A Roadmap for America's Future 2.0

[jerryjamify]

how about ending the wars and empire?

[fyrestorme123]

10:11 -10:13 ... wtf??

[fyrestorme123]

10:12 -10:13 ... wtf??

[rubbersole79]

This video is a year old and has not even 2000 hits. Until something like this gets the public attention it deserves, (ala "Kardashian/Bieber") we won't get too far.

People need to wake up and give a shit again.

[GeneralLee1807]

@thebratboy12 you should know that the Yankees have no common sense or ability to reason. Therefore they don't possess the ability to debate.

[kmg501]

There are many people who aren't cowed to some of the horribly bad court decisions that have come about through American history. Honest people who have read the history know full well we have gone badly off of track. Supporting bad decisions because the ends justify the means is a significant part of why this nation has become so deeply fractured. There is a right way to do things and that hasn't been done. The people of this nation have been critically cheated out of liberty & prosperity.

[IWLocal8]

@kmg501 Actually we're fractured because the minority (teaparty) are just being more vocal.Check the polls.Liberties were what Bush tried taking away.You seem sharp enough to remember the quote relating to what happens when one gives up freedoms for security.

[thebratboy12]

@IWLocal8 ""I consider the foundation of the [Federal] Constitution as laid on this ground: That "all powers not delegated to the United States, by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States or to the people." [10th Amendment] To take a single step beyond the boundaries thus specifically drawn around the powers of Congress is to take possession of a boundless field of power, no longer susceptible of any definition." --Thomas Jefferson

[IWLocal8]

@thebratboy12 United States v. Butler, 56 S. Ct. 312, 297 U.S. 1, 80 L. Ed. 477 (1936)

South Dakota v. Dole, 483 U.S. 203, 107 S. Ct. 2793, 97 L. Ed. 2d 171 (1987)

Look these two cases up. Come back and tell me what the decisions really decided...

[thebratboy12]

@IWLocal8 also, these court cases have each been made by Progressive judges, if you have read anything about the beginning of FDR's administration were constantly blocked the supreme court. why did it change after so long into his administration? it's because these new judges were appointed by FDR, eventually changing the Supreme court to his liking. please read your history, sir.

[IWLocal8]

@thebratboy12 You're claiming that because Supreme Court justices were picked by FDR, their decisions weren't valid? I'm well versed in history,just don't think one can pick and choose which parts of history to ignore. Did FDR pick the entire court?

Pu-leeeze.

[thebratboy12]

@thebratboy12 please look up United States vs. Lopez.

tell me what this decision decided

[thebratboy12]

@IWLocal8 finally, why would the founders make the list of powers it is given in article 1, section8, if it these powers were already guaranteed under the general welfare clause?

[IWLocal8]

@thebratboy12 The reason for the art1/sect8 addition is because the General Welfare Clause was in the Preamble - it wasn't fully explained.

[thebratboy12]

@IWLocal8 Since we talked originally about the Federalist papers, I will then quote Madison. "powers delegated by the proposed constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the state governments are numerous and indefinite. -James Madison, federalist No. 45

[IWLocal8]

@thebratboy12 "The care of human life and happiness, and not their

destruction, is the first and only legitimate object of good government." --Thomas Jefferson

[IWLocal8]

@thebratboy12 We can play "quote tag" all day long.

Fact is - the Supreme Court ruled in favor of FDRs programs FOR WHATEVER REASON that is as similar as health care reforms recently passed.

That would side in my favor that health care IS Constitutional.

[thebratboy12]

@IWLocal8 but it took a few times for them to be found constitutional, such as the AAA. Are they saying in their arguments in the courts that the general welfare clause or are they are using the interstate commerce clause? I am not sure they can get it through if they are using the interstate commerce clause as their argument. United State v. Lopez talked about how there is a limit on the interstate commerce clause. but we shall see.

[thebratboy12]

@IWLocal8 next, here is a quote from James Madison, the father of the constitution: "If Congress can do whatever in their discretion can be done by money, and will promote the General Welfare, the Government is no longer a limited one, possessing enumerated powers, but an indefinite one, subject to particular exceptions. (James Madison, Letter to Edmund Pendleton, January 21, 1792 Madison 1865, I, page 546)"

[IWLocal8]

@thebratboy12 Madison is THEE father of the Constitution??How presumptive!

