5 ms·

Why is the US giving billions of dollars to a foreign nation while her own citizens are in dire need of those funds? I guess the better questions is, how do th

Why is the US giving billions of dollars to a foreign nation while her own citizens are in dire need of those funds? I guess the better questions is, how do the people allow this to happen?

jfoutz 11y ago
A lot of oil comes from the middle east. Having a strong ally opens up options for interaction with countries there. I'd say most of the progress in the 20th century came from access to inexpensive energy. Now that we're in the information age we're more concerned with efficiency and effective use of scarce resources. Cheap energy is a big boost though. Transportation costs are an obvious example. But oil is used in everything. Fertilizer and plastics are big consumers. Keeping those costs down, makes everything cheaper. Theoretically, that's better for everyone. Cheap energy was important enough for the us to go to war at least once, Desert Storm. Good arguments can be made for the second Iraq invasion, and the possibility of oil off the coast of Vietnam. This of course glosses over all of the secondary effects, like CO2 emissions, health consequences of fast food and all the problems that go along with war. (And i'm sure a million other things!) But, yeah, the reason is access to cheap energy.
jdblair 11y ago
Because its part of the terms of the Camp David Accords. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Camp_David_Accords#Framework_Peace_Treaty_Egypt_and_Israel https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Camp_David_Accords#Framework_P... "The agreement also resulted in the United States committing to several billion dollars worth of annual subsidies to the governments of both Israel and Egypt, subsidies which continue to this day, and are given as a mixture of grants and aid packages committed to purchasing U.S. materiel."
brandonmenc 11y ago
Maintaining our position requires projecting power, one form of which is helping our allies deploy new military tech. Of course, some people only complain when the recipient in question is Israel.
- zokier 11y ago
  It is also debatable if it is a position that is desirable to be in.
rrggrr 11y ago
The simple answer to your question is to ask yourself what is likely to happen if the aid were to end. Let's let history be our guide: 1. Israel may preemptively strike Iran believing "now or never". Has done so before in many other situations. 2. Israel will increase its growing ties with China and Russia. Hillary Clinton's email dump suggests there is concern about this at State. 3. Israel'a adversaries (eg. Iran, Hezbollah, etc.) will renew and increase attacks. There will be instability and loss of life. 1948, 1973, 1982, etc. 4. Increasing conflict and instability will cause great economic pain globally. We know this because almost every recession since 1948 has been proceeded by conflict in the middle east, most of the time Israel. Any of these outcomes cost much more than $3b USD, and for the expense US taxpayers get these added benefits: 1. Jobs, jobs, jobs. US defense contractors are one of America's few remaining manufacturing hotspots. 2. Slightly less interest by Saudi Arabia, etc. in pursuing WMD to counter Iran. And under-the-table deals between some Arab states and Israel, which have Israel maintaining a tenuous balance of power in the Middle East, countering Iran. 3. Democracy. You elected your representatives, senators and president. Don't like their position on Israel? Organize, donate and vote. Sitting on HN and complaining unless you're doing the other three things feels good but accomplishes nothing. 4. Peace of mind. Organize, donate, vote and win -- and you can credit yourself among the winners who saved $3b, and plunged an entire region into further chaos, resulting in the deaths of likely millions. Major dark side points for you. Want $3b back? The government can find $3b with ease and allocate it to the small business administration to create jobs at home. Betcha they won't, because people love to complain about things like foreign aid, but fail to complain about the lack of hard dollars to small businesses, entrepreneurs and small business employees. EDIT: If you're going to cherry pick individual points to dispute you might point out that you're unable to dispute the general thesis.
- walls 11y ago
  So America should keep propping them up indefinitely, at any cost?
  - DasIch 11y ago
    Better Israel than Saudi Arabia, don't you think? Somehow supporting Israel is always critized but a government that's almost indistinguishable from ISIS apart from the fact that they happen to be allied wih the US is apparently fine with most people. You may want to consider whether it's really the cost you're so worried about.
trynumber9 11y ago
Where else is it possible to really test an anti-rocket system? Israel's rocket problems are mentioned in the article and just today North Korea fired six missiles into the Sea of Japan. Japan & US develop and test of new version of SM-3 missile together. The seeker for next version of the "Patriot" missile is from this Israeli system. US gets technology of both these systems at a slightly lower cost than if she did it herself.
