Talk:United States foreign aid

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Bridgetanzano.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 04:34, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

FY2013 data
In fiscal year 2013, the U.S. government allocated the following amounts for aid:

Total economic and military assistance: $40.11 billion
 * Total military assistance: $8.03 billion
 * Total economic assistance: $32.08 billion
 * of which USAID Implemented: $17.46 billion


 * Sudan (Former) refers to the geographic area of Sudan, based on the area that was Sudan before the creation of South Sudan

FY2012 revised data
Notes:
 * Sources: U.S. Overseas Loans and Grants, U.S. Bureau of Census (BUCEN) International Database.

FY2012 data
The figure of ~$6.2 bilion for FY12 aid to Israel is, quite simply, a lie. The real amount is roughly the same as it was in FY11, i.e. around $3.1 billion. You might want to check in other sources to verify, as the number you quote is an obvious error. The figure of ~12.9 billion for Afhganistan also looks rather inflated. I recall a figure of $8.5 billion, but no certain. Once again, verify in other sources, and update as needed. False statistics only brings Wikipedia into further disrepute. JD
 * Checking data veracity --199.119.119.18 (talk) 14:30, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Revised tables--199.119.119.18 (talk) 16:56, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Notes:
 * Sources: U.S. Overseas Loans and Grants, U.S. Bureau of Census (BUCEN) International Database.

FY2011 data
Notes:
 * Sources: U.S. Overseas Loans and Grants, U.S. Bureau of Census (BUCEN) International Database.


 * What constitutes "Other Active Grant Programs"? What about the Treasury? Are Treasury Department activities considered to be under foreign aid? (Debt restructuring, for example.) They're included in Function 150, the category for foreign assistance, in the federal budget. Perhaps DoD should be third from bottom to have the ordering make more sense? Finally, now that FY14 documents are released, FY12 can be added. (I originally posted this as another section.) Ketinker (talk) 06:39, 24 May 2013 (UTC)


 * The source of this data is U.S. Overseas Loans and Grants, Obligations and Loan Authorizations http://gbk.eads.usaidallnet.gov/. Information on "Other Active Grant Programs" can be found in the Reporting Concepts http://gbk.eads.usaidallnet.gov/about/reporting_concepts.html, section D. Information on Treasury Department activities can be found in the "Foreign Assistance Data By Agency" section http://gbk.eads.usaidallnet.gov/data/agency.html. Select Department of the Treasury http://gbk.eads.usaidallnet.gov/query/do?_program=/eads/gbk/tablesByAgency&agcode=dtre. FY12 data are not yet available from this source. 199.119.119.18 (talk) 13:43, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

FY2010 data
--38.124.246.98 (talk) 15:24, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
 * What is the objective of combining military & economic aid? For most countries, the aid they receive is dominated by one or the other. It seems you're mixing apples & oranges here. Farolif (talk) 00:03, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

38.124.246.98 (talk) 15:57, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

2009
I have changed it back to the original figure. You used $US, Disbursements (http://gbk.eads.usaidallnet.gov/docs/tables/wbg_10000000100001_0109.xls). The table is presented in $US, Obligations http://gbk.eads.usaidallnet.gov/docs/tables/wbg_10000000100010_0109.xls --38.124.246.98 (talk) 19:53, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

I've just corrected the figure under the West Bank/Gaza in below table, using the same link, and found the figure different. I am not sure the rest of the figures are correct, since the link [7] on the table takes the reader to a generic USAID page, and then the reader has to do the search him/herself. Therefore, I only corrected the WB/GS figure, providing its own ref link to an xls sheet from the same USAID website. Gahgeer (talk) 01:03, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Source: U.S. Overseas Loans and Grants: Obligations and Loan Authorizations, July 1, 1945-September 30, 2009 38.124.246.98 (talk) 21:47, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

A summary table of all Foreign Assistance from 1946 to 2009 can be found on the Greenbook website http://gbk.eads.usaidallnet.gov/about/program_summary.pdf

38.124.246.98 (talk) 16:17, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

How is per person calculated

 * 1) Where did you get the population figures to calculate per capita data?
 * 2) For that matter, what is a reader supposed to glean from per capita data? It isn't like every person in those countries gets a check for that exact amount.
 * 3) As I also asked in the section above - what is the purpose of combining economic & military aid? For the largest recipients, economic aid is usually many times larger than military aid.Farolif (talk) 20:11, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Hey Farolif,response
 * 1) Just googled it. Are you challenging the numbers? I would have thought country population stats were mundane enough to not require citations. I will certainly provide cites if it makes you feel better.
 * 2) It seems to me to be a useful and meaningful statistic. A million dollars going to a country of with a population of two strikes me as significantly and notably different than a million dollars going to a country with a population of a billion, no? What are people meant to glean from the aid/GDP figure?
 * 3)"what is the purpose of combining economic & military aid?" - You mean what is the purpose of seperating them? Not sure. This is how it was when I found this page, and I believe it's how it is in the source. I'd prefer keeping it as it seems useful and informative.
 * 4) I apologize for not responding on the talk page. Now that I know you're commenting here, let's WP:BRD. NickCT (talk) 14:51, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
 * 1) Yes, I am challenging the population numbers. Are they estimates or exact census figures? What year are they from? Is it a reliable source? Don't assume everyone is getting their information from the same source you're using.
 * 2) Per capita figures do not take into account regional price levels or poverty thresholds. A dollar in Mozambique goes a lot further than a dollar in Russia. OTOH, comparing aid to GDP is a more accurate gauge of how important that aid is to the country in question - very important to Haiti, not so important to Indonesia.
 * 3) I don't know what source you're looking at, but the cited USAID site has economic & military aid in two separate tables. This article adds them together. There is a wiki article specifically for military aid, which this article links to. You can be useful and informative there. Here, putting the two figures together makes the table more confusing and disjointed.Farolif (talk) 15:24, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Hello Farolif and NickCT,
 * 1)The population figures are via the Greenbook site using U.S. Bureau of Census (BUCEN) International Database data (as cited at the bottom of the table).


 * 3)Foreign Assistance is defined in Section 634(b) of the Foreign Assistance Act (FAA) as “…any tangible or intangible item provided by the United States Government to a foreign country or international organization under this or any other Act, including but not limited to any training, service, or technical advice, any item of real, personal, or mixed property, any agricultural commodity, United States dollars, and any currencies of any foreign country which are owned by the United States Government…”  This section further states that “…’provided by the United States Government’ includes, but is not limited to, foreign assistance provided by means of gift, loan, sale, credit, or guaranty.”


 * U.S. foreign assistance includes economic and military assistance, to every country in the world.


