HUFFPOST Ron Paul Says There Is No Provision For Medicare And Medicaid In The Constitution

[PreDeadMan]

Here's the article link http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/12/14/ron-paul-2012-constitution-medicare-medicaid_n_1147956.html

there's a lot of negative comments in the comment sections some pro ron paul ones. basically they are arguing about the general welfare clause

 

[LibertyEagle]

They just need to be reassured that Paul would not end these programs. That only he has a realistic plan to cut in other areas so that these programs remain funded for all those currently on them.

 

[bluesc]

This is the best the AP can do?

 

[Elwar]

Here's the article link http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/12/14/ron-paul-2012-constitution-medicare-medicaid_n_1147956.html

there's a lot of negative comments in the comment sections some pro ron paul ones. basically they are arguing about the general welfare clause

HuffPo is very liberal.

 

[PreDeadMan]

HuffPo is very liberal.

Yes I know but i figured i'd post it on here since it relates to Ron Paul maybe some of our Revolution can refute some of the liberal arguments in the comments.

 

[TER]

Yes I know but i figured i'd post it on here since it relates to Ron Paul maybe some of our Revolution can refute some of the liberal arguments in the comments.

After RP wins the primary, then we can spend time on places like Huff Post.

 

[Elwar]

Yes I know but i figured i'd post it on here since it relates to Ron Paul maybe some of our Revolution can refute some of the liberal arguments in the comments.

Was just pointing out why the comments were very negative.

HuffPo is actually a good place to waste your time defending Ron Paul as it is pretty much the top political website that allows you to post comments. I go on often and remind them of Ron Paul's stance on the wars and how much he is against Corporations.

 

[CaptUSA]

Am I missing something? Where is the provision in the constitution?

This is sort of like Ron Paul saying water is wet and people getting all pissed off about it.

 

[Dr.3D]

Am I missing something? Where is the provision in the constitution?

This is sort of like Ron Paul saying water is wet and people getting all pissed off about it.

Sometimes, people don't want to hear the truth.

 

[bluesc]

Am I missing something? Where is the provision in the constitution?

This is sort of like Ron Paul saying water is wet and people getting all pissed off about it.

It's just the AP trying to scare people into thinking he wants to end them immediately because they are unconstitutional. It's working.

 

[flightlesskiwi]

Sometimes, Generally all of the time, people don't want to hear the truth.

remedied.

 

[fletcher]

Just scanning the comments shows you how ignorant people are. There are many people at hp that think the preamble to the constitution gives the government power. The average comment looks something like "the preamble says 'promote the general welfare' therefore the government can do what ever it wants!"

 

[flightlesskiwi]

Just scanning the comments shows you how ignorant people are. There are many people at hp that think the preamble to the constitution gives the government power. The average comment looks something like "the preamble says 'promote the general welfare' therefore the government can do what ever it wants!"

this is why i pretty much stopped debating progressive liberals.

 

[Maverick]

What drives me nuts about the comments is that whenever Ron Paul says "there's no provision in the Constitution for (X)" then the misinformed masses go off half-cocked with complete non-sequitors like:

There's no provision for cars, planes, or internet either, Ronny.

This response implies that - for some on the left - they simply cannot process the difference between government-run institutions and privately-produced goods and services. Judging by this response, this poster seems to believe that if we were to strictly follow the Constitution then somehow all forms of private goods would simply not exist because they aren't "provided for" by government, which is absurd.

These people act like if we followed the Constitution and constrained government properly, somehow we'd all still be living in the 1700's and the progress of technology would halt and new products and inventions would never come into being. They seem to believe that only things "allowed" by the Constitution would even exist at all.

It's mind-numbingly frustrating every time I run into the "Paul would send us back to the 1700's!" argument, and I feel dumber each time just for reading something so stupid.

 

[Dr.3D]

What drives me nuts about the comments is that whenever Ron Paul says "there's no provision in the Constitution for (X)" then the misinformed masses go off half-cocked with complete non-sequitors like:

There's no provision for cars, planes, or internet either, Ronny.

This response implies that - for some on the left - they simply cannot process the difference between government-run institutions and privately-produced goods and services. Judging by this response, this poster seems to believe that if we were to strictly follow the Constitution then somehow all forms of private goods would simply not exist because they aren't "provided for" by government, which is absurd.

These people act like if we followed the Constitution and constrained government properly, somehow we'd all still be living in the 1700's and the progress of technology would halt and new products and inventions would never come into being. They seem to believe that only things "allowed" by the Constitution would even exist at all.

It's mind-numbingly frustrating every time I run into the "Paul would send us back to the 1700's!" argument, and I feel dumber each time just for reading something so stupid.

Well, maybe they believe the government should be supplying cars, planes, or internet to everybody. LOL

 

[oyarde]

Article One Section Eight clearly defines what Congress is allowed to tax and spend . Post that on Huff Pooh . Social Security , Medicare & Medicaid are UnConstitutional. If the states wanted to experiment in these areas , that would be legal, if it made it through the state house and Senate. If the states had done any of this , I would like to think , in many cases , the money would have been required to be set aside and would actually be assigned to that person as property. That would be an improvement over the present .

 

[LibertyEagle]

Was just pointing out why the comments were very negative.

HuffPo is actually a good place to waste your time defending Ron Paul as it is pretty much the top political website that allows you to post comments. I go on often and remind them of Ron Paul's stance on the wars and how much he is against Corporations.

Be careful there. It sounds like you are saying that he is against big business and he isn't at all.

 

[FrankRep]

Am I missing something? Where is the provision in the constitution?

This is sort of like Ron Paul saying water is wet and people getting all pissed off about it.

Some people need these programs to survive so the programs need to be slowly fazed out.


Call it: Fabian Constitutionalism or Constitutional Progressivism

 

[oyarde]

Well, maybe they believe the government should be supplying cars, planes, or internet to everybody. LOL

I could use a plane ;0

 

[ctiger2]

When Ron becomes president he needs to fix the general welfare & commerce clauses BIGTIME!