Posted on 09/04/2006 12:52:01 PM PDT by Mo1
Former US President Bill Clinton has called for the US to sharply increase foreign aid, suggesting it was important in fighting terrorists and "cheaper than going to war".
In an interview with American news channel CNN, Clinton pointed out that the US government gives a little more than 10 billion dollars a year in real aid and that Washington should be offering a lot more.
Clinton said the US should be giving aid at the target level set by the United Nations of 0.7 percent of gross national income. In 2004, total us government foreign aid of 19.7 billion dollars, including all types and recipient countries, hit only about 0.17 percent of gross national income. "We should be giving about 60 billion dollars a year. And in a budget that's what, over two trillion dollars, it's no money, really," he said during the interview. "And it's much cheaper than going to war. We've already spent over 300 billion dollars in Iraq alone”, he said.
"So spending this money to be in a world with more partners and fewer terrorists and more possibility for growth and more prosperity for Americans is a very inexpensive thing to do," the former president said.
President Clinton has set an historical precedent in US-Africa relations by placing strong emphasis on his Partnership Initiative for Economic Growth and Opportunity in Africa.
Arghhhhhhhh!!
FEED THE PEOPLE THAT WANT US DEAD?
We've been dumping aid on Palestine for decades now, and they just LOVE us.
(KellyAdmirer shakes his head.) Spoken like a classic Democrat. And who cares what the UN thinks about this?
Which is why Africa is a steaming pile Islamic 3rd world sh!thole!
Gawd, once again, the Dem response to failure is to demand we do more of what is failing in hopes that it might eventually work if we do enough of it (public skools being another example).
Hey, Slick, most of the 9-11 hijackers were upper-middle-class college-educated men from Saudi Arabia. Are you saying more foreign aid would have deterred them?
Maybe after the Cole bombing, you should have sent financial care packages around the Islamic world to show them you cared. Sandy Hamburglar could have personally delivered Happy Meals to deprived Kuwaiti children. Madeline Albright could have cleaned the royal loos in Jordan.
Stunning.
"And in a budget that's what, over two trillion dollars, it's no money, really,"
Democrats and my money. Amazing.
Here we go again - Just pay the terrorists (they will be taking the "foreign aid" from the people as they currently do) and stick your head in the sand and they will leave us alone. Well, except for 9/11, the attempted bombing of the WTC, the bombing of marine barracks, the bombing of the U.S.S. Cole, the bombing of...
Why hasn't paying the extortionist, Jessie Jackson, stopped his terrorism? Because paying terrorists just makes them demand more!!!
Can we all call for Clinton to sit down and shut-up?
More money is not going to combat terrorism because they would take the money and laugh at the US for being so dumb.
braindead dumbass liberals will NEVER change!
Clinton just doesnt get it
I'm all for increasing money for our military and intell agencies
Clinton is more interested in giving the money to the UN
That speaks volumes
Clueless idiot with a two-for-one wife.
the United States Giverment ?
If 60 billion dollars is "no money, really" let's give a 60 billion dollar, or more, tax cut.
I'd bet that all of a sudden the Dems would be crying out in pain that 60 billion is a lot of money.
Clinton is an expert on terrorism. His policies helped bring about 9-11.
Willie is just another punk DemocRAT wanting to spend OTHER PEOPLE'S MONEY.
Why doesn't Clinton give away his own money instead of ours?
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.