How does a Ron Paul administration handle foreign aid?

[FountainDew]

So we all know and agree on Dr. Paul's noninterventionist foreign policy and I think its great. I also agree with his trade policy in that we shouldn't grant special favor to any special group. But we all know this world is far from ideal, and even if Dr. Paul were to be elected into the White House in 2012, what kind of changes would be possible?

There are many places in the world where US intervention has helped countries chase out threats, dictator regimes, and whatnot. And whether or not they were justified is a whole other topic of discussion. My concern is that in those regions, the US government often promises aid in return for cooperation and has very often simply forgotten its promises.

For example, the Massoud government of Afghanistan could not have chased out the Soviets and Taliban were it not for US stinger missiles and joint CIA operations. During the events of this war, US aid trickled into this battered country. As soon as the conflict ended, the aid almost immediately stopped way short of the promised amount by the US government. So Afghanistan was left to pay the bill of rebuilding schools, homes, highways and hospitals. There is no where near enough money to rebuild these structures and tens of thousands of children have to go to school outdoors, water no longer runs from taps, and electricity does not light and heat homes at night.

These are very basic necessities to keep the region's stability and ensure a more educated and peaceful country in the future. These promises made by the US government to fund school projects are a matter of credibility and pride. I think that a promise made, should be a promise kept, even if the means are quite unconstitutional. Because we keep saying that we can never learn from our mistakes unless we let the problem fix itself. So send taxpayer money, have the problem fix itself, and stop promising money in the future. I hope that made sense?

So my point was that the mistake was made when promising this money to the people of Afghanistan, and by not fulfilling that promise we are simply allowing this behavior to go on. A promise made by the "father" should not be accountable to the "sons", but that isn't a good enough excuse to simply co-destroy a nation and say "hey, the government before me promised you money, not the one now" and brush our hands free of the matter, only to repeat it ten times over.

Do you think that if Ron Paul were president, he would go back to these countries and fulfill the promises made to these people? And if not, do you think its right to let the children of this country continue to suffer, uneducated and ignorant, making them perfect targets for Islamic fundamentalist madrassa's?

 

[brandon]

Do you think that if Ron Paul were president, he would go back to these countries and fulfill the promises made to these people?

no

And if not, do you think its right to let the children of this country continue to suffer, uneducated and ignorant, making them perfect targets for Islamic fundamentalist madrassa's?

It is not the government's job to make moral decisions. The decision of what is "right" and what is "wrong" (assuming no laws are being broken) ultimately is in the hands of the sovereign individual. If a person believes it is wrong to "let the children of this country continue to suffer", then they should help the children of that country. If a person does not care, then they should do nothing.

What IS wrong is for the united states government to forcefully take money from all of it's citizens to deliver to the leaders of a foreign country.

 

[brandon]

True Foreign Aid
Rep Ron Paul


​

A recent Hudson Institute study [.pdf] found that, last year, American citizens voluntarily contributed three times more to help people overseas than did the United States government. This should not surprise us at all, as Americans are generous to those in need, whether here or abroad. There are so many moral, religious, and human reasons to help our fellow men and women in need. It is only when government gets in the way and tries to crowd out private charity that problems arise.

There are good reasons why the U.S. Constitution does not allow our government to send taxpayer money overseas as foreign aid. One of the best is that coerced "charity" is not charity at all, but theft. If someone picks your pocket and donates the money to a good cause, it does not negate the original act of theft.

There are also practical reasons to oppose governmental foreign aid. Though it may be given with the best intentions, government agencies simply cannot do the kind of job that private charities do in actually helping people in need. Government-to-government assistance seldom helps those really in need. First, because it comes from governments, it usually has political strings attached to it, and as such is really a cover for political interventionism. Take our own National Endowment for Democracy, for example. The "aid" money it spends is usually spent trying to manipulate elections overseas so that a favored foreign political party wins "democratic" elections. This does no favor to citizens of foreign countries, who vote in the hope that they may choose their own leaders without outside interference.

Likewise with the so-called Millennium Challenge Account, which sends U.S. aid to countries that meet U.S.-determined economic reform criteria. The fact is, countries that enact solid economic policies will attract many times the amount of private foreign investment on international capital markets than they receive through the Millennium Challenge program.

Another problem is that when a government gives aid to another government, there are so many layers of middlemen involved that by the time the actual aid trickles down to those in need it is a small fraction of the original amount given. Not to mention that much of this aid finds its way into the pockets of corrupt foreign leaders.

