$20 Billion Giveaway Unjustified

[RS Davis]

[glow=red,2,300] The Honorable Ron Paul Wrote:[/glow]Congress passed an $87 billion spending bill last week to fund our occupation of Iraq, $20 billion of which is an outright foreign aid giveaway of your money for all kinds of civic and social programs there. This $20 billion was tied to money for troop support, so that members of Congress who object to wasteful and unconstitutional foreign aid would feel compelled to vote in favor of the bill. This new spending comes on top of the $80 billion we have already spent in Iraq, and the price tag easily could reach one trillion dollars if our occupation drags on for several years.

First and foremost, we simply do not have the $87 billion to spend. The federal government literally will have to borrow or print the money needed for our ongoing occupation of Iraq. This new spending will only add to the record budget deficit of $525 billion projected for 2004. At this rate, the Treasury will face single-year deficits of one trillion dollars by the end of the decade.

- Rick

[Jodi]

I actually have to agree with the Pars'dent on this one.

If the purpose of the money is to help Iraq "get on its feet", so to speak, it's a little ridiculous to saddle 'em with debt from the get-go by making it a loan, especially since we're actively pressuring other countries to forgive Iraqi debt.

[dr snootch]

But, even if we give them fairer than fair terms as far as interest rate and length of repayment, we'd at least be getting something in return for our investment.

We don't have to saddle them with debt right off the bat, just have some sort of plan for repayment to the American taxpayers, not GW and Co.

After all, as the author points out, it's not as though Iraq is bereft of resources or income potential. I think it's fair to ask them to pay it back on a fair schedule.

[RS Davis]

dr said:

But, even if we give them fairer than fair terms as far as interest rate and length of repayment, we'd at least be getting something in return for our investment.

We don't have to saddle them with debt right off the bat, just have some sort of plan for repayment to the American taxpayers, not GW and Co.

After all, as the author points out, it's not as though Iraq is bereft of resources or income potential. I think it's fair to ask them to pay it back on a fair schedule.

Agreed. And they may just decide some of those government pet projects aren't worth what we've decided to pay for them, and respectfully decline parts of the plan.

- Rick

[dr snootch]

RS said:

Agreed. And they may just decide some of those government pet projects aren't worth what we've decided to pay for them, and respectfully decline parts of the plan.

- Rick

You mean, their government, though technically non-existent at this point, may actually act more wisely than ours? That's not really a stretch, come to think of it.

[Jodi]

dr said:

But, even if we give them fairer than fair terms as far as interest rate and length of repayment, we'd at least be getting something in return for our investment.

What we're allegedly getting in return is a reduced threat of terrorism, a friendly government in the Middle East, and knowledge that we've vastly improved life for tens of millions of suffering people.

I don't believe any of that, mind you, but that's the justification for the war.

As one who opposed the war, I would argue that after invading and destroying much of Iraq, the money we spend rebuilding isn't an expense- it's restitution.

We don't have to saddle them with debt right off the bat, just have some sort of plan for repayment to the American taxpayers, not GW and Co.

After all, as the author points out, it's not as though Iraq is bereft of resources or income potential. I think it's fair to ask them to pay it back on a fair schedule.

If that's true, we shouldn't be pressuring other countries to forgive Iraqi debt, but we are.

And, if our stated goals in this war are the actual goals, 20 bill is a small price to pay.

[dr snootch]

Jodi said:

What we're allegedly getting in return is a reduced threat of terrorism, a friendly government in the Middle East, and knowledge that we've vastly improved life for tens of millions of suffering people.

I don't believe any of that, mind you, but that's the justification for the war.

As one who opposed the war, I would argue that after invading and destroying much of Iraq, the money we spend rebuilding isn't an expense- it's restitution.

I understand your points about the situation and I didn't support the war either, which is precisely why I want to know why it's our responsibility to pay restitution and not GW Bush's responsibility. After all, he is the one who misled our people and the world. He is the one who let Osama bin Laden go free after the 9/11 attacks. And he/his administration are the ones most likely to profit in the aftermath of the war. So, again, how is it our responsibility to pay the bills and not his?

And, for the record, I don't think we should be pressuring other countries to forgive Iraqi debt, but I do think we should be pressuring them to allow Iraq to get back on it's feet and develop a sound infrastructure before requiring repayment. Which is what I'm asking for from our own people and government.

My problem is that the President has no problem giving away money as long as it's ours and not his.