 * Farolif may want to look at "Official Development Assistance", which does not include military assistance http://gbk.eads.usaidallnet.gov/about/reporting_comparison.html


 * The term "foreign aid" is ambiguous. --38.124.246.98 (talk) 20:14, 8 May 2012 (UTC)


 * @Farolif
 * 1)Hmm.... Ok, the IP seems to have given a source. Is that sufficient? This really strike me as a menial point. Even if they are estimates, the numbers aren't going to be that far off.
 * 2)"Per capita figures do not take into account regional price levels or poverty thresholds." - Granted. So what? If you're talking military aid, 1M dollars worth of F-16s is pretty much the same in Mozambique as it is in Martinique. The aid per cap figure really to point out that 3 billion to Pakistan is really just a drop in the bucket, while 3 billion to Israel buys every man woman and child a gun every year. I think that's meaningful.
 * 3)I'm still a little confused here. The table I'm making puts economics and military assistance in separate columns. That's what you want, huh? NickCT (talk) 20:36, 8 May 2012 (UTC)


 * 1)You keep referring to some link in the article that I don't see.
 * 2)Which goes back to my original point. DOES every man, woman, and child in Israel get a new gun from the US every year? And the GDP comparison can help show which countries can afford to purchase US-made goods - military or otherwise - on their own.
 * 3)I'm saying I don't see what's wrong with making two separate tables - one for economic, and one for military. Right now, there's only one table, and the column labeled "US Total Economic & Military FY2010, $US millions" is derived by adding the two columns before it.Farolif (talk) 22:01, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
 * 1) How's [this https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/rankorder/2119rank.html] source?
 * 2) "DOES every man, woman, and child in Israel get a new gun from the US every year?" - No. But I fail to see your point. In theory every man women and Israeli child is essentially getting ~$350 dollars worth of something (i.e. government services, military protection, etc). Surely it's worth pointing that the poor Pakistani only gets $15 dollars. I think the percentage of GDP stat is OK. Of course, just having a large GDP doesn't mean the average citizen can afford US goods. It's GDP per cap that tells you that.
 * 3) Ah... Ok. I see what you're saying now. I think one table is OK. It's not like the table is super cluttered. Plus, both military and economic aid fall under the heading of "foreign aid", no? NickCT (talk) 00:45, 9 May 2012 (UTC)


 * 1)Well, the World Factbook -is- a reliable source - but the years of those estimates don't correspond to the year of our most recent aid data. I surely wouldn't feel right using it.
 * 2)No, it's not a theory - it's a perversion of the facts. It isn't like the US govt allots the aid it gives to Israel based on Israel's population. And your plea for the "poor Pakistani" seems to assume that US aid is the only source of income for the people of Pakistan. Who's to say what the "average citizen" in a foreign country can afford after basic living expenses, or how much of the population qualifies as economically "average"? Yet another assumption, it would seem, and again based on your favored per capita figures.
 * 3)'both military and economic aid fall under the heading of "foreign aid"'
 * Yes, and Israel and Iraq fall under the heading of "Middle East". Shall we lump those together, too? Farolif (talk) 01:55, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
 * 1) So your contention then is that over a couple years time, population could have change so greatly so as to significantly affect the per cap calculations? Sounds like clutching at straws to me.....
 * 2) Look... I think we're getting a little off track here. Would you not agree that giving a million dollars to a group of two people is essentially a bigger "gift" than when you give a million dollars to a group of a thousand people, regardless of how rich those people were before you gave them the money? I mean, by your rationale one should never look at per cap stats! Do you not think national debt per capita is a useful stat (a lot of sources do), because it doesn't take into account the wealth of individuals in a nation?
 * 3)If the title of this article was "Middle East", then yes, I guess we could talk about Israel and Iraq in the same context. NickCT (talk) 18:41, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
 * 1)Sounds like you can't produce a reliable list of national population stats for 2010...
 * 2)Since you're ignoring my earlier point about regional price levels, I'll shift to yet another problem with your rationale: Aid money is not given directly to individual citizens. It is given to their governments to distribute at their own disgression. Similarly, I DON'T think per capita national debt is a viable stat since no citizen by default actually owes that amount to a government body.
 * 3)Except the amount of aid sent to Israel has nothing to do with how much aid is sent to Iraq. My point (again) is that economic and military aid are two very different forms of aid for two very different purposes, and a high level of one rarely correlates to a high level of the other for a given country. (Afghanistan is a possible exception, at this time.) Farolif (talk) 19:45, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
 * 1)I'm sure if I dug I probably could. But you didn't answer my question. Do you think it really makes a meaningful difference if the stats are 2010 versus 2012.
 * 2) re "I DON'T think per capita national debt is a viable stat since no citizen by default actually owes that amount to a government body." Ok. Well look. I certainly appreciate that argument, and I think there's some logic to it; however, at the same time you've got to admit that a lot of sources quote national debt as national debt per capita, presumably because they think it provides a meaningful representation of how far in the red a country is. Whether or not you feel the stat is meaningful, you've got to grant that some folks think it is.
 * 3) Military and Economic aid are two very different forms of aid. True. Military and Economic aid are both examples of foreign aid. Also true. NickCT (talk) 13:06, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
 * 1)Of course, I think it's meaningful. If you went to your boss (assuming you -have- one) with a budget forecast based on two-year-old data, what do you think the response would be?
 * 2)Yes, some folks think it's important - folks with inflated senses of self-importance who believe their government's debt somehow reflects directly on them. And just because something is believed by "a lot of sources", doesn't mean it's valid. "A lot of sources" used to think slavery was right, too.
 * 3)The opening of the article clearly states that foreign aid is divided into "two broad categories". I wonder why you're being so stubborn abt combining them into one table. Could it be to spotlight the military aid that Israel receives? That's really the only difference between the table that's up now and the one I proposed... Farolif (talk) 15:17, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
 * 1) Alright. Let's look at an example. Afghanistan's population increases by about 1 million a year according to the world bank. That means in 2012 they had around 34 million, whereas in 2010 they had 32 million. That's going to throw the per cap figures by ~5%. That's actually a little higher than I expected, but frankly the population stats significantly vary between RSs so 5% seems small in the face of that variability. I'll tell you what though, if you really really want, I'll go back and recalc all the figures based on the 2010 World Bank stats. Will that make you feel better?
 * 2)" just because something is believed by "a lot of sources", doesn't mean it's valid" Ok. Again, granted. I think the point I was trying to make though was that this isn't an unusual way of presenting data.
 * 3)I'm still confused as to what your point is here. If it says in the opening that the article covers two broad categories, why not show those categories in the same table? And actually, I'm trying to highlight how little military aid we give to Ethiopia. Those poor blighters need more guns. NickCT (talk) 20:31, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
 * 1)Hey, I'm not making you do anything. I'm just pointing out the discrepencies wherever they occur.
 * 2)Yes, it's a common method of data interpretation that could use a major reality check.
 * 3)You're trying to highlight Ethiopia? Well, IF that's true, I don't think you have anything to worry about. Zenawi's butchers have killed plenty of Somali, Eritreans, and Ogadeni with the guns they have now. Besides, you're again assuming that the US is the only source of war weapons that a country such as Ethiopia has. Farolif (talk) 21:24, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Sorry for a delayed response;
 * 1)But I never said it wasn't a discrepancy. I just said the discrepancy was just so small that it was likely negligable. When you're talking about stats, and in particular population stats, the goal is to arrive at an exact number.
 * 3)No body seems to like this Zenawi character. I should read up on him. Frankly though, I get the impression that if you had to choose between living in Somalia, Eritria or Ethiopia, Ehiopia would still be most people's first choice. NickCT (talk) 20:24, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

