Rand Paul: Cut Aid To Israel

[Gardening Grandma]

Which is the exact reason we have President Ron Paul in office today instead of that socialist Obama. [image]

LOL (karma for that!)

[Gardening Grandma]

I believe our families should be responsible of taking care of these people or if people want to volunteer to help that is great.

Certainly families have the largest responsibility. However, there are cases where the cost of caring for a severely disabled individual is greater than the families' resources (the cost of my grandchild's care is more than the combined incomes of my son, DH and myself). Caregivers who look after parents with Alzheimer's will tell you that they reach a point where they simply cannot continue. Either they have to quit work to care for the parent full time, or they are exhausted to the point of being unable to continue.

I'm still waiting for an answer to my question. If the family cannot care for a disabled person (or they have no family) are you just fine with them starving on the streets? Children and frail elderly?

[reasonfreedom]

Feb 5, 2011 14:34:18 GMT -5 billisonboard said:

Feb 5, 2011 14:29:15 GMT -5 formerexpat said:

And once you explain the cost associated with what is being promised and the inability for the government to sufficiently deliver on such promises [see SS and Medicare], they generally say screw that, I'm much better off by taking responsibility for myself and these fools in Washington are just trying to bend me over.

[/size][/quote]

Which is the exact reason we have President Ron Paul in office today instead of that socialist Obama. [/quote]

No, the reason that Ron Paul is not president is because the majority of the people don't understand the monetary system and would rather have somebody else take care of it for them. Obama gave hope and change. Ron Paul gave you the facts so you can research and decide what is better for you future. Promise you the world like Obama or tell you the truth like Ron Paul. Nobody wants to hear the truth and most can't handle it. David Walker our ex-GOA officer stated in order to get out of debt even with GDP levels at 2005 we would have to cut spending back to almost nothing and raise taxes up towards 50%. Ontop of that we would have to reform health care, medicaid, SS and other social programs. Now you tell me how many people would be like oh oh raises my taxes up 50% or would they rather be give me hope and change. If we hope enough the debt just might poof.

[deziloooooo]

Feb 5, 2011 12:37:14 GMT -5 safeharbor37 said:

dezi,
Libertarians in general, particularly those who believe in a strict interpretation of the Constitution [most, but not all], do not believe in "foreign entanglements" of any kind. It isn't a question of pro-Israel or anti-Israel or of the Zionism question. Libertarians are essentially "isolationist" although they might not use that word. The idea is that the government [any government] should do only the minimum required to maintain itself and enforce the "inherent rights" granted by the Constitution [or others they might desire].
So, libertarians, which includes Ron and Rand Paul, are opposed to the US interfering with any other country, but particularly avoiding "entangling alliances." The Paul opposition to aid to Israel is not because of an opposition to Israel, but because of an opposition to [virtually] all foreign aid by the government. Libertarians have no problem with private charities or other organizations helping other countries, but they do oppose the government doing it.

I wasn't aware they were libertarians..the question of foreign aid is a interesting one though. Actually foreign aid It is a tiny amount of our GNP but for the public to see Billions...It gets ones notice.

Interesting is so much of that is Military aid , so little is for services for the people, which would actually improve their lot in life and alleviate the dispair aso many find them selves in, thus the constant agitation for change, not just Egypt but all such societies through out the world.

Egypt gets 1.6 Billion, the country's unemployment, literacy rate, poverty is so pathetic but out of that 1.6 billion, 1.3 is for military.

Pakistan, mostly military and when we do do the social, we spend millions on studies by Washington based study think tanks, never ask the Pakistanis what they want, we tell them what they need then come up with stupid programs and even on the latest 7.5 Billion in aid recently voted them, that is to go into effect now over the next 5 years..it has been brought out how hard it is to spend $100 million in Pakistan , effectivekly, they are not set up for this, , the corruption, infrastructure, support facilities and qualified peoples, ...yet we voted to give them 5.7 Billion in civilian aid...how we ever got to the moon and back.is beyond me.

[reasonfreedom]

Feb 5, 2011 14:49:53 GMT -5 Gardening Grandma said:

I believe our families should be responsible of taking care of these people or if people want to volunteer to help that is great.

