Foreign Aid

I can't answer given the choices in the poll. Foreign aid should be looked upon on a case-by-case basis. Fact is, foreign aid is an effective way to achieve foreign policy objectives. The U.S. can literally pay nations to pursue or not to pursue activities on our interest.

To take an extremely hypothetical example, supposing the U.S. were to simply pay off the illegal drug producers with direct government payments? Instead of having interdiction efforts, customs agents, DEA enforcers, local law enforcement, addiction treatment centers, etc. etc. for all the problems and ramification of heroin use, the U.S. simply pays the poppies growers more money to plant something else? Would that not be a good use of foreign aid?

 

I can't answer the poll choices either.

There are some areas we need to dramatically increase and some we need to shutdown or reduce.

Foreign aid isn't simple, it is extremely complex.

For instance, I'm all for shutting down all aid to Pakistan in light of their corruption and intelligence failures. You want regime change this is one way to handle it.

We also need to increase aid to some emergent countries to better position the US for the longterm.

Aid is complicated, there are no simple answers.

 

People who want to continue foreign aid will be able to do so personally and probably deduct the offering.

 

We are borrowing money to support ourselves. We do not have any money to give aid to anyone else. Where is the common sense on this issue.

 

How about the constitutional option, or is that "off the table"? Ron Paul speaks about upholding the law (U.S. constitution) what's the big problem with that anyway? Would it be such a crime to make the government stop stealing our money to bribe far flung dictators and buy foreign politicians with our money?