Does The U.s. Have An Obligation Help Poor Countries?

In taking a brief look at the Oklahoma education system, one need not look far before issues of significant underfunding and understaffing come directly into view. Many different proposals regarding what Oklahoma needs to do to resolve this problem have been suggested in the past, but very few of these proposals outline an answer regarding how these fixes will be implemented. How Oklahoma's educational system can increase the effectiveness of its limited funding is something that can be addressed with simple cost-effective steps and strategies that have proven their effectiveness in other states. Additionally, the issue of understaffing can be looked at from a fresh perspective in order to understand what the Oklahoma education system can do to bring in new teachers and keep these teachers. Finally, in joining with national-level movements and interest groups such as the National Education Association which can help with budgetary issues and Teach for America which can help to bring in new, trained and enthusiastic teachers into areas of Oklahoma that have seen poor performance from students in the past.

It is not the responsibility of individuals to help their fellow man. Our resources are dwindling, and there’s no room to share. People and countries should learn to mend their own ways, and with reliance on others for aid, they won’t be able to do that.

Should America be morally obligated to give foreign aid with such problems within its own borders? According to www.state.gov under the foreign assistance budget tab, the United States is slotted in 2015 for $46.2 billion. That is 1% of the budget. That aid goes to assisting world hunger, helping governments form a democratic government, as well military training and weapons. In a quote by Secretary Kerry (Apr. 8): "When you consider that the American people pay just one penny of every tax dollar for the 46.2 billion in this request ... when it comes to the State Department and USAID, taxpayers are getting an extraordinary return on their investment.” Is it wrong to assist mankind? No. Should we focus first on our own people with the statistics given previously? Yes. Imagine what the citizens of the United States could give to the world if we were well fed leading to better health, formally educated, and had the food security to benefit others across the

People could argue that since we are donating such a low percent of our GDP it would make sense for the US to increase aid levels. This would also be an argument for anyone that has certain religious beliefs. In the article A Call To Virtue, the author, Jeffrey Sachs shares one of the Pope’s various messages, “The urgent core of Francis’ message, which is the message of Jesus’ Sermon on the Mount, challenges this American idea by proclaiming that the path to happiness lies not solely or mainly through the defense of rights but through the exercise of virtues, most notably justice and charity.” In some religions people believe it is morally right to help through charity to find happiness. Some people also argue that foreign aid levels should decrease because of the economic crisis that the US is in. The United States current debt is over eighteen trillion dollars right now according to usdebtclock.org. People believe that by decreasing foreign aid levels it will take away some debt. If the levels were to maintain there would not be worry about creating more debt by increasing levels and the US would also not have to worry about pulling out and not giving enough. Another argument is that aid should be unconditional and should be given to whoever needs it in time of crisis no matter

Should the United States increase foreign aid? This is a topic that has come up many

Ever had that one friend? The one who tries to help, but no matter how hard he tries, he just aggravates the situation. This friend, Steve, insists he is helping, and those around, too, would support that he is indeed helping. But Steve is actually worsening the circumstances. He is like countries who provide foreign aid to less developed countries. Foreign aid, defined as “the international transfer of capital, goods, or services from a country or international organization for the benefit of the recipient country or its population,” can be military, economic, or humanitarian (“Foreign”). It is often granted to less developed countries in order to evoke government reforms or to stimulate economic growth. However, foreign aid neither elicits government reform, nor does it consistently and reliably stimulate economic growth; therefore, the United States should discontinue providing foreign economic aid.

Is America the world's policeman? Currently it would seem so, with the United States sending unheard of support to countless countries. America has been doing this task for about 60 years, more or less. America spends millions of dollars for the safety of countries that can't help themselves. Obviously America cannot afford to support so many countries and itself. Either it will run out of money or it will run out of men. Policing the world takes a lot of manpower. America is dragging down its own future. If America supports everyone else when they are down, will they do the same for America in the future? America, if it keeps wasting its resources to protect everyone else, will eventually fail (Snyder).

