Posted on May 20, 2015
3
3
0
As budgets are tightening and national debt is increasing is the concept of foreign aid to other nations especially one's with a state sponsored religion a good use of your tax payer dollars? As the US does not permit religious sponsorship domestically why are we sending aid to other nations that have national religions where 30 have laws stating that their heads of state must be of a defined religious faith? The congressional research service stated that the foreign aid to Israel has been "based on common democratic values, religious affinities, and security interests." Are we not sponsoring religious states with this financial and military assistance with tax dollars?
Some details of the countries receiving aid and how they voted in the UN:
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 United States 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.
Also on a side note we give foreign aid to China, not much but we borrow this money from China in order to give it back to them.
http://www.foreignassistance.gov/web/rgaintro.aspx
Some details of the countries receiving aid and how they voted in the UN:
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 United States 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.
Also on a side note we give foreign aid to China, not much but we borrow this money from China in order to give it back to them.
http://www.foreignassistance.gov/web/rgaintro.aspx
Foreign Policy
Religion
Foreign Aid
Budget
Edited >1 y ago
Posted >1 y ago
Responses: 8
5
5
0
** Warning: Commencing Rant **
Frankly, I think the whole idea of foreign aid to ANY country needs to be seriously reevaluated. We are rolling in debt and, no doubt, borrowing money to give to other countries as foreign aid. Meanwhile, back at home, our political leadership is looking for ways to cut domestic spending and telling us that "we're broke" and that cuts to "entitlements" that we've paid into all our lives are inevitable. Hey, I'm all for charity but I see no reason why we shouldn't be taking care of the home front first.
** Rant Concluded (with apologies if I've offended anyone) **
Frankly, I think the whole idea of foreign aid to ANY country needs to be seriously reevaluated. We are rolling in debt and, no doubt, borrowing money to give to other countries as foreign aid. Meanwhile, back at home, our political leadership is looking for ways to cut domestic spending and telling us that "we're broke" and that cuts to "entitlements" that we've paid into all our lives are inevitable. Hey, I'm all for charity but I see no reason why we shouldn't be taking care of the home front first.
** Rant Concluded (with apologies if I've offended anyone) **
(5)
(0)
Sgt Aaron Kennedy, MS
GySgt Wayne A. Ekblad That's a MUCH deeper conversation, which I have "some" answers for (both philosophical & technical), but we would we would get way sidetracked on that topic.
Keep in mind, money is a "philosophical construct." It's not real. It's a representation of Power (specifically Production Power... but there is minutia involved there). If we can produce, we have Money. If we have People, we can Produce, therefore, we we don't have money shortfalls. What we have is a shortsightedness in how to get from A to Z.
Keep in mind, money is a "philosophical construct." It's not real. It's a representation of Power (specifically Production Power... but there is minutia involved there). If we can produce, we have Money. If we have People, we can Produce, therefore, we we don't have money shortfalls. What we have is a shortsightedness in how to get from A to Z.
(0)
(0)
GySgt Wayne A. Ekblad
Okay Sgt Aaron Kennedy, MS, guess we better leave it at that because I suspect we could go around and around about this all day. :-)
(0)
(0)
SSG Donald Mceuen
Ya i think we need to take care of our own. and when we close some of our debt then we can talk about helping other countrys.
(0)
(0)
2
2
0
There is value in building a friendship with the populace and helping them to develop an thrive, even when the nation themselves are corrupt or oppressive. But I agree that the status quo isn't making anyone happy; certainly not on this side of the fence.
I'm not sure I can really add anything to the comments below. Our little back-and-forth kicked of a great discussion. Well done, sir.
SPC David S.
I'm not sure I can really add anything to the comments below. Our little back-and-forth kicked of a great discussion. Well done, sir.
SPC David S.
(2)
(0)
SPC David S.
