Besides he is all into leading this 99% movement when its all about the people joining leading "the people." As far as I can see this man has been an insider for years.
I always say...... its the in information. What did you do with it?
Co-opted movement trying to make the GOP smell like a f'n rose when the smell like another dirty barrel of dead fish.
mikepegg44 wrote: RON PAUL WILL NOT CUT MEDICARE, MEDICAID OR SOCIAL SECURITY for those currently on it.
Key words:
"for those currently on it"
What is with the attack on Social Security? A program that has been sustainable by its citizens for many years. Why? Cuz yah all cant wait to get your hands on the cash. That was also part of Bush platform if I remember correctly in 2000.
If you think the current Social Security system is on a path of sustainability, I can't wait to see what you think 20 - 30 years from now when it is on the verge of being broken because we didn't ever do anything to fix it. People ALREADY have their hands on the cash there. Congress has already dipped their hands in the Social Security fund plenty of times.
Besides he is all into leading this 99% movement when its all about the people joining leading "the people." As far as I can see this man has been an insider for years.
I always say...... its the in information. What did you do with it?
Co-opted movement trying to make the GOP smell like a f'n rose when the smell like another dirty barrel of dead fish.
Sorry this is my opinion.
You are welcome to your opinion, but I hope you realize there are informed opinions and misinformed opinions. Your opinions throughout this thread reek of misinformation. When asked to back up the flip flop statement you can't provide proof let alone even say what it is you saw on TV that he was flip flopping on. I would think if you felt so strongly about how much of a flip flopper Ron Paul appeared to be to you, you would actually remember what it was he was flip flopping on.
Furthermore, you are lumping Ron Paul in with the rest of the GOP party. He is, if anything, not a typical GOP establishment insider. I think the proof that the GOP itself tries to ignore and marginalize him can attest to that. Ron Paul is essentially shaking the very foundation of the GOP, not towing their line for them.
I just did. It happened. Ive seen alot of things. The things I worry about and fight for then to see that shit is an instant toss.
no you didnt.
RC, SoDak 1998 - KC 2000 - Council Bluffs IA 2003 - Fargo ND 2003 - St. Paul MN 2003 - Alpine Valley 2003 - St Louis MO 2004 - Kissimmee FLA 2004 - Winnipeg 2005 - Thunder Bay 2005 - Chicago 2006 - Grand Rapids MI 2006 - Denver CO 2006 - Lollapalooza 2007 - Bonnaroo 2008 - Austin City Limits 2009 - Los Angeles 2009 - KC 2010 - St Louis MO 2010 - PJ20 Night 1 - PJ20 Night 2
"If a nation expects to be ignorant and free, in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be." – Thomas Jefferson
RC, SoDak 1998 - KC 2000 - Council Bluffs IA 2003 - Fargo ND 2003 - St. Paul MN 2003 - Alpine Valley 2003 - St Louis MO 2004 - Kissimmee FLA 2004 - Winnipeg 2005 - Thunder Bay 2005 - Chicago 2006 - Grand Rapids MI 2006 - Denver CO 2006 - Lollapalooza 2007 - Bonnaroo 2008 - Austin City Limits 2009 - Los Angeles 2009 - KC 2010 - St Louis MO 2010 - PJ20 Night 1 - PJ20 Night 2
mikepegg44 wrote: RON PAUL WILL NOT CUT MEDICARE, MEDICAID OR SOCIAL SECURITY for those currently on it.
Key words:
"for those currently on it"
What is with the attack on Social Security? A program that has been sustainable by its citizens for many years. Why? Cuz yah all cant wait to get your hands on the cash. That was also part of Bush platform if I remember correctly in 2000.
It isn't about getting hands on THE cash...it is about getting our hands on OUR cash...I think I can do a better job investing that money than social security can offer me. If you think that Ron Paul is about the federal government getting their hands on more cash than you have never listened to him once. Cannot really have an intelligent conversation with you about him if your going to attribute stuff to him that isn't true in the least. You can find faults with his program but come on...he hasn't co-opted anything...his message has been exactly the same for 30 years and every vote and speech on the floor of the house has echoed that sentiment...the occupiers are just co-opting parts of his movement...
I am going to echo what Sludge said...if you think we are on a path to sustainability you are sadly mistaken. remember this..a million experts have said that social security on its current path is unsustainable...are you just assuming we can continue borrowing infinitely to pay for it with no repercussions? Didn't you find it strange that if we didn't raise the DEBT ceiling the administration said that we weren't going to be able to pay social security benefits...what is sustainable about infinite borrowing? Not raising the debt ceiling has nothing to do with the amount of money we take in from payroll taxes and social security taxes...
from an article on the huffington post:
President Barack Obama told CBS News' Scott Pelley Tuesday that he cannot guarantee that Social Security checks will go out as planned if Democrats and Republicans fail to reach a deal to raise the debt ceiling by August 2.
