its' own [legal, of course] citizens starving in the streets [the homeless, anybody?]. It's like writing a check for whatever when you're already waay over your head in debt, basically. Eithr way, I agree with the above poster of isolationism. It's definitely true there. The US thinks it can just say, "Oh we gotta be super cool guize and cutting edge and epic lol lol omgz! I know let's throw monies at some problems that'll make us the good guize! Then the other countries won't pick on us and we'll look like we totally cares pl0x!". [And yes, that's how I picture the guy[s] that decided that was a good idea; like the script kiddies you see around the internet that think they're all bad-ass and superintelligent, when really they know nothing of how stuff really works. Quite fitting, you see.]

Either way, I don't think that a whole country should be giving away its' needed money to other countries just so they can feel better or because it's the 'nice thing to do'. I think it's wrong that a government can decide to take your tax dollars and crate them up and send them to another country, never to be seen by you again, thereby doing noting for your country. [And yes, I'm well aware that money is *not* boxed up and shipped away, literally. Don't worry.] That's just my opinion on the matter, though.

Clarissa · 01-09-2009

Well let me start off:

UN: Most impartial, has no political or economic reasons other that ot help countries. Yet it always faces either a)US support or no US support b) deadlock and little funding from its members

WB and IMF: Time and time again, depsite failures of their neo-liberal programmes, they continue to use conditionality in any of their poverty reduction strategies

Individual donors: Big donors usually have strategic reasons for giving aid, not anti poverty. Big example: The US. In contrast, the UK's DFID is more on altruism. But taxpayers don't like to give their money overseas.

NGOs: Have no biased motives but do not coordinate well and are ot as large as countries to give enough aid.

dogboy · 01-09-2009

There are a number of good organizations through the world bank. One organization helps women in economically depressed nations start new businesses. I suspect that all the above, if they don't have a profit motive. I'm always amazed how much the United States helps nations in need, yet I can look in my school's neighborhood and see so much poverty, and the children who suffer from it. I wonder why that is?

h3g3l · 01-09-2009

Quote:

Originally Posted by dogboy

There are a number of good organizations through the world bank. One organization helps women in economically depressed nations start new businesses. I suspect that all the above, if they don't have a profit motive. I'm always amazed how much the United States helps nations in need, yet I can look in my school's neighborhood and see so much poverty, and the children who suffer from it. I wonder why that is?

Because white slavery and poverty makes for bad television. The REAL bucks come rolling in under the guise of making Western industrialized nations feel bad for the plight of what they may see as lesser nations.

I quite agree with you here; until we fill every mouth in this country and employ every citizen, I'm not sure what purpose the government serves with aid of any sort other than feeling warm and fuzzy.

Raccoon · 07-09-2009

Too many fish given out. Give a man a fish feed him for a day; teach a man to fish, feed him for life.

Foreign aid is not so much the problem as the way it is done. All to often all you do is create a dependency on foreign aid.

31-08-2009	#1 (permalink)
aielen Banned Join Date: Aug 2009 Location: Baltimore or Singapore Age: 24 Posts: 141 Threads: 12 Blog Entries: 2 Reputation: -8	Who should give foreign assistance? The UN? World Bank+IMF? Individual countries? Or NGOs?

31-08-2009	#3 (permalink)
Fire2box Regular Donor Join Date: Apr 2008 Location: Stockton, California Age: 22 Posts: 4,596 Threads: 62 Gallery Uploads: 13 Wiki Edits: 2 Blog Entries: 6 Reputation: 39	Foreign Aid

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Foreign Aid	Clarissa	Mature Topics	3	30-08-2009 03:51 PM
Baby play and foreign languages	quattrus	Adult Baby	34	23-06-2009 08:41 PM
Give Your Kids A F*ck Up Name.	Dream	Fun and Games	81	11-05-2009 10:00 PM
If you give an X a Y	Point Blanch	Fun and Games	6	02-02-2009 10:25 AM

31-08-2009	#2 (permalink)
aielen Banned Join Date: Aug 2009 Location: Baltimore or Singapore Age: 24 Posts: 141 Threads: 12 Blog Entries: 2 Reputation: -8	No reponse?

31-08-2009	#4 (permalink)
balancedchaos VIP Join Date: Apr 2009 Location: Illinois, USA Posts: 668 Threads: 16 Blog Entries: 1 Reputation: 16	I vote for isolationism. Foreign aid is just a way for white people to feel superior, warm and fuzzy inside. lol And hell...let the international bankers do it. They control all the money anyway.

01-09-2009	#6 (permalink)
adaffme149 Yeah? Donor Join Date: Feb 2009 Location: USA Age: 18 Posts: 477 Threads: 33 Wiki Edits: 33 Reputation: 24	I say, nobody. ESPECIALLY not, for one, the US. It's got enough of its' own debt to deal with, so hell with other countries, they're on their own. But no, the President [and not nearly just him] and government tends to care more about the starving people in Zimbacluckzeiksmichastan than its' own [legal, of course] citizens starving in the streets [the homeless, anybody?]. It's like writing a check for whatever when you're already waay over your head in debt, basically. Eithr way, I agree with the above poster of isolationism. It's definitely true there. The US thinks it can just say, "Oh we gotta be super cool guize and cutting edge and epic lol lol omgz! I know let's throw monies at some problems that'll make us the good guize! Then the other countries won't pick on us and we'll look like we totally cares pl0x!". [And yes, that's how I picture the guy[s] that decided that was a good idea; like the script kiddies you see around the internet that think they're all bad-ass and superintelligent, when really they know nothing of how stuff really works. Quite fitting, you see.] Either way, I don't think that a whole country should be giving away its' needed money to other countries just so they can feel better or because it's the 'nice thing to do'. I think it's wrong that a government can decide to take your tax dollars and crate them up and send them to another country, never to be seen by you again, thereby doing noting for your country. [And yes, I'm well aware that money is not boxed up and shipped away, literally. Don't worry.] That's just my opinion on the matter, though.

01-09-2009	#7 (permalink)
Clarissa Banned Join Date: Aug 2009 Location: Solihull, UK Posts: 28 Threads: 5 Reputation: 0	Well let me start off: UN: Most impartial, has no political or economic reasons other that ot help countries. Yet it always faces either a)US support or no US support b) deadlock and little funding from its members WB and IMF: Time and time again, depsite failures of their neo-liberal programmes, they continue to use conditionality in any of their poverty reduction strategies Individual donors: Big donors usually have strategic reasons for giving aid, not anti poverty. Big example: The US. In contrast, the UK's DFID is more on altruism. But taxpayers don't like to give their money overseas. NGOs: Have no biased motives but do not coordinate well and are ot as large as countries to give enough aid.

01-09-2009	#8 (permalink)
dogboy VIP Join Date: Mar 2008 Location: Virginia, USA Posts: 2,541 Threads: 6 Reputation: 123	There are a number of good organizations through the world bank. One organization helps women in economically depressed nations start new businesses. I suspect that all the above, if they don't have a profit motive. I'm always amazed how much the United States helps nations in need, yet I can look in my school's neighborhood and see so much poverty, and the children who suffer from it. I wonder why that is?

07-09-2009	#10 (permalink)
Raccoon VIP Join Date: Jan 2008 Location: Alberta, Great White North Posts: 2,404 Threads: 100 Gallery Uploads: 1 Reputation: 81	Too many fish given out. Give a man a fish feed him for a day; teach a man to fish, feed him for life. Foreign aid is not so much the problem as the way it is done. All to often all you do is create a dependency on foreign aid.