1. Welcome! Please take a few seconds to create your free account to post threads, make some friends, remove a few ads while surfing and much more. ClutchFans has been bringing fans together to talk Houston Sports since 1996. Join us!

Paul Ryan on poverty, conservatism, and the American Dream

Discussion in 'BBS Hangout: Debate & Discussion' started by basso, Oct 26, 2012.

  1. basso

    basso Contributing Member
    Supporting Member

    Joined:
    May 20, 2002
    Messages:
    29,118
    Likes Received:
    6,004
    an important speech yesterday, in Ohio:

    --
    Thank you very much for that warm welcome – and thank you Jimmy, for that great introduction. I want to thank everyone at Cleveland State University for your kind hospitality. I especially want to thank President Berkman for his help in making this happen. And of course, none of us would be here today without the extraordinary work of Bob Woodson and the Center for Neighborhood Enterprise. Thank you, Bob, for bringing us together today.

    We are here in partnership on behalf of an idea – that no matter who your parents are, no matter where you come from, you should have the opportunity in America to rise, to escape from poverty, and to achieve whatever your God-given talents and hard work enable you to achieve.

    In so many ways, our nation’s history has been a long struggle to bring opportunity into every life. Our nation was founded on the creed that “all men are created equal” – that we all possess equal rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. But, of course, equality of opportunity hasn’t always been a fact of life in our country – it’s been something we’ve had to constantly fight for. It’s a cause that continues to this day.

    Even though so many barriers to equality have fallen, too many old inequities persist. Too many children, especially African-American and Hispanic children, are sent into mediocre schools and expected to perform with excellence. African-American and Hispanic children make up only 38 percent of the nation’s overall students, but they are 69 percent of the students in schools identified as lowest performing.

    That’s unacceptable. We owe every child a chance to succeed. In the words of Abraham Lincoln, we owe them “an unfettered start and a fair chance in the race of life.” Upward mobility is the central promise of life in America. But right now, America’s engines of upward mobility aren’t working the way they should.

    Mitt Romney and I are running because we believe that Americans are better off in a dynamic, free-enterprise-based economy that fosters economic growth, opportunity and upward mobility instead of a stagnant, government-directed economy that stifles job creation and fosters government dependency.

    There is something wrong in our country when 40 percent of children born to parents in the lowest fifth of earners never know anything better. The question before us today – and it demands a serious answer – is how do we get the engines of upward mobility turned back on, so that no one is left out from the promise of America?

    To answer that, we have to take a hard look at the approach government has been taking for the last five decades, and ask ourselves whether it’s working.

    With a few exceptions, government’s approach has been to spend lots of money on centralized, bureaucratic, top-down anti-poverty programs.

    The mindset behind this approach is that a nation should measure compassion by the size of the federal government and how much it spends.

    The problem is, starting in the 1960s, this top-down approach created and perpetuated a debilitating culture of dependency, wrecking families and communities.

    This was so obvious to everyone by the 1990s that, when a major welfare program was finally reformed, the law was passed by a Republican Congress and signed by a Democratic president.

    Instead of seeing increases in hunger and poverty, we saw welfare enrollment drop dramatically, as millions of our fellow citizens gained new lives of independence. We saw child poverty rates fall over 20 percent in four years – and we saw employment for single mothers rise. Fewer welfare checks going out meant more money for states to spend on child care, so more moms could go to work and support themselves.

    Welfare reform worked because it encouraged the best in people – it appealed to their desire to shape their own destiny and advance in life. And it made major strides toward getting the government out of the business of fostering dependency.

    Here’s the problem: The welfare-reform mindset hasn’t been applied with equal vigor across the spectrum of anti-poverty programs. In most of these programs, especially in recent years, we’re still trying to measure compassion by how much government spends, not by how many people we help escape from poverty.

    Just last year, total federal and state spending on means-tested programs came to more than one trillion dollars. How much is that in practical terms? For that amount of money, you could give every poor American a check for $22,000.

