Intersting Foriegn AID facts..

[Targa Dude]

WHY ON EARTH DO WE DO THIS ANYWAY?

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 thetime.
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.

In the last year The Taliban terrorized the people of
Afghanistan and gave safe haven to Osama Bin Laden, they received $143,000,000 in US Foreign Aid.

Sudan voted 75% against the United States and received
$1,121,000 in US Foreign Aid. (The US State Department stated that the Sudanese government is guilty of providing a safe haven for a variety of terrorist groups including Osama Bin Laden's organization, The Egyptian Jihad, The Palestinian Islamic Jihad, and Hamas. The Islamic government has also conducted a literal reign of terror against the Christians living in the southern part of the country.)

The Palestinian Authority will receive $500 million dollars in US Foreign Aid over the next five years(!!!) This happened due to
the Oslo"Agreement" of 1993, a deal which was endorsed and
avidly supported by now New York Senator Hillary Clinton, who was then First Lady.

The Clinton Administration sought to establish good relations with
terrorist groups despite their support of terrorism and anti-Western stances.

The Palestinians were seen on ABC News openly celebrating and dancing in the streets at the news of both suicide bombings on Sept. 11th.

Israel, it must be noted, receives three billion in US Foreign Aid.
However, for the last five years it has an average record of voting with the United States 94% of the time.

There is clearly no incentive for most countries to support the United States, as they will receive US Foreign Aid regardless
of their stances.

Perhaps it is time for the United States to deny things such as money, scientific, technological, medical expertise, and
education to nations who simply will not assist or protect American interests?

Jorge (Targa Dude)
INFIDELS, UNITE!!

[turbo6bar]

I heard last night that the US forgave $1billion in Pakastini debt due to their compliance with the US efforts against the Taliban. Also, from what I've heard, the US is going to pay for a LOT of the rebuilding of Iraq, so I don't really care about giving other countries contracts to rebuild Iraq.

Why must you confuse the issues with facts, Targa Dude?

Jurgen

[Targa Dude]

??? Please elaborate Jurgen.. and I will be more than glade to state the facts..

Jorge (Targa Dude)
Infidels! UNITE!!

[turbo6bar]

Originally posted by Targa Dude
??? Please elaborate Jurgen.. and I will be more than glade to state the facts..

Ummm, I don't think you saw the smiley face. Liberals hate dealing with 'the facts.' I agree with your post. In fact, I would like to extend the curtain to cover China. However, one might argue that stopping trade with China could lead to an eventual military confrontation.

Jurgen

[CamB]

Two things:

1) I'm glad paying over money doesn't buy votes

2) Just because the US gives the highest dollar amount doesn't mean it gives the most proportionately:

http://www.oecd.org/pdf/M00037000/M00037872.pdf - in dollars (US$11b)

http://www.oecd.org/pdf/M00037000/M00037873.pdf - as percent of gross national income (0.11%)

You will note the US gives the least as a percentage of GNI. Sweden, much aligned on this BBS recently, is up the top.

I found this explanation of ODA and the agreed level (note NZ not even close - I am the pot calling the kettle black):

When the world's governments met at the Earth summit in Rio de Janeiro in 1992, they adopted a programme for action under the auspices of the United Nations -- Agenda 21. Amongst other things, this included an Official Development Assistance (ODA) aid target of 0.7% of gross domestic product (GDP) for rich nations, roughly 22 members of the OECD (Organization of Economic Cooperation and Development), known as the Development Assistance Committee (DAC). ODA is basically aid from the governments of the wealthy nations, but doesn't include private contributions or private capital flows and investments. The main objective of ODA is to promote development. It is therefore a kind of measure on the priorities that governments themselves put on such matters. Whether that necessarily reflects their citizen's wishes and priorities is a different matter! Other aid, such as private capital flows may be for investment purposes, etc.) From here

[turbo6bar]

Isn't Sweden one of those countries that taxes their citizens at like 165%? The gubmint has to spend the money somehow, don't ya know...

The US gives troops when the UN needs it. The lives of troops is worth lot more than the Swedish Kroner.

[CamB]

"The US gives troops when the UN needs it."