"I cannot guarantee that those checks go out on August 3 if we haven't resolved this issue, because there may simply not be the money in the coffers to do it," Obama said in an interview on the CBS Evening News Tuesday evening.
from factcheck.org Democratic Rep. Xavier Becerra of California said that he would "fight to take [Social Security] off the table" in budget negotiations, because it "hasn't contributed 1 cent to the deficit that we face today, nor 1 cent to any of the national debt, the $14.3 trillion." We take no position on whether Social Security should be cut, but it's wrong to say it's not contributing to the deficit.
Social Security benefits paid were more than payroll taxes in 2010, leading to a cash deficit of $49 billion. For 2011, the Social Security and Medicare Boards of Trustees project a $46 billion deficit. And those figures don't include the billions more the government will have to borrow to cover that reduction in payroll taxes that was in last year's deal to extend the Bush tax cuts
yep, it certainly is a solvent program...you know...the kind of program that pays out more than it takes in
that’s right! Can’t we all just get together and focus on our real enemies: monogamous gays and stem cells… - Ned Flanders
It is terrifying when you are too stupid to know who is dumb
- Joe Rogan
RON PAUL WILL NOT CUT MEDICARE, MEDICAID OR SOCIAL SECURITY for those currently on it.
Maybe Ron has said more about the issue of Medicaid than what's on his web pages, but what's on them regarding Medicaid is pretty narrow and dim. On Ronnpaul.com, he hooks the 'I'm a victim of taxes' crowed with the question: "Why should anyone be forced to subsidize the medical care of others?" and then goes on to essentially say that poor people will get free healthcare through charity. He doesn't directly say that Medicaid would be gone, but that's what can be taken from it, as he also goes on about government not being involved in healthcare (as he will work to prevent 'opportunist politicians' from having any sort of unhealthy influence over out bodies).
On Ronpaul2012, the only reference to Medicaid I could see was that he wants to keep the money intended for it to not get "raided" for other things. Maybe you could see that as a flip-flop by omission.
that’s right! Can’t we all just get together and focus on our real enemies: monogamous gays and stem cells… - Ned Flanders
It is terrifying when you are too stupid to know who is dumb
- Joe Rogan
mikepegg44 wrote: RON PAUL WILL NOT CUT MEDICARE, MEDICAID OR SOCIAL SECURITY for those currently on it.
Key words:
"for those currently on it"
What is with the attack on Social Security? A program that has been sustainable by its citizens for many years. Why? Cuz yah all cant wait to get your hands on the cash. That was also part of Bush platform if I remember correctly in 2000.
It isn't about getting hands on THE cash...it is about getting our hands on OUR cash...I think I can do a better job investing that money than social security can offer me. If you think that Ron Paul is about the federal government getting their hands on more cash than you have never listened to him once. Cannot really have an intelligent conversation with you about him if your going to attribute stuff to him that isn't true in the least. You can find faults with his program but come on...he hasn't co-opted anything...his message has been exactly the same for 30 years and every vote and speech on the floor of the house has echoed that sentiment...the occupiers are just co-opting parts of his movement...
I am going to echo what Sludge said...if you think we are on a path to sustainability you are sadly mistaken. remember this..a million experts have said that social security on its current path is unsustainable...are you just assuming we can continue borrowing infinitely to pay for it with no repercussions? Didn't you find it strange that if we didn't raise the DEBT ceiling the administration said that we weren't going to be able to pay social security benefits...what is sustainable about infinite borrowing? Not raising the debt ceiling has nothing to do with the amount of money we take in from payroll taxes and social security taxes...
from an article on the huffington post:
President Barack Obama told CBS News' Scott Pelley Tuesday that he cannot guarantee that Social Security checks will go out as planned if Democrats and Republicans fail to reach a deal to raise the debt ceiling by August 2.
"I cannot guarantee that those checks go out on August 3 if we haven't resolved this issue, because there may simply not be the money in the coffers to do it," Obama said in an interview on the CBS Evening News Tuesday evening.
from factcheck.org Democratic Rep. Xavier Becerra of California said that he would "fight to take [Social Security] off the table" in budget negotiations, because it "hasn't contributed 1 cent to the deficit that we face today, nor 1 cent to any of the national debt, the $14.3 trillion." We take no position on whether Social Security should be cut, but it's wrong to say it's not contributing to the deficit.
Social Security benefits paid were more than payroll taxes in 2010, leading to a cash deficit of $49 billion. For 2011, the Social Security and Medicare Boards of Trustees project a $46 billion deficit. And those figures don't include the billions more the government will have to borrow to cover that reduction in payroll taxes that was in last year's deal to extend the Bush tax cuts
yep, it certainly is a solvent program...you know...the kind of program that pays out more than it takes in
to be fair, he did change his mind on capital punishment about 20 years ago.
RC, SoDak 1998 - KC 2000 - Council Bluffs IA 2003 - Fargo ND 2003 - St. Paul MN 2003 - Alpine Valley 2003 - St Louis MO 2004 - Kissimmee FLA 2004 - Winnipeg 2005 - Thunder Bay 2005 - Chicago 2006 - Grand Rapids MI 2006 - Denver CO 2006 - Lollapalooza 2007 - Bonnaroo 2008 - Austin City Limits 2009 - Los Angeles 2009 - KC 2010 - St Louis MO 2010 - PJ20 Night 1 - PJ20 Night 2
Why are you trying to fix something that isnt broke. Getting our hands on our cash? Social Security runs fine.
