PDA

View Full Version : General Politics Paul Ryan Gets It


The Rick
02-05-2010, 09:49 AM
"...the American people are not under taxed, we overspend."

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/ri65YIXFmA8&hl=en_US&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/ri65YIXFmA8&hl=en_US&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

Mr. Kotter
02-05-2010, 10:19 AM
We overspend, because Americans refuse to pay for all we demand. We elect people who give us what we want. If as a politician you want to get re-elected, sadly there is no other choice. It's our own fault--we have no one to blame but ourselves.

Republicans claim to be the fiscal conservatives, but their RECORD simply does not bear that out...even if they may be "better" (however slight it may be) than Dems on that front.

The Rick
02-05-2010, 10:36 AM
We overspend, because Americans refuse to pay for all we demand. We elect people who give us what we want. If as a politician you want to get re-elected, sadly there is no other choice. It's our own fault--we have no one to blame but ourselves.

Republicans claim to be the fiscal conservatives, but their RECORD simply does not bear that out...even if they may be "better" (however slight it may be) than Dems on that front.
No doubt that Republicans are clearly guilty as well. That's why I appreciate him calling out both sides.

I appreciate that he's out there beating this drum. They all talk a good game, but we keep putting it off and putting it off. It baffles my mind that we think we can continue to run our country's books in the red and in addition, be massively in debt to foreign countries like China all because we want free handout's from "Obama's stash". :shake:

The Rick
02-05-2010, 10:40 AM
I love how he calls out Nancy Pelosi and others for saying they were "proud" of the fact that the debt ceiling was raised by $1.9 trillion...

Mr. Kotter
02-05-2010, 10:42 AM
No doubt that Republicans are clearly guilty as well. That's why I appreciate him calling out both sides.

I appreciate that he's out there beating this drum. They all talk a good game, but we keep putting it off and putting it off. It baffles my mind that we think we can continue to run our country's books in the red and in addition, be massively in debt to foreign countries like China all because we want free handout's from "Obama's stash". :shake:

Is he really calling them out, though? Or is it just more/mere political rhetoric that is largely opportunistic and self-serving?

If he were to offer concrete suggestions and detailed plans for proposed cuts, and be willing to stand by and defend them....I'd be more impressed.

L.A. Chieffan
02-05-2010, 10:44 AM
lol, all politicians are funny

Chocolate Hog
02-05-2010, 10:45 AM
Speaking of spending does Ryan support all these wars and nation building?

Cannibal
02-05-2010, 10:46 AM
Is he really calling them out, though? Or is it just more/mere political rhetoric that is largely opportunistic and self-serving?

If he were to offer concrete suggestions and detailed plans for proposed cuts, and be willing to stand by and defend them....I'd be more impressed.

Compromise must be reached on the cuts though. If Republican's want social programs cut, they should be willing to accept cuts in our bloated defense budget.

If Dems want the bloated defense cuts, they should be willing to accept social program cuts.

I am tired of either side being willing to budge one iota.

HonestChieffan
02-05-2010, 10:47 AM
We need an accross the board 10% cut in all expences and spending regardless of the department. They could do that and never feel it.

Taco John
02-05-2010, 10:48 AM
Is he really calling them out, though? Or is it just more/mere political rhetoric that is largely opportunistic and self-serving?

If he were to offer concrete suggestions and detailed plans for proposed cuts, and be willing to stand by and defend them....I'd be more impressed.


Who cares what you think on fiscal conservativism while you're promoting health care schemes that drain the economy.

Chocolate Hog
02-05-2010, 10:48 AM
We need an accross the board 10% cut in all expences and spending regardless of the department. They could do that and never feel it.

Even the military?

Taco John
02-05-2010, 10:49 AM
The last person I want to hear make criticisms on fiscal conservatism is Kotter. What a troll.

HonestChieffan
02-05-2010, 10:49 AM
every department. Tell me they cannot find 10% that is spent they dont need to spend. Simple admin and stupid buying alone can do that and never impact a thing.

Chocolate Hog
02-05-2010, 10:51 AM
I'd be for a 30-40% cut on the military
Make some prisons ran by private entites



This alone would save America LOTS of money. Then to reward the people I would abolish the income tax. I believe it was the Herritage Foundation that dide a study saying that if the income tax was abolished America would still make the same revenue it did 10 years ago.

