In previous posts, I’ve linked to some great speeches by some great Presidents.
Now here’s a speech by someone I wish could be President.
Margaret Thatcher saved the United Kingdom, just like Reagan saved America. Did anybody hear a candidate talk like either one of them during the last GOP debate?
[…] previously shared two great videos of Thatcher, one about the real source of government funds and the other about the poisonous ideology of class […]
[…] While it’s inspiring to watch Thatcher in action, it’s also painful to realize that the current crop of GOP presidential candidates seems generally incapable of making similar arguments. Can you imagine, for instance, Mitt Romney making these remarks? […]
[…] Here’s a clip from her famous speech stating that there’s “no such thing as public money.” […]
[…] Thatcher did a good job, […]
[…] favorite Margaret Thatcher moment might be when she pointed out there’s no such thing as public money, only taxpayer […]
[…] favorite Margaret Thatcher moment might be when she pointed out there’s no such thing as public money, only taxpayer […]
[…] favorite Margaret Thatcher moment might be when she pointed out there’s no such thing as public money, only taxpayer […]
[…] favorite Margaret Thatcher moment might be when she pointed out there’s no such thing as public money, only taxpayer […]
[…] favorite Margaret Thatcher moment might be when she pointed out there’s no such thing as public money, only taxpayer […]
[…] I’m disappointed that I couldn’t find a clip of her actually making that statement. But if you want to see the Iron Lady in action, you can click here or here. […]
[…] her actually making that statement. But if you want to see the Iron Lady in action, you can click here or […]
[…] Here’s a clip from her famous speech stating that there’s “no such thing as public money.” […]
[…] To get an idea of how the Conservative Party has declined, compare Cameron’s statist rhetoric to Margaret Thatcher’s comments that “there is no such thing as public […]
[…] and here, but I also have a couple of inspiring videos of Thatcher in action, which can be viewed here and […]
[…] and here, but I also have a couple of inspiring videos of Thatcher in action, which can be viewed here and […]
Thatcher’s brilliance lies in her ability to bring matters down to their lowest common denominator. Government officials treat taxpayer money as a free item, because it does not come from their own pockets. This proves that their objective in politics is their own and has nothing to do with serving the public interest. Taxpayer households are such that if there is no money for the wanted or necessary expenditure, it is put off until such time that money is available – ususally through savings and trimming waste. Why then does government not act accordingly? Perhaps the time has arrived – with instant media so readily and easily available – for all budgetary expenditures to be put to a common people’s vote? Organizing such is not impossible as some may say, but would definitely require due duligence. Two immediate benefits jump to mind: it would definitely slow down government spending – especially those late night/closed door deals; and it would more than likely eliminate self-serving, pork barrel riders onto bills – on which they have no business being attached. It’s a thought …
[…] Here’s a clip from her famous speech stating that there’s “no such thing as public money.” […]
[…] Here’s a clip from her famous speech stating that there’s “no such thing as public money.” […]
[…] and here, but I also have a couple of inspiring videos of Thatcher in action, which can be viewed here and […]
[…] and here, but I also have a couple of inspiring videos of Thatcher in action, which can be viewed here and here. Rate this:Share […]
[…] that’s why it is so rare to find right-wing politicians – such as Reagan and Thatcher – who generally do the right thing. Rate this:Share […]
[…] get inspired, for instance, when I watch these Margaret Thatcher speeches about “public money” and “the poor poorer.” Sort of the same feeling I get when I watch the Gipper talking about […]
[…] get inspired, for instance, when I watch these Margaret Thatcher speeches about “public money” and “the poor poorer.” Sort of the same feeling I get when I watch the Gipper talking about […]
[…] get inspired, for instance, when I watch these Margaret Thatcher speeches about “public money” and “the poor poorer.” Sort of the same feeling I get when I watch the Gipper […]
[…] get inspired, for instance, when I watch these Margaret Thatcher speeches about “public money” and “the poor poorer.” Sort of the same feeling I get when I watch the Gipper […]
[…] get an idea of how the Conservative Party has declined, compare Cameron’s statist rhetoric to Margaret Thatcher’s comments that “there is no such thing as public money.” Daniel J. Mitchell • June […]
[…] get an idea of how the Conservative Party has declined, compare Cameron’s statist rhetoric to Margaret Thatcher’s comments that “there is no such thing as public money.” Rate this:Share […]
[…] While it’s inspiring to watch Thatcher in action, it’s also painful to realize that the current crop of GOP presidential candidates seems generally incapable of making similar arguments. Can you imagine, for instance, Mitt Romney making these remarks? […]
[…] I will take issue with comment Mitchell makes after the video While it’s inspiring to watch Thatcher in action, it’s also painful to realize that the current crop of GOP presidential candidates seems generally incapable of making similar arguments. Can you imagine, for instance, Mitt Romney making these remarks? […]
[…] While it’s inspiring to watch Thatcher in action, it’s also painful to realize that the current crop of GOP presidential candidates seems generally incapable of making similar arguments. Can you imagine, for instance, Mitt Romney making these remarks? […]
So much for keeping it short I guess, haha.
