help...someone said this about Ron Paul...

"Well, even if he isn't racist, I don't supprt his platform. He's like any republican who wants to take away entitlements away from the poor and elderly. He already said he wanted to do away with social security, medicare, medicaid...etc. That's not going to win him the Presidency in the general election. I'm just telling you how it is..."


Whats the truth about Ron Paul platform here? This is from a democrate who will vote for obama.

My understandign is that Ron Paul is for free market and wants the state to decide on these programs is that right?

What do you expect? You are registered since 2002 so you seem to be old enough to research this. Is there any other reason you made this fred or do you really want others (possible biased) to explain you RPs statements?

reply to post by krossfyter


Yeah you are right, sounds like just another uninformed dimwit, with an attention span short enough to only listen to the first half of any sentence, dismissing the second half. If they only looked up "Why" he wants to cut those things, it would all make sense.

It´s like calling a guy a crazy murderer cause he shot someone, but then later on you learn that the guy getting shot just murdered his entire family, and was charging him with a chainsaw trying to saw his head off. Also, he shot him with an arrow... to the knee.

reply to post by verschickter


what does my registration have to do with it? I was on here for a long time just reading and reading and reading. Trying to soak this up.

I am researching Ron Pauls platform because I am tired of the corportocracy and I want to VOTE FOR REAL CHANGE. But I need to be educated by those who know more about the Ron Paul platform then I do.

I am simply trying to educate myself. What is so wrong with that?


I have done a search on here for the answer and google but I cant find a direct answer to my question. I figured I would get a good real time answer on ATS.

Originally posted by krossfyterMy understandign is that Ron Paul is for free market and wants the state to decide on these programs is that right?

You've basically got the long story short, there, yes. Paul recognizes that with the way we're doing things now, these programs are in bad shape, they won't last, and the nation itself isn't much better off.

He actually addresses a lot of this well in the article discussed in one of my signature threads, I'll get some for you here:

Of course, just as the welfare-warfare state was not constructed in 100 days, it could not be dismantled in the first 100 days of any presidency. While our goal is to reduce the size of the state as quickly as possible, we should always make sure our immediate proposals minimize social disruption and human suffering. Thus, we should not seek to abolish the social safety net overnight because that would harm those who have grown dependent on government-provided welfare. Instead, we would want to give individuals who have come to rely on the state time to prepare for the day when responsibility for providing aide is returned to those organizations best able to administer compassionate and effective help—churches and private charities.

A constitutionalist president’s budget should do the following:

1. Reduce overall federal spending

2. Prioritize cuts in oversize expenditures, especially the military

3. Prioritize cuts in corporate welfare

4. Use 50 percent of the savings from cuts in overseas spending to shore up entitlement programs for those who are dependent on them and the other 50 percent to pay down the debt

5. Provide for reduction in federal bureaucracy and lay out a plan to return responsibility for education to the states

6. Begin transitioning entitlement programs from a system where all Americans are forced to participate into one where taxpayers can opt out of the programs and make their own provisions for retirement and medical care

You should hit my thread and link to read the whole article for more information, and he's got a lot more information on this all over the net, but he's the only one advocating cutting our bloated military budget and using that money to TAKE CARE of the people in these entitlement programs while we can get things sorted out otherwise.

Good luck with your friend - as far as thinking Paul would lose, I believe they might be surprised how much dem/indy support he's got since he attacks the worst ideas in BOTH parties.

reply to post by krossfyter


So far from what I have read and understand is....that Ron Paul will not take the elderly and disabled off of Social Security.....but will give the younger generation an option....on what to do with the money they pay into S.S.....for instance investing the money. Also....by bringing more of the troops home....there will be a lot less spending overseas...and he wants to direct that money into the Social Security payments for the elderly etc.

great responses! thanks all!

reply to post by krossfyter

I feel your pain here. As a supporter of Dr. Paul myself, I've recently run into the same odd problem and it is frustrating. In trying to find plain and simple English language explanations of Ron Paul's positions, I come up with as many versions as I load sites to check. In a recent thread I was debating drug policy with someone else over, couldn't find Dr. Paul's complete and realistic policy proposals on HIS site at all...not at the depth it would help...and his dedicated fan sites can't seem to agree on some of the core points.

I'm not sure what to say here as I've yet to find a 'one stop' shop to just look down policy points and then read a couple paragraphs point blank stating his positions without room for a lot of interpretation and misunderstanding. Perhaps if someone on ATS with connections to the Paul campaign can put a bug in their ear about this shortcoming...it HURTS when I'm trying to explain to people who WANT to learn..but there is no way to 'prove' things I KNOW from bits and pieces of Paul over years of casually listening to what comes up about him. We need a central fact checking site. Obama sure has his version of it....Paul desperately needs his own.

