Ron Paul: Reject the Welfare-Warfare State!

Ron Paul: Reject the Welfare-Warfare State!

Hello, this is Ron Paul with your weekly update
for February 28th. During the past few weeks, Congress has been
locked in a battle to pass a continuing resolution to fund government operations through September.
Both supporters and opponents of the bill – HR1 – claim it is a serious attempt to
reduce federal spending. However, an examination of the details of the bill call that claim
into question. For one thing, the off-sided assertion that
HR1 reduces spending by $99 billion is misleading. The $99 billion figure merely represents the
amount that HR1 reduces spending from the president’s proposed Fiscal Year 2011 Budget,
not reductions in actual spending. Trying to claim credit for reduction in spending
based on cuts in proposed spending is claiming that someone is following a diet because he
had only 5 slices of pizza when he intended to have 10 slices. In fact, HR1 only reduces
real federal spending by $66 billion compared to last year’s budget. This may seem like
a lot to the average American, but in the context of an overwhelming trillion dollar
budget and a national debt that could exceed 100% of the GDP in September, it is barely
a drop in a bucket. One reason that HR1 does not cut spending
enough is that too many fiscal conservatives continue to embrace the fallacy that we can
balance the budget without reducing spending on militarism. Until Congress realizes the
folly of spending trillions and pretending to impose democracy on the world, we will
never be able to seriously reduce spending. Congress must not only reject the warfare
state, it must also reject the welfare state. HR1 is more aggressive in any domestic spending
than foreign spending, and does zero on some objectionable programs, such as AmeriCorps. However, HR1 leaves most of the current functions
of the federal government undisturbed. This bill thus continues the delusion that we can
have a fiscally responsible and efficient welfare state. The failure to even attempt
to address the serious threat the welfare-warfare state imposes to American liberty and prosperity
is the main reason why supporters of limited government and individual liberty ultimately
should find HR1 unsatisfactory. Only a rejection of the view that Congress can run the economy,
run our lives, and run the world, will allow us to make the spending reductions necessary
to avert a serious financial crisis. This does not mean we should not prioritize
and discuss how to gradually transition away from the welfare state, in a manner that does
not harm those currently relying on these programs. However, we must go beyond balancing
the budget, to transitioning back to a free society. And that means eventually placing
responsibility for social welfare back in the hands of individuals and private and institutions.
Despite the overheated rhetoric heard during the debate, HR1 is a diversion of the difficult
task of restoring constitutional government and a free economy and society. It is time for Congress to get serious about
cutting spending, not merely tinkering around the edges of the proposed budget and kicking
the can down the road for future generations. If we fail to act decisively now, there will
soon come a time when both our money and our capacity to borrow will run out. When that
happens, our ability to negotiate and play political games with spending priorities will
be over. To avoid real chaos, the time to start dealing with our bloated government
budget is right now. Thanks for calling this update. A new update
is placed on this number, 888-322-1414, every Monday. The written text can be found on my
website under the heading “Texas Straigh Talk.” Thanks for calling.

36 thoughts on “Ron Paul: Reject the Welfare-Warfare State!

  1. @watertonrivers..I have a few adjustments ……The Fed—-> ARRESTED…Homeland Security—> Work Camps Making Cheap goods for China ……….EPA ——-> Forced to ingest 8 glasses of toxic waste for 8 hours a day for the rest of their short lifes,

  2. @chatsworthsharp420, the government doesn't produce anything. It must steal from one man in order to provide for the weakest.

    It is immoral and unnecessary.

    To learn how we as a society took care of the disadvantaged in the absence of state violence

    "From mutual aid to the welfare state: fraternal societies and social services, 1890-1967" By David T. Beito

    You can read it on books.goole

  3. @chatsworthsharp420 Actually, he didn't. it is a program we shouldn't have in the first place, but then again, there are plenty that we do not need. What I would do is simple. Take out the regulations and taxes on businesses and workers. This will have the effect of more money being circulated through the economy, thus adding more jobs to the market. Then you slowly, and I mean slowly, start reducing welfare. it should be emergency only. Eventually, you will have less poor because, we

  4. @chatsworthsharp420 more jobs. Then add competing currencies, now we are coming out of debt because government will not be spending on useless things like a global empire. Once you look at the real root, which is money, you can find the real way to fix things. Unfortunately, most politicians do not see it this way. sorry for the double post, youtube has that text limit.

  5. it is extremely important that people become informed about Ron Paul and hear his message, for he will give us the CHANGE WE WANT

  6. @grasd2 Sorry, but someone not having a higher level of education in punctuation and possessive rules, does not infer that they have a poor grasp of common sense. The two do not correlate, as you yourself prove by getting your grammar and possessives correct, yet displaying stupefying idiocy.

  7. "Only a rejection of the view that Congress can run the economy, run our lives, and run the world, will allow us to make the spending reductions necessary to avert a serious financial crisis."
    -Ron Paul

  8. well,..its either "make your face pretty cause your about to get fucked",..or lets do something about this. 2012! vote Ron Paul, if he doesn't win,then america is no more!!

  9. If Paul don't get it in 12, then I'll throw my support behind Huckabee.
    I hope Romney Don't get the GOP nomination. He's a GOP RHINO more Bush policies. America is at a time where we need leaders bold & is capable of thinking outside the box! Romney will tell you what you want to hear, then turn his back on us once he's in…

  10. @redsocialist1848 LOLWUT? That made a lot of sense. If you're too thick to understand the fundamental differences in ideology between Somalia and the USA that would allow a country like ours the much higher possibility of prospering under a nearly nonexistent system than Somalians, then don't bring up such an irrelevant and typical liberal talking point to detract from the plausibility of a government like the one Ron Paul is proposing.

  11. @grasd2 LOL. Hear that guiZ amerika is juzt liek somaliaZ. I think you're misunderstanding what the basis behind Anarchism is. Those who advocate Anarchism are those who are educated and wish to life their lives free of the burden of those who can't keep up. That does not mean our country would turn into Somalia, could you please show me a hypothetical chain of events that would lead us up to that point? Please. You're forgetting that there is absolutely zero capital in Somalia.

  12. Donald Trump already said that hes not getting the Builerberg group 100 mill support. If "sheeple" voted Bush for a second term they will vote Obama for a second term. Ron Paul is so radical its kinda scary but, legalize pot; he's got my vote!

  13. It's sad to see how America is so close and yet so far from getting on the right track. There's a willing, enthusiastic, realistic, and patriotic American politician that wants the republic to regain it's former glory.

  14. @MyFishyWishy How is he radical? Because he wants people to help themselves and not freeload off of a government that isn't even supposed to have as much power as it does?

    Read this country's TRUE history, then listen to what he has to say. It'll make sense then.

  15. @EmoraChan13 Too many people abuse government assistance but there should be something. There was a reason why most western countries installed a welfare system in the first place. In Britain the BNP wants to stop abuse of the system not the system itself.

  16. @fashionhistorylover Temporary welfare is fine, but lifelong welfare? Either have a real problem or get a job.

  17. Labeling a "cut" from "hypothetical" (proposed) spending as saving is a fraud. It should be regarded as criminal fraud. At least impeachable.

    Washington is completely insane. That should be their defense at their trial.

  18. @EmoraChan13 If the number of people exceed the number of jobs available then those people don't have a choice and rely on some kind of welfare to survive. But the welfare system now takes away jobs and still doesn't do a very good at helping people. Private sector would be more efficient because it would not be a burden on business' therefore more jobs for people so they don't need welfare and more money to give away.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *