every seven years we should say you're on your own and not give a single penny to foreigners but put the equivalent back into the country then again, i'm not against stopping it altogether
Posted on 01/18/2018 11:26:23 AM PST by Thalean
According to the US Agency for International Development (USAID), America spent $468 billion on foreign aid over the last decade (years 2007-2016). This averages out to $46.8 billion annually (obviously).
The figure includes both economic and military funding, but does not include America’s contribution to the United Nations and its affiliate organizations—which costs America an additional $8 billion annually—nor does it include direct military assistance in the form of permanent US garrisons. Including these costs would bring the total to just over $2 trillion (more on that soon).
This is a lot of wasted money, but thankfully things are changing.
Since President Trump’s inauguration, US foreign aid payments have decreased significantly: in 2017 America spent $22 billion on economic aid, compared to $34 billion in 2016—a one-third reduction.
The cost of military foreign aid has not yet been calculated, but even if it’s identical to last year’s expenditures (it certainly won’t be higher), it will only bring the 2017 total up to $37 billion—far less than the $49 billion spent by Obama in 2016. This is welcome news.
(Excerpt) Read more at nationaleconomicseditorial.com ...
This was pointless, because
(1) most of the money actually went to rich countries like Japan, Germany, and Israel;
(2) the money that did wind up in poor places (Africa) mostly went into the pockets of genocidal dictators like Robert Mugabe in Zimbabwe, who killed/exiled 500,000 whites;
(3) there are 500,000+ homeless Americans, and 50,000 of those are veterans, who deserve the money more.
Rather simple point, but one that's not made nearly often enough.
FOREIGN AID: Money taken from poor people in rich countries and given to rich people in poor countries.
The important thing is bribery at this scale doesn’t work.
Trump is the first POTUS since WWII who has pointed out they take our money and then spit in our face. The money DOESN’T convince other countries to do what we want or even go along with what we want.
Close the whole pipeline down.
Whats the common thread between the members in 1)? Germany, Japan, Israel? What you are calling “rich” countries.
The monies given to them were based on a need to rebuild after WW2.
The “poor nations” that you cite, the turd world s-oles have no hope. It doesn’t matter how much you throw at them, Islam is islam. It could never develop the infrastructure to CREATE meaningful, successful societies.
Until they create the infrastructure like the White of Great Britain did, they will continue to mire in their own s-ole circumstances.
That includes their number one export, their misery manifested in global terror.
Trump should be pounding on this EVERY DAY.
Exactly - forcing “aid” very rarely truly HELPS those in genuine need.
I can almost see a case for limited “military” aid to strategic partners... so long as it is clear this is what it is and specifically named as such aid, not hidden in dark corners of the non-existent budget. Transparency - the enemy of despotic government entities.
But anything else supposedly labeled as “humanitarian” generally does more harm than good for the very reason you listed in (2) above - the poor it is earmarked to help almost never see a penny of it in any form - but they do see the enrichment of the hellish dictators and other leaders who are the real recipients of what ultimately is a form of bribe money.
But of course - so long as we have homeless veterans, or veterans who still can’t get the health care they desperately need in a time frame that actually helps... then we shouldn’t send a dime out of this nation in any kind of aid.
Just like we shouldn’t allow a single “guest worker” in until every able-bodied US Citizen is doing some kind of work (which brings up “benevolent” aid from the government for Americans... If you are physically able to do work - then you should be doing work if you receive a penny from taxpayers.
In a saner society it's called kickbacks... and nice people DON'T DO IT.
Well, for one thing, the total lifetime tax payments of somewhere close to 700,000 Americans will go to one year of foreign aid.
Work your whole life for foreigners. And next year, another 700,000 American volunteers will be tapped. And so on, and so on.
"America Sends $200 Billion Abroad Every Year: the Case Against Foreign Aid"
FR: Never Accept the Premise of Your Opponent’s Argument
Unsurprisingly, the history of US Foreign Aid evidently began after the 17th Amendment was ratified, corrections, insights welcome.
US Foreign Aid HistoryRegardless of the constitutional power of the feds to make treaties, and regardless that there are times when foreign aid is arguably a good idea, it remains that the states have never expressly constitutionally delegated to the feds the specific power to tax and spend for foreign aid purposes. This is evidenced by the following clarification of the limits of the General Welfare Clause by Justice Joseph Story.
”If the tax be not proposed for the common defence, or general welfare, but for other objects, wholly extraneous, (as for instance, for propagating Mahometanism among the Turks, or giving aids and subsidies to a foreign nation, to build palaces for its kings, or erect monuments to its heroes,) it would be wholly indefensible upon constitutional principles [emphases added].” —Justice Joseph Story, Commentaries on the Constitution 2
"From the accepted doctrine that the United States is a government of delegated powers, it follows that those not expressly granted, or reasonably to be implied from such as are conferred, are reserved to the states, or to the people. To forestall any suggestion to the contrary, the Tenth Amendment was adopted. The same proposition, otherwise stated, is that powers not granted are prohibited [emphasis added].” —United States v. Butler, 1936.
As mentioned in related threads, all roads of corruption in both federal and state governments lead to Congress imo, but ultimately to the ill-conceived 17th Amendment.
"Article IV, Section 4: The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government [emphasis added], and shall protect each of them against Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened) against domestic Violence."
We need to repeal 16th and 17th Amendments.
Why Colombia?
