Senate Blocks Rand Paul's Bill To Give Money To Hurricane Victims Instead Of Foreign Dictators

a reply to: c2oden

Does all domestic aid?
No featherbedding here, right?


The point is Paul did not say anything about foreign dictators. Did he? He said:

I think it’s a very simple choice that when we’re looking at those in need in our country, we quit sending money to other countries.”

That would seem to include a bit more than "foreign dictators."

a reply to: Phage

So?
His point is still clear no?
Keep the money here until we the taxpayers have achieved economic equilibrium before sending it over seas under the auspices of foreign aid that gets sucked up by big corporate beneficiaries...no?

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: c2oden

Does all domestic aid?
No featherbedding here, right?


The point is Paul did not say anything about foreign dictators. Did he? He said:

I think it’s a very simple choice that when we’re looking at those in need in our country, we quit sending money to other countries.”

That would seem to include a bit more than "foreign dictators."

I replied to your reply.
You asked the question.
Go back and read it again.

a reply to: BlueJacket

His point is still clear no?

Yes. So is the point of the headline.

Keep the money here until we the taxpayers have achieved economic equilibrium before sending it over seas under the auspices of foreign aid that gets sucked up by big corporate beneficiaries...no?

Economic equilibrium? What is that? A balanced budget? Do you think that cutting the taxes of "big corporate beneficiaries" will help to that end?

a reply to: Phage

Different topic entirely...a good one but not the point of what hes saying, no matter how much you dont like him.

Where does foreign aid go? Mostly corporate benefactors so whats your point?

a reply to: BlueJacket

Different topic entirely.

You're the one who brought up "economic equilibrium."

Where does foreign aid go? Mostly corporate benefactors

Does it?

Paul's amendment was a non starter. The Democrats would never have gone for it, it would have killed the entire deal they made with Trump.

a reply to: Phage

Yes it does(foreign aid)...who got the Iraqi rebuilding aid?
See Im non partisan, you obviously are...you respond hoping I hang myself with a miswording or otherwise, you are a partisan Im a pragmatist. You havent offered any debate for what Rand Paul said and I responded to...there's more to his thoughts than the title...have you researched those? I have.

This act is getting tired.

a reply to: BlueJacket

Paul's amendment stood no chance of passing.
Hows that for pragmatic?

disgusting but not surprising sadly. and a lot like our parliament of money grubbing parasites this side of the pond
and for the same reasons!

remember the uk cannot afford its own space program and basically rents its nuclear warheads from the US
but hey that doesn't stop us giving untold millions to India!
You know India that poor third world place with its own nuclear weapons and space programs go figure.

a reply to: ShayneJUK

You know India that poor third world place with its own nuclear weapons and space programs go figure

Ungrateful sods. After you gave them their country back and everything.

a reply to: Phage

Have you any actual points on the amendment?
I hang on your every word for the most part concerning science, particularly astro related, but I am less than impressed with your ability to cogently create a differing political opinion, particularly Pauls amendment...what is it specifically you disagree with and why?

Folks in congress not voting for it doesn't pass my muster...do you have an equally brilliant, factual response as per the majority of your posts?

a reply to: BlueJacket

As far as I know, I haven't disagreed with it. Yet.

But I do. I'm not an isolationist. While some foreign aid is squandered, and some of it may even go to "foreign dictators", I think it is part of our responsibility in being the largest economy on the planet to help our neighbors. I'm not a wealthy man, but I do contribute a small amount of my budget to charity. The US spends less than 2% of its budget on foreign aid.

Paul's amendment would have taken money which had already been appropriated. Funds which amount to a drop in the bucket of what the disasters are going to end up costing. Funds which are not being withheld from Americans in need.

a reply to: Phage

Ok.. thank you for sort of responding( but not really to the bill)
The tiny drop in the bucket you speak of, could be going to inner city ethnic and otherwise charities right here where we can audit their expenditure. There are millions suffering right here. I dont disagree with international aid per say however any honest person knows that the cloudy haze called international aid is rife with corruption. The Clinton foundation as well as whatever tripe Bush perpetrated is the problem...why do you defend either side of this travesty?

Again we are off topic...can you respond to Rand Paul's actual amendment considerations?

a reply to: Phage

Twenty billion, soon to be unobligated dollars?

Definition of unobligated

of funds

: appropriated but remaining uncommitted by contract at the end of a fiscal period

That period ends Sept. 30th. If we are still uncommitted after then, wouldn't that make it easier to rescind previous appropriations without upsetting anyone? We must have already made a bunch of promises to get what we wanted.

a reply to: BlueJacket

The tiny drop in the bucket you speak of, could be going to inner city ethnic and otherwise charities right here where we can audit their expenditure.

Not via Paul's amendment. Maybe if he included some of that with it the Democrats would have taken an interest.

Foreign Aid goes to countries where we have military bases or strategic interests. Call it rent....

Politicians just don't go up against the MIC.

a reply to: infolurker

Soo....the money that we pay out in taxes, and send to foriegn countries (for whatever reason) isn't being re-routed to help victims in THIS country recover from the hurricane's damages.

That makes sense...not at all.

While I am by no means an Isolationist, I don't see how diverting a few billion dollars would hurt. In fact, that money could help a lot of people... After all, don't we send boat loads of money to help aid other countries in time of need? Don't we send manpower and equipment to help rescue earthquake victims? Tsunami victims?

I wonder which of those countries would voluntarily send money, manpower and equipment to help our fellow Americans?

*cricket* *cricket*

a reply to: Phageexactly . after britain brought them kicking and scraming into the modern world after there previous rulers nuclear war had the country in the dark ages or thousands of years. with out britain raising them up who would icall for tech support

a reply to: kelbtalfenek

I wonder which of those countries would voluntarily send money, manpower and equipment to help our fellow Americans?

Wait, you expect a country which require assistance to provide assistance?
www.nbcnews.com...

listverse.com...