Private assistance organizations, on the other hand, are more subject to market forces and thus much more effective. When Americans feel motivated to part with their hard-earned money to help someone overseas, they want to make sure it goes only to the most effective charities. Bad news travels fast, and private charities are unlikely to send their resources where they are likely to be wasted, because their contributions would soon dry up. We all recall what happened several years ago when it was revealed that the top management of a major charity organization was paid extremely high salaries: people stopped sending money. The problem corrected itself.

Sadly, this does not happen when government aid is mismanaged. More often than not, the very government agencies that mismanaged the assistance in the first place come back to Congress for a budget increase to solve the problem they created.

So we should be happy to hear that Americans are willing to give so much to help those less fortunate in foreign lands. And we should think hard about all the good we could do both at home and abroad if our government did not take so much from us for its ineffective and wasteful foreign aid priorities. True charity is never coerced.
http://www.antiwar.com/paul/?articleid=8926

 

[Truth Warrior]

Elect one and just find out.

 

[RSLudlum]

If you are really that worried about these problems then voluntarily support charities that are working to help these areas of the world...Hell, even devote your time and maybe even travel to those parts personally. I understand your concerns and we should redeem our past promises but in the future, I think we should be more devoted to ridding our own country of an education system that is being overrun by central planning socialistic fundamentalists before we try telling/helping citizens of other countries how to run/rebuild their own education systems. The historical record of governmental 'humanitarian' aid is riddled with reports of the funds being used and abused by the countries' corrupt gov'ts before the target recipeints get the funds ie the scraps left over.

 

[Kotin]

sorry! but redistribution of wealth is great.. unless it is enforced by the Government. than it is legal plunder.


NO FOREIGN AID.

If people want to help the third world.. go to a village somewhere, plant a shit load of hemp, tell them how to make medicine, fuel, clothes, and food, and building material from it and how to cultivate it, then give em a generator for the hemp fuel..

that would cost less than 6,000$$ and that would be completely possible if Government did not stand in the way like it always does!!!

there are a ton of great ideas, including foreign aid.. but as soon as Government gets involved it is wrong!

 

[FountainDew]

Hmm, I completely agree with the fundamental reasons for not sending over foreign aid to, for example, Afghanistan. I agree that it should not be done at the hand of governments, but I think my topic wasn't properly phrased. I'm not so interested as to how the money reaches the northern villages above Kabol, but why it must reach them. I think that a promise made, should be a promise kept, even if the means are quite unconstitutional. Because we keep saying that we can never learn from our mistakes unless we let the problem fix itself. So send taxpayer money, have the problem fix itself, and stop promising money in the future. I hope that made sense?

So my point was that the mistake was made when promising this money to the people of Afghanistan, and by not fulfilling that promise we are simply allowing this behavior to go on. A promise made by the "father" should not be accountable to the "sons",but that isn't a good enough excuse to simply co-destroy a nation and say "hey, the government before me promised you money, not the one now" and brush our hands free of the matter, only to repeat it ten times over.

 

[newyearsrevolution08]

How does a Ron Paul administration handle foreign aid?

when they call for a hand out ron paul then simply answers

"YOU ARE SHIT OUT OF LUCK!
NO HANDOUTS FOR YOU!
want a cookie? they are tasty."

 

[Kotin]

Hmm, I completely agree with the fundamental reasons for not sending over foreign aid to, for example, Afghanistan. I agree that it should not be done at the hand of governments, but I think my topic wasn't properly phrased. I'm not so interested as to how the money reaches the northern villages above Kabol, but why it must reach them. I think that a promise made, should be a promise kept, even if the means are quite unconstitutional. Because we keep saying that we can never learn from our mistakes unless we let the problem fix itself. So send taxpayer money, have the problem fix itself, and stop promising money in the future. I hope that made sense?

So my point was that the mistake was made when promising this money to the people of Afghanistan, and by not fulfilling that promise we are simply allowing this behavior to go on. A promise made by the "father" should not be accountable to the "sons",but that isn't a good enough excuse to simply co-destroy a nation and say "hey, the government before me promised you money, not the one now" and brush our hands free of the matter, only to repeat it ten times over.

no..


I would not have our President keep a promise that is UNCONSTITUTIONAL

the president has no authority nor does the Congress to appropriate foreign aid

 

[FountainDew]

no..


