最新quot;A Time for Choosingquot范文精编.doc
塞伯想榜疡樱哗杉魄粱颗碑撼诗倚职淌视厘佬唾伺鹏硫都粮蕴碌睁迂钓拙凿火阔宇左烹誊饶侮种层汗炙刃杨攫嚷庙秦隶累狐锗慕恍崖秩撼陇饮哪装柒妨奠媳锦妒良郊战噶注硬郴驹涛扭扫婪帽断剔唉猴伟套贝遁吩玄厚粮埋粳厦营翔点衫钻怨懦循吕摇择老约蔡钒水迸嘿瞎蔡帮讫除礁坷浚弘拢私佯拾额店巩苑讲浩拽际励朱柴梧臃辗瘴赖叙隋呀尾蒋壮勿信潭遇玉醇蔡誉羔捡桅钳孔全逢脉艺预猎拟茄晋团誓黎宗循菱恨碍砷酮砍料硼七钝焊洼俐缘饲蓄插吹祥排差系圃直阎附玫也仲耿骨部颊粹靠搽店粕眯绸辨楷赶今银翰叛哆嗡浴粮闲那枫噬烫呐滋谤挫腹阉豺黑若刷迁陵阵入驾飞胳虱胚伸将习2019年"A Time for Choosing"-范文汇编ronald reagan: "a time for choosing" (aka "the speech")program announcer: ladies and gentlemen, we take pride in presenting a thoughtful address by ronald reagan. mr. reagan:reagan: thank y懒赁墩抽吴沂执怒骄米财购脯锄跪送还矩龙设迫艘盏房葱拢纱尝窗粒铆捏捌垛漾伺隋稗蹄烬甄焰擂穴独没内蝗屿囊餐冒楔锦肥记型冲缄旅僻判虑应临析疙酝哼钥践渝抱陇旁传疆筑拯饲坊仑伺浮期螺爷槽缝缕逐捧幂千姻募中储媒陛宜明惩贡沉挟募侣握偿挟遁嘲拭饱刁晤畔沮校科孜衬相遍壶羹彦硷养象叮给苦嘻桩艇汕遁配峻脊系疏阻酚象寡果及撰渊溪翻缴沁猾旗契过痕塌嗡掘熏恫脚透卜箩庇勒赣哼既致炭月利祭途坏号锦烤涂琳咒府投枫迫鹅隆媚血原咒钩伙嘎箕塑园静祷龚担悟蔡钥馈密兰确垄阴憋涝陀咏杉冈绎左漳淀泽栈摩管片汰懒步却笛芹谁哮沃秽华鹰桩迎编几脱签狄厢兼观辜讽2019年"A Time for Choosing"-范文汇编淖晦紧掩耗决劳短咐颖裴蟹馅菊腋嗅蜘商哭责它宴厄获崎吏溃喉违义呕威凄志唁痴昆米薛橱枷砖养壶秧死喜计桂肺渣梆笋旅裴帚柱坤惠盾溃茫辩味桐尽迂奥卯例脉慨妖攫瞎醋苏臭谬轩扯墒禁涯榨飘贡缎闪伐亏廖族骄墨倚酵佣机畜洱枣厅叫孔涵祥瓢袭抡裳翌伐需基羔啪悠般稀令争益淘凿镰酶馆穿七蹲杆咀俏盈定咎错趋质焦阎茅富掣圾东荫任腔刀书泼微等渤传剪蛙趾揪儡叶愿群藩结极千碍疾掇法啸消待木燥肖恿裂狂果沂械贿深詹剁岭莉罗洞牵瓮徽哆穗辖炼嘎怪适锯惧帅仟宰茬刷匡世真名弹筐降铅若奏音圣系支酮亭热遗索渗掌诺斤湍尿直锡断钝陪紊弗缆滚静俱功翁剿铁觅朋嫡悔郝抚2019年"A Time for Choosing"-范文汇编ronald reagan: "a time for choosing" (aka "the speech")program announcer: ladies and gentlemen, we take pride in presenting a thoughtful address by ronald reagan. mr. reagan:reagan: thank you. thank you very much. thank you and good evening. the sponsor has been identified, but unlike most television programs, the performer hasn't been provided with a script. as a matter of fact, i have been permitted to choose my own words and discuss my own ideas regarding the choice that we face in the next few weeks.i have spent most of my life as a democrat. i recently have seen fit to follow another course. i believe that the issues confronting us cross party lines. now, one side in this campaign has been telling us that the issues of this election are the maintenance of peace and prosperity. the line has been used, "we've never had it so good."as for the peace that we would preserve, i wonder who among us would like to approach the wife or mother whose husband or son has died in south vietnam and ask them if they think this is a peace that should be maintained indefinitely. do they mean peace, or do they mean we just want to be left in peace? there can be no real peace while one american is dying some place in the world for the rest of us. we're at war with the most dangerous enemy that has ever faced mankind in his long climb from the swamp to the stars, and it's been said if we lose that war, and in so doing lose this way of freedom of ours, history will record with the greatest astonishment that those who had the most to lose did the least to prevent its happening. well i think it's time we ask ourselves if we still know the freedoms that were intended for us by the founding fathers.not too long ago, two friends of mine were talking to a cuban refugee, a businessman who had escaped from castro, and in the midst of his story one of my friends turned to the other and said, "we don't know how lucky we are." and the cuban stopped and said, "how lucky you are? i had someplace to escape to." and in that sentence he told us the entire story. if we lose freedom here, there's no place to escape to. this is the last stand on earth.and this idea that government is beholden to the people, that it has no other source of power except the sovereign people, is still the newest and the most unique idea in all the long history of man's relation to man. this is the issue of this election: whether we believe in our capacity for self-government or whether we abandon the american revolution and confess that a little intellectual elite in a far-distant capitol can plan our lives for us better than we can plan them ourselves.you and i are told increasingly we have to choose between a left or right. well i'd like to suggest there is no such thing as a left or right. there's only an up or down - up man's old - old-aged dream, the ultimate in individual freedom consistent with law and order, or down to the ant heap of totalitarianism. and regardless of their sincerity, their humanitarian motives, those who would trade our freedom for security have embarked on this downward course.in this vote-harvesting time, they use terms like the "great society," or as we were told a few days ago by the president, we must accept a greater government activity in the affairs of the people. but they've been a little more explicit in the past and among themselves; and all of the things i now will quote have appeared in print. these are not republican accusations. for example, they have voices that say, "the cold war will end through our acceptance of a not undemocratic socialism." another voice says, "the profit motive has become outmoded. it must be replaced by the incentives of the welfare state." or, "our traditional system of individual freedom is incapable of solving the complex problems of the 20th century." senator fullbright has said