U.S. Offers Foreign Aid to Countries Holding Billions in Treasury Securities

Is this completely crazy and Obama's State Department did not respond to a request for comment.

Another perfect example of Obama's now famous Openness and Transparency policy.

We have got to end this nonsense.

Why don't we call this money a payment on what we owe them?

Sorry didn't mean to be logical and confuse Obama lovers.

U.S. Offers Foreign Aid to Countries Holding Billions in Treasury Securities - FoxNews.com
The United States is providing hundreds of millions of dollars of foreign aid to countries that it borrows billions from, according to a report by Congress's research arm.

The Congressional Research Services released a report last month, a copy of which Fox News exclusively obtained, showing that in fiscal year 2010, the latest year that data was available, the U.S. handed out a total of $1.4 billion to 16 foreign countries that held at least $10 billion in Treasury securities, including China ($27.2 million), Brazil ($25 million), Russia ($71.5 million), India ($126.6 million), Mexico ($316.7 million) and Egypt ($255.7 million).

Click to expand...

I am completely baffled by this, but I dont think it can be directed at Obama. Its probably been happening for years. This is just another example of our government spending money without thinking and without the majority knowing its happening.

As my main man Jon Stewart once said - "Oh billions of dollars, what is it you can't do?" :lol:

I would be very cautious about drawing too many conclusions from this. To be sure, a cynical interpretation would assume that the U.S. is using foreign aid to enhance the abnormally low yields on Treasury securities so as to entice further lending. However, trying to link foreign aid to lending, is far too simplistic.

The reality is that this is not a new practice. Moreover, U.S. foreign aid is intended to shape policies in a fashion more consistent with U.S. interests. For example, a stable and moderate Egypt remains in the U.S. interest. If the foreign aid has a reasonable chance to increase prospects of that outcome, then the U.S. aid to Egypt is not unreasonable.

If the more cynical interpretation carried real weight, then foreign aid and lending amounts would be tightly correlated. In fact, the correlation is low. For example, even as China's holdings of U.S. debt rank #1 among foreign countries, the aid furnished to China is very small relative to the entire foreign aid portfolio. IMO, whenever the U.S. considers foreign aid, it should do so with an emphasis on the national interest and an assessment as to the prospects that such aid would advance/sustain the nation's interests. If the aid is in the national interest and offers reasonable prospects of advancing/sustaining some critical U.S. interest, then the aid should be provided whether or not that country is a creditor. My worry is that a national interest-based assessment is not performed as regularly or robustly as it should be.

1.4 Billion is pennies to the Fed, heck its even pennies to our total revenue each year. I don't know the specifics of these policies, the report doesn't provide, so I'll withhold judgment. Everyone should also remember that buying debt is a form of investment, the same way an investor can buy a bond states can buy US treasury bonds. The US bonds are traditional very low to no risk investments and make a good foundation to a countries' "portfolio" you always want to have low risk stuff to fall back on after all.

It may seem like a contradiction to be giving them aid, which again since this report isn't specific, when it could in more than the form of simply writing them a check. That X amount of dollars could be the cost of keeping and funding a team of specialists within that country for example.

I believe most of the aid to China is going through the National Endowment for Democracy, and used to promote civil soceity and the rule of law in China

Something that is not exactly benificial to the Chinese government

Lord Tammerlain said:

I believe most of the aid to China is going through the National Endowment for Democracy, and used to promote civil soceity and the rule of law in China

Something that is not exactly benificial to the Chinese government

Click to expand...

IMO, Canada should be the first mother****ers we cut off. Then, start working on the rest of those ****ing deadbeats.

apdst said:

IMO, Canada should be the first mother****ers we cut off. Then, start working on the rest of those ****ing deadbeats.

Click to expand...

Canada isn't even on the least, glad to see you couldn't read a 6 page report which is just a graphic before making an opinion.

Wiseone said:

Canada isn't even on the least, glad to see you couldn't read a 6 page report which is just a graphic before making an opinion.

Click to expand...

Are you saying that Canada doesn't receive economic aid from The United States?

apdst said:

Are you saying that Canada doesn't receive economic aid from The United States?

Click to expand...