Certainly families have the largest responsibility. However, there are cases where the cost of caring for a severely disabled individual is greater than the families' resources (the cost of my grandchild's care is more than the combined incomes of my son, DH and myself). Caregivers who look after parents with Alzheimer's will tell you that they reach a point where they simply cannot continue. Either they have to quit work to care for the parent full time, or they are exhausted to the point of being unable to continue.

I'm still waiting for an answer to my question. If the family cannot care for a disabled person (or they have no family) are you just fine with them starving on the streets? Children and frail elderly?

Ok, lets say I fall in line to your thinking. The only thing is that I want you to make sure that everybody gets care and the greatest level of care needed. If I have a family member that needs my assistance but I am unable to provide for them in a timely and proper fashion needed because my money is going to other people. I would personally consider my charity a failure. Even though I think the people that need help should have it, my family comes before yours or anybody else. I am not thinking myself as selfish only as duty to the others that I am responsible for personally.

[deziloooooo]

Feb 5, 2011 13:04:25 GMT -5 safeharbor37 said:

In fact, independents tend to be far more moderate than the tea partiers have demonstrated themselves to be.

Your failure to understand here is that you have swallowed the leftie definition of "tea party." You're probably accurate in assuming that the "tea partiers" tend to the right, but if you think the strength of the "tea party" is its appeal only to the "right," you're making the same mistake the Democrats made in the last election.
The "tea party" is not actually a party or even a formal organization, but a real "grass roots" movement which appeals to people who don't feel that either the Republican or Democratic Parties represent their views and beliefs. It's true that most "tea party" support conservatives or Republicans as opposed to liberals or Democrats, but the "tea party" is not a homogeneous group. It is made up of people who are, "Sick and tired, and not going to take it anymore." The nearest thing to the current "tea party" was the Reform Party USA founded by Ross Perot. That movement cost the Republicans the Presidency in 1992 and the "tea party" could very well cost the Democrats the Presidency in 2012.

In your post I was struck by your statement, which I have seen before, but never really thought about, "don't feel that either the Republican or Democratic Parties represent their views and beliefs."

While I have beliefs and views, am I am confident they are the answer..what about electing people who will make the right decisions for the majority of the country peoples that will allow us to be strong, successful and prosperouse, yes considering the views and thoughts of many of us, but where they are wrong, disregard and instead of protecting political partys and catering to ther populace just legislate correctly, and well, even if my personal views and thoughts might be over looked.

Do you see any logic to that thought, or am I asking the impossible.

For me..I think I could live with that type of leadership.

On the social issues...they to me have less to do with prosperity, protection and advancing our society..those, let them battle on about..though I don't know if you can seperate the two .

[billisonboard]

Feb 5, 2011 14:37:20 GMT -5 safeharbor37 said:

And you say that has if it is a bad thing.

Anything the the government forces its citizens to do ...

Yesterday you stated, "those who may deserve a better government have to settle for what the masses dictate." In my opinion a great statement. It shows an understanding that it is "the masses" and not "the government" who is dictating policy. Thus it is the American voter who is forcing fellow citizens to do....

[safeharbor37]

dezi,
Traelin0 is pretty much a libertarian [imho, I can't really speak for him]. He's big on the Austrian School of economics. He could fill you in on their attitude toward the Constitution.
You don't seem to understand what the strict Constitutionalist libertarians and Austrian School economists believe. I don't adhere to their philosophy so you need to find out from them.
For a working knowledge however, just remember: 1] minimum government, 2] no foreign alliances or aid, 3] laissez faire capitalism, 4] no "victim less" crimes. [See: Ron Paul]

[reasonfreedom]

Feb 5, 2011 15:07:19 GMT -5 billisonboard said:

Feb 5, 2011 14:37:20 GMT -5 safeharbor37 said:

Anything the the government forces its citizens to do ...

Yesterday you stated, "those who may deserve a better government have to settle for what the masses dictate." In my opinion a great statement. It shows an understanding that it is "the masses" and not "the government" who is dictating policy. Thus it is the American voter who is forcing fellow citizens to do....

