Patrick J. BuchananPatrick J. Buchanan, (1938- ) American politician, author, syndicated columnist and broadcaster

Patrick J. Buchanan Quote

“We are thus in the position of having to borrow from Europe to defend Europe, of having to borrow from China and Japan to defend Chinese and Japanese access to Gulf oil, and of having to borrow from Arab emirs, sultans and monarchs to make Iraq safe for democracy. We borrow from the nations we defend so that we may continue to defend them. To question this is an unpardonable heresy called 'isolationism.'”

Patrick J. BuchananPatrick J. Buchanan
~ Patrick J. Buchanan

January 14, 2008, "Subprime Nation"

Ratings and Comments

Jaro Giesbrecht, Calgary, Alberta

Its like in media, fantasy is positive and truth is negative.

Logan, Memphis, TN

Very well said...

  • 1
  • Reply
Anonymous    3/28/08

Dang this quote sums it all up!! YAY for Patrick Buchanan!

Mike, Norwalk

We don't have to shoot the messenger on this one, it is right on.

Waffler, Smith, Arkansas

We should stop borrowing from them and start taxing them. The USA is the world leader and has the greatest command and control structure. I think it is safe to say that Europe wanted NATO and American presence as does Korea and Japan. We don't have to borrow from them we could tax them and raise our own taxes on the top 1% of Americans who have 90% of the wealth and who are also getting a nice war dividend on the bonds they have bought with their Bush tax refunds. A higher tax on these folks and a reduction on middle class taxes will spur the economy. The middle class will spend the money on products from which the rich stock holders will reap dividends and capital gains.

J Carlton, Calgary

America borrowed 10b from "Communist China" to give to Pakistan...a military dictatorship. So much for principles or integrity. And adfvocating more taxation of any kind, let alone of other nations is communist, arrogant and just plain supremist. So much for morals of any kind. The point of the quote would be that the whole thing is ludicrous...and it is!

Anonymous, Reston, VA US

He has good observations right up to that last sentence... it is not called "isolationism", it is called "deficit spending", something that was most widely done by those operating under the misnomer of "fiscal conservatives" who seek to eliminate taxes on those most able to pay them while giving money away to those in the least need of grants, such as oil companies and the industrial military complex.

Chris, Chapel Hill

In response to Reston, Va, Pat is referring to those who question the wisdom of this deficit spending, and suggest that we end the task of defending these other nations, THEN they are called Isolationists.

  • Reply
RobertSRQ    6/23/08

Pat, you made the bed and now you can sleep in it! The biggest heresy of all time are the words from PB - The strategy of accusing others for their own actions as always been the policy of tyrants and despots - it’s a propaganda that’s works well for the GOP. Reston, good, but to forgiving. If we are what you all say we are then why the hell are we not invading Uganda or the Sudan - oops, sorry, you don't have anything we want...

  • Reply
    RobertSRQ    6/23/08

    Joe, North Caldwell, NJ

    This argument is incoherent. If you want to question defending Europe or Chinese/Japanese access to Gulf oil or "making Iraq safe for democracy", great -- that's one discussion. But deficit spending is a whole other (unrelated) issue, regardless of how we're using the money. And it's interesting which party does all the deficit spending: From 1776 to the present, we have accumulated $11 trillion in debt, and 85% of it piled up under only 3 presidents -- Reagan and the two Bushes. So where did this myth of Republican fiscal responsibility come from, I wonder?

    Waffler, Smith, Arkansas

    Right on Joe about the big 3 Reagan, Bush the First, and Bush the Worst. Why do so many people ignore this important issue? These guys and now McCain (Bush III) run for election by saying "Read my lips no new taxes" and all the silly suckers fall for it while the rich by the bonds that put us into debt.

    E Archer, NYC

    Great quote. BTW, presidents merely sign the bills that pass Congress. It is Congress that spends. Since being elected is all about getting access to the bank, it is irrelevant which party spends more. Consider that after Nixon lifted the gold standard, an ocean of debt was soon to follow exponentially. If you have to borrow from your credit card to pay your credit card, the monthly bill is going to get higher and higher. Only the US government can get away with that -- the rest of us would have been cut off long ago.

    warren, olathe

    Pat has always thought that way Robert. Waffler your answer is tax everything.

