PDA

View Full Version : US Foreign Aid: Good or Bad ?



CerealKiller
04-17-2004, 01:51 AM
With the U.S falling further into debt, the American people want answers, solutions. What cuts can we manage?

Turn off foreign aid?
While humanitarian aid still holds priority, developmental aid is quite another story. It has never been popular, and with good reason. It's too often a waste of money. Candy? Or cure? Checkout this link...

http://www.cato.org/dailys/09-14-03.html

The United States gives out $13.3 billion tax dollars in direct Foreign Aid annually. The United States is above and beyond the single most generous benefactor of the United Nations, donating $2.4 billion dollars of YOUR money, to primarily third-world dictators.

This amount is 25% of the United Nations budget. In addition, the United States also gives another $1.4 billion tax dollars to United Nations'programs and agencies. The American taxpayers fund more for the United Nations than ALL of the other 177 member nations COMBINED.

What most Americans do not realize is that the vast majority of the recipients of the of US Foreign Aid routinely vote against the wishes of the United States in the United Nations at an average rate of 74%. In other words, of the $13.3 billion tax dollars invested in direct Foreign Aid only about 26% or $3.5 billion went to support people who endorsed American initiatives or causes. A staggering $9.8 billion tax dollars went to causes and people who were and are in open and direct opposition to the United States' interests and objectives.

Listed below are the actual voting records of various Arabic/Islamic States which are recorded in both the US State Department and United Nations' records:

Kuwait votes against the United States 67% of the time.
Qatar votes against the United States 67% of the time.
Morocco votes against the United States 70% of the time.
United Arab Emirates votes against the U. S. 70% of the time.
Jordan votes against the United States 71% of the time.
Tunisia votes against the United States 71% of the time.
Saudi Arabia votes against the United States 73% of the time.
Yemen votes against the United States 74% of the time.
Algeria votes against the United States 74% of the time.
Oman votes against the United States 74% of the time.
Sudan votes against the United States 75% of the time.
Pakistan votes against the United States 75% of the time.
Libya votes against the United States 76% of the time.
Egypt votes against the United States 79% of the time.
Lebanon votes against the United States 80% of the time.
India votes against the United States 81% of the time.
Syria votes against the United States 84% of the time.
Mauritania votes against the United States 87% of the time.

US Foreign Aid to those that hate us:
Egypt, for example, after voting 79% of the time against the United States, still receives $2 billion annually in US Foreign Aid.

Jordan votes 71% against the United States and receives $192,814,000 annually in US Foreign Aid.

Pakistan votes 75% against the United States receives $6,721,000 annually in US Foreign Aid.

India votes 81% against the United States receives $143,699,000 annually in US Foreign Aid.

Perhaps it is not time to get out of the UN, but to curtail our generousity and give the tax savings back to the American workers who are having to skimp and sacrifice to pay the taxes.

What are your ideas? Should U.S. foreign aid be curtailed-or redirected and re-evaluated?

irpker
04-17-2004, 03:05 AM
I could see how it was useful in some situations in the past, such as the Truman Doctrine which gave 10 billion dollars to Eastern Europe to fight domestic marxist rebels which tried to seize power post-world war 2. The US's primary goal after defeating the nazi's was to stop the spread of state-socialism, and supplying governments with the means to defeat them was essential to their goal.

This is a different type of aid. It shouldn't even be called aid because it only makes the situation worse. The worst is food aid. It destroys the markets of farmers from the recipients of such food. They cannot compete with the supply shock of extra grain from the US.

Countless nations will remain poor as long as property rights are not respected and this correlates to political instability. Don't tell that to a socialist though!

Norman
04-17-2004, 05:13 AM
If the US , Europe and Japan really wanted to help poor nations they would lift trade restrictions for agricultural products and textiles.

Note that this foreign aid gives advantages when it comes to mining concessions, it´s not just given for humanitarian efforts.

CerealKiller
04-17-2004, 05:17 AM
Originally posted by Norman
If the US , Europe and Japan really wanted to help poor nations they would lift trade restrictions for agricultural products and textiles.

Note that this foreign aid gives advantages when it comes to mining concessions, it´s not just given for humanitarian efforts.

What are mining concessions ?

LethalOnGuitarZ
04-17-2004, 05:34 AM
Originally posted by CerealKiller
Kuwait votes against the United States 67% of the time.
What? Even after the US helped repel the completely unjust war waged against them by Iraq... that's pretty ungrateful...

Norman
04-17-2004, 06:07 AM
Originally posted by CerealKiller
What are mining concessions ? i meant mining rights.