Cannibal
02-05-2010, 10:53 AM
I'd be for a 30-40% cut on the military
Make some prisons ran by private entites



This alone would save America LOTS of money. Then to reward the people I would abolish the income tax. I believe it was the Herritage Foundation that dide a study saying that if the income tax was abolished America would still make the same revenue it did 10 years ago.


I would never trust a private company to run a prison. I would however be for relaxing sentencing for non-violent drug offenders which would reduce the prison population.

Chocolate Hog
02-05-2010, 10:53 AM
Also the funny thing about healthcare reform is the federal government doesn't need to get involved states are more than able to reform health care on there own. Get involved people it's alot easier to have a voice in state politics.

Chocolate Hog
02-05-2010, 10:55 AM
I would never trust a private company to run a prison. I would however be for relaxing sentencing for non-violent drug offenders which would reduce the prison population.

It worked good for New Mexico. Why should a non violent offender be mixed in with violent offenders? Really crimes that deal with drugs & DUI should have there own rehab centers that are like jail where they actually focus on helping people. Those are health problems not criminal ones its time to be treated as such.

The Rick
02-05-2010, 10:55 AM
Is he really calling them out, though? Or is it just more/mere political rhetoric that is largely opportunistic and self-serving?

If he were to offer concrete suggestions and detailed plans for proposed cuts, and be willing to stand by and defend them....I'd be more impressed.
He absolutely has concrete suggestions:

http://www.roadmap.republicans.budget.house.gov/

Cannibal
02-05-2010, 10:56 AM
It worked good for New Mexico. Why should a non violent offender be mixed in with violent offenders? Really crimes that deal with drugs & DUI should have there own rehab centers that are like jail where they actually focus on helping people. Those are health problems not criminal ones its time to be treated as such.

Totally agree.

bowener
02-05-2010, 11:02 AM
We overspend, because Americans refuse to pay for all we demand. We elect people who give us what we want. If as a politician you want to get re-elected, sadly there is no other choice. It's our own fault--we have no one to blame but ourselves.

Republicans claim to be the fiscal conservatives, but their RECORD simply does not bear that out...even if they may be "better" (however slight it may be) than Dems on that front.

I was thinking of something similar to this last night, though not really political. I tend to drift in my mind from random thought to random thought, and one that stuck with me last night as I lay on the living room floor watching a Law and Order marathon was that American's just don't get it. My case and point is the morbidly obese peoples of the USA. What they want is to eat whatever they want, fatty as it may be. What they don't want to do is any work or effort toward eating what they want to eat. Basically it comes down to the fact that they desire or demand something while refusing to put in the work to avoid the detrimental effects. They want it right now, and they will worry about the other stuff later. This is true for a lot of things in American culture. We demand a whole shit load of stuff, but never really want to pay for it or deal with what effects come from that demand. Credit cards are a prime example, and so are marriages.

What you, Mr. Kotter, have nicely summed up is another example. It doesn't matter what side of the political aisle you are on, you can see it from either. The growing problem is that Americans have a disconnect with reality for whatever reason, and we apparently believe we can have anything we demand, cost be damned. I don't know if it is that some have a problem seeing money as real or what. This goes beyond politics, though. This is a cultural problem. I know a lot of people may disagree, but this looks like what happens to a population when they are drowned by advertisement's empty promises of a better life (by buying their product), or by our fascination with the rich and famous and our attempts to emulate their life styles, or a national "dream" of owning unnecessary and unneeded consumer goods to make you happy and to be successful.

Mr. Kotter
02-05-2010, 11:03 AM
Who cares what you think on fiscal conservativism while you're promoting health care schemes that drain the economy.

I'm in favor of healthcare reform, not socialized medicine or a one-payer system. FTR, I've never voiced "support" for a particular plan yet....only the general notion that something has to change. And, yes, something is better than nothing at this point--if for no other reason that it might force states and the industry to get off their butts and do something they should have done long ago. I'd prefer states and the industry fix it themselves; fact is, they haven't. Like Teddy Roosevelt would say, if they can't fix it....then we will. This does not disqualify me as a fiscal conservative, but rather makes me a man who demands solutions to real problems (instead of someone who chooses to pretend there is no problem.)

bowener
02-05-2010, 11:05 AM
Totally agree.

As do I.

I can't watch the video, btw.

