BUMMA off his rocker

[BrianW]

Foreign aid has been around for many decades and many administrations. Get a grip.

How about we "get a grip" on our TRILLIONS of $'s in deficits first?
Then, IF, we have some left over, consider giving to folks that actually support our goals.

Somebody has to "get a grip" on the fact that we, as a country, are BROKE regardless of the ability to keep raising debt ceilings and borrowing money, all that does is make us more broke!

Somebody has to get through to this monetary crack addict that
"Der ain't no mo' hits left in da pipe, B!"

[gman0046]

Hey, Bob you forgot to include Acorn in Obongo's money giveaway.

[Hew]

All the foreign aid we have given out in the last 50 years pales in comparison with what we have spent fighting in Iraq. The phrase penny wise, pound foolish comes to mind.

That's a pretty reckless presumption.

There are multitudes of guesses as to what the Iraq war has cost...from $500 billion to $1 trillion. Most middle-of-the-road guesstimates are in the $600 to $700 billion range, or about $100 billion per year. Each year since the Iraq war started we've spent about $20 to $30 billion per year in direct, out-of-the-public coffers, foreign aid. Comparing the 6 years of the Iraq war costs to 50 years of US foreign aid is a losing proposition for you; particularly if you adjust the other 44 years of foreign aid (when the Iraq war wasn't going on) to 2009 dollars.

As an aside, direct US aid isn't even half of all the aid that comes out of American's pockets each year and is sent to another country. When you calculate the aid/$ that American corporations, volunteer organizations, religious institutions, and individuals remove from our economy and give to another country's economy the annual numbers are comparable to what we spend in Iraq each year.

[YardleyLabs]

That's a pretty reckless presumption.

There are multitudes of guesses as to what the Iraq war has cost...from $500 billion to $1 trillion. Most middle-of-the-road guesstimates are in the $600 to $700 billion range, or about $100 billion per year. Each year since the Iraq war started we've spent about $20 to $30 billion per year in direct, out-of-the-public coffers, foreign aid. Comparing the 6 years of the Iraq war costs to 50 years of US foreign aid is a losing proposition for you; particularly if you adjust the other 44 years of foreign aid (when the Iraq war wasn't going on) to 2009 dollars.

As an aside, direct US aid isn't even half of all the aid that comes out of American's pockets each year and is sent to another country. When you calculate the aid/$ that American corporations, volunteer organizations, religious institutions, and individuals remove from our economy and give to another country's economy the annual numbers are comparable to what we spend in Iraq each year.

Since 9/11, foreign aid expenditures have almost doubled from their levels in the 1990's, although much of this was arguably military aid in disguise (e.g., $10 billion/year to Pakistan). In the 1990's, foreign aid averaged $10-15 billion/year vs $25 billion/year in the last nine years. In the 1970's and 80's the average was, as far as I can tell, under $5 billion/year and in the 1960's was hovering around $2 billion/year. That works out to about $500 billion over a period of 50 years (admittedly not constant value dollars), or less than expenditures for Iraq to date and much less than expenditures for Iraq to its end. With respect to private aid -- as distinct from public aid -- the situation becomes murkier. However, those are not items generally considered to be part of our foreign aid budget. In addition, while drug companies claim a lot of their drug distribution costs in third world countries as "aid", others tend to look at it as low cost drug trials. I suspect that if you project out the fully loaded cost of the Iraq war (including, for example restocking costs and disability costs) and compare that with constant dollar values of non-military aid, I suspect the totals will be comparable. If we subtract that portion of foreign aid that is actually just a vehicle for subsidizing US business, I suspect that the fully loaded cost of the iraqi war would greatly exceed the constant dollar value of all foreign aid. Of course, none of this really measures relative investments in "war" vs "peace". In that arena, we have always been biased toward war.

[ducknwork]

We have spent a lot of money in Iraq. How much money has the war contributed to our economy, in terms of jobs and industries that support the war, that would likely dry up or severely slow down if the troops came home today?

War MAKES money also...
________
Lesbian videos

[YardleyLabs]

We have spent a lot of money in Iraq. How much money has the war contributed to our economy, in terms of jobs and industries that support the war, that would likely dry up or severely slow down if the troops came home today?

War MAKES money also...

