American Enterprise Institute: 'Ashton B. Carter: Pivoting U.S. Defense to Future Challenges & Opportunities'

"Third-party photos, graphics, and video clips in this video may have been cropped or reframed. Music in this video may have been recut from its original arrangement and timing.

In the event this video uses Creative Commons assets: If not noted in the description, titles for Creative Commons assets used in this video can be found at the link provided after each asset. 

The use of third-party photos, graphics, video clips, and/or music in this video does not constitute an endorsement from the artists and producers licensing those materials. 

AEI operates independently of any political party and does not take institutional positions on any issues. AEI scholars, fellows, and their guests frequently take positions on policy and other issues. When they do, they speak for themselves and not for AEI or its trustees or other scholars or employees." 

From AEI

FOX News: 'New Regulations On Way For Halfway Houses'

Source:FOX News Toledo- a halfway house in Toledo, Ohio.

"You could soon see more convicted felons in your neighborhood.

As Ohio leaders move more nonviolent offenders out of state prisons to save money, Toledo's elected officials are preparing for the after-effects: an expected increase in the number of halfway houses.

Toledo only has two state-licensed halfway houses right now, including a Volunteers of America treatment center in North Toledo. But local leaders expect to see applications for several more, as convicted felons move from a life behind bars to a community-control setting."  

From FOX News Toledo

Anytime you have a slow, economy, with high unemployment, like we have today, you are going to have states and localities, like Toledo, Ohio, run deficits. And as a result they're going to look for ways to make saving without hurting their public services. 

I'm not a resident of Toledo, Ohio, actually I've never even been there, but that's what's going on here. Prisons and jails are expensive and when they're filled with nonviolent offenders, like drug addicts, they become more expensive. And when economic and financial times are tough, getting those folks out of prison and jail and having them live in places like this that are privately run, where the residents there pay for their own cost of living, makes a lot of financial sense, especially for taxpayers.

Arthur Brooks: 'Does Free Enterprise Hurt The Poor?'

Source:American Enterprise Institute- from Arthur Brooks piece about free enterprise and the poor.

"Arthur Brooks, author of the new book "The Road to Freedom," takes on the top myths about free enterprise. Part 3: "Free enterprise hurts the poor."

Free enterprise is the only system that truly helps the poor around the world.  It helps the poor more than anyone, as a matter of fact. Since 1970, 80 percent of the world's worst poverty's been eradicated. Eighty percent. The reason for that is globalization, open trade, entrepreneurship, and free enterprise. A lot of people don't know that trade from China to the United States has increased by 1,000 percent since 1980.  That's lifted 600 million Chinese out of the worst poverty. Free enterprise is the reason that people around the world aren't starving to death. If we're good Samaritans, if we really love the poor, we have to fight for free enterprise for everyone." 

From the American Enterprise Institute

I'm all in favor of a private enterprise system (what others, especially on the Right call free enterprise) and capitalism. But even with the most unregulated economic system in the world (and no developed country has a completely unregulated private enterprise system) we're still going to have poor people. Because we're still going to have people who lack the skills to be successful in life, either by making mistakes early as young adults, like leaving school or having kids early, or simply not having enough of an opportunity to be successful, like not having the access needed to get themselves a good education. 

So you want to encourage people to be successful in life and having taxes and regulations fairly low and are easy to enough to understand and to work with, are ways of achieving economic freedom for the most people possible in any society. But you need an education system, as well as safety net, that encourage people and empowers people to be as successful as they possibly can then allow them to enjoy the fruits of the success, but only taxing them based on the services that they receive from government.

Invest Bliguru: Free to Choose- Milton Friedman: 'Cradle to Grave-Public Assistance (1980)'

Source:Invest Bliguru- Robert Lampman participating in this discussion.