    Instead, we spend all that money attempting to fight poverty through government programs. And what do we have to show for it?

    Today, 46 million people are living in poverty. That’s nearly one in six Americans – the highest poverty rate in a generation. During the last four years, the number of people living on food stamps has gone up by 15 million. Medicaid is reaching a breaking point. And one in four American students fails to attain a high-school diploma. In our major cities, half of our kids don’t graduate. Half.

    In this war on poverty, poverty is winning. We deserve better. We deserve a clear choice for a brighter future. So what is the alternative approach that Mitt Romney and I are offering?

    Well, to hear some tell it, we think everybody should just fend for themselves. But that’s just a false argument – a straw man set up to avoid genuine debate.

    The truth is, Mitt and I believe in true compassion and upward mobility – and we are offering a vision based on real reforms for lifting people out of poverty.

    I am a proud Republican. Our party does a good job of speaking to the part of the American Dream that involves taking what you’re passionate about and making a successful living from it.

    But part of what makes America great is that when we don’t succeed, we look out for one another through our communities. My party has a vision for making our communities stronger – but we don’t always do a good job of laying out that vision.

    Mitt Romney and I want to change that. Each of us understands the importance of community from experience. I come from a town that’s been hit as hard as any. A lot of guys I grew up with worked at the GM plant in my hometown, and they lost their jobs when it closed.

    What happened next is the same thing that happens in communities around the country every day. The town pulled together. Our churches and charities and friends and neighbors were there for one another. In textbooks, they call this civil society. In my own experience, I know it as Janesville, Wisconsin.

    As for Mitt Romney, he not only understands the importance of community – he’s lived it. He’s a guy who, at the height of a successful business, took the time to serve as a lay pastor for his church for fourteen years, counseling people in Boston’s inner-city neighborhoods, especially when they lost a job. He’s a man who could easily have contented himself with giving donations to needy causes, but everyone who knows him will tell you that Mitt has always given his time and attention to those around him who are hurting.

    He’s the type we’ve all run into in our own communities – here in Cleveland, too, and all around America. Americans are a compassionate people, and there’s a consensus in this country about our fundamental obligations to society’s most vulnerable. Those obligations are not what we’re debating in politics. Most times, the real debate is about whether they are best met by private groups, or by the government; by voluntary action, or by more taxes and coercive mandates from Washington.

    The short of it is that there has to be a balance – allowing government to act for the common good, while leaving private groups free to do the work that only they can do. There’s a vast middle ground between the government and the individual. Our families and our neighborhoods, the groups we join and our places of worship – this is where we live our lives. They shape our character, give our lives direction, and help make us a self-governing people.

    Earlier, we talked with some of the people who define civil society and make it work – folks like Bob Woodson, whose Center for Neighborhood Enterprise empowers community organizations to improve people’s lives. And Dr. Marva Mitchell, who has been ministering to people in the inner cities for decades. And the Reverend Willie Peterson, whose NewBirth Project has helped almost 200 ex-offenders gain and maintain employment.

    We have Brian Wade here with us today. When Brian felt called to open a homeless shelter in Elyria, he didn’t just volunteer his time there. He and his wife moved their family – a baby and two young ones – into the shelter and lived there for seven years. He and his volunteers didn’t just provide hot meals and clean clothes – though that alone would have been a lot. At his youth outreach center, he didn’t just give kids a safe place to come in from the streets. In all of this, Brian gave himself. He didn’t show people in need the right path – he walked it with them, not just as a guide, but as a friend.

    This good man, and others like him, are witnesses. And the needy people who have encountered them feel a presence greater than just one compassionate soul. What’s really at work here is the spirit of the Lord, and there is no end to the good that it can inspire.

    For our part, should we have the chance to serve, I want you to know this. Mitt Romney and I share your cause, and we will seek your counsel. We will remember your hospitality today, and it will be returned. The transformative power of your example will inform our approach to public policy. And when the question is how best to help low-income families reach for opportunity, we will not defer to the Washington-knows-best crowd. We will talk to the real experts – including many of the people who are right here in this room.