calibraxis 11y ago
Israel is a US client state. Like Saudi Arabia. Obviously useful if you want control over the world's energy markets, a basis of all economies. (There's some other reasons too; like the US linked it into its high-tech industry.) Regarding billions though, the US has all the wealth it could ever want. It simply wastes most of it. Everyone could easily have a 15 hour workweek or whatever. The phenomenon of unemployment could be considered a decadent joke (where idle hands can't find work though they're looking for it, and there's much to do).
DasIch 11y ago
Israel's continued existance is of national interest to many governments. They're an important political ally, critical to the stability in the region and the ability of the west to project power into the middle east. Also keep in mind that much of that money flows back to the US. Overall this is a small investment in ensuring that Israel is so incredibly well defended that nobody in the surrounding area could ever come close to believing they have a chance against them.
mikeash 11y ago
I imagine this is part of the answer: "The Israeli missile defense system is being built in partnership with U.S. defense contractors, including Raytheon, Boeing and Lockheed Martin." Much of that money comes back to us, and we get the benefit of all that research too.
- fuhshehdjsj 11y ago
  A benefit captured by a varnishingly few corrupt managers and politicians. Just another government run slush fund for the elite, no matter it's for devices which are meant to ruin the lives of millions. SOP.
- jMyles 11y ago
  > us Are we Raytheon, Boeing and Lockheed Martin?
  - ars 11y ago
    The largest expense for these companies is salary, so yes, we are those companies in the form of their employees. It's a triple win: Israel gets defense, US gets technology, High-tech employees get jobs.
    - jMyles 11y ago
      I don't think it's fair to say that "we" are represented by a few hugely controversial companies. It's not "High-tech employees get jobs," it's "high-tech employees willing to work for companies that participate in murder and empire get jobs."
  - fit2rule 11y ago
    Alas, yes. Without these giants of American industry, such luxuries as those enjoyed in the valley wouldn't really be feasible. These are the fonts from which much, much is trickled down into American industry and economy.
ck2 11y ago
It's corporate welfare for Raytheon, Boeing and Lockheed Martin. I have to imagine the system is completely useless for bombs strapped to drones.
- samstave 11y ago
  I'm literally amazed that we have not yet seen a bomb strapped to a quad-copter and flown into [US political building] yet by some FBI extremist group in order to push anti drone legislation yet.
  - knowaveragejoe 11y ago
    Maybe because that's preposterous? Just an idea.
    - samstave 11y ago
      http://mobile.nytimes.com/2012/04/29/opinion/sunday/terrorist-plots-helped-along-by-the-fbi.html?referer=&_r=0 http://mobile.nytimes.com/2012/04/29/opinion/sunday/terroris...
  - kmonsen 11y ago
    It is because extremely few people actually want to do terror. There is a ton of very easy things you can do to harm people if you really want to, but luckily almost no one wants to.
    - samstave 11y ago
      Jesus Christ you guys miss the point of my comment: http://mobile.nytimes.com/2012/04/29/opinion/sunday/terrorist-plots-helped-along-by-the-fbi.html?referer=&_r=0 http://mobile.nytimes.com/2012/04/29/opinion/sunday/terroris... The FBI infiltrates and fosters extremism to ferret out terrorists. HN is so uninformed at times.
      - LordKano 11y ago
dannylandau 11y ago
Honestly, I never understand sentiments like these regarding aid flowing towards foreign nations for projects that are noteworthy. Here are the facts and figures -- https://www.nationalpriorities.org/blog/2014/08/12/penny-dollar-us-foreign-aid-about-one-percent-spending/ https://www.nationalpriorities.org/blog/2014/08/12/penny-dol... Looking at the top chart, can one honestly read from that the foreign aid has a significant impact on U.S well being or welfare. If anything, the U.S. can spend even more on aid, I would personally support that.
Cadsby 11y ago
Much of those funds come with stipulations on how they must be spent; namely, on military hardware from US Defense manufacturers. So the aid ends up back in the US ultimately and effectively acts as a subsidy to the Defense industry.
- yodsanklai 11y ago
  This may be a dumb question, but how are subsidies compatible with trade agreements? It doesn't seem fair from a free market point of view. Or are foreign competitors allowed to subsidize their industries to similar levels as part of trade agreements?
raddad 11y ago
>Why is the US giving billions of dollars to a foreign nation while her own citizens are in dire need of those funds? I guess the better questions is, how do the people allow this to happen? Because the war mongers are a huge industry and there is no department of peace. One would think after thousands of years of war to "bring about peace" one would try something new. I can't be the only one on the globe to know what the definition of insanity is.