Alright I’m going to try to keep this one a little shorter.
I just don’t buy the idea that we need to continually keep our hand pushing down Iran, so to speak, to make sure that something that some people think might happen from happening. I still don’t quite understand what we think is going to happen if Iran gets a nuclear weapon. You said yourself that they’re not going to just go off and nuke somebody, and despite what they might say, I assure you that they’re not okay with ANY retaliation from a nuclear attack. Obviously every UN country would destroy them if they did something like that. I can agree with you that we can’t always reason with nut jobs like those who are in control in a number of middle eastern countries. To me that just means we shouldn’t be dealing with them at all more than anything else. Reagan himself said that until going into lebanon (and then pulling out a few months later for the following reason), he didn’t understand the irrationality of middle eastern politics. You just can’t go around trying to fix irrational governments, even if they do talk like terrorists. My question to you is, what do you think will happen if we just take our hands off the situation, let everyone know that we are strong allies of Israel and would have their back if something escalated, and just let whatever happens in that country happen? I just don’t see Iran as as much of a threat as they want to appear to be.
My understanding from reading about situations like this is that by playing around in unstable middle eastern countries, we don’t really help our cause much at all and we in fact incite a much greater sense of resentment and hatred simply by our occupation.The obvious implication of our presence to people who call those places home is that we are better than them or at least that we need to be in control of everything because without us they would be helpless. Imagine if some country tried to do that to us (and yes, I do recognize there is a difference between the US and Iran). I think the analogy is still valid though, it was a big part of the reason that we revolted against Great Britain way back when, is it not?
As for Japan, I doubt they would have attacked us if we weren’t already fighting a war against their allies in Europe. I think you’re right that weakness is something that we need to avoid. However, I think we make our national security weaker by spending trillions of dollars in the middle east on multiple wars and creating more enemies. If the US ever becomes weak it won’t be because we stay away from middle eastern conflicts that don’t directly involve our allies, it will be because we go bankrupt.
RGM, I got the feeling he’s rather anti-Israel from reading Ron Paul’s book, “Liberty Defined: 50 Essential Issues That Affect Our Freedom”, specifically the section on “Zionism”, IMO and from his own words in his own book, he is an anti-Semite.
Also, Iran had a totally differant mentality them China, India, Russia, France, the UK and many others have. They are afraid of a retaliatory strike and would not use a nuke as a 1st strike weapon. Iran, I feel would, as they are terrorists and OK meeting Mohammad and getting their virgins… Do some people in Iran fear a retaliatory strike? I’m fairly sure most would, but what matters is to those that control the nuke fear it. hey have totally differant idoligy. Russia was worried and afraid of retaliation, Iran’s leaders aren’t. They have said over and over they are ok with any retaliation from the US and/or Israel. They are terrorists, plain and simple. Some people & Governments can’t be negotiated with. OK, simple “test” I’m a terrorist and I want to kill you and99 of your friends, and I’m ok dying in the attack… Lets negotiate. ok? What 100 and me dead is to many? ok, 50 and I die? 25 and I live (to I can ask again??) What? I want my martyrdom and virgins…
The problem so many in the US have is they think like Americans & Europeans, Terrorists aren’t. and we need to stop thinking they are like us, and start thinking like they do, if we are ever going to stop them…
I’ve never said Imperial Britain or years past or the US’s own CIA did good, they didn’t. We shouldn’t be setting up puppet Governments anyplace. The hardest part of Freedom is allowing people to make, what you feel, is a bad choice. We didn’t like the leader, voted in in free election, so we set-up the Shah, that was wrong, We don’t like The head or Iraq, oh well, that’s their choice, not ours. Now with Iran, going back to that, who they have, want to have of overthrow is up to them, BUT when the leadership is a threat to US or our Allies, that threat needs to be removed and with as little harm to the people as possible.
