| || |
I guess I can see a distinction between humanitarian aid and foreign aid. The foreign aid in some cases is very questionable IMO.
Of more significance both politically and economically, again IMO, is the number and size of foreign military bases. In the current technological environment is it really needed? Also, are the number of military base within the US needed. Wouldn't fewer, larger bases be more efficient?
I would guess that a reduction in the number of overseas bases might be a reduction of some personnel's empires and for sure the closing of a US base is a political bomb, but there are significant dollars involved here.
Even counting emergency foreign aid the US doesn't spend that much especially not as a percentage our income.
https://www.theguardian.com/global-d...-most-generousThe US donated the most funds (net) in foreign aid last year at $32bn. But when looking at the percentage of the country’s national income given to foreign aid, the US contribution is less impressive. It spent 0.19% of its national income, which is the same percentage as Portugal and Japan.
Out of the DAC countries, Sweden was the most generous – it was the first to meet the 0.7% target in 1974 – donating 1.1% of its GNI to foreign aid, which works out at about $6.2bn. Next came Luxembourg, at 1.07%, then Norway at 0.99% and Denmark at 0.85%. The UK was fifth, higher than Germany at 0.41%, France at 0.36% and Switzerland at 0.49%. In total the UK spent $19bn on foreign aid last year, compared to $16bn from Germany and $10bn from France.