Voting and dictating are at 2 different levels in my opinion. Dictating have a lot more involvement and thinking in the process. Voting only takes marking a ballot with or without the knowledge of candidate. You know how many people fell for the 2k scare, I work in the IT field and that is all I heard from people. Most of the time when I explained that it is just a simple internal clock change or rewriting of the application being used, the feed back I would get was he said (something ridiculous) or she said ( something even more ridiculous). I guess my point is that the masses in general do not have the proper facts to research or don't take time to look for the facts.

[fairlycrazy23]

State and local governments should provide any welfare or social services as dictated by the people of that particular state, since those powers are not among the enumerated ones provided by the states to the Federal Government in the Constitution so are reserved for the States.

[deziloooooo]

We are a great power..militarily the greatest..we can't get away from this, even if we say we would like too and I don't belive we would like that..except for those libertarians and it doesn't seem the majority, even a strong minority , feel that way.

Though I see a lot of that feeling in the Tea party folks..they are scared and seem to want to go back to the womb..leaders don't do that , and I still think America, Americans want to be leaders .

Not womb babies, even though it is a comforting and safe abode.

[fairlycrazy23]

Feb 5, 2011 15:21:17 GMT -5 deziloooooo said:

We are a great power..militarily the greatest..we can't get away from this, even if we say we would like too and I don't belive we would like that..except for those libertarians and it doesn't seem the majority, even a strong minority , feel that way.

Though I see a lot of that feeling in the Tea party folks..they are scared and seem to want to go back to the womb..leaders don't do that , and I still think America, Americans want to be leaders .

Not womb babies, even though it is a comforting and safe abode.

I would probably describe myself as a hawkish libertarian, we need a fairly strong military but don't need to put large number of troops in foreign countries on an ongoing basis. We should have the ability to make preemptive attacks against an adversary if we have a compelling reason.
And we don't need to pay for the defense of other countries and we should get out of the habit of for lack of a better term bribe our friends such as Egypt to be our friends.

But I would not just cut off aid in a vacuum there are other things that have to be done simultaneousness, mostly related to energy.

[reasonfreedom]

Feb 5, 2011 15:21:17 GMT -5 deziloooooo said:

We are a great power..militarily the greatest..we can't get away from this, even if we say we would like too and I don't belive we would like that..except for those libertarians and it doesn't seem the majority, even a strong minority , feel that way.

Though I see a lot of that feeling in the Tea party folks..they are scared and seem to want to go back to the womb..leaders don't do that , and I still think America, Americans want to be leaders .

Not womb babies, even though it is a comforting and safe abode.

Lol, yeah the Tea Party wants to go back to its womb. I see them out there being active and coming together to speak about what needs to be done or what we can do for change. Do I see a Dezil party or you out trying to rally people for a cause you believe in? A little hypocritical of you to say that people are of the womb and nurturing babies when they are being active in their cause.

[billisonboard]

I would probably describe myself as a hawkish libertarian, we need a fairly strong military but don't need to put large number of troops in foreign countries on an ongoing basis. We should have the ability to make preemptive attacks against an adversary if we have a compelling reason.

"Liberty for Americans. American dictation by force for the rest of the world." Fair description of a "hawkish libertarian?

[fairlycrazy23]

Feb 5, 2011 15:32:39 GMT -5 billisonboard said:

I would probably describe myself as a hawkish libertarian, we need a fairly strong military but don't need to put large number of troops in foreign countries on an ongoing basis. We should have the ability to make preemptive attacks against an adversary if we have a compelling reason.

"Liberty for Americans. American dictation by force for the rest of the world." Fair description of a "hawkish libertarian?

Only in the case of a credible threat.

[formerexpat]

Which is the exact reason we have President Ron Paul in office today instead of that socialist Obama.

The laws of humanistics are a tough process to reverse, especially when up against the federally funded public education system. [/size]

[formerexpat]

Yesterday you stated, "those who may deserve a better government have to settle for what the masses dictate." In my opinion a great statement. It shows an understanding that it is "the masses" and not "the government" who is dictating policy. Thus it is the American voter who is forcing fellow citizens to do....