"Since the Depression years of the 1930s, there has been almost continuous expansion of governmental efforts to provide for people's welfare. First, there was a tremendous expansion of public works. The Social Security Act followed close behind. Soon other efforts extended governmental activities in all areas of the welfare sector. Growth of governmental welfare activity continued unabated, and today it has reached truly staggering proportions. " 

From Invest Bliguru 

From Cradle to Grave, is referring to how people who were born onto public assistance, raised on public assistance, have kids before they are ready to raise them and live off of public assistance as adults as well, that we literally have had generations of families who’ve lived off of public assistance, because they have never gotten the skills that they need, to be able to leave public assistance. Meaning they would have the skills that they need to get a good job and not have to live off of public assistance, because they have the means to be able to take care of themselves and their kids.

A lot of this is a result of the safety net that was created in America, in the 1930s with the New Deal and the 1960s with the Great Society. Where you had all the social insurance programs that we're designed to help sustain people while they are in poverty, but not do anything to help these people to get themselves off of public assistance and out of poverty once and for all. This is what public assistance was in America, pre-1996. The TANF Law (Temporary Assistance For Needy Families) better known as Welfare to Work, changed all that.

It’s not a question in my mind and I believe many other Americans minds, of whether we should help people, who for whatever reasons can’t fend for themselves. The question is how to we do that. Do we just give them a few hundred bucks each month and expect nothing from them other then using that money to pay their basic needs, but continue to allow them to make the same mistakes, that they’ve made and while they are on public assistance, like having kids when they aren’t ready to take care of them, having more kids, when they can’t take care of the ones they already have, using their public assistance checks to buy alcohol and other drugs, or do we instead help them help themselves, so they no longer have to live on public assistance.

Do we empower people to now have the skills to take care of themselves instead of what we’ve done in that past. The first question is what we were doing pre-1996. The 2nd question is what we’ve done ever since. This is what Classical Liberal Professor Milton Friedman was focusing on in his movie Free to Choose. And interviewed people who hate the current public assistance system and want to see it ended. People who were happy with the current system and people who were speaking in favor of the reforms that happened in 1996, that Democratic presidential nominee Michael Dukakis ran on for President in 1988.  

You can also see this post on WordPress.

You can also see this post at The Daily Post, on Blogger. (No pun intended) 

You can also see this post at The Daily Post, on WordPress. (No pun intended)

Calvin King: 'Ronald Reagan- Warned Us About Barack Obama'

Source:Calvin King- Then private citizen Ronald Reagan, campaigning for Senator Barry Goldwater for President in 1964.

"How Reagan summed up Obama in the first 5 minutes of a speech over 40 years ago." 

From Calvin King

If you are ignorant and just downright so dishonest, that you'll say anything, to advance your cause and hurt people you see as opponents, or even enemies, you'll say whatever you can come up with and not let the facts get in the way of a good partisan attack. And perhaps you'll say so much that isn't true, that you'll start to believe your own nonsense. 

I use to believe that people who thought Barack Obama was a Socialist, or an African, Atheist, Muslim, (how someone can both be an Atheist and a Muslim, someone needs to explain that to me) who was born in Kenya and is an illegal immigrant, who's President of the United States: I use to think these people were purely escaped mental patients. Who volunteered for the Michele Bachmann presidential campaign.

I use to believe that people who said these things, we're just straight up making this garbage up. (To be too kind) Because they knew their followers, were ignorant enough to believe them. I mean you want to know why the American education system is in bad shape right now, all the evidence you need to see to believe that is with the people who actually believe this nonsense. (Again, to be too kind) I use to believe that the people who made these claims were simply fools, who don't know any better.

I'm sure there are plenty of those people making these charges, but they aren't the only ones. We simply still have a lot of ignorant people in this country. Who simply don't know any better, which is why they are ignorant, who make up these charges and believe them as well. And yes they are a fringe in America, but the fact is they all vote and all have loud voices in American politics. And powerful enough to get other ignorant Americans behind them.

But let's put some facts on the table just for the hell of it and maybe some ignorant people will learn something. Barack Obama born in Hawaii in August 1961, has a Hawaii birth certificate to show that. He's a practicing Christian who attends church on a regular basis. If he was a Socialist, he wouldn't of bailed out the banking and auto industries, he would've nationalized them. At least until they were ready to be independent again. And he wouldn't of cut taxes by over two-hundred-billion-dollars, but would've raised them by at least two-hundred-billion.

