It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

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

Thank you.


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


Outrageous! Senate just voted overwhelmingly against stopping foreign aid. 81-10

page: 4
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in


posted on Sep, 22 2012 @ 03:40 PM

Originally posted by SaturnFX

Originally posted by macaronicaesar
I can't believe this. Senator Rand brought tears to my eyes. He is telling the 100% truth and was unanimously voted against. We're in trouble, big trouble. They don't give a damn about the will of the people. This is very frightening. Not that I am surprised, but how do we stop it? Can we? I don't think so, but I would like to hear suggestions.

Rand is a true statesmen. Him supporting Romney made me ill, but I understand the politics he has to play, he's on our side just like his father. I'm very disappointed with this bill being shot down 81-10. America is a in downward spiral to oblivion.

How do you understand his stance on Romney.

Ron and Rand need to switch parties. Their social outlooks are almost all very liberal..the only aspect of republicanism is the fiscal conservatism, but on record, republicans only pay lip service to that, but go the opposite way..moreso than the Dems.

They would have greater headway bringing classic liberalism back to their roots than try to knock sense into the current GOP.

I strongly disagree, the chances of ever establishing a 3rd party in this environment is basically zero. The corruption and the special interests will never, ever allow it. A grass roots movement to try and get the GOP back to it's roots is exactly what needs to happen.

Ron and Rand are the true Republicans. The fiscal conservatives that the party was founded on. Not the neocon, warhawks and bible belt that have hijacked the party. Non interventionism use to be the way. It's time to return. The socialism/isolationism's thrown around are just another way to divide and conquer. The social issues are a smokescreen to keep everyone fighting/bickering with each other. Federal government has no role in people's bedrooms, deciding what is or isn't legal for a woman, or determining if gays should be afforded the same basic rights as everyone else. They are issues that were created out of thin air to keep us fighting with each other. They are relatively meaningless.

The main priorities are being fiscally responsible (how they spend OUR money), no empire building (we're broke and it never works favorably anyways and is morally wrong), and individuals right to do as they damn well please as long as they don't hurt anyone else. Sounds Libertarian, it use to be Republican.

No 3rd party candidate will ever be in the debates or given a fair shake, they own all that too. The Paul's idea to reshape the current parties is their only option, however unlikely or difficult it will be.

posted on Sep, 22 2012 @ 03:42 PM
This proves several things to me...
1) Those who chose to vote to maintain the foreign aid, I believe are more concerned about protecting their own interests abroad than the ones that matter here.
2) Those same politicians know that the same dollar that is spent in a 3rd world terrorist haven, is worth considerably more than it is here. So what we see as millions, is technically much more to them.
3) And to those same "officials" who were chosen to represent their constituents, and not some "pookie" wannabe, in the mid-east, they know that the Fed is just going to keep printing more, because they've given up on fixing anything in the US, and are all just trying to cash out, before it collapses...

posted on Sep, 22 2012 @ 03:43 PM
Good. Every once in a while the senate does something reasonable. A moronic bill from an increasingly moronic senator.

I don't know what you all expected, it was cutting off foreign aid to three of our allies...there's still millions more being loaned to other countries all over the world. You act like this would've made some huge difference had it passed.

posted on Sep, 22 2012 @ 03:45 PM

Originally posted by Wrabbit2000

Originally posted by RussianScientists
America can't just stop giving aid to other countries, especially when they need help after a disaster has occurred, or when an opposing nation attacks or threatens their nations; especially when most of them have been willing to go along with the American petro dollar which is not backed by anything and the presses are running faster every year.

Entirely agreed. I'm personally sick about sending Cairo a Billion and more in aid and much of that, military aid. However, obligations are what they are and much of it is NOT military aid too, like you say.

We DO need to drop or cut foreign aid in my view. It's our long term survival at stake. Not like this though....and Rand has the same foot in mouth disease as his Father. Go for the comically extreme, KNOWING it has 0 chance of happening, just to make a screaming public statement.

Well... All things being equal, I expect that in the House. I don't in the Senate. They're supposed to be considering and thoughtful ones of the two and giving some thought to their actions.....this was definitely not. If the U.S. just outright closes the accounts and shuts off aid outright, wars will start within days. It's crazy extreme to solve a REAL problem....and making public points this way sucks, IMO.

Maybe you're confused, actually you most definitely are. The bill was to put restrictions on how that money could be spent, not close all accounts and bla bla bla.

Leave the hyperbole for Obama/Romney, it doesn't suit you well.

posted on Sep, 22 2012 @ 03:55 PM

Originally posted by macaronicaesar
The fiscal conservatives that the party was founded on. Not the neocon, warhawks and bible belt that have hijacked the party. Non interventionism use to be the way.

Yes, but things change. Do you honestly think the republicans will ever be able to get back to their roots? year after year, they cement in their social warriors and oust the traditional republicans. this has been the norm since..hell, since Reagan really, but especially in the 90s.

