Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Ok ok, yeah you can't even make a Hollywood move for 90 million dollars. Still, that money could have gone to the teachers in Minnesota or something, no?

Cairo, Egypt (CNN) -- U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton took a short tour of Tahrir Square in the Egyptian capital on Wednesday.

During the anti-government demonstrations that eventually led to the ouster of long-time Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak, the square was a rallying spot for protesters who transformed it from a bustling urban center into a fortified campground.

The walking tour lasted about 10 to 12 minutes, with crowds of people stopping her to shake her hand. She later met with Prime Minister Essam Sharaf.

"To see where this revolution happened and all that it has meant to the world is extraordinary for me," Clinton said. "It's just a great reminder of the power of the human spirit and universial desire for human rights and democracy. It's just thrilling to see where this happened."

On Tuesday, Clinton issued a strong statement of praise for Egypt's political revolution, declaring she was "deeply inspired" by the dramatic change and promising new assistance for America's longtime Middle East ally.

Clinton pledged $90 million in emergency economic assistance during a meeting in Cairo with Foreign Minister Nabil Al-Araby. She is the highest ranking U.S. official to visit Egypt since the overthrow of Mubarak.

"The United States will work to ensure that the economic gains Egypt has forged in recent years continue, and that all parts of Egyptian society benefit from these gains," a State Department statement noted.

While in the region, Clinton is also scheduled to visit neighboring Tunisia to express support for that country's revolt.

Insignificant amount of money.

$90 million in assistance now could prove invaluable in securing the new Egyptian government as a long term ally in the region. It could also do a hell of a lot of good for the Egyptian people.

Meanwhile US deficit problems are measured in hundreds of billions, and need to be resolved by beginning a sensible debate on the real operating cost of government and the tax level needed to fund that.

Wouldn't it jut be easier and shorter to just plainly say you don't like foreign aid?

Also, 90 million is a paltry sum in the scheme of the federal budget. It also doesn't work in such a way that if we are helping Egypt that we must also then not be helping Minnesota. Minnesota is still getting it's pork.

Ahtman wrote: Minnesota is still getting it's beautiful Nordic women.

More accurate.

dogma wrote:

Ahtman wrote: Minnesota is still getting it's beautiful Nordic women.

More accurate.

I suppose this is where I make a joke about Betty White's character from Golden Gris who was from Minnesota.

90 million is about 2/3rds of an F22 fighter jet.

Ahtman wrote:
I suppose this is where I make a joke about Jessica Biel's lower body from reality who was from Minnesota.

How I read that.

I had no idea. We now need someone to photoshop Jessica Biel's lower body onto Golden Girls era Betty White and I think this thread will be ready for a lock.

No, i fully understand it's a small amount of money. I think I mentioned that in the post. However when does the constant global charity end? I hear people preaching monetary responsibility and here we are just constantly handing cash around to anyone, even if they don't need it. Hey Libya needs a no fly zone, who is gonna foot the bill for that. We are surely going to spend lots of money in aid for Japan (i don't really have a problem with that), yet the Yen today just reached a 16 year high vs the dollar!

Why are we pledging money to a country that barley has a stable government and is sitting on its own supply of oil. Certainly not a giant supply of oil compared to its neighbors, but still a considerable amount.

What are we getting in return? Promises? Kisses?

I don't have problem with foreign aid outright. But if you are in debt to your ears it hardly makes good fiscal sense to be donating large amounts of money to charities.

Someone please explain how this makes fiscal sense? Please no spending 90 million now will stop us from spending 2 billion later arguments as I would not agree with those monies either. Currently Egypt has a smaller debt to GDP percentage than the US and it does sit on sizable oil reserves. Financially they are more stable than the US in many ways.

So please enlighten me? I don't care if its a dollar or a billion, the principle question is why?

Forieng Aid =/= Charity

Helping others helps us. Not only does is show we aren't a bunch of navel gazing jerk offs, it also helps prevent the spread of violence and secure trade. 90 million now is nothing compared to the amount that will be made in trade, which won't happen if things spiral out of control. It isn't charity, it's self interest. Just becuase it is also nice doesn't mean we don't get something real and tangible out of it.

That isn't even adding in the national security argument. When we cut tail and ran from Afghanistan and let the Taliban rise up it didn't exactly lead to good things now did it? This isn't the 17th century where it takes half a year to travel somewhere. You can get to almost anywhere in the world in a day. What happens over in other countries has an effect here and we cant ignore that there are other people in the world.