Why dont we try programs and legislation that have big piece OF OUR CASH earmarked for some blowhard superpac? I mean that would make much more sense? Why dont we try to fix and target politicians who have vested interest in capitalistic ventures which are detriment to ourselves and economy only puffing up their own means? That is the corruption in big government not grandma getting her social security check after she worked at JC Penny's for 50 years.
Why are you trying to fix something that isnt broke. Getting our hands on our cash? Social Security runs fine.
Why dont we try programs and legislation that have big piece OF OUR CASH earmarked for some blowhard superpac? I mean that would make much more sense? Why dont we try to fix and target politicians who have vested interest in capitalistic ventures which are detriment to ourselves and economy only puffing up their own means? That is the corruption in big government not grandma getting her social security check after she worked at JC Penny's for 50 years.
i know you can read because youre able to make posts so it must be that you just don't read information that proves youre wrong on this.
Social security is broken.
"Democratic Rep. Xavier Becerra of California said that he would "fight to take [Social Security] off the table" in budget negotiations, because it "hasn't contributed 1 cent to the deficit that we face today, nor 1 cent to any of the national debt, the $14.3 trillion." We take no position on whether Social Security should be cut, but it's wrong to say it's not contributing to the deficit.
Social Security benefits paid were more than payroll taxes in 2010, leading to a cash deficit of $49 billion. For 2011, the Social Security and Medicare Boards of Trustees project a $46 billion deficit. And those figures don't include the billions more the government will have to borrow to cover that reduction in payroll taxes that was in last year's deal to extend the Bush tax cuts"
RC, SoDak 1998 - KC 2000 - Council Bluffs IA 2003 - Fargo ND 2003 - St. Paul MN 2003 - Alpine Valley 2003 - St Louis MO 2004 - Kissimmee FLA 2004 - Winnipeg 2005 - Thunder Bay 2005 - Chicago 2006 - Grand Rapids MI 2006 - Denver CO 2006 - Lollapalooza 2007 - Bonnaroo 2008 - Austin City Limits 2009 - Los Angeles 2009 - KC 2010 - St Louis MO 2010 - PJ20 Night 1 - PJ20 Night 2
"The misinformation we are constantly bombarded with – that Social Security is going bankrupt – is wrong. The truth is that even if nothing were done to change the financing of Social Security, the program would pay 100 percent of the same benefits it is currently paying for the next 25 years. No senior is, nor will be losing a dime of his or her benefits. Even after 2036, if nothing is done Social Security will pay 77 percent of promised benefits. That is a 23 percent problem that can and will be resolved. Social Security is not broken, not broke, and certainly not bankrupt.
Some folks in Washington, D.C. have proposed radical ideas to reduce Social Security benefits or take money out of Social Security and gamble it on Wall Street. They argue that we should convert Social Security to a system of private accounts in which individuals could invest. This kind of talk is irresponsible, divisive, dishonest and frightening to our seniors (and future generations)."- Representative Mike Thompson representative from California's 1st District.
"Social Security’s surplus is not disappearing. While it is true that revenue income received by the Trust Funds has declined during the recession, the program’s financial health is still sound. In fact, as we stated earlier, the surplus held by the Trust Funds is still growing, and is projected by the Social Security actuaries to reach a peak in 2020 of $3.1 trillion."
f'ing simple google search of common knowledge not rocket science.
"The misinformation we are constantly bombarded with – that Social Security is going bankrupt – is wrong. The truth is that even if nothing were done to change the financing of Social Security, the program would pay 100 percent of the same benefits it is currently paying for the next 25 years. No senior is, nor will be losing a dime of his or her benefits. Even after 2036, if nothing is done Social Security will pay 77 percent of promised benefits. That is a 23 percent problem that can and will be resolved. Social Security is not broken, not broke, and certainly not bankrupt.
Some folks in Washington, D.C. have proposed radical ideas to reduce Social Security benefits or take money out of Social Security and gamble it on Wall Street. They argue that we should convert Social Security to a system of private accounts in which individuals could invest. This kind of talk is irresponsible, divisive, dishonest and frightening to our seniors (and future generations)."- Representative Mike Thompson representative from California's 1st District.
"Social Security’s surplus is not disappearing. While it is true that revenue income received by the Trust Funds has declined during the recession, the program’s financial health is still sound. In fact, as we stated earlier, the surplus held by the Trust Funds is still growing, and is projected by the Social Security actuaries to reach a peak in 2020 of $3.1 trillion."
f'ing simple google search of common knowledge not rocket science.
I suppose you didnt read this either.
Look. The SOCIAL SECURITY WEBSITE SAYS THIS The last 5 Trustees Reports have indicated that Social Security's Old-Age, Survivors, and Disability Insurance (OASDI) Trust Funds would become exhausted between 2036 and 2041 under the intermediate set of economic and demographic assumptions provided in each report. If no legislative change is enacted, scheduled tax revenues will be sufficient to pay only about three fourths of the scheduled benefits after trust fund exhaustion. Many policymakers have developed proposals and options to address this long-range solvency problem.
