US foreign aid vs US Military spending

[Guderian]

Governments Cutting Back on Promised Responsibilities

“Trade, not aid” is regarded as an important part of development promoted by some nations. But in the context of international obligations, it is also criticized by many as an excuse for rich countries to cut back aid that has been agreed and promised at the United Nations.
Rich Nations Agreed at the United Nations to 0.7% of GNP To Aid

Recently, there was an EU pledge to spend 0.56% of GNI on poverty reduction by 2010, and 0.7% by 2015.

However,

* The donor governments promised to spend 0.7% of GNI on ODA (Official Development Assistance) at the UN General Assembly in 1970 — some 35 years ago as of writing
* The deadline for reaching that target was the mid-1970s.
* By 2015 (the year by when the Millenium Development Goals are hoped to be achieved) the target will be 45 years old.

This target was codifed in a United Nations General Assembly Resolution, and a key paragraph says:

In recognition of the special importance of the role which can be fulfilled only by official development assistance, a major part of financial resource transfers to the developing countries should be provided in the form of official development assistance. Each economically advanced country will progressively increase its official development assistance to the developing countries and will exert its best efforts to reach a minimum net amount of 0.7 per cent of its gross national product at market prices by the middle of the Decade

— International Development Strategy for the Second United Nations Development Decade, UN General Assembly Resolution 2626 (XXV), October 24, 1970, para. 43

What was to be the form of aid?

Financial aid will, in principle, be untied. While it may not be possible to untie assistance in all cases, developed countries will rapidly and progressively take what measures they can ... to reduce the extent of tying of assistance and to mitigate any harmful effects [and make loans tied to particular sources] available for utiliziation by the recipient countries for the purpose of buying goods and services from other developing countries.

... Financial and technical assistance should be aimed exclusively at promoting the economic and social progress of developing conutries and should not in any way be used by the developed countries to the teriment of the national sovereignty of recipient countries.

Developed countries will provide, to the greatest extent possible, an increased flow of aid on a long-term and continuing basis.

— International Development Strategy for the Second United Nations Development Decade, UN General Assembly Resolution 2626 (XXV), October 24, 1970, para. 43

The aid is to come from the roughly 22 members of the OECD, known as the Development Assistance Committee (DAC). [Note that terminology is changing. GNP, which the OECD used up to 2000 is now replaced with the similar GNI, Gross National Income which includes a terms of trade adjustment. Some quoted articles and older parts of this site may still use GNP or GDP.]

ODA is basically aid from the governments of the wealthy nations, but doesn’t include private contributions or private capital flows and investments. The main objective of ODA is to promote development. It is therefore a kind of measure on the priorities that governments themselves put on such matters. (Whether that necessarily reflects their citizen’s wishes and priorities is a different matter!)

These charts compare foreign aid between nations:

http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/40/3/35389786.pdf

vs

The U.S. military budget request for Fiscal Year 2006 is $441.6 billion. (This includes the Defense Department budget and funding for nuclear weapons activity of the Department of Energy Budget. It does not include other items such as money for the Afghan and Iraq wars ($49.1 billion for Fiscal Year 2006), or Homeland Security funding ($41.1 billion for Fiscal Year 2006), for example.)

* For Fiscal Year 2005 it was $420.7 billion
* For Fiscal Year 2004 it was $399.1 billion.
* For Fiscal Year 2003 it was $396.1 billion.
* For Fiscal Year 2002 it was $343.2 billion.
* For Fiscal Year 2001 it was $305 billion. And Congress had increased that budget request to $310 billion.
* This was up from approximately $288.8 billion, in 2000.

Compared to the rest of the world, these numbers are indeed staggering.

Military spending in 2004 ($ Billions, and percent of total)

United States 399.1 43%
Russia* 65.2 7%
China* 56 6%
United Kingdom 49 5%
Japan 45.1 5%
France 40 4%
Germany 29.7 3%
Saudi Arabia 19.3 2%
India 19.1 2%
Italy 17.5 2%
South Korea 16.4 2%
Australia 11.7 1%
Turkey* 11.7 1%
Israel* 10.8 1%
Canada 10.1 1%
Spain* 9.9 1%
Brazil 9.2 1%
Netherlands 7.6 1%
Taiwan 7.5 1%
Greece* 7.2 1%
Indonesia* 6.4 1%
Sweden 5.9 1%
North Korea* 5.5 1%
Ukraine* 5.5 1%
Singapore 5 1%
Poland 4.4 0%
Norway 4.2 0%
Kuwait 4 0%
Iran 3.5 0%
Belgium 3.3 0%
Pakistan 3.3 0%
Colombia* 3.2 0%
Portugal* 3.2 0%
Vietnam 3.2 0%
Denmark 2.9 0%
Mexico 2.8 0%
Egypt* 2.7 0%
Czech Republic 1.9 0%
Hungary 1.7 0%
Syria 1.6 0%
Argentina 1.6 0%
Rumania** 1.5 0%
Cuba* 1.2 0%
Philippines 0.8 0%
Libya* 0.7 0%
Serbia-Montenegro 0.7 0%
Slovakia** 0.7 0%
Bulgaria** 0.6 0%
Slovenia** 0.5 0%
Sudan* 0.5 0%
Lithuania** 0.3 0%
Luxembourg 0.3 0%
Estonia** 0.2 0%
Latvia** 0.2 0%

