Paul: Pay off the country's mortgage

The Gazette ^ | April 11. 2007 | Dick Hogan

[cva66snipe]

More taxes won't resolve the financial woes, but stopping foreign aid would help, he said.

``The way to neutralize this is to send money to nobody,'' Paul said. Most American foreign aid never gets to the poor people it's intended to help, Paul charged.

[XR7]

U.S. Rep. Ron Paul, R-Texas, a candidate for the GOP presidential nomination.

LOL

[cva66snipe]

We need a POTUS who understands fair trade and a realistic foreign policy. The U.S. government can no longer afford to rescue the world nor is such a Constitutional function. Put foreign aid back into the hands of NPO’s and charity groups.

[durasell]

There are very pragmatic reasons for aid beyond “charity.” That’s something a lot of folks don’t recognize.

[endthematrix]

Just print more!

[sure_fine]

“There are very pragmatic reasons for aid beyond “charity.” That’s something a lot of folks don’t recognize.”

exactly,

when a govt gives aid, it only has political purpose behind it, aid belongs to charities

[durasell]

As it should be...

[AmericaUnited]

Question to all: Let's say we "Pay off our mortgage" of several trillion dollars. Those with an understanding of the federal reserve system understand that this means taking several TRILLION dollars of liquidity out of the banking system. YES MARTHA! THAT'S THE ONLY WAY IT CAN HAPPEN!

So... the $64,000 question is what will that do to the economy. Hint: A depression that will make the 1930's look like the 1920s.

[AmericaUnited]

There are very pragmatic reasons for aid beyond “charity.”

True, true. Simple ones don't understand the main purpose is INFLUENCE.

[durasell]

Can they understand this?

http://www.heritage.org/Research/AsiaandthePacific/bg1916.cfm

or this?

http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/editorials/2005-08-23-forum-jihad_x.htm

[cinives]

Then let’s just call it what it really is - payola, bribery, buying favors.

People who advocate propping up leaders of other countries do not acknowledge that those payoffs just come back to bite us in the end - the rear end, specifically.

Every country that receives our aid hates us anyhow and runs to the left - why should we waste our money on them ?

[Lurker]

And a lot of other folks don't recognize that there isn't a single shred of Constitutional authorization for the Federal government to give taxpayer money to other countries for any reason at all.

Rep. Paul is right.

End it all. Now.

L

[durasell]

Give africa to the Chinese. Fine. We’re already in the process of giving them Mexico.

[Lurker]

Give africa to the Chinese.

Let 'em have it. It didn't do the Soviets much good back in the 70's.

And can you name for me the Article and Section of the Constitution which gives Congress the authority to give US taxpayer money to other countries?

Thanks in advance.

L

[Mr. Jeeves]

Africa won't "stay bought" no matter how much money we send them. There will always come a point where a given thug-ocracy will want to buy bigger guns than we are willing to provide the funds for, and they will turn to China, anyway.

I think the "He may be an SOB, but he's our SOB!" philosophy has been conclusively proven a failure. If we would take the foreign aid money (admittedly a tiny piece of the budget) and put it toward cleaning up our own government and setting a better example, we would be a lot better off than engaging int eh equivalent of trying to pay the neighbor kids off so they won't buy crack from that mean guy down the street.

[cinives]

They’re already taking Africa no matter how much money we ship over. It’s Communists backing Communist dictators - lying murdering thugs.

Communist dictators don’t want the strings attached to any aid we send, ie democracy, human rights, capitalism etc etc. All they want is the money, and the chicoms are happy to deliver it. Of course the chicomms get their money from 2 things - the gullible West and the chinese slave labor in their factories and mines.

We can’t compete in that arena, nor should we. Let the communists suck each other dry without using our taxpayer dollars.

[cinives]

No, if we took the money devoted to foreign aid and foreign adventurism and left it with the taxpayers who earned it we’d be much better off.

I’m sure this will earn me no friends here, but intervening in other countries’ internal affairs have never proven to be a winning strategy. I like the way Israel does it better. No foreign aid, but hurt those who kill Israelis around the world.

We may have destroyed the Barbary pirates off the African coast, but we didn’t need to run their countries or pay off their leaders to make our point.

[durasell]

http://www.usaid.gov/fani/index.htm

[Lurker]

OK so we're agreed that Congress has no Constitutional authority to give taxpayer money to foreigners for any reason.

Apparently, you think it's a good idea to do so in spite of the fact that it's blatantly un-Constitutional.

I never think it's a good idea for any branch of the Federal government to violate the Constitution.

Now exactly how do you square your approval of anti-Constitutional actions with being conservative?

L

[durasell]

It falls under foreign policy and is split between executive and legislative branch.

I call myself a conservative because I’m pragmatic.