So, in summary, foreign aid is good for national security, good for business, and good for our image.

Foreign Aid in UK = imperialist guilt trip.

UK gives tonnes of money to India and Pakistan. India has a freaking SPACE PROGRAM. They need to get their priorities right first.

Andrew1975 wrote:No, i fully understand it's a small amount of money. I think I mentioned that in the post. However when does the constant global charity end? I hear people preaching monetary responsibility and here we are just constantly handing cash around to anyone, even if they don't need it. Hey Libya needs a no fly zone, who is gonna foot the bill for that. We are surely going to spend lots of money in aid for Japan (i don't really have a problem with that), yet the Yen today just reached a 16 year high vs the dollar!

Why are we pledging money to a country that barley has a stable government and is sitting on its own supply of oil. Certainly not a giant supply of oil compared to its neighbors, but still a considerable amount.

What are we getting in return? Promises? Kisses?

I don't have problem with foreign aid outright. But if you are in debt to your ears it hardly makes good fiscal sense to be donating large amounts of money to charities.

Someone please explain how this makes fiscal sense? Please no spending 90 million now will stop us from spending 2 billion later arguments as I would not agree with those monies either. Currently Egypt has a smaller debt to GDP percentage than the US and it does sit on sizable oil reserves. Financially they are more stable than the US in many ways.

So please enlighten me? I don't care if its a dollar or a billion, the principle question is why?

Foreign aid is primarily bribe money to get other countries to play nice.

dogma wrote:

Ahtman wrote:
I suppose this is where I make a joke about Jessica Biel's lower body from reality who was from Minnesota.

How I read that.

What? Jesssica Biel's lower body was from Minnesota? Was she born at the exact moment her mum was crossing state lines or something? Where was the rest of her born, Wisconson?

Andrew1975 wrote:No, i fully understand it's a small amount of money. I think I mentioned that in the post. However when does the constant global charity end?

It doesn't. As long as you're among the richest countries in the world, then for practical and moral reasons it is good to give money to poorer countries.

I hear people preaching monetary responsibility and here we are just constantly handing cash around to anyone, even if they don't need it.

The US pays out far, far less in foreign aid than just about every other developed country. The total amount you've spent wouldn't come close to making a dent in the budget.

Why are we pledging money to a country that barley has a stable government and is sitting on its own supply of oil.

To help it develop a stable government. And to secure access to oil.

What are we getting in return? Promises? Kisses?

The US relationship with the Mubarak regime allowed you to acquire near complete regional dominance. It certainly secured Israel's future, and for some reason that's very important to Americans. In fact, isn't the overwhelming sums of money handed over to Israel each year a better question, given they're a reasonably wealthy nation in their own right?

I don't have problem with foreign aid outright. But if you are in debt to your ears it hardly makes good fiscal sense to be donating large amounts of money to charities.

Debt and foreign aid are almost entirely unrelated. If you'd never offered any foreign aid the debt would be almost exactly what it is now, because it really is a piddly part of the budget.

Meanwhile, actually resolving the budget involves getting a real understanding of what the government of a developed nation really costs, and setting the tax rate appropriately. The longer you all feth about with line items like this, the longer you delay that conversation and the harder it will be when you finally get around to solving the issue.

Andrew1975 wrote:
So please enlighten me? I don't care if its a dollar or a billion, the principle question is why?

I've explained this to you before, but in broad strokes foreign aid involves buying products from domestic companies and sending their works abroad.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

sebster wrote:
What? Jesssica Biel's lower body was from Minnesota? Was she born at the exact moment her mum was crossing state lines or something? Where was the rest of her born, Wisconson?

Don't question, just gaze.

Andrew1975 wrote:No, i fully understand it's a small amount of money. I think I mentioned that in the post. However when does the constant global charity end?

...

...

The USA foreign aid budget is a smaller proportion of its GDP than any other developed nation's. About a third of the budget goes to Israel and (irony!) Egypt as military aid.

There are all kinds of arguments around the issue of foreign aid, however it is sensible first to recognise how small an amount of money the US actually does give away at the moment.

Play this game and see how you can fix the deficit.

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2010/11/13/weekinreview/deficits-graphic.html

Click on the button to cut foreign aid in half.

Compare that to "Reduce military to pre-Iraq War size and further reduce troops in Asia and Europe"

sebster wrote:The US government pays out far, far less as a percentage of GDP in foreign aid than just about every other developed country.

