How does a Ron Paul administration handle foreign aid?

[Truth Warrior]

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.

So many worthy causes, so little money. Se la vie. Do what YOU can. BTW, our local tragedy and problem platter is more than overflowing too.

 

[FountainDew]

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.

What a strange wingnut response. Somehow moral responsibility is "ridiculous, misguided, needs to be buried, and fallacious." Somebody's gears are all rusty and needs some lube. Luckily I've gotten used to your type. The first post set the condition: America bombed Afghanistan and promised aid in return. This was a transaction. These "unfortunate" people were created with YOUR tax dollars. And so their suffering can end with your tax dollars. This is what most people would call "fairness." And with your double standards, your saying its fine to bomb them with your dollars, but not fine to help them with the same money. Hypocrite.

 

[Truth Warrior]

What a strange wingnut response. Somehow moral responsibility is "ridiculous, misguided, needs to be buried, and fallacious." Somebody's gears are all rusty and needs some lube. Luckily I've gotten used to your type. The first post set the condition: America bombed Afghanistan and promised aid in return. This was a transaction. These "unfortunate" people were created with YOUR tax dollars. And so their suffering can end with your tax dollars. This is what most people would call "fairness." And with your double standards, your saying its fine to bomb them with your dollars, but not fine to help them with the same money. Hypocrite.

Hey, the corrupt D.C. crowd just lies and cheats and has lied to and cheated us ALL too.

 

[free_mail]

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.

I am "over there" right now. Although I'm just a grunt and have no knowledge of the higher workings, I do know that for the most part, the LN (local nationals) are using us as welfare. I would say a good number of LNs come onto the FOB on a daily basis. They get paid way more then they would out in the "real world" while getting away with barely doing any work. I know I've had to escort a few of them. Maybe they don't represent the country as a whole but the majority I've been around are lazy. Extremely lazy.

As far as the overall question, no, I don't believe we should fulfill past promises that were made unconstitutionally. What are we to do, continue to dump money into these countries as our economy goes to hell? As others have said, it's not the Government's job. As always, this goes into my core belief that some people believe the Government needs to FORCE people to do good. If no one cares try to make them care. Be active! Make a difference. The Government WILL fail every time.

 

[SeanEdwards]

What a strange wingnut response. Somehow moral responsibility is "ridiculous, misguided, needs to be buried, and fallacious." Somebody's gears are all rusty and needs some lube. Luckily I've gotten used to your type. The first post set the condition: America bombed Afghanistan and promised aid in return. This was a transaction. These "unfortunate" people were created with YOUR tax dollars. And so their suffering can end with your tax dollars. This is what most people would call "fairness." And with your double standards, your saying its fine to bomb them with your dollars, but not fine to help them with the same money. Hypocrite.

A transaction?

WTF kind of transaction is that? A transaction implies an exchange between two parties, but what you described was not an exchange of anything.

It wasn't a transaction. It was simply another example in the long history of American global imperialism. And I'm supposed to feel some responsibility for perpetuating that evil and stupid philosophy? No thanks, I'll pass.

And the whole premise behind this blow somebody up, and then hand them money is just retarded. It's like the act of a madman. "Hey, I'm real sorry about shooting you in the face, can I offer you a snapple?" How about not shooting the guy in the first place? Or, if the guy really deserves to be shot, then why feel guilty about it afterwards?

I gotta admire your tour-de-force exhibition of knuckleheadedness though. Your prescription seems to be, "blow the fuck out of third world shitholes, and then make sure any survivors become serfs dependent on largess from Washington D.C." I've got an idea, why don't we just leave the goatfuckers alone and let them live their goatfucker lives?

You know where this bomb people and then distribute largess idea comes from? It's straight out of Machiavelli's playbook for monarchs on how to conquer a foreign people. And that's what you're advocating. While perched on a fake-ass moral high horse. Fuck you.

 

[Danke]

I gotta admire your tour-de-force exhibition of knuckleheadedness though.

Anyway, I think he is saying, you break it, you fix it. Not that we should continue to break things in the future.

But, the question is, how long do we try to fix it, and can we?

I'd say, just get the fuck out. If they want to sue us for damages, so be it.

 

[Zippyjuan]

I was trying to find where in the Constitution foreign aid is deemed illegal. I find things about the President having powers to appoint ambasadors and to negotiate treaties. Congress gets to ratify treaties and decide on spending (foreign aid would come under spending which they are authorized to do).

