Skip to comments.Rand Paul: Less Aid to Israel Would Increase Its Sovereignty
Posted on 01/07/2013 5:49:38 PM PST by Olog-hai
click here to read article
Just because defense is in the constitution doesn’t mean everything we do in the name of it is necessary, let alone constitutional. I hardly see how subsidizing Israel is defense at all, except through the contortions and back flips of neoconservative logic, which isn’t very convincing.
In a perfect world all the various wealth redistribution schemes since the New Deal would die before one cent is taken from constitutionally empowered spending. But this foot-stamping of supposed conservatives should their favorite programs tighten belts sounds an awful lot like welfare for me and not for thee. We must be willing to sacrifice what we like, too, if we are ever to curb debt.
Oil created extremist Islamic ascendancy and can destroy Israel. A U.S. counter-balance is required.
The only Middle East foreign aid that Paul should discuss cutting is to Egypt and Pakistan, if they don't behave. Further, any aid they do receive should be non-military, so as not to affect the balance of power.
It seems to be working out pretty well for Obama and his ilk. So why not?
Over 50% of our countrymen voted for him. The 'Rat majority appears to be here to stay. As far as I'm concerned, the last election was the final straw.
I don't see a single reason to care at this point.
I have a thing about reading the posted articles.
If you want to be just like Obama, then by all means feel that way. I’m sure that Obama is just fine with such a ready surrender as that. It’s always darkest just before when?
You sure you are on the right forum?
Part of that makes sense, sort of. The rest, not so much.
I hardly see how subsidizing Israel is defense at all,
They're our staunch ally, in one of the most important and dangerous parts of the world, an area that doesn't contain that many reliable allies. It's hard for me to fathom how anyone could fail to see that.
except through the contortions and back flips of neoconservative logic, which isnt very convincing.
"Neoconservative." Whatever that means this week.
In a perfect world all the various wealth redistribution schemes since the New Deal would die before one cent is taken from constitutionally empowered spending.
No. Not in a perfect world. In a world in which American politicians, including Rand Paul, paid due regard to their constitutional oaths of office.
But this foot-stamping of supposed conservatives should their favorite programs tighten belts sounds an awful lot like welfare for me and not for thee.
Defense isn't welfare, and I'm not foot-stomping for anything.
We must be willing to sacrifice what we like, too, if we are ever to curb debt.
What anyone "likes" is completely irrelevant. The only things that matter are constitutionality and what is required for those who represent us in government to fulfill their primary task, which is the defense of the lives, the liberty, the property, the sovereignty, and the security of the American people.
Maybe we should use that logic with the United States and China. I wonder if he thinks that would be a good idea too!
Without morals a republic cannot subsist any length of time; they therefore who are decrying the Christian religion, whose morality is so sublime & pure, [and] which denounces against the wicked eternal misery, and [which] insured to the good eternal happiness, are undermining the solid foundation of morals, the best security for the duration of free governments.
Charles Carrollton, signatory of Declaration of Independence
Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports. And let us with caution indulge the supposition that morality can be maintained without religion.
We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion. Our constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.
Good point - and you're right that Senator Paul preconditioned the idea upon first eliminating aid to Israel's (and our) enemies. Just a few years ago, the very same point was made by none other than my hero Benjamin Netanyahu.
Like the crippling dependency of transfer recipients upon the welfare state, Israel's dependency upon American tax dollars limits the sovereignty of the Jewish state to whatever extent Washington allows. Over time, such power has corrupted the benefactor to the point that DC now conditions its aid upon heavy handed micromanagement of Israel's internal affairs. "Take the Queen's shilling, do the Queen's bidding."
It would be healthier if Israel was free to tell Washington to pound sand.
...Yarden Gazit of the Jerusalem Institute for Market Studies noted that the bulk of the US aid to Israel is for defense purposes, and that according to the stipulations of that aid, Israel must spend 75 percent of the money on US-made weapons and defense systems.
The American aid is also part of a bundle that includes military aid to Egypt, Jordan and Saudi Arabia, countries over which Israel must maintain a qualitative military edge. So, the US provides Israel with the funds to keep its military on top, but at the same time constantly upgrades the surrounding Arab armies to make sure Israel must continuously buy new American weapons.
Gazit explained that the $3 billion from the US is not enough to cover that expense. For example, every dollar granted to Egypt requires Israel to spend between 1.6 and 2.1 dollars to maintain the balance of power. As a result, every dollar granted to Israel costs Israel between 1.06 and 1.39 dollars.
By forcing Israel to buy most of its military equipment in the US, Washington is also saddling the Israeli defense industry with an annual loss of $750 million. And because Israel doesnt buy the systems made by its own defense industry, that hurts the ability of those Israeli contractors to sell their wares abroad...
Did ya'll not read the article?
I know what he has said in the past and I know what his dad has said , hence my statement.
Rand is smarter than his dad and he seems less nuttier too.
Pardon me, when did borrowing money on the backs of U.S. taxpayers to give to another country become a 'core principle' of conservatives?
Paul is in favor of ending welfare, at home and abroad. I thought that was a conservative principle.
Try reading the article sometime:
"The Kentucky senator said that first, aid would have to be pulled from questionably friendly countries such as Egypt and Pakistan before considering how and when to start cutting the flow of money to Israel."
His first target is a globe spanning empire that we can't afford.
If you want to pay for Germany's defense, or South Korea's defense, or Kuwait's defense, or build an army in Iraq or Afghanistan, reach into your own damn pocket and use your own damn credit card.
This empire isn't necessary, it is a drain on us. It doesn't make us more free, it gets us dragged into more wars. We fight to keep kings on foreign thrones, with borders drawn nearly 100 years ago by dying European Colonial Empires. Supporting that policy is buffoonery we can't afford. The Japanese and Chinese loan us the money to keep their oil cheap and laugh at us while we bleed and pay the interest forever.
-- Ronald Reagan
"Yes, the cost is high, but the price of neglect would be infinitely higher..."
-- Ronald Reagan
Si vis pacem, para bellum.
Ya got me. My apologies to Rand Paul. However, I still think it’s a bad idea to pull monetary assistance from a strong ally like Israel. If anything, I might transfer some of the funding from belligerent terror states to Israel to send a message, if it were in my power to do so.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.