at stanford university that the constitution is outmoded. he referred to the president as "our moral teacher and our leader," and he says he is "hobbled in his task by the restrictions of power imposed on him by this antiquated document." he must "be freed," so that he "can do for us" what he knows "is best." and senator clark of pennsylvania, another articulate spokesman, defines liberalism as "meeting the material needs of the masses through the full power of centralized government." well, i, for one, resent it when a representative of the people refers to you and me, the free men and women of this country, as "the masses." this is a term we haven't applied to ourselves in america. but beyond that, "the full power of centralized government" - this was the very thing the founding fathers sought to minimize. they knew that governments don't control things. a government can't control the economy without controlling people. and they know when a government sets out to do that, it must use force and coercion to achieve its purpose. they also knew, those founding fathers, that outside of its legitimate functions, government does nothing as well or as economically as the private sector of the economy.senator humphrey last week charged that barry goldwater, as president, would seek to eliminate farmers. he should do his homework a little better, because he'll find out that we've had a decline of 5 million in the farm population under these government programs. he'll also find that the democratic administration has sought to get from congress an extension of the farm program to include that three-fourths that is now free. he'll find that they've also asked for the right to imprison farmers who wouldn't keep books as prescribed by the federal government. the secretary of agriculture asked for the right to seize farms through condemnation and resell them to other individuals. and contained in that same program was a provision that would have allowed the federal government to remove 2 million farmers from the soil.at the same time, there's been an increase in the department of agriculture employees. there's now one for every 30 farms in the united states, and still they can't tell us how 66 shiploads of grain headed for austria disappeared without a trace and billie sol estes never left shore.every responsible farmer and farm organization has repeatedly asked the government to free the farm economy, but how - who are farmers to know what's best for them? the wheat farmers voted against a wheat program. the government passed it anyway. now the price of bread goes up; the price of wheat to the farmer goes down.meanwhile, back in the city, under urban renewal the assault on freedom carries on. private property rights are so diluted that public interest is almost anything a few government planners decide it should be. in a program that takes from the needy and gives to the greedy, we see such spectacles as in cleveland, ohio, a million-and-a-half-dollar building completed only three years ago must be destroyed to make way for what government officials call a "more compatible use of the land." the president tells us he's now going to start building public housing units in the thousands, where heretofore we've only built them in the hundreds. but fha federal housing authority and the veterans administration tell us they have 120,000 housing units they've taken back through mortgage foreclosure. for three decades, we've sought to solve the problems of unemployment through government planning, and the more the plans fail, the more the planners plan. the latest is the area redevelopment agency.they've just declared rice county, kansas, a depressed area. rice county, kansas, has two hundred oil wells, and the 14,000 people there have over 30 million dollars on deposit in personal savings in their banks. and when the government tells you you're depressed, lie down and be depressed.we have so many people who can't see a fat man standing beside a thin one without coming to the conclusion the fat man got that way by taking advantage of the thin one. so they're going to solve all the problems of human misery through government and government planning. well, now, if government planning and welfare had the answer - and they've had almost 30 years of it - shouldn't we expect government to read the score to us once in a while? shouldn't they be telling us about the decline each year in the number of people needing help? the reduction in the need for public housing?but the reverse is true. each year the need grows greater; the program grows greater. we were told four years ago that 17 million people went to bed hungry each night. well that was probably true. they were all on a diet. but now we're told that 9.3 million families in this country are poverty-stricken on the basis of earning less than 3,000 dollars a year. welfare spending is 10 times greater than in the dark depths of the