Congressman Paul Returns Over $100,000 to Treasury

Discussion in 'Free Speech Alley' started by Rex_B, Mar 2, 2010.

Page 2 of 3
  1. Chase4LSU

    Chase4LSU Waiting on Mettenberger

    Joined:
    Oct 29, 2009
    Messages:
    1,412
    Likes Received:
    74

    I agree to a point. While we are wanted, and actually liked for being in some areas of the world, there are others that we could cut. I'm not calling for a massive cut, but we are not needed in some places where we have bases. Sitting on a base and doing nothing for months or years at a time, where there isn't a need or desire to have us there, isn't doing anyone good.
     
    Chase4LSU, Mar 2, 2010
    #11
  2. Bandit88

    Bandit88 Old Enough to Know Better

    Joined:
    Aug 25, 2007
    Messages:
    6,068
    Likes Received:
    511
    If you don't understand the answer to your own question, Rex, then the forum doesn't have enough bandwith to explain it.

    I recommend a thorough browsing of World history, followed by a focused review the time period between 1910 and 1948. I'm not sure what else you need to know.
     
    Bandit88, Mar 2, 2010
    #12
  3. Bandit88

    Bandit88 Old Enough to Know Better

    Joined:
    Aug 25, 2007
    Messages:
    6,068
    Likes Received:
    511
    Isolationism in a global economy = stupid. There are four primary instruments of national power (diplomacy, information, military and economy), with a few subsets (finance, intelligence, legal). They are intertwined. Diplomacy and economic power are useless without credible military power.

    If you are happy with the US relagating itself to doing China and OPEC's bidding (and don't say we already do because that's just boilerplate nonsense), then isolationism is worth considering. But even then - we have too many resources and too much talent and power to be left alone. We'll meddle by using the other instruments of national power - and eventually we'll be forced to use the "M", whether you'd choose to or not.

    So engagement is the only answer.

    America is a defacto empire. We've chosen (I think very poorly) to be an overly disinterested, soft, almost neglectful empire. And you would have us pull back even further. You have to understand what that, eventually, entails. It means you learn to speak Chinese if you want to do business.
     
    Bandit88, Mar 2, 2010
    #13
    1 person likes this.
  4. Rex_B

    Rex_B Geaux Time

    Joined:
    Nov 1, 2003
    Messages:
    3,926
    Likes Received:
    187
    Bandit your definition of isolationism is skewed.

    Tiger I'm not sure when this country moved toward pre-emptive "prevention" but I know our founders would not like it.

    How do you measure the spend vs. the gain though?
     
    Rex_B, Mar 3, 2010
    #14
  5. red55

    red55 curmudgeon Staff Member

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2002
    Messages:
    45,195
    Likes Received:
    8,736
    The military wastes a lot of money, just ask anyone in the military, but cutting the teeth is not the answer, cutting the tail makes more sense. Not the whole tail, US logistics is what makes us a global power, but we have a lot of excess base capacity left over from WWII and the Cold War here at home. Lots of these bases the military would love to unload, but the Congress won't let them cut a facility in their state, so they remain as burdens to the military budget that provide us with no additional military power.

    But, we need to hang onto every overseas' base that we can to be a global power. We no longer will win wars by overwhelming strength. We will win by being able to deploy faster, stay longer, deliver more payload, hit with extreme violence, and be there firstest with the mostest. We need the bases to do that.

    The waste in the National Guard is pretty bad, too. For every squared-away Guardsman carrying his load on active duty overseas, there are two or three undeployable pregnant females, undeployable undertrained specialists, or officers and NCOs undeployable due to age or medical issues and often holding duty assignments that they are over-qualified and overpaid to perform. Waste of food and supplies is astonishing. This assessment comes straight from my old friend who is an E-8 in the Louisiana National Guard, presently on active duty at Camp Beauregard doing an important but fairly easy job and making $91,000 a year! That's more than the average LSU professor makes. He is undeployable due to a wrist injury suffered during Hurricane Katrina duty in the Superdome.

    So, yes there are things that could be cut from the military budget and should be, especially bases that the military no longer needs or wants . . . but those bases are here, not overseas. Professional pay scales and lifetime benefits for undeployable part-time guardsmen may need to be rethought, too.
     
    red55, Mar 3, 2010
    #15
  6. red55

    red55 curmudgeon Staff Member

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2002
    Messages:
    45,195
    Likes Received:
    8,736
    I ain't so sure. The Monroe Doctrine, 1823 where we stated our intention to prevent European powers from making war in the Western Hemisphere, was probably the beginning of it. We pre-empted dozens of Latin-American colonial wars under this doctrine.

    The Mexican War of 1847 was certainly a pre-emptive war and a blatant land-grab. The invasion of the Confederacy in 1861 was a pre-emptive war as well. Pre-emption is not that new. What was new was invading a sovereign country in response to a threat from a international criminal group.
     
    red55, Mar 3, 2010
    #16
  7. Rex_B

    Rex_B Geaux Time

    Joined:
    Nov 1, 2003
    Messages:
    3,926
    Likes Received:
    187
    I was referring to the prevention via those international bases which you stated above we need to keep.

    I get logistics and being able to deploy quickly etc. etc.

    I just don't get the need to be policemen of the world. If China and Russia want to get in a pissing match by all means let them beat each other up and spend money. I could care less.

    I also see some of our bases being in favor, but who is the favor for and how much does that cost and why does that help us..

    I also see some of our bases as motivators of terrorism.

    I'm just not sure where this pro militarism concept came from. This certainly wasn't part of the old conservative Republican party that I wish we still had.
     
    Rex_B, Mar 3, 2010
    #17
  8. gumborue

    gumborue Throwin Ched

    Joined:
    Dec 17, 2003
    Messages:
    10,839
    Likes Received:
    577
    "A Veteran, a doctor, a conservative, a pro life, a family man"---so what.

    im a few of these myself and they mean diddly squat.
     
    gumborue, Mar 3, 2010
    #18
  9. LaSalleAve

    LaSalleAve when in doubt, mumble

    Joined:
    Jun 8, 2008
    Messages:
    44,037
    Likes Received:
    18,027
    nowadays you have to either be a lawyer, or a relative of a former president to become leader of this country.
     
    LaSalleAve, Mar 3, 2010
    #19
  10. Chase4LSU

    Chase4LSU Waiting on Mettenberger

    Joined:
    Oct 29, 2009
    Messages:
    1,412
    Likes Received:
    74

    Well, I'm sick of law being the primary profession (whether active pursuit of the profession or not) of our "civil servants" in Washington. I think I'd rather have relatives come forth...providing they are not lawyers.
     
    Chase4LSU, Mar 3, 2010
    #20
Page 2 of 3

Share This Page