How was the aid per capita calculated? The list on the Greenbook site differs. http://gbk.eads.usaidallnet.gov/about/historical_us_assistance_per_capita.xls 38.124.246.98 (talk) 16:46, 16 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Hey there anonymous user - Several points
 * 1) I calculated aid per capita. I did so to add context to the numbers.  FYI, there is a policy on WP that allows editors to do calculations of this nature (see These_are_not_original_research).  Are the numbers considerably off w/ the green book?  If so, feel free to adjust them.  Probably best if we deffer to the reliable source.
 * 2) When posting to talk pages, please put your comments at the end of the page and do not delete all the previous material on the talk page.
 * 3) You may want to consider registering! You are making some valuable contributions, and registering is the next step in becoming a full fledged wikipedian! NickCT (talk) 16:55, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I've looked over the xls sheet you linked to. I think that sheet just shows development aid per capita?  I calculated total aid (i.e. military + development) per capita. NickCT (talk) 17:00, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Hello NickCT, Sorry about deleting the previous comments. I was using the discussion page as a sandbox, so I was deleting my own comments. I will follow protocol from now on. The percapita numbers are considerably off from the greenbook. The greebook excel file http://gbk.eads.usaidallnet.gov/about/historical_us_assistance_per_capita.xls has three worksheets. Using the third worksheet - Total_Assistance_per_Capita I get these numbers:

38.124.246.98 (talk) 18:25, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Sources: US Overseas Loans and Grants, U.S. Bureau of Census (BUCEN) International Database
 * note: The current status of the West Bank/Gaza is subject to the Israeli-Palestinian Interim Agreement, with its permanent status to be determined through further negotiation. BUCEN does not maintain population data for this area.
 * Hey, you're right. Somehow I screwed up those calculations.  I've updated with the greenbook numbers. NickCT (talk) 18:43, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

class project for the global public policy initiative
Hi, I'm editing wikipedia as a class project for the global public policy initiative. I've decided to add a section to this article dealing with President Obama's changes to US foreign aid during his time in presidency. AbbeyTurt (talk) 04:37, 26 April 2011 (UTC)AbbeyTurt

No offense but this new section is horribly written and should be rewritten ASAP! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.131.91.55 (talk) 13:20, 19 September 2011 (UTC)


 * never use wikipedia as part of academic learning but good luckMphil1805 (talk) 10:10, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Source data errata
http://gbk.eads.usaidallnet.gov/about/ "The amounts of Military Assistance originally reported for Afghanistan and Iraq in FY2009 were incorrect in both the print and web versions of the Greenbook released April 7, 2011. The correct amounts are $5.8 billion for Afghanistan and $2.6 billion for Iraq. The data and PDF version of the publication have been corrected on this website as of July 1, 2011." I am updating the associated tables on this wiki page.38.124.246.98 (talk) 16:44, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Analysis of top recipients' data
1. Regarding the attempts to include per capita values split into both economic and military aid categories:
 * The values are nothing that a person couldn't generate on their own using the data already shown on the table, so why is there a need for them?
 * (Not to mention the fact that the whole 'per capita' issue is still open for debate and nobody has yet to source the population data used in the displayed calculations.)

2. Regarding the breakdown of the countries by continent and major religion:
 * As I explained in my first deletion, this table is sample data, therefore any analysis of it in an aggregate sense is incomplete and misleading. If an analysis is done using the full list of recipients of U.S. foreign aid, then go right ahead and add that. Just make sure to provide balance by including all the inhabited continents and subregions, as well as (if a religious distinction is still insisted on) a breakdown of all major religions - not just Islam.
 * Farolif (talk) 18:55, 20 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Regarding the attempts to include per capita values split into both economic and military aid categories:


 * I am not even sure how to properly address this point; the chart shows
 * a) Total Aid
 * b) Economic Aid
 * c) Military Aid and then shows Aid Per Capital only for Total Aid.


 * Aid per capita is an important distinction, thus it's inclusion on the chart. Only including Total Aid Per Capita hides the distinction of the very break down the chart supposedly intents to convey. Now I understand why someone might not have taken the time to do so initially and can excuse that as on omission, but why exactly would someone REMOVE those important distinctions and several times at that? I am summarizing the very data the chart purports to convey and using the very data in the chart itself.


 * Further more, those figures are neither easily discernible or calculable and in fact most casual and even sophisticated users might miss not only their presence but the need for them. The fact they keep getting removed is alarming. One might guess that it is the figures in the Total Aid Per Capita sorting that is the whole point of the chart.


 * If the 'per capita' is up for debate then remove the per capita in it's entirety. Yet it is clearly important and the population figures WERE sourced originally as were my West Bank figures. If they are not 100% precise they are close enough in any event to convey the proportionate aid.


 * To your second point, this is not 'sample data' it is a list of the top 25 recipients of foreign aid, who together receive ½ all of the US foreign aid, i.e. the other approximately 175 countries combined receive the other half. So far from being sample data it is critical data.  I did in fact allude to the fact that the ~20 billion in the chart represents ½ the total aid.


 * Islam is not being singled out it is simply one of the several large constituents represented in that chart, the Middle East and Africa being the other two.


 * I find it alarming that the aggregate response is that
 * a) data that shows that the West Bank is one of the top if not top recipients of aid per capita was removed several times
 * b) two columns that extended the Aid Per Capita already in existence were removed as they showed that the West Bank and many other Middle Eastern and African nations receive a huge amount of economic aid per capita.
 * c) A summary that details the major recipients of the 1/2 of US aid go to Islamic Nations, Middle Eastern Nations and African nations is deleted. How the other ½ is split over the remaining 175 countries wouldn't change those facts.


 * I can only assume in summary that there is some agenda in presenting US Aid data that makes it look as is Israel receives a disproportionate amount of aid, and the fact of the US's generosity to a region that claims that ad nasuem is likewise being obfuscated.


