It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

“Why should we pay countries to hate us when they’ve shown they’re willing to do it for free?

page: 1
4

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 26 2011 @ 11:58 AM
link   

“We’re $14.3 trillion in debt,” the tea party-backed Republican freshman said in a statement Monday. “Why should we pay countries to hate us when they’ve shown they’re willing to do it for free?”

“The United States has no business giving money away to countries and groups who seek to do us harm.”


A question that often enters my mind as our nation continues to write checks to nations who want nothing more than to wipe us off the map.

Here's a great way to take a small yet very important chunk out of our nations debt.


A Republican amendment to appropriations legislation would bar funding for any government that opposes the U.S. position at the United Nations more often than not. Although unlikely to make it into law, the amendment draws fresh attention to the fact that a majority of countries, including most leading recipients of U.S. foreign aid, would fall into that category.



Among multiple amendments inserted into the State Department and foreign operations authorization bill during a House Foreign Affairs Committee markup last week was one by Rep. Jeff Duncan (R-S.C.) prohibiting any foreign assistance to governments that vote against the U.S. position at the U.N. more than 50 percent of the time.

Grades would be obtained from annual State Department reports on voting practices at the U.N., which have been required under U.S. law for decades, and would relate to votes in the General Assembly during its most recent session, or in the case of members of the Security Council, to their votes in both the council and assembly.

In order to waive the prohibition, the president would, on a case-by-case basis, have to issue Congress with a determination that invoking the waiver was “important to the national interests of the United States.”

Duncan’s amendment passed by a party-line vote of 22-18, and was among those incorporated into the final version of the bill that passed out of the full committee by a 23-20 vote late last Thursday night.


This measure would still have to get through the Dem. held senate and then to Obama's desk for the big VETO.
He'll veto anything that actually results in pure and accurate accountability. Plus I don't think Obama's buddies in the Muslim Brotherhood would care for this sudden cut in funds.

Anyway, this is just one of many ways that our govt. can save money.

www.cnsnews.com...




posted on Jul, 26 2011 @ 12:06 PM
link   
Actually, let’s change that to not giving money to any foreign government - period.

I can see if they have a natural disaster or something like that and we have the extra cash just sitting around you know like drawing interest or something but unless that is the case even in a disaster - let them eat cake!

Take care of our own first.

I don't borrow money to give to charity why the Federal Government is allowed to do so is beyond my comprehension.



new topics
 
4

log in

join