Rand Paul calls for stopping ALL foreign aid

[Ben]

YouTube - Senator Rand Paul: End Aid to Israel, Africa & Everywhere (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XRRr78Fs-FE)

[Ben]

U.S. Democrats and pro-Israel lobbies slam Republican Senator's call to halt Israel aid

Tea Party representative Rand Paul tells CNN’s Wolf Blitzer he has a lot of respect for Israel but he doesn't believe the U.S. should be funding the Mideast arms race during financial crisis.

By Natasha Mozgovaya (http://www.haaretz.com/misc/writers/natasha-mozgovaya-1.493)

U.S. Democrats and pro-Israel lobbies slammed on Thursday comments made by newly elected Republican Senator and Tea Party representative Rand Paul who suggested that the United States should halt all foreign aid including its financial aid to Israel.
In an interview with CNN’s Wolf Blitzer on Wednesday Paul said that “Reuters did a poll, and 71 percent of American people agree with me that when we're short of money, where we can't do the things we need to do in our country, we certainly shouldn't be shipping the money overseas.”
When asked by Blitzer if he wanted to halt an annual $3 billion that go to Israel, Paul replied affirmatively, explaining that Egypt recieves almost the same amount .
"You have to ask yourself, are we funding an arms race on both sides? I have a lot of sympathy and respect for Israel as a democratic nation, as, you know, a fountain of peace and a fountain of democracy within the Middle East. But at the same time, I don't think funding both sides of the arm race, particularly when we have to borrow the money from China to send it to someone else. We just can't do it anymore. The debt is all- consuming and it threatens our well-being as a country,” Paul said.
Pro-Israel Jewish lobby J Street issued a statement in response to Paul's comments saying it was “alarmed” by his suggestion.
“Senator Paul’s proposal would undermine the decades-long bipartisan consensus on U.S. support for Israel. Any erosion of support should concern Israel’s friends on both sides of the political aisle, and we call in particular on leaders and donors in Senator Paul’s party to repudiate his comments and ensure that American leadership around the world is not threatened by this irresponsible proposal," the statement issued by J Street read.
National Jewish Democratic Council (NJDC) President and CEO David Harris also condemned his statement saying that “Paul's suggestion is negligent, shortsighted, and just plain wrong,” adding that “foreign aid in general, and aid to Israel in particular, is crucial to Israel's security and its pursuit of peace. Senator Paul's statement is yet another illustration of how the Republican Party continues to grow increasingly out of touch with the values of the vast majority of the American Jewish community."
Congresswoman Nita Lowey, Ranking member of the Appropriations Subcommittee on State and Foreign Operations, called the initiative “shocking”.
“Israel is the only democratic nation in the Middle East and one of our most stalwart allies”, Lowey said. “A stable and secure Israel is in our national security interest and has been a staple of our foreign policy for more than sixty years. Using our budget deficit as a reason to abandon Israel is inexcusable. It is unclear to me whether Rand Paul speaks for the Tea Party, the Republican Party, or simply himself”.
Meanwhile, Republican Jewish Coalition Executive Director Matthew Brooks issued a statement saying "we share Senator Paul's commitment to restraining the growth of federal spending, but we reject his misguided proposal to end U.S. assistance to our ally, Israel."
"Moreover, based on his comments in an interview with CNN, we are concerned that Senator Paul may not grasp the fundamentals of our alliance with Israel. In 2007, the U.S. and Israel signed a ten-year 'Memorandum of Understanding' (MoU) to govern U.S. assistance going forward. A critical aim of the MoU was to preserve Israel's qualitative military advantage. Accordingly, any concern that U.S. assistance might undermine Israel's security is groundless," Brooks said.

[BeardedOne]

I'm missing something here. How does stopping =ALL= foreign aid during a fiscal crisis somehow translate to "You're always so mean to =ME=!"?

Where are the statements of condemnation of this suggestion from the dozens (Hundreds) of other nations that recieve US Aid?

In recent years I used my successes to help friends and neighbors in need. This altruism brought me to the brink of bankruptcy and I almost lost my house. Lesson learned: Charity begins at home. I can't be much help to others if my own ship is foundering.

How much water are we expected to share when the well runs dry?

[Ben]

Much like his dad, well, I've mixed feelings about Rand Paul. He's very good on certain issues.
He, like his dad, wouldn't have voted for the bank bailout. It goes against the tenets of capitalism. When the lender lends, well, he/she assumes that risk. And if he/she loses, well, they take that loss. (We've no-risk capitalism [it's really state capitalism] whereby if the lender lends and takes a loss, well, the taxpayers hand them TRILLIONS of dollars. No-risk capitalism is great -- ha! ha! ha!)
And he's very good here:

YouTube - Rand Paul, Lee Slam Indefinite Detention (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_NLwHysOvg4&feature=channel_video_title)

[onmyknees]

I'm missing something here. How does stopping =ALL= foreign aid during a fiscal crisis somehow translate to "You're always so mean to =ME=!"?

