John Kerry Releases $250m In US Aid To Egypt As Reward For Political Reforms
Source: Associated Press
US Secretary of State John Kerry on Sunday rewarded Egypt for president Mohammed Morsi's pledges of political and economic reforms by releasing $250m in American aid to support the country's "future as a democracy".
Yet Kerry also served notice that the Obama administration will keep close watch on how Morsi, who came to power in June as Egypt's first freely elected president, honors his commitment and that additional assistance would depend on it.
"The path to that future has clearly been difficult and much work remains," Kerry said in a statement after wrapping up two days of meetings in Egypt, a deeply divided country in the wake of the revolution that ousted longtime president Hosni Mubarak.
Egypt is trying to meet conditions to close on a $4.8bn loan package from the International Monetary Fund. An agreement would unlock more of the $1bn in US assistance promised by President Barack Obama last year and set to begin flowing with Kerry's announcement.
Read more: http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/mar/03/kerry-releases-us-aid-egypt
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
cstanleytech
(26,212 posts)Especially after the cuts that just made the news?
Dont_Bogart_the_Pretzel
(3,273 posts)
PuffedMica
(1,061 posts)
YvonneCa
(10,117 posts)...the answer to that question, watch this:
http://www.c-spanvideo.org/program/311082-1
Liberalynn
(7,549 posts)If we have money to make things better for other countries why don't we have enough money to make things better here?
mpcamb
(2,868 posts)That the House held back last year.
While I agree we should have priorities for taking care of our own and doing that first, this $ isn't earmarked for weapons and may help their faltering economy to ward off a more right wing government.
L0oniX
(31,493 posts)...like its some kind of water behind a damn. Control words so as to not upset the sequestoristas. Ok yea lets have austerity kick in as we "release" money to other countries ...what's not to be pissed off about? You loose your gov job over the sequestor and here's some millions extra we found behind the money damn all set to be "re(fucking)leased". Stupid people ...stupid news ...stupid wars.
BTW ...already posted in GD: http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022454955
karynnj
(59,494 posts)embassies is less than 1% of the budget. If the State Department can prevent a situation from leading to war - it is money well spent.
By the way, "releasing" is because the money was approved with the condition it had to be released when conditions were met back in December 2012.
donnasgirl
(656 posts)Is that our people mean nothing,sorry i no longer care for other countries i only care about our own people.LET THEM TAKE CARE OF THEMSELVES.
karynnj
(59,494 posts)It is incredibly arrogant that think you know me well enough to say something like that.
It is not "altruism" that requires the US to have diplomats around the world and to try to stabalize a very inflamed world.
donnasgirl
(656 posts)I am sick and tired of seeing my family and friends lose everthing they ever worked for,Teachers,truck drivers,small business owners (mom and pop),firemen,cops,and that list goes on.They lose their homes,they lose their cars,they lose their dignity,and all the while we send money to other countries,i say bull crap it's time to fix what we have and help our own.Enuf is enuf
karynnj
(59,494 posts)in this country. There is NOTHING in my post that says that. If you chose, you could look at posts that I have made over the last 7 years and you will not find ONE where that could be reasonably seen - and many where the opposite is true. Politically I am a 60s liberal who has always thought that too little was done for people who need help.
I have no problem that we disagree on whether the US should provide foreign aid - and note that this aid passed BOTH houses of Congress. My post was trying to explain the unusual word "releasing" in the article that someone had asked about. I did not deserve to be insulted by you for doing so.
It is clear that you are sensitive to being called "arrogant" when you make assumptions about me - a person you do not know. Yet, apparently, you can't understand why your comment was offensive to me. Being for foreign aid - as less than 1% of the budget does not mean that I do not care that many people have had tough economic times.
