GovernmentExecutive.com

Return to Article: Panel urges overseas base realignment slowdown

• 9998
  

  In part I respect your position that we have far too much government. However, we also do not have a democracy! We have representative government only in part! The Senate is a joke when it comes to democracy and the non-elected position of judicial baranch is laughable. So your reference to a democracy to lead to your other positions is relatively meaningless here.

  The country is turning down but not because of government although government certainly could slow the pace. The turn down is economic because of the rapid rise of China! Now all are free trade Congressmen are voting for quotes on textile goods that help third world countries and not really the USA. How about stopping USA airlines from buying planes subsidized by England and France if they expect the US to guarantee their pension funds when they go broke?

  I see the problem with the government of the USA as covering any loss that any voter may have at the expense of those that generate income that provides taxes or potential taxes. Wait until foreigners stop purchasing USA debt and you will see the real decline of the government! Most of the current Federal Government action is financed with foreign owned debt and not the tax burden on income but that will come. Bush reversed this pattern based on liues and wars that have no benefit for anyone that has a vote in the USA.

  taxpayer Posted May 27, 2005 8:19 AM
• 9678
  

  taxpayer,

  I am not advocating "no government" just far less federal government than we currently are "blessed" with. One that only provides for a common defense and other areas that are truly interstate in nature. One that reigns in the states only when absolutely necessary and leaves it up to them to decide and tax/not tax, provide services/not provide services, and regulate/not regulate based on their individual citizenry desires. The founders never appear to have intended the massive taxation burden we currently face, and we don't need the government intervention into every aspect of life we currently have. Obviously, my opinion. Get people accountable for their own decision, actions, and well-being. You may be interested in this observation:
  ------------- In 1787, Alexander Tyler (a Scottish history professor at The University of Edinborough) had this to say about "The Fall of The Athenian Republic" some 2,000 years prior.

  "A democracy is always temporary in nature; it simply cannot exist as a permanent form of government. A democracy will continue to exist up until the time that voters discover that they can vote themselves generous gifts from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates who promise the most benefits from the public treasury, with the result that every democracy will finally collapse due to loose fiscal policy, (which is) always followed by a dictatorship."

  "The average age of the worlds greatest civilizations from the beginning of history, has been about 200 years. During those 200 years, these nations always progressed through the following sequence:
  

  From Bondage to spiritual faith
  

  From spiritual faith to great courage;
  

  From courage to liberty;
  

  From liberty to abundance;
  

  From abundance to complacency;
  

  From complacency to apathy;
  

  From apathy to dependence;
  

  From dependence back into bondage."
  

  -----------------

  I believe we are now somewhere leaving "complacency" phase and well into the "apathy" phase of Professor Tyler's definition of democracy, primarily because approximately 40 percent of the nation's population has already reached the "governmental dependency" phase.

  Uber Libertarian Posted May 11, 2005 8:17 AM
• 9642
  

  Uber Libertarian

  Where do you see more government? Government has definite roles and what it does is based on mental intrepretation of constitution. This country would be a definite wasteland without government because the profit motive leads to abuses that only government can attempt to rectify. The only good government is no government is a ridiculous statement because most of the corporation you support only exist because of government. The corporation is a legal individual created by government and the business of the USA only can grow because of the corporate form. The disagreement with government has to do with interpretation of their actions in line with the constitution. It is not a literal intrepretation of the constitutional document per se. A literal intrepretation of the constitution would lead us back to the minute men and stop all the spending on the military as we see it today. Social security and medical care are social issues that the government has undertaken based on the will of the governed. No one has to agree but that is how the consitution is setup so don't cite the consitituion as your great source of authority. You have to rely on your brain as the source - not a document written two hundred years ago by people that never knew business as we see it today, never had need for social security and knew very very little about medical processes and procedures. Times change and so should your party.

  taxpayer Posted May 10, 2005 7:58 AM
• 9607
  

  taxpayer,

  Sorry, but that's a mistake. We need LESS government, not more. Go back to the Constitution and the main reason to even have a fed govt is the defense of the nation. All those other programs? I think it was John Smith had the plan - you don't work, you don't eat. If you want to end most of the problems we have in this nation, go back to people being accountable for their own decisions and action. Help when there is absolutely no alternative, but for a very limited period of time - not "don't worry, honey, uncle Sugar will make it better forever..." the way these fools in DC have made it.

  But DO NOT gut the military we have solely to fund social programs.

  Uber Libertarian Posted May 9, 2005 7:25 AM
• 9553
  

  This is as stupid a recommendation as can be reported. What are the details and assumptions behind the recommendation? If overseas withdrawal is any slower, it has serious impacts on domestic base closures. This is just another congressional stunt to slow domestic base closures! The overseas withdrawal that is proposed is so slow it is ridiculous! The decline in service people stationed overseas should have started immediately and not in 2007! The presence of a large military leads to unnecessary wars such as IRAQ! The troops in Germany are no longer needed to stop the great red movement of tanks from the USSR. It does not exist any longer and we should recognize that. The excess money spend on the large military should be diverted to prop up social security and health care! Close bases right and left and withdraw from overseas in a big way!

  taxpayer Posted May 6, 2005 6:25 AM