We have prepared memoranda for many of these proposals and options. Each memorandum provides an actuarial analysis showing the estimated effect on the financial status of the OASDI program.
but I will take your word for it. It is perfect and we shouldn't change a thing. I am so lucky that the government is taking my money and saving it for me because I cannot be responsible enough to save my for my retirement. Thank you, Uncle Sam...may I have another?
its fine...it was never and will never be depleted, not even close (see 1982)...
that’s right! Can’t we all just get together and focus on our real enemies: monogamous gays and stem cells… - Ned Flanders
It is terrifying when you are too stupid to know who is dumb
- Joe Rogan
the condescending tone of the author is a bit off-putting...
sadly, many (not all) Paul supporters share the same condescending tone...
yeah...you are right about that. I am certainly guilty of it at times. it is hard not to when talking to someone who supports Rick Santorum.
that’s right! Can’t we all just get together and focus on our real enemies: monogamous gays and stem cells… - Ned Flanders
It is terrifying when you are too stupid to know who is dumb
- Joe Rogan
Social Security is not going out of money and will be solvent as things are for decades.
Don't believe the hype spread that it's going bankrupt... it's not.
And if we would just tax the people who have the money, we'd be doing even better.
When talking about the financial stability of programs, I tend to believe someone who has had his predictions on economic bubbles proven time after time over someone from this message board.
RON PAUL WILL NOT CUT MEDICARE, MEDICAID OR SOCIAL SECURITY for those currently on it.
Maybe Ron has said more about the issue of Medicaid than what's on his web pages, but what's on them regarding Medicaid is pretty narrow and dim. On Ronnpaul.com, he hooks the 'I'm a victim of taxes' crowed with the question: "Why should anyone be forced to subsidize the medical care of others?" and then goes on to essentially say that poor people will get free healthcare through charity. He doesn't directly say that Medicaid would be gone, but that's what can be taken from it, as he also goes on about government not being involved in healthcare (as he will work to prevent 'opportunist politicians' from having any sort of unhealthy influence over out bodies).
On Ronpaul2012, the only reference to Medicaid I could see was that he wants to keep the money intended for it to not get "raided" for other things. Maybe you could see that as a flip-flop by omission.
In the video he references Medicare and SS, but not Medicaid. I guess if you fill in the blanks for him, he's saying that budget savings elsewhere would maintain the Medicaid budget? I see it as double speak, because in other areas he's saying 'why should I pay for someone else's healthcare', which is essentially an appeal to the crowd who moans and groans about taxpayer funded Medicaid.
When talking about the financial stability of programs, I tend to believe someone who has had his predictions on economic bubbles proven time after time over someone from this message board.
Ron Paul predicting economic bubbles is like me predicting that a hurricane is going to hit Florida.
Maybe Ron has said more about the issue of Medicaid than what's on his web pages, but what's on them regarding Medicaid is pretty narrow and dim. On Ronnpaul.com, he hooks the 'I'm a victim of taxes' crowed with the question: "Why should anyone be forced to subsidize the medical care of others?" and then goes on to essentially say that poor people will get free healthcare through charity. He doesn't directly say that Medicaid would be gone, but that's what can be taken from it, as he also goes on about government not being involved in healthcare (as he will work to prevent 'opportunist politicians' from having any sort of unhealthy influence over out bodies).
On Ronpaul2012, the only reference to Medicaid I could see was that he wants to keep the money intended for it to not get "raided" for other things. Maybe you could see that as a flip-flop by omission.
In the video he references Medicare and SS, but not Medicaid. I guess if you fill in the blanks for him, he's saying that budget savings elsewhere would maintain the Medicaid budget? I see it as double speak, because in other areas he's saying 'why should I pay for someone else's healthcare', which is essentially an appeal to the crowd who moans and groans about taxpayer funded Medicaid.
I think one is a larger philosophy question versus how he would handle a current problem. does that make sense? and yes...he has made the claim that budget savings from over seas spending would help to fund those programs as you figure out how to best reform them.
He is under no grand illusion that you can simply kick those dependent on those programs off of them...
that’s right! Can’t we all just get together and focus on our real enemies: monogamous gays and stem cells… - Ned Flanders
It is terrifying when you are too stupid to know who is dumb
- Joe Rogan
When talking about the financial stability of programs, I tend to believe someone who has had his predictions on economic bubbles proven time after time over someone from this message board.
Ron Paul predicting economic bubbles is like me predicting that a hurricane is going to hit Florida.
yeah, it seems so simple. its funny though that of 535 US Congressmen and Senators, one was talking about the inevitable housing collapse in 2001. Say what you want, but Paul deserves some credit there. If you cant admit that, then youre just not a fair person.