The fact is that foreign aid is NEVER popular - on either side of the aisle. Most people are in agreement with you, so there was even less reason that you should have been compelled to assign to me the attribution of "not caring for people in this country". That was what I called arrogant, rather than harsher words like obnoxious.
donnasgirl
(656 posts)I am very sorry please accept my apology, karynnj i am tired very tired and all this garbage that is happening in this country started many many years ago.It does not matter anymore whether they are democrat or republican,we the people of this country need to wake up and do it now,one example is my neighbor,he was hanging on by the skin of his teeth when the social security tax kicked back in.When that happened him and his wife lost almost 200 dollars a month,and because of that loss they are now going to lose their home,it's not right period,then you read head lines like this and it makes me wonder if anybody gives a rats butt anymore.We as a country need to fix our own house before we can help the rest of the world.
karynnj
(59,494 posts)this country has taken since at least the 1970s. It is stunning how the percent of the nation's wealth held by the richest has increased year over year - no matter which party is in office. (The Clinton years were among the worst in this shift.) In the earlier stages, this seemed to be most drastically experienced by the poor only. The middle class professionals saw their live styles improve as well. However, their increases were NOTHING like that of the very top.
In 1992, the situation was already changing rapidly for the worse. Here is an excerpt from a speech that contains a good comparison between 1970 and 1990 by John Kerry. ( There are many people including Jesse Jackson, Ted Kennedy, and Mario Cuomo (not to mention Bernie Sanders, who I hope to get a chance to vote for.) who gave strong wonderful speeches urging a more equitable distribution of income - but this one has some very nice detailed descriptions of the difference. It is taken from the Senate record, which is hard to link to. Also, I added breaks to make this more readable because the Senate record (at least the part I know how to access) does not have them. )
In many ways, we are witnessing the most rapid change in the workplace in this country since the postwar era began. For a majority of working Americans, the changes are utterly at odds with the expectations they nurtured growing up.
Millions of Americans grew up feeling they had a kind of implied contract with their country, a contract for the American dream. If you applied yourself, got an education, went to work, and worked hard, then you had a reasonable shot at an income, a home, time for family, and a graceful retirement.
Today, those comfortable assumptions have been shattered by the realization that no job is safe, no future assured. And many Americans simply feel betrayed. To this day I'm not sure that official Washington fully comprehends what has happened to working America in the last 20 years, a period when the incomes of the majority declined in real terms.
In the decade following 1953, the typical male worker, head of his household, aged 40 to 50, saw his real income grow 36 percent. The 40-something workers from 1963 to 1973 saw their incomes grow 25 percent. The 40-something workers from 1973 to 1983 saw their incomes decline, by 14 percent, and reliable estimates indicate that the period of 1983 to 1993 will show a similar decline. From 1969 to 1989 average weekly earnings in this country declined from $387 to $335.
No wonder then, that millions of women entered the work force, not simply because the opportunity opened for the first time. They had no choice. More and more families needed two incomes to support a family, where one had once been enough.
It began to be insufficient to have two incomes in the family. By 1989 the number of people working at more than one job hit a record high. And then even this was not enough to maintain living standards. Family income growth simply slowed down. Between 1979 and 1989 it grew more slowly than at any period since World War II. In 1989 the median family income was only $1,528 greater than it had been 10 years earlier. In prior decades real family income would increase by that same amount every 22 months. When the recession began in 1989, the average family's inflation-adjusted income fell 4.4 percent, a $1,640 drop, or more than the entire gain from the eighties.
Younger people now make less money at the beginning of their careers, and can expect their incomes to grow more slowly than their parents'. Families headed by persons aged 25 to 34 in 1989 had incomes $1,715 less than their counterparts did 10 years earlier, in 1979. Evidence continues to suggest that persons born after 1945 simply will not achieve the same incomes in middle-age that their parents achieved.
Thus, Mr. President, it is a treadmill world for millions of Americans. They work hard, they spend less time with their families, but their incomes don't go up. The more their incomes stagnate, the more they work. The more they work, the more they leave the kids alone, and the more they need child care. The more they need child care, the more they need to work.
Why are we surprised at the statistics on the hours children spend in front of the television; about illiteracy rates; about teenage crime and pregnancy? All the adults are working and too many kids are raising themselves.
Of course, there is another story to be found in the numbers. Not everyone is suffering from a declining income. Those at the top of the income scale are seeing their incomes increase, and as a result income inequality in this Nation is growing dramatically. Overall, the 30 percent of our people at the top of the income scale have secured more and more, while the bottom 70 percent have been losing. The richest 1 percent saw their incomes grow 62 percent during the 1980's, capturing a full 53 percent of the total income growth among all families in the entire economy. This represents a dramatic reversal of what had been a post-war trend toward equality in this country. It also means that the less well-off in our society--the same Americans who lost out in the Reagan tax revolution--are the ones being hurt by changes in the economy.
You might say that we long ago left the world of Ward and June Clever. We have entered the world of Roseanne and Dan, and the yuppies from `L.A. Law' working downtown.
From today's perspective, the 1990s are seen as the time when things were not so desperate. Yet, as can be seen, the 1970s to the 1990s already changed the country from a place where for most - not all - one person working could support a family to a point where, for many, two people working could not do so.
I have three kids, all college graduates, and they all know that they will likely never earn as good an income as either my husband or I. This is partly their choice of fields, but even their friends and our friends' kids who went into math/science fields are less financially secure than we were at the same point in our careers.
We are moving to having an income distribution that resembles that of a third world nation. In doing so, we risk what made the US strong and a good place with opportunities. At this point, I think the taxes on the wealthy are nearing that of the gilded age! It is very scary that the electoral map has been gerrymandered to create a Republican majority in the House - even when the majority of the country vote for the Democrats. That and needing 60% of the Senate - thanks to the failure of changing the filibuster - means that it is very hard to hold back things that will make this even worse.
On top of all that, there is the mean spirited push to shred the safety net programs - at a point where the economy makes more people need it for even a minimal quality of life.
Anyway, sorry that I reacted as strongly as I did.
1983law
(213 posts)YvonneCa
(10,117 posts)donnasgirl
(656 posts)Now i know Forbes is a right leaning organization,but there is a lot of truth to the article.When i see a statement like what Nancy Pelosi made( It would lower the dignity of our seats) to cut our pay,I ask what about the dignity of our people who are losing everything they own after working their tail off all their lives.I and my family and friends and neighbors are no longer trusting any politicians.
Thank you very much for the article Yvonne
YvonneCa
(10,117 posts)...with my family, too.
My link was to a video...Kerry setting out foreign policy and how we fix what's gone wrong in our country. It is a longterm problem that will take YEARS. It's a slow process...like turning an aircraft carrier around. People want short term fixes that just aren't there. JMHO.
I hope you watch the speech. 
wisteria
(19,581 posts)You are being short sighted. Of course "our" people are important, giving aid to countries in need does not lessen the importance of Americans. And, where were you when our former SOS did the same things? I don't recall you complaining then.
donnasgirl
(656 posts)You say i am being short sighted,is wanting our teachers to be put back to work,
Our fire fighters and our police being put back on the streets,
Nothing but the best for our elderly,
Treat our troops with dignity and not let the banks take their homes away,Is wanting good jobs for our young people being short sighted,i say no it is not.
You might be right i am being short sighted,i call it being selfish because i want what is best for our people and fix our situation at home before we can help other countries.
karynnj
(59,494 posts)I know Wisteria and I have seen her support any bill out there that adds money to keep teachers, fire fighters, and police in their jobs. In fact, Kerry and Durbin were the two strongest advocates in the Senate floor debates for including money to do just that in the 2009 stimulus bill.
I think it is hard to make the case that we need to give foreign aid - which we do at a lower % of GDP than other developed countries. The reason we do is not completely altruism. It is because not doing it completely reduces any leverage our diplomats have. The importance here is that in the closely connected global world, we ARE hurt by chaos in the world. Even cutting foreign aid to zero, would free up far less than 1% of the budget. The State Department would still exist and there would still be embassies - people need passports and we need a presence in other countries to help our citizens.
What we need is for the wealthiest people to pay the share of taxes they have in the past - not the historically low amount they are paying. The Republicans twist this argument - speaking of the % of all taxes paid by the top 1%. What many on the right quoting that correct number don't get is WHY this is number is getting progressively higher. The reason is that the % of all US income that goes to the top 1% id historically high and getting higher. They get around 40% of all the income in the US - and this is added to the huge assets they already have. The problem - which could be helped by a tax increase - is really structural.
My best guess of the reason is that it is because the labor market is global. This has upset the balance that was created by unions aggregating the power of the workers to a point where they could bargain for a reasonable share of profits going to labor. We need to find a solution to what is now a race to the bottom.
L0oniX
(31,493 posts)to 1% here, 1% there, 1% every where you turn ...it adds up. Other conditions were set for SS and Medicare too as well as the jobs which are going to be lost because of the sequester ...but that's ok because conditions were met back in 12/12. Whatever! If they really wanted to prevent wars then they would not be creating more terrorists by starting illegal wars. But go ahead and keep making excuses for that 1%. BTW it's not "releasing" it's "giving it away".
karynnj
(59,494 posts)The sequester is a stupid result of politics - and has nothing to do with this.
roxy1234
(117 posts)Yea if we dont pay up, they will start a war. I say let have the war and hopefully they will get it out of their system and stop this annual pay off from impoverished US tax payers.
None of you would excuse giving move that could be allocated to welfare system to republican hostage takers is a good idea.
pampango
(24,692 posts)their per capita income is significantly less than ours.
As FDR said in his 1945 inaugural address:
We have learned that we cannot live alone, at peace; that our own well-being is dependent on the well-being of other nations far away. We have learned that we must live as men, not as ostriches, nor as dogs in the manger.
We have learned to be citizens of the world, members of the human community.
We have learned the simple truth, as Emerson said, that "The only way to have a friend is to be one."
We can gain no lasting peace if we approach it with suspicion and mistrust or with fear. We can gain it only if we proceed with the understanding, the confidence, and the courage which flow from conviction.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/americanexperience/features/primary-resources/fdr-fourth-inaugural/
The US was hardly a wealthy nation in January 1945. FDR learned a lesson that Europeans have not forgotten even if we have.
Hillary Clinton to battle Tea Party over foreign aid to Egypt and Libya
Secretary of State Hillary Clinton is scheduled to visit Congress on Thursday in an attempt to beat back Tea Party pressure to cut foreign aid to Egypt and Libya in the wake of anti-American violence in those countries.
Conservative Republicans are demanding that the Obama administration rethink its aid to Libya, Egypt and Pakistan...
Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) said in a “Dear Colleague” letter that he would seek to block passage of must-pass spending legislation and prevent the Senate’s adjournment at the end of the week unless the Senate votes on his proposal to cut $4 billion in annual spending on Libya, Egypt and Pakistan.
http://thehill.com/blogs/global-affairs/middle-east-north-africa/250565-clinton-to-battle-tea-party-over-foreign-aid-to-egypt-and-libya-
And things have not changed much with some folks since 1945.
Response to L0oniX (Reply #2)
Purveyor This message was self-deleted by its author.
Earth_First
(14,910 posts)Sorry Egypt, but our coffers are empty.
840high
(17,196 posts)was spent here. We have many needs.
fujiyama
(15,185 posts)and even if we could a Muslim extremist headed government would be the last I'd give a single penny to. Maybe the "new" Egypt should find a way to discriminate against women and religious minorities on someone else's dime. Let them beg the fucking Saudis for money. I'm sick of the US bankrolling the entire region. Fuck the Muslim Brotherhood and Likud. Neither Egypt or Israel should get anything.
I could think of a million other ways to flush money down the drain. But I could also think of using the money for somewhat productive uses at home. How about money for our shitty roads and crumbling infrastructure? Or low interest loans for budding entrepreneurs that could start jobs employing people here?
Instead we're stuck with sequestration! Cuts in the NIH, NASA, and other scientific agencies. Cat food for seniors, cuts across the board - possibly including for veterans - and millions for Egyptians? WTF? This administration is fucking tone deaf.
NYtoBush-Drop Dead
(490 posts)Were cutting here at home and you give them 250 M? How about taking that money and keeping a few teachers working?
MotherPetrie
(3,145 posts)wisteria
(19,581 posts)world. The problems in our country aren't about money, but about politics.
donnasgirl
(656 posts)No your wrong,when i have neighbors who are in their late 70's and early 80's not having enough money to pay bills i say enough.i and many others are not uninformed,we are here on the streets watching our own people drown,i see everyday where people are losing there homes with no where to go.I see some say it is only 1% of the budget (how much money is 1% of the budget) a lot,every time these discussions come up people say it's only 1%,add up all those 1%'s and then you have 8%,9%,10%,and that is a hell of a lot of money to help our own people.( no more free trade agreements) They started the ball rolling down hill right along side technology putting people out of work,Corporations moving out of this country to capitalize on the .27 cents an hour labor in china just to boost there greedy little pockets.I say it's high time for all of us to put our differences aside,republicans and Democrats alike and work to heal this country and put politicians on notice that enough is enough.
Zoeisright
(8,339 posts)The correct spelling is "you're", by the way. It's also "people are losing THEIR homes." Spelling words wrong makes you look dumb.
You don't understand much about the budget, do you? Money doesn't get magically shifted around in the federal budget. If money is set aside for one thing, assisting other governments it can't just be given out to others who need it.
donnasgirl
(656 posts)Take the money and help our own people (end of conversation).As for my spelling zoeis don't like it don't read it.OUR PEOPLE ARE MORE IMPORTANT AT THIS TIME
pampango
(24,692 posts)Cutting foreign aid is a popular thing with the republican base. A Pew poll from February asked what types of government spending cuts people favored. When it came to foreign aid (page 3):
The largest partisan gaps are over aid to needy people both in the U.S. and abroad. Seven in ten Republicans (70%) say foreign aid should be decreased, compared with just a quarter (25%) of Democrats. Similarly, while 56% of Republicans say spending on unemployment assistance should be decreased, just 13% of Democrats agree.Foreign aid:
Republican: Decrease it - 70%, Increase it - 7%;
Democratic: Decrease it - 25%, Increase it - 33%.
http://www.people-press.org/files/legacy-pdf/02-22-13%20Spending%20Release.pdf
wisteria
(19,581 posts)I am not going to get into what we have vs what they have, figures or percentages. I just do not believe it is human to look past or ignore suffering more extreme than our own or to become and isolationist. It is not good for the human spirit or for our country.
Brgins at home wisteria,i do not want to argue with people but when i see our own losing everything it is time to stop the bleeding at home first,I want to help other people and the countries from which they come,but now is not the time.
pampango
(24,692 posts)When is the time? If it is not 'the time' now, was it 'the time' in the past? Will that 'time' come at some point in the future? How will we know when it is 'the time' when it happens?
I've heard 'now is not the time' from republicans way too many times:
Now is not the time to raise taxes on the rich;
Now is not the time for civil rights;
Now is not the time to raise the minimum wage;
Now is not the time to pull out of Iraq;
Now is not the time for immigration reform.
There are a thousand other examples.
If something is good, the 'time' is now. Saying 'wait until the time is right' means 'delay it until conditions are perfect - which will never actually happen - so we kill the concept by delaying it indefinitely.
John2
(2,730 posts)Aid was given to Egypt in order for them to change their Government. What is the difference from bribery? My perspective is if Egypt wants a certain government, then they should make that choice on their own without American money. I also disagree with John Kerry picking winners in Syria or deciding who should be the legitimate government of any Foreign nation with bribes. I have death ears when it comes to this issue in our Government and their complaints about spending in this country. I don't think giving Egypt bribery money with our tax dollars benefits me at all, but the Top percent in this country. It is to preserve their influence and benefits their Empire. If it was to feed the needy or cure diseases, I have no problem. I do have a problem influencing which government people decide to have. That should remain up to the people and whatever means they bring it about, just like the U.S. did. We did that on our own and we still are working to protect our rights here. I feel some in this counry are trying to reverse our rights. I find them a threat more than any group in another Foreign country.
karynnj
(59,494 posts)We have given aid to Egypt for decades - in huge amounts since Sadat agreed to the Camp David peace agreement. We gave money to Sadat, Mubarak and now to a government that we would never have chosen. The US clearly would have preferred the moderates to the current government.
As to Kerry "picking" the Syrian government - where is that coming from? Petraeus and Clinton wanted to arm rebels, Obama opposed that (as did Kerry when he was then Chair of the SFRC.) To me it looks like what Obama/Kerry are trying to do is to see if there is a political solution that ends the bloodshed - likely with the current leader stepping down. (After all the killing, there is no way to have a unified government with him in charge.)
Response to Purveyor (Original post)
politicasista This message was self-deleted by its author.
