Home > conservative > Paul Ryan is Why I’m a Republican, and Why You Should Be Too.

Paul Ryan is Why I’m a Republican, and Why You Should Be Too.

I’ve been hearing a lot of self-described conservatives say things like “I’m not a Republican…don’t put a label on me…I think for myself” lately.  My response to those statements falls somewhere between “congratulations…here’s your medal for being an individual…now it’s nap time” and “you’re right, they’re not perfect,” depending on how well I know the person who’s saying it.  Look, people can identify themselves however they want in life, but when it comes time to vote in November, there are only two choices: the party of Paul Ryan or the party of Paul Krugman; and there’s a HUGE difference between the two.

Mr. Ryan hails from Wisconsin, is a member of the House of Representatives, and is a Republican.  And contrary to  the mindless rhetoric from the Democrats, he has a plan.  More specifically, he has a plan to get us out of debt and improve the economy.  And he does it by lowering taxes.  His “Roadmap,” as he call it, has been met with great disdain from the left because of its radical ideas; namely, cutting government spending.  Now, I understand that nowadays, actually cutting back on federal spending is the equivalent of riding a unicorn with the president, but there was once a day when the federal government didn’t employ the entire state of California.  The Roadmap cuts spending, decreases taxes for both individuals and businesses (which will create jobs), and simplifies the tax code to some extent.  Is Mr. Ryan your typical modern-day Republican?  Maybe not.  But you will never find a Paul Ryan in the Democrat party.

Paul Krugman.  I’ve written about him before.  While he identifies himself as an economist, he’s actually just a liberal shill in a tweed sport coat.  He believes spending cuts are stupid, or evil, or something.  He believes, like all liberals, that “tax cuts must be paid for.”  Of course, such a position constitutes lunacy when one considers the fact that those “tax cuts” are not expenditures, but simply less theft.  Like many liberals, Krugman believes increased government spending will create jobs by “stimulating” the economy.  Of course, he never identifies how much spending is necessary, since it’s never actually worked.  His convenient answer to continued failure is “we should have spent more.”

In response Krugman’s recent rambling and nonsensical criticism to his “Roadmap,” Ryan stated,

‘At the core of this is a big ideological fight between those who believe in the Founding principles and the sense of limited government—the American idea—and those who believe in the progressivist welfare state.’

‘The Roadmap is designed to maintain a limited government in the 21st century, and it is the antithesis of the progressivist vision which [Krugman] subscribes to. That’s fine. I understand it violates his vision for a progressivist society.’

In these statements, Ryan has admirably described the foundational difference between conservatives and liberals.  Liberals seek control by way of taxation, government spending, and entitlements.  Conservatives believe in self-reliance, small government, and opportunity.

The point of all of this is that it matters what Ryan believes vs. what Krugman believes.  It matters because, regardless of your feelings on “Republicans” vs. “Democrats,” the simple fact remains: Ryan, and those like him, will never be Democrats, and Krugman and his followers will never be Republicans.  For those that want a better shot at more opportunity, fewer taxes, sustained job growth, and smaller government, then vote Republican in November.  The only alternative is a vote for liberals like Krugman.

  1. mary
    August 10, 2010 at 1:45 PM

    The problem isn’t as easy as cutting government spending. The problem lies with the current members of the Senate & House. You force them to cut spending and they will, happily, cut back on the defense budget, throw the disabled out on the street and chop the budgets of law enforcement. Then, they will say “This is what you demanded. This is the result of cutting government spending. You were the hypocrites who said you wanted cuts and are now complaining about the cuts.”

    Because they will never, ever, ever cut: their own salaries, pensions, benefits, slush funds, union contracts, education boondoggles or, my current favorite, studying the effects of cocaine on monkeys.

    I used to think term limits might solve the problem but look what happened in California. The curtain covering the greed and corruption of the politicians out there has been torn off because those crooks haven’t got time, anymore,to be subtle. Assemblyman serve out their “terms” and run for State Senate, where they serve out their time, and then hire those “termed out” as consultants. They are in it for the money. The notion of the “public servant” is a joke.

  2. August 10, 2010 at 2:32 PM

    man, you’re grouchy today. must be the heat. the problem is as easy as cutting spending…but you’re right about what spending needs to get cut. It won’t matter what discretionary spending is cut unless we do something about social security, medicare and medicaid. those three programs suck up ever tax dollar taken in by the feds and each is 98% unnecessary.

    I do think, over time, that term limits will solve much of the problem. Greed and corruption will certainly never be done away with, but I’ll take a corrupt two-termer over a corrupt twenty-termer like Rangel anyday. Plus, how else are we going to open offices up to new blood? We can’t limit campaign expenditures because it violates the First Amendment and I don’t like the idea of public financing of campaigns.

  3. mary
    August 11, 2010 at 9:50 PM

    I, personally, think any candidate for national office, who can, single-handedly (OK, immediate family can help), round up the signatures of 500,000 voters should be given $50,000 to run his/her campaign. No 3rd party advocacy ads, no private funding, no donations, no help whatsoever by any individual or corporation or union. ANY media coverage would be limited to the name and resume of each candidate. No editorial endorsements. If they acknowledge one candidate, they have to acknowledge them all. I might actually vote for a Democrat who can figure out how to reach every voter in America on a $50,000 budget. S/He would at least have proven they knew what to do with a budget.

  4. August 11, 2010 at 11:19 PM

    you’re a communist.

  1. No trackbacks yet.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: