January 3, 2012

Paul opposed government aid to tsunami victims

Sam Saul, Huffington Post - Two weeks after Southeast Asia was devastated by a tsunami in 2004, Paul wrote a column imploring the Bush administration to not send taxpayer money for relief. It wasn't that he was unsympathetic to the victims (he urged Americans to make their own donations). He thought private charities and nonprofit groups were better equipped to handle the job.

"The Asian tsunami is the worst natural disaster of our lifetimes, and we should all do everything we can to help. Investigate the charities and private groups involved, and send what you can," he wrote. "But let's get governments and the United Nations out of the way, please."

Paul made similar pitches with respect to foreign aid and earthquake recovery efforts in Haiti and Japan. And even when the disaster wasn't immediate in nature, he was hesitant to get the government involved.


Anonymous said...

A couple of neocons took 1st and 2nd place in Iowa. You can calm down a little, Sam.

Sam Smith's idiotic prejudices have delivered him into irrelevency. said...

The disparity between liberals' desire to legislate paradise and the reality of what big gov't. really enacts.i.e. tyranny, is the source of liberal anger toward Ron Paul.
Why Ron Paul Challenges Liberals

"Of the presidential candidates, only Ron Paul addresses the Constitution’s demise."
The Outlook For Liberty is Dismal

By Paul Craig Roberts

Anonymous said...

You know, guys, you could always vote green. There are other candidates to, as it's often said, "throw your vote away".

Besides, you think a president can write laws or something? He's got power, but not as much as we're led to believe. The only thing Paul would succeed in would be to make a huge percentage of people fall below the poverty line, and then he'd trash the environment as aggressively as possible. The constitution would totally allow for that.

Anonymous said...

Why would anyone trust a party that allowed itself to be co-opted by the DNC into keeping Nader off the ballot? As Commander-in -Chief the President could recall US forces, especially since the US is involved in no declared wars. As far as reducing military spending, Congress may appropriate money, but the Executive controls the actual dispersing of funds. Paul could just not spend the money, as Reagan often did for social programs. As for civil liberties, the President appoints and controls the Justice Dept., which has great effect on actual freedoms. There's no way Paul could or would want to force Congress to harm Social Security. Plus Paul wants to end the drug war. All this liberal bullshit about Paul is exactly that.