End Foreign Aid

Virtually every story you read about Sen. Rand Paul's plan to cut foreign aid mentions Israel first and foremost. Never mind that Paul has proposed that we cut all foreign aid, which includes every single country we currently subsidize. Never mind that Paul points out that although we give $3 billion to Israel annually, we also inexplicably give about $6 billion to countries that surround Israel, many of them antagonistic toward the Jewish state. Never mind that Paul has said explicitly that he is a friend of Israel.

Yet Paul's fairly budget-conscious points haven't even been considered. In fact, these commonsensical proposals are often obfuscated due to the establishment's focus on Israel. Senate Democrats wrote Paul a letter stating that his plan would "weaken the decades-long bipartisan consensus on U.S. support for Israel," while Sen. Jim DeMint, who is usually a reliable fiscal hawk and generally an ally of Paul, responded that it would be a "real mistake to suggest we might reduce support to Israel." Sen. Lindsey Graham took it a step further, saying that Paul's proposal would be adopted, "Over [his] dead body."

Click to expand...

Tax Payer funded foreign aid is nothing but a foreign welfare system. We cant be serious about cutting spending without killing this elephant in the room.

Campaign For Liberty — End Foreign Aid    by Jack Hunter

I don't agree entirely because our charity is part of what makes us great.

But when we talk about cutting spending, is this not the prime area we should look at first?

Let's start with Mexico. Their president comes up here and lectures us while his own country has turned into northern Columbia. Cut his welfare off, and see what happens.

Something tells me this 'charity' is more of a tool of ours than a handout...

With this aspect of foreign aid, it seems to me that it comes down to at least two arguments: 1) Cut off foreign aid because it wastes taxpayer money. 2) Keep spending because it gives us influence in international politics. The first argument makes sense because not only do we get to save money, but we also don't have to be automatically involved in other states' conflicts. However, when we take our money away from Israel or any other country, we lose a significant amount of our influence in those areas.

For example, Israel is our main ally in the Middle East - the means by which we exert our influence - money helps us keep our hand in Mid-East politics. Then again, the argument could be made for Israel specifically that we don't need a hand in the Middle East since we only get 22% of our oil from the region and are there primarily to protect our other 'free-riding' allies.

Nonetheless, to me, the benefits of influence outweigh the benefits of saving extra money.

theplaydrive said:

With this aspect of foreign aid, it seems to me that it comes down to at least two arguments: 1) Cut off foreign aid because it wastes taxpayer money. 2) Keep spending because it gives us influence in international politics. The first argument makes sense because not only do we get to save money, but we also don't have to be automatically involved in other states' conflicts. However, when we take our money away from Israel or any other country, we lose a significant amount of our influence in those areas.

For example, Israel is our main ally in the Middle East - the means by which we exert our influence - money helps us keep our hand in Mid-East politics. Then again, the argument could be made for Israel specifically that we don't need a hand in the Middle East since we only get 22% of our oil from the region and are there primarily to protect our other 'free-riding' allies.

Nonetheless, to me, the benefits of influence outweigh the benefits of saving extra money.

Click to expand...

I agree, but perhaps there are nations we could reduce our contributions or cut off altogether.

Are we really getting anything from North Korea? We're paying them to not bomb South Korea. How about we threaten that if they push the button, we'll eliminate them altogether.

Erod said:

I agree, but perhaps there are nations we could reduce our contributions or cut off altogether.

Are we really getting anything from North Korea? We're paying them to not bomb South Korea. How about we threaten that if they push the button, we'll eliminate them altogether.

Click to expand...

I think that the United States should be focused on teaching countries how to build themselves up and protect themselves independently rather than simply giving them money and our military. A problem, as I see it, with the way both Democrats and Republicans handle assistance to other countries is that it is often used in a way that encourages free-riding and discourages self-determination.

If we switched the goal, however, from 'giving them fish' to 'teaching them how to fish', then our spending would decrease over time and we could use that money to fix our own problems. I still, however, think we would need to keep an economic hand in every region to make sure that we maintain influence, credibility and loyalty particularly since China is trying to gain favor throughout the world. I think we even need to keep giving places like North Korea money because not only does it increase our positive image as a nation that sees the needs of innocent people as separate from the mistakes of their government, but it also makes the government feel some sense of obligation to listen to us. If we gave them nothing and their citizens started to suffer even more, they would become desperate and see no reason to restrain themselves.

Erod said:

I don't agree entirely because our charity is part of what makes us great.

Click to expand...

Voluntary charity is different from the tax payer theft that is our current foreign aid system. I have no problem with people wanting to start charities to give to whoever country they want. I have a problem with the government stealing my money and giving it to other nations.

But when we talk about cutting spending, is this not the prime area we should look at first?

Click to expand...

One of many

Let's start with Mexico. Their president comes up here and lectures us while his own country has turned into northern Columbia. Cut his welfare off, and see what happens.

Click to expand...

Why should we keep giving anyone welfare in the first place?

Why would patriotic Americans support Zionist extremists?

Should the American taxpayer be compelled to send billions in welfare payments to the state of Israel? Couldn't this money be spent here in the U.S.，or better yet used to reduce our enormous deficit?

quote: As part of the aid, this year Israel will receive $2.5 billion, in 2010 - $2.775 billion, and in 2011 the sum will reach $3 billion. In total, the security aid Tel Aviv is slated to receive from Washington stands at some $30 billion until 2019.
link: http://www.almanar.com.lb/NewsSite/NewsDetails.aspx?id=84942&language= en

1) Israel has not shown gratitude. For example, Israel has spied on us and re-exported weapons to America's adversary China.

quote: Israel has illegally re-exported advanced US defense technology to China. The problem was first recognized in 1992 when the State Department's inspector general reported that there was "overwhelming" evidence of a "systematic and growing pattern" of transfers. Israel has been the primary supplier of advanced defense technology to China since 1989.
link: Nuclear and Missile Developments

2) Israel does not occupy the moral high ground.

quote: We condemn Israel's assault on Gaza. As of today , more than 1,000 Palestinians have been killed by the Israeli assault, including at least 335 children and many more civilians. Nearly 5,000 have been wounded, many paralyzed for life. Tens of thousands have fled their homes - but Gaza is entirely sealed off, so there is nowhere to hide, no safe haven for civilians
link: Cease Fire Now! End the Siege!

3) The American people derive no benefit from their "investment". Unless you consider the lasting enmity of millions living the Middle East (and elsewhere) a benefit.

4) Israel's extremism endangers American troops according to General Petraeus and Admiral Mullen.

quote from Petraeus: "The conflict foments anti-American sentiment, due to a perception of U.S. favoritism for Israel, Arab anger over the Palestinian question limits the strength and depth of U.S. partnerships with governments and peoples in the [region] and weakens the legitimacy of moderate regimes in the Arab world.

Meanwhile, al-Qaeda and other militant groups exploit that anger to mobilize support."[/QUOTE]