Likewise, "interesting" use "of" meaningless quotation "marks."
Unacceptable to whom?
To everybody with even the most basic sense of morality, perspective, and intelligence. Also, to nearly 3 million Africans infected with Aids last year, etc, etc, etc. And, in retrospect, to another 2 million Africans who had AIDs last year and died - without access to generic drugs, I might add. I would like to see an argument as to how the current situation is acceptable. Thanks.
Not at all clear that increased government aid would significantly alleviate the problem of poverty. Indeed the experience since WWII suggests that with respect to undeveloped countries the opposite is often true - foreign aid and interference more often than not interferes with needed political and social reform which are usually the real barriers to the elimination of poverty.
I would hazard to say that the general ineffectiveness of the Western worlds approach to development can be chalked up too faulty methodology. It in no way follows that the entire concept of foriegn aid is faulty.
For example, the World Bank/IMF's methods of fostering development are questionable at best. An argument can be made that these organizations fail so often because thier pre-occupation with promoting Western economic values and protecting Western economic interests interferes with thier "development stratagies." Among others, former chief financial officer of the World Bank, Joe Stiglitz, has spoken extensively about the fundamental flaws in the way these organization promote development (he resigned in protest of this.) Others, such as Russian official Georgi Arbotov, have labelled them "neo-Bolsheviks who love expropriating other peoples money, imposing undemocratic and alien rules of economic and political conduct and stifling economic freedom."
Now, the intention of the paragraph above was not to derail the discussion into a debate over the World Bank and IMF. It was to show that failures in effectively implementing our forign aid dollars does not neccessarily mean the concept of foeign aid itself is faulty. That would be a rather retarded conclusion.
Also, who said all, or even most, foriegn aid has to be channeled through comprehensive economic stratagies aimed at development. Education, birth control, drilling wells, aming others, are all in desparate need for aid.
"... drastic increase achievable and sustainable..." sez who?? 1% of GDP is a great deal of money, considering that our private and public cash transfers are already at par.
Giving 1% of GNP is not a great deal of money - at least not in the sense that it would affect our economy in any substantive way. Consider the Japanese experiance: for more than a decade Japan gave more raw dollars of foriegn aid than any other nation - even though it is far smaller and has been beset by economic woes. In 2001, the United States gave $10.9 billion, Japan $9.7 billion.
Also, where are the sources I asked for? Namely, the sources that prove America gives as much per capita yearly as other nations when private donations are taken into account.
Can you point out any American politicians of any party who advocate this?
What American politicians think of this is absolutely irrelevent to my arguments correctness. To reciprocate with an equally meaningless question: can you point out any American politicians of any party who opposed slavery in its earliest years?
While you may feel there is an "ethical obligation" here, I doubt that most Americans would agree - nor indeed would most of our European critics readily agree to such an obligation to so increase their own giving
You mean the same "most Americans" who think we give almost 25% of our budget to foriegn AID?
Anybody who does not feel we have an ethical obligation is either a) ignorant of the situation (most Americans fall into this catagory), b) on the most fundamental level, is morally and ethically bankrupt.