Many skeptics challenge the reasoning for investing so much money into helping so many other countries when that money could instead help us improve internal affairs. After all, foreign aid spending has increased to $50 billion a year today, which could be put towards funding education to ensure that more kids go to college and possibly affecting the innovation of the future(Morris). Giving more than you receive is nice, but when it involves a country 's financial crisis, maybe it 's best if Santa cuts back some of this year 's presents. And although the argument may be valid, lending out a helping hand can create more allies than enemies to help us in return when we need it. In fact, foreign aid only accounts for 0.5 percent of the federal budget (Stearn). Compared to all the other matters at hand that the government is worrying about, the amount of spending put into aiding poorer countries is positive in both a moral aspect and a political aspect.

Poverty in the United States has been on the rise for many years, especially after the 2007 recession. The nation 's poverty rate is currently 15.1% which is the highest since 1993. Ever since the recession, the poverty rate has gone up 2.6% from 2007 through 2009. In 2006, 36 million Americans were living under poverty but that number rapidly rose to 46 million in 2012. The United States continues to provide billions of dollars in foreign aid to other countries even though 46 million Americans are living under poverty. The United States should provide less funding for international foreign policy because it is statistically proven that money spent on foreign aid is not as effective as money spent on programs in the United States.

Does American Aid help poverty in foreign countries? No, they don’t spend our wages on things they need to grow their living conditions and economy. Our compensation will not encourage them to become involved in world politics, instead it is just going to teach them to live off of our handouts. What good is a charity if it is not going to help anything? The purpose of America financially benefiting other countries is for them to take the money and help fix their economical issues and make a better livelihood status for themselves. Since it hardly seems like they are going to use our cash to promote their own society, they should be indebted to us and pay our unmitigated promotion. According to Stephen Moore, “There is zero evidence that any

Educators have recently understood that low income schools do need the money and that extra support. They have realized that too many places policies for assigning teachers and allocating resources are perpetuating the problem rather than solving it. The breakdown of data that researchers have found out on 2008-09 school-level spending proves that most of the high-poverty schools collect less than what they are supposed

Poverty within both the developed and undeveloped worlds is a complicated issue with incredibly complicated solutions. Relief given to undeveloped countries can alter the local economy and disable those economies from creating sustainable ways to provide for themselves. The issue of poverty is a worldwide responsibility. That responsibility falls on every individual to offer support and relief where they can. No human inherently deserves aid more than another. Various cultures and economies make it complicated to know how we can individually help provide the solutions that are necessary for sustainable living. Sending money does not give a sustainable answer to the very complicated issues with in poverty. It is better to work within a culture or economy then circumvent their way of living by providing money that will not last them. We have an inherent responsibility to help our neighbor. Each individual is morally responsible to provide improvement and assistance in lives that need assistance. It is not a question of if we should provide aid, it is a question of how we should provide aid.

One of my main arguments being how people do not believe that foreign aid helps, meaning they stop donating all together, creating immorality. This idea is supported in Banerjee and Duflo’s Poor Economics; they discuss the general reaction when faced with a major issue like poverty. Generally, our first instinct is to be generous and then our second thought is that there is no point to our generosity. Banerjee and Duflo are able to describe the general feeling that “our contribution would be a drop in the bucket, and the bucket probably leaks” (Banerjee and Duflo, 2). Regardless of the fact Banerjee and Duflo are trying to fight the assumption that we cannot do anything to help, it does not change the fact that this is the common belief when it comes to large issues like poverty. While I still believe that the frustration with inequality and poverty breeds immorality, I now believe that the bigger issue is on the global scale. In his book Encounter Development, Escobar makes the point that “development was – and continues to be for the most part – a top-down, ethnocentric, and technocratic approach, which treated people and cultures as abstract concepts, statistical figures to be moved up and down in charts of ‘progress’” summing up the immorality created by development thinkers who are there to “help” eradicate poverty (Escobar, 44). The inequality between the first world and the third world

For example; the United States itself and other nations such as Somalia and Congo continue to have people with no shelter over their head and those with no food to eat, regardless of how hard some may strive to make ends meet, they are still in poverty. As those more auspicious, we should consider it as a moral obligation to assist those people who are less fortunate, be it those in the same nation as us or those farther away.

In today’s economic environment even the wealthiest states and districts are having to cut funding for education, while districts which were already teetering on the edge are now in an even worse position. In some schools children have to face not having enough books, paper for copies, severe overcrowding,