The US gives out over double the foreign aid that every other large economy country gives out. (except Japan)
What happens to all that money?
Do we keep track of it after we give it away?
Do we have an audit system?
If we give millions to a country and we see no changes being made can we ask for receipts to see where they spent the money?
And if they can’t account for the money can we cut them off next year?
In North Korea we basically donated billions of dollars to help them develop a nuclear missile program. I’m pretty sure that wasn’t our intent.
If aid money disappears in other countries you can be sure it didn’t end up in an orphanage or charity organization. In some cases we are fighting terrorist organizations who are supported by our own lost foreign aid. 
>> The US gives out over double the foreign aid that every other large economy country gives out. (except Japan)
Yes but as a percentage of GDP the USA gives less than most developed countries.
>> What happens to all that money?
>> Do we keep track of it after we give it away?
>> Do we have an audit system?
Of course it is accounted for. There may be cheating and/or bad administration sometimes but the intention is that it be spent for what it is intended.
>> If we give millions to a country and we see no changes being made can we ask for receipts to see where they spent the money?
The US does not normally just hand a check. The money is given with many strings attached. In many cases it is not even money but food or other type of goods.
>> And if they can’t account for the money can we cut them off next year?
They can be cut off at any time for any or for no reason.
>> In North Korea we basically donated billions of dollars to help them develop a nuclear missile program. I’m pretty sure that wasn’t our intent.
What is your question? I am pretty sure it did not happen and you are wrong. Please cite your sources.
>> If aid money disappears in other countries you can be sure it didn’t end up in an orphanage or charity organization. In some cases we are fighting terrorist organizations who are supported by our own lost foreign aid.
I believe your opinions are unfounded and I will be glad to debate you in GD, not here.
There are relatively few instances where the US government gives cash money directly to another government. The most notable exception is Israel, where since 1981, all economic support funds have been given in a single payment - roughly half a billion this year. There is also a much larger military aid program for Israel, and analagous programs for Egypt, but I’m not sure right off the top of my head if those are given as cash grants.
While the Middle East aid is far and away the largest chunk of US foreign aid, the overwhelming number of foreign aid projects, ranging from $100,000 to several million, are for specific projects: building labor relations in Nicaragua, food to Sudan, criminal justice programs in Belarus, and whathaveyou. Again, these are for projects and programs, not cash transfers.
The General Accounting Office, an arm of Congress, audits every damn thing the government spends money on. Their reports are too numerous to list, but here is one example.
As far as giving billions to North Korea to develop nuclear weapons, that is just plain wrong information. As far as foreign aid ending up in the hands of terrorists, I can only think of the military aid given to the muj in Afghanistan during the '80s. You’re better of worrying about flossing your teeth than you are worrying about foreign aid ending up in the hands of terrorists.
You should also understand HOW foreign aid is most frequently dispensed. It is usually given not to foreigners but to U.S. government contractors and a huge chunk of it is used to pay salaries of American experts living overseas and to buy American made goods.
Google on USAID + [your favourite less developed country]) and you will find glowing descriptions of successful projects. Or go to the web sites of USAID contractors (e.g., Adventist Development and Relief Agency, Africare, Aga Khan Foundation, USA CARE, Catholic Relief Services, Concern Worldwide, USA Counterpart International, Partners for Development, PLAN International, USA
Population Services International, Project HOPE, Save the Children, USA, World Relief Corporation, World Vision, Inc., etc.
It’s a huge industry (although small compared to the international aid efforts of other industrialized nations) and most of the money may go for nought but IT IS definitely well audited.
>> In North Korea we basically donated billions of dollars to help them develop a nuclear missile program. I’m pretty sure that wasn’t our intent.
