0 votes

Paul Ryan blew it right here...

I listened to Paul Ryan's State of the Union response and he was doing quite well until he said the following (Questionable sentence in all caps)...

"We believe government's role is both vital and limited — to defend the nation from attack and provide for the common defense ... to secure our borders ... to protect innocent life ... to uphold our laws and Constitutional rights ... to ensure domestic tranquility and equal opportunity ... AND TO HELP PROVIDE A SAFETY NET FOR THOSE WHO CANNOT PROVIDE FOR THEMSELVES."

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

To which I said, "huuuhhh???

WHERE DOES IT SAY THAT IN THE CONSTITUTION???

Answer: NOWHERE

This is exactly the liberal/democratic/socialist/communist philosophy, which if you claim to believe, than how do you define it and where does it end???

Consider...

Lots of lazy idiots claim mental / emotional or faked physical reasons for not being able to work and support themselves and then they go get a piece of free government pie.

Then those same socialists go out and have kids who they can't support and then claim they need more government help for their further poor decisions.

So the "republicans" still don't get it. They are too damned scared to SAY IT like is should be said...

Like this statement from me if I had the floor...

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

"The federal government has NO CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY to take from one citizen and give it to another citizen who IT deems as needy.

That is ONLY the role of charities, churches, private donations, private scholarships, or just citizens deciding to help others out of the goodness of their hearts etc.

Importantly, this can also be done at the STATE government level if those residents of that state vote to spend their money that way - but most states will go broke trying due to abuses such a system breeds.

If this ideal was well understood at the national level, there would be no opportunity to "game the system" and go for all the federal government freebies available out there.

In other words, people would "magically" get well enough to support themselves. They also would be much more responsible about personal decisions - knowing that there would be no "safety net."

And this goes for ALL foreign aid. It should be abolished as NOT Constitutional and against the law of the land.

If the federal government does not have the constitutional authority to dole out free money to its own citizens, then clearly it has EVEN LESS authority to take from American citizens and give it to a foreign nation. Once again, that is for charitable giving ONLY.

When Obama gave Haiti $100,000,000 after the recent earthquake, it was a blatant theft from the US citizenry. The ONLY role he could have played (from a constitutional perspective) is to simply ASK Americans to give to their charities of choice to help Haiti - if they so choose.

BECAUSE...THAT MONEY WAS NOT HIS TO GIVE!!!

While this may sound rather "heartless" to many, it is absolutely the opposite of that.

If we operated this way, we would keep most of the fruits of our labors (no income tax, no social security, medicare, medicaid etc) and people would either learn to be personally responsible, or they would be on the streets.

Remember, the Soviet Union economic model has been to try to take care of everyone ever since the Communist manifesto was written.

But people stand in breadlines, live in dismal apartments, die on a terrible state owned airline, don't have an open media or free speech and basically have a terrible quality of life compared to a free society.

This is because SOCIALISM, IN ITS ATTEMPT TO MAKE EVERYONE EQUAL, ONLY MAKES EVERYONE EQUALLY POOR.

So pick your form of government and learn to live with it.

As for me, I choose liberty and I don't WANT anything from the government except to protect my liberties - from enemies foreign and domestic.

This (and this only) was defined by our founders as the proper role of government (which includes the court system for upholding law, military for defense only, and 3 branches of government).

And if done right, this proper role of limited federal government would cost a fraction of what it does today, meaning there would be no such thing as ANY payroll deduction or tax on the incomes of citizens.

A simple federal sales tax would suffice to fund a constitutional government."

And we would be free people again...Not the wage slaves we have become.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

That's the end of my statement!

Do you think the republicans would ever agree to it???




Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

I was starting to think I was the only one who noticed this.

But good find on John Stewart calling Ryan out on this statement.

With that statement (that a proper role of the (federal) government is to provide a sefety net for those who need it), Ryan blew his credibility as a limited government believer.

YOU CAN'T HAVE IT BOTH WAYS, RYAN.

Might as well put a D in front of his name.

I also never once heard him mention ENDING FOREIGN AID.

That's the first thing we should do because if it is not the government's role do redistribute money between its own citizens, then it has even less authority to give it to other countries - most of who don't like the U.S. anyway.

"We have allowed our nation to be over-taxed, over-regulated, and overrun by bureaucrats. The founders would be ashamed of us for what we are putting up with."
-Ron Paul

Safety Net

http://www.dailypaul.com/node/152875

.

Hear, O Israel: YHUH our God YHUH one. And thou shalt love YHUH thy God with all thine heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy might.

Ryan is being groomed by the RNC

It's too bad because he says some very good things.

But by voting for the bailout it tells me he is no Ron Paul type of candidate.

Lots of bark but no bite.

He is being groomed as a future republican nominee for president.

"We have allowed our nation to be over-taxed, over-regulated, and overrun by bureaucrats. The founders would be ashamed of us for what we are putting up with."
-Ron Paul

Being 'groomed' alright.

