ency for International Development(AID), to lose funding. Furthermore there is no reason to send billions of dollars over seas when northern countries like the United States and Great Britain currently face the highest levels of child poverty that either country has seen in over 25 years. In addition to poverty, other domestic problems such as rape, robberies, and murders in this country still exist. Until domestic issues are solved, any future increase in foreign aid should also be kept to a minimum. The purpose of a nation is to look after its own citizens to insure that they are free from harm, stay healthy, receive public utilities, and become educated. If protecting a nations? people require its country, for example, to send aid to an African country to help prevent the spread of HIV, then foreign aid is acceptable. However, if there is no immediate threat to US security, then aid and foreign involvement should be kept to a minimum. In other words, aid should only be offered when a clear gain for that country can be achieved. There are not enough resources to save the destitute and sick of the world out of compassion alone. Special interest groups such as Peace Corps, private donations, and volunteers serve the purpose of helping others. It is all right for a country to help provide these groups with the necessary resources required to carry out their missions safely; however, it is not the duty of a country to take care of all nations alone. As advocates of the no side, the editors of The Economist firmly believe that the north should not increase aid to the developing south on account of past misuse, unfair distribution of aid among countries, and lack of results. Furthermore, foreign aid does more than just ease the suffering of the impoverished. Health care expenditures account for only 2% of the entire aid budget as a study by the World Bank in 1988 showed. The rest of the 98% goes toward the financing of military c...
