Rands amendment to fund FEMA by cutting foreign aid fails 20-78

jct74

Moderator
Staff member
Joined
May 20, 2010
Messages
14,303
Rand's amendment to fund FEMA by cutting foreign aid fails 20-78

Press release:

Senate Votes on Sen. Paul’s Disaster Funding Amendment

Sep 15, 2011

WASHINGTON, D.C. - Today Sen. Rand Paul introduced, and the Senate voted on, an amendment to offset funding for federal disaster aid through cuts to foreign spending. The amendment was not agreed to, with a final vote of 20-78.

"Increasing our national debt at a time when our country is in financial dire straits is irresponsible and a dereliction of our responsibility to the American people. By cutting from the coffers that fund overseas welfare and nation-building and injecting that funding into disaster assistance for Americans, we are able to continue disaster assistance commitments to communities without borrowing on the backs of our children and grandchildren," Sen. Paul said.

http://paul.senate.gov/?p=press_release&id=323
 
Last edited:
Here is The Hill on the vote:

Preceding the second amendment vote, which would defund 10 percent of USAID, Sen. Paul remarked that foreign aid is "opposed by 77 percent of Americans" and that any money given away would be borrowed anyway.

"Even if you thought it was a good idea to give welfare to foreign countries, you don't have it," he said to his colleagues.

In a rebuttal, Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman John Kerry (D-Mass.) rejected Paul's argument that foreign aid is like welfare.

"Foreign aid is an investment in our national security. It is not a gift to other countries," he said.

"This amendment would be absolutely devastating to our foreign aid and development programs. It would decimate agencies that have already taken huge funding cuts in fiscal year '11, and would completely undermine core national security priorities and humanitarian commitments."

http://thehill.com/blogs/floor-action/senate/181901-senate-rejects-gop-amendments-to-burmafema-bill
 
"Foreign aid is an investment in our national security. It is not a gift to other countries," he said. (Sen. Kerry)

Uhm, so basically if we don't give money away people will attack us? We're the wimp getting his lunch money taken away by threats?
 
"Foreign aid is an investment in our national security. It is not a gift to other countries," he said. (Sen. Kerry)

Uhm, so basically if we don't give money away people will attack us? We're the wimp getting his lunch money taken away by threats?

kerry just admitted to using taxpayer money to bribe middle eastern dictators
 
Ron's philosophy set to legislative action? Pretty cool if you think about it.
 
I think this really shows that the Democrats are even worse on foreign policy issues than the Republicans are. People here often complain about neo-conservatives in the Republican Party, but I think the liberal internationalists are even worse.
 
I think this really shows that the Democrats are even worse on foreign policy issues than the Republicans are. People here often complain about neo-conservatives in the Republican Party, but I think the liberal internationalists are even worse.

Don't forget that this is exactly from whence the neocons came. They just saw the chance to infiltrate and take over the conservative movement and so they did it.

We also have the Rockefeller-Republicans, who are nothing but liberal internationalists too.
 
Aid to FEMA will pass no matter what, and I'm sure Team Rand knows this. By proposing a bill to show hardly anyone is willing to cut foreign welfare to fund it, is brilliant politically speaking, imo.
Yeah, I understand what he was doing...I just don't like his tactic. It reminds me of how he wrote amendments into the renewal of the PATRIOT ACT instead of just trying to stop it fully.
 
Yeah, I understand what he was doing...I just don't like his tactic. It reminds me of how he wrote amendments into the renewal of the PATRIOT ACT instead of just trying to stop it fully.

I don't understand how the entire Patriot Act is controversial to people. Certain parts of the Patriot Act simply enhance border security and allow our intelligence agencies to communicate more effectively with each other. How can anybody object to that? Rand's amendments fixed all of the problems with the Patriot Act, so if his amendments would've passed, there wouldn't have been anything wrong with the bill.
 
Vote for America, congress certainly has their priorities way the fuck off. Not a fan of any welfare but that is pretty telling right there,
 
McConnell voted Nay. ugh.

Aid to FEMA will pass no matter what, and I'm sure Team Rand knows this. By proposing a bill to show hardly anyone is willing to cut foreign welfare to fund it, is brilliant politically speaking, imo.

i agree.

i also agree with the notion that this money, as far as it is for national security purposes, is nothing more than protection money or lunch money given over to the bullies that, for whatever reason, we havent set our military targets on just yet. give me a break. national security?
 
Lexington Herald-Leader shoots down Rand's already dead proposal, what a suprise. :rolleyes: In fact, they say if we only spent MORE on foreign aid, then we could really save some money! :rolleyes:

http://www.kentucky.com/2011/09/20/1889499/foreign-aid-helps-us-too.html

Yes, there are urgent needs at home — infrastructure and education come to mind. But if diplomacy, backed by foreign aid dollars, can avert the kinds of crises that require the much costlier exercise of military force, we'll save money in the end.

True thrift might even dictate an increase in the State Department's budget.
 
"Foreign aid is an investment in our national security. It is not a gift to other countries," he said. (Sen. Kerry)

Uhm, so basically if we don't give money away people will attack us? We're the wimp getting his lunch money taken away by threats?
Well, what he means is that military funding for our allies allows them to capture/kill/deter our enemies. The error here is that we don't have any significantly dangerous enemies right now.
 
Yeah, I understand what he was doing...I just don't like his tactic. It reminds me of how he wrote amendments into the renewal of the PATRIOT ACT instead of just trying to stop it fully.
Eh?? He did both. If you want to kill a bill, you use a two-pronged approach.

1. Vote against the bill and try to get others to as well.
2. Try to limit the damage of the bill as much as possible, or try to get some kind of other victory.

Rand did both of these things.
 
Back
Top