Americans can believe basically whatever the hell that they want to and don't have to pass an IQ test in order to do that. Which is a good thing for a lot of people who believe all of this garbage (I'm too kind) about Barack Obama and they can also say practically whatever they want to. As long as they aren't threatening to hurt people or incite violence and libeling people falsely. 

But again facts are facts and you can't argue with them, because once you do that, you are arguing against reality, trying to convince people of things that are simply false. Which is what a lot of the Far-Right is doing against Barack Obama in America. 

You can also see this post at The Daily Post, on Blogger. (No pun intended)

CATO Institute: George Will- ‘Keynotes 2010 Milton Friedman Prize Dinner’

Source:CATO Institute- Washington Post Conservative columnist George Will, speaking at the Milton Friedman Prize Dinner, in 2010.

Source:The Daily Post 

“Pulitzer Prize winner George F. Will delivered the keynote address at the dinner for the Milton Friedman Prize for Advancing Liberty. Will was introduced by Cato Institute President and Founder Ed Crane. The dinner was held May 13, 2010.” 

From CATO Institute

George Will said in an interview with Charlie Rose in October, 2008 (a future blog post that is coming up) that, there’s a Libertarian Wing and a Social Conservative Wing in the GOP. And that the Libertarian Wing, is getting larger in the GOP thanks to Ron Paul, CATO Institute, and others ,. He’s mostly correct and I agree with most of that. I would just phrase that a little differently.

There’s a Conservative Wing and I mean Conservative across the board not statist in any sense and there’s a statist wing in the Republican Party. So-called Christian-Conservatives (Christian-fundamentalist-theocrats, in actuality)  who now make up the Christian-Right, Tea Party, and people who don’t identify themselves with either of those groups.

Thats the State of GOP today which is made up of people who believe in economic freedom, except for the right for workers to organize, religious freedom for Anglo-Saxon-Protestant-Christians, and they want big government out of our wallets, so they can get in our bedrooms and living rooms to tell us how we can live our lives, who we can sleep with, who we can marry, what we can watch on TV, and what we can listen to, what bars and clubs we can go to, etc. To a certain extent even what we can do with our own money.

Unfortunately for the Republican Party, the Christian-Fascist wing of the Republican Party is winning in the Republican Party. Which is bad for them and anyone who believes in liberal democracy and doesn’t want America to become a one-party state, which is most of us.

As we move along as a country, we are getting younger, more tolerant, more liberal, and libertarian. We are becoming a country that wants big government out of our wallets and bedrooms. Generation X and Y are perfect examples of that.

But as the changes are happening, we have Christian-Fascists who are still stuck in the John Wayne-Ozzie and Harriet’s-Beaver Cleaver’s 1950s America and haven’t figured out that color TV is common and that people like to have a good time and don’t want to be told how to live their lives. That not all Americans don’t fit in with the 1950s establishment, that we are all individuals and don’t fit into the Christian-Fascist box of what Americans are supposed to be. And that if you don’t fit in that box, which is only the size of a lunch box, that somehow you are Un-American, or Socialist.

George Will, is right about the Republican Party in the sense of the two wings that make up today’s GOP. What he would call a Libertarian Wing, that he fits in, that I would call Conservative, which is different. And a so-called Social Conservative Wing (even though they don’t believe in conserving anything) that I would call statist.

There are Christian-Fascist Republicans and are unfortunately for the Republican Party, the Statists are not only coming, but are winning in the Republican Party and are on course to put the Republican Party out of business.

Arthur Brooks: 'The Occupy Movement is Right!'

Source:American Enterprise Institute- Arthur Brooks speaking to AEI in Washington.

"Third-party photos, graphics, and video clips in this video may have been cropped or reframed. Music in this video may have been recut from its original arrangement and timing.

In the event this video uses Creative Commons assets: If not noted in the description, titles for Creative Commons assets used in this video can be found at the link provided after each asset. 

The use of third-party photos, graphics, video clips, and/or music in this video does not constitute an endorsement from the artists and producers licensing those materials. 

AEI operates independently of any political party and does not take institutional positions on any issues. AEI scholars, fellows, and their guests frequently take positions on policy and other issues. When they do, they speak for themselves and not for AEI or its trustees or other scholars or employees." 

