Rand Paul on John Oliver/Daily Show... [Archive]

RoyGBiv

08-14-2013, 03:27 PM

I'm curious, what don't you like about his foreign policy (http://www.paul.senate.gov/?p=issue&id=14)?

At the risk of sounding like an ass....
I believe it will require some level of continued "interventionism" in order to maintain our safety while we unwind all the ills caused by our prior interventionism.

Paul seems to want to pull the plug and retreat to a posture that would yield (in my opinion) an expansion of threats. I'm not in favor of, say, continuing to prop up more Mubaraks, but I would have definitely liked to see us do more than we have in support of the Arab Spring... (not with boots).. I'm just not clear on whether Paul is an isolationist (like his father, IMO) or playing his cards in a way meant to appease the center-left.

Shellback

08-14-2013, 03:48 PM

At the risk of sounding like an ass....
I believe it will require some level of continued "interventionism" in order to maintain our safety while we unwind all the ills caused by our prior interventionism.

Paul seems to want to pull the plug and retreat to a posture that would yield (in my opinion) an expansion of threats. I'm not in favor of, say, continuing to prop up more Mubaraks, but I would have definitely liked to see us do more than we have in support of the Arab Spring... (not with boots).. I'm just not clear on whether Paul is an isolationist (like his father, IMO) or playing his cards in a way meant to appease the center-left.

Fair enough. I think this article (http://www.policymic.com/articles/25095/rand-paul-foreign-policy-speech-could-be-hint-of-2016-presidential-run) does a fairly good job of breaking down his foreign policy and his position on "isolationism". This stuck out to me in particular.

Unlike the isolationist approach of his father, former libertarian Congressman Ron Paul (R-Texas), the junior Paul understands the reality of the world, and has no desire to end American involvement in foreign affairs.

Paul does believe, however, that America's foreign policy needs to be scaled down, stating, “I’d argue that a more restrained foreign policy is the true conservative foreign policy, as it includes two basic tenets of true conservatism: respect for the Constitution and fiscal discipline.”

I don't know everything about Rand, or his positions on every thing, but I do think he's far more consistent than the vast majority of politicians and his beliefs are founded in the Constitution. No matter what he says about his current position I'm curious to know if that would remain consistent if he were given the chance in office, realistically I know that won't happen. Our current President has flipped a 180 on the vast majority of his foreign policy positions from when he was campaigning, as have many on a lot of different topics. I think most will say what most want to hear and then do whatever they want once they get the slot.

RoyGBiv

08-14-2013, 04:05 PM

I don't know everything about Rand, or his positions on every thing, but I do think he's far more consistent than the vast majority of politicians and his beliefs are founded in the Constitution. No matter what he says about his current position I'm curious to know if that would remain consistent if he were given the chance in office, realistically I know that won't happen. Our current President has flipped a 180 on the vast majority of his foreign policy positions from when he was campaigning, as have many on a lot of different topics. I think most will say what most want to hear and then do whatever they want once they get the slot.

Among the reasons I like him as much as I do.
His father is a bit of a nutter /understatement

jc000

08-14-2013, 04:23 PM

His father is a bit of a nutter /understatement

And here comes your regularly scheduled Ron Paul supporter rant (:D):

I honestly don't see how anyone who considers themselves a believer in our constitution could possibly consider Ron Paul a "nutter" unless they have some major stake in our current pro-Israel foreign policy.

The only "nutty" thing about Ron Paul is the fact that his mindblowingly commonsense approach to our nation's ills has been so vehemently dismissed and attacked by supposed conservatives.

Shellback

08-14-2013, 04:34 PM

Among the reasons I like him as much as I do.
His father is a bit of a nutter /understatement

I may not agree with all of his positions but I still think he has many valid points. He opened a lot of people's eyes, to a lot of different issues, and helped open the door for Cruz, Rand and the growing trend towards a more constitutionally based political system.

Kyle Reese

08-14-2013, 04:39 PM

And here comes your regularly scheduled Ron Paul supporter rant (:D):

I honestly don't see how anyone who considers themselves a believer in our constitution could possibly consider Ron Paul a "nutter" unless they have some major stake in our current pro-Israel foreign policy.

The only "nutty" thing about Ron Paul is the fact that his mindblowingly commonsense approach to our nation's ills has been so vehemently dismissed and attacked by supposed conservatives.

What's wrong with having a pro-Israel foreign policy?

