BREAKING NEWS... Clint Eastwood endorses Donald Trump for President. Says he will campaign across the US for Trump.

Wednesday, April 6, 2011

Paul Ryan: The Ultimate Libertarian Hero!

His Budget Proposal - "dramatic and comprehensive"

I can hear the liberals and progressives guffawing over the prospect of Paul Ryan as hero, or anyone as hero except in the form of anti-hero hero. Ryan's budget plan is not a completely libertarian design to dismantle our statist system, but it's far more courageous and fair than anything offered by others.

Ryan's proposal is the dramatic and comprehensive offering that's needed to shake Washington DC out of complacency. Republicans should not sit back and leave Ryan twisting in the wind when Democrats attack in full force -- they need to support Ryan and the cuts.

This budget battle will show who's serious and who's not, and who needs to be voted out next election. Paul Ryan is a hero in the making. Now, it's about follow-through and persistence.-- M. Farmer, Editor, Libertarian Bonzai Blog


Gary said...

Let's see . . . under the plan of this so-called "Libertarian" hero our national debt goes from about $15 TRILLION to about $23 TRILLION.

I can smell the Bull Shit way over here in California.

Morgan said...

I can smell the Bull Shit way over here in California.

I can smell the bullshit from California, your house, to be precise.

Lofo said...

Paul Ryan needs to do better. He needs to do away with the tax cuts and instead cut defense. Otherwise it's an okay plan. Better than Obama at least.

Ran said...

"He needs to do away with the tax cuts and instead cut defense."

Uh-huh. We may suppose that as the *former* "staunch pro-defense libertarian", now the disgraced "staunch pro-rape goat-fucker", you are at least being fiscally and militarily consistent with your new identity.

Given the present hostile WH & Senate, methinks Farmer is right-on. I'm with Ryan on this, too. Ryan's budget effectively changes the culture of expectation - an astounding position.

More, Ryan has taken leadership where the Demos had failed to offer their own budget despite a Constitutional mandate.

Never thought we'd live to see the day.

Gary said...

***** "Ryan's budget effectively changes the culture of expectation - an astounding position." *****

Let's see . . . Ryan's budget adds $8 TRILLION to the national debt. Now that is Socialist change you can believe in.

Both wings of the Socialist Republicrat Party are living in a borrow and spend fantasy world.

The party is over. The beer is tapped out. The snack trays are empty. The last person out the door needs to snuff out the torch on the Statue of Liberty.

Frank said...

Rand Paul's proposal was better, but I'm willing to accept this compromise. Unfortunately, liberals like Gary would rather go with Obama's "plan" that adds even more to the debt. Fortunately, liberal partisans like Gary are losing the argument. I've had several of my Obama supporter friends tell me they like Paul Ryan's plan.

KN@PPSTER said...

"He needs to do away with the tax cuts and instead cut defense."


Bigger tax cuts.

Massive cuts to all areas of discretionary spending, but especially the fattest one, corporate welfare disguised as "defense."

Entitlement reform that brings THAT spending into the discretionary area so that it can be cut as well.

And finally, a constitutional amendment capping federal spending at no more than the previous year's actual tax revenues except during legal, i.e. congressionally declared, wars.

Any three of those four would be a reasonable start. Nothing less is even a serious attempt.

Gary said...

**** "liberals like Gary would rather go with Obama's "plan" that adds even more to the debt. Fortunately, liberal partisans like Gary are losing the argument." ****

Liberal. Ha.

Frank, non-thinking total dip-shits like you just make me break out laughing. Marxist fellow travelers such as yourself are defending Socialism.

OPEN YOUR TINY MIND to the possibility that the Republicans are nothing more than the modern day equivalent of radical left-wing New Deal Marxists.

For decades the Republicans have done everything in their power to protect, expand and fund every loony commie-pinko program out there.

And what does Ryan propose: Trillions and trillions more in debt.

But Socialists like you are like little children at a hot stove. There is nothing the adult in the room can say to prevent you from getting burned. You must learn for yourself.

But until you learn I will be stocking up on guns, gold and food.

Casey WY said...

I am taking a break from studying calc III where I am learning about optimization. Basically you are given an equation and then given a constraint equation, the goal is to find the best (optimal) solution on both equations (that is a simplified version, trust me it is a pain in the ass). I cannot help but relate this to what Paul Ryan is doing. He is taking a very bad equation (14.3 trillion debt,half the country dependent on welfare from the state, 1.6 trillion deficit etc etc) and finding an optimal solution given his restraints (Democrat President, most of the country educated to be statists etc etc). While nobody is perfect Paul Ryan is damn good and definitely qualifies to be a Libertarian Hero... JMO

Oh and Lofo you are a JACK-ASS

Gary said...

Casey. Try re-taking basic math.