Why is the US giving billions of dollars to a foreign nation while her own citizens are in dire need of those funds? I guess the better questions is, how do the people allow this to happen?

jfoutz 11y ago

A lot of oil comes from the middle east. Having a strong ally opens up options for interaction with countries there. I'd say most of the progress in the 20th century came from access to inexpensive energy. Now that we're in the information age we're more concerned with efficiency and effective use of scarce resources. Cheap energy is a big boost though. Transportation costs are an obvious example. But oil is used in everything. Fertilizer and plastics are big consumers. Keeping those costs down, makes everything cheaper. Theoretically, that's better for everyone. Cheap energy was important enough for the us to go to war at least once, Desert Storm. Good arguments can be made for the second Iraq invasion, and the possibility of oil off the coast of Vietnam. This of course glosses over all of the secondary effects, like CO2 emissions, health consequences of fast food and all the problems that go along with war. (And i'm sure a million other things!) But, yeah, the reason is access to cheap energy.

jdblair 11y ago

Because its part of the terms of the Camp David Accords. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Camp_David_Accords#Framework_Peace_Treaty_Egypt_and_Israel https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Camp_David_Accords#Framework_P... "The agreement also resulted in the United States committing to several billion dollars worth of annual subsidies to the governments of both Israel and Egypt, subsidies which continue to this day, and are given as a mixture of grants and aid packages committed to purchasing U.S. materiel."

brandonmenc 11y ago

Maintaining our position requires projecting power, one form of which is helping our allies deploy new military tech. Of course, some people only complain when the recipient in question is Israel.

zokier 11y ago
It is also debatable if it is a position that is desirable to be in.

rrggrr 11y ago

The simple answer to your question is to ask yourself what is likely to happen if the aid were to end. Let's let history be our guide: 1. Israel may preemptively strike Iran believing "now or never". Has done so before in many other situations. 2. Israel will increase its growing ties with China and Russia. Hillary Clinton's email dump suggests there is concern about this at State. 3. Israel'a adversaries (eg. Iran, Hezbollah, etc.) will renew and increase attacks. There will be instability and loss of life. 1948, 1973, 1982, etc. 4. Increasing conflict and instability will cause great economic pain globally. We know this because almost every recession since 1948 has been proceeded by conflict in the middle east, most of the time Israel. Any of these outcomes cost much more than $3b USD, and for the expense US taxpayers get these added benefits: 1. Jobs, jobs, jobs. US defense contractors are one of America's few remaining manufacturing hotspots. 2. Slightly less interest by Saudi Arabia, etc. in pursuing WMD to counter Iran. And under-the-table deals between some Arab states and Israel, which have Israel maintaining a tenuous balance of power in the Middle East, countering Iran. 3. Democracy. You elected your representatives, senators and president. Don't like their position on Israel? Organize, donate and vote. Sitting on HN and complaining unless you're doing the other three things feels good but accomplishes nothing. 4. Peace of mind. Organize, donate, vote and win -- and you can credit yourself among the winners who saved $3b, and plunged an entire region into further chaos, resulting in the deaths of likely millions. Major dark side points for you. Want $3b back? The government can find $3b with ease and allocate it to the small business administration to create jobs at home. Betcha they won't, because people love to complain about things like foreign aid, but fail to complain about the lack of hard dollars to small businesses, entrepreneurs and small business employees. EDIT: If you're going to cherry pick individual points to dispute you might point out that you're unable to dispute the general thesis.

walls 11y ago
So America should keep propping them up indefinitely, at any cost?
- DasIch 11y ago
  Better Israel than Saudi Arabia, don't you think? Somehow supporting Israel is always critized but a government that's almost indistinguishable from ISIS apart from the fact that they happen to be allied wih the US is apparently fine with most people. You may want to consider whether it's really the cost you're so worried about.

trynumber9 11y ago

Where else is it possible to really test an anti-rocket system? Israel's rocket problems are mentioned in the article and just today North Korea fired six missiles into the Sea of Japan. Japan & US develop and test of new version of SM-3 missile together. The seeker for next version of the "Patriot" missile is from this Israeli system. US gets technology of both these systems at a slightly lower cost than if she did it herself.

calibraxis 11y ago

Israel is a US client state. Like Saudi Arabia. Obviously useful if you want control over the world's energy markets, a basis of all economies. (There's some other reasons too; like the US linked it into its high-tech industry.) Regarding billions though, the US has all the wealth it could ever want. It simply wastes most of it. Everyone could easily have a 15 hour workweek or whatever. The phenomenon of unemployment could be considered a decadent joke (where idle hands can't find work though they're looking for it, and there's much to do).