Notes:

* Figures are for latest year available, usually 2004. Expenditures are used in a few cases where official budgets are significantly lower than actual spending.
* * 2003 Figure.
* ** Joined NATO in March 2004.
* Source uses FY 2006 for US figure. I have used 2004 to try and keep in line with other countries listed.
* Due to rounding, some percentages may appear as zero.
Source

Original Source



1. Can America do more to fight poverty in the world?
2. Do you think America is justified in spending this much of it's budget for the military?
3. Do you think America would benefit more if it reduced it's military budget and increased it's foreign aid? i.e good will not intimidation.
4. Do you think countries should increase foriegn aid to 0.7% as promised? Do you think it will have an affect on poverty and living standards for poorer nations?

[TIGERCAT]

Yes, but foreign aid should not be the first priority.
The nation's priorities should be first.
1. Social Security reform or make it into a personnel I.R.A.
when someone turns 16.
2. Health care reform and tort reform
3. Educational reform. All college sshould have their
accounting records and employee wage scales open to
the public - so we see where the money is going. A tuition
cap should be installed. In other words, educate your
people first and worry about educating the terroist kids, and
the Chinese nationals later.
4. Now, take on the foreign aid issue.

Charity begins at home

[JP226]

3. Educational reform. All college sshould have their
accounting records and employee wage scales open to
the public - so we see where the money is going. A tuition
cap should be installed. In other words, educate your
people first and worry about educating the terroist kids, and
the Chinese nationals later.

absolutely, anyhting that takes our taxes should have it's accounting records made public. Here here.

[Guderian]

Thanks for ignoring my entire post you guys...

[Erik]

These charts compare foreign aid between nations:

http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/40/3/35389786.pdf

Damn my country for reducing it's forreign aid!
Well, at least we still spend more than the "mandatory" .7% :sweatingb but I realy think we should spend something like 1%.



Compared to the rest of the world, these numbers are indeed staggering.

Military spending in 2004 ($ Billions, and percent of total)

United States 399.1 43%
[/quote]
This is % of federal spending, correct?
That would give a twisted view because:
1) It doesn't include state level spending (correct me if I am wrong).
2) The US has very low tax compared to most of the other nations listed and people have to pay for a lot of things like healthcare themselves.

Netherlands 7.6 1%

That's one percent too many IMO.
Our millitary sucks, not because of poor equipment (we have almost all the nice toys the US has) but because we have no fighting history.
I think we should become pacifists (again) and spend all this money on forreign aid instead.
Then other countries can do the fighting for us, countries that are better at it, like Poland.
It worked fine for us in WWI and WWII.

Poland 4.4 0%

"Don't forget Poland...oh damn!"
They can have OUR 1%. (or did I already spend that on forreign aid).

1. Can America do more to fight poverty in the world?

Only if they are willing to get involved in the countries and get their hands dirty, not if they only send money.

2. Do you think America is justified in spending this much of it's budget for the military?

It's their money, I can't comment on that.
But IMO they should at least raise taxes to pay for it in stead of passing the bill to their children.

3. Do you think America would benefit more if it reduced it's military budget and increased it's foreign aid? i.e good will not intimidation.

They have to change their attitude towards people in need first.
Stop supporting dictatorships like the one in Tajikistan for short term strategic advantages but long term instability.
Then spend some money to make the lifes of the Afghani people a bit better so they won't go back to terrorism once the US turns their back.

4. Do you think countries should increase foriegn aid to 0.7% as promised? Do you think it will have an affect on poverty and living standards for poorer nations?

Yes, defenately.
But maybe countries should be given a choice: contribute to NATO/Bluehelmets or forreign aid.

[Guderian]

I can't say much for Australia either, our percentages are a joke if you ask me. And we are surrounded by poverty stricken countries.

[Kanaric]

Actually I think education reform should be in #1. However you wont have anything like that happen due to vast areas of the country disagreeing on what is taught, of course the future of the country isn't that important though.

Whats ironic about the spending on this is why pay for a large expensive military when we could simply lose due to education? Also IMO we could probably spend 1/2 what we do on military and still have the best army and most "well equipped" army. All they have to do is trim the fat and obviously with problems like soldiers not getting what they need they obviously aren't doing much with their fat wallets.

Also since nobody knows what their black project budget is for it could just be some generals salary whose sitting on his fat ass in Area 51 looking like hes doing work when their actually simply doing nothing. Just contaminating workers and burning toxic waste.

Actually now I think of it:
1. Investigate military budget and spending
2. education.

[Guderian]

Whats ironic about the spending on this is why pay for a large expensive military when we could simply lose due to education? Also IMO we could probably spend 1/2 what we do on military and still have the best army and most "well equipped" army. All they have to do is trim the fat and obviously with problems like soldiers not getting what they need they obviously aren't doing much with their fat wallets.