What is your question? I am pretty sure it did not happen and you are wrong. Please cite your sources.
sources:
and from policy.house.gov
For Immediate Release
Friday, April 14, 2000 Contact: Kate Whitman
202-225-6168
Clinton-Gore North Korea Aid Will Provide Plutonium for Nuclear Bombs
WASHINGTON - Two nuclear scientists told the House Policy Committee this week that nuclear reactors being built with U.S. taxpayer funds for the Stalinist dictatorship in North Korea will soon give the regime enough plutonium to make more than 60 bombs a year.
The scientists who briefed the House Leaders were Dr. Victor Gilinsky, a former Member of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission during the Ford and Carter administrations and former head of the Physical Sciences Department at the RAND Corporation, and Dr. William R. Graham, a former Science Advisor to President Reagan and Deputy Administrator of NASA.
The plutonium provided by two nuclear reactors being built for North Korea at the urging of the Clinton-Gore administration, the scientists said, would dramatically increase North Korea’s ability to produce nuclear weapons. The scientists took strong exception to the Clinton-Gore administration claim that the reactors are somehow “proliferation resistant”-that their construction did not present a serious risk. That is most assuredly not the case, the scientists said.
“The light water reactors could produce about 500 kilograms of plutonium annually,” Dr. Gilinsky said. “They are so much larger than the facilities North Korea stopped building, they will actually produce more plutonium than the gas graphite plants they will replace.” Gilinsky also cited a study by the Committee on International Security and Arms Control of the National Academy of Sciences that concluded, “plutonium of virtually any isotopic composition can be used to make nuclear weapons.”
The administration’s argument that the light water reactors do not produce “weapons-grade plutonium” is misleading. First, the light water reactors can in fact be operated to produce essentially weapons-grade plutonium. Second, the plutonium normally produced in power reactors can be used to make powerful nuclear weapons. Some additional steps would need to be taken to employ the plutonium normally produced in light water reactors, but, as Dr. Graham pointed out, these steps would not pose an insuperable hurdle for the North Koreans. The U.S. successfully tested a warhead using such material in 1962.
The scientists also pointed out that North Korea’s primitive power grid cannot possibly handle the enormous generation capacity of these two 1,000-megawatt nuclear reactors-indicating North Korea’s reason for demanding them from the U.S. is not to obtain electrical power. If that were their concern, they would have asked for help with conventional electric plants, which they could have obtained more quickly and more easily. The North Koreans’ objective may well have been to gain the plutonium they will produce.
“Giving U.S. foreign aid to North Korea is foolhardy. Using it to build nuclear plants is dangerous-and giving Kim Jong Il plutonium to build nuclear bombs is madness,” said Policy Chairman Christopher Cox.
For lots more google: clinton,north korea,foreign aid
[remainder of copyrighted article deleted]
Shocker! NewsMax is wrong.
Point one: heavy fuel oil sales have been suspended for close to a year. Cite.
Point two: KEDO - a consortium of the US, Japan, and South Korea, was to give the DPRK a long term loan – not a grant – to pay for the LWRs. Cite.
Point three: There are no LWRs in North Korea. Although the reactors were supposed to have been COMPLETED in 2003, they didn’t even pour the first concrete until August 7, 2002. Cite. And, construction is now suspended, anyways.
Point four: The US certainly did not provide $6 billion in aid to North Korea, as that article implies. The US has given about $1 billion since 1995, 60 percent of which was food aid. Of the other 40 percent, all but $27 million was for fuel oil, and the rest was for administrative expenses for KEDO. Cite.
Unless there is another cite from a scientist saying that fuel oil and food can create a nuclear weapon, I think we all can consider the matter closed.
kenibbling pin, I have deleted the bulk of your first quotation. It is copyrighted and we permit only brief quotations of copyrighted works. Generally, more than a couple of paragraphs is too much. You can always provide a link to the article if it’s online. The remainder of the article can be read here
The General Questions forum is for factual questions. Since your original factual question has been answered, I’ll close this thread. Should you wish to continue a debate on North Korea and the Clinton administration, you should do so in the Great Debates forum.
bibliopahge
moderator GQ