Well, "direct" foreign aid is probably the smallest of Globalist-Interventionist budgetary expenditures (and even that is actually more than 0.6% of the Federal Budget -- not "far less than one half of one percent"); but even so -- Half a percent here, half a percent there... $10 Billion here, $10 Billion there, pretty soon you're talking about real money.
If you have become accustomed to being a Slave to the Government, then yeah, sure, I suppose -- what does another 0.6% matter? But if you think like a Free Man -- if you really consider how much 0.6% a year really is, what good and positive and wise and BIBLICAL things a Private Owner can do with 0.6% a year: investing in his IRA, or some extra Term Life Insurance protection for his family, maybe a dollar-a-day discount Health Policy, or perhaps taking his Wife out for a genuine Crawfish Boil dinner every couple of months (ALL of which are good possibilities; to each his own).... when you think about THAT, the notion of Government taking even an additional 0.6% just to subsidize foreign dictators, theocrats, and communists will rightfully make you furious.
There are som many GOOD things a Private Owner can do with his own Godly-earned Money, the Notion of Government Taking it for the wasteful boondoggle of Foreign Aid is nauseating
And that's merely a "Pragmatic" Argument. As "Lurker" might perhaps say -- "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."
"Pragmatic" arguments about Federal Foreign Aid are ultimately an exercise in mental auto-eroticism.... because The Whole Thing Is Wrong. It ain't even Constitutional in the first place.
Excellent. This is one of many of reasons that I am not among the Wolfowitz apologists here. Despite years of failure, he actually wants to pour even more money down the foreign aid rat-hole.
Since 1949, the US assistance to Israel has been almost $100 billion. Do you consider that to be "good and positive and wise and BIBLICAL"?
There you go again with that anachronic drivel (NOT).