RC, SoDak 1998 - KC 2000 - Council Bluffs IA 2003 - Fargo ND 2003 - St. Paul MN 2003 - Alpine Valley 2003 - St Louis MO 2004 - Kissimmee FLA 2004 - Winnipeg 2005 - Thunder Bay 2005 - Chicago 2006 - Grand Rapids MI 2006 - Denver CO 2006 - Lollapalooza 2007 - Bonnaroo 2008 - Austin City Limits 2009 - Los Angeles 2009 - KC 2010 - St Louis MO 2010 - PJ20 Night 1 - PJ20 Night 2
"The misinformation we are constantly bombarded with – that Social Security is going bankrupt – is wrong. The truth is that even if nothing were done to change the financing of Social Security, the program would pay 100 percent of the same benefits it is currently paying for the next 25 years. No senior is, nor will be losing a dime of his or her benefits. Even after 2036, if nothing is done Social Security will pay 77 percent of promised benefits. That is a 23 percent problem that can and will be resolved. Social Security is not broken, not broke, and certainly not bankrupt.
Some folks in Washington, D.C. have proposed radical ideas to reduce Social Security benefits or take money out of Social Security and gamble it on Wall Street. They argue that we should convert Social Security to a system of private accounts in which individuals could invest. This kind of talk is irresponsible, divisive, dishonest and frightening to our seniors (and future generations)."- Representative Mike Thompson representative from California's 1st District.
"Social Security’s surplus is not disappearing. While it is true that revenue income received by the Trust Funds has declined during the recession, the program’s financial health is still sound. In fact, as we stated earlier, the surplus held by the Trust Funds is still growing, and is projected by the Social Security actuaries to reach a peak in 2020 of $3.1 trillion."
f'ing simple google search of common knowledge not rocket science.
I suppose you didnt read this either.
Look. The SOCIAL SECURITY WEBSITE SAYS THIS The last 5 Trustees Reports have indicated that Social Security's Old-Age, Survivors, and Disability Insurance (OASDI) Trust Funds would become exhausted between 2036 and 2041 under the intermediate set of economic and demographic assumptions provided in each report. If no legislative change is enacted, scheduled tax revenues will be sufficient to pay only about three fourths of the scheduled benefits after trust fund exhaustion. Many policymakers have developed proposals and options to address this long-range solvency problem.
We have prepared memoranda for many of these proposals and options. Each memorandum provides an actuarial analysis showing the estimated effect on the financial status of the OASDI program.
but I will take your word for it. It is perfect and we shouldn't change a thing. I am so lucky that the government is taking my money and saving it for me because I cannot be responsible enough to save my for my retirement. Thank you, Uncle Sam...may I have another?
its fine...it was never and will never be depleted, not even close (see 1982)...
check and mate
RC, SoDak 1998 - KC 2000 - Council Bluffs IA 2003 - Fargo ND 2003 - St. Paul MN 2003 - Alpine Valley 2003 - St Louis MO 2004 - Kissimmee FLA 2004 - Winnipeg 2005 - Thunder Bay 2005 - Chicago 2006 - Grand Rapids MI 2006 - Denver CO 2006 - Lollapalooza 2007 - Bonnaroo 2008 - Austin City Limits 2009 - Los Angeles 2009 - KC 2010 - St Louis MO 2010 - PJ20 Night 1 - PJ20 Night 2
the condescending tone of the author is a bit off-putting...
sadly, many (not all) Paul supporters share the same condescending tone...
yeah...you are right about that. I am certainly guilty of it at times. it is hard not to when talking to someone who supports Rick Santorum.
........Mitt Romney, Newt Gingrich or Barack Obama
RC, SoDak 1998 - KC 2000 - Council Bluffs IA 2003 - Fargo ND 2003 - St. Paul MN 2003 - Alpine Valley 2003 - St Louis MO 2004 - Kissimmee FLA 2004 - Winnipeg 2005 - Thunder Bay 2005 - Chicago 2006 - Grand Rapids MI 2006 - Denver CO 2006 - Lollapalooza 2007 - Bonnaroo 2008 - Austin City Limits 2009 - Los Angeles 2009 - KC 2010 - St Louis MO 2010 - PJ20 Night 1 - PJ20 Night 2
When talking about the financial stability of programs, I tend to believe someone who has had his predictions on economic bubbles proven time after time over someone from this message board.
Ron Paul predicting economic bubbles is like me predicting that a hurricane is going to hit Florida.
Seriously, when you say stuff like this it only serves to prove that you have no clue what you are talking about.
When talking about the financial stability of programs, I tend to believe someone who has had his predictions on economic bubbles proven time after time over someone from this message board.
Ron Paul predicting economic bubbles is like me predicting that a hurricane is going to hit Florida.
Seriously, when you say stuff like this it only serves to prove that you have no clue what you are talking about.
Really? I can guarantee a hurricane will hit Florida in the next five years!
Seriously, you only need to be halfway paying attention to know that the U.S. economy has been cycling through boom and bust periods for many years. But if I have no clue, please inform me.
Really? I can guarantee a hurricane will hit Florida in the next five years!
Seriously, you only need to be halfway paying attention to know that the U.S. economy has been cycling through boom and bust periods for many years. But if I have no clue, please inform me.
If that is the case, why did no one listen when he was saying we needed to do something to avoid a housing bust? Hmmmm? Why was everyone else ignoring this "fact" of yours and even marginalizing those who wanted to talk about it? Surely if it was so obvious to everyone something would have been done in time to prevent the housing bust.
