the bill is a choice between let them keep the weapons for free or make them pay.
We are going to make them pay for our stuff by giving them our money to pay us with?
Speaking of letting them keep our stuff for free sounds suspiciously like they have been given our stuff without the needed congressional authorization. The bill would only to paper over what has already been done without congressional authorization.
If what you imply is accurate, then perhaps a good choice would be to throw the responsible officials in prison, and let them work for ten cents an hour until they pay back the $60B they owe to the people.
it is how aid always worked, same bucket of money, it is just an oversimplification on my part.
if we give money to Ethiopia for famine, we’d expect them to spend that money on our product. so the grain is already on the ground being distributed due to famine, we just send ‘replacement’ grain later.
same with xxxx country in war. we already have our stuff in the conflict zone. by the time the congress decide on aid for xxxx (then to send aid, the war is over).... it just makes accounting easier.
there is always a loophole with aid, thru 3 party firms, typically US firms. getting part of that aid money, back into US firms. hmmm, wouldn’t it be great to run a ‘non-profit’ in a 3rd world country and get rich?