Title: Ron Paul says GOP is wrong for trying to cut food stamps one week after Rand tried to cut food stamps Source:
. URL Source:http://libertyfight.com/2012/Ron_Pa ... zes_GOP_for_what_Rand_did.html Published:Jun 22, 2012 Author:. Post Date:2012-06-22 03:33:49 by Artisan Keywords:None Views:417 Comments:17
Libertarion icon criticizes Republicans for precisely what Rand spearheaded
During a new interview confirming that he will not endorse Mitt Romney, Congressman Ron Paul has criticized Republicans for precisely what his son Rand spearheaded earlier this month. After telling CNN "no way" he'd endorse Romney, Paul went on MSNBC repeating his rejection of Romney and discussed food stamps.
When Rand Paul went on Glenn Beck TV defending his Romney endorsement last week, he also discussed 4th Amendment-violating drones, noting "I'm afraid Mayor Bloomberg's gonna be going over my backyard barbeque seeing if anyone's got a big gulp, or whether or not I'm separating my recyclables correctly". [minute 7 at this clip.]
Bloomberg's absurd nanny-state soda ban has the support of left-wing statists such as Bill Clinton. However, Rand himself has also ironically obsessed on citizen's eating habits, endorsing the very same mindset that Bloomberg promotes; Rand insisted that people should not be allowed to buy "junk food" or McDonalds with Food Stamps: "The American people don't want food stamps going to buy junk food, to be used at McDonalds." The freshman senator also tried to characterize some of the nearly 47 million Americans on food stamps as dishonest millionares:
Rand Paul: "Should you buy junk food on food stamps? Should you get to go to McDonald's on foodstamps?" Paul asked. "It's out of control. It's not about helping those in need. It's about being wise with the taxpayer dollars, it's about being wise with the taxpayer dollars and not giving people $20,000 a year in food stamps. We need to give it only to people who can't work, those who are in need, and those who are not able bodied. But we're giving it to millionaires."
Appearing on MSNBC's Morning Joe June 20, Ron Paul brought up the issue. Asked if he sought to cut social security and other social programs, Paul explained that he wanted people to have the opportunity to opt out of it. He made a specific point about Republicans being "seen as cutting food stamps", and explained that he himself, on the contrary, would be the best protector of such programs because he wanted to cut the massive military budget:
Ron Paul: [11:00] "...and when it comes to welfare, matter of fact I'm probably the best protector of social security and some of these programs for child healthcare and elderly healthcare- because we cant afford it. We're going bust, and it's all gonna collapse. You have Obamacare, is totally destructive to the medical care system. I'm saying save- I want to cut a trillion dollars out of the budget- but a lot of it comes from overseas funding and war, and I'm saying- this is the only way we can preserve some of these programs and work our way out of it. I want young people to opt out of social security. But my goal isnt to cut- I think it's where the republicans make a mistake. theyre seen as cutting food stamps, and increasing the military budget. I think thats bad politics and so in my more pragmatic stance on how we get to the place where i want to go, actually I'm probably offering a program where some of these programs that we have taught people to be so dependent on, I would probably preserve them longer than others because we are going to lose them because of the bankruptcy that is coming."
Thus, Paul characterized his own son Rand's food-stamp amendment as "bad politics". In reality, Rand wasn't merely percieved or "seen as cutting food stamps"; he officially advocated it, while at the same time advocating increased military spending.
Rand Paul is known for advocating reduction of the military budget- but on March 22 2012, Rand appeared on Glenn Beck's show discussing his proposed 5 year budget plan. Asked by Beck about defense spending, Paul noted that he would actually increase military spending increase by cutting four other departments: [4:38] "Instead of having military spending go down, like the sequester would have, ours actually allows for a gradual increase in military spending over time.." Beck's assistant asked Rand for clarification; "Wait a minute. You're actually going to increase military spending?" to which Rand replied an unoquivical "Yes." Despite being the son of the most well known non-interventionist of modern time, Paul voted for sanctions against Iran and has been referred to as a neocon in libertarian clothing.