Or it shows that politicians with good marketing campaigns can get elected by a largely uneducated populace to create policy that most of America is against. [/size]

[billisonboard]

Feb 5, 2011 15:40:30 GMT -5 fairlycrazy23 said:

Feb 5, 2011 15:32:39 GMT -5 billisonboard said:

"Liberty for Americans. American dictation by force for the rest of the world." Fair description of a "hawkish libertarian?

Only in the case of a credible threat.

Of course.

[billisonboard]

Feb 5, 2011 15:52:16 GMT -5 formerexpat said:

Yesterday you stated, "those who may deserve a better government have to settle for what the masses dictate." In my opinion a great statement. It shows an understanding that it is "the masses" and not "the government" who is dictating policy. Thus it is the American voter who is forcing fellow citizens to do....

Or it shows that politicians with good marketing campaigns can get elected by a largely uneducated populace to create policy that most of America is against.

[/size][/quote]

Just once I would love to read someone on a political board admit that they wish to scrape pile our political system and set up an oligarchy (of whichever elite they happen to support/believe in).

[deziloooooo]

Feb 5, 2011 15:27:37 GMT -5 reasonfreedom said:

Feb 5, 2011 15:21:17 GMT -5 deziloooooo said:

We are a great power..militarily the greatest..we can't get away from this, even if we say we would like too and I don't belive we would like that..except for those libertarians and it doesn't seem the majority, even a strong minority , feel that way.

Though I see a lot of that feeling in the Tea party folks..they are scared and seem to want to go back to the womb..leaders don't do that , and I still think America, Americans want to be leaders .

Not womb babies, even though it is a comforting and safe abode.

Lol, yeah the Tea Party wants to go back to its womb. I see them out there being active and coming together to speak about what needs to be done or what we can do for change. Do I see a Dezil party or you out trying to rally people for a cause you believe in? A little hypocritical of you to say that people are of the womb and nurturing babies when they are being active in their cause.

Guess my phrasing was to much for you. By going to the womb does not refer to having babies..suggest they are scared , looking for a simpler way of doing things..less overseas interactions, back to the basics , stay home, here , in the States with less international committments.
Libertarian in view point on many issues...not having babys..LOL

[billisonboard]

If the first step taken towards libertarianism would be the stripping of the power of government to create artifical personhood, I say go for it.

[reasonfreedom]

Feb 5, 2011 16:14:04 GMT -5 deziloooooo said:

Feb 5, 2011 15:27:37 GMT -5 reasonfreedom said:

Lol, yeah the Tea Party wants to go back to its womb. I see them out there being active and coming together to speak about what needs to be done or what we can do for change. Do I see a Dezil party or you out trying to rally people for a cause you believe in? A little hypocritical of you to say that people are of the womb and nurturing babies when they are being active in their cause.

Guess my phrasing was to much for you. By going to the womb does not refer to having babies..suggest they are scared , looking for a simpler way of doing things..less overseas interactions, back to the basics , stay home, here , in the States with less international committments.
Libertarian in view point on many issues...not having babys..LOL

I never thought you said having babies, I thought you meant being babies like you said. The last time I checked libertarians think international commitments are fine. We can have plenty of those like trade commitments or even helping in natural disasters( I suggest we get our own finances in order before pushing to much assistance through). I don't see whats wrong with staying home here, if you like those other countries I don't think there is a law holding you here(could that mean you have the liberty to leave if you want?). There is really no need to have military bases around the world, the whole point of the militia is to defend one's country. Bringing the military home can save in defense cost and help with the drugs and guns that cross over the borders. Unless you like dealing with drug dealers/drug lords, I have and they are not so pleasant as to care about your political thoughts. Back to the basics is not necessarily simpler, maybe it is just going back to a basic idea that we can improve in the right way. National debt/finances and lower education standards would be good. Maybe even finding a way to keep a large sum of manufacturing here in the U.S. . All the points you describe as scared seem sensible to me within reason of course, but that is the whole point of reason now isn't it.

[deziloooooo]

"I don't see whats wrong with staying home here, if you like those other countries I don't think there is a law holding you here"
-----------------------------------------------------------

Ahh we are back to the "don't like it here you can leave"..right..sorry friend I paid my dues, not sure about you, think I'll hang around. Try a different response when your in discussion with others...don't agree or answers not to your licking, respond with reasons instead of the very, very old response you just did, very, very out dated.