    So what is government’s duty when it comes to the institutions of civil society? Basically, it is to secure their rights, respect their purposes, and preserve their freedom.

    Nothing undermines the essential and honorable work these groups do quite like the abuse of government power. Take what happened this past January, when the Department of Health and Human Services issued new rules requiring Catholic hospitals, charities and universities to violate their deepest principles. Never mind your own conscience, they were basically told – from now on you’re going to do things the government’s way.

    This mandate isn’t just a threat to religious charities. It’s a threat to all those who turn to them in times of need. In the name of strengthening our safety net, this mandate and others will weaken it.

    The good news? When Mitt Romney is president, this mandate will be gone, and these groups will be able to continue the good work they do.

    But it’s not just the abuses of government that undermine civil society – it’s also the excesses of government. Look at the road we are on, with trillion-dollar deficits every year. Debt on this scale is destructive in so many ways, and one of them is that it crowds out civil society by drawing resources away from private giving.

    Even worse is the prospect of a debt crisis, which will come unless we do something very soon. When government’s own finances collapse, society’s most vulnerable are the first victims, as we are seeing right now in the troubled welfare states of Europe. Many there feel that they have nowhere to turn for help, and we must never let that happen in America.

    Where government is entrusted with providing a safety net, Mitt Romney and I have our own vision for how to keep it strong. It is a vision that leaves the failures of the past in the past, and proposes instead to build on those reforms that have worked.

    For starters, a Romney-Ryan administration will clearly restore those parts of the welfare-reform law that have been undone or weakened. We will do this for the sake of millions of Americans who deserve to lead lives of dignity and freedom.

    We will also apply other lessons from welfare reform’s success. For example, many of the solutions that worked in the 1990s came from states such as my home state of Wisconsin, and leaders such as former Governor Tommy Thompson. President Clinton and the Congress recognized that it would be a good idea to give states more power to tailor welfare to the unique needs of their citizens.

    Mitt Romney and I want to apply this idea to other anti-poverty programs, such as Medicaid and food stamps. The federal government would continue to provide the resources, but we would remove the endless federal mandates and restrictions that hamper state efforts to make these programs more effective. If the question is what’s best for low-income Ohioans, shouldn’t we let Ohioans make that call?

    But strengthening these safety net programs is still not enough. If we want to restore the promise of America, then we must reform our broken public-school system.

    The special interests that dominate this system always seem to have their own futures lined up pretty nicely. But when you think about the future of the young adults that the system has failed, many will face a lot of grief and disappointment – and their country owes them better than that.

    I recently spent some time at the Cornerstone School, an independent school in Detroit that has served urban students for twenty years. Cornerstone is an amazing place – you can feel a culture of responsibility and achievement all around you.

    While I was there, I got to talking with a tenth-grader named Alexis. She is already reading economics books I didn’t encounter until college. But more importantly, she and her classmates are learning the values of discipline, accountability, respect, service, and love for one another.

    When you set aside all the obstacles to education reform, you are left with one obvious fact: Every child in America should have this kind of opportunity. Sending your child to a great school should not be a privilege of the well-to-do. Mitt Romney and I believe that choice should be available to every parent in our country, wherever they live. Education reform is urgent, and freedom is the key.

    The strength of the safety net and the quality of our education system are among the many issues this year where the neediest of Americans have a direct stake. But above all else is the pressing need for jobs. Right now, 23 million men and women are struggling to find work. Median family income has gone down in each of the last four years.

    Whatever your political party, this nation cannot afford four more years like the last four years. We need a real recovery.

    Mitt Romney is uniquely qualified and ready to deliver this recovery – because he understands how an economy works and what makes it grow. And like the best leaders, he has set a clear goal: Twelve million new jobs over the next four years.

    We can do this – but it’s going to require bold departures from current policies.

    Sadly, in four years and now in four debates, neither President Obama nor Vice President Biden has offered the American people an agenda for a second term. But we know what it would be: More of the same.

