Loans vs. grants: Why are they so insistent that Iraqi aid be a giveaway?

[prolesunited]

I'm probably not as up on this issue as I should be, but why is the Bush administration so insistent that the Iraqi aid package be an outright gift? I know there were a number of legislators were calling for it to be a loan repaid from oil revenues.

They keep saying that the oil revenues will be used to rebuild the country, yet they insist a loan would be a bad idea. Wouldn't you think the GOP would favor a loan because it is more fiscally conservative.

I know nothing they do ever makes sense, but what am I missing? What are there motives?

[bluestateguy]

1. 87 billion

Why doesn't some clever (D) candidate put together either a health care or economic stimulus package to cost exactly 87 billion? That would be a clever reminder of the contrast between the major party candidates on how they choose to spend taxpayer money.

[w4rma]

12. Dean recently noted that his health care plan would cost about $87 billion

…
The debate has touched the presidential contest, as well. Democratic candidate Howard Dean recently noted that his health care plan would cost about $87 billion, "which happens to be almost exactly the amount the president . . . asked to wage war in Iraq for another year." Given a choice, he said, Americans would choose "health insurance that nobody can take away."
…
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A49354-2003Sep22

[lcordero]

2. This is probably one of the few times that I actually have to

agree with them.
We broke it and we should be paying for it. They didn't ask us to come into their country in the first place.
The "loan" issue is a stupid issue because it will do nothing but fuel Iraqi anger and it will seem like more bullying to them.

[iamtechus]

3. For there to be a loan there must be a borrower

Since Iraq has no government of its own, who would the borrower be?

[Old and In the Way]

4. Pure, unadulterated corruption

Really, it's breathtaking. The money is a giveaway to their contributors which will be funneled through the CPA which has no Congressional oversight. A perfect Republican money laundering scheme.

Want to read something that should piss every American off?

From the Center of American Progress's Daily Progress Report...I suggest signing up for their daily e-mail (www.americanprogress.com):

The White House is simultaneously subsidizing corporations like Halliburton to provide "hazardous service" bonuses of up to $900-per-day to their employees operating in Iraq, while trying to cut the $225-per-month bonus U.S. troops receive for hazardous duty pay.

[frank frankly]

5. bingo, old and in the way

you nailed it, yo!

[Bombtrack]

6. because it's counterproductive to hamper a new market economy

with huge debt when you NEED it to prosper

I'm on the fence about this issue, but the administrations side at least has a respectable argument

[fabius]

7. The good argument is...

...that we want other governments to forgive Saddam's debts, so we should forgive ours too. OK so far, they'll never climb out of the hole with a huge foreign debt.

The cynic just sees a subterfuge so that we can pretend we were not in it for the oil and can use public money to pay off a bunch of BFEE corporate friends.

"Reconstruction" would cost less than half as much if it was publicly bid to any company, including EU and Iraqi instead of Bechtel and Halliburton.

[Old and In the Way]

9. Yes, I'm in the cynic column for sure.

I'd like to believe that we had altruistic reasons (rightfully so) to pay for the mess we created. But the set-up for siphoning our money to the Republican Corporate Party is a little too transparent.

Why not COngressional oversight? Why not funnel it through the UN?
We know why......

[dfong63]

8. my guess: a loan would require more documentation,

... more traceability. i expect the money to disappear, somehow. it'd be harder for it to disappear if it were a loan.

[berry]

10. That sounds right. Also, if it's a loan, Iraqis might demand (more

than now) a say in how it's spent. BushCo wants to be sure everything is privatized before they leave (if ever). I doubt that a democratic Iraq would choose to do what Bremer and crew are doing.

BTW, on another thread someone said in passing that Bremer was a Bush cousin. True? Significant?

[izzie]

13. d if I recall they are trying to find out where the first pile went.

Us tax payers are just letting the Bush and Co People raid the tax payers money and I think it is a shame. I am not so sure we should fix what we broke in Iraq. How many died in Vietnam and how much money was put in that poor country? They sure have done better with out us.It did leave us all this . We can bring flowers to 59ooo young Americans and they can bring flowers to 2Million we killed over there.War leaves so many nice things to recall.

[LibDemAlways]

11. Because the money isn't going to the Iraqi people....

It's going directly into the Halliburton bank account - a big "gift" to Cheney's friends - courtesy of the American taxpayer.

[dansolo]

14. Accountability

In order for Iraq to repay the money, they would need to have an accurate accounting of where the funds went. But with grants, all you hear is that great sucking sound as Halliburton hoovers all of our tax dollars.

[prolesunited]

15. Thanks!

Posters echoed my suspicions. Sometimes I just need reassurance that my tinfoil hat isn't on too tight. :-)