I have great hopes for our country, feel we are still very strong, both militarily where there is no one close but also, as important, more so actually, as a educated innovative people.

Right now we are going through some things that most of the free and western world is going through, but if you look around..the majority are still doing very well.

I am a bit older , {wish it was a bit older }, have seen and experienced other down times and the same " Oh woe are , the sky is falling " were there then and their descendent's are still here I see.

We are a World , the World power..which gives us clout, responsibilities and also a lot of benefits and I don't see us losing that.

Is the world changing? Of course..more population, more advances, faster pace of life and to run back to a seeming safer less stressful time..example the warmth of the womb, the protection of, just isn't my way, hopefully not yours.

As far as bases being outdated, not needed..possible, then they will be closed and moved, we are always examining that and changes being made as the world and problem areas are changed...other problems are being faced, what ever is to happen, the sky is NOT falling and there is no need of the "Oh woe is me "..lamenting.

[reasonfreedom]

"Ahh we are back to the "don't like it here you can leave"..right..sorry friend I paid my dues, not sure about you, think I'll hang around. Try a different response when your in discussion with others...don't agree or answers not to your licking, respond with reasons instead of the very, very old response you just did, very, very out dated."


I was not insinuating that you leave, you were the one that had the problem with the libertarian philosophy of staying home,here. I was just simply pointing out to you that you had the liberty to stay or go as a libertarian would see it. If you worked hard and payed your dues as you said, then i wouldn't want you to leave. You were just criticizing libertarian philosophies which I think you have more in common with than you think.

[safeharbor37]

"....Yesterday you stated, "those who may deserve a better government have to settle for what the masses dictate." In my opinion a great statement. It shows an understanding that it is "the masses" and not "the government" who is dictating policy. Thus it is the American voter who is forcing fellow citizens to do....[whatever]"
The above statements reveal a lack of understanding of how our political system operates. The "masses" and the "voters" are subject to influence. All governments, to some degree, are oligarchies. The "masses" usually in the form of the "voters" choose their leaders who, in turn, exercise authority and, if they are successful, they will continue to exercise authority. If they aren't, the "masses" in the form of "voters" or not [as in Egypt] will select new leaders.
But it is always the "leaders" who rule. Never the "masses" even in the form of "voters." So it is entirely possible for a tyrant to gain power, but only with the permission of the people [Hitler, e.g.]. That is one of [the main] reasons that the United States is a form of government suitable only for an intelligent, educated, moral and religious people. That is the reason that we discuss issues. We take a position and exercise our rights to vote and to influence others to vote. Then we get the government we deserve. The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is that good [people] do nothing.

[Deleted]

Sorry but as far as I can see anyone that wants to take from one class of people to support another class of people is a socialist.

oldtex,
What would you do about disabled people who cannot work? Those who are so severely mentally retarded that they will never be self supporting? (This is not hypothetical - I have such a grandchild). Let them starve on the streets?
If society decides to care for them, where should the money come from?I want to see them taken care of and if someone wants to call me a "socialist" for that, then so be it.

gardeninggrandma NOTHING IS 100%. I've said many many times that there are exceptions to the rules & certainly disabled people would be the exception. I have no problem with that & I also have no problem with a lot of small, limited programs that are not long running except those (like for disabled) that need long running programs. I do have a problem with something like a national health care which would cover EVERYONE but will be paid for by maybe 50 to 60% of the population. I have a problem with someone who works seasonal work who files for unemployment every year when they are out of work & takes an extended vacation paid for by the government. I would have a problem with a car worker living in Detroit & not working for the next 20 years (while we support them) waiting for the industry to come back (which it won't).
To sum it up & maybe make my stance simpler to understand (& remember there are always exceptions) I have a problem with someone who doesn't work, not looking for work, & hasn't worked in the past living as good of a life as I do because the U.S. government wants to make everybody equal so they take money from me to give to them. I also have a problem giving to illegal aliens (& I mean giving ANYTHING to them, they should be deported with just the clothes on their back & everything earned here should be sold & the money given to the government. In short except for very limited exceptions I do not believe in socialist programs, which is to say wealth redistribution programs. (My comments have nothing to do with handicapped people, Duh....My wife is handicapped btw).