    Mitt Romney and I will get American workers back in the business of producing American energy. We won’t add to the job-training bureaucracy, we’ll get resources directly to workers who need new skills. We’ll open new markets to American products, and when it comes to trade, we’ll crack down on countries that cheat. We won’t bury our kids in debt, we’ll stop spending money we don’t have. And we won’t raise taxes, we’ll cut tax rates for small businesses and working families.

    Many of those living in poverty today were in the middle class just a few years ago. We can help them regain the ground they’ve lost, with a focus on growth all across the American economy.

    Since becoming the nominee for vice president, I’ve thought more than once about another man who ran for this job as a champion of growth and prosperity – my mentor, Jack Kemp. One of the things his friends loved most about him was his big heart. When Jack Kemp talked about opportunity in America, he meant opportunity for everyone. When he spoke of progress, he meant progress for everyone.

    That is the kind of spirit that any political party can use, in any generation. Over many years, Jack set his mind and heart to the problems of poverty, brushing aside a lot of old assumptions and settled attitudes. The same holds true for Mitt Romney. If you want to know how Mitt Romney will lead our nation, then look at how he has led his life. He’s a modest man with a charitable heart, a doer and a promise-keeper.

    Mitt and I have a message that’s bigger than party. We are speaking to all Americans in this campaign, because we believe, as Jack Kemp believed, that economic growth and equality of opportunity are the surest path to the pursuit of happiness.

    Wherever we are in life, whether we are rich or poor, black, brown, or white, American by chance or by choice, we are one nation, rising or falling together. That is the promise of America, and we can make it real in the lives of the many who feel left out. To all of those Americans, I ask you to support our campaign, because our cause is yours, and yours is ours, and together we can achieve great things.

    Thank you and God bless.
     
  2. rage

    rage Member

    Joined:
    Jun 8, 2006
    Messages:
    1,492
    Likes Received:
    41
    It's a nice long speech that could have been said with few words:
    1) Economic growth
    Great, everyone wants it. How do you do it? Tax cut, tax cut, tax cut, especially for the rich and big business.
    How has it worked before?

    2) Equality of opportunity
    See 1. There seem to be a class of people who are more equal than others.

    3) Less government
    Again see 1. Less government sounds good until those big guys with their money and lawyers do everything they can to make a buck without anyone to check them and everyone else can have the craps they litter along the way.
     
    1 person likes this.
  3. okierock

    okierock Contributing Member

    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2001
    Messages:
    3,120
    Likes Received:
    186
    Well we have seen that tax, tax, tax isn't working. You know I've never met a person that says "tax me more" only those that say tax THEM more.

    Funny thing about taxing people with means is, they have the means to move jobs and business and where they live to avoid taxes. Taxes will force smart businesses to do business elsewhere and not so smart businesses to go out of business. Businesses, unlike our government have to balance their checkbook and taxes come off the top, payroll comes from what's left. More taxes = less for payroll no matter how you slice it. Doesn't sound like a good way to create jobs to me.

    Always has been and always will be. The difference here is that in the USA you have the opportunity to go get your equality. There are plenty of places that is not the case.

    Better than the "craps" that the government litters. The government is not robin hood. People dependent on the government are GUARANTEED to never escape poverty and they are GUARANTEED to be under the complete control of the government as long as they are dependent. Unfortunately there is a large portion of our society that seems to either like this situation or lacks the desire to change it.

    Those big guys with their money are not the enemy, government dependence is the enemy.
     
  4. CometsWin

    CometsWin Breaker Breaker One Nine

    Joined:
    May 15, 2000
    Messages:
    28,028
    Likes Received:
    13,046
    Taxes are as low as they've ever been. Just because you repeat nonsense over and over again doesn't make it suddenly true.
     