JigaroKagan
04-17-2004, 07:36 AM
$13.3 billion dollars is a miniscule amount for a society as large as ours. That's only about $40 a person a year.

drags
04-17-2004, 09:13 AM
you can't blame all those countries for voting against the USA.
just look at how many times the USA has vetoed a resolution and with the USA being a "permanent member" its veto will cancel the resolution.

http://www.scoop.co.nz/mason/stories/HL0303/S00085.htm

dave22
04-17-2004, 10:18 AM
We have to keep giving aid to countries like Pakistan and Egypt, otherwise radical Islamists will overthrow them, and then you'll have a govt. like Iran. I know it sounds crazy but it's true.

Same thing with Saudi Arabia, the Bush family and the Saud family are real close, so I doubt we're going to end our relationship with them.

We can't let history repeat itself, remember when we ended our support of the Shah of Iran?? Now you have a bunch of Mullahs in charge, who are the heads of international terrorism, want to spread Islamic republics throughout the middle east and elsewhere , and wish to see the destruction of the US and Israel.

Crimson-Model
04-17-2004, 11:50 AM
Originally posted by irpker
I could see how it was useful in some situations in the past, such as the Truman Doctrine which gave 10 billion dollars to Eastern Europe to fight domestic marxist rebels which tried to seize power post-world war 2. The US's primary goal after defeating the nazi's was to stop the spread of state-socialism, and supplying governments with the means to defeat them was essential to their goal.

This is a different type of aid. It shouldn't even be called aid because it only makes the situation worse. The worst is food aid. It destroys the markets of farmers from the recipients of such food. They cannot compete with the supply shock of extra grain from the US.

Countless nations will remain poor as long as property rights are not respected and this correlates to political instability. Don't tell that to a socialist though!
Bump, it should be used in few situations when there is no other choice, but the majority of the time the dictators usually use it to supply their militias and armies instead of their people.

Socialism: The even distribution of misery....

LethalOnGuitarZ
04-17-2004, 12:09 PM
Originally posted by drags
you can't blame all those countries for voting against the USA.
just look at how many times the USA has vetoed a resolution and with the USA being a "permanent member" its veto will cancel the resolution.

http://www.scoop.co.nz/mason/stories/HL0303/S00085.htm
Wow.

Can someone tell me why the US feels the need to veto so many promising, beneficial resolutions? :confused:

Interesting stuff reading through all that...

CerealKiller
04-17-2004, 07:06 PM
Originally posted by JigaroKagan
$13.3 billion dollars is a miniscule amount for a society as large as ours. That's only about $40 a person a year.

If 30 of those 40 dollars goes to third world warlords it's an investment in terrorism.

JigaroKagan
04-17-2004, 07:09 PM
Originally posted by CerealKiller
If 30 of those 40 dollars goes to third world warlords it's an investment in terrorism.

National interests know not right or wrong.

CerealKiller
04-17-2004, 07:30 PM
Originally posted by drags
you can't blame all those countries for voting against the USA.
just look at how many times the USA has vetoed a resolution and with the USA being a "permanent member" its veto will cancel the resolution.

http://www.scoop.co.nz/mason/stories/HL0303/S00085.htm

Countries can vote however they want. That's not really what I take issue with.

My intention is to ask: do you think the US should be giving foreign aid (money,food,medicine,etc) to any countries friendly or not ?

I think it's insane all the aid we give friends like Israel and Egypt that are quite well off. The best way I can see to end the Arab/Israeli conflict is to stop funding it.

It's even more insane giving aid to countries that hate us.

CerealKiller
04-17-2004, 07:43 PM
Originally posted by JigaroKagan
National interests know not right or wrong.

Are you saying US aid is more useful as a geopolitical tool as a projection of our economic power than actually helping those in need ?

So you don't think it would be a good idea to know specifically how that aid will be used ?

JigaroKagan
04-17-2004, 07:53 PM
Originally posted by CerealKiller
Are you saying US aid is more useful as a geopolitical tool as a projection of our economic power than actually helping those in need ?

So you don't think it would be a good idea to know specifically how that aid will be used ?

I don't condone it, but the reality of US foreign aid is that it is a geopolitical tool for projecting our national interests. It's lamentable, but the facts are that the US won't commit to foreign aid unless it's able to establish an interest for doing so.

drags
04-17-2004, 08:26 PM
but you have to understand that aid is often used as black mail.
If the country is struggling and they do something the USA don't like, the US will cut off the aid and the country will be even worse off because they have developed dependance on that money.

batfonso
04-17-2004, 09:15 PM
I think one of the most useless foreign aide we contribute is to Africa to help combat the unrelentless AIDS crisis. My opinion is that we shouldn't send any money because the people of Africa are simply too barbaric to even comprehend what is needed to prevent the disease known as AIDS and that it's Natural Selection.

