The United States ought to focus on domestic aid, rather than foreign aid.

Definitions A The term "Aid" 1 Exactly why the pro's definition is wrong Government spending on domestic development is a responsibility. The Pro is trying to argue that your paycheck counts as aid, since your employer is giving you money. A paycheck is not charity, it is a fundamental part of your working contract based on mutual exchange, labor for wage. We give the government legitimacy in the form of obeying laws, and paying taxes, and in exchange, government administers and rules the land as mandated by elections. The government does not create a budget out of the good of their hearts, they do so because they were elected with the express purpose of using public money to fund large-scale national projects that cannot be done through private means, such as a military force for common defense or a national health-care system. Thus government spending is not aid. It is not a gift. It is a basic right that is owed to the people in exchange for their taxes and loyalty. The figures of aid that we should be using for the purposes of this debate should only include non-essential and optional gifts based on altruistic motive. This includes scholarships, charity funds, disaster relief donations, food drives, and the like. Thus, the pro's figure of $3,539 Billion should be ignored by the judges. But more importantly, the pro's points of developing U.S. education and medical science should be ignored, since that is already a responsibility of the domestic government, and can not be accomplished by charity. 2 Why the pro's definition is abusive The base mandate of any democratically elected government is to ensure the rights of its citizens. Under the pro's definition, aid is classified as basically any and all non-foreign spending. In the case of a democratic government, total government domestic spending is inherently more important than any kind of foreign spending. What the pro has done is an attempt to bend the definition of the terms to inherently and unfairly favor the pro's side, instead of leaving room for a proper debate. B The term "focus" Focus: center of attention and activity. Synonyms: Nucleus, core. The title of the debate explicitly uses the word "focus". According to the dictionary definition of focus, either one or the other center of spending would make up the "core" of all aid spending, thus implying a majority, or plurality of all total aid spending. If the instigator wanted to mean "favor" or "preference" instead of "focus", then it should be assumed that the title would have been worded differently. Since the title says focus, coming into this debate, all participants and voters must assume the proper definition of "focus" will be used. Arguments I Why things should change 1 Status Quo Only a small fraction of total federal budget spending is spent on any kind of aid, foreign and domestic. All the large departments spend necessary money (read non-charity). The only real categories that relate to charity in the Federal Budget are Corporation for National and Community Service, and Other Spending that is not specified. I will give the “Other Spending” the benefit of the doubt and put it in the “aid” category of non-necessary spending. Corporation for National and Community Service: $.8 Billion Other spending: $19.3 Billion $19.3 + $.8 ≈ $20.1 Billion. Foreign Aid, according to USAID foreign economic aid: $31.7 Billion. However, much of this money is in fact investments and loans, not actual charity. It is questionable if actual free aid adds up to even as much as a Billion Dollars. In short, despite the significantly large budget of trillions of dollars, less than $30 Billion goes towards any kind of aid. 2 U.S. vs. World development Currently, most of the word lives in a relatively underdeveloped state, with hundreds of millions living in abject poverty, lacking access to education, medical attention, food and even proper drinking water. People living in well developed areas do not suffer from these problems nearly as much. The more developed areas in the world there are, then on average, all of humanity will become more advanced as a species. Being advanced as a species not only secures us short term comforts in our individual lives on the planet, but also opens possibilities of greater achievement beyond the planet. Becoming as advanced as possible is one of the haphazardly pursued goals of humanity, as evidenced by our developmental pattern. Thus spending money to make as many areas as possible developed helps fulfill this goal and achieves the greatest amount of net benefit.The U.S. stands in the elite groups of most developed countries in the world. It is currently the only Super Power, and one of the Five only Great Powers in world. Since the U.S. is one of the most developed countries in the world, efforts to further develop the U.S. would suffer from low efficiency, while it would be much more efficient to develop the vast underdeveloped regions of the world. This is a logical assumption based on the fact that it is much easier to play catch-up than to innovate by ones’ self. II How things should change 1 Major budget change Mandate: Increase funds available for aid donations Funding: Budget cuts to the military Timeframe: 5 year plan. Most of the project could be completed within one or two years Since this debate is an “ought to” debate, we should focus on what should be done ideally. Since this is a plan of action, I have fiat, which means any part of my plan than can be implemented will be implemented. Estimates place U.S. military spending at just under $1.1 Trillion. For the sake of the debate, I will stick to the popular and conservative under-estimate of $800 billion. The U.S. spends approximately 4.35% of the GDP on the military.This extravagantly large military spending should be diverted to aid. Reducing spending to an amount more fitting towards actual self-defense rather than global military domination poses no direct harm the U.S., and would only negatively affect the U.S.' ability to beat down underdeveloped countries as the world’s policeman, while instead the U.S. could uplift the world with aid donations. Even successful military Great Powers such as the UK and France spend significantly less money than the U.S. and still retain the ability to go on the offensive in any part of world without compromising security at home. The UK and France spend about 2.45% and 2.25%, respectively, of their GDPs on their military. The rising military competitor of the U.S. is China, which spends 2.0% of its GDP on the military. Thus, the U.S. % of GDP spent on the military should be halved to about what the other Great Powers of UK, France and China spend. From 4.35% to 2.2%. Since the U.S. has the largest GDP in the world, even a parity in %GDP spending means the U.S. would still outspend any military competitor, meaning the U.S. would not have to fear losing its military advantage. Halving the would reduce military outlays from $800 Billion to about $400 Billion. 2 Implementation of available resources Having freed up $400 Billion dollars, with reality check, perhaps a full half of it will be allocated to parts of the budget that currently suffer. With that extra half of $400 Billion cut, it can be assumed that education, infrastructure, social welfare and other facets of society would be improved to a degree that negates the need for large quantities of aid. The world is much larger than the U.S., and thus there are many more options that are possible, many more great achievements that can be accomplished, many more people than can be raised up. For example, ending world hunger could cost anywhere between $30 Billion and $45 Billion dollars, leaving us $155 out of the original $200 Billion to toss around. For these reasons, even if we increase domestic aid and charity substantially, spending more of that money outside on the world at large would produce the greatest average net benefits that just spending it on the American homeland. Con argument for alternate definitions In the event that the judges interpret aid to not be free gift or charity, but to be any kind of funding for any kind of development, I will make the special effort and attempting an arguement to suit that possibility. The plan of action still stands, and any further increase in revenue should be directed such that a majority of the new revenue be directed towards foreign aid. For example, should the tax base of the U.S. federal government grow by 2x, at least x amount should be put towards foreign development. This spending would start out on the order of over $200 Billion dollars. In effect, the con plan would create a new “department of global development”. Such a department is only fitting for the country that leads the world as the sole Super Power. Recap of arguments The pro wants to stick with the status quo. The con has suggested a new plan of action. Status quo: $30 billion in aid, both domestic and foreign. Con’s plan: over $200 Billion in aid globally and domestically. Con provides more net benefit. Pro wants to spend more money domestically than abroad. Con proposes to spend more money abroad than domestically. Since more development can be achieved in the non-developed world than the already-developed world, Con provides more net benefit. Sources: http://en.wikipedia.org... http://en.wikipedia.org... https://www.cia.gov... https://www.cia.gov... http://en.wikipedia.org...(nominal) http://www.deliveringdata.com... http://en.wikipedia.org...