R Paul's anti WB and IMF stance

[Jeneral2885]

Rand Paul is against the US supporting the WB and theIMF financially. Naturally his claims are factuall and politically inaccurate but can he do any damage as a new Senator? I'm not an expert on Senators and their political power (eg filbusters) but what can he do? What if he sits on the committee deciding the funding to the two IFIs?

[maryellen99]

1. they are against raising the debt ceiling nt

[Radical Activist]

2. We should not be supporting the World Bank or IMF

until their policies are changed dramatically. Unfortunately, the Democrats are too cowardly to raise this issue in a reasonable manner. That allows Rand Paul to take advantage of the issue by appealing to the natural economic populism of most Americans. Americans have no other electoral outlet for their frustration with this and other world trade issues.

[Jeneral2885]

3. Actually

the neo-liberal agenda of the two IFIs came from the US--the Reagan Adminstration. Before hand, all previous US Administrations heavily controlled the IFIs as their agenda actually secures America's strategic interests and fosters the neo-liberal hegemony that is favourable to America (but of course damaging to the economy). But withdrawing support for both IFIs would backfired for both America (politically and economically) and the developing world.

[janewin]

4. speak fjust for the USA

The developing world do not need the policy/restrictions that come with the loans. This is like saying a poor person in the hood needs credit card with 30% interest rate on it. They need capital but not from the destructive WB

[PVnRT]

5. Individual Senators can do a lot of secretive bullshit individually

While I don't like the World Bank or IMF, Paul's opposition to those has nothing to do with their effect on the third world, and everything to do with making sure it's corporate power that's allowed to run roughshod.