PDA

View Full Version : Say this with me... "Military Welfare" for other countries




dcjones
01-12-2012, 07:50 AM
A few good talking points to get thru to Repub. Neocons:

1. The republicans hate welfare/socialism and so do libertarians like me. Why is there a disconnect when it comes to "Military Welfare a socialist policy" my new term when describing our overseas military industrial complex.

Why are we spending trillions to defend Europe, Asia, and the Middle East? Don't they have their own money? The only reason they don't build their own defense is because they know that we will do it for them using our hard earned capital and blood. Its like people not getting a job or working because someone else will pay.

This is great logic to get thru to your local neocon friends and works for me every time. You need to phrase this a "Welfare". It really is very similar in that the Government takes money from the public for some designated reason to help “others”. To make it worse it’s the “others” are not even in our country.

2. If this still does not get them, then the next best option would be that if we defend other countries because they need us, we should at least get paid for it! I propose they pay say $200,000 per infantry a year + expenses + equipment and transportation costs. Let us see how quick they want us to defend them then? And if that happens we will be exporting military goods helping our trade deficit. Instead of spending capital, we will bring wealth in. And we will not be blamed as much for issues because we just supply the goods and are not the perpetrators.

3. If they still think we need it because the other countries can’t afford their own Military. The next talking point is “How safe will the world be if we need to precipitously leave the military posts because we are BROKE! It would be a disaster. Its better to wind down slowly, this is Ron Paul’s policy.”

Just trying to get some of my talking points that actually converted many neocon friends of mine to understand and sooner the people realize this, the more Ron will get support.

Dsylexic
01-12-2012, 07:56 AM
good line of attack. the 'sophisticated neocon' argument is " this will create a power vacuum'' and china and russia will occupy it.

mmadness
01-12-2012, 08:12 AM
+rep

Nice, "word doc"! :)

Please get this to Doug Wead, folks!

harikaried
01-12-2012, 10:11 AM
Sounds good. But I've talked to a number of voters that said that we must be in Germany, etc. Hopefully this will work for those that aren't that extreme.

DealzOnWheelz
01-12-2012, 10:59 AM
We should also focus on the fact that ROn Paul is in favor of a large US Navy. He has absolutely no problem with having Nuclear submarines & Aircraft carriers patrolling the oceans of the world. With our current defense technology we can maintain positions of interest without occupying countries which will improve the view of the US in countries that don't want us there while still protecting our interests.

DealzOnWheelz
01-12-2012, 11:14 AM
Bump for my 1776 post!!!!!!

The Free Hornet
01-12-2012, 11:40 AM
good line of attack. the 'sophisticated neocon' argument is " this will create a power vacuum'' and china and russia will occupy it.

Or they will go bankrupt trying to occupy it....

The Free Hornet
01-12-2012, 11:42 AM
We should also focus on the fact that ROn Paul is in favor of a large US Navy. He has absolutely no problem with having Nuclear submarines & Aircraft carriers patrolling the oceans of the world. With our current defense technology we can maintain positions of interest without occupying countries which will improve the view of the US in countries that don't want us there while still protecting our interests.

Absolutely, he could point out that there is more firepower in one trident submarine than all our deployed conventional forces combined (or so I assume - maybe someone with da smarts could figure it out).

AND IT COULD BE SAID IN THE NEXT DEBATE THAT THESE NAVAL/CARRIER FORCES CAN REMAIN STRATEGICALLY DEPLOYED AROUND THE WORLD*. And I would ref needing only a fraction of our current non-US territory bases.

* I am only so bold because I don't recall this policy distinction (strategically deployed subs, navy) being mentioned in a debate.

Deborah K
01-12-2012, 11:49 AM
Sounds good. But I've talked to a number of voters that said that we must be in Germany, etc. Hopefully this will work for those that aren't that extreme.

People need to put on their "logistical thinking caps" when they consider Ron's proposal to close down all bases in foreign countries. It won't happen overnight, it will be systematic, pragmatic, and gradual, so that the transition can be handled with minimal problem for the our country as well as the 'occupied' country. All issues, and problems will be considered, and prioritized, I'm sure.

