Thread: Ron Paul 2012

This is how I see it, too. With anyone else, they'll pretend they support social justice programs only to strip them because we can't afford them, while refusing to strip away the programs that are inhibiting them from being funded in the first place.

So giving healthcare to people who can't afford it is wasteful and useless?

Originally Posted by tommo

So giving healthcare to people who can't afford it is wasteful and useless?

Ron Paul has a plan to cut 1 trillion dollars from the budget in one year, and balance the budget in 4 before he would leave office. That plan does not cut welfare, social security, or any type of health care. It cuts government bureaucracy, gets rid of federal positions and puts control at the state level, it cuts military spending and closes foreign military bases, and stops foreign aid.

Originally Posted by Alric

Ron Paul has a plan to cut 1 trillion dollars from the budget in one year, and balance the budget in 4 before he would leave office. That plan does not cut welfare, social security, or any type of health care. It cuts government bureaucracy, gets rid of federal positions and puts control at the state level, it cuts military spending and closes foreign military bases, and stops foreign aid.

Ok.... but, what if he just decides to do it? He'd have the support of pretty much every politician in America.

What makes him a trustworthy candidate is that his voting record shows he's not afraid of being unpopular when popularity means compromising his values which coincide with the best interests of the nation. Were he to fail at his endeavors to cut the Pentagon's budget, he would not say "Oh fuck it, I'll just cut medicare instead."

Ok, well, we'll see. I'll take you guy's word for it I guess.

Insurance of all kinds seems like a big corrupt bureaucracy of bullshit. They take your money and then fight you as hard as they can, giving you as little of your money back as they can get away with.

That is why I want a personal health-expenses savings account; it stays my money, and when I hit retirement age if I do not need that money for healthcare purposes anymore, I can use it for whatever I wish, or give it to charity or go on vacation instead of the insurance company attempting to prevent OTHER people from getting my money, too.

Originally Posted by ThePreserver

Insurance of all kinds seems like a big corrupt bureaucracy of bullshit. They take your money and then fight you as hard as they can, giving you as little of your money back as they can get away with.

That is why I want a personal health-expenses savings account; it stays my money, and when I hit retirement age if I do not need that money for healthcare purposes anymore, I can use it for whatever I wish, or give it to charity or go on vacation instead of the insurance company attempting to prevent OTHER people from getting my money, too.

Or just let you save money for any purpose without being penalized with taxes.

Originally Posted by cmind

Or just let you save money for any purpose without being penalized with taxes.

That's a much better idea, but under our current multi-thousand page tax code we'd have to completely throw out and rethink taxation to make that a possibility. I never understood why you get taxed for money you aren't using; it discourages saving and SMART money management.

Originally Posted by ThePreserver

That's a much better idea, but under our current multi-thousand page tax code we'd have to completely throw out and rethink taxation to make that a possibility. I never understood why you get taxed for money you aren't using; it discourages saving and SMART money management.

The 401k system worked for the rulers as it forced people to shovel their life savings into the stock market, which pleased Wall Street and in turn increased their campaign donations.

Ron Paul has the record to show he always does what he says, and says what he does. Most politicians lie and say whatever is needed to get elected then don't follow through. Paul has the record to show he is honest.

Now he does want to phase out stuff like social security but he has said multiple times he isn't going to cut people off. Same for the other programs. He wants to gradually phase the programs out in an orderly manner, that is his goal.

Now even if you want the programs, they are going to be all cut off instantly if we cant afford them and people are going to suffer. Worst case Paul leads a controlled and orderly decline in services. Best case with the budget balanced and spending under control people are more open to negotiate and compromise and keep those programs running or even extend them.

On the other hand, you elect someone who is for endless spending, and the country ends up like Greece. The programs are cut off all at once, taxes shoot through the roof and there is civil unrest and people die.

Discouraging saving is exactly why the system is set up the way it is. Our economy is designed to work only when money stays in circulation.

Originally Posted by Alric

Now even if you want the programs, they are going to be all cut off instantly if we cant afford them and people are going to suffer.

That is a good point. I still don't think it's a good idea generally though, like if the country is doing fine economically.

Originally Posted by Alric

Ron Paul has the record to show he always does what he says, and says what he does. Most politicians lie and say whatever is needed to get elected then don't follow through. Paul has the record to show he is honest.

Now he does want to phase out stuff like social security but he has said multiple times he isn't going to cut people off. Same for the other programs. He wants to gradually phase the programs out in an orderly manner, that is his goal.

Now even if you want the programs, they are going to be all cut off instantly if we cant afford them and people are going to suffer. Worst case Paul leads a controlled and orderly decline in services. Best case with the budget balanced and spending under control people are more open to negotiate and compromise and keep those programs running or even extend them.