RoyGBiv

08-14-2013, 04:45 PM

And here comes your regularly scheduled Ron Paul supporter rant:
I teed that right up for you... :D

I'll reply with a poorly researched google search result opinion piece... Some of which contain bits worthy of consideration.
http://townhall.com/columnists/johnhawkins/2007/06/15/the_conservative_case_against_ron_paul

Ron is isolationist... IMO. While I'm in favor of some pull back, I'm not for abdication of our influence as (what's left of) the only remaining superpower. I find myself liking many of his Libertarian positions, he's the "smallest government" guy by far... two BIG thumbs up for that. I'm not a RP hater by any means. But honestly, and I've seen him speak live, he doesn't seem entirely in control of himself.... it's as if he's got this streak of Libertarian brilliance without the ability to control it... and he gets beyond himself. So when I say "nutter", it's intended (however impolitely) as concern for his cognitive state, less so about any disagreements I have with his political views.

Hopefully that made a little sense.. it's getting late in the afternoon.

I'll let you have the last word on Ron if you want to take it... He's not running in 2016, but I hope his son will be. I think Rand will elevate the debates greatly, as would Cruz and Mike Lee, especially Cruz. Seems like Rubio is going down with the immigration bill. He might make an interesting VP candidate if it gets that far, but I'm still a Paul Ryan fan.

JAD

08-14-2013, 06:17 PM

What's wrong with having a pro-Israel foreign policy?

http://img.tapatalk.com/d/13/08/15/nu9u6u4y.jpg

jc000

08-14-2013, 09:29 PM

What's wrong with having a pro-Israel foreign policy?

I have yet to see that translate to a pro-America benefit.

jc000

08-14-2013, 09:34 PM

I teed that right up for you... :D

I'll reply with a poorly researched google search result opinion piece... Some of which contain bits worthy of consideration.
http://townhall.com/columnists/johnhawkins/2007/06/15/the_conservative_case_against_ron_paul

Ron is isolationist... IMO. While I'm in favor of some pull back, I'm not for abdication of our influence as (what's left of) the only remaining superpower. I find myself liking many of his Libertarian positions, he's the "smallest government" guy by far... two BIG thumbs up for that. I'm not a RP hater by any means. But honestly, and I've seen him speak live, he doesn't seem entirely in control of himself.... it's as if he's got this streak of Libertarian brilliance without the ability to control it... and he gets beyond himself. So when I say "nutter", it's intended (however impolitely) as concern for his cognitive state, less so about any disagreements I have with his political views.

Hopefully that made a little sense.. it's getting late in the afternoon.

I'll let you have the last word on Ron if you want to take it... He's not running in 2016, but I hope his son will be. I think Rand will elevate the debates greatly, as would Cruz and Mike Lee, especially Cruz. Seems like Rubio is going down with the immigration bill. He might make an interesting VP candidate if it gets that far, but I'm still a Paul Ryan fan.

Can't say I find much of value in that piece.

The Karl Rove republican wing—which pretty much dominates supposed "conservative" politics—will destroy Rand Paul as it gets closer to the election. He didn't fall far enough from the tree to get a pass. So you'll end up Rubio or someone like that, and once again I'll get stuck with the candidate that you deserve.

RoyGBiv

08-14-2013, 09:37 PM

once again I'll get stuck with the candidate that you deserve.
Whole lotta presumptions in that reply.

Have an excellent evening... or whatever part of the day you're enjoying.

JAD

08-14-2013, 09:38 PM

I have yet to see that translate to a pro-America benefit.

So, setting aside the ethical imperative... Well, wait, I'm not going to do that. Abandoning the only reliable ally in an entire region, which would almost certainly result in its destruction, is untenable.

justintime

08-14-2013, 10:00 PM

definitely hope rand for 16 over rubio

jc000

08-14-2013, 11:38 PM

Abandoning the only reliable ally in an entire region, which would almost certainly result in its destruction, is untenable.

I would call that a fallacy.

jc000

08-14-2013, 11:40 PM

Whole lotta presumptions in that reply.

Sorry—I find this an incredibly frustrating topic. Should not have been snarky, no harm meant.

Have an excellent evening... or whatever part of the day you're enjoying.

And you as well.

Shellback

08-15-2013, 07:51 AM

RoyGBiv - I think you'll find this article on isolationism (http://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/rand-paul-no-isolationist) a quick read. It's pretty interesting, quite succinct and you may walk away with a different opinion on what the term isolationist means and how that's been shaped by the media and political pundits. A few highlights from Rand Paul Is No Isolationist.

