Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
He wants to phase them out by allowing younger workers to opt out. He wouldn't end it for the elderly that are already on the program.
But again, 70% of Americans oppose even that plan.
So yes, he would fund it for the time it would take to phase those out that are already receiving it.
like you said, Congress will probably not allow those things to happen. And like RP said, america simply wont be able to keep its promises once countries stop lending to us. Thus, either the programs will be cut or inflation will be out of control. either scenario will suck.
Also mandatory (social security, medicare, medicade, unemployment) and defense spending make up about 80% of the budget. So, someone eventually will have to make some difficult decisions about these programs because we prob wont be able to finance them the way we want to in the future
You are waaay too caught up in labels my friend. Hence your confusion.
Definitions, not labels.
But we are getting way off topic. We can debate Pauls vision for America in another thread.
The reason he gets no TV time in debates is because of his vision for America, and the policies that he supports.
Whether or not you, me, or any other poster agrees with Pauls vision of America, or how best to change 70% of peoples minds is another debate all together.
As I've said, a 90 minute speech isn't going to change anyones mind, period, or it would have already been done.
like you said, Congress will probably not allow those things to happen. And like RP said, america simply wont be able to keep its promises once countries stop lending to us. Thus, either the programs will be cut or inflation will be out of control. either scenario will suck.
Also mandatory (social security, medicare, medicade, unemployment) and defense spending make up about 80% of the budget. So, someone eventually will have to make some difficult decisions about these programs because we prob wont be able to finance them the way we want to in the future
Our budget isn't drastically out of whack, if you cut military spending. Our growth rate (yes, we are growing) is enough to float our current amount of debt for a long time. But that is only if we keep growing.
The problem with the United States debt is that it is growing faster then its income. You slow the growth of debt to less then that of the rate of income, and you fix the debt problem
We spend 4 times more then the rest of the world combined on our military. Not sure about you, but I'd be happy with spending twice what the rest of the world combined spends, or even just to equal what the ENTIRE REST OF THE WORLD COMBINED spends on their militarys.
If you did that, raise retirement age of social security, and the eligibility age for medicare, and the budget problems go away. IF you keep Democrats and Republicans from spending that extra money.
That is where Americans disagree with Paul. The know we can afford social security, and medicare. But we can't afford social security, medicare, and a military whose budget is drastically over bloated and not need for real national security.
Our military is sized and budgeted to have national security for 4 Earths. Thats one thing Paul and I agree on, cut the defense budget.
But we are getting way off topic. We can debate Pauls vision for America in another thread.
The reason he gets no TV time in debates is because of his vision for America, and the policies that he supports.
Whether or not you, me, or any other poster agrees with Pauls vision of America, or how best to change 70% of peoples minds is another debate all together.
As I've said, a 90 minute speech isn't going to change anyones mind, period, or it would have already been done.
Guess you've never heard of Martin Luther King, or John F. Kenney? Oh yeah they got shot for changing people's minds in their orations. Why are you trying so hard to discredit Paul? He could ABSOLUTELY change 70% of the people's minds. THAT'S WHY THEY MARGINALIZE HIM IN THE FIRST PLACE. But I know how this goes you see, you relentlessly bash and bash and bash (like O Reilly) and the stupid people just follow. And this is NOT off topic at all. He speaks the truth. Get used to it. And should never be cut short.
But we are getting way off topic. We can debate Pauls vision for America in another thread.
The reason he gets no TV time in debates is because of his vision for America, and the policies that he supports.
Whether or not you, me, or any other poster agrees with Pauls vision of America, or how best to change 70% of peoples minds is another debate all together.
As I've said, a 90 minute speech isn't going to change anyones mind, period, or it would have already been done.
Ya done?
.....
Even if it was true that the majority of people disagree with him, as a news station, which goes back to journalism, it is completely unprofessional to ignore him like they did. A true journalist is completely unbiased. But clearly this means nothing to the mainstream news stations nowadays.