Actually now I think of it:
1. Investigate military budget and spending

The same site claims that the US spends 6 times the amount of the closest spender (Russia), 30 times more than all of the rogue states combined, and America potential enemies only spend 34% of America's military budget. So yeah, why the need for such a big military budget? And what the heck is the US military doing with it?

[Last Roman]

And what the heck is the US military doing with it?

you see all the troops in Iraq and Afghanistan on TV right? (or not) there you go. Troops are very expensive.

[Kanaric]

you see all the troops in Iraq and Afghanistan on TV right? (or not) there you go. Troops are very expensive.

not really. A VERY small percentage of that is for troops actually.... i wish i had a graph.

Also ~100,000 troops in Iraq is DEFINATELY not worth that much money.

We aren't even in the 5th largest armed services.

[humvee2800]

Its really not a good thing for us to say wether or wether not the Us military budget should be cut.We do not know wether or not it is truly needed.There are many threats in this world *****cough,china,cough******** and they must be taken seriously.THeonly REason The chinese military budget is so low is that they've got what is essentially slave labour.

CHina isnt as week as many seem to presume,and it is becoming more dangerous as with its cheep labour and leaning on capitalism it is starting to become a very rich communist country(well the communit politicains are becoming rich.People are still dirt poor)

[Last Roman]

not really. A VERY small percentage of that is for troops actually.... i wish i had a graph.

Also ~100,000 troops in Iraq is DEFINATELY not worth that much money.

We aren't even in the 5th largest armed services.

I thought we had closer to 200,000 troops in Iraq (not sure). Anyway, what I meant was all those deployed troops cost more than if we were not in a war now. But yes you're right, 100,000-200,000 troops are not worth that much.

[danzig]

The same site claims that the US spends 6 times the amount of the closest spender (Russia), 30 times more than all of the rogue states combined, and America potential enemies only spend 34% of America's military budget. So yeah, why the need for such a big military budget? And what the heck is the US military doing with it?

Shrug we spent alot of money on various experminetal crap too that might never see the light of day. Hell we even spend money on projects to develop them and then kill them before production (Comache heli).

[Guderian]

But that does not include the Afghan and Iraq wars, doesnt even include homeland security.

The U.S. military budget request for Fiscal Year 2006 is $441.6 billion. (This includes the Defense Department budget and funding for nuclear weapons activity of the Department of Energy Budget. It does not include other items such as money for the Afghan and Iraq wars ($49.1 billion for Fiscal Year 2006), or Homeland Security funding ($41.1 billion for Fiscal Year 2006), for example.)

[Kanaric]

The secret military spending by the US gets no oversight as well. Which is why I said the general in area 51 is probably just sitting on his ass burning toxic waste so people sue the government, and the employess their HAVE sued the government. You would think that if they even were spending the money SLIGHTLY efficiently they wouldn't burn toxic waste on-site......

edit: I want to see a site where they show the breakdown of the military budget. I'd bet that not even 10% is for soldiers.

[Kanaric]

We do not know wether or not it is truly needed.

Thats why they need to investigate it and why their needs to be more oversight. I'd guarntee we could probably cut half the budget if they would simply look at it and not think spending = security = votes.

edit: I seriously cannot find any site on military spending.... besies how much they actually spend.

[humvee2800]

Kanaric,Politicians also happen to be money grubbers and their the ones who wanna slice and dice the budget of the us army.If they had any thought that it was being wasted theyd fire a general and bite the budget in half.

Also politicians might be :wub:s but theyre usually not as dumb as everyone thinks they are.What The us military spends its money on is mostly on technologyn to keep itself ahead of everyone else.Nowadays technology is one of the keys to power

[Kanaric]

Kanaric,Politicians also happen to be money grubbers and their the ones who wanna slice and dice the budget of the us army.If they had any thought that it was being wasted theyd fire a general and bite the budget in half.

Also politicians might be :wub:s but theyre usually not as dumb as everyone thinks they are

Then how come europeon countries, for example, are on par with the US technologically and produce their own hardware for a FRACTION of the cost.

edit: also their are things like

$80 billion emergency supplemental appropriation that lawmakers expect the administration to request next week.

That could be spent on ANYTHING, the government asked for this for the military, obviously they need it for some reason... but who knows?

Also with the black budget how do you know if that money is spent well? Simply, you dont. Obviously they dont use it to take care of employees and for safety measures.

[Fenris]

Kanaric,Politicians also happen to be money grubbers and their the ones who wanna slice and dice the budget of the us army.If they had any thought that it was being wasted theyd fire a general and bite the budget in half.

Also politicians might be :wub:s but theyre usually not as dumb as everyone thinks they are.What The us military spends its money on is mostly on technologyn to keep itself ahead of everyone else.Nowadays technology is one of the keys to power

A bigger army = bigger influence on the international level. And many politicians in USA or people close to politicians have a lot of shares in the "war" industry.

[Guderian]

Shrug we spent alot of money on various experminetal crap too that might never see the light of day. Hell we even spend money on projects to develop them and then kill them before production (Comache heli).

But over 300billion? you guys must be getting ripped off by the defense contracters lol...I think it could be better spent on other things namely foreign aid and poverty relief.