From the American Enterprise Institute

I agree with Arthur Brooks that corporate America has too much influence in Washington, at least with the Federal Government and has too much power with them. Corporate America, including their banks run their companies into the ground in late 2008 and then they bailed out at taxpayer expense by the Bush Administration and that Democratic Congress. While millions of hard-working Americans, including well-educated and white-collar American workers are getting laid off and haven't recovered from that experience since and even worked for some of those bankrupted companies that got taxpayer bailouts.  

So then you have this left-wing Occupy Wall Street movement emerging in the summer and fall of 2011, when the economy is barley growing, when the U.S. Government is at risk of default, saying where are their taxpayer bailouts and why can't corporate America bail out the people who lost their jobs and went bankrupt themselves thanks to the housing crash of 2008 and being laid off because of the Great Recession. 

So I agree with Arthur Brooks that OWS has a real issue to be protesting about, but I disagree with them on how they would handle these issues. We don't need more taxes and bigger government. We need more freedom for more Americans, especially Americans who are currently struggling. Government should be empowering these folks to get back on their feet. Not raising taxes on successful people simply because they have a lot of money.

Arthur Brooks: 'True Fairness'

Source:American Enterprise Institute- Arthur Brooks speaking to AEI in Washington.

"Third-party photos, graphics, and video clips in this video may have been cropped or reframed. Music in this video may have been recut from its original arrangement and timing.

In the event this video uses Creative Commons assets: If not noted in the description, titles for Creative Commons assets used in this video can be found at the link provided after each asset. 

The use of third-party photos, graphics, video clips, and/or music in this video does not constitute an endorsement from the artists and producers licensing those materials. 

AEI operates independently of any political party and does not take institutional positions on any issues. AEI scholars, fellows, and their guests frequently take positions on policy and other issues. When they do, they speak for themselves and not for AEI or its trustees or other scholars or employees." 

From the American Enterprise Institute

I agree and perhaps because I'm one of them, that Americans tend to believe in earned success. That if you have a good job and you are really good at it and as a result you make a lot of money, that you are entitled to the wealth and benefits that come from being a businessperson, investor, doctor, lawyer, entertainer, whatever it might be that gives you. along with your success the ability to live very comfortably in America. 

Where I believe Arthur Brooks and I disagree is on the concept of society and even a free society, the idea of a nation state, that we're all members of this gigantic, national club, known as the United States of America and therefor all have responsibilities, including financial, to make sure this club runs as smoothly as possible and is safe for Americans to be able to live in freedom. As well as having the ability to get around the country and for businesses to move their products to market, and to protect the innocent from predators. 

For America to work as well as possible, yes, we need the freedom to be economically successful in America, but also have to pay our fair share of what it takes to make America work and keep it as safe and free as possible for as many people to be able to live freely in America. And that's what taxes are for, even for people who make a lot of money in this country and live very freely.

Invest Bliguru: Milton Friedman's Free to Choose- 'From Cradle to Grave'

Source: The Daily Hatch- Helen Bohen O'Bannon, on Professor Milton Friedman's Free To Choose, in 1979.

“Since the Depression years of the 1930s, there has been almost continuous expansion of governmental efforts to provide for people’s welfare. First, there was a tremendous expansion of public works. The Social Security Act followed close behind. Soon other efforts extended governmental activities in all areas of the welfare sector. Growth of governmental welfare activity continued unabated, and today it has reached truly staggering proportions.

Traveling in both Britain and the U.S., Milton Friedman points out that though many government welfare programs are well intentioned, they tend to have pernicious side effects. In Dr. Friedman’s view, perhaps the most serious shortcoming of governmental welfare activities is their tendency to strip away individual independence and dignity. This is because bureaucrats in welfare agencies are placed in positions of tremendous power over welfare recipients, exercising great influence over their lives. Because people never spend someone else’s money as carefully as they spend their own, inefficiency, waste, abuse, theft, and corruption are inevitable. In addition, welfare programs tend to be self-perpetuating because they destroy work incentives. Indeed, it is often in the welfare recipients’ best interests to remain unemployed.