...skeptics of reckless foreign wars and secret government spying on Americans aren’t isolationists. They’re prudent conservatives who take the Constitution seriously and rose to power amid the wreckage of the George W. Bush administration, which destroyed the GOP advantage on national security and provided a good example of how not to conduct foreign policy.

The second thing you should know is that “isolationist” was designed as a slur and remains one. No one calls himself an isolationist. It’s always intended to link the target with the ignominious record of Americans in the 1930s who were slow to recognize the threat from Nazi Germany. But the term itself was coined around the turn of the 20th century by the imperialist A. T. Mahan to disparage opponents of American overseas expansion. As the Pulitzer Prize-winning historian Walter McDougall showed, America’s “vaunted tradition of ‘isolationism’ is no tradition at all, but a dirty word that interventionists, especially since Pearl Harbor, hurl at anyone who questions their policies.”...

Coincidentally, perhaps, the third thing you should know is that the people trying to create anxiety about isolationism favor an interventionist military policy that has fallen out of favor with the public. After the twin disasters of Iraq and now Afghanistan, they are pawing the ground for more wars in Syria and Iran. Accordingly, they are trying to claim “internationalism” for themselves, so that they can look prudent and modest — in comparison with the ideology that failed to recognize the threat from Adolf Hitler...

So when you start hearing about the scary isolationists who might cause a replay of World War II, remember three things: Isolationists don’t exist in modern America; the term is a slur, not a descriptor; and the people using the term are usually trying to hide their own ideology and delegitimize their opponents...

RoyGBiv

08-15-2013, 08:57 AM

^^^ I'm open to changing my understanding about Rand's foreign policy. Clearly (to me ;) ) my opinion of Rand in this area is affected by my opinion of his father.

What's the saying? Admitting you have a problem is the first step in solving it.. :D

Thanks for the link.

RoyGBiv

08-20-2013, 09:33 AM

Re: Rand Paul.... Stuff like this gives me pause.

http://townhall.com/tipsheet/leahbarkoukis/2013/07/31/senate-rejects-rand-paulbacked-plan-to-end-egypt-aid-n1653267

While Rand may be 100% correct (emphasize MAY) in his interpretation of the law, our foreign policy has been so completely corrupted for so long, that this situation is far from Black & White. Claiming that our response to the situation in Egypt must be constrained by rules which fail to take into account our our extra-Constitutional role in bringing about these problems is unwise. I would LOVE to be able to jump back inside the bounds of moral certitude on foreign policy, but even in Egypt it's an impossibility. The Egyptian military appears to have acted in support of the Democratically elected Morsi government, up until the point where that government undeniably moved towards Islamic Fundamentalism, at which point the military stepped in to oust a fanatical government. Is the military on a path to bring about another, more democratic election? If so, how does cutting them off at the knees help make Egypt or the world safer?

I get the myriad reasons why Rand is right, and I get the fact that advocating "fixing wrongs with more wrongs" is a slippery slope... but.

Shellback

08-20-2013, 10:05 AM

Re: Rand Paul.... Stuff like this gives me pause.

I get the myriad reasons why Rand is right, and I get the fact that advocating "fixing wrongs with more wrongs" is a slippery slope... but.

This is the part that stuck out to me... I'm not sure how our government can't determine that there's been a military coup. It's not like we're talking about Mosaddegh, a democratically elected leader, and the coup d'etat our CIA helped to orchestrate. It ain't rocket science but it is politics.

In Paul’s defense, a 2010 law requires halting U.S. aid to any country that undergoes a military coup.The problem, however, is that the U.S. has failed to make the determination that the military’s ousting of Egyptian President Mohamed Morsi on July 3 was in fact a military coup.

Why? Because as Paul noted, “It’s not convenient now to obey the law that they passed.”

RoyGBiv

08-20-2013, 10:39 AM

This is the part that stuck out to me... I'm not sure how our government can't determine that there's been a military coup. It's not like we're talking about Mosaddegh, a democratically elected leader, and the coup d'etat our CIA helped to orchestrate. It ain't rocket science but it is politics.

It's not a question of whether there's been a Coup... This problem cannot be viewed as that black or white.
It's a question of.... Sure, there's been a Coup, now what is the best thing we can do about it?
Do we let the Muslim Brotherhood bring in resources to wage civil war while we cut funding to the military?
I cannot in my wildest imagination rationalize that as being a good thing.
Is the argument that the military has supported democratic change up until the newly elected government made its radicalization agenda known a totally moot point? Seems to me that the military might be behaving rather sanely here.

Looks like "somebody" got the Saudi's and others to step up. More leading from behind.