If we go to broke and weaken, there will be a country that at least tries to take us over or out. Weakness breeds attempts at that, history shows that over and over. Japan would never have attacked us if they thought us to strong or that they would lose.
To crisap444 and Richard Waite:
Apologies for the late response, although it will probably be lengthy
Could you provide an example of the words that make you think Ron Paul is anti-semetic? Because as far as I can tell, the only people who make that accusation do so simply because they don’t agree with his philosophy that we aren’t Israel’s “daddy”. He seems to be one of the only politicians around who openly says that Israel should be able to defend itself without consulting us about everything they do. Case in point: Ron Paul was one of the only politicians who openly defended Israel’s right to bomb an Iraqi nuclear reactor, while all of those “pro-Isreal” people (and the UN) condemned them for it. I and others who agree with Congressman Paul simply believe that Israel, while in a dangerous neighborhood of (semi-psychotic) countries, is economically, technologically, and militarily superior to its neighbors and is more than capable of taking care of itself. Of course we should still be allies with them, and if they were actually attacked or someone attempted to invade them we would help them, but they aren’t our colony and we tend to act as if they have a star on our flag.
In addition, we dish out billions of dollars in aid to countries that are either against Israel, or support organizations that are enemies of Israel. In fact, we give more than 3 times as much money to Israel’s enemies than to Israel. For example, we have given over a billion a year to Egypt since 1979 with the condition that they buy weapons from US corporations. How bout George Bush’s 20 billion dollar weapons deal with Saudi Arabia, who is a supporter of Hamas? Oh yeah, and we also give money to Lebanon, Pakistan and Jordan. And we’re supposedly Israel’s best friend?
On a side note, we actually give Israel money with which Israel uses a portion to buy our debt which we then pay interest on. That’s just plain stupid
On the subject of Iran, I’d just like to say first off that Iran isn’t even close to having a nuke, according to our own CIA intelligence. Second I don’t buy this idea that an entire country isn’t afraid of retaliation. Israel has what? 300 nukes? And your telling me that as soon as Iran can get a bomb (which it sounds like they’re not even close to), they’re going to attack Israel or the US (even though they couldn’t even get a nuke here)? That’s just ludicrous, they would get blown off of the map and everybody in the world knows it. I don’t care if they are insane terrorist supporters, they’re not going to let their entire country get wiped of the face of the earth to make a point about hating jews.
When we accept this idea of preventative military engagement we do nothing but perpetuate wars in the middle east. Not to mention the fact that we can make up fake threats to start unnecessary wars (I’m not saying this is always the case and I’m by no stretch a conspiracy theorist, but I think it is a valid point).
As an example, the US (along with Britain, who was mad that they didn’t control the Iranian oil fields anymore) overthrew an elected leader in 1953 and installed the Shah as dictator in Iran. The Shah, while friendly to the US government, used a secret police, created with the help of the CIA and Israeli moussad, to torture and imprison those who spoke against the regime, he even used to troops to massacre demonstrators. The blowback came in 1979 with the hostage crisis, meanwhile we were supposedly always just trying to do the right thing and help the people. Funny, how we generally do that in countries when there’s another reason for us to be there. I agree with you that terrorists and many regimes in the middle east are just irrational by western standards and they can’t be dealt with by negotiating all the time, but we have a history of meddling in the internal affairs of these countries and we can’t just blame it on their irrationality every time there’s blowback. They’re rational enough not to like countries on the other side of the world to be constantly controlling and monitoring their homelands, and nothing good comes of it.
Mostly my point is that the idea that we need to run around the world making sure future problems don’t occur is deeply flawed in that we just create problems in the process, not to mention blowback in the form of hostility and violence against the US. And we haven’t even begun to discuss the Trillions upon trillions of dollars that we spend maintaining our current foreign policy. I guess it doesn’t matter what anyone thinks about it because at this rate we’ll be too broke to pay for it in no time at all.
