(10/26/11) Ron Paul on Fox News - Official Thread

[acptulsa]

If my country is mired in a multi-trillion dollar debt/entitlement/unfunded liability crisis...why in the heck am I concerned about anything other than another country taking advantage of this or who even 'dares' broach the most important subject matters of all honestly?

This is more than a little like asking the ambulance siren why no one is pulling over. The only answer we can give is, damned if we know, we've been screaming our heads off this whole time.

 

[SharedSacrifice]

The point is that Ron is the only one with a plan to handle the situation. The other candidates will lead the US into a collapse. His performance that night is irrelevant, as it was days ago.

Ron has the plan, we need to get him elected. If you're so serious about the debt crisis, you should know that.

My friend, we are already on the verge of (fiscal) collapse...and any 'plan to handle the situation' damn well better involve the shared sacrifice of every single person in this country not in 2012 or 2013...but today.

If candidates aren't willing (today) to frame this problem as solvable in terms of what the American people can do...and not politicians themselves with a simple stroke of the legislative pen coupled with any insistence of no skin in the game for those 'promised' otherwise...'collapse' will be the least of our problems.

As for the irrelevance of his public appearances...I'm simply cautioning you that curious voters such as myself who find their way to these forums and see such a statement lacking much rebuttal...I don't know what to tell you.

 

[bluesc]

My friend, we are already on the verge of (fiscal) collapse...and any 'plan to handle the situation' damn well better involve the shared sacrifice of every single person in this country not in 2012 or 2013...but today.

If candidates aren't willing (today) to frame this problem as solvable in terms of what the American people can do...and not politicians themselves with a simple stroke of the legislative pen coupled with any insistence of no skin in the game for those 'promised' otherwise...'collapse' will be the least of our problems.

I've only skimmed what you've been saying here, but it sounds like you want people to give up their entitlements, even if they have paid into them? Fuck that. Politicians spent that money, politicians got everyone into this mess, they can fix it by bringing the troops home and cutting useless departments, not screwing people even further.

Why should the people bail out the government?

 

[SharedSacrifice]

Originally Posted by SharedSacrifice:
"...If my country is mired in a multi-trillion dollar debt/entitlement/unfunded liability crisis...why in the heck am I concerned about anything other than another country taking advantage of this or who even 'dares' broach the most important subject matters of all honestly?..."

This is more than a little like asking the ambulance siren why no one is pulling over. The only answer we can give is, damned if we know, we've been screaming our heads off this whole time.

What I don't think you are understanding here is that you (apparently forum members) haven't been screaming one bit in regards to the most important subject matters out there (decreasing our liabilites through the only method possible...shared sacrifice by all)...and to say so otherwise in terms of seniors or anybody else presently receiving a check that we can't write is just plain deceptive in terms of any proposed plan that has been issued to date by anybody.

 

[acptulsa]

As for the irrelevance of his public appearances...I'm simply cautioning you that curious voters such as myself who find their way to these forums and see such a statement lacking much rebuttal...I don't know what to tell you.

Um, you do realize that the biggest part of the massive increase in our debt over the last decade has been imperialistic wars which never seem to target the source of the terrorism which supposedly spawned them (nineteen hijackers from Saudi Arabia, for example, has yet to produce a single bomb hitting that particular nation) but sure has created profits for the oil industry? And you do realize that Ron Paul is the only presidential candidate who has shown the slightest interest in ridding us of that particular drain on our resources, right?

What I don't think you are understanding here is that you (apparently forum members) haven't been screaming one bit in regards to the most important subject matters out there (decreasing our liabilites through the only method possible...shared sacrifice by all)...and to say so otherwise in terms of seniors or anybody else presently receiving a check that we can't write is just plain deceptive in terms of any proposed plan that has been issued to date by anybody.

Excuse me, but you seem to have been avoiding us until recently, and therefore have no grounds for telling or right to tell us that we haven't been saying just that here for four solid years. In fact, since this forum was created.

Paw through the archives. Learn to use the 'search' function. Then tell us what we haven't been doing.

 

[georgiaboy]

SS, stop beating around the bush. What's this shared sacrifice you're expecting? Are you proposing everyone to hand over earnings, savings, and property to the fedgov's ownership to pay down the debt?

Are you proposing taxes to go to 50, 75, 95, 100%?

Do you have any desire to reduce the size of the government?

The debt gets paid off in four ways: make payments while spending less, make bigger payments while spending less, make bigger payments while spending more, or print the money.

Making the same payments while spending more doesn't add up, yet it's the current math the gov't is using.

Most of us here support the first option, or even the second one, assuming that the bigger payments are derived from economic growth, not tax increases.

What are you proposing?

 

[SharedSacrifice]

I've only skimmed what you've been saying here, but it sounds like you want people to give up their entitlements, even if they have paid into them? Fuck that. Politicians spent that money, politicians got everyone into this mess, they can fix it by bringing the troops home and cutting useless departments, not screwing people even further.