Where are the statements of condemnation of this suggestion from the dozens (Hundreds) of other nations that recieve US Aid?

In recent years I used my successes to help friends and neighbors in need. This altruism brought me to the brink of bankruptcy and I almost lost my house. Lesson learned: Charity begins at home. I can't be much help to others if my own ship is foundering.

How much water are we expected to share when the well runs dry?


Profound words indeed. While I'm certainly in favor of aid to Isreal, how can we take it from all other nations and continue giving it to Isreal ? At least Paul is consistant, and I'm guessing Isreal could manage without our 3 billion.

[russtafa]

I think fuck the world policy is a good policy

[thombergeron]

What an awesome idea. If the U.S. canceled every penny of its foreign aid, we could actually reduce the deficit by almost 4%!

Of course, with no development or military aid from the U.S., the government of Iraq would last about 36 hours, which is probably going to get you $150/barrel for oil, in addition to other headaches. The Pakistani government wouldn't last much longer. So after Pakistan descends into chaos, India will invade; hopefully, nobody will get nuked in the process. Without DEA and USAID money, Santos in Colombia is going to have a hard time consolidating recent gains against the FARC, because Hugo Chavez sure as hell isn't going to cancel his foreign aid programs. Et cetera, et cetera...

But hey, what's a little global chaos if we can manage to reduce the deficit by 4%?

[russtafa]

What an awesome idea. If the U.S. canceled every penny of its foreign aid, we could actually reduce the deficit by almost 4%!

Of course, with no development or military aid from the U.S., the government of Iraq would last about 36 hours, which is probably going to get you $150/barrel for oil, in addition to other headaches. The Pakistani government wouldn't last much longer. So after Pakistan descends into chaos, India will invade; hopefully, nobody will get nuked in the process. Without DEA and USAID money, Santos in Colombia is going to have a hard time consolidating recent gains against the FARC, because Hugo Chavez sure as hell isn't going to cancel his foreign aid programs. Et cetera, et cetera...

But hey, what's a little global chaos if we can manage to reduce the deficit by 4%?
great idea fuck the tea towel heads and their dirty camels

[trish]

I'm not big on foreign aid myself since most of it is in the form of weapons and military advisers. Laura Bush, however, was on the air tonight explaining just how important the three hundred million odd dollars is for the advancement and freedom of woman around the globe. It made me think of the small sum that we pay in foreign aid to Africa to buy mosquito netting that prevents the spread of malaria. G.W.Bush extended the hand of U.S. aid to bring modern treatment for aids to the continent of Africa. All seem like worthy goals, and so cheap that trimming them from the budget will do nothing to curtail spending. Of course, the anti-spending crowd isn't at all concerned about the debt, otherwise they would be after the huge non-defense military budget. Wall Street and two wars in the Middle East are the cause of our budgetary woes. If you're really serious about the "economic crisis" you will want to regulate the former, pull out of the latter, terminate the tax loopholes for corporations and end the tax breaks for the multi-millionaires.

[onmyknees]

Sigh....you simply can't help yourself it appears. Fiscal conservatives have indeed laid out plans to cut defense spending, but you won't get that off the Huff Post. Read Paul Ryan's plan. Your stab at irony about the fiscal conservatives cutting the budget is laughable. I'm guessing you were 4 square behind the Stimulus and Obama's omnibus budgets> Now that most of the money has been pissed away with minimal affect, it has to be repaid and with interest. Fine mess we're in now !!!!!!!!

I'm not saying Wall St. didn't have a hand in the current financial woes, but until you fully understand the role Andrew Cumo and Janet Reno had in strong arming banks into making loans even Cumo admitted himself , for the most part couldn't be paid back, then you're whistling past the graveyard. Given a pile of shit, smart Wall Streeters will figure out a way to make money on it, and that's what they did. Blame Fannie and Freddie and Franklin Raines, Trish they started the ball rolling ....to do otherwise is selective outrage, but then again it suits your ajenda, so have at it.

Surely 2 wars have put us in a difficult position, but the real money is in entitlements , but you wouldn't dare engage in conversations about how to reform them. Blame it on Bush Trish...that worked well last November.

[trish]

We had entitlements under Clinton and no significant deficit. Indeed, we had a ten year surplus. Then we had tax cuts that gave that surplus to the wealthiest Americans, then we had a war in Afghanistan that cost trillions, then we had a "preemptive" war in Iraq with cost trillions. The Afghan was is still in progress and we're still in Iraq. The cost of the two wars was not declared in the Bush budgets to hide their costs. Then we had the Wall Street fiasco that brought the worst recession since the thirties. It clearly wasn't entitlements that put us in the hole. And seeing that we were already in the deepest hole since the Great Depression before Obama was elected to office and we weren't anywhere near broke at the end of the Clinton administration, it was the Bush administration that dropped the fiscal ball. Just stating the facts.

