Community Blogs
"Please Help the Poor!"
A friend recently jumped on me with the question, "Why are we sending foreign aid to China?" She had apparently seen a report on FoxNews about this and was understandably indignant. (I don't as a rule watch the FNC due both to lack of time and interest.) I responded to her with skepticism, suggesting the report must be incorrect based on my long-standing plausibility criteria concerning news reports. It made no sense for us to send monetary aid to a nation to whom we owe trillions of dollars. I said I would check it out and get back to her.
Well, I did, and lo and behold, the report is true. According to Wikipedia, we supplied $1.2 billion in direct and indirect aid to the People's Republic of China (PRC) in 2003. The numbers are a bit confusing because some of that "indirect" aid involves contributions to UN programs that aid China and support for a Peace Corps operation there. (What are they doing, teaching them to grow rice?) Direct monetary aid is considerably less, with $275 million sent since 2001, $65 million in 2009. Some of this money goes to expanding Internet coverage. That's right, that's the thing the PRC government shuts down every time something embarrassing happens.
While this is not much in comparison to President Obama's budget deficit, one has to question why we are doing this at all. It's not as though they're a third world nation in need of sustenance. Our esteemed secretary of State, Mrs. Bill Clinton, aka Hillary Rodham, justifies this expenditure of scarce U.S. money as providing us with "influence". Oh good! That explains our great success in influencing the Chinese government to improve its human rights performance.
Other government spokespersons have claimed this is a holdover from previous government policy. O.K., then I wonder how many more of these "holdovers" are sitting out there fleecing the American taxpayer?
Perhaps in the interest of fairness. I should put this in context. Apparently, total foreign aid to China from all countries, specifically Japan, England, France and Germany plus us, was $2.65 billion. I guess we're getting off cheap. Apparently we have no corner on stupidity.
I called the dear lady and apologized for my skepticism. It made her day.
We encourage your comments but will strive to remove discussion that contains personal attacks, racial slurs, profanity or other inappropriate material as outlined in our guidelines. We post-moderate comments on most content, but may choose to pre-moderate some comments so please be patient if you don't see yours appear right way. We also ask for your help by reporting comments you think are inappropriate.
39 Comments
geno53151 - Aug 23, 2011 5:59 PM
Carl Hicks - Aug 23, 2011 8:35 PM
Do I sense empathy for the lazy non providers ?How left wing of you!
geno53151 - Aug 23, 2011 10:04 PM
The Salvation Army is the only organization who does not rip off those who contribute. They try (but are not always successful) to help the truely needy. Freeloaders will always be with us. That does not mean all needy are lazy non providers.
For your info, the last Democrat we voted for was JFK in the 60's. Thats was when the party was not controled by liberal socialists.
referee33 - Aug 23, 2011 10:27 PM
aneuhauser - Aug 24, 2011 12:56 AM
WFB resident - Aug 24, 2011 10:02 AM
acting as if they need first . But do not worry I know who is at fault ? Breaking
News: it's just been established by the Obama administration that the DC
earthquake occurred on a frequent but obscure fault line, apparently known as
"Bush's Fault". President Obama delivered a speech after the quake in which he
stated,"Let me be clear we inherited this seismic activity from the previous
administration." lol.......
Carl Hicks - Aug 24, 2011 1:56 PM
SPalin - Aug 24, 2011 2:58 PM
$2.4 billion ($336.25 per person) to Israel. The war hawks will be quick to defend
this expenditure because, well, you know, the country with zero nukes (Iran) is a
tremendous threat to the country with an estimated 300 (Israel). Anyway, this is the
absurd argument our fearless leaders make. And the numskulls who get their daily
diet of propaganda from FOXNEWS swallow it hook, line and sinker.
WFB resident - Aug 24, 2011 3:58 PM
save the USA . I thought the o would . That is what you PDLS's have said .
Remember Pelosi wants nukes used .
WFB resident - Aug 24, 2011 11:24 PM
SPalin - Aug 24, 2011 11:28 PM
divided by their population. We give $2.4 billion in aid to a country with a
population the size of Virginia. You know, Israel is not by any stretch of the
imagination an impoverished country, in fact they're quite prosperous. Isn't it
about time we cut the apron strings? If you're Ron Paul the answer is yes:
http://video.foxnews.com/v/1107682369001/rep-ron-paul-cutting-foreign-aid-to-
israel
aneuhauser - Aug 25, 2011 12:53 AM
SPalin - Aug 25, 2011 7:27 AM
amount is based on the 2009 population, not the larger 2011 population.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/US_foreign_aid
You don't think an estimated 300 nukes is enough for Israel do defend itself?
