US Spends 24 Billion in Foreign Aid when we are laying off teachers and States are broke (wages, Israeli)

[political genius]

I just read that America has increased foreign aid to 24 Billion Dollars a year. I think this is wasteful when we are facing such budget and economic problems at home. Bush has increased foreign aid by 70% since the start of his first term.

Would you like to see all foreign aid stopped and the money sent to Americans until the economy improves?

[TheJagMan]

Need to break down that 70%...Cost of the dollar has been going down, cost of everything else has gone up...

I'll be the first to say, I'm not sure what this aid goes to...Lines leaders pockets or is used for food for the general populations? I do really agree with it, but don't know the whole story...Maybe if we stopped with the aid, millions would die or maybe countries would start invading each other. Who knows...

[saganista]

Originally Posted by political genius

Would you like to see all foreign aid stopped and the money sent to Americans until the economy improves?

No, that would be quite selfish and short-sighted. While it might sound like a lot of money, $24 billion (the actual FY2009 request is larger than that) is actually a small amount considering the role we expect to play in the world and the percent of the world economy that we represent. Nearly every developed country provides a higher share of its GDP in foreign aid than we do, and wiping out those funds that we actually do provide (much of which funds purchases from the US anyway) would leave us with no international credibility at all...

[TnHilltopper]

Originally Posted by saganista

No, that would be quite selfish and short-sighted. While it might sound like a lot of money, $24 billion (the actual FY2009 request is larger than that) is actually a small amount considering the role we expect to play in the world and the percent of the world economy that we represent. Nearly every developed country provides a higher share of its GDP in foreign aid than we do, and wiping out those funds that we actually do provide (much of which funds purchases from the US anyway) would leave us with no international credibility at all...

24 Billion, sure it is a drop in the bucket in the greater scheme of things, although I'm sure the big 3 might disagree. It is as much a perception problem as anything and in the current climate, that means a great deal. In any event the very term, "foreign AID", to what exactly is this "aid" aiding? Are we drilling wells in the desert to provide water for dying people, or maybe teaching folks how to modernize their agricultural practices, or perhaps something else.

Lets consider that the top three are Israel, Egypt, and Columbia, all three which do in fact in turn use most this foreign "aid" to then makes purchases of US goods. In essence we are taking tax payer dollars to give to another country to then purchase goods from American companies. Sounds almost like forced transfer of wealth from taxpayers to corporations via a third party nation, good thing it is only a mere 24 billion. I suppose this is one way to stimulate sales, although it could just as easily be perceived as a scam to fleece taxpayers in favor of the above three countries.

In the case of Israeli foreign aid, they are not allowed to use these funds to increase settlements in the occupied territories and the use of funds is reasonably specific. However this is fungible since these monies are being used to replace normal operative cost while freeing up monies that would be spent on development to be used for military or expansionist purposes. Not to mention that Israel is also the world 16th most wealthy nation on par with many European nations, makes one wonder why the heck they really need it in light of places like Darfur.

In the case of Egyptian foreign aid, this money has been equated to little more than a back room pay off to keep a hostile and somewhat radicalized population in check by keeping an oppressive government in our pockets. The fact that this leads to a great deal of resentment and is also the primary reason why people like Sayed Qutb gave rise to contemporary radical Islamic fanaticism as a response to his government being paid for by Americans.

While these are of course very much debatable and subject to perspective, of all the nations in the world we have to ask, why, like Israel, would Egypt need such funds as they are fairly modernized.

Columbia on the other hand is one I know little about but from my understanding, US foreign aid to Columbia is primarily for anti-drug efforts and a little grease to keep Columbia from adjoining in with the likes of Chavez.

In all three of the top recipients of US foreign aid, a very good and plausible case can be made that it is little more than political intervention by way of deep pockets. While certainly better than war or conflict, its a hard sell to an auto or steel worker about to get laid off after 32 years in a mill.

I'm reminded by a quote from I don't know who...

Foreign aid might be defined as a transfer from poor people in rich countries to rich people in poor countries

and in the current state of things, I can't disagree. Foreign aid is a good and necessary thing but it also has reasonable applications in the above three cases, I don't believe they are.

[thegeist]

Israel is a first world country, with a high standard of living, why do they deserve any aid?

I can't believe we support Israel to continue to subjugate and control people in the occupied territories yet we wouldn't support apartheid South Africa.

Then again, there are groups such as AIPAC (comprised predominately of American-Jews) who support Israel first, and their country and birthplace second. I guess that's how the tribe operates and always has.

[Luiso]

Originally Posted by thegeist

Israel is a first world country, with a high standard of living, why do they deserve any aid?

I can't believe we support Israel to continue to subjugate and control people in the occupied territories yet we wouldn't support apartheid South Africa.

Then again, there are groups such as AIPAC (comprised predominately of American-Jews) who support Israel first, and their country and birthplace second. I guess that's how the tribe operates and always has.

Thanks to your American tax money thery have free health care and great care at that .
They thank you for it.

[saganista]

Originally Posted by TnHilltopper

Lets consider that the top three are Israel, Egypt, and Columbia, all three which do in fact in turn use most this foreign "aid" to then makes purchases of US goods.

The OP suggested cancelling "foreign aid" across the board. There wasn't any consideration at all of what's in it. Meanwhile, the bulk of what's provided to Israel and Egypt ($2.55 and $1.3 billion respectively for FY2009) is out of Foreign Military Financing which, while a part of International Affairs, is not a part of "foreign aid" as typically defined (Official Development Assistance)...no military assistance is. Funds for Colombia come from a variety of sources, some of which are ODA and some of which are not. In all three cases, these are bilateral efforts that the US has seen as being in its own interests. The merits of those programs can be (and are) debated, but it would be selfish and short-sighted simply to walk away and not have the debate to begin with. We are more, not less, dependent on international stability and good will as the years go by. Walking away from our international responsibilities would be a bad idea, no matter what other use the money might be put to.

[Filet Mignon]

...when we are laying off teachers and States are broke

It's individual school districts that set teachers' wages, and couple with individual states in the paying of those wages. This is not a correct comparison.