If you find something really solid to serve the purpose for yourself..and others like you, please DO share, as I'll help paste it everywhere for just this problem.

Paul isn't wrong to most people's thinking as much as he is flat out misunderstood at every turn. Not hard to understand when the media is HELPING to feed that misunderstanding before we even get to each of those turns.

The best thing to do is to see what the candiadtes themselves have said about any certian isuue, a good site for quotes is www.issues2000.org...
from that site-
System is broke; allow young people to get out. (Sep 2011)
Abolish Social Security, but not overnight. (Jan 2008)
Let people get out of Social Security; it’s a failure. (Jan 2008)
Never voted to spend one penny of Social Security money. (Dec 2007)
Allow young people to get out of the system. (Oct 2007)
Personal retirement accounts allow investing in one’s future. (Sep 2007)
Federal government won’t keep its entitlement promises. (Mar 2007)
Voted YES on raising 401(k) limits & making pension plans more portable. (May 2001)
Voted YES on reducing tax payments on Social Security benefits. (Jul 2000)
Voted NO on strengthening the Social Security Lockbox. (May 1999)
Create personal retirement accounts within Social Security. (Jul 2000)
Sponsored bill to put Trust Fund into market certificates. (Jan 2003)
Rated 30% by the ARA, indicating an anti-senior voting record. (Dec 2003)


In addition, President Paul's own site list his stands on the issues.
www.ronpaul2012.com...

Originally posted by Wrabbit2000
reply to post by krossfyter

 

I feel your pain here. As a supporter of Dr. Paul myself, I've recently run into the same odd problem and it is frustrating. In trying to find plain and simple English language explanations of Ron Paul's positions, I come up with as many versions as I load sites to check. In a recent thread I was debating drug policy with someone else over, couldn't find Dr. Paul's complete and realistic policy proposals on HIS site at all...

Regarding his drug policy.. he never really is afforded the time to lay it out in it´s full glory, just tiny bits each time from the vids i have seen. But piecing it together, this guy pretty much sums it up, with the same stance at RP:

reply to post by krossfyter

This is from a democrate who will vote for obama

Why? Someone wants 4 more years of a do-nothing Presidency?

(and no, I'm not counting Osama Bin Laden either...no body = yeah, whatever....) There's still something REALLY fishy about that one. He is most likely dead, but I'm thinking it was months before the claim.

reply to post by Nana2

Thanks for that site. It would seem to be pretty close to what I've been after for a straight, there it is, type of policy list. I don't know how I missed that one, but I'm grateful that you filled in the gap. Much Appreciated!!

Originally posted by Praetorius

Originally posted by krossfyterMy understandign is that Ron Paul is for free market and wants the state to decide on these programs is that right?

You've basically got the long story short, there, yes. Paul recognizes that with the way we're doing things now, these programs are in bad shape, they won't last, and the nation itself isn't much better off.

He actually addresses a lot of this well in the article discussed in one of my signature threads, I'll get some for you here:

Of course, just as the welfare-warfare state was not constructed in 100 days, it could not be dismantled in the first 100 days of any presidency. While our goal is to reduce the size of the state as quickly as possible, we should always make sure our immediate proposals minimize social disruption and human suffering. Thus, we should not seek to abolish the social safety net overnight because that would harm those who have grown dependent on government-provided welfare. Instead, we would want to give individuals who have come to rloely on the state time to prepare for the day when responsibility for providing aide is returned to those organizations best able to administer compassionate and effective help—churches and private charities.

A constitutionalist president’s budget should do the following:

1. Reduce overall federal spending

2. Prioritize cuts in oversize expenditures, especially the military

3. Prioritize cuts in corporate welfare

4. Use 50 percent of the savings from cuts in overseas spending to shore up entitlement programs for those who are dependent on them and the other 50 percent to pay down the debt

5. Provide for reduction in federal bureaucracy and lay out a plan to return responsibility for education to the states

6. Begin transitioning entitlement programs from a system where all Americans are forced to participate into one where taxpayers can opt out of the programs and make their own provisions for retirement and medical care

You should hit my thread and link to read the whole article for more information, and he's got a lot more information on this all over the net, but he's the only one advocating cutting our bloated military budget and using that money to TAKE CARE of the people in these entitlement programs while we can get things sorted out otherwise.