Dr. Friedman suggests a negative income tax as a way of helping the poor. The government would pay money to people falling below a certain income level. As they obtained jobs and earned money, they would continue to receive some payments from the government until their outside income reached a certain ceiling. This system would make people better off who sought work and earned income. This contrasts with many of today’s programs where one dollar earned means nearly one dollar lost in welfare payments.”

From Invest Bliguru

When Classical Liberal professor Milton Friedman made his Free to Choose movie in 1980, he spent one of his chapters on the public assistance system. How we treat people who can't take care of themselves. Keep in mind, Professor Friedman is a Classical Liberal and went into this film with pre-conceive ideas about our public assistance system. But he not only interviewed Libertarians, but Progressives as well as professionals who work in social welfare.

And they talked about the people who collect public assistance and what their lives are like on public assistance. And what's expected from them as they are collecting public assistance. The history of our public assistance system, from when it was created in the 1930s as part of President Roosevelt's New Deal programs. And where we were as far the effects that the War on Poverty that President Johnson created in the 1960s. And the status of where we were as a country as of 1980 when this film was made.

They were talking about what happens when we take people who don't have the skills to be able to take care of themselves. Lack the education to get a good enough job that would allow them to be self-sufficient. Especially low-income low-skilled people who have kids, but lack the ability to make enough money to be able to take care of themselves. As well as the state of our education system, not producing enough people in the country that have the skills to be able to move on to college and more skills and learn a trade. So they will be self-sufficient and not end up on public assistance in the future.

Especially people with kids that they have to obviously look after, but which makes it more difficult to them to go to school. And get the skills that they need, so they can get themselves a good job and to be able to take care of themselves. And their families and not have to return back to public assistance in the future. Professor Friedman's, main point when it comes to public assistance, that I agree with, is that is you give people money, who can't take care of themselves and you expect nothing from the in the future other than spending what little money you give them to be able to take care of themselves, that they'll remain poor.

If you give people more money, to pay for their food and rent, then you are essentially rewarding them for not getting the skills that they need to be successful in life. But if you reward them to go out and get the skills that they need to be able to take care of themselves and even demand that they do, then they'll do that in return.  

You can also see this post on WordPress.

You can also see this post at The Daily Post, on Blogger.

CNBC: Dick Cavett Show- William F. Buckley (1995)

Source:CNBC- Dick Cavett interviewing one of the founding father's of the American classical conservative movement in 1995, William F. Buckley.

Dick Cavett after his ABC show went off the air in the 1970s, came back in the 1990s with a new talk show, but this time on CNBC, which is owned by NBC News. And he interviewed someone who I believe is one of the founding father’s of the American classical conservative movement in William F. Buckley, who was still the publisher and contributor for the conservative Firing Line Magazine in 1995. Unfortunately there are no links or videos for that interview online right now. 

You can also see this post on WordPress. 

You can also see this post at The Daily Post, on WordPress. (No pun intended) 

You can also see this post at The Daily Post, on Blogger. (No pun intended)

Common Sense Capitalism: 'Free to Choose- What's Wrong With Our Schools?'

Source:Common Sense Capitalism- Professor Milton Friedman’s Free To Choose talking about public education in America.

“Free to Choose Part 6: What’s Wrong With Our Schools Featuring Milton Friedman” 

From Common Sense Capitalism 

This film or at least Professor Milton Friedman’s narration of the film is about the lack of school choice in public schools in America, as well as promoting private school choice and charter schools.

I agree with Professor Friedman that one of the main problems with public education in America has to do with the lack of school choice and competition, especially for low-income students and parents. And because public education is mostly funded by local and state property taxes, kids in low-income communities are forced to go to underfunded and failing schools.

And as a result these students don’t get the education that they need to be successful in life be ready for college or a vocational school, even if they make it out of high school. Which a lot of low-income kids in America never even make it out of high school and just repeat the cycle of poverty that their parents also repeated.  

You can also see this post on WordPress.

You can also see this post at The Daily Post, on WordPress. (No pun intended) 

You can also see this post at The Daily Post, on Blogger. (No pun intended)

Commonsense Capitalism: ‘Free to Choose- Are We Created Equal?’