[Faldur]

223 billion dollars added to the deficit in 28 days, ya your right Trish thank goodness we have master card Obama here to save the day. Adding more to our nations debt in 29 days than previous administrations have done in 2 years. Go Jimmy Carters second term!

[hippifried]

223 billion dollars added to the deficit in 28 days, ya your right Trish thank goodness we have master card Obama here to save the day. Adding more to our nations debt in 29 days than previous administrations have done in 2 years. Go Jimmy Carters second term!
What the hell are you talking about? & what the hell is this "our nations debt" all about? Planning a move?

Oh, & FYI for you and the rest of the parrots that like to repeat the slams on Jimmy: The national deficit was cut by 2/3 during the 4 years of the Carter administration. It was Reagan's programs that gave us our (yeah, I can say "our") first trillion dollar deficit.

Another thng: I keep hearing all these comparisons to the '30s, as if there was nothing in between. We pretend that this is all new, & that the housing bubble that brought about the demise of the savings & loan industry in '89 didn't happen. We ignore the end of the biggest economic growth spurt in the history of the world that happened under the Nixon administration & was replaced by top-heavy financial acquisitions & spiraling inflation that we still can't get out of. Get a grip. Bogus supply side economics don't work. We're fast monopolizing everything by forcing the money to the top. How can anyone make the claim that that's where it belongs, while the eeconomy is over 70% consumer spending? There's really no economy at all as long as the focus is on corporate acquisitions of other corporations. It's all just smoke & mirrors.

This 19th century theoretical shit ain't workin'. We need a complete economic rethink.

[Faldur]

What the hell are you talking about? & what the hell is this "our nations debt" all about? Planning a move?

Let me try and type this real slow so even you can understand, we spent $223 Billion dollars more than we received in the 28 days of February. (Sorry my bad the 233 listed earlier was in error). Now this may be hard for you to understand, but spending more than you make is not a good thing. It's like a boo boo.

Now our current idiot in chief is over spending about what our usual douche bags in chiefs spend in 2 years, only he does it in 28 days.. again this is a bad thing, again kind of like a boo boo. This all seems to culminate, (sorry come to a big scary conclusion), when the country ceases to exist as a solvent government, because we spent our self into a really big boo boo.

Hope you could grasp that one..

[Stavros]

Allow me to introduce some objectvity from a non-US citizen:
a) foreign aid for development is problematic when govt-to-govt because too much get lost 'in transit' and never reaches the people its meant to help, even non-governmental organisations can't spend all their money on their 'good causes';

b) a lot of what is called 'aid' from the US is a political thank you for whatever services the US thinks its recipients have 'deserved' -Egypt & Israel for not fighting each other etc. Israel in fact has already said it doesnt need US aid anymore other than military stuff, but when Congresswoman Nita Lowey says
“Israel is the only democratic nation in the Middle East and one of our most stalwart allies”, Lowey said. “A stable and secure Israel is in our national security interest and has been a staple of our foreign policy for more than sixty years..."
She is wrong -Eisenhower was cool on Israel and JFK not so hot either, it was only after 1967 that the US deepened its relationship with Israel, which might have a democratically elected government in its pre-1967 territory but which is another US-supported military dictatorship in Palestine.

There is aid and there is aid, if anything, its a pity the US hasn't matched its obsession with 'security' issues with a focus on real issues like water, agriculture, deforestation etc that impact peoples lives every day instead of throwinh $7bn a MONTH at drug pushers and boy-lovers in Afghanistan...

The US has so many things that it is positive to offer, war is not one of them.

[Ben]

Rand Paul is among the few in Congress (http://youtu.be/xu9U728iYpw) to oppose the 4-year extension of the misnamed PATRIOT Act:

YouTube - ‪Rand Paul on Extension of the Patriot Act 5.23.11‬‏ (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xu9U728iYpw)

[hippifried]

(http://youtu.be/xu9U728iYpw)Rand Paul is among the few in Congress (http://youtu.be/xu9U728iYpw) to oppose the 4-year extension of the misnamed PATRIOT Act:
(http://youtu.be/xu9U728iYpw)
Actually there's more than you might think. From all across the political spectrum too.

The Patriot Act is a strange issue. The arguments are all over the place, & there's no labels that can be put on any of them.

[Ben]

Actually there's more than you might think. From all across the political spectrum too.

The Patriot Act is a strange issue. The arguments are all over the place, & there's no labels that can be put on any of them.

The Patriot Act is a direct attempt to undercut the Constitution.
Take, say,
Article [IV]:


The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

[hippifried]

Yeah. But that's Amendment IV. Article IV deals with the relationship between the Federal Government & the States.

The Charters of Freedom are here in the National Archives.
http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/charters.html

Click the one you want to read, then click "read transcript".
The link to Amendments 11 - 27 is at the bottom of the Bill of Rights transcript.

[Ben]

YouTube - ‪Thom Hartmann: Is there a shadow Patriot Act behind the Patriot Act?‬‏ (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-IeASXsvNmg)