    Dick, Fort Worth

    This statement is prima facie bulllshit from the beginning. Whether our government spends our money or borrows from others the last reason is to protect others or to protect ourselves; it is to rape and pillage the resources of other countries for the benefit of the oligarchists who run our government, our giant corporations, the World Bank, IMF, Blackwater, and a few other fascist organizations.

    Dave Wilbur, St. Louis

    A real mystery is why no one in 28 years has accepted my offer of 100 pounds of money for just describing the money that our Marxist misleaders borrows or spends. SURELY YOU CAN USE SOME EXTRA MONEY?

    Logan, Memphis, TN

    Good hell, where do we begin? I am firmly for NON-interventionism and am opposed to nation building and protecting. The United States has had to borrow nearly every single cent of the costs for the war in Iraq from China... The Nixon Doctrine sought to put the financing of our Imperial troops around the world to be placed on the actual countries we were occupying (as Waffler said, a "tax"). The United States, instead, has sought to pay for its own Imperialism by borrowing from the country it is occupying to pay to keep our troops there. This is not old news, whether you agree with nation building or not. It is hotly debated by Political Scientists whether the "Ron Paul Republicans" or the Bush Admin followers are actually "isolationists". Ron Paul advocates a non-interventionist foreign policy, while the Bush Admin advocates an active and advanced policy of nation building and monitoring. Is Paul an isolationist by design or is the Bush Admin isolationist by consequence? The Bush Admin's foreign policy is being shown to greater isolate the United States from the world than anything any "non-interventionists" have ever accomplished. As the US Imperial military continues to set up more than 700 military bases around the world (outside the United States), it is becoming a hated and imperialist perceived nation that other nations are backing away from (thus making the United States more isolated).

    Ken, Milford Pa

    I watched as Great Lakes Dredging and the Army Corps of Engineers dredged the NY harbor (Hudson-Arthur Kill) because the Japanese complained that it was not deep enough for their new super container ships. So your tax dollars paid for foreign products to pour into the country, putting you out of work. When we need to get into some other country they tell us to dredge, build bridges, tunnels or what ever is necessary. And we do, with your tax dollars again. We get it coming and going. Do you have a nice big warm fuzzy now. But then again, when is the last time that the American government looked out for the American people?

    Michael, Parsons, WV

    I have watched for the last 40 years, as our government has passed more and more legislation designed to make it more and more difficult for goods to be manufactured in the U.S. Look around. What do we make? Sure, Toyota has factories here in the U.S. that employ hundreds, if not thousands of Americans, while American car makers go bankrupt. We have devolved into a nation of consumers. We are dependent upon the rest of the world to supply us with nearly everything. I have a question...what happens when the rest of the world turns off the spigot? If the U.S. should default on its loan payments to China, don't think they wouldn't try to pressure the U.S. to raise taxes in order to get the money we owe. The answer here is plain...raise import tarriffs and abolish the IRS in favor of a flat tax rate of about 10 - 15 percent. Abolish any taxes on manufacturing that have forced companies to relocate to other countries and pass incentives for them to return to the U.S. High taxes and high unemployment are America's biggest problems. If the government would cut spending by 50% and eliminate the income tax in favor of a flat tax, there would be growth in this country such as has not been seen since the 1950's.

    Fredrick William Sillik, Anytown

    Ya know, when all you have is a lot of bitchin and moanin expression like this joker, you appear to be rewarded with many elected posts. Be when you have some substantial solutions to problems no one gives a good God damn. 

    Mike, Norwalk

    Sillik, being the (-: good :-) socialistic atheist that you are, what did you mean by "good God"; AND what is a good damning? ;-)

    Fredrick William Sillik, Anytown
    • 1
    • Reply
    Fredrick William Sillik, Anytown Mike, Norwalk 9/10/23

    It's just some cursing my very nonperspective buddy of no consequence thinking. Sorry, I should not curse.

    Fredrick William Sillik, Anytown

    Correction: Sorry again for that cursing Mike, Norwalk my unperspicarious buddy who, if nothing else, teaches me new words for addressing the mentally impaired.


    Get a Quote-a-Day!

    Liberty Quotes sent to your mail box daily.