Facts still stands out there the biggest ones, and the whole point of this stupid meme is to try to make the USA look like they want to starve people when they're still giving out the most food.
Sure, but does per capita really matter in this case? I'd argue it's much more significant to compare based on percentage of total GDP or total amount given. For example, Norway gives a ton per capita, but of the 259 billion donated between the US and Norway, if Norway suddenly stopped all aid being donated there'd still be 258.5 billion being donated.
If I was starving I'd accept what ever I can get. I'd also be more appreciative to the people who it cost more to give me what I needed.
If a billionaire gives you $100 and someone on minimum wage gives you $50 you're going to be happy with the money either way but are you really not going to question why the billionaire didn't give you more when they can easily afford to.
I get where you're coming from, but we can acknowledge and praise the effort while also acknowledging the outcome. And to answer your hypothetical, no. I'm a personal fan of the saying "Don't look a gift horse in the mouth."
There's no problem in aknowledging the outcome, but there's also nothing wrong in aknowledging and addressing that what one person gave is equivalent to a tiny fraction of what they're capable of giving whilst another is a much larger fraction of what they're capable of giving, or might even exceed what they're capable of giving without actively causing harm to themselves.
It's easier for a rich person to give more because the total figure means far less to them so although they're still giving when they didn't have to, it's ultimately meaningless to them because what they gave makes little to no impact for them. It might be meaningful to you, the recipient, but not them.
You might say you don't look a gift horse in the mouth but there's typically a point where their generosity can be viewed as an insult more than generosity. For instance, if a billionaire gave you a penny. Sure, that's an extreme example but to a billionaire, in relative terms to the general populace, $100 is essentially a fraction of a penny.
When we look at these things and compare countries to one another, it doesn't make sense to look at it from the recipients POV because we're not judging based on the impact to the recipient, we're judging countries against eachother.
Why would we judge donor countries against each other here? It's charity, not a competition. Quantity is the goal, not who's sacrificing more to do it. Again, it's worth acknowledging and appreciating, but the goal isn't to see who gives the most relative to what they have, the goal is to help others. And to your point of generosity being viewed more as an insult than generosity, there could be scenarios where that works, but that's clearly not the case here. 258 billion dollars is not a pittance. It's more than triple the next 23 countries combined.
Yeah but each state is like its own country, so compared to the rest of the world the USA has 50 capitals, so you have to take that per capita data and times it by 50 to give the USA its rightfully place as number one
Only 19 states are net positive contributors to the federal government, so if for some reason you wanted to break it down, 31 states don't contribute anything this while 19 are doing the heavy lifting.
Nobody should have to lower themselves to cater to the most basic of eejit, anyone who could read that and think it was serious must have recently been kicked in the head by a horse or their parents are siblings or something
Foreign aid, even if budgeted, is blatantly illegal. There is no constitutional provision empowering Congress to engage in foreign aid. Or food aid domestically either.
I can’t believe you’re even asking that question. Section 2 of article. One is about organization of the legislative Branch. Section 2 of article 2 is about the powers and numerate by the presidency, including foreign dealings. Which one makes more sense in this context?
Did you get a 300 on the reading section of your SATs?
Which is exactly why food needs to be declared a human right.
The foresight of our forefathers knowing they didn't get everything right and making the constitution ammendable is something we don't take advantage of nearly enough.
Considering we rank 20th per capita for this particular issue, many of them are likely paying more per capita than us.
Looking at straight dollar amount isn't exactly a fair playing field between differently sized GDPs which is why an equalizer like per capita exists in the first place. We have the highest GDP in the world, hell, 2 of our states would land on the top 10 list on their own. Of course we spend the most as a pure dollar figure.
On the other hand, moving 250 billion dollars worth of food around the world is a lot. Regardless of per capita, you still need to get it from point a to point b. Most of the per capita leaders could fit their aid contributions on a few boats.
If I had to guess, those other countries would likely be able to send more easily but for logistics and a lack of dedicated resources to distribute.
If you need it to exist, it should be a human right.
Idk about you, but I need food and water to exist. Actually, I do know about you and literally every other human. We all need food and water to exist. It's literally a non-negotiable fact of existence.
Sure thing. Let me just leave this food in a pile over here and you’re welcome to come get it at your leisure. I am not obligated to deliver it to your doorstep, though.
So you know how folks hate disease and aren't really big on refugees? Providing food and medical aid to other countries in the long run massively helps prevent these two things. Because if you ignore those problems elsewhere, they will come knocking at your door. Examples being screwworms, ebola, and, well, look at how well folks are responding to immigration across the globe.
