The GOP race gets better by the day. http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0312/74292.html Right. Keeping high-profile people from harm is now a form of welfare. I guess that makes Obama a welfare king, and Michelle a welfare queen. Sheesh.
By your logic, we should be paying the secret service to protect all celebrities. Why should my money go to protect someone like Rick Santorum? I'm not saying I want any harm to come to him, I'm just saying I shouldn't be forced to pay to protect someone that I have no interest in paying to protect. I'd rather use that tax money that they robbed from me to protect myself. If the poor are taxed to pay for the services of the rich, then yes that is welfare. No matter how hard you try to spin it, you can't change that fact.
It's simple really. Ron Paul is just doing this so people don't call him a hypocrite, and because they would if he accepted secret service protection.
Of course one could argue in this election year that Americans having easy access to kill Presidential candidates would be good thing.....
Are celebrities members of government? If not, why would the service whose job is to protect members of government protect them? #1, government protects its officials the same way corporations protect their officials. You don't make the CEO pay for his own bodyguards and office alarm system. #2, you're offering a classic "I only want my tax money to pay for things I support" argument. News flash: everyone's taxes pay for *something* they don't like, because everyone is different. But we do it because we, *as a group*, decided that a given activity needed doing. Your recourse is to vote and get politically involved, not insist that your taxes only be used the way you want them to be used. You guys are twisting all the meaning out of the word "welfare". Taxes pay for everything government does. Unless it involves something truly global, like national defense, then there will always be people who do not use that particular program. By your definition, every such program is "welfare" because somebody is paying for something they're not using. You need to come to terms with the fact that you are part of a nation, that does things collectively on our behalf. And you benefit from that even if you think you don't. Your own success is not built entirely on your own efforts: it's built within a framework of infrastructure, laws and programs provided by us collectively through our government. You could be the best farmer in the world, for example; but if you had no means of getting your goods to market safely and your money back home safely, you'd have no liveliehood. We depend on society for the sandbox we play in. In order for government officials to function effectively, they need to be protected. That's why the Secret Service (and similar organizations within the other branches of government) exist. That is not "welfare", no matter how much you wish to torture that word.
On second thought, if these guys are the best we can come up with the replacement batch could be even worse. But is that even possible? Quite a pickle.
Ron Paul makes it easier and easier not to vote for him seemingly every time he opens his mouth. Not that I'm on the fence about him, I'm 101% certain I'll never vote for him. If he was the only candidate on the ballot, I'd have to abstain from voting for the first time since I was old enough to do it. But seriously, if he cannot recognize the fact that yes, SOME money does have to be spent on things, he's not qualified to lead this country. He can go back to Texas and give free health care to people because that's one area where he actually can do some good.
Technically welfare is a special benefit provided by the government through the tax payers funds, a social effort designed to promote the basic physical and material well-being of people in need., so..., as silly as it may seem, he's correct.
I don't care if he's fundamentally correct, it's also a fundamentally stupid position to have. The leader of the free world and those who help run it aren't going to be paying for their own security. I want it to be a non-profit highly trained group of individuals with one mission only. To protect the person they are supposed to be protecting.
Romney, Santorum, and Newt aren't even elected officials at the moment, much less the leader of the free world or those elected/appointed to help run it??? If their party thinks they need security then they should provide it not the tax payers. Until then welfare is a perfect description of what they are soaking the tax payers and society as a whole out of.
Except they are not the leaders of the free world. Obama is. I was happy to hear Ron Paul say he refused it. I was upset before when I first heard Mitt got it becasue of crowds and Ron Paul has huge crowds, I thought it was just another attempt to prop up the establishment republican. 50k a day is a lot for taxpayers to (*)(*)(*)(*) away on something a private citizen like Mitt can easily afford. Its a shame considering how difficult times are. but the reality is the republicans of today are whores to the government just like liberals. They just cant admit it. But their actions speak volumes of what they are really about.
That is a good point. This should be paid for by the party or the individual. Its not like any of those three can beat Obama anyways. What a waste of MY money.
Ever heard of Robert Kennedy? I don't begrudge presidential candidates government protection. There shouldn't be a inviting window for killing the person who could be the next president.
Ron Paul should be our next President to set things straight and bring back the US to be what it used to be and not ran by company log rolling. What Paul was saying is what he always says. If it is my choice the tax payers would be paying crap. About The Obama's I didn't see any reference that he even suggested that. You are posting negative propaganda! Please stop....
I seriously do not think that Ron Paul runs to win. I think that he is just there to vocalize opinions that are not widely known or accepted so that those "fringe" groups have a sense of vendication being that their "voice" is being heard. I could be wrong about this but it is my impression. Those who truly rule know how the psychologies that have been prescribed for the populace works.
I'm sorry, but on the list of things wrong with the country, presidential candidates receiving secret service protection is number #1,094, right after #1,093, which is, "are we eating too much garlic as a people"? Borrowed this joke from Lewis Black
Libertarianism is a very interesting ideology. It actually has some very good ideas. The problem though is if you practice it in it's purest sense it just turns into wacky mush. The problem with Paul is he is obsessed with the process and cares little of the result. If we started to skimp on Secret Service agents the president would get assassinated more frequently. This would be unimaginably disruptive to the nation and the world. It would cost us infinitely more than we would save. The theory is interesting... the real world implementation is disastrous. Philosophically I agree with Paul on a number of things but honestly I could really see much of what he suggests being implemented to the degree he wants without total disaster concurring.
I understand what he's saying, but that's an impractical, fundamentalist point of view. If Ron Paul were ever our president, I would want him to have secret service protection even if he didn't want it. The leader of the free world is entitled to the best security we can offer him. Yes...entitled.....it is welfare.....take it... (if you are the president). Otherwise the president is leaving himself irresponsibly vulnerable....
I like Paul's ideals, but his inflexibility and lack of pragmatism keeps coming through. If he wants all or nothing, he's going to get nothing.