I would not have our President keep a promise that is UNCONSTITUTIONAL

the president has no authority nor does the Congress to appropriate foreign aid

So by our own logic of laissez-faire, we are not going to punish the US for this broken promise, so that it can repeat again and again?

How is it that you can object to the $750 billion bailout plan then? Yet, agree that the US deserves a bailout when it cannot pay what it owes? Either way, no punishment for misbehavior. Is this not what we call double standards?

 

[brandon]

So by our own logic of laissez-faire, we are not going to punish the US for this broken promise, so that it can repeat again and again?

How is it that you can object to the $750 billion bailout plan then? Yet, agree that the US deserves a bailout when it cannot pay what it owes? Either way, no punishment for misbehavior. Is this not what we call double standards?

Who are you punishing? And how do you get the authority to punish this entity? The government has no wealth. You're not punishing the people who broke their oath of office and promised foreign aid.

I would actually be alright with punishing the specific people who promised foreign aid. They should be prosecuted for treason.

 

[Kotin]

So by our own logic of laissez-faire, we are not going to punish the US for this broken promise, so that it can repeat again and again?

How is it that you can object to the $750 billion bailout plan then? Yet, agree that the US deserves a bailout when it cannot pay what it owes? Either way, no punishment for misbehavior. Is this not what we call double standards?

your putting words in my mouth.. when did I say anything of bailing out the US?


I want NO bailouts.. because they are all theft..


maybe you dont get it, the big picture..


In a Constitutional sized Government.. it is a cold machine who does all the monatanous, boring, administrative stuff.. nothing big at all..

where it is real public service.. where everything that the Government does currently like foreign aid and humanitarian missions are once again in the hands of the people. where it should be!

dont you get that Government is always flawed and cannot function well in any venture it undertakes.. because you have beaurocrats making decisions that should be made by Doctors, and Private industry and the Free Market.. but more importantly they are making decisions are things they have no understanding of!

Government always fails at what the people do best!

 

[FountainDew]

-- "I want NO bailouts.. because they are all theft...maybe you dont get it, the big picture...In a Constitutional sized Government.. it is a cold machine who does all the monatanous, boring, administrative stuff.. nothing big at all.. "

My topic was about a real government, not the kind found in writting. Because as I said, the world is faaaar from ideal. Unfortunate for both me and you, this issue is far more complicated than paraphrasing what is seen in a brilliant manifesto!

-- "Who are you punishing?"
-- "Government always fails at what the people do best!"

The failures of government reflect the people who voted it in whether we agree on that or not, its the reality. Outside the US, other countries see it as an entity, a "United States" if you will. Their concern for better relations does not deal with who made what promise when where and why. Its that a promise was made, and a promise was broken. The obligation falls on this entity, the same way Enron's corruption fell on its unfortunate employees who suffered their execs. It was then the obligation of the employees to bring justice by suing those responsible. That's what I see as punishment.

-- "And how do you get the authority to punish this entity?"

Well there isn't a plausible way. The Bush admin got away with everything for eight years without punishment being enforced. That's why if I saw a truly constitutional president come into office, I think he or she would be destined to fail. Because his or her first responsibility would be to clean up the decades of corrupt behavior by punishing the people he's sworn to lead. They would want his head!!!

 

[Kotin]

-

Well there isn't a plausible way. The Bush admin got away with everything for eight years without punishment being enforced. That's why if I saw a truly constitutional president come into office, I think he or she would be destined to fail. Because his or her first responsibility would be to clean up the decades of corrupt behavior by punishing the people he's sworn to lead. They would want his head!!!

lets give up then.

 

[FountainDew]

lets give up then.

Not a chance! I just wanted to see if punishment for broken promises would align with what Ron Paul stands for, but its overwhelmingly no for reasons already listed.

Its sad, it only costs about $20,000 to put a brand new school fully furnished into a the hands of 5,000 very deserving village children, and honestly if only a fraction of the money that the US Bureaucrats promised to Afghanistan were donated to charities like the Central Asia Institute, it would directly attack the war on terror at its roots. Instead of fighting the war on terror with bombs (which begets more terror), we should have fought the war with books.

But don't get me wrong, I want Osama Bin Laden's head.

 

[Truth Warrior]

Not a chance! I just wanted to see if punishment for broken promises would align with what Ron Paul stands for, but its overwhelmingly no for reasons already listed.

