US cutting back on $800M in aid to Pakistan

[woolfe9999]

I agree totally. What got us into this mess was the attitude that a million dollars wasn't "real money". Now we think that a billion dollars isn't "real money". Well, if the average household tax rate is $9,000 then that $800,000,000 equals the full average tax paid by almost 90,000 households. Whatever the exact amounts, it matters. It matters out the ass.

Apart from the fact that foreign aid can often have a high ROI (separate and apart from whether that is true in this particular case), I think the trouble with the focus on an issue like foreign aid is that it's an emotional issue. People generically "don't like" Pakistan. Combine that with our debt crisis, and you gets lots of rage over very little money. It's similar with libs and the foreign aid to Israel. Or the GOP and all its focus on "earmarks" without any real effort to make serious spending cuts. Or Michelle Obama's expensive hotel accomodations. Or [fill in the blank] populace rage over this or that item. The problem is that this sort of thing is a palliative. It's a symbolic issue to placate voters.

 

[routan]

http://news.yahoo.com/white-house-us-suspending-800m-pakistan-aid-135109780.html

Why were we sending them $800M a year in aid in the first place? Our country faces the worst recession in the last 100 years and we're sending $800M to Pakistan?

Obama spoke at his Twitter Town Hall meeting that financial aid is an "investment" with high returns.

http://www.business-standard.com/india/news/obama-defends-us-foreign-aid/140549/on

While shipping aid in various forms to other countries may be helpful, beneficial, and even appreciated, I don't feel this "investment" is something we can afford right now. I'd much rather see the money invested in the American people or not spent at all.

Just as a correction, it is not $800 million in aid. A substantial chunk of that is reimbursement of services that the Pakistan military has provided.

 

[JS80]

This is just shifty accounting. They may be pulling back $800m in cash aid, but we will still be spending $800m blowing shit up there.

 

[werepossum]

Apart from the fact that foreign aid can often have a high ROI (separate and apart from whether that is true in this particular case), I think the trouble with the focus on an issue like foreign aid is that it's an emotional issue. People generically "don't like" Pakistan. Combine that with our debt crisis, and you gets lots of rage over very little money. It's similar with libs and the foreign aid to Israel. Or the GOP and all its focus on "earmarks" without any real effort to make serious spending cuts. Or Michelle Obama's expensive hotel accomodations. Or [fill in the blank] populace rage over this or that item. The problem is that this sort of thing is a palliative. It's a symbolic issue to placate voters.

While those are valid points, so is CPA's - we'll never get our economic house in order if we persist in think that $800 million is "very little money". Yeah, it's mostly symbolic, but you have to start somewhere.

I think with Pakistan we've been getting a fair ROI considering every other flanking nation is off limits or an equally corrupt Islamic nation, but I think it's time to re-examine the issue. With bin Laden dead and most of al Qaeda and the foreign Taliban fighters scattered or dead, and with Pakistan's malfeasance regarding bin Laden beyond ignoring, it's time to look at leaving earlier rather than later. Afghanistan's government will have little problem finding common ground with most of the Afghan Taliban as soon as we leave anyway.

 

[woolfe9999]

While those are valid points, so is CPA's - we'll never get our economic house in order if we persist in think that $800 million is "very little money". Yeah, it's mostly symbolic, but you have to start somewhere.

I think with Pakistan we've been getting a fair ROI considering every other flanking nation is off limits or an equally corrupt Islamic nation, but I think it's time to re-examine the issue. With bin Laden dead and most of al Qaeda and the foreign Taliban fighters scattered or dead, and with Pakistan's malfeasance regarding bin Laden beyond ignoring, it's time to look at leaving earlier rather than later. Afghanistan's government will have little problem finding common ground with most of the Afghan Taliban as soon as we leave anyway.

I agree we have to start somewhere, with an omnibus deficit reduction bill that addresses the entire issue - subject to future modifications within reason. Starting by digging around in the fiscal dirt carries the risk of creating a false sense of security by making people "feel good." It's no different than cutting congressional salaries. Ahhhh, there, that feels better, doesn't it. The Titanic is still sinking, but the passengers aren't going to panic so much on the way down.

IMO foreign aid money is such a small portion of our budget that it needs to be analyzed first and foremost in terms of its foreign policy implications. Whether it is maintained or withdrawn should be based on that and that alone. The notion that we do something that is bad foreign policy to save .1 percent of our budget is foolish under any circumstances, but even more so when we're ignoring the larger fiscal picture.