I'm betting that back then you weren't saying anything about how we need to be careful because our policies are going to lead us into a depression. So, since it is apparently common knowledge that every fool should have known about it, I'm led to believe that you too knew about this. So, why then, if you knew about it, did you not do something to get the word out?
I'm pretty confident that you wouldn't have paid attention to him back then when he was saying this stuff, just like you try not to pay attention to him now.
Really? I can guarantee a hurricane will hit Florida in the next five years!
Seriously, you only need to be halfway paying attention to know that the U.S. economy has been cycling through boom and bust periods for many years. But if I have no clue, please inform me.
again, yeah, it seems so simple. its funny though that of 535 US Congressmen and Senators, one was talking about the inevitable housing collapse in 2001. Say what you want, but Paul deserves some credit there. If you cant admit that, then youre just not a fair person.
RC, SoDak 1998 - KC 2000 - Council Bluffs IA 2003 - Fargo ND 2003 - St. Paul MN 2003 - Alpine Valley 2003 - St Louis MO 2004 - Kissimmee FLA 2004 - Winnipeg 2005 - Thunder Bay 2005 - Chicago 2006 - Grand Rapids MI 2006 - Denver CO 2006 - Lollapalooza 2007 - Bonnaroo 2008 - Austin City Limits 2009 - Los Angeles 2009 - KC 2010 - St Louis MO 2010 - PJ20 Night 1 - PJ20 Night 2
Ron Paul does get credit for saying it when we all knew it was going to happen.
I remember when we could all see the buildup with those banner ads on websites advertising a "$500,000 house for $1500 per month" with the silhouettes dancing on the roof and then the beginning of the end when those same banner ads were advertising credit counseling and mortgage re-financing only two years later.
But that said, I'm not sure being able to see the inevitable like we ALL could (and being one of the only politicians to have the guts to say it) really makes him a viable option for president. I think he's a very honest guy but I still don't see many of his one-size-fits-all ideas being workable in the real world.
Ron Paul does get credit for saying it when we all knew it was going to happen.
I remember when we could all see the buildup with those banner ads on websites advertising a "$500,000 house for $1500 per month" with the silhouettes dancing on the roof and then the beginning of the end when those same banner ads were advertising credit counseling and mortgage re-financing only two years later.
But that said, I'm not sure being able to see the inevitable like we ALL could (and being one of the only politicians to have the guts to say it) really makes him a viable option for president. I think he's a very honest guy but I still don't see many of his one-size-fits-all ideas being workable in the real world.
the thing is, we only have 5 options at this point. nobody is saying he's perfect. but having a president with guts and foresight isnt a bad thing. Havent had both of those qualities in a president since Clinton.
RC, SoDak 1998 - KC 2000 - Council Bluffs IA 2003 - Fargo ND 2003 - St. Paul MN 2003 - Alpine Valley 2003 - St Louis MO 2004 - Kissimmee FLA 2004 - Winnipeg 2005 - Thunder Bay 2005 - Chicago 2006 - Grand Rapids MI 2006 - Denver CO 2006 - Lollapalooza 2007 - Bonnaroo 2008 - Austin City Limits 2009 - Los Angeles 2009 - KC 2010 - St Louis MO 2010 - PJ20 Night 1 - PJ20 Night 2
the thing is, we only have 5 options at this point. nobody is saying he's perfect. but having a president with guts and foresight isnt a bad thing. Havent had both of those qualities in a president since Clinton.
I dunno... Barack Obama fought pretty hard to end DADT (that Clinton caved and gave us) and took a LOT of heat for saying he wouldn't defend DOMA (which Clinton also caved and gave us).
He also ended the war in Iraq, is winding down the war in Afghanistan and got both Bin Laden and Saddam Hussein. Perfect, no. But I think he's shown a lot of guts by not caving into the pressure of his own party and his biggest supporters.
the thing is, we only have 5 options at this point. nobody is saying he's perfect. but having a president with guts and foresight isnt a bad thing. Havent had both of those qualities in a president since Clinton.
I dunno... Barack Obama fought pretty hard to end DADT (that Clinton caved and gave us) and took a LOT of heat for saying he wouldn't defend DOMA (which Clinton also caved and gave us).
He also ended the war in Iraq, is winding down the war in Afghanistan and got both Bin Laden and Saddam Hussein. Perfect, no. But I think he's shown a lot of guts by not caving into the pressure of his own party and his biggest supporters.
You had me up until the point that you said Obama got Saddam Hussein. Hussein died in December 2006 which was before Obama was even elected. Am I missing something here?
Comments
I always say...... its the in information. What did you do with it?
Co-opted movement trying to make the GOP smell like a f'n rose when the smell like another dirty barrel of dead fish.
Sorry this is my opinion.
If you think the current Social Security system is on a path of sustainability, I can't wait to see what you think 20 - 30 years from now when it is on the verge of being broken because we didn't ever do anything to fix it. People ALREADY have their hands on the cash there. Congress has already dipped their hands in the Social Security fund plenty of times.