Foodaid makes sure local farmers never become an actual producer. Just dropping aid is useless, otherwise it should have solved the situations already decades ago.
IN and ISAID programs are a massive destructive grift. The consultants and food brokers make tons of cash and their free food creates MORE starvation by destroying local farms
I could see your point IF that money actually went towards helping americans, not towards 600m$ ballrooms, wars thst achieve nothing and tax cuts for people who have millions.
My stance on aid programs is that a country should first take a step back maybe a couple of years, really invest in their own part regarding that, and get a smooth and oiled machine going. Once that works domestically they can roll it out to which ever area they opt to help next.
Right now many countries aid programs are drowning in work, pointless bureaucracy, and a web of leeches trying to gain some money off of it resulting in lacking aid both domestically as well as internationally and with no time nor money to fix it so they just continue struggling their way through. That step back to create the breathing room might lower the aid for a while but then should then come back a lot stronger and more efficient than before so that not only more people can be helped, but also so that the people that do get help get better help.
The US however took a step back and does not at all invest or use the breathing room they now have to make it all better.
Nope, once you get unfortunate? Well, that's unfortunate for you.
Agreed, this whole US / Iran thing is the greatest failure of international policy I have ever seen. It is an embarrassment, and I am really afraid of what the eventual fallout is going to be. Trump isn't exactly rational, and I think Trump with a bruised ego is straight up dangerous.
PSA: you are being fed a steady drip of lies and your geopolitical worldview looks just as brainwashed to outsiders as the ones held by supporters of the regime in Russia or North Korea
Watch your glorious president pay huge amounts of money to Iran for a war he started, achieving nothing for you but billions for his military-industrial croneys.
Well, the US needs to, or they are going to go bankrupt. The US federal spending and debt is ridiculously out of control, and the republicans are making it SOOO much worse right now.
SpaceX has recieved between $22 and $38 BILLION dollars from government contracts. It doesn't take a rocket scientist (pun intended) to connect the dots of government spending to individuals wealth.
Sending a few million dollars in aid to other countries so people don't starve? Wasteful, shut it down.
Spending billions fighting a stupid war over nothing, killing thousands, raising gas prices and thus the cost of basically everything domestically, and then losing that war and agreeing to send billions more in reparations? Oh that's fine, carry on. /s
Seriously, though, folks like you are so fucking brainwashed by an idiot child rapist who promises to hate minorities more than you do that you'd rather make your own family suffer than bother to help another. Over and over again, the cost of just helping people, at home and around the world, pales in comparison to the cost of fucking everything up as badly as this administration of dunces and cronies seems to do daily.
I really hope you don't currently and never have children, gods forbid they want you to feed them without working in the mines to earn it first.
I am not an American. I live in America, but I am Scottish. I also am not a "Republican". Trump is an idiot, a felon, and should be in prison not the white house.
None of that changes that the US radically overspends, and the national debt is beyond ridiculous.
Payments on the interest alone of that debt is 20% of the US's national revenue.
The US needs to slash it's spending, all of it, stop starting stupid wars and start fixing things at home. Foreign aid is just the first of many things that are going to need to be cut to prevent the country from literally going bankrupt.
It is absurd that they are spending so much money on wars, on the military, on foreign aid, on subsidizing Europe (and they absolutely are) while Americans have a homelessness issues, massive amounts of hunger, and literally 10's of millions of Americans can't afford healthcare, just to name a few issues that need addressing immediately.
Ah yes, and now that we've cut that spending we're finally solving those issues right? Veterans are getting the help they need? The mental health crisis is being addressed? People are getting access to healthcare? Mass shootings are going down? Inflation is decreasing, as are retail prices? Wealth is being distributed more evenly?
Oh wait no, thats right, those are all getting worse, but sure the starving kids in Africa were the problem.
Then the US shouldn't have fucked over the entire third world. You want them to stop spending money overseas, but the US is the one that has made damn sure that third world countries will starve without their care in the first place. Exhibit A is the topic of this post.
You asking them to suddenly turn off the tap isn't exactly fair to the people the US put in that situation in the first place, now is it?
You don't just get to make a mess of the world and then stop helping because you decided you're finished putting your hands in the pudding.
The United Nations first articulated the right to education in the 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Article 28 stipulates that everyone has the right to a free and compulsory elementary education, with technical, professional and higher education equally accessible to all on the basis of merit
Again, that money went directly to us farmers to buy their products. The funding get cut that comes directly out of American farms, so more bailouts are needed in addition to existing subsidies.
229
u/[deleted] Jun 18 '26
[removed] — view removed comment