Shellback

08-20-2013, 12:08 PM

It's not a question of whether there's been a Coup... This problem cannot be viewed as that black or white.
It's a question of.... Sure, there's been a Coup, now what is the best thing we can do about it?

Take our money and our toys and go home. As a nation we are broke, insolvent and financially screwed. Giving Egypt $1.5 Billion per year along with all the other countries on our payroll isn't helping matters either. Might be too simplistic for some but that's my take on things.

RoyGBiv

08-20-2013, 12:51 PM

Take our money and our toys and go home. As a nation we are broke, insolvent and financially screwed. Giving Egypt $1.5 Billion per year along with all the other countries on our payroll isn't helping matters either. Might be too simplistic for some but that's my take on things.

I can certainly see the argument for that... But IMO, we helped kitten it up, and it's not in our long term best interest to just throw up our hands and walk away.

Question (requires crystal ball): Will walking away now be more expensive in the long term? (be sure to include body count in the definition of the word "expensive")

Shellback

08-20-2013, 03:04 PM

Question (requires crystal ball): Will walking away now be more expensive in the long term? (be sure to include body count in the definition of the word "expensive")

More expensive for who? We give them money, they buy neat toys from U.S. toymakers, our tax dollars prop up the U.S. military-industrial complex, rinse and repeat. I'm not trying to be overly argumentative but revolutions, coups, etc. rack up a body count and it's their business, not ours.

Over a few beers I'm sure we'd agree on most points but I look at my children and want to minimize the bill that they get from our generation. We're so deep in kimchi at this point that I'm not sure there's any going back.

ETA - If you haven't read Smedley Butler's, USMC Major General and 2 time Congressional Medal of Honor recipient, War is a Racket (http://www.ratical.org/ratville/CAH/warisaracket.html) I implore you to do so. It's a quick and informative read.

JV_

08-20-2013, 03:40 PM

As a nation we are broke, insolvent and financially screwed.What bills are we not paying?

Shellback

08-20-2013, 04:25 PM

What bills are we not paying?

I'm not saying we're not paying our bills, but what are we paying them with? How deep in debt are we? The endless "quantitive easing", printing and borrowing of money, raising debt limits, etc. This letter is to Harry Reid from Secretary Tim Geithner in 2011. (http://www.treasury.gov/connect/blog/Pages/letter.aspx)

I am writing in response to your request for an estimate by the Treasury Department of when the statutory debt limit will be reached, and for a description of the consequences of default by the United States.

Never in our history has Congress failed to increase the debt limit when necessary. Failure to raise the limit would precipitate a default by the United States.

Quoted from an article on the subject, "He didn't say that the government will be inconvenienced. He didn't say that the government would be forced to muddle through by delaying payments, raising taxes, and cutting non-obligatory programs and services. He said the government will default. This means that the government doesn't have enough cash to pay its obligations to the many and sundry persons to whom it owes cash unless Congress authorizes an issue of even more debt." - M. Rozeff

I hope my tone doesn't sound off, I'm not trying to be adversarial or a prick in any sense, just short on time today.

RoyGBiv

08-20-2013, 05:00 PM

More expensive for who? We give them money, they buy neat toys from U.S. toymakers, our tax dollars prop up the U.S. military-industrial complex, rinse and repeat. I'm not trying to be overly argumentative but revolutions, coups, etc. rack up a body count and it's their business, not ours.

Over a few beers I'm sure we'd agree on most points but I look at my children and want to minimize the bill that they get from our generation. We're so deep in kimchi at this point that I'm not sure there's any going back.

ETA - If you haven't read Smedley Butler's, USMC Major General and 2 time Congressional Medal of Honor recipient, War is a Racket (http://www.ratical.org/ratville/CAH/warisaracket.html) I implore you to do so. It's a quick and informative read.

Maybe I'm being too obtuse.
The "cost" of our involvement in the ME goes far beyond monetary expenses, and well beyond any specific casualty count of any current operations.
While I agree with you that it certainly seems we're throwing good money after bad, and more lives than seems worthy of current results, we need to look not only at current costs but also desired outcomes. Rand's position seems (since I cannot read his mind) to come from a place of "enough is enough", and I get that. However, my accounting professor had a favorite expression... "Sunk costs are sunk". His advice, which I carry with me in nearly every decision, was.... forget about what you've already spent... it's gone. Based on what you can do going forward, what is the best option?

If we disengage from supporting the Egyptian military, what will become of Egypt? Israel? The ME? Will the US and our allies be safer in the end? If the Muslim Brotherhood continues to rise, what are the long term implications of American isolationism? Clearly this administration has neither the foresight, skills or fortitude for world leadership, but is "something better than nothing" right now?