Martin Hill is a Catholic paleoconservative and civil rights advocate. His work has been featured on LewRockwell.com, WhatReallyHappened, Infowars, PrisonPlanet, National Motorists Association, WorldNetDaily, The Orange County Register, KNBC4 Los Angeles, Los Angeles Catholic Lay Mission Newspaper, KFI 640, The Press Enterprise, Antiwar.com, IamtheWitness.com, FreedomsPhoenix, Rense, BlackBoxVoting, and many others. Archives can be found at LibertyFight.com
I believe apples never fall far from the trees they grow upon.
I don't like what has happened.... I see politicing games and I dislike politicing games... I'd rather break government shit and punch holes in the system/
I support the occupation Fuck it if it kills me. Liberty before death.
I would probably preserve them longer than others because we are going to lose them because of the bankruptcy that is coming.
Vote Obama.
Our white sons are sent to war against non-whites who have done us no harm, and this is not called crime; at home, non-white criminals prey upon our wives and daughters and this is not called war.
Cutting payments to docs further would of course reduce the number of docs willing to take medicare patients.
It is very low pay per visit, and by and large they can afford to eschew it.
A better solution would be to increase the number of docs by reducing or eliminating licensing requirements.
But then some of the better potential docs will do something besides become a doctor, and the number of half-qualified turd world docs in the system will also increase.
TANSTAAFL.
Our white sons are sent to war against non-whites who have done us no harm, and this is not called crime; at home, non-white criminals prey upon our wives and daughters and this is not called war.
Evidently there is some father-son friction at work here. More than just Rand's endorsement of Romney.
I think I've commented to that effect going sometime back. Rand is NOT a close of Ron and the two have a different world view. Rand is a NeoCon who leans libertarian on some issues BUT he is not a Libertarian - he is more Scofield Rupturite leaning. Ron I trust on a lot of issues. Rand I don't trust hardly at all.
"“Believe nothing merely because you have been told it. Do not believe what your teacher tells you merely out of respect for the teacher. But whatsoever, after due examination and analysis, you find to be kind, conducive to the good, the benefit, the welfare of all beings - that doctrine believe and cling to, and take it as your guide.” ~ Gautama Siddhartha — The Buddha
Medicare pays DIRECT to teaching hospitals for residencies, salaries, expenses etc etc.
Every institution is a scam, eventually.
Our white sons are sent to war against non-whites who have done us no harm, and this is not called crime; at home, non-white criminals prey upon our wives and daughters and this is not called war.
The relationship between morality and liberty is a directly proportional one.
"If you love wealth more than liberty, the tranquility of servitude better than the animating contest of freedom, depart from us in peace. We ask not your counsel nor your arms. Crouch down and lick the hand that feeds you. May your chains rest lightly upon you and may posterity forget that you were our countrymen.”
We shouldn't even trust Ron other than beyond the ideas that he espouses in defense of true liberty. He's not nor ever has been a savior of sorts.
True, although sometimes you have to trust people. If you go through life untrusting it is a pretty miserable experience - "No man is an island".
With the pieces all on the table, it is quite easy to see the beast system of this world coming into a clear view.
I do agree that we are at a turning point in history. We are now in the thick of the storm although I think, for the moment, that have passed into the eye of the tempest.
We are now in what Robert Heinlein referrd to, in his "future history", as the "Crazy Years". And certainly the men and women now in positions of power are quite mad - criminally insane in fact.
"“Believe nothing merely because you have been told it. Do not believe what your teacher tells you merely out of respect for the teacher. But whatsoever, after due examination and analysis, you find to be kind, conducive to the good, the benefit, the welfare of all beings - that doctrine believe and cling to, and take it as your guide.” ~ Gautama Siddhartha — The Buddha
The relationship between morality and liberty is a directly proportional one.
"If you love wealth more than liberty, the tranquility of servitude better than the animating contest of freedom, depart from us in peace. We ask not your counsel nor your arms. Crouch down and lick the hand that feeds you. May your chains rest lightly upon you and may posterity forget that you were our countrymen.”
The relationship between morality and liberty is a directly proportional one.
"If you love wealth more than liberty, the tranquility of servitude better than the animating contest of freedom, depart from us in peace. We ask not your counsel nor your arms. Crouch down and lick the hand that feeds you. May your chains rest lightly upon you and may posterity forget that you were our countrymen.”