In response to:

Paul Ryan: Mitt Romney's Line in the Sand

GEN10 Wrote: Aug 14, 2012 12:11 PM
My first thoughts exactly. They have not changed by any of the intense howling of those who will lose their place at the public trough.
Elisabeth26 Wrote: Aug 14, 2012 12:31 PM
Sometimes the only mercy is to let those who will not be part of the society go. As always, in our Christian (still) nation, we have an obligation to help the poor. But it costs twice as much to do so if we put Washington in charge instead of our natural charitable outlets: churches, charities, personal assistance.
crackerette Wrote: Aug 14, 2012 1:59 PM
Making too much common sense Elisabeth.
shroomfind Wrote: Aug 15, 2012 12:09 AM
Elisabeth : agreed, but it will cost FAR more than twice as much. I would venture the costs are exponential. Think of all the layers that the money must flow through, the siphoning, the friction, the blatant theft. Plus the gov. knows not the difference between those truly in need and those that it enables, whereas charities are more apt to differentiate. Safety nets mostly just encourage a lot more unsafe[and irresponsible] behavior. But know one wants to say this.
Mitt Romney has outdone himself in choosing Rep. Paul Ryan as his running mate. The conservative base is ecstatic, and that will translate into voter intensity and high turnout.

Our country faces an unprecedented debt crisis, primarily driven by our entitlement programs. We have more than $100 trillion of unfunded liabilities -- a staggering, incomprehensible number -- and we are on a collision course with national bankruptcy.

Obama has offered no solutions; his Democratic majority in the Senate has failed to produce a budget in 1,200 days; and they have both obstructed the Republicans' proposed remedies. It's...