What's the negative if America ended all financial aid to every nation and organization ?

[Channe79]

The WHO, UN, NATO, etc ... get billions from the US every year.
The following nations get billions annually from the US as well.

• Israel ($3.2 billion)
• Jordan ($1.72 billion)
• Egypt ($1.46 billion)
• Iraq ($960 million)
• Ethiopia ($922 million)
• Yemen ($809 million)
• Colombia ($800 million)
• Nigeria ($793 million)
• Lebanon ($790 million)

What would honestly happened if we stopped funding these organization and countries ?
The majority of human history has existed without foreign aid and the existence of international organizations.
Without cultural or political bias, please tell me what's the actual negative if the US said, "to hell with the world" and just worried about itself.

 

[noonereal]

What would honestly happened if we stopped funding these organization and countries ?

We would lose economic might. Do you too think of foreign aid as charity? It's not. We are in a global battle for resources which equals wealth. If we go into isolationism other countries will fill the void and make us more vulnerable both militarily and economically.
Foreign aid is nothing but a payoff. An important one.

The majority of human history has existed without foreign aid and the existence of international organizations.

Nonsense.

 

[MamboDervish]

What's the negative if America ended all financial aid to every nation and organization ?​

Well, just off hand, catastrophic mass starvation and disease on a global scale. In the cases where those funds are a part of treaty agreements, both unilateral and multilateral, the US would be rightly perceived to be a country who does not honor its committments, so the prospect of future agreements gets flushed down the toilet - just to name a few negatives.

 

[dmpi]

We don't just give dollars, we give products, goods and services. Much of this aid is just 'make work' for corporate America. And I'm not saying that's a bad thing. It represents lots of American jobs producing useful things that can be used throughout the world.

 

[AGENT J]

The WHO, UN, NATO, etc ... get billions from the US every year.
The following nations get billions annually from the US as well.

• Israel ($3.2 billion)
• Jordan ($1.72 billion)
• Egypt ($1.46 billion)
• Iraq ($960 million)
• Ethiopia ($922 million)
• Yemen ($809 million)
• Colombia ($800 million)
• Nigeria ($793 million)
• Lebanon ($790 million)

What would honestly happened if we stopped funding these organization and countries ?
The majority of human history has existed without foreign aid and the existence of international organizations.
Without cultural or political bias, please tell me what's the actual negative if the US said, "to hell with the world" and just worried about itself.

Tell us the post you made has no clue about how the planet and the US works without telling us the post you made has no clue about how the planet and the US works LMAO
wow this is the dumbest question ever . . . .

 

[Davin]

The WHO, UN, NATO, etc ... get billions from the US every year.
The following nations get billions annually from the US as well.

• Israel ($3.2 billion)
• Jordan ($1.72 billion)
• Egypt ($1.46 billion)
• Iraq ($960 million)
• Ethiopia ($922 million)
• Yemen ($809 million)
• Colombia ($800 million)
• Nigeria ($793 million)
• Lebanon ($790 million)

What would honestly happened if we stopped funding these organization and countries ?
The majority of human history has existed without foreign aid and the existence of international organizations.
Without cultural or political bias, please tell me what's the actual negative if the US said, "to hell with the world" and just worried about itself.

And we have another example of MAGA demonstrating their sheer ignorance of the world and how politics works globally. This is the perfect example why anyone MAGA should be automatically banned from office as they simply don’t have a clue.

 

[Channe79]

Well, just off hand, catastrophic mass starvation and disease on a global scale.

Why should America try to help the world ?
We have enough problems at home.
Let the chips fall where they may.
If other nations' peoples can't get their shit together, it isn't our problem.

 

[mrjurrs]

The WHO, UN, NATO, etc ... get billions from the US every year.
The following nations get billions annually from the US as well.

• Israel ($3.2 billion)
• Jordan ($1.72 billion)
• Egypt ($1.46 billion)
• Iraq ($960 million)
• Ethiopia ($922 million)
• Yemen ($809 million)
• Colombia ($800 million)
• Nigeria ($793 million)
• Lebanon ($790 million)

What would honestly happened if we stopped funding these organization and countries ?
The majority of human history has existed without foreign aid and the existence of international organizations.
Without cultural or political bias, please tell me what's the actual negative if the US said, "to hell with the world" and just worried about itself.

Dramatic loss of economic activity, and battleship America is just a horrible idea. Whether you like it or not, it is a global society we are a part of, not an island by ourselves.