Why should the people bail out the government?

I have never advocated anybody 'giving up' their checks.

I have only sought to point out that no candidate thus far has even dared suggest that any specific portion of the largest checks written (entitlements being our
#1 problem) is in any danger of anything but being honored 100% and possibly evened adjusted for inflation to boot.

As far as the people bailing out the government...I am of the feeling that the people are the government (if they choose to be) and we have not chose to accept that responsibility nor set an example for our children as to what will happen to them should they choose to ignore the same responsibility.

You may have voted the 'right' way your entire life...we need to teach our children that simply voting and not following up on what has been done right or wrong with that vote has severe consequences related to future income 'promised' by anybody.

 

[bluesc]

I have never advocated anybody 'giving up' their checks.

I have only sought to point out that no candidate thus far has even dared suggest that any specific portion of the largest checks written (entitlements being our
#1 problem) is in any danger of anything but being honored 100% and possibly evened adjusted for inflation to boot.

As far as the people bailing out the government...I am of the feeling that the people are the government (if they choose to be) and we have not chose to accept that responsibility nor set an example for our children as to what will happen to them should they choose to ignore the same responsibility.

You may have voted the 'right' way your entire life...we need to teach our children that simply voting and not following up on what has been done right or wrong with that vote has severe consequences related to future income 'promised' by anybody.

#1 problem is foreign policy
#2 problem is the government getting involved in education, housing, ect.

Ron has a pretty good plan for entitlements, maybe you should read it. Honor promises, make it voluntary for anyone under 25. Cut elsewhere to keep them solvent.

You're looking at the problem the wrong way.

 

[georgiaboy]

also, in no uncertain terms, I distinctly recall posting on this forum that I would gladly opt out of SS and Medicare for myself, even if that meant having to pay for others who depend on it now.

If anything, this forum is comprised of rugged individualists not wanting or expecting handouts from anyone, expecting to work hard and keep the fruits of their labor, and ready, willing, and able to assist the needy through voluntary and charitable means, all without government coersion. If that doesn't embody shared sacrifice, I don't know what does.

 

[acptulsa]

I have only sought to point out that no candidate thus far has even dared suggest that any specific portion of the largest checks written (entitlements being our #1 problem) is in any danger of anything but being honored 100% and possibly evened adjusted for inflation to boot.

As far as the people bailing out the government...I am of the feeling that the people are the government (if they choose to be) and we have not chose to accept that responsibility nor set an example for our children as to what will happen to them should they choose to ignore the same responsibility.

You may have voted the 'right' way your entire life...we need to teach our children that simply voting and not following up on what has been done right or wrong with that vote has severe consequences related to future income 'promised' by anybody.

Um, you should listen more carefully to Ron Paul before you say what no candidate has done. I realize that it's hard to listen to Ron Paul when the MSM stoutly refuses to point their microphones at him, but this place is full of YouTube links of him making the very statements you say no candidate has made.

And when the majority of the voters in a Republic prefer to do the irresponsible thing in spite of all your warnings about the inevitability of a day of reckoning, you can either try to subvert their will (an immoral, illegal and probably violent undertaking) or you can plan for that Day of Reckoning and try to figure out how to get us out of it with a minimum amount of pain. Which is why we've been talking about removing the burden of the Federal Reserve 'dollar' from the backs of the poor (since it will obviously be sacrificed to pay this thing off, as evidenced by the fact that 'quantitative easing' has already damaged its value beyond repair).

What have you been up to these last four years, while we were busy with these things?

 

[Brett85]

I've only skimmed what you've been saying here, but it sounds like you want people to give up their entitlements, even if they have paid into them? Fuck that. Politicians spent that money, politicians got everyone into this mess, they can fix it by bringing the troops home and cutting useless departments, not screwing people even further.

Why should the people bail out the government?

All of the entitlements together make up about 60% of the overall budget, and the deficit is 44% of the budget right now. So do the math. You can't balance the budget if you don't cut entitlements at all. Social Security and the regular Medicare program can't be abolished over night, but the Medicare Prescription drug bill should be abolished, because people never paid a single dime to get that entitlement. Medicaid should also be completely abolished or simply given back to the states. The Medicare and Social Security benefits should also be means tested. There's no reason to give out Social Security checks to millionaires and billionaires. You could also slow the rate of growth in these programs and not give people the automatic increases. All of this is necesary in order to actually balance the budget and return to limited government.

 

[bluesc]

All of the entitlements together make up about 60% of the overall budget, and the deficit is 44% of the budget right now. So do the math. You can't balance the budget if you don't cut entitlements at all. Social Security and the regular Medicare program can't be abolished over night, but the Medicare Prescription drug bill should be abolished, because people never paid a single dime to get that entitlement. Medicaid should also be completely abolished or simply given back to the states. The Medicare and Social Security benefits should also be means tested. There's no reason to give out Social Security checks to millionaires and billionaires. You could also slow the rate of growth in these programs and not give people the automatic increases. All of this is necesary in order to actually balance the budget and return to limited government.