$1.65 TRILLION deficit


$500 Billion in cuts


Casey WY said...

I agree Gary its a lot of debt, but I think in the short run we can handle it IF we have a plan in the long run. I would love to cut about 2 trillion,put the rest towards the deficit, get the pain over with and be debt free in ten years (Dave Ramsey for President!). Unfortunately its not going to happen. Look at the statists screaming bloody murder with the cutting of a few billion!

Oh and Lofo, still a Jack-Ass...

Ran said...

"...but especially the fattest one, corporate welfare disguised as "defense.""


For starters, run the numbers - MediCare/ObamaCare and Socialist Security *swamp* military spending. (Or is it that military personnel are mostly fatter these days?)

Then there's the lumping together of disparate military expenditures on a broad array of both necessary and redundant functions, present and future.

Here - I can't resist:

"Not least because there's no such thing as ["corporate welfare disguised as defense"] even as much so as there is an "orthodox Christianity," the pretensions of the Holy Roman Catholic Church, the Greek Orthodox Church, the Russian Orthodox Church, the Anglican/Episcopal Church, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, the Assemblies of God, the Southern Baptist Convention, et. al to style themselves the One Way.

If there's any [function of government] more fragmented into [departments] of varying [purpose] (even including rejection of the seemingly fairly basic claim that "there is no God but Allah, and Muhammad is his Prophet" by some universalist Sufi sects) than Islam, it would probably be Hinduism ... but I wouldn't even bet on that.

You've picked your boogie-man, and attempted to position it as ["corporate welfare disguised as defense"] Fortunately, very few of the [America's military heros and employees] seem to agree with you on that -- at least not strongly enough to [permit unilateral disarmament and eventual suicide]...

. . .

FINE. There is indeed much waste in the military - agreed on that? I'll even agree that much of that is legitimately labelled "corporate welfare" - and I'll go further to state that much of that is a function of statists in love with pork.

Will we agree there too are expensive, necessary programs languishing precisely because they may be effective?

Let's agree that it's legit to lump together redundant and counter-productive military expenditures as "corporate welfare."

By the same convenience, I might use the awkward term "orthodox islam" to refer to well-funded (Iranian, mostly) Mahdist Shi'a and their sworn enemies (Arab, mostly) Wahhabist/Salafist Sunni - both of which are aggressively coalescing followers and centralizing power via their global funding of mosques, schools and "social programs."

From the military perspective, The former has spent a lot of money on technical equipment and training specific to the development of nuclear explosives, and the latter has access to cash and close allies in Pakistan.

Whether you like it or not, your sorry Western liberal butt is their target. Still desperate to trim the military budget? OK - be careful where you trim - you can't count on your leftist cohorts gary or lofo to save it.

The Right Guy said...

Medicare and SS are something like 2/3 of the budget. Holy shit. That's a lot of cutting to be done. Boehner needs to get out of the way and let Ryan, Paul, King and Bachmann set the narrative. Boehner is too busy crying about it. He really is a cacasotto.

KN@PPSTER said...


You write:

"Medicare and SS are something like 2/3 of the budget. Holy shit. That's a lot of cutting to be done. Boehner needs to get out of the way and let Ryan, Paul, King and Bachmann set the narrative. Boehner is too busy crying about it. He really is a cacasotto."

I assume that Medicare and Social Security are what Chuck is referring to when he snorts at the idea that the House can unilaterally cut spending.

If so, he is right on that subject -- "non-discretionary" spending is locked in by previous House actions. The appropriations are automatic unless the House makes a change in law which is subject to presidential veto.

But in all "discretionary" areas -- including "defense" -- if the House doesn't appropriate the money, the Senate is left high and dry and president is left without funds to operate much of the government. And that's a lever they could use to force the "non-discretionary" stuff as well.

If the House doesn't use that power to advance serious cuts -- and by "serious" I mean somewhere in the neighborhood of 2.5-3 times as much as Ryan proposes to cut, over half the time or less -- then they should just admit that they're not, to use the word for the third time in the sentence, serious.

KN@PPSTER said...


Short of abolishing the state entirely (which would be very, very nice), I'm not proposing to end US military spending.

I'd just like to cut it down to reasonable levels. 75% over ten years and another 15% over a second ten years sounds about right. That's a long, slow gradient from the current idiocy down to a reasonable -- probably still a little larger than necessary for legitimate defense, but not unreasonably so -- military budget.

Chuck said...

Ryan is no hero. He has however made a start on this mess. Maybe that is the best we can get at this point but it is a long ways from really cutting overall spending to the point it needs to be.

No one should be using the extremely low standard of surpassing the Dems/Obama as a guide. It fails the country and those coming after us.

Like I said, he made a start but one that the GOP likely doesn't have the balls to back.

The Right Guy said...

It's more than Obama or Boehner want to do. It's a start.