Realize also that part of your (well, certainly MY) frustration comes from the incompetence of the current administration. What the kitten IS our foreign policy exactly? Will today's policies be tomorrows policies? I rather enjoyed Putin making BHO look the fool that he is. It would have been my play were I Putin. What's to lose?

I would love to be on board with you and say "cut off all foreign aid".... My fear is that a few billion dollars saved today will prove penny wise and pound foolish. I'm weary of the incompetence, but I'm not ready to take my ball and go home.

Thanks for the reading suggestion...

JHC

08-20-2013, 05:38 PM

Maybe I'm being too obtuse.
The "cost" of our involvement in the ME goes far beyond monetary expenses, and well beyond any specific casualty count of any current operations.
While I agree with you that it certainly seems we're throwing good money after bad, and more lives than seems worthy of current results, we need to look not only at current costs but also desired outcomes. Rand's position seems (since I cannot read his mind) to come from a place of "enough is enough", and I get that. However, my accounting professor had a favorite expression... "Sunk costs are sunk". His advice, which I carry with me in nearly every decision, was.... forget about what you've already spent... it's gone. Based on what you can do going forward, what is the best option?

If we disengage from supporting the Egyptian military, what will become of Egypt? Israel? The ME? Will the US and our allies be safer in the end? If the Muslim Brotherhood continues to rise, what are the long term implications of American isolationism? Clearly this administration has neither the foresight, skills or fortitude for world leadership, but is "something better than nothing" right now?

Realize also that part of your (well, certainly MY) frustration comes from the incompetence of the current administration. What the kitten IS our foreign policy exactly? Will today's policies be tomorrows policies? I rather enjoyed Putin making BHO look the fool that he is. It would have been my play were I Putin. What's to lose?

I would love to be on board with you and say "cut off all foreign aid".... My fear is that a few billion dollars saved today will prove penny wise and pound foolish. I'm weary of the incompetence, but I'm not ready to take my ball and go home.

Thanks for the reading suggestion...

One great post after another Roy. I lost count. The idea that in hindsight; if we didn't spend X we never would have spent anything doesn't really hold up through history. Plenty of nations have avoided paying X and then paid many multiples of it later.

I have high hopes for Rand. He's a great communicator and smart. I have no idea if he has one day of executive work in his resume and ideologues with no executive or governing experience are risky but we shall see.

I heard him interviewed at length about the global Islamo-fascist movement and he was quite impressive and understood the need to confront it and contain it - with as little military conflict as possible and more emphasis on intelligence ops, sanctions, treaties, and messaging - good stuff.

So I was disappointed on Sunday to see him on TV characterizing Egypt to the effect "Egyptians are not going to like us when they see American tanks rolling over their people".

So much FAIL!!! His reference to American tanks; meaning we paid for the Russian tanks was cheap and gratuitous. Then is the monster FAIL that is matters one wit if Egyptians love us or hate us. Big mistake. Nations will act in their interests - distinct from the "Arab street". You make it more costly to oppose us than to support us; you will have the relations you want. Always been so. Rand should no better. His father didn't.

And finally he needs to ramp up on the situation there. This is effectively a civil war with the Egyptian army - whom we've been on good terms with for decades - is trying to crush an enemy of all Western civilization; the Muslim Brotherhood. If he can't support them in this effort then pipe down. Cut aid for fiscal reasons but the rhetoric doesn't need to undermine the closest thing to an ally we have there. Just dumb. He can do better.

Fortunately for The Long War, the Saudi's and neighbors have ponied up $12 Billion for Egypt so the army can clear their mind of fretting over DC bleating from both parties and their pocket change (relatively).

JHC

08-20-2013, 05:58 PM

While I'm not persuaded that the Libertarian platform such as it is can realistically deal with a globalized world I don't worry about a President Rand Paul. When he gets the intel briefs and learns the full picture; he'll behave more like the rule than the exception on the balance. Responsibility of being in the seat will have an affect like that.

RoyGBiv

08-20-2013, 08:44 PM

RoyGBiv

08-20-2013, 08:52 PM

I have high hopes for Rand. He's a great communicator and smart. I have no idea if he has one day of executive work in his resume and ideologues with no executive or governing experience are risky but we shall see.

I heard him interviewed at length about the global Islamo-fascist movement and he was quite impressive and understood the need to confront it and contain it - with as little military conflict as possible and more emphasis on intelligence ops, sanctions, treaties, and messaging - good stuff.

