PDA

View Full Version : phasing out....




ARealConservative
08-06-2007, 12:15 PM
I'm reluctant to even discuss this as it doesn't help us any, but driving home from Fairfield last night something accured to me.

We hear about how we can't end all the spending programs immediately and a phasing out would have to occur. This is because people have grown dependant on government providing solutions instead of a free market. Personally I feel this is said for electibility more then anything, but that is a seperate thread.

the question is, Why wouldn't this phasing out concept apply to foreign policy as well? In the 1800's we had people that would go overseas to fight for change. People would voluntarily send money to assist in change. Government eventually monopolized these practices creating an end to voluntary versions of intervention. How is this any different then the coerced charity that needs phased out?

FSP-Rebel
08-06-2007, 12:20 PM
America has more responsibility towards its own people than toward any other people on earth. Plus, many folks are dying because of our foreign policy.

ChooseLiberty
08-06-2007, 12:25 PM
There is no obligation to foreigners unless by treaty.

Japan, Korea, NATO, etc.

Aid to Israel can be cut off immediately AFAIK.

Joe Knows
08-06-2007, 12:27 PM
I'm reluctant to even discuss this as it doesn't help us any, but driving home from Fairfield last night something accured to me.

We hear about how we can't end all the spending programs immediately and a phasing out would have to occur. This is because people have grown dependant on government providing solutions instead of a free market. Personally I feel this is said for electibility more then anything, but that is a seperate thread.

the question is, Why wouldn't this phasing out concept apply to foreign policy as well? In the 1800's we had people that would go overseas to fight for change. People would voluntarily send money to assist in change. Government eventually monopolized these practices creating an end to voluntary versions of intervention. How is this any different then the coerced charity that needs phased out?

I was just thinking about the same thing this morning. Isn't foreign aid and the economic impact our military has on host countries liable to create more economic problems around the world? Remember when we tried to close military bases around the country and local governments had a fit because they were losing all that money which came into the area. Why would it be any different with foreign countries?

In reality we will probably have to have a phasing out of some sort. America should come first, but it would be very difficult to just throw away treaties.

When Dr. Paul accepts the Republican nomination for President. I think that he should change "Hope for America" to "Hope for the World"

ARealConservative
08-06-2007, 12:27 PM
There is no obligation to foreigners unless by treaty.

Japan, Korea, NATO, etc.

Aid to Israel can be cut off immediately AFAIK.

my obligation to some poor welfare mom is exactly the same as my obligation to foreigners.

CodeMonkey
08-06-2007, 12:34 PM
I'm reluctant to even discuss this as it doesn't help us any, but driving home from Fairfield last night something accured to me.

We hear about how we can't end all the spending programs immediately and a phasing out would have to occur. This is because people have grown dependant on government providing solutions instead of a free market. Personally I feel this is said for electibility more then anything, but that is a seperate thread.

the question is, Why wouldn't this phasing out concept apply to foreign policy as well? In the 1800's we had people that would go overseas to fight for change. People would voluntarily send money to assist in change. Government eventually monopolized these practices creating an end to voluntary versions of intervention. How is this any different then the coerced charity that needs phased out?

Regarding Iraq, we need to pull out immediately because Americans are in harm's way, and their continuing presence heightens the threat of future terrorism. Regarding bases around the world, I get the feeling this would be a gradual effort. Pulling everyone home from around the world wouldn't really be feasible.

Larofeticus
08-06-2007, 12:36 PM
Stopping the spending of money in wasteful ways is always good. In some local areas yes it will affect things negatively, but those people were getting an unfair, coerced advantage at everyone else's expense.

ARealConservative
08-06-2007, 12:37 PM
Regarding Iraq, we need to pull out immediately because Americans are in harm's way, and their continuing presence heightens the threat of future terrorism. Regarding bases around the world, I get the feeling this would be a gradual effort. Pulling everyone home from around the world wouldn't really be feasible.

Even Iraq is more gradual then "we can march right out".

A good president will tell his military advisors - Get us out of there as quickly and safely as possible. that is his extent of managing the course reversal.

Thomas_Paine
08-06-2007, 12:50 PM
I'm reluctant to even discuss this as it doesn't help us any, but driving home from Fairfield last night something accured to me.

We hear about how we can't end all the spending programs immediately and a phasing out would have to occur. This is because people have grown dependant on government providing solutions instead of a free market. Personally I feel this is said for electibility more then anything, but that is a seperate thread.

the question is, Why wouldn't this phasing out concept apply to foreign policy as well? In the 1800's we had people that would go overseas to fight for change. People would voluntarily send money to assist in change. Government eventually monopolized these practices creating an end to voluntary versions of intervention. How is this any different then the coerced charity that needs phased out?

I'll give you a couple reasons why we can't take our time in cutting back foreign expenditures.

The United States of America is GOING BANKRUPT! We are worth more dead than alive

We must stop the hemorrhaging or we will go the way of complete economic collapse.

Hyper-Inflation

Military is literally falling apart because we are spread so thinly

Funding both sides creates unnecessary enemies and wars

Countries will never help themselves if we continue to send them welfare checks.

Americans don't OWE the world anything,

You can end the Income Tax and IRS if you don't stop the foreign expenditures.

Thomas_Paine
08-06-2007, 12:51 PM
I highly suggest that you read Ron Paul's new book "A Foreign Policy of Freedom"

CodeMonkey
08-06-2007, 01:02 PM
Even Iraq is more gradual then "we can march right out".

A good president will tell his military advisors - Get us out of there as quickly and safely as possible. that is his extent of managing the course reversal.

Yeah, Ron Paul has said exactly that, in the Google interview I believe.

constituent
08-06-2007, 01:28 PM
and how about cutting off those corporate welfare queens those poor....

mega-farms and

prospective nuclear power generators.

why just pick on the poor moms trueconservative?

really though... they cutting into your cigar budget?

ARealConservative
08-06-2007, 01:32 PM
and how about cutting off those corporate welfare queens those poor....

mega-farms and

prospective nuclear power generators.

why just pick on the poor moms trueconservative?

really though... they cutting into your cigar budget?

I wasn't aware I was picking on anybody.

but yes, your examples of phasing out are worthty as well. My point really is that I don't support phasing out. :cool:

constituent
08-06-2007, 01:35 PM
with you 100% there!

Spirit of '76
08-06-2007, 01:36 PM
the question is, Why wouldn't this phasing out concept apply to foreign policy as well? In the 1800's we had people that would go overseas to fight for change. People would voluntarily send money to assist in change. Government eventually monopolized these practices creating an end to voluntary versions of intervention. How is this any different then the coerced charity that needs phased out?

This reminds me of something Dr. Paul said in Pittsburgh the other night:

"If you want to go to Darfur, take your own money and go to Darfur."

bygone
08-06-2007, 01:38 PM
Just come home.