Ahem. "when the UN needs it", eh?

Or when the UN doesn't. Or when the UN is against it. Not a strong relationship there.

Forget I put the bit about Sweden. It is needlessly inflamatory, and Sweden and its ODA and tax situation is not really that relevant.

[turbo6bar]

Originally posted by CamB
"The US gives troops when the UN needs it."

Ahem. "when the UN needs it", eh?

Or when the UN doesn't. Or when the UN is against it. Not a strong relationship there.

Actually, what I meant is that the US doesn't just give dollars. It commits troops. I have no numbers, but I bet you the US committed the most troops during the 1991 Gulf War. How many Swedish troops were in the Gulf War during 1991? Really, they must not care very much, eh?

???

[CamB]

I asked to leave Sweden out... the exactly who of the discussion is not important.

I'll put something out there for consideration.

In the Gulf War, the US committed troops because it wanted to. In all other instances you are referring to, it probably wanted to as well. I think its possible that if the US didn't want to commit troops, that it wouldn't, regardless of whether the UN needed it or not.

In other words, I think its possible that the commitment of troops is independent of the UN view, and is entirely related to US self-interest. Historically, the UN view and the US view have been in accord. Therefore, it might appear that the US contributes troops at the whim of the UN, but that may not be the case.

As distinct from the giving of aid, which the UN agreed at a level of GNI and the US has under-contributed (as a percentage of GNI), compared to its peers.

I have absolutely no idea whether the amount the US did contribute is actually fair or not (it sure is a lot of money). And it doesn't really matter. The entire point is that Jorge implied that the US is doing more as an international citizen than other countries, when on an income basis it is arguably doing less.

(edit) I am also unlikely to be able to find a nice table of the relative contributions of the Gulf War. I wish I could. I am interested now. Note - best I can do:

http://www.cryan.com/war/AlliedForces.html

Financially, looks like the US (at $9b) put in less than Japan and Germay combined (at $16b) (bottom of page):

http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2001/gulf.war/facts/gulfwar/

[turbo6bar]

Originally posted by CamB
I have absolutely no idea whether the amount the US did contribute is actually fair or not (it sure is a lot of money). And it doesn't really matter. The entire point is that Jorge implied that the US is doing more as an international citizen than other countries, when on an income basis it is arguably doing less.

I think you missed Jorge's point.

Here is Jorge's post in one sentence Perhaps it is time for the United States to deny things such as money, scientific, technological, medical expertise, and education to nations who simply will not assist or protect American interests? You were the one who took offense and assumed he was trying to insult other countries that contribute to the UN. He said nothing towards that. You brought up that issue.

Looks like the United States DID provide a LOT of troops for the Gulf War, but you continue to look at dollar amounts. Well, did it ever occur to you that it costs ME and other Americans a lot of money to put those troops in Kuwait. Not you, but ME...

Don't worry. This is my last response.

Jurgen

[CamB]

assumed he was trying to insult other countries that contribute to the UN.

This isn't what I was getting at. Reread what I wrote.

Perhaps it is time for the United States to deny things such as money, scientific, technological, medical expertise, and education to nations who simply will not assist or protect American interests?

And all I am trying to say is that going into the situation expecting votes and protection of US interests is wrong, as

1) it shouldn't work that way (see my comment (1) above)

2) the US doesn't contribute that much proportionately, and if anything should have less expectation of votes and protection (see my comment (2) above)

I have just 100% repeated my first post, I think.

[island911]

Originally posted by CamB
2) the US doesn't contribute that much proportionately,

proportionately/GNP, or proportionately/population, or both? . .. just what are you saying?

GNI. .. how 'bout GNS (gross national sheep) !?

Really, NZ simply does not share a propotionate amount of its sheep. You guys are some sort of sheep hoarders, aren't you!

TIC

[CamB]

Look, what I do with the 15 sheep the government has allocated me (and each of my fellow countrymen) is my business. Who brought sheep into this?

Shhhh, don't tell them about the fighting sheep which would protect us from invasion.

proportionately/GNP, or proportionately/population, or both? . .. just what are you saying?