Something that has always bothered me and will until it is changed is the privatization of prisons. Complete bullshit that somebody gets to make a profit off of the State through bullshit contracts. They need to be state run, which would cut the cost of running them by a massive amount, and keep states from drowning in debt.

bowener
02-05-2010, 11:07 AM
I'm in favor of healthcare reform, not socialized medicine or a one-payer system. FTR, I've never voiced "support" for a particular plan yet....only the general notion that something has to change. I'd prefer states and the industry fix it themselves; fact is, they haven't. Like Teddy Roosevelt would say, if they can't fix it....then we will. This does not disqualify me as a fiscal conservative, but rather makes me a man who demands solutions to real problems (instead of someone who chooses to pretend there is no problem.)

The most fiscally conservative HC system would be single-payer social HC. Corp.'s would no long have to pay employee HC, which would save companies such as GM, who is being mauled by their retirees benefits. All the money they save per year (any Co's) can spend that on hiring new people or giving raises (doubtful).

BucEyedPea
02-05-2010, 11:14 AM
On May 21, 2008 Ryan introduced H.R. 6110, titled "Roadmap for America's Future Act of 2008".[1] This proposed legislation outlined a plan to deal with entitlement issues. Its stated objectives were to ensure universal access to health insurance; strengthen Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security; lift the debt from future generations; and promote economic growth and job creation in America.[2]
The fact that he thinks all that socialism can be kept while lifting debt from future generations and promote economic growth and job creation tells me there's another RINO here.

Why is it that Rs never roll govt back which they claim to believe in?

Mr. Kotter
02-05-2010, 11:51 AM
Why is it that Rs never roll govt back which they claim to believe in?

Because then they'd never win another election.

Instead, they'd be confined to peddling their idealism on irrelevant websites and discussion boards.

:)

BucEyedPea
02-05-2010, 11:52 AM
Because then they'd never win another election.

Instead, they'd be confined to peddling their idealism on irrelevant websites and discussion boards.

:)
I think they should change their platform then and stop pretending.
But ah, I think they win on a limited govt platform...if they do it incrementally. Afterall, RR won on that message.

Mr. Kotter
02-05-2010, 11:58 AM
I think they should change their platform then and stop pretending.
But ah, I think they win on a limited govt platform...if they do it incrementally. Afterall, RR won on that message.

They prefer to be relevant realists, rather than irrelevant ideologues...I guess. Go figure. Heh.

In a perfect world, even I'd prefer the libertarian ideal (really.) In case you missed it though, the world is far from perfect. Compensating for those imperfections is a messy business too.

:shrug:

BucEyedPea
02-05-2010, 12:17 PM
They prefer to be relevant realists, rather than irrelevant ideologues...I guess. Go figure. Heh.

In a perfect world, even I'd prefer the libertarian ideal (really.) In case you missed it though, the world is far from perfect. Compensating for those imperfections is a messy business too.

:shrug:

Once again, I am not a libertarian. I am an old right conservative, which believe it or not is the center—or once was. Everything has shifted left so the new center is there. That's why we call things the New Left and the New Right. I am willing to be practical and compromise provided it moves us in the right direction. I hold firm to my beliefs, one because I believe them but also because that's how the dialectic works. So a constant reminder with integrity is a far better way, imo.

So I'd be very happy to move govt back to it's size circa year 2000. I'd rather that then a total collapse or total slavery for 50 years until change comes again. Besides, I think Americans would like the results. That's what matters. They need to experience it.

The Rick
02-05-2010, 01:17 PM
Once again, I am not a libertarian. I am an old right conservative, which believe it or not is the center—or once was. Everything has shifted left so the new center is there. That's why we call things the New Left and the New Right. I am willing to be practical and compromise provided it moves us in the right direction. I hold firm to my beliefs, one because I believe them but also because that's how the dialectic works. So a constant reminder with integrity is a far better way, imo.

So I'd be very happy to move govt back to it's size circa year 2000. I'd rather that then a total collapse or total slavery for 50 years until change comes again. Besides, I think Americans would like the results. That's what matters. They need to experience it.

How can you say this after making this comment earlier:

The fact that he thinks all that socialism can be kept while lifting debt from future generations and promote economic growth and job creation tells me there's another RINO here.

You can't simply pull the plug on these socialist programs over night. It's not practical. Ryan's plan is practical.

BucEyedPea
02-05-2010, 01:42 PM
How can you say this after making this comment earlier:
You can't simply pull the plug on these socialist programs over night. It's not practical. Ryan's plan is practical.