When this country was struggling to even form, we sought and accepted foreign aid ourselves.

Ron Paul blamed 9/11 on blowback from bad US actions. Well good US actions can have positive blow-back too. When you regularly do good things, treat all others both the same and fairly and live up to your word you gain influence and friends and support. If a tragedy happens in some country and all of the other countries in the world lend support, how does it look if the US, the richest country on the planet, says "no, we won't give anything. We will just let our citizens take care of what they want to on their own"- is that beneficial to us? Will that help the value of our currency if people do not respect us and want to hold dollars?

We live in a global situation with a global economy. We are not self sufficient (certainly not in terms of energy) and cannot survive without taking part in dealings with the rest of the world. Foreign aid can be a tool to help us to maintain a position of positive influence in that world. Is all foreign aid money wisely spent? Given that we cannot make that claim about domestic spending, probably not. But we do gain benefits from it.

 

[Mini-Me]

I was trying to find where in the Constitution foreign aid is deemed illegal. I find things about the President having powers to appoint ambasadors and to negotiate treaties. Congress gets to ratify treaties and decide on spending (foreign aid would come under spending which they are authorized to do).

Are you seriously reading the Constitution in such a way that any power not explicitly denied is granted? Actually, Congress may only spend tax money on those powers explicitly enumerated in Article I, Section 8. By limiting those things which Congress may spend tax money on, the Founding Fathers intended not only to limit the influence and power of government but also to indirectly limit the amount of tax money Congress might collect (by making sure they can't continually find new things to blow money on). Foreign aid is not covered...not by a longshot. From a Constitutional point of view, legal treaties are only those which do not bind the government to perform an unconstitutional action. The executive branch can negotiate treaties and Congress can ratify them, but they are still supposed to be bound by the chains of the Constitution. Treaties are not supposed to take precedence over the supreme law of the land.

When this country was struggling to even form, we sought and accepted foreign aid ourselves.

Ron Paul blamed 9/11 on blowback from bad US actions. Well good US actions can have positive blow-back too. When you regularly do good things, treat all others both the same and fairly and live up to your word you gain influence and friends and support. If a tragedy happens in some country and all of the other countries in the world lend support, how does it look if the US, the richest country on the planet, says "no, we won't give anything. We will just let our citizens take care of what they want to on their own"- is that beneficial to us? Will that help the value of our currency if people do not respect us and want to hold dollars?

There's nothing wrong with giving to poor people...what's wrong is a government stealing from its own people to give to poor people...or worse, to the regimes keeping the poor people down. Clearly you can see the difference? Clearly you can see how government officials are not being charitable whatsoever when they spend someone else's money on foreign aid? In addition, the way the government spends foreign aid money is generally counterproductive, because what we really do is prop up brutal but "friendly" regimes, rather than help people who actually need it.

We live in a global situation with a global economy. We are not self sufficient (certainly not in terms of energy) and cannot survive without taking part in dealings with the rest of the world. Foreign aid can be a tool to help us to maintain a position of positive influence in that world. Is all foreign aid money wisely spent? Given that we cannot make that claim about domestic spending, probably not. But we do gain benefits from it.

Do we? It depends on how the money is spent. Given the government's track record, I'm willing to bet our foreign aid causes more ill will towards us than good, from the people we're helping to oppress. Remember that arming both Israel and Arab countries falls into the definition of "aid" as well. We are not self-sufficient (although we could be), but it is not necessary for our government to illegally take from its people to give foreign countries free money just so that we can have good enough relations to continue global trade. The very concept is absolutely ridiculous, and using the "global economy" as an excuse for foreign aid is an illogical argument. Sure, participating in a global economy is necessary for foreign aid to be a good idea, but it is not nearly sufficient. No, if we simply stayed out of the internal affairs of other countries, they would be plenty happy to trade with us, because trade is mutually beneficial all by itself...and I seriously doubt very many people would bother risking or sacrificing their lives to harm us in such a scenario, either.

 

[Athan]

You want to give foreign aid? Create an online site that collects donations from Americans who want to help and send YOUR money. Not mine. My money isn't yours or the governments to give.

 

[carlangaslangas]

If congress authorized the foreign aid and a bill approving funding was passed to that effect, then it should be enforced, as any other law, as long as it's not found unconstitutional.
FountainDew, do you know if such a bill was passed? You can look it up online at www.house.gov. If there's a bill then you might have a point and you can write to your congressman.