The republican party today is not even remotely close to the founding principles. Time to call a spade, a spade.
The left has a way of moving to the center, the right has a way of moving further to the fringe right. Thats why I say Ron would have better traction in the Dem party than the Rep...Dems tend to bend more so long as some progress is felt. The evil obamacare today was the Reps plan in the 90s to oppose a universal healthcare plan. Just showing how the left is moving more and more to the center/right. Funny thing is, Ron and Rands social outlook (many aspects anyhow) are more liberal than the democratic partys stance...

Thing is, people tend to vote for 2 issues..economy and social issues. Ron's fame comes from his social stances, people to the left think he is a bit nutty about his fiscal sledgehammer approach and for good reason...but if elections are on social issues verses nuts and bolts, Ron would win a considerable amount more dems than reps.

posted on Sep, 22 2012 @ 04:30 PM
If you don't like it, then move. You'll never change it. Voting out incumbents and putting fresh meat into the corporate, corruption grinder will just be more of the same. You can't change human nature, I'm sorry.

edit on 22-9-2012 by TheLegend because: (no reason given)

posted on Sep, 22 2012 @ 04:39 PM
Our congress is owned by foreign nations. Until the money is taken out of politics foreign aid will never stop.

posted on Sep, 22 2012 @ 04:43 PM

Originally posted by macaronicaesar

Maybe you're confused, actually you most definitely are. The bill was to put restrictions on how that money could be spent, not close all accounts and bla bla bla.

Leave the hyperbole for Obama/Romney, it doesn't suit you well.

Prior to throwing words around calling people wrong......Do some research and make absolutely sure YOU are RIGHT. In this case.... I did read the bill in question and I do know what I am talking about. You are mistaken, and very clearly so. Allow me to help clarify the matters since, again, Major media doesn't even bother with a little detail like...what the bill number even was.

The bottom one is the issue Rand Paul put forward. It absolutely was to outright cut the aid to several nations. No if's, and's or buts about it. The provisions to the issue would then have allowed the State Department by way of the President to apply for an exemption to the prohibition of aid at a later date. I.E.... Aid gets cut now, and we'll talk later when things change.

Here is the actual text though, and's fairly clear and as extreme as I said in terms of having 0 chance for passage...yet making a public statement.

(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:

(1) The Government of Libya.
(2) The Government of Egypt.
(3) The Government of Pakistan.
(4) The Government of a host country of a United States diplomatic facility on the list submitted to Congress

(e) Request to Suspend Prohibition on Foreign Assistance-
(1) IN GENERAL- Except as provided under paragraph (2), upon submitting a certification under subsection (d) with respect to a Government described under subsection (b), the President may submit a request to Congress to suspend the prohibition on foreign assistance to the Government.

(2) PAKISTAN- No request under paragraph (1) may be submitted with respect to the Government of Pakistan until--
(A) Dr. Shakil Afridi has been released alive from prison in Pakistan;
(B) any criminal charges brought against Dr. Afridi, including treason, have been dropped; and
(C) if necessary to ensure his freedom, Dr. Afridi has been allowed to leave Pakistan alive.
(f) Expedited Consideration of Presidential Request-
Source - Full text

Now the devil is always in the details when we're talking about the words of Uncle Sammy and issues meant to be less than crystal. Rand Paul IS better than most on keeping his points short and direct...and the text here shows compared to what some would take 20 pages to say. However....reading the whole page and a half or so I've linked to for the literal text of the matter is still well worth the moment or two it takes. Just my two cents....

posted on Sep, 22 2012 @ 04:44 PM
reply to post by eLPresidente

I just called my Senator's office asking for an explanation. The recording says "all calls will be returned". We'll see. I've written my Rep and he's not once acknowledged me. He's not getting my vote in November even though I happen to agree with a lot of what he stands for.

I guess I'm not really shocked. Because really we pay a fraction of the income of our congressmen. Most of what they make is in the form of gifts (vacations, golf outings, expensive dinners) and tips on stocks and so forth. Ever wonder why these cats are worth so much more money when they get out of office? It's not because they were REALLY lucky with how they spent that 200K per year.

How can we take this republic back? I'm voting for whoever is NOT in office. I don't care what their party affiliation is. Thank God there is an independent running for Senator in my state. He's getting my vote. If you are a conservative rep I am voting against you. If you are a liberal senator, same deal.

The founding fathers never intended for these to be careers. You were suppose to run and if you won leave your farm or whatever for your term, server your country HONORABLY, and go back home. Why CAN'T we have term limits? 1 six year term for president. One 2-3 year term for a rep. One 4 year term as a Senator. THAT'S IT. You take one chip, you dip it, and that's it. No double dipping (thanks, Sienfeld!).

