The USA to allow people to starve?

HERES THE ARTICLE

And heres a brief quote:

More than 100 countries have endorsed a campaign to raise an additional $US50 billion ($71 billion) a year in development aid to combat global hunger, but the United States has poured cold water on the project.

Make sure you read the whole thing though coz it does briefly explain the US decision.

But would the USA seriously allow people around the world to starve, especially when such a good initiative is available and so many other countries are endorsing it? If so, what justification could possibly be excepted to allow this to happen?

The proof is the homeless on the streets...oh wait...never mind, there is so much food thrown away in America that the homeless will never starve.

To anwser your question, no. The US has already paid out over 200 million in food for oil with Iraqis. Not to mention the Red Cross and other humanity groups both public and private who travel the world to fight hunger.

[edit on 23-9-2004 by ADVISOR]

The problem the Bush administration had with it, is probably because the money would be raised through a global tax and it includes a tax on arms sales:

These included a global tax on financial transactions, a tax on the sale of heavy arms, an international borrowing facility and a credit cards scheme that would direct a small percentage of transaction charges to the cause.



[edit on 23-9-2004 by AceOfBase]

Originally posted by AceOfBase
The problem the Bush administration had with it is probably because the money would be raised through a global tax and it includes a tax on arms sales:

These included a global tax on financial transactions, a tax on the sale of heavy arms, an international borrowing facility and a credit cards scheme that would direct a small percentage of transaction charges to the cause.

Correct! These are typical U.N. tactics. I think it's worse when you try to disguise something as unethical as a global tax (the U.N. is an international organization, not a government, so it shouldn't even be attempting to tax anyone on Earth) in a package that claims to seek to end world hunger, so that anyone who doesn't want a global tax will look like the bad guys.

If the U.N. really cared about ending world hunger, they'd donate some of the billions of dollars they already have to the Red Cross, Peace Corps, Feed The Children, etc...

Fair enough the USA already has aid programs in place, but so do most other countries. If the rest of the world backthis initiative do you really think the USA could refuse to? Does anyone have on hand the percentage of its budget the US puts towards aid? I know the UN suggests 0.7% of a countries total budget should be allocated to aid.

I agree the fact that the taxes would throw the USA off, especially since it probably does the most financial transactions and buys the most heavy weapons, and uses the most credit cards... but i think its a small price to pay to make sure that everyone in the world has suffcient food to eat.

Originally posted by specialasianX
Does anyone have on hand the percentage of its budget the US puts towards aid?

US AID

It is a very detaled site and you will find what you asked for about an inch and one half down the scroll bar.

Originally posted by specialasianX
I agree the fact that the taxes would throw the USA off, especially since it probably does the most financial transactions and buys the most heavy weapons, and uses the most credit cards... but i think its a small price to pay to make sure that everyone in the world has suffcient food to eat.

As long as you're not having to pay for it? You're in Australia, right?

Just because "the rest of the world" approves something doesn't make it right. The U.S. government, as well as many U.S.-based corporations, philanthropists, churches, and private groups give away uncalculated billions of dollars, food, and clothing away to the poor of the world every year. Then you say that the U.S. is going to 'allow' people to starve? Not cool.

Living in AUS doesnt make any difference, we've agreed to this initiative. And as i do credit card transactions i would be contributing (plus the fact i donate to charity as is it)...

The USA has the lowest percentage of its GNP going towards aid than any other industrialised nation.
And even though it puts the most in dollar wise, heres the reasons

USA's aid, in terms of percentage of their GNP is already lowest of any industrialized nation in the world, though paradoxically in the last three years, their dollar amount has been the highest.

Commenting on the change in aid trends in 2001, the OECD noted that:

Most of the United States' increase in 2001 was due to a $600 million disbursement to Pakistan for economic support in the September 11 aftermath.�
�Japan's ODA fell by nearly $4 billion. A key factor accounting for this was a 12.7 per cent depreciation of the Yen, which fell from 108 yen to the dollar in 2000 to 122 in 2001. Other factors included the timing of Japan's disbursements to multilateral organisations and loan repayments from Asian countries that have recovered from the Asian financial crisis. In real terms, Japan's ODA fell by 18 per cent.�
Commenting on the increase in overall aid in 2002 (by just 5%), the OCED commented amongst other things that:

�The United States increased its ODA by 11.6% in real terms in 2002 ... mainly due to additional and emergency funds in response to the 11 September 2001 terrorist attacks as well as new aid initiatives, especially in relation to health and humanitarian aid.�
�Japan's ODA fell slightly by 1.8% in real terms in 2002. Most of the fall ... was because the Yen depreciated against the US dollar.�

So basically the US is at the top to bribe pakistan to betray its former friends (the taliban) and other countries who might oppose the war on terror, and because the Yen dropped in strength compared to the US dollar.