  5. okierock

    okierock Contributing Member

    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2001
    Messages:
    3,120
    Likes Received:
    186
    for you maybe, for me, not so much
     
  6. CometsWin

    CometsWin Breaker Breaker One Nine

    Joined:
    May 15, 2000
    Messages:
    28,028
    Likes Received:
    13,046
    Now the standard is taxes for YOU? Usually when we talk about issues that concern the country we use the figures for the country, not the ones that simply affect you.
     
  7. BigBenito

    BigBenito Member

    Joined:
    Sep 5, 2002
    Messages:
    7,355
    Likes Received:
    175
    why didn't he repeat "big change" 30 times like romney?
     
  8. okierock

    okierock Contributing Member

    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2001
    Messages:
    3,120
    Likes Received:
    186
    I know, I know taxing THEM is fine. I hear you loud and clear but my vote is about not giving more money to a government that puts themselves 1.3 Trillion dollars further in debt every year.

    You do know that (since you like taxes so much) it is perfectly acceptable for you to give the US government as much money as you want. They don't mind a bit and from the sounds of it you could live off a lot less than you have now cause taxes are really low.
     
  9. FranchiseBlade

    FranchiseBlade Contributing Member
    Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Jan 14, 2002
    Messages:
    48,527
    Likes Received:
    17,087
    So you want the debt to increase? Because giving them less money is one way to really increase the debt.
     
  10. FranchiseBlade

    FranchiseBlade Contributing Member
    Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Jan 14, 2002
    Messages:
    48,527
    Likes Received:
    17,087
    Here are more than 80 top CEO's saying that an increase in tax revenue along with spending cuts are needed to cut the deficit down.
    Raising the taxes to the level of the Clinton years wouldn't cause people to relocate. At least it didn't during the Clinton years.
    U.S. is behind in upward social mobility. They are behind places like Canada, France, Denmark, Spain, etc.
    The big guys with their money have been doing very well during the recent economic downturn, and leading up to it. They have made more profit than ever, while the rest of the nation has felt the hard times.

    The fact is that Democrats offered a deal of $10 in spending cuts for every $1 in tax revenue gain. The GOP was against it and killed it.
     
  11. okierock

    okierock Contributing Member

    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2001
    Messages:
    3,120
    Likes Received:
    186
    You really think that taxes create debt? I personally think that spending might have something to do with it.
     
  12. Air Langhi

    Air Langhi Contributing Member

    Joined:
    Aug 26, 2000
    Messages:
    21,612
    Likes Received:
    6,237
    SS, Medicare, Interest alone eat the majority of the budget. You can cut every program except SS, Medicare, Interest, and Defense and the current government inlays won't cover it. Even cut the defense budget by half and the current money coming won't cover it.
     
  13. okierock

    okierock Contributing Member

    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2001
    Messages:
    3,120
    Likes Received:
    186
    Duh, more money in, less money out = lower deficit. You really had to ask CEO's this? Most 12 year olds could figure that out. You could also accomplish this with just the less money out part.

    If the government wants me to trust it with more money then I'd like to see the spending cuts come first.

    I believe we are behind those places because our society is more government dependent than those places. Kind of a chicken or egg argument I know.

    They, they, they.... these big bad meanies!!!! Making profits, how dare they!!!

    LOL this is like a crack addict saying "if you give me $20 I'll do less crack".
     
    #13 okierock, Oct 26, 2012
    Last edited: Oct 26, 2012
  14. DanzelKun

    DanzelKun Contributing Member

    Joined:
    Nov 16, 2002
    Messages:
    1,218
    Likes Received:
    6

    Guaranteed to never escape poverty? Based on what?

    Complete government control? What in the world are you talking about?

    Welfare programs are safety nets, not safety snares!
    Some people are going to fall on hard times, regardless of how hard they may have worked in the past, regardless of their ambition, regardless of their desire to succeed. Life happens. And many, many people are humbled when they need to ask for help, particularly financial. And many, many people want to work hard to bounce out of that safety net and land back on their own two feet.
     
  15. okierock

    okierock Contributing Member

    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2001
    Messages:
    3,120
    Likes Received:
    186
    The intent of welfare programs is as you state but the reality of them is often very different. I agree with the intent.
     