I'm sure you have something, please show it.

Wiseone said:

I'm sure you have something, please show it.

Click to expand...

Something to show? I thought it was common knowledge. We buy 99% of Canada's oil exports, then turn around and give them economic aid and then, we have to listen to Canadian mother****ers on this forum tell us how ****ed up we are and how we got it wrong?

The reality is, that if not for The United States, Canada would have gone belly up a long time ago.

**** that ****, i say cut their asses off...today!

apdst said:

Something to show? I thought it was common knowledge. We buy 99% of Canada's oil exports, then turn around and give them economic aid and then, we have to listen to Canadian mother****ers on this forum tell us how ****ed up we are and how we got it wrong?

The reality is, that if not for The United States, Canada would have gone belly up a long time ago.

**** that ****, i say cut their asses off...today!

Click to expand...

So no source, just pissing and moaning? Angry rhetoric? Ok bud.

Wiseone said:

So no source, just pissing and moaning? Angry rhetoric? Ok bud.

Click to expand...

Oh, so I guess it isn't common knowledge, for some.

U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID)

Eh.

With all the useless liquidity sitting in the system after two phases of quantitative easing, the money might as well go overseas. It's doing nothing here. Getting rid of it allows for more semi-useful quantitative easing sans inflation.

Jeezy said:

Eh.

With all the useless liquidity sitting in the system after two phases of quantitative easing, the money might as well go overseas. It's doing nothing here. Getting rid of it allows for more semi-useful quantitative easing sans inflation.

Click to expand...

That's hardcore, dude! But, I get the sarcasm. :rofl

I'm sorry but contracts and joint development counts as foreign aid? Could you perhaps explain what you see there I seem to be at a loss.

USAID awards approximately US$4 billion per year in contracts, grants, and cooperative agreements for work in developing countries. Most of the procurement associated with this assistance involves technical services with limited opportunities for the supply of equipment and construction services. Half of these contracts are awarded by USAID Washington, and the other half are awarded by USAID missions abroad.

Historically, USAID procurement has largely been tied to American firms. However, with the U.S. agreeing to many of the untied aid targets set by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) and in response to the reconstruction needs in Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, and in tsunami-affected countries, the U.S. Congress is allowing USAID to untie more of its aid. U.S. firms and NGOs that win USAID-funded work can hire individual Canadian consultants.

Click to expand...

It seems clear to me that this program is not foreign aid to Canada, in fact the last sentence literally says its about hiring.

Then this paragraph comes a little bit later:

Canadian firms are eligible to supply goods, services, and works relating to USAID administrative procurement. Administrative procurement is defined as activities financed through the operating budget that support administrative activities at USAID headquarters and at missions abroad. USAID Washington is responsible for administrative procurement at headquarters, while USAID mission directors are responsible for administrative procurement at missions abroad.

Click to expand...

So Canada being able to support USAID is now foreign aid to them?

The closest thing I can find as to what you are saying is this:

Canadian NGOs implementing humanitarian and relief programs can apply to USAID to receive food aid for their programs in developing countries. Additional information can be found on the Food for Peace website.

On the procurement side, USAID is required to purchase food from American firms. In some emergency situations, food may be procured from non-American sources. In these cases, the food is usually sourced from the local area around the recipient country.

Click to expand...

So like it says Canadians, not the Canadian gov't mind you, can get food aid for their own relief programs which go to other countries, not Canada...

apdst said:

That's hardcore, dude! But, I get the sarcasm. :rofl

Click to expand...

Nah, I'm kind of serious. Tons of dollars find their way overseas because of the dollar's special status among world currencies. It doesn't so much apply with something like quantitative easing because that's not "printing money"...it's a forced asset swap. But every time we lower interest rates, we flood the international market with dollars, which helps us deal with excess inflation for the money not necessarily demanded here.

It's true.

Councilman said:

Is this completely crazy and Obama's State Department did not respond to a request for comment.

Another perfect example of Obama's now famous Openness and Transparency policy.

We have got to end this nonsense.

Why don't we call this money a payment on what we owe them?

Sorry didn't mean to be logical and confuse Obama lovers.

Click to expand...

LOL this has been going on long before Obama.....