Good luck with your friend - as far as thinking Paul would lose, I believe they might be surprised how much dem/indy support he's got since he attacks the worst ideas in BOTH parties.

here is the response I got....." how prepared are churches and charities to accommodate over 45 million people uninsured, hundreds of thousands under insured and millions of Americans unemployed if social security, medicare and medicaid were to be abolished as Ron Paul proposes?? Churches operate tax-free, so now are they going to an extension of the government and be given tax dollars now to address the uninsured and unemployed?"

Also got this " most of all the above mentioned presidential proposals has been endorsed by President Obama...he initiated a Super committee of repubs/dems to work on this and it falls on them. You all know well a Pres can't do it alone. Pres Obama has already stated budget cuts to military and repubs blocked it. He's even sacrificed cuts on entitlement programs in order to address the budget. He's also ended the war in Iraq which was a huge burden on our deficit."

reply to post by krossfyter

here is the response I got....." how prepared are churches and charities to accommodate over 45 million people uninsured, hundreds of thousands under insured and millions of Americans unemployed if social security, medicare and medicaid were to be abolished as Ron Paul proposes?? Churches operate tax-free, so now are they going to an extension of the government and be given tax dollars now to address the uninsured and unemployed?"

Ah, fun...OK, I'll try to work through this but bear with me because my tiredness is really kicking in -

1) First off, remember that Paul is for cutting our overseas/military and various other spending and then funnelling half of those funds into these programs to restore viability first off, while we resolve our other more-pressing issues - transition period keeping these programs and making them sustainable for now.

2) He also advocates transitioning those on healthcare entitlements (medicare/medicaid) into medical savings accounts (one article discussing this here), not just replacing them with nothing.

3) Social security - he's addressed this as well. In addition to shoring it up with savings from other cuts for the meantime, he wants to let the young opt-out and advocates a transition to personal retirement accounts - no one just gets kicked into the cold. His On The Issues page on this is here.

4) It is worth noting that following Paul's other advice also helps some of these problems fix themselves. Government/HMO, etc., involvement in healthcare has made it inefficient and and driven costs up. Before this, healthcare used to be affordable. Return to our roots, get inefficient government out of the picture, restore the normal doctor/patient relationship with doctors only providing the needed services instead of milking various procedures and everything else for claim filing purposes (which also drive up the cost of insurance).

5) As to insurance, before the Government/HMO involvement started screwing things up, insurance was also cheaper and used for catastrophic situations, with people being able to just actually pay for regular healthcare directly (when's the last time you didn't pay for ANY healthcare service via insurance? It's rare, anymore). Get these knuckleheads out of the picture, drive medical costs down, and by extension drive down insurance costs as it's no longer covering things that insurance companies historically weren't involved with in the first place.

6) Unemployment - following Paul's policies would work to address this as well, bringing work back to the US, ending oppressive regulatory policies that stifle new small business (and eliminating the insulatory policies big business & regulatory agencies have set up for themselves), getting the federal government out of prohibiting entire industries (think HEMP here, if nothing else. It can be used for pretty much anything, decentralize related industries as it doesn't take as much investment as the labor & resource-intensive industries we have now, and so forth), products, and services. Who knows how many new jobs opportunities would be opened up if the government got out of the business of telling states what they can't allow?

7) Paul's fiscal policies would also work to curb monetary inflation, which is driving up prices on food and the general cost of living, and also robbing seniors, etc., dependent on entitlements (2% increase in benefits compared to 10% increase in cost of living, annually?).

Admittedly, these are complex issues that take a lot of review, and I'm probably not handling them well at the moment. But, your friend really needs to consider our current situation and ask themselves how the story ends if prices keep going up, the programs (and the rest of us!) go broke because they keep getting looted by government and payers-in are declining while payees-out are increasing, and government spending on other things also keeps increasing? All the while our nation goes further in debt - passing this burden along for generations, and when the people we owe a LOT of money to start getting really upset about it (and when we're no longer able to even service the INTEREST on our debt...), then can do some additional things to make our lives even more difficult.

Pick your poison? I agree with Paul. Quit driving costs up, quit mismanaging, quit looting, let people keep more of their own money, allow people to prepare to stand on their feet again, and release the charitable spirit once again - we are already a giving country, but much less so when we consider our part paid by putting so much into government.

Good luck.

reply to post by Praetorius


thank so much! thanks for taking time out of your life to educate me on this.


so how does this deal with the churches and charities?