Source:Common Sense Capitalism- conservative columnist Thomas Sowell appearing on Professor Milton Friedman's Free To Choose, in 1979-80.

“Free to Choose Part 5: Created Equal Featuring Milton Friedman” 

From Common Sense Capitalism 

“Just” refers to an action justified under the circumstances. “Fair” refers to an action that treats people as they deserve to be treated. Many times, actions that are just are not fair. In hard cases, an action may be justified because there aren’t superior options, even if it’s results are unfair to at least some people.

If a madman holding a single hostage is going to blow up a school full of children, shooting him through the hostage may be just, but it isn’t fair to the hostage.

In addition, outcomes that aren’t the results of human action are neither just nor unjust. For example, a hurricane is neither just nor unjust. Yet a hurricane can be very unfair. One lazy person wins the lottery, another more deserving person does not. There’s nothing unjust about that, but it’s not fair.” 

From English Stack Exchange 

I believe the better word here instead of fair is just. There’s no such thing as a perfect world or utopia. You could create best system for life anywhere in the world and you’ll still have people who are better off than others. You still have people who have to deal with cancer, while others live completely healthy, with more money than they know what to do with.

We’ll never live in a perfect world as long as the world is dominated and controlled by humans, for the simple fact that humans have always been and will always be imperfect as a people. So it’s not a fair society that should be the goal here, but creating a just society that works for as many people as possible, regardless of race, ethnicity, or gender. And empowering as many people as possible to be able to have a real opportunity to live as freely as possible, short of hurting any innocent person with what they’re doing and holding everyone accountable for their own decisions that they make.

No one in world is better than anyone else based on their race, ethnicity, or gender. We’re all born equal based on what our race, ethnicity, or gender is in life. It’s what we do with the opportunities that we have in life that determines how much better off we are in life and how we use our intelligence, abilities, and talents, that determines how we do in life.

So some people are better off than others not because of their physical identity, but because of what they do with the opportunities that they were given in life and how they apply their talents and abilities. 

You can also see this post on WordPress.

You can also see this post at The Daily Post, on WordPress. (No pun intended) 

You can also see this post at The Daily Post, on Blogger. (No pun intended)

Glenn Beck: 'David Horowitz Discuss Conservatives Using Saul Alinsky Tatics'

Source:Fox News- Glenn Beck talking to David Horowitz.

"Glenn Beck with David Horowitz discuss conservatives using Saul Alinsky tactics to get their message out.  Inverting the paradigm....doing what liberals do....Community Organizing" 

From Some Political Clips

In case anyone is wondering or isn't already aware of this: Saul Aklinsky was a left-wing, big city, community organizer in Chicago, Illinois. He's also a left-wing boogyman for the Far-Right in America, sort of like George Soros. And every time leftists in America try to do something create a movement behind something, or try to get some agenda passed in Congress or in some state legislature, the David Horowitz's of the world or people like Glenn Beck, accuse these leftists and sometimes leftist Democrats of using Alinsky like tactics to accomplish whatever they're trying to accomplish. So that's what Beck and Horrowitz are talking about here.

John Birch Society: Arthur R. Thompson- 'Corruption of the Republican Party'

Source:John Birch Society- Arthur R. Thompson is the CEO of the JBS.

"In this weekly video news update for May 7-13, 2012, JBS CEO Art Thompson discusses Ron Paul and the Republican Party; Canada goes penniless; Al Qaeda still a Russian asset; Jobless students pose a problem; and Recall in Wisconsin and syndicalism." 

From the John Birch Society

If you look at what the major political parties (meaning in Republican Party and Democratic Party) are in the business to do, it's to win elections. It's really that simple, similar to how sports franchises are in the business to win games, at least the successful ones. The Republicans and Democrats are in the business to win elections, even if that means compromising what party principles that they may have and even nominating people that might not be real Republicans or Democrats, at least to the party's base. 

What populist movements and even fringe movements, in the Republican Party and Democratic Party are in the business to do, when it comes to political parties, is advance their movements and values and get their people into office. And that starts by first winning their party's nomination. Even if that means they don't ever have a blizzards chance in Hawaii of winning the general election. If their candidate looks like an escape mental patient, whose 5 cans short of a six pack in the general election, that person will probably seem like a hero to their political movement. 

