California is bankrupt but Pakistan is now billions richer thanks to Obama
Original post made by mmm,mmm,mmm on Oct 15, 2009
on Oct 15, 2009 at 8:53 pm
PToWN94566 is a registered user.
Granted that I don't know much about this bill and have very minimal knowledge about the Middle East and South Asian countries as a whole, but what's wrong with helping a country build schools, roads, energy conversation etc? We may have our problems here in the U.S. but there are millions of people a lot worse off than most of us here in Pleasanton. I'm not saying to hand out free money to any country that needs help, but we should be realizing that we don't leave our homes in the morning and have to worry about roadside bombs.
So much negativity!!!
on Oct 15, 2009 at 9:04 pm
I saw this article on CNN, tried to enter a comment asking why we were giving money to foreign countries when the US is going through: budget cuts to education, most states have budget deficits, we have too much debt, etc. But I guess CNN did not like my comment.
Why is everybody trying to defend/promote Obama?
I voted for him but I am not happy with his performance. There is nothing wrong with being honest about what Obama has done or not; just because we voted for him does not mean we have to say he is doing a good job... because he is not!
on Oct 15, 2009 at 9:53 pm
Everybody is obviously not trying to defend/promote Obama - just take a look at the majority of thread headers on this board.
What I think is so interesting is that what this article is *really* about is that Obama is actually the first administration to tie some conditions to a continuation of the aid we have been giving Pakistan for a long time:
"The United States is the biggest aid donor to Pakistan and needs its help in hunting al Qaeda leaders and stopping Islamist militants from crossing the border into Afghanistan to fight U.S.-led forces there.
The aid is designed to fund projects in Pakistan that include schools and roads, agricultural development, energy generation, water resource management and the judicial system.
The funding must still be allotted by Congress and the law must be renewed each year. The White House must certify that "reasonable progress" is being made to meet the objectives of the aid and give lists of recipients to Congress."
The real issue here is that the bill (authored by Democrat John Kerry) ties the funding to assistance with fighting militants, and the Pakistani government is concerned about *that*:
"U.S. President Barack Obama quietly signed a $7.5 billion aid bill for Pakistan on Thursday that drew criticism in the nuclear-armed South Asian country because of conditions linked to the assistance.
Obama signed the bill behind closed doors at the White House without a public ceremony before leaving on a trip to New Orleans. The law provides $7.5 billion in nonmilitary aid to Pakistan over five years.
Pakistan's military had complained because the legislation ties some funds to fighting militants and is seen by critics as violating sovereignty."
So in other words, the current administration/Democrats are trying to get some accountability from Pakistan in the fight against terrorism for the funds the country receives from us, and it's being played here like Obama is just throwing our tax money around. This ties into Afghanistan as well. It's called the BIG PICTURE.