[billisonboard]

Feb 5, 2011 18:51:58 GMT -5 safeharbor37 said:

"....Yesterday you stated, "those who may deserve a better government have to settle for what the masses dictate." In my opinion a great statement. It shows an understanding that it is "the masses" and not "the government" who is dictating policy. Thus it is the American voter who is forcing fellow citizens to do....[whatever]"
The above statements reveal a lack of understanding of how our political system operates. The "masses" and the "voters" are subject to influence. All governments, to some degree, are oligarchies. The "masses" usually in the form of the "voters" choose their leaders who, in turn, exercise authority and, if they are successful, they will continue to exercise authority. If they aren't, the "masses" in the form of "voters" or not [as in Egypt] will select new leaders.
But it is always the "leaders" who rule. Never the "masses" even in the form of "voters." So it is entirely possible for a tyrant to gain power, but only with the permission of the people [Hitler, e.g.]. That is one of [the main] reasons that the United States is a form of government suitable only for an intelligent, educated, moral and religious people. That is the reason that we discuss issues. We take a position and exercise our rights to vote and to influence others to vote. Then we get the government we deserve. The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is that good [people] do nothing.

[fairlycrazy23]

Feb 5, 2011 18:23:29 GMT -5 deziloooooo said:

what ever is to happen, the sky is NOT falling and there is no need of the "Oh woe is me "..lamenting.

The problem is we don't want to wait until the sky is actually falling, and it is pretty close, Federal, State and local governments in the United States have huge underfunded liabilities. And our government is running huge deficits so we have to cut way back and I think one area is foreign add both direct and indirect.

It is fair for Americans to ask "why should i pay to have Troops in Germany or Japan when I have to borrow money from China to pay for it?" And I think the answer is , you shouldn't.

[deziloooooo]

Feb 5, 2011 14:43:26 GMT -5 reasonfreedom said:

Feb 5, 2011 13:54:28 GMT -5 Gardening Grandma said:

Sorry but as far as I can see anyone that wants to take from one class of people to support another class of people is a socialist.

oldtex,
What would you do about disabled people who cannot work? Those who are so severely mentally retarded that they will never be self supporting? (This is not hypothetical - I have such a grandchild). Let them starve on the streets?
If society decides to care for them, where should the money come from?

I want to see them taken care of and if someone wants to call me a "socialist" for that, then so be it.

I believe our families should be responsible of taking care of these people or if people want to volunteer to help that is great. Charity should be given freely not commanded by law. Commanding charity by law is a form of slavery. If you want to demand charity by law, then how much different would it be to those that are jobless and homeless to work the fields as slaves? You would be feeding and housing the homeless and jobless with money from a greater source. If you don't think forcing people to do something is wrong, well then I am not sure how to convince you otherwise. Oh wait, I could just make a law and force you to think my way. /shakes head

I guess thats another place the left and right differ..as a middle to the left, I believe and am glad that there is help available to those who need it..by the government if needed.
I pay my taxes, yes i pay, federal..what happens to the money I haven't a clue. I am sure some goes to projects I am not in favor of or in the amounts given but once it is out of my hands other hands take over.
That some of it goes to help those in need, whether in the form of medical care, nutrition, protection, so be it, you lose sleep over it and be so vocal, me , I'll just let things work out , happy knowing some of my dollers are doing good work.
Whats ledt over in my pocket? I'll spend it as I wish.

[safeharbor37]

dezi,
As a "slightly to the left" you might be able to understand this. We'll see.
There are some of us who would prefer that the government be the last resort, not the first resort. Then we would prefer that the government closest to the problem [local, state and, lastly, federal] deal with the problem and, only if that level cannot deal with it, go to the next higher level [the level farthest from the problem]. We don't see a problem with making a person uncomfortable in asking for help. We'd rather that they exhaust all other options before petitioning the government. We are not opposed to the government helping those in need, but it is not justified that that help cause violation of the rights of those called on to help in excess of that necessary to achieve the assistance or that the rights of anyone be compromised in the interest of the rights of others. Genuine rights do not require that others give up theirs to satisfy yours [or vice-versa].