Should the U.S. Government Substanittially Increase its help to Sub-Sahran Africa

>>"Ok first off you say to give the money to women what are these women going to do with that money since there aren't enough roads and most women there have 2-3 kids and they also do not have any cars there usually." What are these women going to do with the money? Well, historically, it's been shown in Bangladesh and some of the surrounding countries that when they receive money from the Grameen bank they put it to use for the good of their community. You see these women doing things like buying a breeding pair of goats and making more goats to sell to the community. These goats provide meat, milk, and labor to the community. None of this presumes roads exist. This model exists in Bangladesh at this very moment, and the company is actually quite successful - they've been making a handsome profit, as well as helping develop the world: their revenue is measured in BILLIONS of taka (the currency of Bangladesh)(http://en.wikipedia.org...). Other times, the women of the community will use this money to buy things like grain so they have more time to invest in community services instead of harvesting grain to make bread. Putting forth the initial money for education (building a school, getting books, etc...) is also something that is done with Grameen-like funding. >>"Second how are you going to educate these women since most of them already have kids because they are forced to have sex with guys that they do not know and second how are they going to get to these schools especially since most of them are very far away from the places that need them." This is highly implausible - the fertility rate in Africa is very HIGH - many instances of forced sexual encounter end in miscarriage or forced abortion, especially in the developing world. With a high fertility rate, women are often forced to make a painful choice about which of their children to feed. Doesn't sound like the unwanted children from a rape. Furthermore, this business about the schools is quite simply erroneous - these schools are not far away from the children. Sure, the institutionalized, government schools in major cities are far away from the rural communities that make up much of African society, but the most effective schools are the ones IN small communities. The key here is not to provide money to send these children to a far away school - the idea is to build a school that they can get to for free. >>"Third how would you be able to know that this money that you are talking about would be used on the people and not on other things as is the money that we are sending to them currently and second most of their governments in SSA are not able to support this money from tariffs coming into their country." Apparently you did not read most of my argument. The Grameen bank does NOT loan to governments - it loans to individuals, which is what I advocated in the first place. When the money is given to the PEOPLE, it is used FOR the PEOPLE. I suggest you re-read my initial argument - all of your points simply regurgitate ideas that I have already provided an answer to. You are supposed to be arguing that the government should increase its monetary support to Sub-Saharan Africa. You are simply providing me with cannon fodder, especially by reintroducing notions I have already answered.