I agree. I was referring to Ryan thinking he could have the whole package together.

Hydrae
02-05-2010, 01:54 PM
The most fiscally conservative HC system would be single-payer social HC. Corp.'s would no long have to pay employee HC, which would save companies such as GM, who is being mauled by their retirees benefits. All the money they save per year (any Co's) can spend that on hiring new people or giving raises (doubtful).

Or lowering the prices on things and helping our companies be cost competetive with the rest of the world.

Chocolate Hog
02-05-2010, 02:18 PM
They prefer to be relevant realists, rather than irrelevant ideologues...I guess. Go figure. Heh.

In a perfect world, even I'd prefer the libertarian ideal (really.) In case you missed it though, the world is far from perfect. Compensating for those imperfections is a messy business too.

:shrug:

Thats odd it worked for over 100 years. I believe the mainstream populist bullshit is what got America into most of this mess.

Mr. Kotter
02-05-2010, 02:35 PM
Thats odd it worked for over 100 years. I believe the mainstream populist bullshit is what got America into most of this mess.

Libertarian ideals were, and are, a part of American society since the Revolution. However, it's fiction to suggest it was anything close to pure libertarianism. The difference is, as the nation has grown and diversified, and as the world and life has changed and become more complex...government has taken on a larger and larger role (with our support, I'd add.) Thus, we continue the everlasting debate: how much government is too much?

patteeu
02-05-2010, 06:21 PM
We overspend, because Americans refuse to pay for all we demand. We elect people who give us what we want. If as a politician you want to get re-elected, sadly there is no other choice. It's our own fault--we have no one to blame but ourselves.

Republicans claim to be the fiscal conservatives, but their RECORD simply does not bear that out...even if they may be "better" (however slight it may be) than Dems on that front.

Your first paragraph is right but if the brush stroke was less broad it would be more useful. Of course, that would involve taking a more definative stand.

Your second paragraph seems to ignore the point made in the first. Republican politicians reflect voting blocks just like any other politician. Ron Paul austerity didn't sell all that well last time around which is why we don't see more Ron Pauls. Of course his foreign policy muddies the water a bit, but the point is that politicians reflect the people, and generally between the 2 parties they do so pretty well.

My take is that we overspend because we have too many people not noticeably paying for what they vote themselves and too few noticeably paying for what they don't.

Chocolate Hog
02-05-2010, 06:25 PM
Your first paragraph is right but if the brush stroke was less broad it would be more useful. Of course, that would involve taking a more definative stand.

Your second paragraph seems to ignore the point made in the first. Republican politicians reflect voting blocks just like any other politician. Ron Paul austerity didn't sell all that well last time around which is why we don't see more Ron Pauls. Of course his foreign policy muddies the water a bit, but the point is that politicians reflect the people, and generally between the 2 parties they do so pretty well.

My take is that we overspend because we have too many people not noticeably paying for what they vote themselves and too few noticeably paying for what they don't.

Ron Paul is also the most conservative candidate the Republican party has.

patteeu
02-05-2010, 09:51 PM
The most fiscally conservative HC system would be single-payer social HC.

:spock:

patteeu
02-05-2010, 09:57 PM
Ron Paul is also the most conservative candidate the Republican party has.

In some respects, yes he is. But like I said, he's unable to generate anything close to the votes that he'd need to be a contender for the Presidency. At least at this point, Americans aren't buying what he's selling no matter how attractive it is to you or me.

Chocolate Hog
02-05-2010, 10:03 PM
In some respects, yes he is. But like I said, he's unable to generate anything close to the votes that he'd need to be a contender for the Presidency. At least at this point, Americans aren't buying what he's selling no matter how attractive it is to you or me.

His son is beating the establishment, the candidate for governor in Texas is doing pretty good, and I'll bet the candidate he endorsed for Kansas's 1st Distrct will do good. Paul made the mistake for many years of going aginst the establishment, if he continutes to work with them for smaller government his movement will be even more successful.

patteeu
02-05-2010, 10:21 PM
His son is beating the establishment, the candidate for governor in Texas is doing pretty good, and I'll bet the candidate he endorsed for Kansas's 1st Distrct will do good. Paul made the mistake for many years of going aginst the establishment, if he continutes to work with them for smaller government his movement will be even more successful.

