45 votes

Rand Paul's foreign aid views rile colleagues

"For months, Paul has been trying to stop US financial assistance to Pakistan until that nation releases Dr. Shakil Afridi, imprisoned by the government after he helped find Osama bin Laden, who was subsequently killed by American forces.

Kentucky’s junior senator also wants to stop aid to Libya and Egypt until they apprehend those responsible for the recent attacks on US diplomatic posts. In Libya, four Americans, including Ambassador Chris Stevens, were killed.

“The vast majority of the Senate is going to vote for unlimited, unrestricted foreign aid,” Paul said in Senate floor remarks. “I will probably lose this vote, but ... when we go home and ask our friends: ‘Should we be sending money to countries that disrespect us, to countries that burn our flag?’ I think most will find that 80 to 90 percent of the American people wouldn’t send another penny.

“That may be why Congress has about a 10 percent approval rating,” the senator added. “They don’t get it.”


Trending on the Web

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.


When Rand Paul brought up this issue, he pointed out that we spend four billion dollars on these three countries alone. Numbers often go by without much thought, but the more I thought about it, that's really a staggering number. For the U.S. government to pay four billion dollars, that's the equivalent of 100,000 households that make $40 thousand a year having to give 100% of their income to the government--only to have it given to foreign countries. Imagine how much that money alone could do to help our economy if it was simply left in the hands of average citizens.

The article says that our foreign aid is "only" one percent of the federal budget. Well, it's still a huge number, and that's an awful lot of people who could use the money here in America. If we find one percent here and one percent there to cut, eventually it adds up to a significant chunk. But if we say every single thing is only one percent, two percent, etc., then nothing ever gets cut, and the spending continues to grow.

"The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary." --H. L. Mencken

10% Approval???

10% Approval??? That statistic always baffles me. The US people's approval of Hugo Chavez is about the same. To the American people Hugo Chavez = Congress!!!

Here's a graphic I made regarding this:


In memory of our God, our religion, and freedom, and our peace, and our posterity"

www.FailGov.org | www.facebook.com/FailGov | www.twitter.com/FailGov_org

We should be contacting ALL of our state representatives

about not supporting foreign aid, especially to the war-prone Middle East.

Rand,How about cutting


How about cutting foreign aid to countries that kill American servicemen, shell and torpedo our boats while assisting in destroying our buildings which cost the lives of thousands of our fellow Americans? ;)

Rand only got 10 votes on his

Rand only got 10 votes on his foreign aid bill. So for Rand to actually cut any foreign aid, he would have to totally water down the bill and say, cut foreign aid by only 1%, then it might pass, and that probably wouldn't either. And if it did, Obama would veto it, so I'm not sure exactly what you want Rand to do.

Thomas Jefferson 1796, 1800, 1804; James Madison 1808, 1812; Ron Paul 1988, 2008, 2012; Rand Paul 2016.

It may appear Rand is

It may appear Rand is singling out 3 countries(even that would be a start) but notice Mcain's response...where he mentions the ammendment is loosely enough worded to apply to other countries as well. I for one am proud of Rand for fighting the good fight in the 90% corrupt senate. I wish he were a Senator in my state....no, I get Bob Corker and Llamar Alexander...a couple hardcore neocons who wont even co-sponsor the audit the fed bill(I have called their offices a dozen times) I will definately be voting against corker this election...regardless of his opposition they cant vote much more collectivist than him.

Im with you on that, my entire families jaw dropped

To find that Corker and Alexander both voted for NDAA, as well as the extension of the patriot act. Seems they have already been given the sacred promise of riches and wealth on the backs of the American people. Duncan is my rep here in East TN and he sends out newsletters every quarter and he sounds like Dr. Paul in them. He calls the neo cons neo cons, and points out the problems we face directly, but he is alone in the wilderness here in the buckle of the bible belt where Bill O. is a God as well as the feel good local media with zero true journalism, only parroting Fox news. I thought perhaps Dr. Paul stood a chance on an even playing field, but no dice, at least in a state #1 in political corruption one rep that is a solid patriot, and lover of the constitution, he needs our support at every turn, John Duncan Jr..