FYI-They were called - plurally - the "Founding FatherS" That's what's wrong with the TEAbaggers - they take only what they WANT to hear-turn it into fact-make some more garbage up to go along with it-and the sheeple who can't/won't think for themseves believe it as Gospel.

There were all kinds of debates going on-you should read more history-esp The Federalist Papers.One copy/paste quote isn't a history lesson

[thebratboy12]

@IWLocal8 first of all, I thought you were smart and going to be actually able to debate. but I was wrong. I specifically said the "father of the Constitution. I never said anything in there that he was the only founding father, I said he was the father of the constitution, which a quick Google search would tell you that is how he is some times called. so maybe you should read some history.

[IWLocal8]

@thebratboy12 My point being made was that there wasn't one person who came up with the Constitution - it was quite the collaborative event.

[thebratboy12]

@IWLocal8 By the end of FDR's presidency he had appointed a total of 9 judges. These judges has a liberal biased. So do most of, if not all of, Bushes appointed judges. The difference is they will have conservative biased. What think these judges actually do not follow the constitution, like Ginsburg to be specific who wants us to follow precedents made by judges from different nations. The constitution is not biased towards liberals or conservatives. If anything, it is more libertarian

[IWLocal8]

@thebratboy12 Don't Justices need to be confirmed? FDR had a lengthy term, didn't he? (yet-he still won which leads me to believe he had some kind of majority)

Everyone likes to think the Constitution supports their views-in the case of health care, I feel the ability to claim that the Constitution supports it due to the fact that extremely similar laws have been through the Supreme Court and found to be valid. It's irrelevant if WE disagree with that ruling.

[thebratboy12]

@IWLocal8 I know it was made with a lot of people there. But Madison's nickname is the "father of the constitution" and thats why said that. But I completely agree with you on the fact that I think the PATRIOT act is unconstitutional.

[IWLocal8]

@thebratboy12 No doubt - he wrote a lot - as well as being a major contributer to the Federalist Papers. I just have a problem giving any one person so much credit and that's purely a personal bias. Yes, that is his nickname, but, I prefer to keep it on a Founding FatherS level...

[thebratboy12]

@IWLocal8 I'm not disagreeing with you that everybody uses it to our personal bias. I am just wondering though have they ever ruled on if the federal government can force someone to buy healthcare. I truthfully have not ever found an answer to that question. any court decisions you know of?

[IWLocal8]

@thebratboy12 Not that I'm aware of.At first I thought it a ridiculous idea to make it mandatory to have health care. Then it was pointed out that in many states, it's mandatory to have driver's insurance, and, we don't have a problem with that.

I was on board with the Public Option.The health care that was passed was an extremely watered down version,but, it's a start. Those of us who have had health care have already been paying for those that don't.

[thebratboy12]

@IWLocal8 first of all, you have your documents wrong, sir. Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of happiness are in the Declaration of Independence.

Secondly, Hamilton was way out of step with the other delegates at the constitutional convention. He was for a very powerful central government, if you look at his proposals during the constitutional convention

[littletopper2]

I read this @ roadmap.republicans.budget.hou­se.gov.

Changing the name of Health and Human Services will cost money.

Your BCT plan will only provide TEMPORARY "transition relief." (Strategic- quotation, only works on idiots).

Your "Road-map," simply provides the means, to implement the Progressive's Agenda.

I'm sending your link to Campaign for Liberty, Mark Levin, and Glenn Beck.

[razerfish]

he's the only guy even talking about a plan that actually stops the absolutely certain bankruptcy within the next 5-10 years. Politicians will fight him on it, and as odd as it may seem, but you'll see them stand by and watch the government slide into BK. The reason for this is because anyone that proposes to raise taxes and take way spending, you have no chance of getting re-elected by a lazy electorate that wants something for nothing. I'm not so sure I want this monster government to live. I

[XCritonX]

The government zombie invasion must be stopped!

They want brains and free money! But mostly money!

If they get you, you will also become a gov-zombie. Unable to think or care for yourself you will wander the earth looking for other brains to eat and pockets to empty of money.

Save us Captain Capitalism! (That is free market capitalism, not his bazarro version, crony capitalism.)