Ron Paul got 1.6% of the delegates in the 2008 Republican Presidential primaries and he didn't come close to winning a single state. And that's in the party that likes conservatives.

Chocolate Hog
02-05-2010, 10:23 PM
Ron Paul got 1.6% of the delegates in the 2008 Republican Presidential primaries and he didn't come close to winning a single state. And that's in the party that likes conservatives.


No Republicans don't like real conservatives the last 4 candidates have been moderates.

Are you really going to deny Ron Paul hasn't played a role in the grass roots movement? I can post stories throughout the country where Liberty Minded folks have organized to win local elections.

patteeu
02-05-2010, 10:54 PM
No Republicans don't like real conservatives the last 4 candidates have been moderates.

Duh. That's my point. Believe me, I'm not a fan of the reality that serious conservatism is a hard sell in America, but it's a reality.

Are you really going to deny Ron Paul hasn't played a role in the grass roots movement? I can post stories throughout the country where Liberty Minded folks have organized to win local elections.

I'm not denying anything of the sort. Ron Paul has played a role, but the movement isn't really much of a movement. At best, it will move the Republicans slightly to the right (from McCain to a Romney or a Kasich or a Pence) but nowhere close to someone like Ron Paul.

You've got a lot of local elections to win before you can expect success at the big table.

googlegoogle
02-06-2010, 04:23 AM
The problem is that our 'Welfare state' doesn't give a damn anymore.

Process is so corrupt that even Thomas Jefferson would probably advise overthrowing the government and putting back laws into prevent vote buying and prerequisites to voting like an IQ test.

BucEyedPea
02-06-2010, 08:01 AM
Ron Paul austerity didn't sell all that well last time around which is why we don't see more Ron Pauls.
"austerity" ROFLLMAO:LOL:

More evidence Rs are fiscal conservatives....because it's austerity now!:shake:

Saul Good
02-06-2010, 10:04 AM
As do I.

I can't watch the video, btw.

Something that has always bothered me and will until it is changed is the privatization of prisons. Complete bullshit that somebody gets to make a profit off of the State through bullshit contracts. They need to be state run, which would cut the cost of running them by a massive amount, and keep states from drowning in debt.

You really think that the state can run something more cost-effective than private industry?

patteeu
02-06-2010, 10:10 AM
"austerity" ROFLLMAO:LOL:

More evidence Rs are fiscal conservatives....because it's austerity now!:shake:

What does this mean?

The Rick
02-08-2010, 10:31 AM
Charting a simple road to government solvency
By GEORGE F. WILL
Washington Post
Feb. 6, 2010, 8:22PM

WASHINGTON — In 2013, when President Mitch Daniels, former Indiana governor, is counting his blessings, at the top of his list will be the name of his vice president: Paul Ryan. The former congressman from Wisconsin will have come to office with ideas for steering the federal government to solvency.

Not that Daniels has ever been bereft of ideas. Under him, Indiana property taxes have been cut 30 percent, and for the first time Standard & Poor's has raised the state's credit rating to AAA. But in January, Ryan released an updated version of his “Roadmap for America's Future,” a cure for the most completely predictable major problem that has ever afflicted America.

Some calamities — the 1929 stock market crash, Pearl Harbor, 9/11 — have come like summer lightning, as bolts from the blue. The looming crisis of America's Ponzi entitlement structure is different. It's driven by the demographics of an aging population, and its causes, timing and scope are known.

Funding entitlements — especially medical care and pensions for the elderly — requires reinvigorating the economy. Ryan's map connects three destinations — economic vitality, diminished public debt, and health and retirement security.

To make the economy — on which all else hinges — hum, Ryan proposes tax reform. Masochists would be permitted to continue paying income taxes under the current system. Others could use a radically simplified code, filing a form that fits on a postcard. It would have just two rates: 10 percent on incomes up to $100,000 for joint filers and $50,000 for single filers; 25 percent on higher incomes. There would be no deductions, credits or exclusions, other than a health care tax credit.

Today's tax system was shaped by sadists who were trying to be nice: Every wrinkle in the code was put there to benefit this or that interest. Since the 1986 tax simplification, the code has been recomplicated more than 14,000 times — more than once a day.

At the 2004 Republican convention, thunderous applause greeted George W. Bush's statement that the code is “a complicated mess” and a “drag on our economy” and his promise to “reform and simplify” it. But his next paragraphs proposed more complications to incentivize this and that behavior for the greater good.