So I was disappointed on Sunday to see him on TV characterizing Egypt to the effect "Egyptians are not going to like us when they see American tanks rolling over their people".

So much FAIL!!! His reference to American tanks; meaning we paid for the Russian tanks was cheap and gratuitous. Then is the monster FAIL that is matters one wit if Egyptians love us or hate us. Big mistake. Nations will act in their interests - distinct from the "Arab street". You make it more costly to oppose us than to support us; you will have the relations you want. Always been so. Rand should no better. His father didn't.

And finally he needs to ramp up on the situation there. This is effectively a civil war with the Egyptian army - whom we've been on good terms with for decades - is trying to crush an enemy of all Western civilization; the Muslim Brotherhood. If he can't support them in this effort then pipe down. Cut aid for fiscal reasons but the rhetoric doesn't need to undermine the closest thing to an ally we have there. Just dumb. He can do better.

Fortunately for The Long War, the Saudi's and neighbors have ponied up $12 Billion for Egypt so the army can clear their mind of fretting over DC bleating from both parties and their pocket change (relatively).
Agreed 1000%.
I like Rand. I want to like Rand. I watched ~11 hours of his drone filibuster.
He reminds people why they should have paid better attention in civics class and gives them the lessons they need.
But I see his father in his view of the world. Not a deal breaker, just reason for me to be wary.

JHC

08-21-2013, 08:03 AM

Current POTUS being an exception? ;)

Good question. I don't think he's an exception. I don't think he saw himself being a world-wide drone assassin when he was elected. I suspect he embraced it because he'd already taken more effective balanced CIA programs off the table but doesn't want the blame of a catastrophe. His overall execution of national security (and everything else) is pathetically bad because he's trapped by a '60's/'70's ideology and is not curious enough to explore outside of it. That's my take anyway.

JHC

08-21-2013, 08:06 AM

Agreed 1000%.
I like Rand. I want to like Rand. I watched ~11 hours of his drone filibuster.
He reminds people why they should have paid better attention in civics class and gives them the lessons they need.
But I see his father in his view of the world. Not a deal breaker, just reason for me to be wary.

Oh and when I referred to "risky" I didn't mean in an apocalyptic sense but rather for the ability to actually govern where there is another branch of government to partner with. That's why I lean towards looking at solid governors before legislators in general.

jc000

08-21-2013, 03:56 PM

If we disengage from supporting the Egyptian military, what will become of Egypt? Israel? The ME? Will the US and our allies be safer in the end?

I would love to be on board with you and say "cut off all foreign aid".... My fear is that a few billion dollars saved today will prove penny wise and pound foolish.
It's never too late to, as a nation, refocus on our true interests.

Are there not better ways to deal with our problems concerning national security, energy demand, and the global economy than this kind of foreign military intervention? How does our military pressure in that region benefit our allies in Europe?

I think pushing beyond the limits of our credit to muddle about in these nation's affairs is about the worst of our options.

Ron Paul was (and still is) right on the money about this. These are not truly American-centric policies.

TGS

08-21-2013, 04:15 PM

These are not truly American-centric policies.

...and even if they were, we simply don't have a way to actually pay for them. By pay for them, I don't mean taking out more loans and letting the debt build up. That's not paying.

Saving "a few" bucks might hamper us as some members noted, but to me there's simply no way we can continue on this path of spending......no matter how bad the consequences are. This country needs to eat a $hit-sandwich, and the sooner we do it the better. It's just going to hurt more if we keep delaying it. That's common sense, but I think we're too good at convincing ourselves it doesn't apply for one reason or another.

ETA: now, proverbial sandwich doesn't mean TEOTWAWKISHTF, but I think it goes without saying that our social programs (http://m.nypost.com/p/news/opinion/opedcolumnists/when_welfare_pays_better_than_work_GGZfz3wTztSW3Bo Mxn2VrI) need to change and that will be a dramatic change in our history, profoundly affecting America. Or, we can just continue down this slow road of decay. That's cool, I guess, cause we surely don't want to P.O. the rest of the world by pulling our aid.

RoyGBiv

08-21-2013, 05:22 PM

JHC

08-21-2013, 07:00 PM

Just in the context of the senior RP suggestion that he harkens back to the day when we minded our own business: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_United_States_military_operations

We've stayed pretty busy overseas our whole history for one reason or another. Our functioning as the Leviathon and security rule set enforcer has enabled several waves of globalization that have lifted hundreds of millions into prosperity and the rising tide floats all boats as I think free market types say it.