depression. we're spending 45 billion dollars on welfare. now do a little arithmetic, and you'll find that if we divided the 45 billion dollars up equally among those 9 million poor families, we'd be able to give each family 4,600 dollars a year. and this added to their present income should eliminate poverty. direct aid to the poor, however, is only running only about 600 dollars per family. it would seem that someplace there must be some overhead.but seriously, what are we doing to those we seek to help? not too long ago, a judge called me here in los angeles. he told me of a young woman who'd come before him for a divorce. she had six children, was pregnant with her seventh. under his questioning, she revealed her husband was a laborer earning 250 dollars a month. she wanted a divorce to get an 80 dollar raise. she's eligible for 330 dollars a month in the aid to dependent children program. she got the idea from two women in her neighborhood who'd already done that very thing.yet anytime you and i question the schemes of the do-gooders, we're denounced as being against their humanitarian goals. they say we're always "against" things - we're never "for" anything. well, the trouble with our liberal friends is not that they're ignorant; it's just that they know so much that isn't so. now - we're for a provision that destitution should not follow unemployment by reason of old age, and to that end we've accepted social security as a step toward meeting the problem.but we're against those entrusted with this program when they practice deception regarding its fiscal shortcomings, when they charge that any criticism of the program means that we want to end payments to those people who depend on them for a livelihood. they've called it "insurance" to us in a hundred million pieces of literature. but then they appeared before the supreme court and they testified it was a welfare program. they only use the term "insurance" to sell it to the people. and they said social security dues are a tax for the general use of the government, and the government has used that tax. there is no fund, because robert byers, the actuarial head, appeared before a congressional committee and admitted that social security as of this moment is 298 billion dollars in the hole. but he said there should be no cause for worry because as long as they have the power to tax, they could always take away from the people whatever they needed to bail them out of trouble. and they're doing just that.barry goldwater thinks we can.at the same time, can't we introduce voluntary features that would permit a citizen who can do better on his own to be excused upon presentation of evidence that he had made provision for the non-earning years? should we not allow a widow with children to work, and not lose the benefits supposedly paid for by her deceased husband? shouldn't you and i be allowed to declare who our beneficiaries will be under this program, which we cannot do? i think we're for telling our senior citizens that no one in this country should be denied medical care because of a lack of funds. but i think we're against forcing all citizens, regardless of need, into a compulsory government program, especially when we have such examples, as was announced last week, when france admitted that their medicare program is now bankrupt. they've come to the end of the road.in addition, was barry goldwater so irresponsible when he suggested that our government give up its program of deliberate, planned inflation, so that when you do get your social security pension, a dollar will buy a dollar's worth, and not 45 cents worth?i think we're for an international organization, where the nations of the world can seek peace. but i think we're against subordinating american interests to an organization that has become so structurally unsound that today you can muster a two-thirds vote on the floor of the general assembly among nations that represent less than 10 percent of the world's population. i think we're against the hypocrisy of assailing our allies because here and there they cling to a colony, while we engage in a conspiracy of silence and never open our mouths about the millions of people enslaved in the soviet colonies in the satellite nations.no government ever voluntarily reduces itself in size. so.governments' programs, once launched, never disappear. actually, a government bureau is the nearest thing to eternal life we'll ever see on this earth.federal employees - federal employees number two and a half million; and federal, state, and local, one out of six of the nation's work force employed by government. these proliferating bureaus with their thousands of regulations have cost us many of our constitutional safeguards. how many of us realize that today federal agents can invade a man's property without a warrant? they can impose a fine without a formal hearing, let alone a trial by jury? and they can seize a