 * I have added back the edits as
 * a) the two columns are in keeping with the both the letter and spirit of the original data and columns and
 * b) the West Bank data is as reliable as the other data that was to this date acceptable
 * c) the summary is for that chart which is the chart that was decided to be presented and summarizes the recipients accurately and without bias.


 * I am more then happy to do a comprehensive summary in the same manner if and when the chart is updated to include the entire list of US aid both economic and military. Meanwhile if you wish to present data for public consumption then do so in the manner the American court system suggest; the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.174.150.58 (talk) 00:36, 22 July 2012 (UTC)


 * I don't know who's hiding the military & economic aid data. It's right there on the table, just like you said.  It sounds like you're assuming that most viewers aren't smart enough to construct a simple ratio, such as you likely used to calculate the distinct military & economic values.  The object here is to keep the page free of superfluous data that might do more to confuse a viewer rather than help them.  What's more, I find it suspicious that you're only pushing to add these separated values for per capita and not for the GDP comparisons.


 * I tried to remove the per capita values a few months ago, but user NickCT was insistent about it. You can look above on this page to find our discussion on this topic.  To answer your point that the population figures were sourced originally – so what?  Does that automatically mean the aid and population values should be divided by one another?


 * I don't know what your definition of 'sample data' is, but I've always known it to indicate a portion of the dataset less than the full set. It doesn't matter how the pieces of data are selected, it is still a sample.  I was never disputing the accuracy of your analysis, I was disputing the validity of it.  A complete duplication of the values for all countries that receive some amount of US aid is not needed on the page for an analysis of same data to be included – where did you get the idea that such a display was necessary?


 * Furthermore, there is no way your religious and continental breakdown can be looked at as being without bias since you don't include all the sampled countries between them! For example, where do you have Russia accounted for in any of it?


 * (And for future reference, Mexico is NOT in South America...)
 * Farolif (talk) 06:24, 22 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Since my data is merely 'incomplete' and not partially incorrect I am reinstating it and leaving it up to you to expand on it. Note that this is what I did with your data; I added the summary that was necessary to make a complete analysis. I find it interesting you object to making the data that is presented in the chart clearer with columns most users could and would not extrapolate yet object to the summary of the same data without including data outside the dataset. Most interetsting.


 * Yes, aid and population figures are key. Comparing total aid Russia and total aid to the West Bank is almost impossible to gauge in context without per capita. There is hardly a population figure that does not include it unless of course the other is trying to obfuscate reality.


 * As to 'who is trying to hide the data' the answer is clearly: YOU. You just admitted you fought with another user to try to remove per capita before. You not only did not add per capita economic/military in a chart that breaks them out absolutely, you explicitly removed them 1/2 dozen times when they were added with the very data the chart established. Not adding them can be attributed to any motivation, removing them repeatedly and obsessivley is indeed hiding the data.  As I stated before, not only do most casual readers not have the ability to multiply per capitan by total to get the population and then re-divide it, most will not even realize it is missing and simply refer to the per capita as being comprehensive when it is all inconclusive instead. Naturally one merely needs to view the sort and get a distorted view of US Aid. Per capita economic especially in light of the West Bank paints a far more balanced view of US Foreign Aid rather then the Israel-centric skew the prior chart indicated,


 * I am also happy to run the values for GPD I am guessing they will paint a similar picture. If they don't I will still stand by them as they are important figure to understand the aid.


 * Furthernore what I find most interesting is this; you object to my breaking out the chart data to Per Capita Economic and Per Capita Military in addition to your Per Capita Total even though the original charts shows Total, Economic and Military and your logic is that the casual user can somehow do that reverse math in their heads and even understand that the data is missing. Yet when I add a summary of data that shows $13 billion of $19 billion given to Islamic nations, you remove the summary since it is incomplete when certainly anyone could extrapolate that $7 million was therefor given to non-Islamic countries. I am going out on a limb here that it is the included information you object to.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.174.150.58 (talk) 05:33, 22 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Finally what would the point be in breaking the figures out for every demographic; Jewish, Eastern Orthodox, Democratic, etc? I am happy to so do though I believe YOU should since I just did that to shed a more even light on your own data. Yet I am imagining if this were a list of Iranian Foreign Aid, it would be interesting to note if most of that went to Western Democracies, European Nations and/or Christian/Catholic nations as opposed to the expected bias. I can pretty much assure you that is not the case yet it would be worth noting if it were. If it makes you happy non-the-less I will be happy to add Eastern Orthodox, Jewish, Democratic, and other demographics to the summary.


 * Addendum: I see why you object to economic aid per capita when reading your previous replies:
 * "2) "DOES every man, woman, and child in Israel get a new gun from the US every year?" - No. But I fail to see your point. In theory every man women and Israeli child is essentially getting ~$350 dollars worth of something (i.e. government services, military protection, etc). Surely it's worth pointing that the poor Pakistani only gets $15 dollars. "


 * Clearly that is the point of this chart for you. Yet when breaking out economic aid it is clear that every Pakistani is getting $10 worth of 'something' and the poor Israeil is getting less then $5.


 * Is that the truth you are wishing to avoid when you repeatedly remove such critical data which casual users cannot glean, unless your own reply willfully neglected it after 'easily discerning it'?


 * Sorry, it is not my responsibility to clean up the incomplete and incorrect work you started. If you would like to do so yourself, I'll have no objection. If you truly wanted to make a valid analysis, you would follow my suggestion of using the complete dataset as cited in the article. I don't know what is so 'interesting' to you about this concept.


 * Comparing aid without population data is not impossible when you use GDP. I've already outlined many explanations for why GDP comparison is more valuable than per capita in my discussion with NickCT above, though it seems you can't be bothered to read through it lest you re-tread previous debate points.


 * Maybe if you had taken on my explanation here sooner, I wouldn't have had to revert your edits as many times before reaching this point of the discussion. As it is, it doesn't seem to be getting anywhere as you continue to assert some kind of Israel/West Bank conspiracy instead of focusing on reason & sense. It seems you ignore my rebuttal to NickCT about the 'poor Israeli' point you try to hit me with, because you would realize that I've already addressed your concern here.


 * I'm not sure what 'similar picture' you're actually looking for in a GDP comparison, let alone that it would actually be there. Either way, don't flatter yourself into thinking you were doing me any favors by adding your own analysis. It isn't 'my data', it's from the cited source. And again, it's an arbitrarily-sized sample that, if someone were to decide to change it (say, top 30 i.o. top 25) in the future, would also require them to change any lump analysis done on it.


 * 'certainly anyone could extrapolate that $7 million was therefor given to non-Islamic countries'
 * Only if they, like you, only see the world in terms of 'Islamic' or 'non-Islamic'. What if the person wants to know how much is given to predominantly-Christian, or -Jewish, or -Buddhist nations? Again, you conveniently ignore my previous point on the matter.