Always remember:
"It does not require a majority to prevail, but rather an irate, tireless minority keen to set brush fires in people's minds." ~ Samuel Adams
If they hate us for our freedom, they must LOVE us now....

Stay IRATE, remain TIRELESS, an

hope for tn?

All tn congressmen supported the audit. Neither senator will. I guess they figured out its cheaper to buy 100 senators.

In a way Rand's position is WORSE...

than other senators. Not only is he NOT taking a principled position against all foreign aid, he is singling out 3 countries in order to make an example of them and to reinforce the belief that U.S. aid should be used as a tool to force countries to do whatever we want... a policy which Ron Paul speaks adamantly against!

I think the singling out, was his amedement to his bill

that was rejected.

His original bill was wide open.

He's taking a stand. That's

He's taking a stand. That's more than any other Senator is doing.

Rand did a great job on this.

As disappointed as I am with his pandering to the Ron Paul-hating rat Sean Hannity, I give him many kudos for forcing the Senate to expose themselves with this vote.

It failed 81-10 I believe.

So those 81 rotted shysters are going to have to explain why they are stealing our hard-earned tax dollars and giving it away to ANYONE - let alone nations who hate our guts.

"We have allowed our nation to be over-taxed, over-regulated, and overrun by bureaucrats. The founders would be ashamed of us for what we are putting up with."
-Ron Paul

We have been pouring money into the Middle East

For decades. The region is more unstable than it has been in decades.

Arms have been flowing into the Middle East in the past couple of years faster than any other region.

The Afghans are turning the arms given to them by the U.S. on our own soldiers.

No, it's not a good strategy to supply foreign aid, especially military aid.

The big welfare checks we give to the Egyptians, Israelis, Palestinians, Pakistanis, etc. should be eliminated. What true conservative supports welfare on such a massive level?

I find RP and Rand Paul

(along with most RP supporters) to be naive on the issue of nukes.

RP likes to remind us the cold war nukes containment with USSR. The doctor and the son do not see the reality: CIA pays $6B to Pakistan in order to keep somewhat secular government there. CIA pays nothing to socialist government of India. Both India and Pakistan have nukes and are bitter enemies.

Since CIA wont be able to bribe Iranian mullahs, academic idle talk about rational mullahs is kinda weak.

The foreign interventions are the problem

Our government propped up an unelected military dictatorship with billions in aid, thus helping to incite a religious opposition that has gotten more and more radical.

If we don't send them money, the government fails and the nukes fall in the hands of some other group that may or may not be rational. If we continue to send them money, there WILL be a violent overthrow and the nukes WILL fall into the hands of a very radical element.

You need to recognize the damage that foreign aid does and then vow to stop it!

Still trolling Liberty First?

The subject is not nukes, it's foreign aid.

Pakistan has a long tradition of secular governments. Long before the U.S. started sending aid.

If the U.S. liked secular governments, why attack Libya, Iraq or Syria?

Your arguments are crap.

Look at who resisted Paul

McCain, Graham, Kerry, Feinstein.....

What a bunch of losers. Man alive LOL

Senate Votes 90-1 On Iran Resolution (VIDEO)

Senate Votes 90-1 On Iran Resolution (VIDEO)

"On Saturday (Sept. 22) the U.S. Senate voted 90 to 1 to pass a non-binding resolution that would prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons. The lone senator voting against the resolution was Rand Paul, son of Ron Paul the well-known libertarian. Rand Paul argued that the resolution was de-facto a declaration that the U.S. would wage a pre-emptive war.



Rand Paul sole vote against U.S. Senate resolution on Iran

Read more: http://www.digitaljournal.com/article/333417#ixzz281BMX49n

Thomas Jefferson 1796, 1800, 1804; James Madison 1808, 1812; Ron Paul 1988, 2008, 2012; Rand Paul 2016.

Those reps in our government

do not represent We The People!
They are bought and paid for gangsters who hate us for our liberties and freedoms!
They, are the real terrorists, and YES, Senator Paul, sadly, they do "get it"
Thank you for your standing tall for us!

" In Thee O Lord do I put my trust " ~ Psalm 31:1~

I agree,

but I don't favor sending a dime of our federal tax dollars to ANY foreign country. Especially when that money is essentially a ransom.

I love it!

Go Senator Paul!

I am!