 

[Ug make hammer]

The WHO, UN, NATO, etc ... get billions from the US every year.
The following nations get billions annually from the US as well.

• Israel ($3.2 billion)
• Jordan ($1.72 billion)
• Egypt ($1.46 billion)
• Iraq ($960 million)
• Ethiopia ($922 million)
• Yemen ($809 million)
• Colombia ($800 million)
• Nigeria ($793 million)
• Lebanon ($790 million)

What would honestly happened if we stopped funding these organization and countries ?
The majority of human history has existed without foreign aid and the existence of international organizations.
Without cultural or political bias, please tell me what's the actual negative if the US said, "to hell with the world" and just worried about itself.

Worse public opinion of the US. If you think that doesn't matter, you have likely not been outside a 5 star hotel in any foreign country.

Defunding the US military presence and the various undeclared wars, however, would save the US much more and also help with world public opinion. If you're serious about "the US should just worry about itself" then stop with the power projection before worrying about the good will projection.

 

[Channe79]

Worse public opinion of the US. If you think that doesn't matter, you have likely not been outside a 5 star hotel in any foreign country.

Defunding the US military presence and the various undeclared wars, however, would save the US much more and also help with world public opinion. If you're serious about "the US should just worry about itself" then stop with the power projection before worrying about the good will projection.

Who honestly cares if Russia takes over Ukraine or if the Palestinian and Israelis have a full on war ?
Let's worry only about America.
The rest of the world can take care of itself.
You can't control chaos - and that's what the world is.
We need to stop playing big brother.

 

[BirdinHand]

Global economic instability?
Global human suffering?
More communicable diseases?

It is 2022. Not 1902.

There isn't a single major country on the face of planet earth that would not be directly impacted, negatively, by what you suggest.

 

[BirdinHand]

Who honestly cares if Russia takes over Ukraine or if the Palestinian and Israelis have a full on war ?
Let's worry only about America.
The rest of the world can take care of itself.
You can't control chaos - and that's what the world is.
We need to stop playing big brother.

You could have simply said "I'm completely out of touch with global affairs and have no concept as to how things work"

 

[daeler]

The WHO, UN, NATO, etc ... get billions from the US every year.
The following nations get billions annually from the US as well.

• Israel ($3.2 billion)
• Jordan ($1.72 billion)
• Egypt ($1.46 billion)
• Iraq ($960 million)
• Ethiopia ($922 million)
• Yemen ($809 million)
• Colombia ($800 million)
• Nigeria ($793 million)
• Lebanon ($790 million)

What would honestly happened if we stopped funding these organization and countries ?
The majority of human history has existed without foreign aid and the existence of international organizations.
Without cultural or political bias, please tell me what's the actual negative if the US said, "to hell with the world" and just worried about itself.

Influence and resources is the main thing. America is not an island. To insure that we are not losing out on the things we need as a nation you need the influence that money buys.

 

[Lovebug]

Why should America try to help the world ?
We have enough problems at home.
Let the chips fall where they may.
If other nations' peoples can't get their shit together, it isn't our problem.

Because it is a carefully balanced give and take.

 

[Channe79]

You could have simply said "I'm completely out of touch with global affairs and have no concept as to how things work"

Being stuck in the machine doesn't mean we have to be there forever.
There has to come a point when we walk away.

 

[bongsaway]

Why should America try to help the world ?
We have enough problems at home.
Let the chips fall where they may.
If other nations' peoples can't get their shit together, it isn't our problem.

We are a part of the world and the world is now global like it or not. We would be cutting our own throats by becoming what you are suggesting. Do you honestly think america is self sufficient enough to support itself, I don't.

Once again in my opinion all you are proving is that the gop doesn't know how to govern, only how to rule.

 

[daeler]

Being stuck in the machine doesn't mean we have to be there forever.
There has to come a point when we walk away.

The only way this happens is if we are taken over by another global power.

 

[Candyman]

And again we see that modern conservatives are in essence regressive isolationists....in a world where isolationism is impossible.

 

[BirdinHand]

Being stuck in the machine doesn't mean we have to be there forever.
There has to come a point when we walk away.

This isn't the Matrix. This is real life.

The United States cannot simply "walk away" from global affairs. That isn't how reality works.

 

[Mr Person]

We lose all the power we buy, the only remaining source being military and economic threats. A sea change in international relations would occur, with China taking the lead, likely in conjunction with like-minded countries.

When is a Trumpist plan ever not the worst idea possible?

