26 Things Non-Paul Voters Are Basically Saying

WaveRyder

SweetChildofMine wrote:

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.

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"

SweetChildofMine

"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.

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.

mikepegg44

SweetChildofMine wrote:

"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.

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)...

inmytree

WaveRyder wrote:

hilarious, sad, and true

http://www.tomwoods.com/blog/26-things- ... ly-saying/

the condescending tone of the author is a bit off-putting...

sadly, many (not all) Paul supporters share the same condescending tone...

mikepegg44

inmytree wrote:

WaveRyder wrote:

hilarious, sad, and true

http://www.tomwoods.com/blog/26-things- ... ly-saying/

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.

Sludge Factory

Prince Of Dorkness wrote:

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.

Go Beavers

mikepegg44 wrote:

Go Beavers wrote:

mikepegg44 wrote:

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.

here you go, it starts at 3:55


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EqxbliegpA8

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.

Go Beavers

Sludge Factory wrote:

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.

mikepegg44

Go Beavers wrote:

mikepegg44 wrote:

Go Beavers wrote:

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.

here you go, it starts at 3:55


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EqxbliegpA8

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...

WaveRyder

Go Beavers wrote:

Sludge Factory wrote:

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.

WaveRyder

mikepegg44 wrote:

SweetChildofMine wrote:

"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.

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)...

check and mate

WaveRyder

mikepegg44 wrote:

inmytree wrote:

WaveRyder wrote:

hilarious, sad, and true

http://www.tomwoods.com/blog/26-things- ... ly-saying/

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

Sludge Factory

Go Beavers wrote:

Sludge Factory wrote:

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.

Go Beavers

Sludge Factory wrote:

Go Beavers wrote:

Sludge Factory wrote:

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.

Sludge Factory

Go Beavers wrote:

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.

WaveRyder

Go Beavers wrote:

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.

Prince Of Dorkness

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.

WaveRyder

Prince Of Dorkness wrote:

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.

Prince Of Dorkness

WaveRyder wrote:

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.

Sludge Factory

Prince Of Dorkness wrote:

WaveRyder wrote:

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?