Yes our discussion got me thinking - yes our foreign aid does do a lot of good - Just not so sure the accountability is there or is producing the desired results. Hats off to you as well in engaging a touchy topic with decorum SPC (Join to see)
(1)
(0)
SPC (Join to see)
"Hats off to you as well in a engaging a touchy topic with decorum" Decorum? First time I've been accused of that. (Great; now I have to re-watch "Windtalkers" just for that scene. ugh.)
(1)
(0)
2
2
0
Um, no! State sponsored religions are oppressive to their citizens. That is not what America is about.
(2)
(0)
1
1
0
Remember what the purpose of foreign aid is. Some is humanitarian, but a lot of the political reason is for influence. Yes, we don't "own" the country's vote in the UN; however, we do have a channel for discussion and a carrot to dangle to incentivize them to support us on things that we view as really important.
If we only supported people with our same beliefs, we wouldn't be able to influence those who we want to help get closer to our beliefs.
If we only supported people with our same beliefs, we wouldn't be able to influence those who we want to help get closer to our beliefs.
(1)
(0)
SPC David S.
Yes sir I would agree that there are positives gained in foreign aid such as the peace agreements with Israel and Jordan and again Israel and Egypt yet other "influence" seems to produce less than desirable results like that in Syria and Iraq. Being that some 1.6 billion dollars of Iraqi money that was airlifted there found its way to a bunker in Lebanon I have concerns about the accountability of where our aid is going. I see this form of cooperation also rather analogous with that of a john, a prostitute and a pimp. We pay for company yet not knowing or really caring about the pimps cut (corruption). Sure its influence but is it an authentic relationship that would remain once the money is gone. If anything I think this would create animosity. Sure they take the aid but they do so not liking all the strings attached. Again not all aid is bad but I find the whole process as precarious in getting political disconnected nations interested in our ideologies. In some cases I don't feel money wins the hearts of people it corrupts them.
(1)
(0)
CDR (Join to see)
Fully agree that the aid can be abused. Fully agree that we don't always have gratitude from those we support. Not sure if there is a better system we can transition to.
(2)
(0)
SMSgt Lawrence McCarter
SPC David S. - I would have to agree with You on the lack of accountability on how the money is used once the receiving country gets it. Often it just makes corrupt officials of that nation richer and never get used for its intended purpose.
(1)
(0)
1
1
0
The issue with Foreign Aid is one of "cheaper money."
It's cheaper for us to give money than to spend money. I know this sounds silly, but... hear me out.
If the US Spends $100 that costs us $100 real dollars, and gets us exactly that. However, if we give that same $100 to another country... they are able to get wildly different results using the spending power of their own economy. That $100 could be worth $10,000 instead (this is not an exaggeration). Even with corruption on the far side, we are better off "keeping out" and "buying goodwill" than going in.
So what we do is give them a fraction of what we would spend to get the same result. Let's say it is that 1:100 ratio. We give them $1 (which gives them $100 US buying power on their side) rather than spending $100. This actually SAVES us money. I know it's counter intuitive but it keeps us from going over there for significantly longer, as it builds goodwill over generations.
But Aaron, what about Religion? Ignore Religion! England "technically" has a State Sponsored Religion but no one brings that up, so does a solid portion of European Countries. Quite a bit of it is just lip service, and can be ignored, and is.
Our overarching goal is always Global Stability. Less Global Wars, Less Regional Conflicts, Less Troops being put in harms way. Spending money this way does that.
Like I said, it seems counter intuitive at first glance, but the idea is akin to yard maintenance. You are essentially hiring an outside contractor to to maintain an area at a cheaper cost than you can do yourself, so you have more money in the long run.
It's cheaper for us to give money than to spend money. I know this sounds silly, but... hear me out.
If the US Spends $100 that costs us $100 real dollars, and gets us exactly that. However, if we give that same $100 to another country... they are able to get wildly different results using the spending power of their own economy. That $100 could be worth $10,000 instead (this is not an exaggeration). Even with corruption on the far side, we are better off "keeping out" and "buying goodwill" than going in.