And again we see that modern conservatives are in essence regressive isolationists....in a world where isolationism is impossible.

It's more naked contrarianism, really. By and large, modern conservatives aren't conservative. They're just against the idea of there being a left. They don't have policies of their own (though the pols they vote for like tax cuts for the upper crust), so blindly negating whatever it is we're doing or a Democrat wants to do is the extent of it.

 

[Ug make hammer]

Who honestly cares if Russia takes over Ukraine or if the Palestinian and Israelis have a full on war ?
Let's worry only about America.
The rest of the world can take care of itself.
You can't control chaos - and that's what the world is.
We need to stop playing big brother.

So I repeat: shouldn't the first priority be to stop making foreigners hate the US? Stop "playing big brother" though with your lazy use of capital letters I can't be sure how you mean that.

Bitching about foreign aid without mentioning power projection, makes me very suspicious that you're one of those people who favor aggressive selfishness, not just passive.

For myself, I actually welcome both the stick and the carrot from the US. Ending the Bosnian war for instance, shows that a bit of force can do good in the world. The US over-reaches when it tries to reform whole societies (eg Iraq or Afghanistan) but its for want of knowledge, not of effort. And in neither case would the outcome have been better if the US had skimped on civilian aid.

 

[ttwtt78640]

Who honestly cares if Russia takes over Ukraine or if the Palestinian and Israelis have a full on war ?
Let's worry only about America.
The rest of the world can take care of itself.
You can't control chaos - and that's what the world is.
We need to stop playing big brother.

You can try to prevent and/or lessen it. Trying to play isolationist in a global economy doesn’t work well.

 

[Channe79]

You can try to prevent and/or lessen it. Trying to play isolationist in a global economy doesn’t work well.

We can help out as needed, but we pre-plan foreign aid ten years in advance.
These nations and organizations expect money from us.
Why shouldn't they be made to earn it, if anything ?

 

[AmNat]

The WHO, UN, NATO, etc ... get billions from the US every year.
The following nations get billions annually from the US as well.

• Israel ($3.2 billion)
• Jordan ($1.72 billion)
• Egypt ($1.46 billion)
• Iraq ($960 million)
• Ethiopia ($922 million)
• Yemen ($809 million)
• Colombia ($800 million)
• Nigeria ($793 million)
• Lebanon ($790 million)

What would honestly happened if we stopped funding these organization and countries ?
The majority of human history has existed without foreign aid and the existence of international organizations.
Without cultural or political bias, please tell me what's the actual negative if the US said, "to hell with the world" and just worried about itself.

The collapse of the so-called “liberal international order”. Which would be a good thing.

 

[Ug make hammer]

We lose all the power we buy, the only remaining source being military and economic threats. A sea change in international relations would occur, with China taking the lead, likely in conjunction with like-minded countries.

China is deliberately doing what Western governments aren't allowed to do, and Western corporations can't find it in their budget to do. That is, building industry and infrastructure in nations where it's not yet profitable. Belt and Road is losing money, but it will continue because when companies can finally make a profit in developing nations, those companies will be 100% Chinese.

I am glad to see though that the US and its Pacific partners are finally taking the scarcely populated islands of the Pacific seriously. China with its huge population looks beyond the South China Sea (though they definitely want that) for the huge future in aquaculture and sea-bed mining. Even coral reefs could be an industrial asset, if/when they die from ocean warming. It does not ask a lot of the US, to protect the Pacific people, their fisheries and their way of life despite their obvious attraction to internet and world markets. Pacific islands are unique, hosting most of the remaining stone-age cultures, but they are also extremely weak economically or militarily. Offering them protection with no strings attached, is extremely cheap. But they will accept that protection from China if it seems to come with no-strings-attached.

America's approach should be simply this: "we fought for you in the Pacific war and asked nothing in return, so you can trust us." Though if any of the islanders are bold enough to point out US nuclear tests in the Pacific, it might be necessary to offer reparations.

When is a Trumpist plan ever not the worst idea possible?



It's more naked contrarianism, really. By and large, modern conservatives aren't conservative. They're just against the idea of there being a left. They don't have policies of their own (though the pols they vote for like tax cuts for the upper crust), so blindly negating whatever it is we're doing or a Democrat wants to do is the extent of it.

No, conservatives have always been like that. They're fundamentally afraid of change, and their fear blinds them to even the most obvious facets of the future.

In a sense, leftists always win. Leftists never get the future they wanted, but at least they feel some ownership of it, and some pride in having made it less horrible than it is.