JigaroKagan
04-17-2004, 09:17 PM
Originally posted by batfonso
I think one of the most useless foreign aide we contribute is to Africa to help combat the unrelentless AIDS crisis. My opinion is that we shouldn't send any money because the people of Africa are simply too barbaric to even comprehend what is needed to prevent the disease known as AIDS and that it's Natural Selection.

The reason behind the US sending aid to Africa is institute political clout for establishing oil trade. It's to mask our national interests, basically.

enjoyincubus
04-17-2004, 10:09 PM
Originally posted by JigaroKagan
$13.3 billion dollars is a miniscule amount for a society as large as ours. That's only about $40 a person a year.


so what? thats 40 dollars i want to keep. i dont want to fund some tribal war or some anti-us military build up. i might as well give up 40 bucks a year, and chop off a little bit of finger.

as for "aids relief" in africa, its a scam. first off, what is the definition of "aids relief"? and who represents an entire continent? its not like there is any one party to give the money to, and even if there was, wouldnt it be more prudent to give it to a modern laboratory which has the manpower needed to work on "relief"?

JigaroKagan
04-17-2004, 10:14 PM
Originally posted by enjoyincubus
so what? thats 40 dollars i want to keep. i dont want to fund some tribal war or some anti-us military build up. i might as well give up 40 bucks a year, and chop off a little bit of finger.


It's a discussion of debt, and what I was basically stating is that it's such a modicum amount that it would be barely noticed. Not only that, but the fact remains that it's instituted for our own national interests.

enjoyincubus
04-17-2004, 10:27 PM
Originally posted by JigaroKagan
It's a discussion of debt, and what I was basically stating is that it's such a modicum amount that it would be barely noticed. Not only that, but the fact remains that it's instituted for our own national interests.


which is failing, since these countries are still openly hostile to us.

JigaroKagan
04-17-2004, 10:29 PM
Originally posted by enjoyincubus
which is failing, since these countries are still openly hostile to us.

Then obviously you're not looking far enough as the US wouldn't continue it's support unless it was benefitting from it.

enjoyincubus
04-17-2004, 10:52 PM
Originally posted by JigaroKagan
Then obviously you're not looking far enough as the US wouldn't continue it's support unless it was benefitting from it.

sure we would, because we have millions of special interest groups and migrants from that country that wont let us drop aid.

dave22
04-18-2004, 12:14 AM
Originally posted by enjoyincubus
sure we would, because we have millions of special interest groups and migrants from that country that wont let us drop aid.

You're not looking at the bigger picture. Examples are Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, etc. They still receive aid from us, because the alternative is Islamic fundementalism, and they tell us that.

Also I have a question. Does N. Korea receive any aid from the US??

enjoyincubus
04-18-2004, 01:24 AM
Originally posted by dave22
You're not looking at the bigger picture. Examples are Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, etc. They still receive aid from us, because the alternative is Islamic fundementalism, and they tell us that.

Also I have a question. Does N. Korea receive any aid from the US??


arent they already islamic fundamentalists?

as for n. korea, i couldnt awnser that.

dave22
04-18-2004, 10:50 AM
Originally posted by enjoyincubus
arent they already islamic fundamentalists?

as for n. korea, i couldnt awnser that.

Pakistan is ruled by a military despot, Egypt is secular I believe, and Saudi Arabia is ruled by the Royal Family I think.

Saddam's Iraq was secular as is Syria.

Person
04-18-2004, 01:59 PM
In a sense, giving foreign aid also makes many of these countries rely on the US for funds. If another war escalates, it certainly wouldn't be in those countries interest in a variety of way for them to fight opposite the US.

JonZ
04-20-2004, 08:17 AM
I say yes.

We have children here in horrible school conditions and veterans who are homeless.

The rest of the world hates us, but theyre more than happy to take our money.

Millions go out in aid to countries who supposedly hate us.

Use amercian money to help americans.

I say we cut these fukers off and take care of ourselves.

Bionik
04-20-2004, 07:54 PM
Pull foreign aid.

dixon
04-24-2004, 06:16 PM
I talked to a relative who went over to Africa for a brief stint. He said that in some villages, most of the blacks there didn't believe AIDS was real. They said it was something made up by Americans to worry them, and that the deaths were just disease outbreaks.

I say pull all of that money the **** out of there, especially for AIDS drugs, unless it is to babies born with it. If they invest 5 million dollars in condoms it would prevent 50 billion in AIDS drugs.