On the other hand, you elect someone who is for endless spending, and the country ends up like Greece. The programs are cut off all at once, taxes shoot through the roof and there is civil unrest and people die.

How exactly do you phase out social security? No matter what you're going to fuck people over that paid into it. I'm only 23 and I've already paid several thousand dollars into the program. By the time I retire, people better still be forced to contribute or it's not fair to me and anyone else who's paying into it now.

Originally Posted by Omnis Dei

How exactly do you phase out social security? No matter what you're going to fuck people over that paid into it. I'm only 23 and I've already paid several thousand dollars into the program. By the time I retire, people better still be forced to contribute or it's not fair to me and anyone else who's paying into it now.

You phase it out by siphoning money that went INTO it, BACK to it. The money we spend on wars is often siphoned from the SS fund. They would effectively end all revenue generated by SS and have to find a source of money for those already receiving benefits.

Now, if it were an actual untouched FUND, there wouldn't be this problem, because people paid into it and would then get their money back, in a sense. But they wanted to use it as a source of unending income (and then it failed.)

At this point we're in too deep to NOT hurt someone by getting it out of the way; but it will hurt FAR more if we leave it as is.

I agree we shouldn't siphon money from it, that goes without saying. But the concept of Social Security is sound and I disagree with Ron Paul's idea that people should get to choose whether or not they pay into it. That dissolves the point of SS to begin with.

Originally Posted by Omnis Dei

But the concept of Social Security is sound and I disagree with Ron Paul's idea that people should get to choose whether or not they pay into it. That dissolves the point of SS to begin with.

Ideally, you would get back what you paid into it. But I have the feeling you want much, much more than what you paid in. And THAT'S the problem. Think about it (if you're capable of rational thought): if you only got back as much as you paid in, what's the point of paying in? Clearly, you expect MORE than what you paid.

>.> no, I would expect less actually, because I work an above average paying job. My dad will not receive near the amount he paid into social security by the time he dies, considering he's been paying into it his entire working career as a teamster, private contractor, high school teacher and college professor. His SS and Veterans Benefits barely cover his rent, food, utilities and gas but he was laid off at the university and is currently still trying to start a new business. Near 70, he won't be retiring for a long time to come, even with supplements from SS.

That's the problems with you conservatives, you think SS and shit is all about entitlement. I do just fine, and I won't make my dad's mistakes, I'll accumulate my own personal retirement fund for myself. But I'm not just talking about me here, most people in the US get paid less than I do and live paycheck to paycheck. These people work their asses off 40-60 hours a week to make other people rich, and they deserve their due compensation.

When you think about it, other people shouldn't need to pay in, for you to get back what you paid. Otherwise its just a pyramid scam where new people pay the older people. That isn't what SS is supposed to be, though that is an accurate description of what it has become.

Any way you can phase it out, and people who are paying in would still be entitled to get money back out. However people who don't want to pay in, don't have to pay the tax and can use the extra money as they wish(hopefully investing it for their retirement).

Now Ron Paul is the only one with a plan to fix SS. He wants to take the money cut from other places and put money back into the social security accounts, so the money that is supposed to be there, is there. Then when we start phasing it out, everyone is still getting the money back they paid in. We just give new people an option to invest it them self, or let the government invest for them.

Originally Posted by Alric

When you think about it, other people shouldn't need to pay in, for you to get back what you paid. Otherwise its just a pyramid scam where new people pay the older people. That isn't what SS is supposed to be, though that is an accurate description of what it has become.

You've forgotten all the not old people who need it as well. If they get fired or whatever.

Originally Posted by Alric

When you think about it, other people shouldn't need to pay in, for you to get back what you paid. Otherwise its just a pyramid scam where new people pay the older people. That isn't what SS is supposed to be, though that is an accurate description of what it has become.

Any way you can phase it out, and people who are paying in would still be entitled to get money back out. However people who don't want to pay in, don't have to pay the tax and can use the extra money as they wish(hopefully investing it for their retirement).

This goes against the principle of Social Justice. People who can afford their own retirement would be the first to opt out.

If you want to remove the compensation our ancestors fought for to force the entitled to give back to those they reaped the sweat from, let's start by removing share-holders and giving ownership of production to the producers.

Take your Marxism elsewhere, OD. We've already seen your kind of evil.

And yours.

Besides, I'm not advocating marxism.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarcho-syndicalism

Originally Posted by Omnis Dei

And yours.

Besides, I'm not advocating marxism.

Anarcho-syndicalism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Really? We've seen a lot of evil libertarianism in human history? Come back to reality, Jered.