Return to CreateDebate.comjaded • Join this debate community

Joe_Cavalry All Day Every Day


Debate Info

11
7
Only an idiot would disagree I guess I'm a...wait, what?
Debate Score:18
Arguments:9
Total Votes:20
More Stats

Argument Ratio

side graph
 
 Only an idiot would disagree (6)
 
 I guess I'm a...wait, what? (3)

Debate Creator

joecavalry(39806) pic



Do you agree with Texas' Congressman Paul's Straight Talk

International Bailout Brings Us Closer to Economic Collapse

Last week Congress passed the war supplemental appropriations bill.   In an affront to all those who thought they voted for a peace candidate, the current president will be sending another $106 billion we don’t have to continue the bloodshed in Afghanistan and Iraq, without a hint of a plan to bring our troops home.

Many of my colleagues who voted with me as I opposed every war supplemental request under the previous administration seem to have changed their tune.  I maintain that a vote to fund the war is a vote in favor of the war. Congress exercises its constitutional prerogatives through the power of the purse, and as long as Congress continues to enable these dangerous interventions abroad, there is no end in sight, that is until we face total economic collapse.

From their spending habits, an economic collapse seems to be the goal of Congress and this administration.  Washington spends with impunity domestically, bailing out and nationalizing everything they can get their hands on, and the foreign aid and IMF funding in this bill can rightly be called an international bailout!

As Americans struggle through the worst economic downturn since the Great Depression, this emergency supplemental appropriations bill sends $660 million to Gaza, $555 million to Israel, $310 million to Egypt, $300 million to Jordan, and $420 million to Mexico.  Some $889 million will be sent to the United Nations for so-called “peacekeeping” missions.  Almost one billion dollars will be sent overseas to address the global financial crisis outside our borders.  Nearly $8 billion will be spent to address a “potential pandemic flu” which could result in mandatory vaccinations for no discernable reason other than to enrich the Pharmaceutical companies that make the vaccine.

Perhaps most outrageous is the $108 billion loan guarantee to the International Monetary Fund.  These new loan guarantees will allow that destructive organization to continue spending taxpayer money to prop up corrupt leaders and promote harmful economic policies overseas.

Not only does sending American taxpayer money to the IMF hurt citizens here, evidence shows that it even hurts those it pretends to help.  Along with IMF loans comes IMF required policy changes, called Structural Adjustment Programs, which amount to forced Keynesianism.  This is the very fantasy-infused economic model that has brought our own country to its knees, and IMF loans act as the Trojan Horse to inflict it on others.  Perhaps most troubling is the fact that leaders in recipient nations tend to become more concerned with the wishes of international elites than the wishes and needs of their own people.  Argentina and Kenya are just two examples of countries that followed IMF mandates right off a cliff.  The IMF frequently recommends currency devaluation to poorer nations, which has wiped out the already impoverished over and over. There is also a long list of brutal dictators the IMF happily supported and propped up with loans that left their oppressed populace in staggering amounts of debt with no economic progress to show for it.

We are buying nothing but evil and global oppression by sending your taxdollars to the IMF.   Not to mention there is no Constitutional authority to do so.  Our continued presence in Iraq and Afghanistan does not make us safer at home, but in fact undermines our national security.  I vehemently opposed this Supplemental Appropriations Bill and was dismayed to see it pass so easily.

Only an idiot would disagree

Side Score: 11
VS.

I guess I'm a...wait, what?

Side Score: 7
3 points

Dr. Paul has always been a straight shooter. What has Obama been attacked for recently? Meddling in foreign affairs. Ron Paul has always been against this. We cannot police the world.

Side: Only an idiot would disagree

The end is near. Total economic collapse is just around the corner.

Side: Only an idiot would disagree
2 points

I agree with the part about sending money to "help" the other countries. We need focus on the US not Europe or anyone else. Giving hundreds of millions of dollars away will only piss away the money that this country needs. Screw the other countries. The criticize the US for involving itself in the worlds problems except when it involves money. we need to focus on the home front ant then maybe try to help out the other F@#í up countries.

Side: Only an idiot would disagree
DEL681651(70) Disputed
1 point

I reject your notion that spending billions abroad is beneficial, as well as your notion that we should screw other countries.

Let's take, for example, our "selfless rebuilding efforts" in Iraq. We spend billions there and we kill more civilians than Saddam did. A strong majority of Iraqi citizens wanted us to go away.

But we can't "screw other countries." A citizen of China, Zimbabwe or Iraq is -no less important- than a citizen of the US. However our aid should not be in rogue efforts. We need to stop ignoring the UN and pay our debts to them, taking a more active role in supporting their policies and not vetoing resolutions on human rights that "violate our sovereignty" as Dr. PAul puts it.

Side: I guess I'm a...wait, what?

We do not kill more civilians than Saddam. Terrorist and extreme radicals do that. We have no control over those people.

Everyone in the UN is out for themselves and getting what they can for their country. They don't have the "world's" best interest in mind.

Side: Only an idiot would disagree
1 point

Well, I certainly don't think it's idiotic to disagree with several points.

Overall though, we say we're "close" to victory, and we can't pull out of Iraq, etc, etc.

The fact is, the second we leave they are going to hate us more than before. They play nice while we're there, but the people who have been voted into power will use popular anti-Israeli and West sentiment to increase and hold onto their power. Before it was the same with Sadam, but Sadam had the rest of the Middle East to worry about. Sadam was a Sunni leader, and Shiite's control almost all of the middle east, including Iran. Now there is majority Shiite leadership in Iraq as well. Generally the only difference as far as we're concerned is that Shiite's seem to be a little more hateful. So there ya go.

I say we leave now and cut our loses, any progress we think we're making is an illusion, countries only change from within.

Side: Only an idiot would disagree

Those Shiite terrorists are a bunch of little Shiites ;)

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Side: Only an idiot would disagree

Ron Paul is definitely a straight talker. He is a politician with a brain. Many other politicians seem to be absent in that department despite their high education.

Side: Only an idiot would disagree
4 points

Ron Paul is a closed minded ideologue. Yes he makes some good points. But you can't solve everything with small government.

Victory in Iraq has become a potential reality. We can't stop now after we've come this close. I agree with him that we should pull out of Afghanistan. There's really no clear endgame there, and I think the cost in lives and money outweighs the risks to our national security.

He's way too myopic when it comes to spending money to fix the economy. For a more balanced and realistic view on this subject watch this interview with Tim Geithner:

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/video/module.html?mod=0&pkg;=18062009&seg;=4

I don't agree with his ideas of complete isolationism. I think peacekeeping missions are a good idea both for basic moral, humanitarian reasons and because a peaceful and stable world means a greater level of security for all of us.

Side: Be realistic