Being 'groomed' alright. Compare these photos paying close attention to the hair do ;)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ronald_Reagan

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20110125/ap_on_re_us/us_state_of_...

Trust in God, but tie your camel tight.

"Socialism needs two legs on which to stand; a right and a left. While appearing to be in complete opposition to one another,they both march in the same direction." - Paul Proctor

I forgive him for voting for the bank bailout.

I watched his speech during the floor debates. The guy was truly in anguish and agony over this decision. He did NOT want to do it, but he was naiive and they had him scared shitless about what would happen if they didn't do it. I hope now he is wiser and realizes his mistake. I believe he is sincere in what he says. His rebuttal to the State of the Union was from the heart. But yes, I'm sure the neocons are trying to groom him.

Ann in Florida

It's very difficult to remain principled.

Just ask Ron Paul.

You will take a beating - especially FROM YOUR OWN NON-PRINCIPLED MEMBERS of your SAME PARTY.

I once saw a guy with a T-Shirt that said "Ron Paul's got balls."

And I knew exactly what he meant.

"We have allowed our nation to be over-taxed, over-regulated, and overrun by bureaucrats. The founders would be ashamed of us for what we are putting up with."
-Ron Paul

2 minutes in he said

2 minutes in he said (paraphrasing) Our Country has tremendous debt, No One Person or No One Party is responsible!!! I called BS! The party of Big Government is responsible, to which Mr. Ryan you are a member of!

" Single acts of tyranny may be ascribed to the accidental opinion of they day; but a series of oppresssions...pursued unalterably, through every change of ministers, too plainly proove delibrate, systematical plan of reducing us to slavery..."
Tho

This is why RINOs like Ryan, Boehner and Cantor...

need to be GONE after 2012.

jaseed's picture

Paul Ryino

Voted for the very first bailout. Such a leader

"My aim is not to pass laws, but to repeal them".
Senator Barry Goldwater, Senator Rand Paul
and others.

“The God who gave us life, gave us liberty at the same time: the hand of force may destroy, but cannot disjoin them.”

– Thomas Jefferson

I didn't know he voted for that.

THAT is a tough one for him to explain.

Even one of my liberal democratic senators from Washington State (Maria Cantwell) voted against it.

"We have allowed our nation to be over-taxed, over-regulated, and overrun by bureaucrats. The founders would be ashamed of us for what we are putting up with."
-Ron Paul

Freudian Slip

That wasn't a freudian slip. That was an official abdication ceremony by the GOP. The Tea Party was buried, as dead on arrival. All offical opposition to Obama's rule is now illegal. The Rhino pack is now back in full control of the GOP.

GOP Tea Party Leader Makes it Official

"The tea party is now over. We all actually support Barack Obama. Long live Barack Obama and the Democratic minority!! Read budget cuts are imposssible. Print as much money as needed to fund the government. Tea Party is a waste of time. Let the Democrats rule as they wish"

Now, contact all your local Tea Party's to tell them Ron Paul is now the "official" Tea Party leader. Paul Ryino and the GOP mules have fully adbicated. After 26 days in power, the GOP ended their offical opposition to Barack Obama. In the new spirit of bipartisanship, they have agreed to work with Pres. Obama.

What about the mentally insane?

I agree that people shouldn't have their hard earned money taken away from them and given to people who con the government to get on the welfare wagon, but what about the mentally insane? Should the government have to take care of them? It cost a lot of taxpayer's money to put these people in institutions, so shouldn't they be let out so that charities can provide for them and take care of them?

"I support the Declaration of Independence and I interpret the Constitution."

That's right YumYum. You got it right.

And if we the people could keep the fruits of our labors we would have more for charitable causes if we desired.

Now at the STATE level (NOT funded federally), the residents of each state can vote on whether they want to have institutions for the mentally insane
(Or any other social programs they decide on for that matter).

Why is this distinction important?

1. It puts that choice closer to the citizens of each state - who know their immediate surroundings and residents better than some federal administrator.

2. Every state government MUST balance its budget - the Feds don't. So states have to at least be a LITTLE more responsible with their public funds.

3. When welfare is given at the federal level, we have no choice but to participate. If done at the state level and we disagree with a policy, we can move to a state we like better.

4. I believe Americans are a very generous people and states will help the most needy (if we're allowed to keep more of what we earn). But presently it's too easy to cheat the system because accountability (especially at the federal level) is basically non-existent.

It all boils down to sovereignty which begins with the INDIVIDUAL and works its way up to household, to city block, to precinct, to city, county, state, country, alliance and all the way up to the whole world if you want to give up ALL your sovereignty and try to take care of all the world's ill by decree of an all-knowing one world government.

"We have allowed our nation to be over-taxed, over-regulated, and overrun by bureaucrats. The founders would be ashamed of us for what we are putting up with."
-Ron Paul

the proverbial freudian slip

I didn't watch it slip, however.