I wasn't defending all entitlements. I was mentioning the ones that have been paid into, as you can read in my post.

 

[69360]

While I respect your opinion...it is a little (OK, a lot) scary to me that the immediate handling of a nationally shared debt costing literally billions a month in interest (let alone this country's unfunded liabilities pegged at several times this figure) is viewed or even expressed on the RP forums in such a cavalier manner with everybody on here apparently in lock step agreement (I'm sorry, but if the first sentance resonates with most here...I've got better things to do with my time).

It's as if the term 'personal responsibility' has simply become a catch word with libertarians...rather than the educational tool needed (by example) to prevent/caution our younger generation of ever traveling down the same path that we have in but one generation's lifetime.

If I'm in the wrong here as to Fox softballing these type of huge fiscal responsibility questions to Ron and ever other candidate interviewed please correct me on this. Otherwise, I am more than a little disappointed that Ron didn't do any better than he did with the tougher questions (re: those that very simply asked 'what one can do for their country'..) not even put on the agenda that night.

You are ignoring the fact that Ron has a plan out with huge spending cuts. He will end all the wars and militarism plus reduce the size of the federal government drastically cutting spending. This will free up revenue to eventually pay down the debt without anyone having to make drastic sacrifices or increased taxation. There will be gradual entitlement cuts.

 

[acptulsa]

You are ignoring the fact that Ron has a plan out with huge spending cuts. He will end all the wars and militarism plus reduce the size of the federal government drastically cutting spending. This will free up revenue to eventually pay down the debt without anyone having to make drastic sacrifices or increased taxation. There will be gradual entitlement cuts.

Well, don't underestimate the effect that we'll have from states having to increase taxes before the fedgov can drastically cut them. And don't underestimate the 'pinch' that people will squeal that they're feeling when we get to providing no more than we're actually paying for. Yes, drastic improvements in efficiency will result without the Federal Overhead, but there still won't be as lavish programs at the state level as what we're seeing (thanks to borrowed money) on the federal level.

 

[SharedSacrifice]

All of the entitlements together make up about 60% of the overall budget, and the deficit is 44% of the budget right now. So do the math. You can't balance the budget if you don't cut entitlements at all. Social Security and the regular Medicare program can't be abolished over night, but the Medicare Prescription drug bill should be abolished, because people never paid a single dime to get that entitlement. Medicaid should also be completely abolished or simply given back to the states. The Medicare and Social Security benefits should also be means tested. There's no reason to give out Social Security checks to millionaires and billionaires. You could also slow the rate of growth in these programs and not give people the automatic increases. All of this is necesary in order to actually balance the budget and return to limited government.

I wish that I could simply hand the above to every fellow conservative that I will ever run in to and add the following:

When the colonists were in their depths of despair and about to lose all of their hard fought liberties many of which are enjoyed now but not even dreamed about then...was the term "shared sacrifice" but a given and necessary lifestyle during this critical period (see today)...or were the truly suffering families across this great nation demanding of their leaders:

"You damn well better not even suggest cutting that check you promised me...and I could care less if those trying to finally (re)secure my liberty...actually have the cash to back it up or not!
..."

Thanks, TC...couldn't have said it better had I tried.

 

[SharedSacrifice]

Um, you do realize that the biggest part of the massive increase in our debt over the last decade has been imperialistic wars which never seem to target the source of the terrorism which supposedly spawned them (nineteen hijackers from Saudi Arabia, for example, has yet to produce a single bomb hitting that particular nation) but sure has created profits for the oil industry? And you do realize that Ron Paul is the only presidential candidate who has shown the slightest interest in ridding us of that particular drain on our resources, right?

I'm of the opinion that too many people get stuck on past "increases" in the debt or even how we got in to this mess...as opposed to the realities of exactly how much we are in debt and who is indeed responsible (all of us) for eventually putting it to rest (not to metion raising a generation that will never allow again what we did to happen).

Originally Posted by SharedSacrifice
"...What I don't think you are understanding here is that you (apparently forum members) haven't been screaming one bit in regards to the most important subject matters out there (decreasing our liabilites through the only method possible...shared sacrifice by all)...and to say so otherwise in terms of seniors or anybody else presently receiving a check that we can't write is just plain deceptive in terms of any proposed plan that has been issued to date by anybody..."

Excuse me, but you seem to have been avoiding us until recently, and therefore have no grounds for telling or right to tell us that we haven't been saying just that here for four solid years. In fact, since this forum was created.
Paw through the archives. Learn to use the 'search' function. Then tell us what we haven't been doing.

