FORUMS › General Discussions › Politics › Washington's Farewell Address 1796
TOPIC: Washington's_Farewell_Address_1796
Created by: Seduction4Two
Original Starting post for this thread:

1 to 6 of 6
User Details are only visible to members.
Washington was an uber wealthy slave owner who let his friend languish in debtors prison, owned slaves, almost started a war with France recuse who lacked the guts to enforce his own policies, and for all intents and purposes, gave the reigns of Government to his VP f0r the last two years of his administration. His one redeeming value was he was a federalist, but he really never understood what that meant. Bottom line, his words are moot in the 21st century

Rosemont IL
Username hidden
(3844 posts)
User Details are only visible to members.
WOW Robert you really out did yourself with that one. LOL. I really learned a lot. I am not sure who taught you but they were way to the left. I can see now why you post some of the stuff you do.

Berryville VA
Username hidden
(1750 posts)
User Details are only visible to members.
This is the problem with using the past as a guide forward. He is in principle correct in his words and for his time his words applied fully to the society and technology of his time.

Today isn't 1776... It isn't even 1920, it is 2013 and our level of achievable civilization and civility is beyond anything anyone from the past could hope to have imagined. (leonardo da vinci is the exception)

We have levels of technology which are returning sight and sound to the deaf and blind... So long as they by some means were rich enough to afford it.

We have the means to keep some kinds of cancers and aids cases at bay for years to a full life time... So long as you can afford it.

Washington said that our job as Americans were to promote life... Medical is life. Yet the right wishes to deny this life to our sick and wounded. Why? Because it will cost too much.

Sense the civil war, we have chosen every war we have been involved in. From WWI to the latest interventions in the middle east, we have chosen to fight against people who didn't strike first, people who we opposed and aided the enemies of.

WWII is the best example. Not only did we put our people into harms way by sending aid to Europe, but we put the the US navy between Japan and their enemies, making ourselves their enemies.

Is it any wonder that Japan struck Perol harbor in an attempt to cripple our navy? It was their only choice if they were to win against china.

Germany sank our ships because we supplied (food aid is still aid) their enemies, made the lives of the English easier and their sufferings more bearable. This prolonged Germany's war with them... Would we not sink the ships which would allow al quadea to keep fighting?

Then came Korea and vietnam. Two wars we had no reason to fight. Why did we? Because we like profit... At the least those who wouldn't see the wars from the point that a soldier would see them... There was little profit for the soldier in any of those four wars.

The cold war, the giant pissing match as I like to call it. Again, it wasn't our war and if the soviet union went to grab the whole of Europe... They would have expended so much in capital and resources that the US economy could have ran circles around Stalins over controlling and corrupt version of communism that we woukdnt need to shoot them.... They would have shot themselves before the 60s.

Even if they hadn't broken down into a civil war... We had the A bomb and enough bombers to Nike any fleet they sent and any land force which used Alaska as their point of entry.

That is why we are broke. Bad and useless wars fought so that a small number of people may prosper. So long as we maintain a army larger than a train up force, a navy with more fleets than we need (any fleet but the sercret service is too much) and our stealth bomber airforce.... Is too much.

The industries which feed this waste can retool in a short amount of time to develop a new space shuttle and advance other techs.

The other industries were simply suckling from the government and were the problem from the very beginning.

Social welfare is a capitalist made problem of greed by the top and the government has tried to help the people and industries which profit by the governments welfare got he people...

This isn't a problem the government can fix, only the capitalist can fix it by choosing to bleed the trickle into a small stream or watch the public turn to socialism.

That has always been and will remain the choice of the capitalist... Your freedom to surrender more than you ought have to, to the government because of your short sightedness.

Freedom has its price, you are free to profit, but you must pay for that profit somehow.

Hazle Township PA
Username hidden
(8416 posts)
User Details are only visible to members.
Cherishing Credit

Another paragraph, about the national debt, may be more compelling today. Washington, a Federalist, began by advising Americans to “cherish public credit” because it was “a very important source of strength and security.” In the view of most of the Founders, securing life, liberty and property was the major public good that the government had to provide, so endangering public credit, especially in the service of partisan politics, wasn’t something Washington would have countenanced.

One method of upholding public credit, Washington argued, was “to use it as sparingly as possible.” That meant “cultivating peace” by spending just enough on defense to deter any would-be invaders. Presumably, given Federalists’ penchant for efficient administration, Washington also meant that military budgets should be spent wisely, by buying only weapons that were truly needed and at something like competitive prices.

If war became “unavoidable,” the government should pay off the debts incurred during the conflict “by vigorous exertion in time of peace.” That policy would cherish public debt but also not place “upon posterity the burden” that the generation engaged in war “ought to bear.”

Apparently, Washington didn’t foresee 80 years of almost continuous “war,” cold and hot, large and small, against foreign nations, rebel bands, terrorist networks, alcohol, economic depression and drugs. And who could blame him? Surely some of those wars were avoidable, if only the government had followed Washington’s suggestions to “observe good faith and justice towards all nations; cultivate peace and harmony with all” and to be always guided “by an exalted justice and benevolence.”

Washington closed the paragraph on national debt with a few thoughts on taxation. Citizens, he wrote, “should practically bear in mind that towards the payment of debts there must be revenue; that to have revenue there must be taxes; that no taxes can be devised which are not more or less inconvenient and unpleasant.” Once levied due to “public exigencies,” however, Americans were duty-bound to pay their taxes with “a spirit of acquiescence.” ‘Proper Objects’

It is important to note that Washington wasn’t calling for blind obedience to the government, simply the separation of cause and effect. If Americans didn’t want to suffer from “the intrinsic embarrassment” of high taxation, they needed to prevent the government from spending and borrowing too much in the first place, by ensuring that it remained focused on its “proper objects.”

Washington acknowledged that delineating the proper role of government was “always a choice of difficulties,” but implied that if the people and their elected officials ensured the execution of his “maxims,” all would end well. ===================== Discuss

Username hidden
(17355 posts)
User Details are only visible to members.
Every February since 1896, the U.S. Senate has observed the birthday of George Washington by having one of its members read his 1796 Farewell Address into the record.

The ceremony is usually purely symbolic. This year, however, it could influence policy: The country’s first president had some interesting ideas about the national debt that might resonate as Congress gears up for more fights over spending and taxes.

In September 1796, as he prepared to retire from public affairs by declining to serve a third term, Washington left his fellow Americans with some parting thoughts in the form of a letter published in the American Daily Advertiser. Initially drafted by James Madison in 1792 (when Washington first contemplated retirement), the letter was later edited by Alexander Hamilton and then heavily amended by Washington himself, who took full responsibility for the advice it contained.

The address is usually remembered for an admonition to avoid “entangling alliances.” (That precise phrase actually never occurs in the address, but Washington did assert that, “It is our true policy to steer clear of permanent alliances with any portion of the foreign world.” Thomas Jefferson used the more media-friendly “entangling alliances” in his first inaugural speech in early 1801.) du/18th_century/washing.asp [link to the actual farewell address]

Username hidden
(17355 posts)
User Details are only visible to members.

Username hidden
(17355 posts)
1 to 6 of 6
TOPIC: Washington's Farewell Address 1796
This site does not contain sexually explicit images as defined in 18 U.S.C. 2256.
Accordingly, neither this site nor the contents contained herein are covered by the record-keeping provisions of 18 USC 2257(a)-(c).
Disclaimer: This website contains adult material. You must be over 18 to enter or 21 where applicable by law.
All Members are over 18 years of age.
Terms of Use | Privacy Policy
Copyright © 1998-2016 DashBoardHosting, LLC. All Rights Reserved.