But to TGS's point; we have to make major spending reforms and Rand P would be committed to such one can assume. But he's got to bring a Congress along with him to make that happen.

jc000

08-21-2013, 07:00 PM

I can think of 5 entire federal agencies i would eliminate ahead of eliminating all foreign aid.

Can our FA dollars be more wisely and more purposefully spent? No doubt.

Do we eliminate foreign aid "just because doing so seems within reach"? Penny wise.

I could think of some fed agencies I'd like eliminated along with foreign aid.

What I'd really like to hear from proponents of continued foreign aid/military support in the region is what specifically do they see that getting us? What are the immediate steps and how do they benefit us directly?

I'm not sure what we think we're getting from this intervention. Unimpeded oil delivery? New markets for US businesses? Security? How does this happen, specifically?

EDIT: What I'm trying to get at is that I keep hearing the argument against leaving a "mess" behind. My question is--how are we "cleaning the mess"?

JHC

08-21-2013, 07:03 PM

I could think of some fed agencies I'd like eliminated along with foreign aid.

What I'd really like to hear from proponents of continued foreign aid/military support in the region is what specifically do they see that getting us? What are the immediate steps and how do they benefit us directly?

I'm not sure what we think we're getting from this intervention. Unimpeded oil delivery? New markets for US businesses? Security? How does this happen, specifically?

Tough to find those advocates of late outside of DC or academia. I can see helping out and out allies. There should be a clear quid pro quo and deliverables.

RoyGBiv

08-21-2013, 07:43 PM

I could think of some fed agencies I'd like eliminated along with foreign aid.
Touche' :D...

What I'd really like to hear from proponents of continued foreign aid/military support in the region is what specifically do they see that getting us? What are the immediate steps and how do they benefit us directly?

I'm not sure what we think we're getting from this intervention. Unimpeded oil delivery? New markets for US businesses? Security? How does this happen, specifically?

EDIT: What I'm trying to get at is that I keep hearing the argument against leaving a "mess" behind. My question is--how are we "cleaning the mess"?
We're peeling the onion here..
In order to give you a clear "do this" answer, I'd need to be in charge of decision making and have access to resources (CIA, NSA, State, etc.), that I don't have. So, all I can give you is a lot of blah, blah, blah...

What is it we all want? Safety and security at home and of our interests abroad. Pretty simple.
How do we define that? Gets muddy and political rather quickly.

Here's the thing..... We have established a precedent upon which much of the world churns. How many governments in Africa would survive the withdrawal of US aid? Who will fill that vacuum? The US has set up these vast systems of patronage to governments (and individuals, many of them corrupt, or worse) that will retain power for as long at the system can supply incentives (money) to its participants. Russia, China, AlQ.... Will step in and fill the void with their $$'s, and at a pittance of the price the US is paying. When the US withdraws, the price to buy a corrupt government will certainly crater. Now we're left with the whole of Africa (perhaps not SA) as a safe zone for AlQ.

Believe me when I say that the current FA system sucks donkey dong. But taking the ball and going home seems an awful idea. Kinda like spanking your kids when they're adults. Maybe you feel like you've made your point at the moment, but they're capable enough of choosing their own direction, and you've left them no way to choose your direction. (sucky analogy, please forgive)

It's impossible to say "here's what to do", primarily because the current administration has no plan, no moral compass and no apparent interest in being inconvenienced by learning Statesmanship. We're too busy apologizing and then feeling bad when others don't do what we want them to do, just because we asked and even when it's so obviously not in their own self interest. POTUS is far too small for his office.

Remember Charlie Wilson's War? Maybe some of you lived through it? I'm old enough to remember the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan and the political climate of the early 80's, but my memories of CWW are strictly the Tom Hanks version. The most memorable moment of the movie for me (other than the hookers & blow ;) ) was near the end when Tom Hanks is sitting in a committee meeting begging for a few million dollars to build schools in Afghanistan, only to be turned down. From that few million dollars savings came the Taliban, AlQ, USS Stark, '83 Beirut barracks, 9/11, and much of what we're talking about here today.

Bottom line.... Just because we suck at it doesn't me we should stop doing it without considering the consequences. Learning to be better at it is paramount.

I'd love to see less aid spent more wisely and tied to very specific, measurable goals. When I finally convinced my father to stop giving cash to my elderly grandfather (he was, in turn, giving the cash to my aunt to buy pocketbooks while gramps was living in squalor) and instead have the new refrigerator (and groceries, and the electric bill) delivered to gramps house, gramps life actually improved.

Sorry for the ramble.

