Paul Ryan blew it right here...Submitted by pawnstorm12 on Wed, 01/26/2011 - 09:19
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???
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???
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???