Thought I'd help improve your post.

The US (at least, in 2003-4) was at the top of the list in real dollars of foreign aid.

And private US citizens give out far, FAR more in aid than the government.

These are the best sites I can find that don't measure aid as a percentage of GDP or based on military budget. Do you have any information that shows foreign aid spending in real dollars (pounds, euros, yen...) by country, rather than as a percentage of GDP?

malfred wrote:Play this game and see how you can fix the deficit.

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2010/11/13/weekinreview/deficits-graphic.html

Click on the button to cut foreign aid in half.

Compare that to "Reduce military to pre-Iraq War size and further reduce troops in Asia and Europe"

Although biased and bulshit it was easy, I solved the deficit with 67% spending cuts and 33% increased taxes. VIVA FRAZZLED!


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Kilkrazy wrote:

Andrew1975 wrote:No, i fully understand it's a small amount of money. I think I mentioned that in the post. However when does the constant global charity end?

...

...

The USA foreign aid budget is a smaller proportion of its GDP than any other developed nation's. About a third of the budget goes to Israel and (irony!) Egypt as military aid.

There are all kinds of arguments around the issue of foreign aid, however it is sensible first to recognise how small an amount of money the US actually does give away at the moment.

Then they won't miss it when we cut it to -$0-

I think the Israelis will.

Kilkrazy wrote:I think the Israelis will.

In the words of Daddy Frazzled:
"Get a job you bums!"

biccat wrote:

sebster wrote:The US government pays out far, far less as a percentage of GDP in foreign aid than just about every other developed country.

Thought I'd help improve your post.

The US (at least, in 2003-4) was at the top of the list in real dollars of foreign aid.

There's a bible story which is relevant to that.

biccat wrote:And private US citizens give out far, FAR more in aid than the government.

...

Actually, they don't. That figure is arrived at by adding private remittances to actual charity.

"More than half of all U.S. assistance to developing countries, $61.7 billion, came in the form of private remittances by individuals living in the United States to their families abroad, the report says. "

It's questionable to call it US assistance when it consists of Somalis, Mexicans and so on sending money to their relatives.

Yea we're evil, not like all those other countries that give everything they have.

Kilkrazy wrote:There's a bible story which is relevant to that.

Haven't you heard the news? We're not a Christian nation anymore. So I'm not sure how this is at all relevant.

sebster wrote:$90 million in assistance now could prove invaluable in securing the new Egyptian government as a long term ally in the region. It could also do a hell of a lot of good for the Egyptian people.

Meanwhile US deficit problems are measured in hundreds of billions, and need to be resolved by beginning a sensible debate on the real operating cost of government and the tax level needed to fund that.

seems pretty succinct, having allies over there isn't a bad thing, especially when they are happy we helped them get out from beneath their despotic ruler of how many years?

WOAH I SOLVED IT http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2010/11/13/weekinreview/deficits-graphic.html?choices=d3uk4bm4

biccat wrote:

Kilkrazy wrote:There's a bible story which is relevant to that.

Haven't you heard the news? We're not a Christian nation anymore.

Trying to derail the thread already?

Ahtman wrote:

biccat wrote:

Kilkrazy wrote:There's a bible story which is relevant to that.

Haven't you heard the news? We're not a Christian nation anymore.

Trying to derail the thread already?

I'm not the one suggesting we should follow the Christian bible here. I assume he means the Christian bible, but the passage I'm thinking of is in the Torah as well...so ymmv.

Besides, "a billion here, a billion there, and pretty soon you're talking real money." Sure $90 million isn't a lot of money, it wouldn't affect any of our standards of living, right?

You forgot the Satanic Bible and boy its a page turner.

biccat wrote:
I'm not the one suggesting we should follow the Christian bible here.

You have to be Christian in order to find something written in the Bible to be relevant to what might be regarded as a question of morality?

biccat wrote:
Besides, "a billion here, a billion there, and pretty soon you're talking real money." Sure $90 million isn't a lot of money, it wouldn't affect any of our standards of living, right?

Don't appeal to ridicule.

biccat wrote:These are the best sites I can find that don't measure aid as a percentage of GDP or based on military budget. Do you have any information that shows foreign aid spending in real dollars (pounds, euros, yen...) by country, rather than as a percentage of GDP?

Which is more generous: a family living below the poverty line giving a tenth of their income to cancer research, or a multimillion dollar corporation giving ten thousand dollars to cancer research?