AhuwaleKaNaneHuna
01-12-2012, 12:11 PM
We should also focus on the fact that ROn Paul is in favor of a large US Navy. He has absolutely no problem with having Nuclear submarines & Aircraft carriers patrolling the oceans of the world. With our current defense technology we can maintain positions of interest without occupying countries which will improve the view of the US in countries that don't want us there while still protecting our interests.

YESSS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! People will love hearing that!!!

Santorum in one of the last debates lead people to belive that the Navy would be docked at home if he were President. ( When Paul praised the Iranians rescue from Pirates )

unknown
01-12-2012, 12:11 PM
"Foreign welfare".

HGN11
01-12-2012, 12:50 PM
"Foreign welfare".

Much better term imo. People who aren't necessarily friendly to Ron Paul's foreign policy views are going to feel pride when they hear the word military and then bristle when it's followed by welfare. It's going to be an emotional reaction rather than a logic-based one. "Military welfare" would be a much harder phrase to sell than "foreign welfare".

fender7802
01-12-2012, 01:05 PM
Either way, I'll be using some form of the new phrase in my discussions.

Also, this has probably been said but what we need to do is calculate the exact percentage of taxes that every person should have to pay in order to fund the current military. Since the military is financed by debt, what would my taxes have to be in order for the military budget to be sound? Probably something like 30% higher than they are now, just guessing though. This way we can pull up the figure and say "hey you want all this military nonsense then each person will have to pay x% more in taxes"

jcarcinogen
01-12-2012, 01:20 PM
Its actually 'Corporate Welfare' because of all of the contracts/cronyism and regarding South Korea, Germany, Japan, etc we are 'subsidizing their defense' even though they are wealthy nations.

dcjones
01-16-2012, 07:47 AM
Got a response from Doug on this: "Oh wow, this is really, really good. Thanks so much."

mosquitobite
01-16-2012, 07:52 AM
YESSS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! People will love hearing that!!!

Santorum in one of the last debates lead people to belive that the Navy would be docked at home if he were President. ( When Paul praised the Iranians rescue from Pirates )

Agree - hope people from the campaign are here and reading this thread. Awesome points made!

SurfsUp
01-16-2012, 08:14 AM
A few good talking points to get thru to Repub. Neocons:

1. The republicans hate welfare/socialism and so do libertarians like me. Why is there a disconnect when it comes to "Military Welfare a socialist policy" my new term when describing our overseas military industrial complex.

Why are we spending trillions to defend Europe, Asia, and the Middle East? Don't they have their own money? The only reason they don't build their own defense is because they know that we will do it for them using our hard earned capital and blood. Its like people not getting a job or working because someone else will pay.

This is great logic to get thru to your local neocon friends and works for me every time. You need to phrase this a "Welfare". It really is very similar in that the Government takes money from the public for some designated reason to help “others”. To make it worse it’s the “others” are not even in our country.

2. If this still does not get them, then the next best option would be that if we defend other countries because they need us, we should at least get paid for it! I propose they pay say $200,000 per infantry a year + expenses + equipment and transportation costs. Let us see how quick they want us to defend them then? And if that happens we will be exporting military goods helping our trade deficit. Instead of spending capital, we will bring wealth in. And we will not be blamed as much for issues because we just supply the goods and are not the perpetrators.

3. If they still think we need it because the other countries can’t afford their own Military. The next talking point is “How safe will the world be if we need to precipitously leave the military posts because we are BROKE! It would be a disaster. Its better to wind down slowly, this is Ron Paul’s policy.”

Just trying to get some of my talking points that actually converted many neocon friends of mine to understand and sooner the people realize this, the more Ron will get support.


bump

georgiaboy
01-16-2012, 08:20 AM
excellent. I've already started using it. easy transition when you start talking about reducing the size of gov't and how welfare/charity should be taken care of locally/privately.

thanks.