I would really love to know why and how the government has enough money to spend on all these trashy, slander filled presidential campaigns but we can't spend the money and time to help out third world countries that are in need. We can go and buy and buy and buy stuff that we don't need rather than donating $10 a week to those who really need. If we would all come together and take part in something, this world would be a much much better place for us and for the rest of the world!
9 Answers | Add Yours
To minimize world hunger is not just the rich countries donating to the poor. "Give a man a fish, you feed him for the day; teach a man to fish, you feed him for life." People in oppressed nations where starvation is rampart need to control their governments, and insure that it insures their exercise of Rights. If there is a great demand for food, a great supply will appear to satisfy that need. It's simple, market driven supply-demand. Where that does not occur implies the existence of a coercive force, or in this case, corrupt governments. If the US really wanted to help, it would stop supplying food to dictators; instead, it would help the oppressed remove them.
I think you have a slight misunderstanding of how the presidential and political races are run. Candidates receive donations and contribute personally to their campaign. The government does not fund political campaigns at all. The most influence the government generally lends to a campaign is the endorsement of particular candidates by government officials already in office. Their are strict rules on how much and who can donate to political parties. The government does not want political races to becomes a chance for back-door deals. In other words, they don't want a powerful group to be able to do whatever they want because they contributed large amounts of money to the winning candidate. While the government does monitor specific aspects of the political race, they do not fund it.
It is an unfortunate part of our media system that all eyes are turned to a political race during an election year. I think this draws attention away from other important world events. The US does help third world countries. There are many government and non-government agencies dedicated to this task. Again, it is unfortunate that this isn't often publicized especially during a presidential race.
Unfortunately, not everyone takes on this attitude that we need to help people. Of course, it should be a choice, and many people choose to spend money in wasteful ways. The government cannot force people to send their money to third world countries- or to even the poor in America itself, which there are plenty of. However, there are many of our very rich who are excellent humanitarians and devote a great deal of time and money to important causes. As far as political campaigns go, it does seem like quite a waste, but the sad truth is that if these people didn't raise money to campaign, they wouldn't get the votes, and they wouldn't be able to put ANY policies in place. Therefore, to be in a position to make policies to help third world countries, a lot of money has to be spent.
Most experts agree that we collectively produce enough food to feed everyone in the world. The problem is in distributing the food to those in need. Unfortunately wars and ineffective leadership in the neediest countries have made it all but impossible to get the food directly to the hungry - it tends to get grabbed by corrupt government officials and sold on the black market, or it rots in warehouses instead of being distributed. The sad fact is that many governments use hunger as a tool to control their citizens. This is promarily a matter of international, not national, politics. While I applaud your thought of giving money to the cause, you would be better off educating yourself onthe realities of the matter and then using your knowledge to write letters to editors and politicians and to spread the work to other caring people to do the same.
I don't necessarily have a problem with your ideas, but I do believe that we should deal with the poor people and the poverty found right here in the United States before we send more money to foreign nations. You may have noticed that the U. S. is suffering from a severe depression at this time, and many people don't have the money to contribute to others when they are barely making it on their own. I agree with one of the other posts: Feel free to donate to worldwide organizations if you wish, and if you really feel strongly about it, sell some of your own possessions to finance your contribution. Government waste in spending is a major problem--and the prime reason for the current depression. This election year is a great time to voice your opinion--even if you are not yet old enough to vote.
Many people, like yourself, have issues with how the government spends its money. Today, with the elections right around the corner, candidates are speaking about who supported what and how other causes should have been supported.
I cannot tell you how many times a day I see commercials about helping others who cannot help themselves. My suggestion is to donate, and get involved in others donating, to the cause.
Like the previous posts have stated, campaign money comes from the private sector, not the government.
The government doesn't control how much we donate to other countries, we do (with regard to your second point). If you feel that people aren't doing enough to help others, then donate money and encourage others to do so as well. I figure that until we all sell all our possessions and give all the money to the poor we're not doing all we can. So where's the line -- when is it enough?
Most of the expenses of presidential campaigns are funded by donors to those campaigns, not by the government. The U. S. actually has a pretty decent track record of helping out third world countries (as in the recent campaign against AIDS), but, of course, it may always be possible to do more.
We’ve answered 318,915 questions. We can answer yours, too.Ask a question