Ryan would eliminate taxes on interest, capital gains, dividends and death. The corporate income tax, the world's second-highest, would be replaced by an 8.5 percent business consumption tax. Because this would be about half the average tax burden that other nations place on corporations, U.S. companies would instantly become more competitive — and more able and eager to hire.

Medicare and Social Security would be preserved for those currently receiving benefits, or becoming eligible in the next 10 years (those 55 and older today). Both programs would be made permanently solvent.

Universal access to affordable health care would be guaranteed by refundable tax credits ($2,300 for individuals, $5,700 for families) for purchasing portable coverage in any state. As people under 55 became Medicare-eligible, they would receive payments averaging $11,000 a year, indexed to inflation and pegged to income, with low-income people receiving more support.

Ryan's plan would fund medical savings accounts from which low-income people would pay minor out-of-pocket medical expenses. All Americans, regardless of income, would be allowed to establish MSAs — tax-preferred accounts for paying such expenses.

Ryan's plan would allow workers under 55 the choice of investing more than one-third of their current Social Security taxes in personal retirement accounts similar to the Thrift Savings Plan immensely popular with federal employees. This investment would be inheritable property, guaranteeing that individuals will never lose the ability to dispose every dollar they put into these accounts.

Ryan would raise the retirement age. If, when Congress created Social Security in 1935, it had indexed the retirement age (then 65) to life expectancy, today the age would be in the mid-70s. The system was never intended to do what it is doing — subsidizing retirements that extend from one-third to one-half of retirees' adult lives.

Compare Ryan's lucid map to the Democrats' impenetrable labyrinth of health care legislation. Republicans are frequently criticized as “the party of no.” But because most new ideas are injurious, rejection is an important function in politics. It is, however, insufficient. Fortunately, Ryan, assisted by Republican representatives Devin Nunes of California and Jeb Hensarling of Texas, has become a think tank, refuting the idea that Republicans lack ideas.
http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/editorial/outlook/6855016.html

The Mad Crapper
07-18-2010, 11:05 AM
For months now we've heard that the GOP will unveil a new, a "Contract with America." We've expected the unveiling in September after the Labor Day holiday, and it appears John Boehner (R-OH-8th) is holding to that plan. But what if the Party decides to hold back on key issues, and skips controversy which may become cannon fodder for Democrats? How would you feel about candidates simply assuring voters that the party has a plan? Stir up anger in the voters and they'll flood to the polls to vote for Republicans? Put us in office and we'll show you what we can do. If that's what this race comes down to, I'll need to find something to smash. In the link below, Rep. Paul Ryan (R-WI-1st) has an opinion and a roadmap.

Among the most discouraging election news is an apparent debate within the Republican party:

Some of the party’s most influential political consultants are quietly counseling their clients to stay on the offensive for the November midterm elections and steer clear of taking stands on substance that might give Democratic opponents material for a counterattack…
"The smart political approach would be to make the election about the Democrats," said Neil Newhouse of the powerhouse Republican polling firm Public Opinion Strategies, which is advising more than 50 House and Senate candidates. "In terms of our individual campaigns, I don't think it does a great deal of good" to engage in a debate over the Republicans' own agenda.
Of course we must talk about Democrats, but spare us the "my good friend across the aisle" rhetoric. We've heard them all too often. We hate them!

Here's my roadmap:

1) Blame Democrats,

2) Tell us how you will slay the looming monsters, and

3) Make us angrier then we thought we could be.

Do them all. Don't leave out any one of the three. Know that your political life and the futures of your families ride on this election.

We don't need consultants. We need mountain climbers, tough politicians that come to work every morning remembering their oath of office to uphold the U.S. Constitution.

If you can't explain to the people, the enormity of the issues facing us, you're not ready for prime time. Guess what? We know the issues. We want to know that you know them also. Congressman Boehner has promised:

"...a full plate of policy proposals that will give voters a clear sense of how they would govern."
Bring it on. We are ready to climb to the summit with you, but if you want to defeat patriot spirits throughout America, then tell us nothing. Tell us everything, and fan our fury at the same time. This is how we'll win big in November. Congressman Paul Ryan has some ideas and he says it's time to "decide what kind of country we want to be."

http://hotair.com/archives/2010/07/17/quotes-of-the-day-399/

http://maggiesnotebook.blogspot.com/2010/07/bold-plan-for-november-elections-paul.html