Greed. When asked recently what I thought was the biggest problem our country faces, this was my response. "Absolutely" said the inquisitor, "Our politicians are all greedy so and sos who can't control their money drunkness." Now, God bless this man, he made the statement sitting in a nice restauraunt sipping a $15 cocktail complaining about the gas mileage his Escalade is getting. Now let me preface this by saying I don't begrudge anyone for buying what they feel they can afford. My problem is with people feeling the need to buy things which they really can't. And in turn our politicians doing the same with our taxes. The hubristic nature in which they wield OUR money is what sticks in my craw. Especially when there is no money to spend.
Here is an except from Ron Paul speaking recently on war spending. It is fantastic and eye opening. Everyone should be aware of the fiscal nightmare this bit outlines. The IMF is just what Dr. Paul calls it - "A destructive organization." The International Monetary Fund's agenda does NOT, repeat, does NOT consider the best interest of the United States or any other country for that matter. It is solely concerned with it's own agenda. It is an international consortium of banks and financiers concerned with the agendas of it's members. It's board consist of high level bankers and financial consultants, all from the financial community. Bankers are in business to make money with money, within which lies the conflict of interest between your tax money and the IMF. Or any organization concerned with income based on holding on to either your money or your collateral. Here is the big problem, unfortunately our financial arrangements currently in place with the Federal Reserve, have our politicians "strung out" (pardon the drug parlance)on tax and spend mentalities. The IMF knows that should we continue down this course, it will achieve what it desires, - a global currency. With the loss of our monetary autonomy, will follow the loss of our Republic.
"Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to this conference report on the War Supplemental Appropriations. I wonder what happened to all of my colleagues who said they were opposed to the ongoing wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. I wonder what happened to my colleagues who voted with me as I opposed every war supplemental request under the previous administration. It seems, with very few exceptions, they have changed their position on the war now that the White House has changed hands. I find this troubling. As I have said while opposing previous war funding requests, 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.
This conference report, being a Washington-style compromise, reflects one thing Congress agrees on: spending money we do not have. So this “compromise” bill spends 15 percent more than the president requested, which is $9 billion more than in the original House bill and $14.6 billion more than the original Senate version. Included in this final version – in addition to the $106 billion to continue the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq – is a $108 billion loan guarantee to the International Monetary Fund, allowing that destructive organization to continue spending taxpayer money to prop up corrupt elites and promote harmful economic policies overseas.
As Americans struggle through the worst economic downturn since the Great Depression, this emergency supplemental appropriations bill sends billions of dollars overseas as foreign aid. Included in this appropriation is $660 million for Gaza, $555 million for Israel, $310 million for Egypt, $300 million for Jordan, and $420 million for Mexico. Some $889 million will be sent to the United Nations for “peacekeeping” missions. Almost one billion dollars will be sent overseas to address the global financial crisis outside our borders and nearly $8 billion will be spent to address a “potential pandemic flu.”
Mr. Speaker, I continue to believe that the best way to support our troops is to bring them home from Iraq and Afghanistan. If one looks at the original authorization for the use of force in Afghanistan, it is clear that the ongoing and expanding nation-building mission there has nothing to do with our goal of capturing and bringing to justice those who attacked the United States on September 11, 2001. Our continued presence in Iraq and Afghanistan does not make us safer at home, but in fact it undermines our national security. I urge my colleagues to defeat this reckless conference report."