What we're seeing right now in the Republican Party is an opposition party that wants to win back the presidency. Well, that's what establishment in the party wants to do, as well as keep or expand their majority in the House, and win back the Senate. 

What the populists in the Republican Party want to do is to nominate their people, even if they don't have a snipers chance at a firing range of winning the general election. Which is why you are seeing Mitt Romney, the establishment Republican, versus Rick Santorum the populist, and Ron Paul the Libertarian Republican, for their presidential nomination.

House Republicans: U.S. Representative Paul Ryan- 'Who Should Control Medicare?'

Source:House Republicans- U.S. Representative Paul Ryan (Republican, Wisconsin) speaking to Georgetown University in Washington, about Medicare.

"House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan speaks at Georgetown University." 

From the House Republicans

Just on a personal note first: Representative Paul Ryan who is Chairman of the House Budget Committee, has this tendency to say when he's giving a speech either outside of the U.S. House or on the House floor, or in committee when talking about a particular: "Democrats like to talk about (fill in the blank) we welcome this debate, we need this debate." 

What Representative Ryan is essentially advocating for is a competition or free market of ideas about which side (meaning Republicans or Democrats) have the best ideas and who ultimately should be in charge of government in Washington: Republicans or Democrats. 

Representative Ryan is not talking about even though the Republican Party currently only controls the lower chamber of Congress and has a Democratic Senate and White House to confront, how best can Republicans and Democrats work with each other (and this sounds corny) for the good of the country. But instead wants to go back to the good ole days of the 2000s (as Republicans see it) when the Republican Party was in charge of everything in Washington.

As far as Medicare, Chairman Ryan leaves out a very important point about his own Medicare plan and that might be because this provision is very unpopular and is something that both House and Senate Democrats, as well as President Barack Obama will use and are already using against House and Senate Republicans, as well as Mitt Romney. Current seniors would be able to keep their traditional Medicare, as well as Baby Boomers who are close to retirement. But his Generation X, which is also my generation, would be forced into a voucher system once we're eligible to retire and lose real choice in how we pay for our health care in our senior years.

Hoover Institution: Uncommon Knowledge With Peter Robinson- Christopher Hitchens & William F. Buckley: The Sixties

Source:Hoover Institution- Conservative writer William F. Buckley, on Uncommon Knowledge with Peter Robinson, in 1998.

"In this rereleased interview from 1998, Christopher Hitchens, a contributing editor of Vanity Fair magazine, is a self-proclaimed radical.  William F. Buckley, Jr., editor-at-large of National Review magazine, is one of the most noted conservatives in the country.  During the 1960’s, Hitchens enjoyed the counter-culture, whereas Buckley was one of the founders of the politically conservative counter counter-culture.  Thirty years later (1998), and Hitchens and Buckley are still wrangling over the Revolution."

From the Hoover Institution

This might sound warped or insane or something but I'm going to argue that two of the most divisive decades America has ever had are the 1960s and 1980s had more in common, then they were different.

The 1960s a decade that Liberals generally speak in positive terms. (and I'm one of them) And the 1980s a decade that Conservatives tend to speak in positive terms. I'm a Liberal but I generally look at the 1980s in positive terms, except for the music. I say this because both decades were about freedom but to a certain extent in different forms.

The 1960s was about freedom, thats what Hippies and the civil rights movement we're fighting for. And this was also one of the reasons why so many Americans were killed as a result in a big way because of what they were fighting for. Jack Kennedy, Malcolm X, Martin King, Bobby Kennedy and others, were killed because of they stood for, which was freedom.

The 1980s was also a decade about freedom, economic freedom but also social freedom, with the Reagan Revolution as well as the ending of the Cold War with Russia.

The Hippie Generation was an anti-establishment generation: people who were bored by the 1950s. And how culturally conservative the country was and didn't want to live that type of life themselves. And wanted to be themselves, not be part of the establishment. Even if the Establishment saw them as weird, freakish or even Un-American, all charges that were thrown at them.