Guess you've never heard of Martin Luther King, or John F. Kenney? Oh yeah they got shot for changing people's minds in their orations. Why are you trying so hard to discredit Paul? He could ABSOLUTELY change 70% of the people's minds. THAT'S WHY THEY MARGINALIZE HIM IN THE FIRST PLACE. But I know how this goes you see, you relentlessly bash and bash and bash (like O Reilly) and the stupid people just follow. And this is NOT off topic at all. He speaks the truth. Get used to it. And should never be cut short.
How many times has he been on TV in the last 20 years?
And you think he'd be shot for speaking?
Now who doesn't make sense?
Paul doesn't get debate time, because his message is radical, and people know it, and they don't agree with it. Thats why he polls low, thats why he doesn't get debate time, and its why he hasn't won the white house in all the years he's been running.
Pauls positions aren't main stream, and because so he'll always be a fringe candidate.
Hows that "Mainstream" been working for us?
Quote:
Ron Paul wants to destroy social security, remove it, repeal it, end it, whatever you want to say. Same thing with medicare.
He actually wants to phase it out, because ITS UNCONSTITUTIONAL.
Quote:
More then 70% of the country disagree with him on that, and as such, he will never be President.
You mean that 70% of the country disagree with how the MSM presents his position. 89 secs. won't quite cut it, if you want the truth and the details of his positions.. you'd have to go to his website to really get it from the candidates mouth.
Quote:
Thats why he doesn't get "air time" during debates, he is a fringe candidate. I like a lot of what he has to say, but the only reason Ron Paul runs for President every year isn't to win, its to try and draw attention to his fringe issues. He knows he could never win the white house.
Wrong... he doesn't get airtime, because he hasn't been selected by those that pick the candidates. And it ain't you and me.
Look into the Trilateral commissions mission, creation and power. Then you'll know that America hasn't picked it's leader Since Kissinger and Brzezinski formed the organization. Their first choice was CARTER....then all the way up to Obama.
It's a corrupt system, that gives the illusion that Americans actually have a say. We are a brainwashed, sold out citizenry.
How many times has he been on TV in the last 20 years?
And you think he'd be shot for speaking?
Now who doesn't make sense?
Paul doesn't get debate time, because his message is radical, and people know it, and they don't agree with it. Thats why he polls low, thats why he doesn't get debate time, and its why he hasn't won the white house in all the years he's been running.
Would you say the same of Washington, Adams, Jefferson et al?
Would you say the same of Washington, Adams, Jefferson et al?
Their messages weren't radical for the time, I have no idea what any of the men would think about today. The era of cell phones, cars, and airplanes escaped those men.
I'll try and sum it up.
You have a debate deciding on who your CEO is going to be. Your company is in trouble, so you want to make the right decision. Lets say your company makes cars
You have three guys on the stage. Two guys discuss what they think is best going forward, and what new lines your company should make, what cuts are needed, etc. One guy says you should stop making cars, completely retool the plant, and make pet rocks.
Do all three guys deserve the same amount of airtime?
Essentially Paul wants to completely change how our government operates, and end the programs that people like that are provided them. As such, his message is "lets sell pet rocks"
Their messages weren't radical for the time, I have no idea what any of the men would think about today. The era of cell phones, cars, and airplanes escaped those men.
I'll try and sum it up.
You have a debate deciding on who your CEO is going to be. Your company is in trouble, so you want to make the right decision. Lets say your company makes cars
You have three guys on the stage. Two guys discuss what they think is best going forward, and what new lines your company should make, what cuts are needed, etc. One guy says you should stop making cars, completely retool the plant, and make pet rocks.
Do all three guys deserve the same amount of airtime?
Essentially Paul wants to completely change how our government operates, and end the programs that people like that are provided them. As such, his message is "lets sell pet rocks"
Poor analogy.
He is saying "lets go back to what made us successful in the first place"
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