Its like Robin Hood - from the rich to the poor. Lets not even start on that. I think you know what I'm getting at, and I see your point, but think mine is more valid.

[island911]

The point of not having expectations is fine.
Though painting the US as not "paying its fairshare' is laughable, and flys in the face of the idea of "not having expectations."

We have a saying here; statistics don't lie, but liers use statistics.

Picking something the US has a lot of (income) and using it for the basis of "%giving" is hardly the whole picture.

[island911]

. . . BTW, I know for a fact, that many of those counties listed high on the "giving per GNI" have huge underground economies, due to the extreme taxation on above boards transactions.

This of course grossly skews the statistic.

[CamB]

Yep. Lies, damn lies, and statistics.

Its not "laughable" to use the country's income. Its not ideal (as you demonstrated - the informal economy issue), but it isn't bad. Basing the assessment on a simple population basis is worse.

If it was per inhabitant, the US would be ahead of NZ (about $40/person vs $30/person). But US GNP/capita is more than double NZ GNP/capita in US$. So percentage of income is less.

[nostatic]

statistics, shmatistics...let's get back to the sheep.

[island911]

I didn't say it's "laughable to use the country's income" (for the basis). . .I said 'painting the US as not paying its fairshare is laughable.' . . .it fits with your comment; "1) I'm glad paying over money doesn't buy votes" . . .the implication of no quid pro quo.

So then, just what fairshare obligation does the US have, to compete, on a per capita basis, with other countries? Were is it written that the US must give in accordance with this new contrived standard?
It's not enough that we give more in total?

There is also the question of targeted aid. Something like, giving refrigerators to Eskimos isn't exactly giving aid . . . though if your a country that has a bunch of extra refrigerators, and a boat going near some "needy Eskimos", well. . .

BTW, have I ever mentioned that I worked for a non-profit World aid NGO? . . .I do know a little about the topic.

I still want to know why NZ is hoarding all those sheep (disproportionately) . . with all the polygamy in the middle east, there are an awful lot of lonely men there.

[CamB]

The sheep affinity thing is largely due to upbringing. We have tried exporting the live sheep to "needy" countries for similar, er, purposes to which we, er, like them for. The shock of the travel and new, unskilled owners with lots of pent up excitement is too much. They just don't know how to treat a, er, sheep.

Sorry - I misread and quoted you. "Fair share" is a concept which can be defined a few ways, I agree. But, I still maintain the US isn't paying its fair share - the UN set the level (presumably the US agreed to it) at 0.7% of GNI - see 33.13 in this link:

http://www.un.org/esa/sustdev/documents/agenda21/english/agenda21chapter33.htm

or the stuff in italics in my first post. (notice how I'd be nothing without google).

(edit) OK, no BS now. I don't expect the US to pay 0.7%. I do think that the US paying the most is a mitigating factor. There are plenty of other issues with what is an appropriate amount, and we're not even scratching the surface. I purely and simply objected to Jorge's statement about "we are giving them so much aid for nothing", when that is a common theme for (generally speaking) all other countries providing substantial aid. It is just the way it works. You pay money over and get nothing for it, like some of your tax dollar.

It really is no different to objecting to the protestor on the street who is paid a benefit. If you actually believe he should get the benefit taken away, then to me that parallels with the giving and taking away of aid from a country which doesn't support the US. You then have a consistent viewpoint but one I can't agree with and struggle to understand.

On the subject of (mis)targeting of aid, I am guessing we would be 100% in agreement. Which is why noone really needs my damn sheep

[beepbeep]

Originally posted by turbo6bar
Isn't Sweden one of those countries that taxes their citizens at like 165%? The gubmint has to spend the money somehow, don't ya know...

The US gives troops when the UN needs it. The lives of troops is worth lot more than the Swedish Kroner.

Sweden has one of the highest amount of foreign aid per % of BNP in the world an it has been that way for quite a while. That's a fact ...

And yes, we also have highest effective tax-rate in the world. Have problem with that? It's beacuse we try to provide free school to people like Jorge so they can become "rocket scientists".

Here are some stastistics:



Dude: If you don't understand the graphs i'll be glad to explain them for you. Your country is one called "US"