Monday, March 22, 2010

Rep. Paul Ryan's "Tear Down This Wall" speech

Congressman Paul Ryan (R, Wisconsin) gets what happened, why it was bad, why it must be reversed.


Pooka said...

Too bad the winning minds had already been made up. He was preaching to dead guys. Wonder what tomorrow brings.

DJP said...

Ah, but through YouTube and other modern media, what Ryan had to say can continue to reverbrate.

Pooka said...

Yea, verily. Looking forward to that part of tomorrow.

CR said...

I hear what you are saying, Pooka.

We are here today, because of what happened in the November 2006 elections and the November 2008 elections. I can appreciate the efforts by Republicans to bring up legislation to repeal this disaster. But first, Republicans must gain control of the House, Senate and Presidency (it's unlikely conservative Republicans can regain a 2/3 majority to override Presidential vetos in 2010.

The journey to this disaster started four years ago. Lord willing, it will take us another 4 years to overturn it. Elections have consequences.

Rachael Starke said...

I've watched a couple of his speeches/debates, and he's just solid.

But I thought I read somewhere that he also voted for the bank bailouts. Anyone know for certain?

threegirldad said...


Yes, he did.

Aric said...

Let's hope the YouTube phenomena will help this video to go viral and make an impact on the direction of this country.

I may be a bit biased being from Wisconsin, but I did find that Ryan voted for the TARP, although I still think he is a great guy.

Here is a good interview where Ryan explains his controversial votes.

George said...

Agree threegirldad.

And he can't walk on water either, so there.

Paula said...

This speech was so good on so many levels. Ryan has been at the forefront of the battle against this train wreck for the past few months and has led the charge to bring calm and reasoned arguments to the debate. Unfortunately, he was unable to overcome hour upon hour upon our of "my brother knew a guy who worked with someone who had an eyeball amputated because he didn't have healthcare."

Still, I think he showed real leadership and courage, looking into the eye of the beast(s) without blinking. I'd much rather see him as a presidential candidate than Palin, Romney, or Huckabee.

I think his Roadmap for America's Future has the potential to do for Republicans what Newt Gingrich's Contract for America did. (And I love how Ryan boings up on the website!) : )

Fred Butler said...

I will be curious to see if the constitutionality of the whole thing will be played out. Where does the federal government have the mandate to force a person to participate in purchasing insurance? I was "uninsured" until I was 30. Primarily because I didn't need it at the time as a single, healthy male. And I could afford to pay out of pocket any medicine and Urgent care visits when I had a chest cold or whatever. There would had been no way for me financially to pay the cost of participating in this thing, and the fine they plan to implement on non-participation would have bankrupted me.

This is a fairly significant problem I see in the entire thing.

DJP said...

Exactly. It is the Federal Government forcing citizens to purchase a product. It is a loss of freedom.

But it is a loss that follows abnegation of responsibility. People want to choose not to purchase insurance, but when they get terribly sick, have someone else pay for it. That's a complex issue, but it's a traceable progression to go from that to the argument for compelling coverage.

But of course the net effect is less freedom AND less responsibility. It's like the government "helping" by demanding employer's pay minimum wages that ever increase. Goodbye guys who clean your windshield at gas stations (most of you aren't old enough to remember when that was the rule), goodbye summer jobs, goodbye low-skill jobs for young teens.

Creeping totalitarianism is bad. Shouldn't be a complex concept.

candy said...

the whole goal is to make citizens dependent on the government. By doing so, the government has a much easier time manipulating the populace. My husband and I know a guy who used to be a pastor, and has been on unemployment for two years now. He sits around, plays his quitar, and has no inclination to go look for a job. He refuses to get a job under a certain pay level. I see in action, the tendency of many to become complacent under the entitlement umbrella. This same guy has no problem telling his wife to go to work while he sits around. Grrrrr.

DJP said...

Candy: "Quitar."

New instrument?

Or Freudian slip?

Either way, I like it.


Rabbit said...

It is the Federal Government forcing citizens to purchase a product. It is a loss of freedom.

Yes. Equality (as measured by "what he has" compared to "what she has") and freedom cannot co-exist in their fullest measures.

Sir Aaron said...

Ok, we all know this bill's true intent is. It is to monkey with the health care system so that it gets so bad that we have no choice but to enter into a single payer system.

Fred Butler is actually a perfect example of one the problems in health care (no offense, Fred). You have people who don't pay into the insurance system during their healthy years, then eventually expect and obtain payment for medical care in their older years. And if they become majorly injured or ill during the years they are uninsured, the public has to pay the price. So I have some sympathy for the idea of forcing everyone to pay. I just don't think it works, especially when the tax system is so unequal.

I'll tell you another little secret. Those people who don't purchase insurance, don't usually pay much in taxes if at all. Many will simply have their earned income credit reduced. Or the government will pass some little known offset to compensate for the fine. And the IRS can't keep up with complaince now. We already have a estimated tax gap of $250 billion (and in my experience working for said agency, it's probably way higher).

Paula said...

And to exacerbate the whole matter of entitlements and government dependence, the "so called" healthcare bill is funneling $36 million into the Pell grant coffers & $2.5 billion to the nations historically black colleges.

So here our middle class family sits, too "rich" to qualify for a Pell grants, but unable, on a single income, to be able to afford the burgeoning costs of even a government-subsidized public university.

While millions of poor students will get a free ride, ds will either have to work his way through college or take on student loans that will saddle him with debt for a decade.

That makes my blood boil almost as much as the health care debacle.

Fred Butler said...

Fred Butler is actually a perfect example of one the problems in health care (no offense, Fred). You have people who don't pay into the insurance system during their healthy years, then eventually expect and obtain payment for medical care in their older years.

There is a truth to what you say. I would had gladly paid into an insurance plan had there been one that was affordable for me as a young guy who had a minimal paying job. Rather than looking to the government to provide a single payer program, it would had been much better to have insurance companies being able to provide a good plan at an affordable cost to where I was economically at the time. Additionally, when I moved from one state to another, I would be able to carry it with me and use it anywhere I was living. But such is regrettably not the case.