Here is a very interesting article I found in EWTN, concerning things we have been discussing here.

"First, current levels of aid are too low. For example, the share of the U.S. budget devoted to helping poor nations is still lower than in almost any year between the end of World War II and the mid-1990s"

God bless us.

-- Atila (atila@choose.com.br), April 17, 2002

Answers

Complete article here:

http://www.ewtn.com/vnews/getstory.asp?number=25531

-- Atila (atila@choose.com.br), April 17, 2002.

I haven't read the whole article yet, Atila, but I did notice that what you quoted was prefaced by the following, which indicates that the source is not a Catholic one:

"Other points for reform were suggested by Moises Naim, editor of the U.S. magazine 'Foreign Policy.' Writing in the April 1 issue of the Financial Times, he identified three problems that need to be resolved."

I was thinking about why it might be true that "the share of the U.S. budget devoted to helping poor nations is still lower than in almost any year between the end of World War II and the mid-1990s." And I asked myself if this is necessarily an indication of lack of generosity by the U.S., as some readers might immediately leap to believe.

The fact is that the U.S. is probably still one of the most generous nations in the world. Why the "share of the ... budget devoted to helping poor nations" might be lower now than after World War II is that:
1. There are fewer "poor nations," because the U.S. helped many of them develop economically.
2. There were various nations devastated by WW II, but the U.S. got them back on their feet, and they no longer need aid.
3. It has been learned that a poor nation (or poor family) is helped more by education and jobs than by hand-outs (cash, food, free shelter). The old way cost more than the new.

I believe that the article presents more than one point of view on this subject than the one you have quoted.

God bless you.
John

-- J. F. Gecik (jfgecik@hotmail.com), April 19, 2002.