RGM, pre WW2 the US was of the same mind Ron Paul seems to be in now. I like alot of what he has to say, please don’t get me wrong, but 1930’s US still traded with Germany, Italy and Japan and this sounds, to me, alot like what Ron Paul is asking for now. I;d rather learn from history then repeat it. On Iran, him comparing Iran having a nuke to Russia and the old USSR is just ludicrous. They have totally differant idoligy. Russia was worried and afraid of retaliation, Iran is’t. They have said over and over they are ok with any retaliation from the US and/or Israel. They are terrorists, plain and simple. Some people & Governments can’t be negotiated with. OK, simple “test” I’m a terrorist and I want to kill you and99 of your friends, and I’m ok dying in the attack… Lets negotiate. ok? What 100 and me dead is to many? ok, 50 and I die? 25 and I live (to ask again??) What? I want my martyrdom and virgins…
The problem so many in the US have is they think like Americans & Europeans, Terrorists aren’t. and we need to stop thinking they are like us, and start thinking like they do, if we are ever going to stop them…
RGM, pre WW2 the US was of the same mind Ron Paul seems to be in now. I like alot of what he has to say, please don’t get me wrong, but 1930’s US still traded with Germany, Italy and Japan and this sounds, to me, alot like what Ron Paul is asking for now. I;d rather learn from history then repeat it. On Iran, him comparing Iran having a nuke to Russia and the old USSR is just ludicrous. They have totally differant idoligy. Russia was worried and afraid of retaliation, Iran is’t. They have said over and over they are ok with any retaliation from the US and/or Israel. They are terrorists, plain and simple. Some people & Governments can’t be negotiated with. OK, simple “test” I’m a terrorist and I want to kill you and99 of your friends, and I’m ok dying in the attack… Lets negotiate. ok? What 100 and me dead is to many? ok, 50 and I die? 25 and I live (to ask again??) What? I want my martyrdom and virgins…
The problem so many in the US have is they think like Americans & Europeans, Terrorists aren’t. and we need to stop thinking they are like us, and start thinking like they do if we are ever going to stop them…
Fabulous.
Thank you.
Ron Paul is a foreign policy isolationist in the vein of 1930’s America. Let the world burn because it’s not our problem until, oh wait, it becomes our problem and it’s bigger now than if we dealt with it earlier. And I’ll go you one better, and this is based not on FoxNews but on my reading of “Liberty Defined: 50 Essential Issues That Affect Our Freedom” by Ron Paul, specifically the section on “Zionism”, Ron Paul, as far as I can tell by the words he uses in his own book is an anti-Semite and that alone should disqualify him from running for Republican nomination (it’s almost a requirement for the Democrats though).
To Richard Waite:
Your calling Ron Paul an “isolationist” is the same attack big government neo-conservatives love to throw at him, and it’s simply a fallacy to use that word. Let me guess, you heard it on Fox News?
If you think he’s an isolationist, you obviously don’t understand the definition the word. He doesn’t believe in isolationism, he believes in non-interventionism. North Korea is really the best example of an isolationist country, but nobody would call them that if it wasn’t for their economic isolation and government censorship of foreign information (neither of which would be advocated by Ron Paul, in fact he is as opposite as it gets to that). Non-interventionism simply means that we have free trade with everyone and don’t get involved in wars about the internal affairs of other countries.
If you support being constantly being involved in (or should I say starting?) wars happening on the other side of the globe because a country might someday in future have a nuclear weapon, what are you even doing on a Cato affiliated website? And if you are going to attack his foreign policy, at least don’t make yourself sound ignorant by using a word you don’t understand the meaning of. Then again I guess if I was a neocon I would use it too, since I bet that after multiple decade long wars, the average person in America would probably like the sound of a “non-interventionist”, while “isolationist” has a negative connotation to it.
As the convictions of the western voter converge to the world average, so will his prosperity.
Not entirely, but to a large extent politicians offer what voters want to consume: promises of free lunches and collective shortcuts to prosperity. Since politicians’ interests are in the same direction, there is little that can be done to arrest western decline.
No none of them reminded me of Thatcher or Reagan…but I can hope one of them will still surprise me.
Watch Peter Robinson interview Thatcher’s official biographer, Charles Moore, here (with chapters 2-5 following in the play cycle).
It is sad that there does not appear to be anyone on the political stage with Thatcher’s conviction and fortitude yet, she was herself a work in progress, so there is still hope. 🙂
I thought Herman Cain was the closest. He calls it as he see’s it and as it is
Paul Vahur above, Ron Paul is pretty far from a Reagan, he’s to much of an isolationist and Reagan would never, ever let be ok with Iran joining the nuclear nations, at the very least Reagan would let Israel “handle” it…
Yes, Ron Paul, in fact I think he gives even better speeches than Reagan or Thatcher. You know he is obviously more sincere.