 * 'what would the point be in breaking the figures out for every demographic'
 * Clearly, you are not familiar with Wikipedia's Neutral POV policy if you have to ask such a question. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Farolif (talk • contribs) 07:14, 22 July 2012 (UTC)


 * I don't know what your Iran example is supposed to illustrate, but I'm surprised to learn that 'Democratic' is apparently a type of religion.


 * And for someone who uses the word 'obfuscate' a lot, you certainly are good at trying to 'obfuscate' your own identity, 68.174.150.58. Is it too much to ask you to sign your responses? Or at least, not start a whole new section every time?
 * Farolif (talk) 06:24, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Countries banned from receiving aid
Saudi Arabia is listed, but surely there are others? It is also clear for what reason and what the exceptions are. -- Beland (talk) 02:24, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

Debate on IRS taxable income on Foreign Aid
I do not oppose the foreign aid as its fortunate to help others.However charity begins at home so I am for taxable foreign aid proposal. These taxable foreign aid proposal should be mandatory and help people who are desperately searching for jobs or needs low cost medical help or low cost education training help..Hence any lack of access to easy information regarding this topic has been frustrating to me and wish that the wikipage include sources of information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vdhananjay (talk • contribs) 18:23, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Debate on Foreign Aid
I think the article should include a new section that covers debate within the United States on whether to provide foreign aid.

FY12 Data is ridiculously inflated.

 * The figure of ~$6.2 bilion for FY12 aid to Israel is, quite simply, a lie. The real amount is roughly the same as it was in FY11, i.e. around $3.1 billion. You might want to check in other sources to verify, as the number you quote is an obvious error.
 * The figure of ~12.9 billion for Afhganistan also looks rather inflated. I recall a figure of $8.5 billion, but no certain. Once again, verify in other sources, and update as needed. False statistics only brings Wikipedia into further disrepute.
 * JD

Sentence doesn't make sense
"It has been politically highly charged, as most Americans believe the amount of aid is much higher than the reality." The reality of what?

Neutrality Comment
Section 4.5.1 may not be neutral - 'US-caused Global Financial Crisis'? — Preceding unsigned comment added by One Of Seven Billion (talk • contribs) 17:02, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
 * - Agree that "US-caused" is problematic wording. That sentence had other issues. I've just deleted it and removed the neutrality tag. NickCT (talk) 13:44, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Dr. Tarp's comment on this article
Dr. Tarp has reviewed this Wikipedia page, and provided us with the following comments to improve its quality:

"This article contains useful information but could be thoroughly edited. In addition: The distinction between official aid and other types of aid is not clear in the present version of the article. A few additional comments: 1. "can be divided into two broad categories: military aid and economic assistance". I would add humanitarian assistance as a category. 2. "Whether aid figures should include remittances by immigrant workers in the United States to their families outside the country is disputed." I find this discussion ought to take as its starting point the OECD/DAC official definition for official development assistance (ODA). The other types of aid can be added in steps so a clear picture of which flows are discussed will emerge."

We hope Wikipedians on this talk page can take advantage of these comments and improve the quality of the article accordingly.

We believe Dr. Tarp has expertise on the topic of this article, since he has published relevant scholarly research:

Update
Can we update these tables through 2016 or 2017 and add TOTALS to the charts? MaynardClark (talk) 00:11, 3 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Reference : Channing Arndt & Sam Jones & Finn Tarp, 2011. "Aid Effectiveness: Opening the Black Box," Working Paper Series UNU-WIDER Working Paper W, World Institute for Development Economic Research (UNU-WIDER).

ExpertIdeasBot (talk) 11:33, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

Adding to the Public Opinion section
I'm looking to add onto the section in this article regarding public opinion. These are some sources I have found that I believe will be useful in improving this section.

WPO Admin. “American Public Vastly Overestimates Amount of U.S. Foreign Aid.” World Public Opinion, 29 Nov. 2010, worldpublicopinion.net/american-public-vastly-overestimates-amount-of-u-s-foreign-aid/.

This website has polls regarding the average American’s knowledge about US foreign aid spending as well as ones that capture the opinions of Americans on foreign aid.

Hurst, Reuben, et al. “Analysis | Americans Love to Hate Foreign Aid, but the Right Argument Makes Them like It a Lot More.” The Washington Post, WP Company, 4 May 2017, www.washingtonpost.com/news/monkey-cage/wp/2017/05/04/americans-love-to-hate-foreign-aid-but-the-right-argument-makes-them-like-it-a-lot-more/?utm_term=.bbd9ea3f8749.

The Washington Post wrote an article about how US public opinion on foreign aid is easily persuaded. This article discusses how, when presented with different arguments, people’s opinions about foreign aid change. I could discuss this in the section about public opinion on the wikipedia page to further examine how people view foreign aid and why.

Kull, Steven. “Preserving American Public Support for Foreign Aid.” Brookings Blum Roundtable Policy Briefs, pp. 53–60.

The academic publishing, Preserving American Public Support for Foreign Aid, discusses how to shape people’s opinions on foreign aid. This would also further my discussion on the Wikipedia page regarding where and how people form their ideas about foreign aid. It also includes polling data about how public opinion on foreign aid has changed over the years and why.

Hu, Alice C. “Foreign Aid and the 28 Percent Myth.” Harvard International Review, 11 Mar. 2015, hir.harvard.edu/article/?a=8127

A Harvard International Review examines the effects of the US foreign aid budget being so largely misconceived. I would be able to use this article to link polls revealing how little people know to the political effects this lack of knowledge has.

Baker, Andy. 2015. “Race, Paternalism, and Foreign Aid: Evidence from U.S. Public Opinion.” American Political Science Review 109 (1): 93–109.

This article discusses how white people in America are more likely to be in support of giving foreign aid to poor African countries over poor eastern European countries due to underlying racial paternalism. This is an interesting article because it evaluates why different types of people support different types of foreign aid.

