Nymphadora Wrote:Mister Agenda Wrote:We spend less than 1% of our budget on foreign aid, about the same as Portugal and Japan. The top eight are Sweden, Luxembourg, Norway, Denmark, the UK, Germany, France, and Switzerland. The UAE donated 1.1% of its GNI to foreign aid, Australia donated about 0.27% of its national income to foreign aid (2014).
https://www.theguardian.com/global-devel...t-generous
That wasn't the point. The issue brought up was: why doesn't the US help more, because it was being assumed that we only let in 4000 people last year, when in fact, we have done so much more than just help 4000 people. So it's not about our budget. 600 million dollars on top of the five BILLION dollars already donated to help the cause is a lot of money. For people to say we weren't helping, was wrong and I was pointing that out, strictly on principle because I'm tired of the accusations that the US is not stepping up to help out more.
People seem to forget that it's not always about relocating refugees. It's also about bringing in resources to assist them so that they can remain in their own country. It's about volunteers, food, shelter, medicine and other types of aid. There is a lot more that goes on with helping out those in need that reaches beyond having to necessitate a relocation. I'm sure if those people had the choice to remain in their own places, with help, they would want to stay where they are as long as it was safe to do so.
I think it does matter what the percent is. If we give 0.2% of our national income and the UAE gives 1.1%, how can we claim to be so generous just because we're a developed country with over 320 million people and a federal budget of around 3 trillion a year so our 0.2% works out to more cash than their 1.1%? How can we say we've done 'our share' with 0.2%?
Who is being more generous, a millionaire who gives you $1,000 or a poor person who gives you $100?
I'm not anti-Christian. I'm anti-stupid.