[Edited on 23-9-2004 by specialasianX]

I know the post has changed i had trouble with the editing.


[Edited on 23-9-2004 by specialasianX]

People not having enough to eat isn't the fault of the US. If the world wants us butting out of their business it needs to stop putting its hand out, thusly giving us reason to be in its business. We could throw a quarter of our GNP at developing nations and they'd still have starving people due to political problems internally. All the money in the world can't help you eat if the leadership in your country prevents the aid from getting to the people that need it. There's no such thing as a "natural" occuring famine in todays world.

This is from an article on overpopulation myths, but the facts are real and fit here:

Bangladesh: Amartya Sen, winner of the Nobel Prize for Economics in 1998, has argued convincingly that famines in the Third World are not caused by actual food shortages but by institutional failure. For example, he has demonstrated that the Bangladesh famine of 1974 "occurred in a year of greater food availability per head than in any other year between 1971 and 1976." But the government dominates the buying and processing of jute, the major cash crop, so that farmers receive less for their efforts than they would in a free market. Impoverished farmers flee to the city, but the government owns 40 percent of industry and regulates the rest with price controls, high taxes and unpublished rules administered by a huge, corrupt, foreign-aid dependent bureaucracy. Jobs are hard to find and poverty is rampant. This crowding leads to problems such as sporadic or inefficient food distribution, but this problem is caused by that country's flawed domestic policies.

Ethiopia: The Ethiopian government caused it by confiscating the food stocks of traders and farmers and exporting them to buy arms. That country's leftist regime caused the tragedy.

Foreign aid is an illusion that makes people feel like they've done their part. Little of it goes to helping the people that need it. Why should the taxpayers throw their money away just to make someone "enlightened" individual in Europe happy? I'd rather give my money to a reputable private charity then let the UN decide where it gets administered.

When are people going to learn that throwing money at social ills doesn't fix them?

Specialasianx - In terms of the U.S.'s aid program as a percentage of its GDP let me put it to you this way. Lets say you are homeless and two different people give you sme money for food. The first makes 50,000 a year and gives you 10 dollars, the second makes 1,000,000 a year and gives you 100 dollars. What matters to you more the fact that the first guy gave a higher percentage or the fact the second guy's charity allows you to buy more food?

You right what would matter is the amount i actually got not the percentage...

But if i saw some guy pull up in a ferrari and he gave me $10, then someone else pulled up in a Kombi and gave me $10... i would be much more appreciative to the guy in the kimbi coz the $10 means more to him than the guy in the ferarri... I would still be appreciative of both though.

The fact the Us puts in the least shows, in my opinion, that they care less than the other nations as they arent willing to put in a decent share of their GNP to help, but would rather spend it on making bombs and guns to attack the very people this aid should be helping.

Or maybe we just realise that a smaller percentage of our GDP can achieve more than a larger percentage of other countries GDP. Afterall if we can do more than they can with a lower percentage we are still accomplishing more aren't we? We care less about image and more about results.

If you cared about results then you would be putting in more, coz even though your currently doing more.. you could be doing EVEN more and helping out to a greater extent. I mean this initiative proposed as mentioned in my first post is something simple the US can agree to that would help that much more.

Also the fact that oter countries are putting more of their GNP (is it GNP or GDP, i'm really confused) in means they then have less for themselves to put into their own countries development...

By your logic however, a man who make $1million could only pay 1% tax ($10000) and someone making $15000 could pay 60% tax ($9000) and this would be fair.... coz even though the rich man is paying less of his income in tax he is contributing more than the poor man, even though the poor man is putting in more than half of his income?