That Charlie Rangel still is allowed to vote for policies that impact all of us should make us all want to vomit. But there he is, shufflin and smilin like he has not a care in the world even though he's a freaking crook. Now I'm all worked up.

posted on Sep, 22 2012 @ 04:58 PM
reply to post by eLPresidente

Wrong. You can't live in an isolated world. Foreign aid is a must. The Ron Paul idiocy is just that ... idiocy.

posted on Sep, 22 2012 @ 05:02 PM
Watching the Senate and their shenanigans anymore is like watching a Looney Tunes Cartoon. I also did not realize that the Circus is holding continuous shows throughout the year in Washington DC... It 's like someone else stated... The American Citizens (Stressing the word Citizens) should matter first. Then if there is any leftovers, we all should have no problem assisting others in need. What about John and his family that are about to lose their house and will have to end up living in their van or worse? Shouldn't the District of Criminals be helping them first instead of another country? So I guess the old saying of "You can't Fix Stupid" still applies these days. Thank you to the following Senators that still have their priorities straight...


posted on Sep, 22 2012 @ 05:09 PM
Once you read the bill its pretty clear it would never pass. Of course I would bet 98% of the people here are ranting without even bothering to.

posted on Sep, 22 2012 @ 06:03 PM

Originally posted by FeatherofMaat
reply to post by eLPresidente

Wrong. You can't live in an isolated world. Foreign aid is a must. The Ron Paul idiocy is just that ... idiocy.

Food and medicine is a must but giving money isn't.

posted on Sep, 22 2012 @ 06:08 PM
Thinking about US foreign aid in the context of the emergence of China and a potential battle for ideological influence worldwide.

At this summer’s fifth Conference of the Forum on Africa-China Cooperation, the red dragon pledged $20 billion of new aid to the developing continent. That is more than spare change.

The Chinese commitment is symbolic of the dramatic paradigm shift taking place in foreign aid in the past decade. The BRICS economies — Brazil, Russia, India, China, and South Africa — are lending to countries that for decades relied on the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development-Development Assistance Committee (OECD-DAC), a group of Western and like-minded states commonly referred to as traditional donors. Increasingly, aid is emanating not only from the BRICS.

A second tier of emerging donors — South Korea, Venezuela, Indonesia, Saudi Arabia and Turkey, to name a few — also are playing a more prominent role in foreign aid. While the figures are hazy, a working paper by the Center for Global Development indicates that emerging powers contribute between $11 billion and $42 billion in aid each year. China, the largest emerging donor, gives out more money today than the World Bank, according to the Council on Foreign Relations‘ Elizabeth C. Economy. While the sheer volume is astounding, the reach of assistance also is expanding.

Is the US willing to cede influence to China in the sphere of the developing world?

If aid is being given honestly to assist poverty and sickness, then I don't have a problem with it.

I wouldn't vote about eliminating it completely, in any case. Just better implementation.

posted on Sep, 22 2012 @ 06:56 PM
I'd forgotten I had this around in bookmarks but I figured it was important to come back and share. It's a list of U.S. Foreign Aid broken down by nation, region, program and purpose. It's reasonably specific and makes the distinction between military and civil aid. It also notes, right off, 1/3rd of *ALL* U.S. Aid goes to Israel and Egypt as combined recipients.

U.S. Foreign Aid Summary

I'm not at all against what Ron Paul or Rand Paul seems to want. A reduction or elimination of foreign aid outside special circumstance like a natural disaster or war we're a part of. It just has to be done logically and with measured planning.

We've spent 60 years hooking the world on U.S. Dollars for AID like the heroin user. Now cutting that flow... as noted before...needs done deliberately and never in pure reaction mode to current events.

Paul's Bill also specifically would cut all aid to Egypt..and NOT Israel. That would, in short sighted good intentions, blow the whole balance of aid to the region and make war MORE certain, not less so. I hate the Middle East because it's like the old kid's game of pick-up sticks for unintended consequences and real care on 'how' as much as 'what' gets done, IMO.

posted on Sep, 22 2012 @ 08:11 PM
reply to post by eLPresidente

Ron Paul was and still is the godfather of the tea party and that is now taken over as a KOCH funded operation, I suppose you want to blame Ron Paul for that too?

Ron Paul is a scam artist and Koch minion himself.

Ted Cruz was endorsed by Paul long before any of the other tea party co-opting happened.

What does that have to do with Ted Cruz? Either way his campaign would be Goldman Sachs backed. How does it feel to support a GS candidate? You can't hate on people supporting Romney/Obama when you do the same in a different form.

I like how you sit there and snivel at every little thing, I still haven't heard any real alternatives from you, even though I asked you in another thread. Everybody has something to say until that something is an actual solution.

My solution would be to get every Tea Party member and their likes out of office and get more people like Alan Grayson/Dennis Kucinich elected.

posted on Sep, 22 2012 @ 08:19 PM
I would have voted to stop foreign aid.

There is one caveat. I'd restore it if the leaders said we didn't have to bow down to their religious nutcases and they'd expel all the extremists that are against America.

And not hold all Americans responsible for the actions of one man.

posted on Sep, 22 2012 @ 09:02 PM
reply to post by buster2010

And even then, giving a country the food and drugs it needs to feed and heal it's people only gets it sold, not eaten, quite often. It's more like we do need to help those in need, even out there, but everything we do does little good at all.

posted on Sep, 23 2012 @ 12:41 AM
A lot of foreign aid goes to US corporations, which are contracted to supply foreign militaries or rebuild countries.

posted on Sep, 23 2012 @ 12:44 AM
reply to post by RealSpoke

And considering how many people are upset at corporations getting deals cut with our government, you think that people would be more or less upset by this?

<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in