Posted on 03/18/2011 8:27:57 PM PDT by rrdog
en. Rand Paul, Republican from Kentucky, had a press conference scheduled for today unveiling his plans for a five-year path to a balanced budget.
- Reduces spending by nearly $4 trillion relative to the President's budget - Achieves a $19 billion surplus in FY2016 - Brings all non-military discretionary spending back to FY2008 levels - Requires the process of entitlement reform, including Social Security and Medicare, with final implementation by FY2016 - Does not change Social Security or Medicare benefits - Block-grants Medicaid, SCHIP, foods stamps, and child nutrition · Provides the President's request for war funding - Reduces military spending 6 percent in FY2012 · Eliminates four departments: - Department of Commerce (transfers certain programs) - Department of Education (preserves Pell grants) - Department of Housing and Urban Development - Department of Energy (transfers nuclear research and weapons to Department of Defense) · Repeals Obamacare
(Excerpt) Read more at reason.com ...
YES! He is actually saying “maybe the federal government shouldn’t be doing this at all” which is a concept alien to the rest of them. They mainly just want the same programs as the Democrats, but to not spend quite so much on them.
And does this leader have a name?
John F. Kennedy is regarded by many as a great leasder.
Sorry, “leasder” = leader.
I never really got that. Other than the man on the moon challenge, where did he ever show leadership? I think the fact that he only served for 2 1/2 years may be a factor in that perception... so mamy people fill in what he might have been with their own perception of goodness. After all, people used to think Colin Powell was a great leader too, until he had to talk about some specifics.
“YES! He is actually saying “maybe the federal government shouldn’t be doing this at all” which is a concept alien to the rest of them. They mainly just want the same programs as the Democrats, but to not spend quite so much on them.”
Exactly. Education should be controlled by the states. As a former educator I personally believe that education should be privatized. By that I mean that the states should pay a private company to administrate the education in the public schools. They can do it a lot better and more efficiently than the govt can. It also gets rid of the teacher’s union which needs to be done. Teachers don’t need a union any more than brain surgeons do.
Don’t get me started on HUD. Talk about money down a rathole. I have dealt with HUD for 27 years as a mortgage professional.
All of these unecessary agencies need to go. But I promise that both the Dems and the GOP RINO leadership will hold on with both hands.
It is our right as citizens to be assured, by whatever means necessary, that due process in all matter related to the selection of our officials be followed. Boehner should be willing to provide any information a citizen requests regarding the performance of his duties. If he's not willing, wouldn't that say he has something to hide? I wouldn't expect that he has something to hide, would you?
Many citizens should formally request that Boehner, as Speaker of the House, provide on his website the documentation that was submitted to the leaders of the congress as they discussed Obama's eligibility during the 2008 campaign.
A note such as this would be appropriate:
Speaker Boehner:
As an average citizen, it has come as a surprise to me to learn that notable citizens such as Sen. Abercrombie of HI, and Donald Trump of New York have discussed publicly the issue of President Obama's birth certificate. This seems odd to me, since I assume that Congress properly vetted both candidates seeking office in 2008.
Could you please clear this up for all citizens by providing the information that was presented to members of congress that substantiated Mr. Obama's candidacy? It would be helpful if you would submit this information to a public forum such as the website for the Speaker of the House.
When citizens of this country imply lack of validity about the leaders we elect, we must be assured due process has been followed. It seems as if Sen. Abercrombie and citizen Donald Trump are implying President Obama could lack validity. By providing this information, all doubts can be removed!
Good American's do not like to stand passively by while the Office of the Presidency could be weakened by unnecessary attention being given to speculations of validity.
Kennedy may still be revered in many quarters, but no conservative would ever grade him as a great president.
Like other presidents who have lacked prior executive experience, Kennedy had a difficult time making tough choices, and was known for his hesitation and slow reaction time.
Maybe I'm just old fashioned, but I prefer to see someone put in a good deal of time on the job, and show me a track record of real accomplishment and advancement in the ranks, before I consider them for the top job.
So, you're ready to turn your E class Mercedes over to the hot rodding kid down the street, just because the last mechanic who worked on it made some mistakes?
According to your logic, things like hard won knowledge, time on the job, experience, proven aptitude and ability, etc., are less important than passion and a sense of gung ho.
That's dangerous. It's exactly what Obama was. New guy with lots of lofty ideas, but with no track record of accomplishment, etc.
How 'bout we choose someone for our next president who has passion and experience? Conservatives ought to keep the bar high for US president.
Winners: Washington, Adams, Lincoln, Coolidge
Losers: Truman, JFK, Nixon, Johnson.
Washington, to my knowledge, was never a legislator, although he was a representative of sorts prior to the Revolutionary War. In my opinion, he was our greatest president, but I don't think he belongs on this list.
Lincoln was one who I think we could rightfully call a great president, who was also a former legislator (though many will differ with you on whether he qualified as great).
Truman failed to understand how big a threat Stalin was to the future peace of the planet, and essentially gave him all of Eastern Europe without so much as a whimper. He's also disqualified, for having been VP prior to being president.
Nixon proved himself incapable of being able to lead the government he was in charge of. He also was unable to pull the American people together in solidarity, during the Vietnam war. As Commander in Chief, he didn't put the hammer down, and let his military people finish off North Vietnam like he should have. All of that "peace with honor" crap was completely political, and nothing more than a surrender to the American left. He also doesn't belong on the list because he was VP prior to becoming president.
Anyway, you and I have opened far too large a can of worms to fully explore in this thread. This post alone would run to several thousand words, if I was to fully address it. I'll cede the floor to some other posters.
Good topic.
Not at all. I'm advocating for the exact opposite.
I was never a JFK worshipper myself, being a lifetime Conservative, but even I have to admit that he was greatly revered by his followers. I do think his leadership on the space program is, by itself, enough to assure his place in history. Even though I personally despise everything Kennedy.
Eliminates four departments: - Department of Commerce (transfers certain programs) - Department of Education (preserves Pell grants) - Department of Housing and Urban Development - Department of Energy (transfers nuclear research and weapons to Department of Defense) · Repeals Obamacare
Now, whether it has a chance of passing is another matter.
You know, it would really be nice if some of the anointed class would come to places like Free Republic and spend some time talking directly to The People, instead of talking to us through press releases, websites, and the MSM.
There's no doubt that what Rand Paul has proposed is a significant and radical break with politics as usual in the Beltway.
It's precisely the sort of bold thinking which is required to pull this nation back from the brink of total ruin.
As I said in an earlier post, we should (and will) use this as a litmus test to see who needs to be fired in 2012, and who needs to keep their job in Congress. Any congress critter who doesn't immediately stand up and support this measure needs to go.
For me, Sarah Palin is the only likely candidate for the Republican nomination who even comes close to making the grade.
While not out of the woods, we are no longer running in the red and our debt is greatly reduced.
same has to be done with the govt. It's just that simple.
I was six years old when Kennedy was inaugurated, and he was a god in my mind. To this day, I still revere him somewhat, but having learned much about him in the intervening years, I don't now consider him to be a great president.
Agreed. My Congressman Rob Woodall is going to have a telephone town meeting on the 22nd so I will be on the line and hopefully get to ask him about this.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.