In the mid and late 1970s, we had a tax revolt in America, especially in California. People who were tired of big government and high taxes, people who believed that for what they were being taxed. They weren't getting much in return. The strange thing is that even though there was this movement going on against big government, there was another movement going on that started about the same time that pushed for another form of big government, which is where Religious-Right came to prominence and power in America.

Democrats tend to love the 1960s and dislike the 1980s just as much politically. Whereas Republicans tend to hate the 1960s and love the 1980s. But what both sides tend not to be aware of, is that both decades both had one big thing in common, they were both about freedom, not just for some people but the entire country. They just went about trying to accomplish these things in different ways.

Reagan Foundation: 'A Reagan Forum With Dennis Prager'

Source:Reagan Foundation- Right-wing radio talk show host Dennis Prager, at the Reagan Foundation.

"A Reagan Forum with Dennis Prager on Friday, May 1, 2012. Opening remarks made by John Heubusch, Executive Director of the Ronald Reagan Foundation & Institute.

For more information on the ongoing works of President Reagan's Foundation, please visit:Reagan Foundation." 

From the Reagan Foundation

Dennis Prager, a right-wing radio talk show host, is right about one thing. The right-wing and the Republican Party has forgotten about Ronald Reagan and what Reagan conservatism actually is and what it means. President Reagan left the White House in January, 1989 just twenty-two years ago. And today probably wouldn't recognize the Republican Party today. I'm not a mind-reader, but I'm just basing that on where he was politically when he left the White House. And where the GOP is today, remember what Ron Reagan said.

"Government isn't the solution, but the problem." But yet you had two Republican presidential candidates in 2011 come out in favor of constitutional amendments to ban pornography and same-sex marriage. Actually looking to expand Federal Governmental power in Michelle Bachmann and Rick Santorum. Rick Santorum, saying "why do we need fifty marriage laws? We should just have one standard." Which is the argument that today's Progressives make when they are talking about more Federal power in education. "Education is a national Issue, we don't need fifty different standards when it comes to education."

I'm a Liberal Democrat, so obviously I don't agree with President Reagan on everything. And I'm not an expert on President Reagan either. But his message was pretty clear and simple. "Big government is the problem and we don't have enough individual liberty." His message wasn't just about economic freedom or religious freedom or political freedom. But his message was about individual freedom. That people should be free to live their own lives. Religious and Neoconservatives today, who call President Reagan a Liberal, except on economic and foreign policy, take a different approach to politics.

"That individual freedom is a threat to national security." Or as Michelle Bachmann said, "same-sex marriage is the number one threat to our national security". If people have a lot of individual freedom, they may do things that people don't like and wouldn't do. And would become threats to our national security, according to today's Neoconservatives. Or as Rick Santorum put it, "our national morality." The Reagan Foundation and the Ronald Reagan Presidential Library, is what Republicans and people who claim be Conservatives today should be looking at and studying. Ron Reagan considered himself a Libertarian as late of 1975. He was elected President in 1980. Libertarians people that Religious and Neoconservatives consider to be immoral or Un-American. Because they believe in freedom and are individualist, not collectivist.

CSPAN: U.S. Representative Paul Ryan- 'America's Enduring Promise'

Source:House Republicans- U.S. Representative Paul Ryan (Republican, Wisconsin) speaking at Georgetown University, in Washington.

"Paul Ryan: America's Enduring Promise" 

From the House Republicans

I agree with Representative Ryan (Chairman of the House Budget Committee) that the national debt and deficit are serious issues that have to be addressed. I just don't know how you erase a trillion-dollar deficit by gutting Food Assistance and Public Housing, which are only about 50 billion-dollars a year annually in total, while not investing in infrastructure, and keeping corporate welfare, borrowing more money, for more tax cuts for wealthy investors, and adding to the defense budget, without paying for any of those investments, gets us to a balanced budget. 

And I don't Chairman Ryan knows how you get America back to place where our economy is growing faster than our national debt and we are able to get our Federal budget back to balance, either. Otherwise he would've explained that by now. Which are issues he's been working on in the House last 5 years as Ranking Member and now Chairman of the Budget Committee.