TGS

08-21-2013, 07:52 PM

Touche' :D...

We're peeling the onion here..
In order to give you a clear "do this" answer, I'd need to be in charge of decision making and have access to resources (CIA, NSA, State, etc.), that I don't have. So, all I can give you is a lot of blah, blah, blah...

What is it we all want? Safety and security at home and of our interests abroad. Pretty simple.
How do we define that? Gets muddy and political rather quickly.

Here's the thing..... We have established a precedent upon which much of the world churns. How many governments in Africa would survive the withdrawal of US aid? Who will fill that vacuum? The US has set up these vast systems of patronage to governments (and individuals, many of them corrupt, or worse) that will retain power for as long at the system can supply incentives (money) to its participants. Russia, China, AlQ.... Will step in and fill the void with their $$'s, and at a pittance of the price the US is paying. When the US withdraws, the price to buy a corrupt government will certainly crater. Now we're left with the whole of Africa (perhaps not SA) as a safe zone for AlQ.

Believe me when I say that the current FA system sucks donkey dong. But taking the ball and going home seems an awful idea. Kinda like spanking your kids when they're adults. Maybe you feel like you've made your point at the moment, but they're capable enough of choosing their own direction, and you've left them no way to choose your direction. (sucky analogy, please forgive)

It's impossible to say "here's what to do", primarily because the current administration has no plan, no moral compass and no apparent interest in being inconvenienced by learning Statesmanship. We're too busy apologizing and then feeling bad when others don't do what we want them to do, just because we asked and even when it's so obviously not in their own self interest. POTUS is far too small for his office.

Remember Charlie Wilson's War? Maybe some of you lived through it? I'm old enough to remember the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan and the political climate of the early 80's, but my memories of CWW are strictly the Tom Hanks version. The most memorable moment of the movie for me (other than the hookers & blow ;) ) was near the end when Tom Hanks is sitting in a committee meeting begging for a few million dollars to build schools in Afghanistan, only to be turned down. From that few million dollars savings came the Taliban, AlQ, 9/11, and much of what we're talking about here today.

Bottom line.... Just because we suck at it doesn't me we should stop doing it without considering the consequences. Learning to be better at it is paramount.

I'd love to see less aid spent more wisely and tied to very specific, measurable goals. When I finally convinced my father to stop giving cash to my elderly grandfather (he was, in turn, giving the cash to my aunt to buy pocketbooks while gramps was living in squalor) and instead have the new refrigerator (and groceries, and the electric bill) delivered to gramps house, gramps life actually improved.

Sorry for the ramble.

Of course FA has its purposes and benefits, as you noted about power vacuums. I'm a big proponent of overseas engagement.

That still doesn't answer the question of how to pay for it.

As for CWW, I wouldn't imagine for 1 second that not building schools is the reason we have 9/11, the Taliban and Al-Qaeda. If we tried to build schools back then, we would have been fighting the same people in the same valleys and wadis we're fighting now. It would not have averted anything, only guaranteed that it happened right then and there.

RoyGBiv

08-21-2013, 08:14 PM

Of course FA has its purposes and benefits, as you noted about power vacuums. I'm a big proponent of overseas engagement.

That still doesn't answer the question of how to pay for it.
Thought I answered that above...

2014 Proposed Budget (WH) in Billions
Dept of Education : 56.7
Commerce: 11.7
Energy: 32.5
Interior: 12
HUD: 47.2
Privatizing TSA: 7.6 (2012 budget)
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Total: 167.1 Billion dollars.

Even if you reduced that by 50% (some of those functions go away, some of that spending would be block-granted to the States and need to be spent anyways), we're still looking at 80+ billion dollars of opportunity.

And yes... this what Ron Paul proposed... I never said I had anything against his DOMESTIC policies :D

ETA: http://nationalpriorities.org/blog/2013/05/06/how-much-foreign-aid-does-us-give-away/
FA budget is 37B including aid to foreign militaries.

As for CWW, I wouldn't imagine for 1 second that not building schools is the reason we have 9/11, the Taliban and Al-Qaeda. If we tried to build schools back then, we would have been fighting the same people in the same valleys and wadis we're fighting now. It would not have averted anything, only guaranteed that it happened right then and there.
We'll have to agree to disagree there.. We helped them throw out the Soviets, and rather than ride the positive wave and win the peace, we left a vacuum that the Taliban and AlQ were more than happy to fill. Perhaps it might not have turned out perfectly. We have a tendency to kitten such things up by demanding "democracy just like US", but it would have been better than it turned out, and for a mere pittance...