  16. FranchiseBlade

    FranchiseBlade Contributing Member
    Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Jan 14, 2002
    Messages:
    48,527
    Likes Received:
    17,087
    You were the one saying nobody says tax us more, it's always about taxing THEM more. I showed you 80 CEO's that said tax us more.

    The proposal in congress would have been signed so that the spending cuts and taxes would have all had the weight of law behind it, and both taken effect. Unless you don't trust that congressional law is actually law.
    So how do we ween independence from the government? Spending less on social programs, welfare, and education isn't it, since those places all have more of that than the U.S.


    They, they, they.... these big bad meanies!!!! Making profits, how dare they!!!



    LOL this is like a crack addict saying "if you give me $20 I'll do less crack".[/QUOTE]
     
    1 person likes this.
  17. TheRealist137

    TheRealist137 Member

    Joined:
    Jan 27, 2009
    Messages:
    33,199
    Likes Received:
    18,927
    You do realize that most of those countries have much higher taxes than the USA right?
     
  18. Northside Storm

    Northside Storm Contributing Member

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2007
    Messages:
    11,262
    Likes Received:
    450
    A lot are evading taxes anyways.

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2012/jul/21/global-elite-tax-offshore-economy

    let's compete with a tax rate of 0%! swell.

    There is no "enemy" in this discussion, but blind kowtowing to money is a minor annoyance at best.
     
  19. GladiatoRowdy

    GladiatoRowdy Contributing Member

    Joined:
    Oct 15, 2002
    Messages:
    16,596
    Likes Received:
    494
    Taxes are lower than at any time since the 1930s or so, how have we seen that raising taxes doesn't work somehow?

    When top marginal tax rates were over 90%, America built the best education system in the world, the best infrastructure in the world, the most powerful economic engine ever imagined, and even put men on the moon WHILE PAYING DOWN THE DEBTS INCURRED DURING WWII.

    Repeated rounds of tax cuts have resulted in trillion dollar deficits, $16 trillion in debt, crumbling infrastructure, failing schools, stagnant middle class incomes, and a situation where only the wealthy get any share of the economic gains.

    What exactly "isn't working" here?
     
    #19 GladiatoRowdy, Oct 26, 2012
    Last edited: Oct 26, 2012
    1 person likes this.
  20. DanzelKun

    DanzelKun Contributing Member

    Joined:
    Nov 16, 2002
    Messages:
    1,218
    Likes Received:
    6
    Okay... so then to keep this discussion moving, I'll answer my questions to you.
    It seems your two guarantees are just based on
    1) your lack of faith in your fellow Americans
    2) your perspective that the federal government is inherently power hungry and wants to create a dependent population that it can control in order to remain in power

    My view differs.

    1) I think the majority of Americans on welfare don't want to stay there. I'm not naive enough to believe that there aren't people out there that just want to take the easy way out. But that doesn't mean you shutter things for everyone. Or even for those people - just because those people didn't want more for their lives doesn't mean the children of theirs you helped support won't evaluate their situation and decide that they're going to work harder and get more independence and success out of their life than their parent(s) did. Feel free to call me overly optimistic. Maybe I am, but I prefer it to pessimism. We have to continue to believe in and bet on our fellow American citizens to make this country great! Never under estimate the heart of a champion! ;)

    2) I think the federal government is quite aware that mere control over a poor, dependent population gets it nowhere and is NOT in its best interest. I don't think anyone is sitting in D.C. trying to figure out how to turn the US into North Korea. I think they know very well that they're successful when the people are successful. That's why both Sides want to build up the middle class (though with distinctly different strategies!). And I think being in the middle class inherently implies that you're NOT dependent on the government. That you can afford to pay for a mortgage and groceries on your own. That you pay taxes. And you build that large, independent Middle Class population larger and larger and you find that more and more of those kids I mentioned from 1) are going to have their eyes set on joining it as it seems a more and more attainable goal.
     

Share This Page