Public opinion
Much of the content that was added to this section feels like it's a bit of an OR essay, enough to where I'm mildly tempted to remove the added content entirely. I think that there's some good information that could be useful, which is why I haven't done this. I've tagged the section as having OR and needing a re-write because of this. Shalor (Wiki Ed) (talk) 18:02, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

50.1 billion is too high
The 50.1 billion figure in the article is based on the total State Department and USAID budget (according to the source), not the foreign aid portion. It would be good to have an accurate foreign aid figure instead. Vox Sciurorum (talk) 16:11, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

Aid as percent of federal deficit
I've just removed the statistic in the introduction stating that while the federal aid budget is only 1.2% of federal spending, it is "equivalent to about 7.5% of the deficit". I'd like to preempt any objections to this by pointing out why this (unsourced) statistic is nonsensical. There is a reason there is no provided reference for this—it doesn't come from any reliable source, it was clearly just calculated by an editor who took the cost of federal aid (about $50 billion) and divided it by the 2017 federal deficit ($665 billion) to get 7.5%. This would be like taking the 2017 military budget ($582.7 billion ) and claiming that it is "equivalent to 87% of deficit", even though nowhere near 87% of the deficit comes from the military (everything in the federal budget comes from the same revenue pool, so the percent of the deficit that comes from the military is the same as the percent of the budget that goes the military: about 15%). This statistic exists only to make the cost of federal aid seem absurdly high, just as claiming the military is "equivalent to 87% of deficit" would do, or that social security is "equivalent to 209% of the deficit", or that Medicare is "equivalent to 176% of the deficit". Not only is it not a meaningful statistic since it says very little about how much federal aid actually contributes to the deficit, but it actively misleads readers about how much the budget actually contributes to the deficit (many reading at face-value will come away thinking 7.5% of deficit comes from foreign aid). This kind of statistic does not exist on the pages of other federal programs (and exists nowhere else on this page), experts do not use this kind of statistic, and it should not be included here. Jaydavidmartin (talk)

Morality
re this edit morality is not mentioned in the body so it shouldn't be in the lead. If you plan to add it to the body, ok, for now forget I said anything and we can revisit when timely if need be NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 00:00, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Per MOS:LEAD, "Apart from basic facts, significant information should not appear in the lead if it is not covered in the remainder of the article." I believe that morality is a basic fact of the purpose of foreign aid. Also, I bring the comments of several editors about taking the guideline as an inflexible hard rule instead of a guidance in the discussion titled "Copyedit proposal lead length" (started on 29 June 2022) in the talk page of MOS:LEAD.-- Thinker78   (talk)  00:46, 10 July 2022 (UTC)
 * "believe that morality is a basic fact of the purpose of foreign aid" ..... that is pure and I mean extbook WP:Original research and/or WP:POV. Suppose its about ethics instead of morality?  Suppose its about self-serving foreign policy[?  Suppose there are strings attached?  While your worldview might have a philosophic orientation to morality, and while mine might or might not, that's on us.  Not everyone marches to that drum. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 01:13, 10 July 2022 (UTC)
 * PS while Christian nationalism is on the rise in the USA, it has not seized power (yet). NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 01:19, 10 July 2022 (UTC)
 * NewsAndEventsGuy, you said, "that is pure and I mean extbook WP:Original research and/or WP:POV". Mannnn (or womannn)... I am starting to notice that you do sloppy work. You didn't even care to check the inline citation next to the statement about morality. When I said, "I believe that morality is a basic fact of the purpose of foreign aid", I wasn't saying it was my belief that morality is the purpose of foreign aid, I was saying that it is my belief that it is a basic fact, per the statement of the government in the citation. Thinker78   (talk)  16:01, 10 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Oh,..... in the markup you included a url and and archive url. Since the first one worked I read  that, morality is not mentioned there.  Now that you call my attention to the archived version I see that it is mentioned there.   But is it still on the current site?  If its only archived, then "is" should be 'was" maybe.   And anyway, if morality is a purpose of US aid, there should be an ocean of secondary or tertiary sources saying so.   How is this treated in the body of the article?  If its not down there is should not be in the summary in the LEAD. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 16:39, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

This Jan 2022 report by the CRS says national security, commerial interests, and humanitarian reasons, so I updated the article accordingly. My main problem with "morality" is that it is far too ambiguous, since there are so many different kinds of moral philosophy. But humanitarianism is clear enough. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 18:15, 10 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Ok, I guess you went to check the citation in the markup, but the way it works better is to check the citation in the live article, because when you click the linked title it takes you directly to the intended reference (at least in this case), which is the one used when the original quoted text was added some years ago. Previously I spent some time looking for other references that defined foreign aid or assistance. Regarding your statement that "If its not down there is should not be in the summary in the LEAD", I will point out again that you are treating the lead guideline as a hard rule, without even applying it properly. In this case, it is only one word and I believe that one word is within the exception of "basic facts" per MOS:LEAD, "Apart from basic facts, significant information should not appear in the lead if it is not covered in the remainder of the article." But I agree with the change of the "purpose" sentence you made, although I don't agree with how you reworked the first sentence. You added unnecessary redundancy in my opinion. Keep in mind that the bold letters by themselves indicate it is an alternate name, so it doesn't necessarily need to state it is another name. Thinker78   (talk)  19:32, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia Ambassador Program course assignment
This article is the subject of an educational assignment at Syracuse University supported by WikiProject United States Public Policy and the Wikipedia Ambassador Program&#32;during the 2011 Spring term. Further details are available on the course page.

The above message was substituted from by PrimeBOT (talk) on 16:35, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

Article is not neutral and omits pertinent resources with citations
An editor removed my neutral pov from the article without comment on the talk page or consulting me first. The editor called my POV objection "pointless." This is editorial bad faith since reverting the article was not an emergency, and the characterization of the objection as "pointless" was disrespectful, presumptuous, and evinced bias.

Since editing wars are discouraged, I will not seek to reinstate the it. However, I request a neutral third party to read the article as written and my specific arguments regarding why it is not neutral. If that fails, I may request arbitration. Biolitblue (talk) 16:57, 17 November 2023 (UTC)