Exactly, tell me what accomplishes more, 1% of the rich mans income or 50% of the poor mans? Which feeds more families, builds more homes?
Also by allowing the U.N. to levy any tax it sets a very dangerous precedent. By giving the U.N. the authority which till now has been the sole purview of governments we are in effect recognising the U.N. as a world government. Now tell me, gven all the corruption found in the U.N. do you really want your government to give the U.N. authority over your nation?

The fact remains, that although we offer one of the lower percentages of GNP, our private companies and orginzations give well more than even the US government (almost 3 times if my memory serves me correctly).

Also, it was at one time, the responcibility of people to provide aid to others, not the government.

We have gotten away from that intranationally, but internationally it seems to still hold mostly true according to our policy.

I personally would cut all funding from the government because it is not the function or the power of the federal government to redistribute wealth.

Good money after bad, that's what giving 'EVEN more' would be. How many times have we heard of a despot taking the aid and food and keeping it or selling it and letting their people starve. Why give them even more? Between government aid and private citizen donations I'd imagine there's a hell of a lot of American money floating around, and from what I've seen and heard most of the world doesn't even like us anymore. If we're the bullies and jagoffs they think we are, they shouldn't be surprised that we don't fall in. Maybe if there were proof that the money was going to actually be used for what they want it for, I'd be on board. Lots of aid has gone out and still people are starving. That tells me that the prooblem isn't funding. They need to fix the problem and they might find they don't need so much money. Chirac's comments lead me to think he believes Kerry will win and will sign on after the election. I hope that's not the case, because the UN are con artists and I wouldn't let them run a dog pound much less a multi-billion dollar "relief effort" using any more of my money than the government already has.

The US is a SOVEREIGN nation and has the right to decide exactly how and where we spend our money... in addition to how much of it we spend. The UN is NOT a government and has ZERO authority on mandating and/or collecting taxes. Just look at their handling of the Oil for Food program... and you trust those clowns to collect and actually distribute tax dollars to needy countries!? GIVE ME A BREAK!!!

We already give more than any other nation on the planet (In terms of direct aid payments) but that doesn't account for such things as military spending on bases around the world that help those economies, foreign trade differentials which drive those economies, distribution of labor which drives those economies, etc... It's high time for these other countries to take responsibility for themselves. We will continue to offer aid but you must remember... "Give a man a fish and he will eat for a day, teach a man to fish and he shall eat forever." At some point the other nations of the world need to support the US's effort in teaching people how to fish as opposed to simply handing out fish!

What happened to "US out of Iraq/Afghanistan/Korea/Kosovo/What-have-you?

If we're not allowed to defend the lives of our civilians by destroying potentially volatile regimes, then we shouldn't be obligated to defend the lives of the civilians of other nations by giving money to their leaders.

The UN has proven time and time again to be far more politics than philanthropy. Their time has come and gone, and I for one beleive that we should only be associating with nations that are willing to accept the invasions with the handouts.

Thanks, Kozmo. You took the words right out of my mouth....

Originally posted by specialasianX
Fair enough the USA already has aid programs in place, but so do most other countries. If the rest of the world backthis initiative do you really think the USA could refuse to? Does anyone have on hand the percentage of its budget the US puts towards aid? I know the UN suggests 0.7% of a countries total budget should be allocated to aid.

I agree the fact that the taxes would throw the USA off, especially since it probably does the most financial transactions and buys the most heavy weapons, and uses the most credit cards... but i think its a small price to pay to make sure that everyone in the world has suffcient food to eat.

The US actually gives about 1% of our budget to foreing aid. In 2003 the US budget proposal by Bush was to give 11.4 Billion dollars for economic assistance to other countries.

For a long time Japan was the country that gave the most foreign aid, followed by the US, but since 2001 the US is the country that gives the most money...

Anyways, what really makes you think all that money that other countries give actually is used for economic aid? There are dictatorships in the UN, and quite a lot of the citizens of the UN are hungry, yet their own governments do not give a damn. They just try to look good when they go to the UN meetings. I am still trying to understand why, and who were the stupid morons in the UN who nominated Castro for the nobel Prize....

During the cold war the US gave around 27 Billion dollars per year to foreign aid, a lot of it to communist Russia, it was seen as a way to contain communism, the Russian govenrment simply pocketed most of the money and the populace pretty much went hungry just like before, Fidel Castro does the same thing, as does NK, and Vietnam among others.

[edit on 23-9-2004 by Muaddib]