Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Although I support the sentiment of making sure we don't send money to countries that hate us or for purposes of supporting corrupt regimes that are only nominally friendly to us, I don't support putting out such restraints in an amendment and agree with Lindsay Graham. I think we should have the Secretary of State have to present a list of countries that wish to receive foreign aid to the appropriate foreign affairs committee in Congress for debate and approval, and sent to the floor for a vote. This type of amendment is too inflexible. Of course for the paleo-libertarians among us, any effort that confines, constrains, and eventually kills the U.S. Government is A-OK. Methinks Rand Paul is trying to get back in their good graces and reassert his libertarian bonafides after casting his support to Romney.
Perhaps the billions spent on foreign aid could better be used here in the United States? nearly a billion was spent to rebuild Gaza after Israel laid waste. That same 900 million could have been used on our own roads, schools, scholarships for those who cant afford to attend college etc.
Israel is a wealthy country why do they need so much from the USA? We give aid to countries that stab us in the back constantly. That money either borrowed from China or taken in the form of taxes should be used to help our own first. Who does the fed work for anyway? Us or them?
He wins the filibuster but the amendment is voted down 81-10. At least a few still side with the USA.........
Voting for the amendment:
DeMint (R-SC)
Grassley (R-IA) Lee (R-UT)
Moran (R-KS) Paul (R-KY)
Risch (R-ID)
Roberts (R-KS)
Shelby (R-AL) Toomey (R-PA)
S.3576 -- To provide limitations on United States assistance, and for other purposes
(a) Prohibition- No amounts may be obligated or expended to provide any direct United States assistance, loan guarantee, or debt relief to a Government described under subsection (b).
(b) Covered Governments- The Governments referred to in subsection (a) are as follows:
Once again, Pauls son shows himself a partisan hack, and not a fundamentalist like his father.
That list should contain every country in the world while we are in a fiscal deficit, including Israel.
All I see there are a few Arab countries, not every country we give money to.
How about the largest financial aid program on the planet? Our defense spending? European countries in NATO's military spending has decreased every year for the last 20 years. Ours has gone up every year since Reagan was in office.
Brag on Paul if you want, but you've got to really understand our budget, and foreign policy, to understand that he's no better then the best of him.
At least his dad would go down swinging on most things, Rand has higher asparations.
Defending our embassy, which is the duty of the country it sits, and turning the other way and letting it be overrun are two entirely different animals. You make no sense. Try again in your defense of the terrorists.
Although I support the sentiment of making sure we don't send money to countries that hate us or for purposes of supporting corrupt regimes that are only nominally friendly to us, I don't support putting out such restraints in an amendment and agree with Lindsay Graham. I think we should have the Secretary of State have to present a list of countries that wish to receive foreign aid to the appropriate foreign affairs committee in Congress for debate and approval, and sent to the floor for a vote. This type of amendment is too inflexible. Of course for the paleo-libertarians among us, any effort that confines, constrains, and eventually kills the U.S. Government is A-OK. Methinks Rand Paul is trying to get back in their good graces and reassert his libertarian bonafides after casting his support to Romney.
Did you watch Paul's argument? He said the problem right now is the exec branch controls the purse strings instead of congress which is where it should be. Hillary doesn't need to present anything to be voted on. Inflexible? You think one person should be making decisons with hundreds of billions of our dollars instead of the senate where it should be and your calling that inflexible. It's madness.
Defending our embassy, which is the duty of the country it sits, and turning the other way and letting it be overrun are two entirely different animals. You make no sense. Try again in your defense of the terrorists.
Its never the duty of the United States to keep our embassy safe. Its strategically impossible to protect such a small facility with even 2000 Marines from the massive number of people who can go in. Its the responsibility of the country we are in to protect it, which is why Egypt got their panties in a wad protecting our embassy after the first little overrun that they let happen. Because they were worried about cuts in foreign aid.
I go a step further, the greatest single threat to these United States is our deficit, and why and the hell are we giving other countries money for any god damned thing while we are going into debt, regardless of country?
Paul fought for cuts in aid to a few Arab countries, a partisan attack, with no real fix. Its why 90% of Senators voted against him.
Once again, Pauls son shows himself a partisan hack, and not a fundamentalist like his father.
That list should contain every country in the world while we are in a fiscal deficit, including Israel.
All I see there are a few Arab countries, not every country we give money to.
How about the largest financial aid program on the planet? Our defense spending? European countries in NATO's military spending has decreased every year for the last 20 years. Ours has gone up every year since Reagan was in office.
Brag on Paul if you want, but you've got to really understand our budget, and foreign policy, to understand that he's no better then the best of him.
At least his dad would go down swinging on most things, Rand has higher asparations.
Partisan? Yes it was partisan towards the US. If a country chooses to not defend our embassy in their territory which is their duty then they get added to the list. Hell our ambassodor was killed and the exec branch who is running the show right now does nothing. Paul wants that control back in congress where it belongs. What do they know though they voted to hand over their power over and over again. Now what will you do when somone is elected and decides to pick and choose on their own who gets that aid that you don't agree with? Probably scream that the president shouldn't have that power to make the decision on his own. Congress just voted against the will of the people AGAIN and like Paul says folks wonder why congress has a 10% approval rating.
Its never the duty of the United States to keep our embassy safe. Its strategically impossible to protect such a small facility with even 2000 Marines from the massive number of people who can go in. Its the responsibility of the country we are in to protect it, which is why Egypt got their panties in a wad protecting our embassy after the first little overrun that they let happen. Because they were worried about cuts in foreign aid.
I go a step further, the greatest single threat to these United States is our deficit, and why and the hell are we giving other countries money for any god damned thing while we are going into debt, regardless of country?
Paul fought for cuts in aid to a few Arab countries, a partisan attack, with no real fix. Its why 90% of Senators voted against him.
The bill was not about reducing the deficit but he did point out that doing this would help in that regard too. So you agree that it is the duty of the country our embassy sits to protect it but when they look the other way and watch the rabble burn our flags and torch the embassy we just sit back and do nothing and keep the checks rolling in? Hell Hillary was lobbying for MORE money for Egypt.
Its never the duty of the United States to keep our embassy safe. Its strategically impossible to protect such a small facility with even 2000 Marines from the massive number of people who can go in. Its the responsibility of the country we are in to protect it, which is why Egypt got their panties in a wad protecting our embassy after the first little overrun that they let happen. Because they were worried about cuts in foreign aid.
I go a step further, the greatest single threat to these United States is our deficit, and why and the hell are we giving other countries money for any god damned thing while we are going into debt, regardless of country?
Paul fought for cuts in aid to a few Arab countries, a partisan attack, with no real fix. Its why 90% of Senators voted against him.
Ok lets say for the sake of argument the bill was parisan? Partisan toward whoever. What is the difference? Our embassy was burned. What is the action taken? Give them more money. I guess your ok with that?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