[cano21]

@Vetwolf13 And you're his little bitch! So quit yer bitchin' and get back to sucking his fat cock asshole. It'll do you some fucking good!

[ErikNikolai]

Looks at Ryan's expression at 15:24. I wonder what he's thinking at that point. ;-)

[tvspnd1228]

paul ryan's a future star.

[dmb1791]

Rep. Ryan, you are truly an inspiration. Can't thank you enough for what you are doing in Washington. I'm glad somebody gets it.

[kmg501]

Same old bureaucratic crap. The federal government should not be involved in health care. It doesn't matter that you offer a better plan, the fact is that it isn't constitutional. You haven't fixed a damn thing with this plan, only modified the symptoms of the problem.

GET THE HELL OUT OF OUR LIVES.

[ErikNikolai]

There's going to be health care reform at some point -- that's unavoidable. With Ryan's plan it will at least be done most efficiently, based on free market solutions. Certainly more cost effective than the current system.

[kmg501]

@ErikNikolai

Real health care reform would mean that the federal government gets back in it's constitutional box as it has zero constitutional authority to be doing what it is doing.

I'm not saying that they need to end over night but that we need an intelligent exit strategy from Medicaid & Medicare. Until that is accomplished all that is being done is furthering an illegal, anti-American & unethical government bureaucracy which only bureaucrats & statists love. tinyurl . com /y9g36ty

[ErikNikolai]

I agree with what you're saying, and hope that there'll be a sufficient swing to the right to accomplish such a reform. I doubt it though, due to all the cultural influence of increased globalization.

[kmg501]

@ErikNikolai

Not to sound like a nut but a dollar collapse is coming. With each passing month that inevitability grows more real. We're slipping ever faster into a massive black hole of debt, much of the world recognizes this and has been planing accordingly. China is buying up basic resources globally and easing themselves out of a dollar dependency. As that progresses we will grow exponentially weaker.

The bleak picture that Ryan paints, pales in comparison to the reality.

[ErikNikolai]

You're probably right. I've been listening to Jim Rogers, and he makes sense. Will be taking my master's degree in Australia this year -- I should probably remain there, or move on to New Zealand, Singapore or Hong Kong.

[kmg501]

@ErikNikolai

I very much hope I am wrong but there are so many signs on the horizon that paint a very bleak picture. America has never had it's basic foundation so weak and it's citizens so entitled and unready. If we ate the collapse in 2008 we would already be on a road to recovery. Now all we have are shoes ready to drop and very nervous investors & consumers for it.

For the Osama Bin Laden's of the world this is a dream come true and one which we continue to buy into via foreign policy.

[IWLocal8]

@kmg501 Health care is VERY Constitutional.Raping Americans (which is what big businesses including insurance companies have been doing) isn't.

[thebratboy12]

@kmg501 are you a Ron Paul supporter?

[thebratboy12]

@IWLocal8 and what clause in the constitution makes it constitutional? just you saying that it is constitutional does not make it constitutional.

[IWLocal8]

@thebratboy12 Firstly, the "life" as in "life liberty and the pursuit of happiness".There's also "promote the general welfare".You need to look up the definition for the word at the time the Constitution was written.Alexander Hamilton was pretty clear in "The Federalist Papers". Any other questions?

[kmg501]

@IWLocal8

You're a liar or an idiot.

"With respect to the two words 'general welfare,' I have always regarded them as qualified by the detail of powers connected with them. To take them in a literal and unlimited sense would be a metamorphosis of the Constitution into a character which there is a host of proofs was not contemplated by its creators." --James Madison

[IWLocal8]

@kmg501 LOL From 1828 Webster's:WEL´FARE, n. [well and fare, a good going; G. wohlfahrt; D. welvaard; Sw. valfart; Dan. velfærd.]

1. Exemption from misfortune, sickness, calamity or evil; the enjoyment of health and the common blessings of life; prosperity; happiness;

[IWLocal8]

@kmg501 You also need to look at Supreme Court rulings - specifically as to how they relate to Medicare, Social Security, and other programs set up as a safety net. The Supreme Court found them all to be VERY Constitutional. After all it IS the duty of the highest court to decide on the Constitutionality of something isn't it?

If I'm the idiot then I'm in good company - with Supreme Court Justices who decided what"General Welfare" entails.

[GSDebunked]

Superb!