DasIch 11y ago

Israel's continued existance is of national interest to many governments. They're an important political ally, critical to the stability in the region and the ability of the west to project power into the middle east. Also keep in mind that much of that money flows back to the US. Overall this is a small investment in ensuring that Israel is so incredibly well defended that nobody in the surrounding area could ever come close to believing they have a chance against them.

mikeash 11y ago

I imagine this is part of the answer: "The Israeli missile defense system is being built in partnership with U.S. defense contractors, including Raytheon, Boeing and Lockheed Martin." Much of that money comes back to us, and we get the benefit of all that research too.

fuhshehdjsj 11y ago
A benefit captured by a varnishingly few corrupt managers and politicians. Just another government run slush fund for the elite, no matter it's for devices which are meant to ruin the lives of millions. SOP.
jMyles 11y ago
> us Are we Raytheon, Boeing and Lockheed Martin?
- ars 11y ago
  The largest expense for these companies is salary, so yes, we are those companies in the form of their employees. It's a triple win: Israel gets defense, US gets technology, High-tech employees get jobs.
  - jMyles 11y ago
    I don't think it's fair to say that "we" are represented by a few hugely controversial companies. It's not "High-tech employees get jobs," it's "high-tech employees willing to work for companies that participate in murder and empire get jobs."
- fit2rule 11y ago
  Alas, yes. Without these giants of American industry, such luxuries as those enjoyed in the valley wouldn't really be feasible. These are the fonts from which much, much is trickled down into American industry and economy.

ck2 11y ago

It's corporate welfare for Raytheon, Boeing and Lockheed Martin. I have to imagine the system is completely useless for bombs strapped to drones.

samstave 11y ago
I'm literally amazed that we have not yet seen a bomb strapped to a quad-copter and flown into [US political building] yet by some FBI extremist group in order to push anti drone legislation yet.
- knowaveragejoe 11y ago
  Maybe because that's preposterous? Just an idea.
  - samstave 11y ago
    http://mobile.nytimes.com/2012/04/29/opinion/sunday/terrorist-plots-helped-along-by-the-fbi.html?referer=&_r=0 http://mobile.nytimes.com/2012/04/29/opinion/sunday/terroris...
- kmonsen 11y ago
  It is because extremely few people actually want to do terror. There is a ton of very easy things you can do to harm people if you really want to, but luckily almost no one wants to.
  - samstave 11y ago
    Jesus Christ you guys miss the point of my comment: http://mobile.nytimes.com/2012/04/29/opinion/sunday/terrorist-plots-helped-along-by-the-fbi.html?referer=&_r=0 http://mobile.nytimes.com/2012/04/29/opinion/sunday/terroris... The FBI infiltrates and fosters extremism to ferret out terrorists. HN is so uninformed at times.
    - LordKano 11y ago

dannylandau 11y ago

Honestly, I never understand sentiments like these regarding aid flowing towards foreign nations for projects that are noteworthy. Here are the facts and figures -- https://www.nationalpriorities.org/blog/2014/08/12/penny-dollar-us-foreign-aid-about-one-percent-spending/ https://www.nationalpriorities.org/blog/2014/08/12/penny-dol... Looking at the top chart, can one honestly read from that the foreign aid has a significant impact on U.S well being or welfare. If anything, the U.S. can spend even more on aid, I would personally support that.

Cadsby 11y ago

Much of those funds come with stipulations on how they must be spent; namely, on military hardware from US Defense manufacturers. So the aid ends up back in the US ultimately and effectively acts as a subsidy to the Defense industry.

yodsanklai 11y ago
This may be a dumb question, but how are subsidies compatible with trade agreements? It doesn't seem fair from a free market point of view. Or are foreign competitors allowed to subsidize their industries to similar levels as part of trade agreements?

raddad 11y ago

>Why is the US giving billions of dollars to a foreign nation while her own citizens are in dire need of those funds? I guess the better questions is, how do the people allow this to happen? Because the war mongers are a huge industry and there is no department of peace. One would think after thousands of years of war to "bring about peace" one would try something new. I can't be the only one on the globe to know what the definition of insanity is.