 * The article looks like it was written by Samantha Power's Summer Intern.
 * Some rhetorical questions to consider:
 * 1) Where does the U.S. government obtain its constitutional authority to spend? To whom must such spending redound to the benefit of?
 * 2) Does the U.S. have serious unresolved domestic issues (hint: homelessness)? If so, is spending on foreign countries ever justified where such serious existential humanitarian issues are still not ameliorated here in the United States, irrespective of whether such aid would be beneficial to foreign countries, given the answer to the first question?
 * 3) What relationship does the spending authority have with say, the taxing authority? If the wealthy and near wealthy and corporations practice legal tax evasion and have do so for many years (hint, ProPublica expose), how does that affect the money available to spend (i.e. the federal budget)?
 * 4) Which Acts pertain specifically to foreign aid? What is a prerequisite for a foreign country to receive aid? Hint: might it have something to do with human rights?
 * 5) Should one of the leading aid recipients historically, Israel, be receiving aid given its long history of occupation and apartheid (and terrorism before 1948) against Palestinians in their own homeland? Should Israel be given $14.3 billion in aid especially in light of its pervasive intentional killing of civilians in Gaza, which violates the rule of proportionality, along with its intentional targeting of hospitals and refugee camps  (which individually and collectively constitute war crimes per se)?  Is it not unconstitutional to provide Israel with foreign aid of any kind given that it has been, and is presently, accused of genocide by leading experts in the field, including a leading Israeli expert on genocide, as well as American lawyers who filed a lawsuit against President Biden et al based on allegations of genocide?
 * I think this should be a separate Wikipedia story/entry with a prominent link above the fold embedded in this entry.
 * 6) Is foreign aid sent to countries effective? Hint: one source questions whether it is, despite what this article leads the reader to believe. Should the aid be given to NGO's and contractors (which in many cases are probably American? Hint: Oxfam doesn't think so. Biolitblue (talk) 01:17, 18 November 2023 (UTC)
 * 1) Convention on the Rights of the Child
 * Nations that have ratified this convention or have acceded to it are bound by international law.
 * Israel ratified the convention in 1991.
 * In all jurisdictions implementing the convention requires compliance with child custody and guardianship laws as every child has basic rights, including the right to life, to their own name and identity, to be raised by their parents within a family or cultural grouping, and to have a relationship with both parents, even if they are separated.
 * The convention obliges states to allow parents to exercise their parental responsibilities. The convention also acknowledges that children have the right to express their opinions and to have those opinions heard and acted upon when appropriate, to be protected from abuse or exploitation, and to have their privacy protected.
 * 2) The provision of foreign aid to Israel violates Article I, Section 8, Clause 1 of the U.S. Constitution because such aid fails to provide for the general welfare of the United States (spending power). This authority is found in Article I, Section 8, Clause 1:
 * The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States;... (emphasis in bold added)
 * The aid to Israel would fail to redound to the general Welfare of the United States because it has, and will be, used to perpetrate serious and myriad war crimes against the Palestinians in violation of the Geneva Convention. Thus, such funding would make the United States complicit, if not a party to, such crimes.
 * Furthermore, it would hold the U.S. in disrepute among the international community, adversely affecting our reputation, deserved or not, as a beacon of human rights, freedom, and equality, and as a country governed by the rule of law. It could adversely affect trade, global security, and standing among nations, all to the detriment of the United States and its citizenry. Where, as here, the money allocated to a foreign nation has been used, and will be used, to facilitate, promote, and/or effectuate the perpetration of war crimes against a vulnerable, de facto stateless civilian population, the spending is constitutionally untenable.
 * Notably, too, the Supreme Court has construed the Spending Clause as legislative authority primarily for federal programs that benefit U.S. citizens rather than foreign countries or their nationals. The Spending Clause has been implemented, for example, to enact and fund vital and fundamental domestic programs necessary to benefit U.S. citizens such as Social Security, Medicaid, and federal education programs. as well as statutes prohibiting discrimination on certain protected grounds.
 * In contrast, allocating U.S. taxpayer money to foreign nations implicitly requires a much greater showing that such spending redounds to the benefit of the United States and its citizens, especially when the United States is 33 trillion dollars in debt.
 * Instead, such an allocation would benefit the private military industrial complex, to the detriment of the citizens of the United States. See: https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/biden-s-foreign-aid-request-is-corporate-welfare-for-the-arms-industry/ar-AA1jXKkG
 * For this reason, the allocation of aid to Israel is also unconstitutional.
 * 2) Under U.S. law, the provision of foreign aid may not be allocated to a nation that consistently violates basic human rights under international law.
 * The provision of foreign aid can be allocated by Congress under The Foreign Assistance Act (FAA), in which Congress allocates U.S. taxpayer money to a foreign country. Section 502B of the Act prohibits security assistance to “any country the government of which engages in a consistent pattern of gross violations of internationally recognized human rights.  "The United States shall, in accordance with its international obligations as set forth in the Charter of the United Nations and in keeping with the constitutional heritage and traditions of the United States, promote and encourage increased respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms throughout the world without distinction as to race, sex, language, or religion. Accordingly, a principal goal of the foreign policy of the United States shall be to promote the increased observance of internationally recognized human rights by all countries... [N]o security assistance may be provided to any country the government of which engages in a consistent pattern of gross violations of internationally recognized human rights."
 * In more detail, "[N]o assistance may be provided...to the government of any country which engages in a consistent pattern of gross violations of internationally recognized human rights, including torture or cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment, prolonged detention without charges, causing the disappearance of persons by the abduction and clandestine detention of those persons, or other flagrant denial of the right to life, liberty, and the security of person... (emphasis in bold added)  Furthermore, "no assistance may be provided to any government failing to take appropriate and adequate measures, within their means, to protect children from exploitation, abuse..."
 * The violation of Palestinian rights, especially that of civilians, under the Geneva Convention and other international laws has been widely discussed and identified.
 * According to both U.S. and international law, civilians must not be made the object of attack. In particular, civilians may not be attacked under the concept of proportionality.  When the expected incidental loss of civilian life, injury to civilians, and damage to civilian objects would be excessive in relation to the concrete and direct military advantage expected to be gained, the attack is not proportional and is therefore a war crime if executed.   As an example, in an interview with Wolf Blitzer, the Israeli commander admitted to intentionally blowing up a refugee camp, putatively to kill one (1) Hamas operative, which itself sounded contrived. The IDF had the temerity to continue these tactics openly and notoriously, and had previously blown up a refugee camp near a hospital. This behavior evinces a pattern of war crimes and is an element in a showing of genocide.
 * In Gaza, refugee camps, housing and even hospitals, all of which contained exclusively or almost exclusively Palestinian civilians, were identified, targeted and destroyed by the IDF every day since October 9th, killing hundreds to thousands of civilians every day. Such acts were intentional, which is a requisite element in both a showing of genocide. Failing that, it is also required to demonstrate the perpetration of a series of war crimes which would violate FAA Section 502(e).
 * On a separate but related matter, Section 502(e) is critical legislation because it also mandates 1) the preparation of annual human rights reports, 2) a system for Congress to request further reports on particular countries, and 3) a mechanism for joint resolutions of disapproval to enforce the Section’s central prohibition.