Originally posted by krossfyter
Also got this " most of all the above mentioned presidential proposals has been endorsed by President Obama...he initiated a Super committee of repubs/dems to work on this and it falls on them. You all know well a Pres can't do it alone. Pres Obama has already stated budget cuts to military and repubs blocked it. He's even sacrificed cuts on entitlement programs in order to address the budget. He's also ended the war in Iraq which was a huge burden on our deficit."

Oh crikey.

I must have missed the part where Obama ended our aggressive foreign policy, worked to shut down the military deployments we have in about 130 countries, and saved hundreds of billions of dollars. As commander in chief, he can do this, and effectively force the budget cuts himself, as the spending will no longer be necessary (if, say, he wanted to end the ridiculous wars we're still in, the new ones he got us into, and the ones he's likely PREPARING to get us involved with). I did, however, see that he just asked for - what, another $1.2 trillion dollars?

And to claim Obama ended the war in Iraq is laughable, as he simply stuck to Bush's timeline - and guess what? Those troops are getting orders to redeploy - to Afghanistan, likely Syria, and we're probably getting ready to let loose on Iran as well, which is tragic. For some reason, I doubt we'll see much deficit relief come from his adherence to Bush's timeline...

The super-committee is laughable, frankly, and also bypasses our constitutional legislative process. It was a ridiculous idea from the get-go. As far as him working to address the budget - why keep approving unbalanced ones? Why keep asking for more money?

These people have no plan - this is how it goes to infinity - we run up debt. We hit our limit - we raise the limit. We borrow and print. We drive prices up, make the tied-in rich even richer with our military and monetary policies.

And then we do it all over again. What's going on here?

Originally posted by krossfyter
reply to post by Praetorius

 

thank so much! thanks for taking time out of your life to educate me on this.


so how does this deal with the churches and charities?

Sure thing, friend. Glad to help what little bit I can.

Churches and charities are funded by people like you and me. Work towards the stuff I mentioned above (granted, like your friend also said, the president can't do it on his own - although he can with some of it that will definitely help [foreign policy]. But we have to get involved, ourselves, holding our representatives accountable and possibly even becoming the government ourself - get educated!), and people will HAVE more money to funnel into churches, charities, and private donations.

Also, with their money now being in their own control and no longer assuming the government's taking care of it (so they don't have to), they will be more motivated to do this as well - I BELIEVE, would have to look, that there have been some very telling studies on this. "If the government's doing it for me, I no longer need to worry about being charitable".

Where do you think government gets its money from in the first place? Government doesn't produce anything, as least not much of any significant worth. It's just a shell game, but they seem to be less efficient as costs keep going up while returns seem to keep going down.

Just my thoughts, friend. I hate feeling like I'm not being helpful, but I'm honestly somewhat new to all this myself and can really only say independent study will be best to properly address these issues. I would like to recommend Mises.org and LewRockwell.com as a few useful places to start learning more on this, if you're not already familiar with them (I'll admit I have not been giving these sites the attention I need to).

Also, Ron Paul Forums and The Daily Paul will put you in touch with a lot of people much more studied on all of this than myself, if you're not already on either site.

Take care, and have a blessed new year.

I got this response after educating the person on policies returning to the states and community and taking it away from the federal level. Told him you could move to another state!


"Move to another state? LOL Why not Canada while you're at it. We are a United States of America not a divided states of America. There must be some kind of policies that unite the country on a federal level. And if you find yourself say among the unlucky ones during Katarina without enough state funds, so it's just a State issue then, right? Not a federal one to help our fellow Americans? See how that only for state rights things just doesn't translate well in all situations. Are you gonna just hope they row themselves to safety in Tenn? Our country is great because we should respect our differences and rights even though we may not agree morally or politically but by law our differences are protected. Remember, No taxation without representation. I don't support the abolishment of all our federal policies. We need agencies like the EPA to monitor our waters and air, because if left to corporations they believe in profit above public health."

haha last thing he said was


"And, to that I'm finished arguing this Ron Paul thing. You want to vote for him more power to you. You two don't understand economics for one, and two never leave a doctor to decide your bill they'll just take you to the poor house. Ron Paul may be a great doctor but he's no economist. His policies would majorly disrupt our economy and leave us having to undo his damage for decades to come. No thanks we had for Bush for that! Go grab your constitution when your in need of federal aid. Work for a living, the advantages should be given to working class. Give them entitlements, the loopholes that the corporations have been enjoying. I strongly believe in federal regulations. Thanks for the information and I appreciate the discourse but I'm finished arguing my points. Good luck to you both."