Considering that Israel's enemies have no nuclear weaponry and therefor pose
no retaliatory threat I'd say a half dozen would be more than adequate. The truth
is they don't need military aid from us. They have the resources necessary to
fend for themselves. The reason we keep giving is because our politicians can't
say no to a very powerful Israeli lobby, a lobby that has a reputation of making
and breaking politicians:
"It’s almost politically suicidal ... for a member of Congress who wants to seek
reelection to take any stand that might be interpreted as anti-policy of the
conservative Israeli government." - Morris Amitay, former AIPAC director
The USA is Israel's sugar daddy. I say it's high time we put her on a calorie
restrictive diet.
WFB resident - Aug 25, 2011 1:18 PM
posted ? wow and you complained of not giving credit when due ? lol......Pelosi you
never answered . You are saying that the use of nukes by the jews is OK ? Just a
simple yes or no please . Or will you not back up what you said ? again .
ExToDResident - Aug 25, 2011 9:11 PM
" In 1967 an American Jew, Beys Afroyim received an exemption that set a precedent exclusively for American Jews. Afroyim, born in Poland in 1895, emigrated to America in 1912, and became a naturalized U.S. citizen in 1926. In 1950, aged 55, he emigrated to Israel and became an Israeli citizen. In 1951 Afroyim voted in an Israeli Knesset election and in five political elections that followed. So, by all standards he lost his American citizenship -- right? Wrong.
After living in Israel for a decade, Afroyim wished to return to New York. In 1960, he asked the U.S. Consulate in Haifa for an American passport. The Department of State refused the application, invoking section 401 (e) of the Nationality Act -- the same ruling that had stripped the American citizen named Perez of his U.S. citizenship.
Attorneys acting for Afroyim took his case to a Washington, DC District Court, which upheld the law. Then his attorneys appealed to the Court of Appeals. This court also upheld the law. The attorneys for Afroyim then moved the case on to the Supreme Court. Here, with Supreme Court Justice Abe Fortas, Lyndon Johnson's former attorney and one of the most powerful Jewish Americans, casting the swing vote, the court voted five to four in favor of Afroyim. The court held that the U.S. government had no right to "rob" Afroyim of his American citizenship!
The court, reversing its previous judgment as regards the Mexican American, ruled that Afroyim had not shown "intent" to lose citizenship by voting in Israeli elections. Huh?
Cont
ExToDResident - Aug 25, 2011 9:41 PM
"While Washington claims it has a "good neighbor" policy with Mexico, the U.S. does not permit Mexicans to hold dual nationality. The US makes them become either U.S. or Mexican -- you can't be both. But the U.S., in its special relationship with Israel, has become very sympathetic to allowing Israeli-Americans to retain two nationalities and allowing U.S. citizens not only to hold public office in Israel, but to hold US government positions as well! No other country holds this special exception to our laws of citizenship."
http://viewzone.com/dualcitizen.html
WFB resident - Aug 25, 2011 10:37 PM
from the USAmerican side either . Even though I would be able to from my home
country , So I sit and wait to see if this country is going to turn in to 1937 Germany
or will the people oust the o ? Time will tell.
aneuhauser - Aug 26, 2011 1:19 AM
A very good friend is an Israeli of German Jewish ancestry who holds dual citizenship. He was born in Israel but emigrated at an early age and obtained U.S. citizenship the usual way. This allows him to travel freely to Israel where he still has family. A downside for many years was that as an Israeli citizen, he was expected to serve in the Isreal Defense Force (IDF). Since he was firmly domiciled in the U.S. and solidly employed by the JCPenney Co., this was not an option. A waiver is available in cases where an Israeli is living out of the country (Israel), but must be applied for in person. So, each and every year until he was beyond service age, he had to fly to Israel to apply for his waiver.
Ms. Palin: Israel has never acknowledged having nuclear weapons and has never conducted a test. (There are unconfirmed rumors of a single test.) However, it is generally acknowledged that they are an undeclared nuclear power. Warhead estimates range widely from 70 to 400, some reputed to be very sophisticated. Many are tactical, carried by Israel's F-15 and F-16 fighters, although they are reliably reported to have ballistic missiles with ranges of from 1400 km (Jericho II) to 11,500 km (Jericho III) buried underground in silos. Your 400 figure is the highest warhead estimate. A more realistic estimate would be about 200.
Ref. http://www.armscontrol.org/factsheets/Nuclearweaponswhohaswhat