You are welcome to your opinion, but I hope you realize there are informed opinions and misinformed opinions. Your opinions throughout this thread reek of misinformation. When asked to back up the flip flop statement you can't provide proof let alone even say what it is you saw on TV that he was flip flopping on. I would think if you felt so strongly about how much of a flip flopper Ron Paul appeared to be to you, you would actually remember what it was he was flip flopping on.
Furthermore, you are lumping Ron Paul in with the rest of the GOP party. He is, if anything, not a typical GOP establishment insider. I think the proof that the GOP itself tries to ignore and marginalize him can attest to that. Ron Paul is essentially shaking the very foundation of the GOP, not towing their line for them.
Don't believe the hype spread that it's going bankrupt... it's not.
And if we would just tax the people who have the money, we'd be doing even better.
no you didnt.
"If a nation expects to be ignorant and free, in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be." – Thomas Jefferson
It isn't about getting hands on THE cash...it is about getting our hands on OUR cash...I think I can do a better job investing that money than social security can offer me. If you think that Ron Paul is about the federal government getting their hands on more cash than you have never listened to him once. Cannot really have an intelligent conversation with you about him if your going to attribute stuff to him that isn't true in the least. You can find faults with his program but come on...he hasn't co-opted anything...his message has been exactly the same for 30 years and every vote and speech on the floor of the house has echoed that sentiment...the occupiers are just co-opting parts of his movement...
I am going to echo what Sludge said...if you think we are on a path to sustainability you are sadly mistaken. remember this..a million experts have said that social security on its current path is unsustainable...are you just assuming we can continue borrowing infinitely to pay for it with no repercussions? Didn't you find it strange that if we didn't raise the DEBT ceiling the administration said that we weren't going to be able to pay social security benefits...what is sustainable about infinite borrowing? Not raising the debt ceiling has nothing to do with the amount of money we take in from payroll taxes and social security taxes...
from an article on the huffington post:
President Barack Obama told CBS News' Scott Pelley Tuesday that he cannot guarantee that Social Security checks will go out as planned if Democrats and Republicans fail to reach a deal to raise the debt ceiling by August 2.
"I cannot guarantee that those checks go out on August 3 if we haven't resolved this issue, because there may simply not be the money in the coffers to do it," Obama said in an interview on the CBS Evening News Tuesday evening.
from factcheck.org
Democratic Rep. Xavier Becerra of California said that he would "fight to take [Social Security] off the table" in budget negotiations, because it "hasn't contributed 1 cent to the deficit that we face today, nor 1 cent to any of the national debt, the $14.3 trillion." We take no position on whether Social Security should be cut, but it's wrong to say it's not contributing to the deficit.
Social Security benefits paid were more than payroll taxes in 2010, leading to a cash deficit of $49 billion. For 2011, the Social Security and Medicare Boards of Trustees project a $46 billion deficit. And those figures don't include the billions more the government will have to borrow to cover that reduction in payroll taxes that was in last year's deal to extend the Bush tax cuts
yep, it certainly is a solvent program...you know...the kind of program that pays out more than it takes in
It is terrifying when you are too stupid to know who is dumb
- Joe Rogan
here you go, it starts at 3:55
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EqxbliegpA8
It is terrifying when you are too stupid to know who is dumb
- Joe Rogan
to be fair, he did change his mind on capital punishment about 20 years ago.
Why dont we try programs and legislation that have big piece OF OUR CASH earmarked for some blowhard superpac? I mean that would make much more sense? Why dont we try to fix and target politicians who have vested interest in capitalistic ventures which are detriment to ourselves and economy only puffing up their own means? That is the corruption in big government not grandma getting her social security check after she worked at JC Penny's for 50 years.
Bilderberg billionaire supports Ron Paul
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aybZBlZ9DjQ
i know you can read because youre able to make posts so it must be that you just don't read information that proves youre wrong on this.
Social security is broken.
"Democratic Rep. Xavier Becerra of California said that he would "fight to take [Social Security] off the table" in budget negotiations, because it "hasn't contributed 1 cent to the deficit that we face today, nor 1 cent to any of the national debt, the $14.3 trillion." We take no position on whether Social Security should be cut, but it's wrong to say it's not contributing to the deficit.
Social Security benefits paid were more than payroll taxes in 2010, leading to a cash deficit of $49 billion. For 2011, the Social Security and Medicare Boards of Trustees project a $46 billion deficit. And those figures don't include the billions more the government will have to borrow to cover that reduction in payroll taxes that was in last year's deal to extend the Bush tax cuts"
Some folks in Washington, D.C. have proposed radical ideas to reduce Social Security benefits or take money out of Social Security and gamble it on Wall Street. They argue that we should convert Social Security to a system of private accounts in which individuals could invest. This kind of talk is irresponsible, divisive, dishonest and frightening to our seniors (and future generations)."- Representative Mike Thompson representative from California's 1st District.
http://www.ncpssm.org/news/archive/2010 ... es_report/
"Social Security’s surplus is not disappearing. While it is true that revenue income received by the Trust Funds has declined during the recession, the program’s financial health is still sound. In fact, as we stated earlier, the surplus held by the Trust Funds is still growing, and is projected by the Social Security actuaries to reach a peak in 2020 of $3.1 trillion."
f'ing simple google search of common knowledge not rocket science.
