These recent tweet threads started by our very own Massie, has convinced me that this country can never possibly be great again. Not so long that we have to share a country with the bunch of hateful losers replying to his tweets.
These recent tweet threads started by our very own Massie, has convinced me that this country can never possibly be great again. Not so long that we have to share a country with the bunch of hateful losers replying to his tweets.
There's an interesting thing that NEVER occurs to liberals when they mention XYZ state gets more than they pay in taxes. There is a simple reason. Super high income earners pay all the taxes. Large corporations, hedge funds, etc tend to be headquartered in a few blue states on the coasts.
It kind of obliterates the point that the rich don't pay taxes.
There will be blood or we will descend into tyranny.
Even if we achieve secession/expulsion there will be blood, the leftists in the blue enclaves will riot and if we expel the deep blue states they may go to war to stay.
America will never be great again so long as people think politicians can make America great and the people cannot. People, for example, like thus one:
The ideals of liberty involve giving the people the freedom to make the nation great because the politicians can not do it.
The people who are too fascinated by power or too brainwashed to get that will prevent America's rise from the doldrums.
No. No. No.
Politicians can not make a nation great.
Politicians can prevent people from making a nation great, or they can refrain from preventing people from making a nation great. But ticks cannot make a nation great.
Only productive people can make a nation great.
No, that is not what you said. "Cutting government except for its legitimate functions" is refraining from obstructing the people. It allows the people to make the nation great. But it does not, by itself, make a nation great.
That is a very, very, very important distinction. Vital, even. It is the very heart of conservatism.
Ron said he would not cut Social Security or Medicare/ Medicaid to "honor the promises made" to people. Today, that leaves only a quarter of the budget you can cut (including defense). One trillion if you zero out every department including the DOD out of a $4 trillion budget.
Spending under Trump is higher- not lower (noting as always that spending is controlled by Congress and not the President). I guess higher spending would qualify as doing a "minimal job" in reducing the size of government.
Massie and Oyarde are Great , Americans , maybe not so much .
Well its going to be an incredibly long time before those people don't exist anymore within our country. It might even be impossible to get rid of them all.
That I don't believe for a second. Freedom is freedom. If you have it, there's only so much you can do to imprison yourself.
You can vote for strong man fascists or strong woman commies and get everyone's liberty taken away. But it isn't that easy to imprison yourself.
Ron said he would like to allow "young people to opt out" of Social Security but that he would "honor commitments" to those who had earned any benefits. From your link:
He proposed the "Social Security Preservation Act" which would protect it. http://www.campaignforliberty.org/cl...ocial-securityQuote:
Q: Are you still in favor of abolishing Social Security?
A: Yes, but not overnight. As a matter of fact, my program’s the only one that is going to be able to take care of the elderly. I’d like to get the young people out of it, just the younger generation, because there’s no money there, and they’re going to have to pay 50 years and they’re not going to get anything. I’d take care of all the elderly, all those who are dependent, but I would save the money from this wild spending overseas.
Quote:
Here is Dr. Paul’s official statement on the bill:
INTRODUCTION OF THE SOCIAL SECURITY PRESERVATION ACT
HON. RON PAUL
of Texas
in the house of representatives
Tuesday, January 6, 2009
Mr. PAUL. Madam Speaker, I rise to protect the integrity of the
Social Security trust fund by introducing the Social Security
Preservation Act. The Social Security Preservation Act is a rather
simple bill which states that all moneys raised by the Social Security
trust fund will be spent in payments to beneficiaries, with excess
receipts invested in interest-bearing certificates of deposit. This
will help keep Social Security trust fund moneys from being diverted to
other programs, as well as allow the fund to grow by providing for
investment in interest-bearing instruments.
The Social Security Preservation Act ensures that the government will
keep its promises to America's seniors that taxes collected for Social
Security will be used for Social Security. When the government taxes
Americans to fund Social Security, it promises the American people that
the money will be there for them when they retire. Congress has a moral
obligation to keep that promise.
With federal deficits reaching historic levels, and with new demands
being made on the U.S. Treasury on an almost weekly basis, the pressure
from special interests for massive new raids on the trust fund is
greater than ever. Thus, it is vital that Congress act now to protect
the trust fund from big spending, pork-barrel politics. As a medical
doctor, I know the first step in treatment is to stop the bleeding, and
the Social Security Preservation Act stops the bleeding of the Social
Security trust fund. I therefore call upon all my colleagues,
regardless of which proposal for long-term Social Security reform they
support, to stand up for America's seniors by cosponsoring the Social
Security Preservation Act.
While he does on occasion call it "unconstitutional" he does try to support it. He himself receives Social Security.
http://articles.latimes.com/2012/jun...efits-20120620
He suggests phasing it out by continuing to pay any benefits anybody has earned while letting the "young folks" get out of it. The phase out could take 50 years though. He would not cut anybody's benefits. Now if the "young folks" are opting out and thus not contributing to Social Security which is a "pay as you go" program, where do you get the money to continue to pay those benefits? Either through higher taxes on something else or more government borrowing.Quote:
“I want young people to opt out of Social Security, but my goal isn’t to cut,” Paul said moments before.
Paul later clarified his remarks, saying: “I would preserve Social Security as best I can, but we want to get off.” He said he pays more into the system than he receives.
Paul, whose never-say-die presidential campaigns have made him a darling in libertarian circles and won over a loyal base of supporters, has persistently claimed that Social Security is unconstitutional, and has advocated a slow end to the program, though he has said that he would not end it were he elected president. Instead, Paul has proposed that younger Americans should have the choice to opt out of a system that he described as “on its last legs” during a tea party debate in 2011.
^ Agreed, but you forgot Justin Amash.
I was wearing my favorite anarchist hat. The point is, nobody represents me other than me. All politicians, regardless of who they are, make choices and decisions on behalf of others which will never agree 100% of the time.
99% of the politicians would never do anything to work themselves out of a job. Politicians do not produce goods, but almost always provide bad service.