So what we do is give them a fraction of what we would spend to get the same result. Let's say it is that 1:100 ratio. We give them $1 (which gives them $100 US buying power on their side) rather than spending $100. This actually SAVES us money. I know it's counter intuitive but it keeps us from going over there for significantly longer, as it builds goodwill over generations.
But Aaron, what about Religion? Ignore Religion! England "technically" has a State Sponsored Religion but no one brings that up, so does a solid portion of European Countries. Quite a bit of it is just lip service, and can be ignored, and is.
Our overarching goal is always Global Stability. Less Global Wars, Less Regional Conflicts, Less Troops being put in harms way. Spending money this way does that.
Like I said, it seems counter intuitive at first glance, but the idea is akin to yard maintenance. You are essentially hiring an outside contractor to to maintain an area at a cheaper cost than you can do yourself, so you have more money in the long run.
(1)
(0)
Sgt Aaron Kennedy, MS
GySgt Wayne A. Ekblad not saying universal, but Germany, Japan, & S Korea are good examples.
(3)
(0)
GySgt Wayne A. Ekblad
Yeah, I agree with those Sgt Aaron Kennedy, MS. I am, of course, thinking about all the money poured into countries in the Middle East that hasn't seemed to buy us much of anything but more grief.
(2)
(0)
Sgt Aaron Kennedy, MS
GySgt Wayne A. Ekblad Like I said "generations" 20-30 years. Glacier moving level We've been in Germany/Japan for 70.
(1)
(0)
SMSgt Lawrence McCarter
Sgt Aaron Kennedy, MS - ai agree with Germany, Japan and South Korea they were good examples and it kept their economies form Collapse after WWII but they seem to be the exception for the most part.
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
Foreign aid is not just a "here have money and be happy". It is used as a diplomatic tool to influence populations and governments. There is always a US interest in it. It even falls under military operations like HADR and DSCA.
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
The following US states forbid atheists from holding public office.
Isn't the same thing as "State Sponsored Religion"
Arkansas, Article 19, Section 1
Maryland, Article 37
Mississippi, Article 14, Section 265
North Carolina, Article 6, Section 8
South Carolina, Article 17, Section 4
Tennessee, Article 9, Section 2
Texas, Article 1, Section 4
Isn't the same thing as "State Sponsored Religion"
Arkansas, Article 19, Section 1
Maryland, Article 37
Mississippi, Article 14, Section 265
North Carolina, Article 6, Section 8
South Carolina, Article 17, Section 4
Tennessee, Article 9, Section 2
Texas, Article 1, Section 4
(0)
(0)
SPC David S.
I didn't bring this up but I'm glad you did. Such provisions violate the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution. There a lot of states that have laws that would get or have been overturned by the Supreme Court - like desecration of the flag. They have the laws in their books but can not really enforce them. There was the case of Cecil Bothwell in Ashville, NC. Critics to him winning an election tried to pull the God card on him as he was atheist pointing to the provision you mentioned. However Torcaso v. Watkins (1961) tells us otherwise.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cecil_Bothwell
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cecil_Bothwell
Cecil Bothwell - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Cecil Bothwell (born 1950) is an American politician, writer and builder. Bothwell was elected to the Asheville, North Carolina city council in 2009.
(1)
(0)
0
0
0
My only response is that the infographic is somewhat misleading at least about Lebanon. Remember that in many of these countries religion is as much about heritage and ethnicity as it is about belief. The Lebanese constitution requires at least three groups (going by memory on the exact number) to be represented in government with the president being a Christian, because they are a minority. It was a good idea that hasn't worked as well as the French hoped it would when they imposed it on the Lebanese.
(0)
(0)
SPC David S.
Yes the infographic does not tell the whole story in explaining the reasons - like Vatican City requires a Catholic. Good insight on the Lebanese - this could also explain some of their issue with the majority advantage not being so much an advantage. Still we send money knowing the dynamics. I had this other graphic but I think the one posted shows a better geospatial image of this being a very Middle East issue.
(0)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google