Absolutely true, although this is no different (i.e., not better and not worse) than the form of corporate welfare involved in the cash for clunkers program. Foreign aid, which is often tied directly to Buy American requirements, also contributes to our economy. In the world of military assistance, the US is the largest seller of weaponry and this directly contributes to the growth of our economy. However, we also subsidize those exports by providing grants and loans to the countries buying our arms and by financing all product development costs through our defense budget. In 2000-2007, US arms exports totaled almost $135 billion, or about 38% or worldwide arms exports.

[dnf777]

We have spent a lot of money in Iraq. How much money has the war contributed to our economy, in terms of jobs and industries that support the war, that would likely dry up or severely slow down if the troops came home today?

War MAKES money also...

If I didn't know better, it sounds like you're supporting war as a government "jobs program". Isn't that redistribution of wealth?? Or in other words, socialism?? Isn't that what Osama and gooberment have been accused of on this forum?

If the troops came home today, not only would jobs and industry that support the war severely slow down, but so would the rate of our boys and girls getting killed, maimed, and blinded. There's a trade I'm willing to make any day of the week, in the absense of a compelling, just, reason to be at war.

War is peace, good is evil, black is white regards,
dave

[ducknwork]

If I didn't know better, it sounds like you're supporting war as a government "jobs program". Isn't that redistribution of wealth?? Or in other words, socialism?? Isn't that what Osama and gooberment have been accused of on this forum?

If the troops came home today, not only would jobs and industry that support the war severely slow down, but so would the rate of our boys and girls getting killed, maimed, and blinded. There's a trade I'm willing to make any day of the week, in the absense of a compelling, just, reason to be at war.

War is peace, good is evil, black is white regards,
dave

Good thing you know better!
Although I don't see how it would be redistribution of wealth. The wealth that is to be redistributed is going to those who don't work, not those who work in an industry that supports the war. If I didn't know better, I would say that you are trying to stir the pot!

Also, I was not saying that the jobs created are a just reason to stay at war, I was just mentioning that because I am sick and tired of hearing about how much the war costs. I would be curious to find out if the amount of money that the war brings to our economy is close to, or even greater than the amount we have spent on it...

Believe me, I would certainly be happy for our troops to come home in one piece to be with their families if there is no reason to be there, even if that reason is to prevent what may happen if we were to leave too soon...People need to quit making the argument to end the war based on money. Lives are much more important than money and we need to do whatever is necessary to save them, even if that means leaving our troops in Astan until the job is finished so that we have less chance of 3K+ people being killed in our backyard again.
________
PRILOSEC SETTLEMENT

[dnf777]

Good thing you know better!
Although I don't see how it would be redistribution of wealth. The wealth that is to be redistributed is going to those who don't work, not those who work in an industry that supports the war. If I didn't know better, I would say that you are trying to stir the pot!

Also, I was not saying that the jobs created are a just reason to stay at war, I was just mentioning that because I am sick and tired of hearing about how much the war costs. I would be curious to find out if the amount of money that the war brings to our economy is close to, or even greater than the amount we have spent on it...

Believe me, I would certainly be happy for our troops to come home in one piece to be with their families if there is no reason to be there, even if that reason is to prevent what may happen if we were to leave too soon...People need to quit making the argument to end the war based on money. Lives are much more important than money and we need to do whatever is necessary to save them, even if that means leaving our troops in Astan until the job is finished so that we have less chance of 3K+ people being killed in our backyard again.

Redistribution of wealth flows in both directions. Under democrats it tends to flow from those with alot, to those without alot. Under republicans, it tends to flow from those with a little, to those with millions, and the corporations. Under Bush, my tax dollars ended up in the hands of ExxonMobile, Haliburton, and the Kenneth Lays of the world......now my dollars are going to after school programs, WIC programs, and yes, even welfare recipients. (who turn around and spend them on cigarettes and lotto tickets) Either way, we're screwed.

[Hew]

That works out to about $500 billion over a period of 50 years (admittedly not constant value dollars), or less than expenditures for Iraq to date and much less than expenditures for Iraq to its end.

I'll see your rolly eyes and raise you this...if you don't adjust for the value of a dollar then using your logic/accounting you could also argue that the Iraq war has cost more money than the US Civil War, Naploleon's conquest of Europe, Alexander's conquest of everything, and Genghis Khan's romp (or "Jenjus" as John F. Kerry like to pronounce it) all combined. But that would be, well, crazy, wouldn't it?

If the dollars are adjusted then you painfully mispoke by claiming that cost of 50 yrs. of foreign aid pales to the cost of Iraq. Heck, even not adjusting the dollars and using your own math, the aid works out to half the costs of Iraq. Not too pale in my book.