Posted on 11/12/2011 9:45:32 PM PST by SeekAndFind
Texas Gov. Rick Perry said he would cut the United States' foreign aid budget to zero and then allocate taxpayer dollars depending on each country's support for America, indicating that Pakistan would no longer receive U.S. aid but Israel would.
"It's time for us as a country to say no to foreign aid to countries that don't support the United States of America," Perry said.
His idea received support from former House Speaker Newt Gingrich but, in the case of Pakistan, was opposed by Minnesota Rep. Michele Bachmann and former Pennsylvania Sen. Rick Santorum at the CBS News/National Journal debate in Spartanburg, S.C.
Perry made his comments during a discussion on Pakistan. The American relationship with that country has become strained since the covert operation by U.S. Marines killed Osama bin Laden, who had been hiding in the country for years.
In explaining his agreement with Perry, Gingrich appeared to indicate that no thought goes into deciding how much aid each country receives.
"Consider the alternative," Gingrich said. "You're giving some country $7 billion a year. You start off-- or in the case of Egypt, $3 billion a year -- you start off every year and say here's your $3 billion, now I'll start thinking? You ought to start off at zero and say, explain to me why I should give you a penny."
Bachmann, who sits on the House Intelligence Committee, depicted foreign aid for Pakistan as a national security issue.
"I would reduce foreign aid to many, many countries, but there's a problem because Pakistan has a nuclear weapon," Bachmann said. "We have more people affiliated with al Qaeda closer to that nuclear bomb than in any other nation."
(Excerpt) Read more at cbsnews.com ...
It’s very possible that none of the candidates knew what 3 departments Perry said he wanted to eliminate.
Perhaps Perry was just making it up on the spot. I don’t pay close attention to whatever policy bs Perry is spewing at the moment.
does this include overseas appropriations to NGO’s? does this include the UN, World Bank and IMF?
Thanks, I didn’t actually watch it, just read the news.
That’s encouraging.
I mean, I don’t like him, but he just freaked out, that’s all.
I might have goofed. I’m Very old, Late. Drinking. I am NOT a fan of laRaza ricky. Check my posting history if you want.
Paul tho has said things like “we brought 9/11 on ourselves”, and “We should make friends with Iran”
Ron Paul is a demented little troll, and needs to be on meds.
I went overboard on you. The post was mostly a good on that you were approving of.
I was basically just saying that people who either 1) don’t like Perry or 2) want to win or at least avoid losing house and senate seats should make it 100% clear that Perry is 100% finished, and only a time machine can save him.
Title is wrong Perry did include Israel. He said all countries would start at zero and then the would talk about it.
Paul is definitely nuts in several areas, not arguing that.
He said that Israel would start at zero too. Did you watch the debate or are you just putting something you hoped he said in the title.
but he also said Israel is a special friend and would likely receive substantially aid.
I know that it’s completely demeted to suggest that we might stop borrowing money in order to give it to other countries, but on the upside, this crazy foreign policy, and a lot of cuts everywhere else does mean a much lower deficit, a much lower debt, much lower taxes. And I really like all of those things. So, we might not get the benefits of bribing dictators, but we’ll benefit from the savings at home.
You might have to come to terms with the fact that we’re broke and we can’t spend money we don’t have on making sure that everyone everywhere is happy.
I get it, your the kind of “conservative” who believes in medicating people you disagree with.
Some people think that spending money propping up dictators with foreign aid does more harm than good. Others think we have a flawless record.
What is true, is that not spending the money means saving here at home.
I’m one of those people who think we’ve got truly serious financial problems that need to be solved.
Priority #1, to me, is major cuts. Shrinking the size of government. Less Government. etc.
There is no Priority #2.
Because when there are 2 or more priorities, if cuts are one of the priorites, we never get cuts.
If a politician says
“I want to do 3 things” and 2 of those things are what always happens, and the third thing never happens, you know that you’re going to get the first 2 things, and not the 3rd.
I just want cuts.
And Ron Paul is 100% about cuts.
And he’s been about cuts for 30 years.
I get that you don’t like his foreign policy. And I know that a lot of freepers don’t.
Those freepers don’t really seem to realize that modern “conservative” foreign policy is a variant of Trotskyism.
From Trotsky, to Irving Kristol and the Hubert Humphrey task force, to Irving’s son Bill Kristol.
Nobody remembers that back in the day, it was the Democrats who started the wars and the Republicans who opposed them.
It was Bush, no conservative, who really ramped up the wars. Clinton and Obama, not conservatives, took more military action than Reagan, the conservative.
But, somehow, more war, more military spending, is seen as Conservative by quite a number of people here.
Here’s a clue, if you have to think really hard to find something wrong with Obama’s foreign policy, you probably have his foreign policy. And Obama isn’t Conservative at all, in any way.
People say Ron Paul is crazy because he disagrees with things Obama did. Ron Paul is against Obama. You are siding with Obama. You might want to think about that one.
Everyone thinks Obama is such a great debator. That's why conservatives are considering Newt because he happens to be the best debator. Sorry, I don't think Obama was ‘all that’ a great debator.
...indicating that Pakistan would no longer receive U.S. aid but Israel would.
I was too afraid to watch the debate tonight, so I didn’t. But I’m so excited to hear the comments that my govenor won tonight. YAHOO! He’s a good guy and will make a great president.
No, I’m about not replacing one crazy, with another crazy.
You might want to think about that yourself.
I’m all for stopping foreign aid, never said I wasn’t, but neither will I support someone who thinks it’s okay to say we brought 9/11 on ourselves, nor will I support someone who doesn’t draw the line in the sand with people who want to eliminate us.
He’s right. Don’t be afraid.
Bachman is wrong. She wants you to be afraid.
Now, if it's in our strategic interests to give foreign aid then I'm for it albeit foreign aid given to specific countries is reevaluated yearly.
And here's my recommendations: No money to China or Pakistan.
I don’t know what part of Perry’s statement people are unable or unwilling to process, but the story makes clear, and he said, that support for America will determine if you get foreign aid at all, then go from there on how much, based on the need, in a very tight budget.
Right now you can get foreign aid even if you do not support this country, and even though we are broke.
Been going on for years. I guess we thought we could buy support. Wrong.
Perry says turn it on its head. Base decisions about any foreign aid on who supports America and who doesn’t.
Unlike Ron Paul, who apparently says no foreign aid for any reason, and who blames us for 9-11 and thinks we can make friends with Iran instead of stopping their nukes...
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.