I suppose you didnt read this either.
Look. The SOCIAL SECURITY WEBSITE SAYS THIS
The last 5 Trustees Reports have indicated that Social Security's Old-Age, Survivors, and Disability Insurance (OASDI) Trust Funds would become exhausted between 2036 and 2041 under the intermediate set of economic and demographic assumptions provided in each report. If no legislative change is enacted, scheduled tax revenues will be sufficient to pay only about three fourths of the scheduled benefits after trust fund exhaustion. Many policymakers have developed proposals and options to address this long-range solvency problem.
We have prepared memoranda for many of these proposals and options. Each memorandum provides an actuarial analysis showing the estimated effect on the financial status of the OASDI program.
but I will take your word for it. It is perfect and we shouldn't change a thing. I am so lucky that the government is taking my money and saving it for me because I cannot be responsible enough to save my for my retirement. Thank you, Uncle Sam...may I have another?
its fine...it was never and will never be depleted, not even close (see 1982)...
It is terrifying when you are too stupid to know who is dumb
- Joe Rogan
the condescending tone of the author is a bit off-putting...
sadly, many (not all) Paul supporters share the same condescending tone...
yeah...you are right about that. I am certainly guilty of it at times. it is hard not to when talking to someone who supports Rick Santorum.
It is terrifying when you are too stupid to know who is dumb
- Joe Rogan
When talking about the financial stability of programs, I tend to believe someone who has had his predictions on economic bubbles proven time after time over someone from this message board.
In the video he references Medicare and SS, but not Medicaid. I guess if you fill in the blanks for him, he's saying that budget savings elsewhere would maintain the Medicaid budget? I see it as double speak, because in other areas he's saying 'why should I pay for someone else's healthcare', which is essentially an appeal to the crowd who moans and groans about taxpayer funded Medicaid.
Ron Paul predicting economic bubbles is like me predicting that a hurricane is going to hit Florida.
I think one is a larger philosophy question versus how he would handle a current problem. does that make sense? and yes...he has made the claim that budget savings from over seas spending would help to fund those programs as you figure out how to best reform them.
He is under no grand illusion that you can simply kick those dependent on those programs off of them...
It is terrifying when you are too stupid to know who is dumb
- Joe Rogan
yeah, it seems so simple. its funny though that of 535 US Congressmen and Senators, one was talking about the inevitable housing collapse in 2001. Say what you want, but Paul deserves some credit there. If you cant admit that, then youre just not a fair person.
........Mitt Romney, Newt Gingrich or Barack Obama
Seriously, when you say stuff like this it only serves to prove that you have no clue what you are talking about.
Really? I can guarantee a hurricane will hit Florida in the next five years!
Seriously, you only need to be halfway paying attention to know that the U.S. economy has been cycling through boom and bust periods for many years. But if I have no clue, please inform me.
If that is the case, why did no one listen when he was saying we needed to do something to avoid a housing bust? Hmmmm? Why was everyone else ignoring this "fact" of yours and even marginalizing those who wanted to talk about it? Surely if it was so obvious to everyone something would have been done in time to prevent the housing bust.
I'm betting that back then you weren't saying anything about how we need to be careful because our policies are going to lead us into a depression. So, since it is apparently common knowledge that every fool should have known about it, I'm led to believe that you too knew about this. So, why then, if you knew about it, did you not do something to get the word out?
I'm pretty confident that you wouldn't have paid attention to him back then when he was saying this stuff, just like you try not to pay attention to him now.
again, yeah, it seems so simple. its funny though that of 535 US Congressmen and Senators, one was talking about the inevitable housing collapse in 2001. Say what you want, but Paul deserves some credit there. If you cant admit that, then youre just not a fair person.
I remember when we could all see the buildup with those banner ads on websites advertising a "$500,000 house for $1500 per month" with the silhouettes dancing on the roof and then the beginning of the end when those same banner ads were advertising credit counseling and mortgage re-financing only two years later.
But that said, I'm not sure being able to see the inevitable like we ALL could (and being one of the only politicians to have the guts to say it) really makes him a viable option for president. I think he's a very honest guy but I still don't see many of his one-size-fits-all ideas being workable in the real world.
the thing is, we only have 5 options at this point. nobody is saying he's perfect. but having a president with guts and foresight isnt a bad thing. Havent had both of those qualities in a president since Clinton.
I dunno... Barack Obama fought pretty hard to end DADT (that Clinton caved and gave us) and took a LOT of heat for saying he wouldn't defend DOMA (which Clinton also caved and gave us).
He also ended the war in Iraq, is winding down the war in Afghanistan and got both Bin Laden and Saddam Hussein. Perfect, no. But I think he's shown a lot of guts by not caving into the pressure of his own party and his biggest supporters.
You had me up until the point that you said Obama got Saddam Hussein. Hussein died in December 2006 which was before Obama was even elected. Am I missing something here?