Its sad, it only costs about $20,000 to put a brand new school fully furnished into a the hands of 5,000 very deserving village children, and honestly if only a fraction of the money that the US Bureaucrats promised to Afghanistan were donated to charities like the Central Asia Institute, it would directly attack the war on terror at its roots. Instead of fighting the war on terror with bombs (which begets more terror), we should have fought the war with books.

But don't get me wrong, I want Osama Bin Laden's head.

So just collect voluntary contributions and build the schools. Where's the problems?

 

[The_Orlonater]

So we all know and agree on Dr. Paul's noninterventionist foreign policy and I think its great. I also agree with his trade policy in that we shouldn't grant special favor to any special group. But we all know this world is far from ideal, and even if Dr. Paul were to be elected into the White House in 2012, what kind of changes would be possible?

As sad as it is, he won't be president.

There are many places in the world where US intervention has helped countries chase out threats, dictator regimes, and whatnot. And whether or not they were justified is a whole other topic of discussion. My concern is that in those regions, the US government often promises aid in return for cooperation and has very often simply forgotten its promises.

For example, the Massoud government of Afghanistan could not have chased out the Soviets and Taliban were it not for US stinger missiles and joint CIA operations. During the events of this war, US aid trickled into this battered country. As soon as the conflict ended, the aid almost immediately stopped way short of the promised amount by the US government. So Afghanistan was left to pay the bill of rebuilding schools, homes, highways and hospitals. There is no where near enough money to rebuild these structures and tens of thousands of children have to go to school outdoors, water no longer runs from taps, and electricity does not light and heat homes at night.

Now the Taliban have those weapons and they are doing a fantastic job.

These are very basic necessities to keep the region's stability and ensure a more educated and peaceful country in the future. These promises made by the US government to fund school projects are a matter of credibility and pride. I think that a promise made, should be a promise kept, even if the means are quite unconstitutional. Because we keep saying that we can never learn from our mistakes unless we let the problem fix itself. So send taxpayer money, have the problem fix itself, and stop promising money in the future. I hope that made sense?

Not the government's job.

So my point was that the mistake was made when promising this money to the people of Afghanistan, and by not fulfilling that promise we are simply allowing this behavior to go on. A promise made by the "father" should not be accountable to the "sons", but that isn't a good enough excuse to simply co-destroy a nation and say "hey, the government before me promised you money, not the one now" and brush our hands free of the matter, only to repeat it ten times over.

Do you think that if Ron Paul were president, he would go back to these countries and fulfill the promises made to these people? And if not, do you think its right to let the children of this country continue to suffer, uneducated and ignorant, making them perfect targets for Islamic fundamentalist madrassa's?

No.

 

[FountainDew]

So just collect voluntary contributions and build the schools. Where's the problems?

The problem is that we've all nearly forgotten these people (and therefore who is willingly going to donate to a forgotten cause?) after so closely building bonds and friendships (along with bombing away their country). The only way to live up to an old promise is to just do it, instead of beating the bush with rhetoric. These are teacher's wages and schools promised to be built six years ago, that are long overdue. A debt that was supposed to be paid for the Afghan's open cooperation. It's like hiring a Sherpa to climb up K2 or Everest with you and you tell him you'll pay his money once your down the mountain, but instead drop a few hundred rupee and bolt out of the country.

Ron Paul talks about rebuilding credibility all the time, so I thought this issue would be part of his concern. To regain credibility in Central Asia, and ease tensions in Afghanistan, Pakistan and Iran. So that there might actually be a prospect of peace in the future. But I suppose since literally no one here has been over there, I can't expect a single person to care about something as minor as peace.

 

[RSLudlum]

Instead of fighting the war on terror with bombs (which begets more terror), we should have fought the war with books.

I agree with you, knowledge is quite a weapon, but it's also the biggest enemy of the state; so good luck with the gov't droppin knowledge, unless of course it is overtly pro-state propaganda disguised as 'knowledge'.

 

[SeanEdwards]

The problem is that we've all nearly forgotten these people (and therefore who is willingly going to donate to a forgotten cause?)

So your argument is that since persuasion and reason are inadequate tools to convince people to voluntarily help the needy, that government force should be used to MAKE people "help".

Well, you're not alone in that view, unfortunately. And the whole world is reaping the benefits of this misguided Wilsonian worldview.

The responsibility of the American government is to protect the liberty of Americans. It is not our government's responsibility to soothe and comfort unfortunate people around the world. That's a ridiculous unachievable utopian notion that needs to be buried forever, regardless of your frequent fallacious appeals to emotion.