Nothing's in the present plan...and nothing's in the forum archives regarding member support of "shared sacrifice" on 'promised' entitlements...and you know this!
I wouldn't be receiving this kind of reception for simply bringing up the most basic of questions involving the largest fiscal questions that we face if this was something that Ron, Fox News or even most present/past forum members themselves cared to talk about even in passing.
"I" suggest that the above is a great question for Ron...the majority of forum members here apparently respect Ron for never daring to suggest that some checks need to be cut...simple as that (which at least my generation has known since the day that we received our first pay check 30 plus years ago).

 

[SharedSacrifice]

SS, stop beating around the bush. What's this shared sacrifice you're expecting? Are you proposing everyone to hand over earnings, savings, and property to the fedgov's ownership to pay down the debt?

Are you proposing taxes to go to 50, 75, 95, 100%?

Do you have any desire to reduce the size of the government?

The debt gets paid off in four ways: make payments while spending less, make bigger payments while spending less, make bigger payments while spending more, or print the money.

Making the same payments while spending more doesn't add up, yet it's the current math the gov't is using.

Most of us here support the first option, or even the second one, assuming that the bigger payments are derived from economic growth, not tax increases.

What are you proposing?

All I am proposing is that any presidential candidate's platform be both detailed and honest.
Ron's "Keep the promise..." entitlement fix synopsis is neither.
There are no birth dates or future amounts given (winners and losers specified as even in Ryan's socially engineered Plan)...and certainly no sentiment even remotely resembling honesty when long ago spent 'entitlements' are referred to as 'promises' (that will now 'somehow' be kept).

All of the above solutions are nice things to build forums around (the imperialistic war mongering, it's all somebody else's fauilt, etc.m etc.) but at the end of the day it's about two things:
Who is going to step up and act like their forefathers did in terms of shared sacrifice...
...and who is going to embrace another concept that our forefathers found important and that is setting the self sacrificial example needed for the next generation to thrive.

 

[69360]

All I am proposing is that any presidential candidate's platform be both detailed and honest.
Ron's "Keep the promise..." entitlement fix synopsis is neither.
There are no birth dates or future amounts given (winners and losers specified as even in Ryan's socially engineered Plan)...and certainly no sentiment even remotely resembling honesty when long ago spent 'entitlements' are referred to as 'promises' (that will now 'somehow' be kept).

All of the above solutions are nice things to build forums around (the imperialistic war mongering, it's all somebody else's fauilt, etc.m etc.) but at the end of the day it's about two things:
Who is going to step up and act like their forefathers did in terms of shared sacrifice...
...and who is going to embrace another concept that our forefathers found important and that is setting the self sacrificial example needed for the next generation to thrive.

You didn't answer the questions you were asked. What is it that you want us to "sacrifice"? Our hard earned money to big government? You are getting zero support for your ideas here for a reason. Most people here don't agree with you.

I personally don't believe your ruse that you are a potential supporter.

 

[SharedSacrifice]

You didn't answer the questions you were asked. What is it that you want us to "sacrifice"? Our hard earned money to big government? You are getting zero support for your ideas here for a reason. Most people here don't agree with you.

I personally don't believe your ruse that you are a potential supporter.

You didn't answer the questions you were asked. What is it that you want us to "sacrifice"? Our hard earned money to big government? You are getting zero support for your ideas here for a reason. Most people here don't agree with you.

I personally don't believe your ruse that you are a potential supporter.

There are two ways of discrediting new members of a discussion forum.

The first usually involves asking the same questions over and over as if the 'newbie' has not only answered them with basic logic...but over and over again offered easy to understand examples of his premise to boot.

The second always involve accusations of the new poster being something other than he has (again) very simply explained himself to be (in this case a potential RP supporter if said community has the ability to grasp the concept of shared sacrifice sometime before his 40th post of explaining same).

It's all about denial, folks.
Reread post 475 above and ask yourself something:

Do you accept the fact that Ron (whether he mans up today and admits to it or not) will soon be effectively hamstrung by the realities of TC's wake-the-hell-up-and-do-the-math statement?...or could you care the hell less about this country (let alone our children) and basically support Ron because he is promising to keep that check coming every month...and by gosh at the same amount or better until both you and your spouse leave this world for good?

This will be my last post on this forum and I'll leave you with the following:

When long time posters on your forum are warning you that certain positions are indeed not defensable...or that your candidate did not necessarily do so well on perhaps the largest/most important stage to date for impressing conservatives that you cannot possibly win without...do yourself a favor and believe them.

Thanks for the healthy (albeit one-sided) debate and good luck with your (quiet) demands on Paul concerning (heaven forbid) no cuts to those entitlement checks,

SharedSacrifice

 

[georgiaboy]

Ron Paul, quoted from today's Morning Joe segment: "Liberty is not Sacrfice"