WIKI REFERENCE---In 2000, the Clinton administration committed $1.3 billion in foreign aid to the corrupt country of Colombia...... and up to five hundred military personnel to train local forces. An additional three hundred civilian personnel were allowed to assist in the eradication of coca.
The Clinton deal was an addition to $330 million of previously approved US aid to Colombia. $818 million was earmarked for 2000, with $256 million for 2001.
The Clinton-era appropriations for his Colombia Plan made Colombia the third largest recipient of foreign aid from the United States at the time.
--SNIP--
As of 2008, the U.S. has provided nearly $1.3 billion to Colombia through Clinton Plan Colombia nonmilitary aid programs:
<><> Alternative Development (2000-2008 cost: $500 million)
<><> Internally Displaced Persons (2000-2008 cost: $247 million)
<><> Demobilization and Reintegration (2000-2008 cost: $44 million)
<><> Democracy and Human Rights (2000-2008 cost: $158 million)
<><> Promote the Rule of Law (2000-2008 cost: $238 million)
LONG READ--REST AT https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plan_Colombia
cont
04/16/2008----Ex-President Bill Clinton has earned hundreds of thousands of dollars speaking on behalf of a Colombia-based group pushing the trade pact, and representatives of that organization tell The Huffington Post that the former president shared their sentiment.
In June 2005, Clinton was paid $800,000 by the Colombia-based Gold Service International to give four speeches throughout Latin America. The organization is, ostensibly, a development group tasked with bringing investment to the country and educating world leaders about the Colombia’s business opportunities.
The group’s chief operating officer, Andres Franco, said in an interview that the group supports the congressional ratification of the free trade agreement and that, when Clinton was on his speaking tour, he expressed similar opinions. “He was supportive of the trade agreement at the time that he came, but that was several years ago.
In the present context, I don’t know what his position would be. It is not only about union trade rights. It is about what benefit or damage it can do to the US economy,” said Franco. “Events with the Clinton campaign [concerning Mark Penn] are not good at all for the trade agreement... Right now it became a campaign issues and that is sad, because it needs to go through.”
The comments were supported by a June 23, 2005 article from the news portal Terra (uncovered by Ben Smith at Politico) in which Clinton offered unambiguous support for the free trade agreement with Colombia.
They appear to be the first public indication that Clinton has, at least in the past, supported the trade deal. But evidence that the former president has been sympathetic to Colombia’s position is widely known. In 2007, Clinton met personally with and accepted an award from Colombia’s controversial president, Alvaro Uribe, during a time when the country was attempting to improve its image within the United States.
Subsequently, Clinton urged Congress to view the country in a more favorable light.
Moreover, Clinton has helped Frank Giustra, one of the biggest donors to the Clinton Global Initiative, score meetings with high-ranking Colombian officials. Giustra has several business interests in the country, and both he and Clinton have collaborated on an effort to (cough) "fight poverty in developing world by partnering up with mining companies in Colombia and elsewhere."
SOURCE http://nypost.com/2008/12/19/bubba-sheik-ing-the-money-tree/
==============================================
UT OH---Obama requested billions for Columbia---to (cough) curb the drug trade.
04/16/2008----Ex-President Bill Clinton has earned hundreds of thousands of dollars speaking on behalf of a Colombia-based group pushing the trade pact, and representatives of that organization tell The Huffington Post that the former president shared their sentiment.
In June 2005, Clinton was paid $800,000 by the Colombia-based Gold Service International to give four speeches throughout Latin America. The organization is, ostensibly, a development group tasked with bringing investment to the country and educating world leaders about the Colombia’s business opportunities.
The group’s chief operating officer, Andres Franco, said in an interview that the group supports the congressional ratification of the free trade agreement and that, when Clinton was on his speaking tour, he expressed similar opinions. “He was supportive of the trade agreement at the time that he came, but that was several years ago.
In the present context, I don’t know what his position would be. It is not only about union trade rights. It is about what benefit or damage it can do to the US economy,” said Franco. “Events with the Clinton campaign [concerning Mark Penn] are not good at all for the trade agreement... Right now it became a campaign issues and that is sad, because it needs to go through.”
The comments were supported by a June 23, 2005 article from the news portal Terra (uncovered by Ben Smith at Politico) in which Clinton offered unambiguous support for the free trade agreement with Colombia.
They appear to be the first public indication that Clinton has, at least in the past, supported the trade deal. But evidence that the former president has been sympathetic to Colombia’s position is widely known. In 2007, Clinton met personally with and accepted an award from Colombia’s controversial president, Alvaro Uribe, during a time when the country was attempting to improve its image within the United States.
Subsequently, Clinton urged Congress to view the country in a more favorable light.
Moreover, Clinton has helped Frank Giustra, one of the biggest donors to the Clinton Global Initiative, score meetings with high-ranking Colombian officials. Giustra has several business interests in the country, and both he and Clinton have collaborated on an effort to (cough) "fight poverty in developing world by partnering up with mining companies in Colombia and elsewhere."
SOURCE http://nypost.com/2008/12/19/bubba-sheik-ing-the-money-tree/
==============================================
UT OH---Obama requested billions for Columbia---to (cough) curb the drug trade.
Cut off ALL aid to everyone. If they fail, too bad. If they succeed on their own, then they never needed aid. Either way, we win.
every seven years we should say you're on your own and not give a single penny to foreigners but put the equivalent back into the country then again, i'm not against stopping it altogether
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.