 * Significantly, the report must contain comprehensive information concerning human trafficking in the country. See FAA, 502(e), subsection (f)(1). Notably, publications in Israel itself have reported on the prolific existence of human trafficking in Israel.
 * See: https://www.cbsnews.com/news/how-jewish-american-pedophiles-hide-from-justice-in-israel/
 * https://www.haaretz.com/2021-12-10/ty-article/.premium/israel-revokes-residence-permit-of-woman-recognized-as-victim-of-human-trafficking/0000017f-e5e0-dc7e-adff-f5ed8e280000
 * https://www.middleeastmonitor.com/20211208-israel-encourages-human-trafficking-by-not-tackling-it-report-reveals/
 * https://www.timesofisrael.com/thousands-of-slaves-in-israel-global-study-finds/
 * Recently, even the U.S. Department of State identified Israel as a country that engages in significant human trafficking.
 * https://www.timesofisrael.com/us-state-department-israel-inadequate-in-fighting-human-trafficking/
 * The Act's emphasis on human trafficking, which is not explicitly specified in the Act, means that the words "including" is simply meant to list examples of gross human rights violations rather than to serve as an exhaustive list of which specific gross human rights violations are covered. (116(a) "including torture or cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment, prolonged detention without charges, causing the disappearance of persons by the abduction and clandestine detention of those persons, or other flagrant denial of the right to life, liberty, and the security of person... ) Indeed, given that the FAA report accords such high priority to human trafficking and requires such comprehensive reporting pertaining to it, Congress necessarily identified human trafficking as a core, gross violation of human rights which would preclude the allocation of foreign aid to the culpable country. Biolitblue (talk) 01:29, 18 November 2023 (UTC)
 * As a footnote, foreign aid can be allocated by Congress under the Foreign Operations Appropriations Act. Instead of allocating funds to a country, this Act authorizes funds for military units within a country, including weapons, equipment, and training, among other things.
 * The Foreign Operations Appropriations Act contains two separate Acts, one for the State Department and the other for the Department of Defense. Both acts are subject to Leahy vetting, which is a process implemented to ensure that no funds are allocated to a country that violates human rights. In practice, however, there are significant problems with Leahy vetting.
 * As one expert observed, attributing gross violations of human rights abuses to specific units of the armed forces can be challenging. Often, survivors of these abuses cannot identify the precise affiliation of their abusers. Additionally, governments can evade the Leahy Laws by "reshuffling, restructuring, or renaming" units of their armed forces that commit gross violations of human rights. However, utilizing the FAA section 502B's broader scope prevents such evasion. Thus, using Section 502B not only avoids significant challenges in Leahy implementation, but may obviate the need to use it entirely. Biolitblue (talk) 01:38, 18 November 2023 (UTC)
 * In my opinion, the editor who removed the POV tag that Biolitblue inserted was right to do so. POV guidance says:the editor who adds the tag should discuss concerns on the talk page, pointing to specific issues that are actionable within the content policies. In the absence of such a discussion, or where it remains unclear what the NPOV violation is, the tag may be removed by any editor. This condition for removal was actual. That editor's use of the word "pointless" should perhaps be understood not as disrespectful but as emphasising the need for pointing to specific issues that are actionable. Biolitblue has subsequently added in this talk section a lot of material that might be intended to fulfill this requirement, but, unfortunately, I find the material too diffuse to be practically actionable. In order to have a discussion, it would be good to identify the allegedly non-neutral points by quoting particular snippets of the article one at a time, each with a brief objection. Mrmedley (talk) 04:05, 18 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Are you the third opinion I requested? If so, you should clarify.
 * I think editors on this site pay too much attention to procedure over substance. Is the article NPOV or not? It should be obvious that it is superficial, breezy, and partial to the beneficial aspects of foreign assistance, and relies too heavily on sources that sound like they emanate from the U.S. government. It sounds like propaganda from those who have a vested interest, such as employment with the government which, in that capacity, are involved in overseeing programs involving this very subject matter. As things stand, the reader is not provided with a fuller context or understanding of the subject matter, and is not presented with multiple points of view.
 * As a procedural matter, although the editor was within his or her rights to remove, the better course of action is to send me a message asking me why I took this action, advising me to provide reasons or countenance removal of the NPOV tag. I'm not a regular editor on the platform, so some decorum and common sense should prevail rather than arrogation of authority. Removal and inconsiderate language is likely to cause resentment and disengagement.
 * When I placed the tag on the article, I did explain why concisely in the space provided. I didn't do it to push an agenda. To the contrary, the perfunctory removal feels to me that the editor is pushing an agenda that is sadly pervasive and pernicious in the United States and in the West right now.
 * The editor made the presumptuous statement, by your own admission without knowing my reasons, that the NPOV was pointless. Stop trying to defend it.
 * Seasoned editors use procedure as a pretext to chill dissent or alternative points of view on this platform. Mobbing is used as a tactic. It results in time wasting/time sink which is obnoxious and unsustainable for a would-be editor. The senior editors each take turns so each one's time isn't significantly wasted, but mine is defending everything.
 * Can the article be amended to synthesize the points raised or are they too "diffuse"? Well, I could redo the article, and synthesize the points raised in a cogent, flowing manner.
 * Finally, the talk page has become a place for venting and whining, rather than for good faith discourse to improve articles and/or remove problems like NPOV. If the platform wants to provide a more bona fide substantive article on the subject, then improve the article by adding depth, context, and history, and removing bias and conclusory comments. Biolitblue (talk) 06:28, 18 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Have to agree with Mrmedley. Biolitblue raises a lot of points that seem
 * (A) outside the scope of this article, or
 * (B) very specifically relate to one issue that only merit mention on a general overview, and could only be done justice on an article devoted to it.
 * For example;
 * (A) Questions about constitutional spending authority and relationship to possible domestic issues that should take precedence.
 * (B) The legality of US aid to Israel in relation to events in Gaza
 * There is always scope for improving this article, but these do not seem to me to be a good approaches. Care is needed, however, that it is well sourced. There is a suggestion of original research in what Biolitblue writes and putting forth of their own views.
 * -- Escape Orbit (Talk) 16:11, 19 November 2023 (UTC)
 * @Biolitblue I called it pointless because you didn't start any discussion and explain what exactly you believed the problem with the article was. Tagging an article is not simply a way for readers to express their disapproval.  What are others supposed to make of it?  Are we to guess what you objected to, and get to fixing it?  You need to explain yourself, otherwise the tag is indeed pointless and should not be there.  And suggesting that removing it was "bias" is ridiculously bad faith. Apart from anything else, bias against what?  Escape Orbit  (Talk) 21:05, 18 November 2023 (UTC)
 * @Biolitblue If you really do have the time to seriously redo the article, or sections of it, then I would applaud that, and try to engage constructively with your version. Few editors on WP seem to have the time and energy to do large-scale redrafting - probably because it is very hard work, especially in the follow-through when others will object on controversial points (including many technical points), or even conclude that the whole form of the article was better before. But if you are up for the struggle to make things better, be bold. Mrmedley (talk) 05:06, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

No Saudi Arabia or UAE?
The GAO says Saudi Arabia + UAE received $50B in military aid over the six years ending in 2021, which would put them at or near the top of the lists for military aid. They don't appear anywhere, however. What explains the discrepancy? Seems like it should be added. 71.212.60.122 (talk) 06:14, 13 December 2023 (UTC)


 * The word 'aid' is nowhere to be found in your link. Doyna Yar (talk) 14:32, 13 December 2023 (UTC)