Thread: Ron Paul's vision fer old peoples and children...

Originally Posted by MeadHallPirate

ahoy adaher,

as me parents have aged, i've looked into the cost 'o assisted livin' and taken a perusal 'o what things like open heart surgery and replacement hips cost.

no church is goin' to "take over the delivery of medicine", not unless folks suddenly are inspired to tithe quite a bit more than that which fills the donation baskets on sundays.

- MeadHallPirate

I'm afraid Ron would flunk when it came time to judge his knowledge of Human Nature.

Originally Posted by MeadHallPirate

ahoy Disillusioned_1,

Dr. Paul would try'n fund both our health and education needs with monies saved from the military...so far, i get that matey. that still doesn't speak to the fact that he finds medicare and medicaid unconstitutional, and unlike the other folk runnin' fer POTUS, i believe congressman Paul means what he says when he says that.

'tis the very vagueness 'o the details 'o his plan that worries me, fer this be no small thing. the nation's healthcare entitlements make up a massive portion 'o government spendin'. really, no one over 55 is goin' to "opt out", at least thats what me common sense tells me. that means in his plan, i get to pay fer the entitlements 'o others fer the next two or three or four decades, whilst when me own turn comes, i get nothin'.

i don't like that kinda plan.

aye?

- MeadHallPirate

There could be many different variants that would probably seem acceptable. If you could opt out tomorrow but receive a 66% benefit when you reach retirement age, would you do so? Even if you didn't, would other ~45 year olds? The opt-out scenario could be structured to account for past monies paid in so no one would be unduly screwed. These are just my suggestions as to how it could be done, I don't know if Paul has ever been that specific. Since its highly likely congress would block any such proposals anyway, its kind of premature to provide anything more than a very general picture.

One part that isn't clear to me, what if a 20 year old doesn't opt-out? Would Paul let SS/Medicare continue to exist for new people who reach working age? Sort of a public-option for social security.

Originally Posted by Disillusioned_1

There could be many different variants that would probably seem acceptable. If you could opt out tomorrow but receive a 66% benefit when you reach retirement age, would you do so? Even if you didn't, would other ~45 year olds? The opt-out scenario could be structured to account for past monies paid in so no one would be unduly screwed. These are just my suggestions as to how it could be done, I don't know if Paul has ever been that specific. Since its highly likely congress would block any such proposals anyway, its kind of premature to provide anything more than a very general picture.

One part that isn't clear to me, what if a 20 year old doesn't opt-out? Would Paul let SS/Medicare continue to exist for new people who reach working age? Sort of a public-option for social security.

ahoy Disillusioned_1,

all good suggestions and fair questions, in particular yer closin' statement. if folks decide to opt-out, thats fine, but then i'd want additional language that they cannot apply fer state or federal aid in the future if thar financial plannin' fer thar own retirement runs awry. no "havin' yer cake and eatin' it too".

i'd like to see Dr. Paul speak a bit more expansively 'bout this than he has, aye?

at any rate, this matter concerns me much more than racist newsletters that Congressman Paul did not author.

- MeadHallPirate

IMO

Originally Posted by adaher

Thing is, the taxpayers can't do it either. As a general rule, if the average family cannot afford something, society cannot afford it.

IMO appropriate priorities and management can make it affordable. We seem to be the only society unable to come to grips with the problem.

You want a good view of what "Doctor" Paul envisions for the poor and old? See that bridge down the end of the street? Looks pretty good up under there, don't it?

Nice and cosy as the sound of trucks passing over the expansion joints lulls you to sleep. Maybe you can even bet on how long before the crack they "can't afford" to repair brings the whole thing down.

How anyone whose entire career and huge income depends entirely on the government, BY LAW, practically eliminating any real competition in his chosen field can then turn around and say people who CAN'T work should be left to die in the streets (oh, wait, I'm sorry, left to the tender mercies of the state governments, whose neglect of them was the reason the Feds got involved in the first place) is beyond me; but then these are the same people who say we can no longer "afford" to give old people what they were forced to pay into for several decades, as we need billion dollar aircraft carriers with million dollar jets and cruise missiles to hunt hill bandits in Toyota pickups.

Originally Posted by John Drake

You want a good view of what "Doctor" Paul envisions for the poor and old? See that bridge down the end of the street? Looks pretty good up under there, don't it?

How anyone whose entire career and huge income depends entirely on the government, BY LAW, practically eliminating any real competition in his chosen field can then turn around and say people should be left to die in the streets (oh, wait, I'm sorry, left to the tender mercies of the state governments, whose neglect of them was the reason the Feds got involved in the first place) is beyond me; but then these are the same people who say we can no longer "afford" to give old people what they were forced to pay into for several decades, as we need billion dollar aircraft carriers with million dollar jets and cruise missiles to hunt hill bandits in Toyota pickups.

ahoy John Drake,

fair point also, John Drake.

i asked whether folks within' hailin' distance 'o retirement age would give up thar healthcare entitlements here on USPO, and only one person (Good1, i think it was) volunteered to.

this be why Dr. Paul really ought to speak up more on this topic, if he plans to be a serious candidate.

- MeadHallPirate

Originally Posted by Formaldehyde

It is a sad sign of our times that this has turned from "would not" to "should not" in a bit over 50 years. As the US population has slid further and further to the right, they have also become far more selfish and greedy. Republicans back then like Eisenhower and Goldwater wouldn't even recognize their own country. When they made statements like these, little did they know they would become dystopian glimpses of the future.

The move to the insane Right has made greed and selfishness a national illness. Some even celebrate it. Sad times this nation is in today.

Originally Posted by Blue Doggy

The move to the insane Right has made greed and selfishness a national illness. Some even celebrate it. Sad times this nation is in today.

The strange thing is that I'm not really that much against greed and selfishness. I'm just smart enough to realise that if nobody else has any money then they can't buy anything from me. This is the essential problem with supply side economics, which believes honestly that if you just keep on making stuff (which most manufacturers are still not doing, as there's no demand and the banks aren't loaning them any money to start anyway) people will buy it, whether they have money or not. By what MEANS they will accomplish this miracle is given the classical Randian answer, "somehow."

Originally Posted by MeadHallPirate

ahoy John Drake,

fair point also, John Drake.

i asked whether folks within' hailin' distance 'o retirement age would give up thar healthcare entitlements here on USPO, and only one person (Good1, i think it was) volunteered to.

this be why Dr. Paul really ought to speak up more on this topic, if he plans to be a serious candidate.

- MeadHallPirate

Now your last comment there I disagree with. I'd argue that because none of the other candidates have a viable plan for social security and medicare - considering the debt our country is in - other than status quo, they are the non-serious candidates. I assume their plan to keep those entitlements running is simply to keep printing more money from the treasury and letting our national debt climb to 300% of GDP and higher. So far, Paul is the ONLY candidate who has a serious way to reduce our deficit that doesn't involve fairies and magic wands.

So while its certainly good to question his vision and plan, I wouldn't demean him by implying he's not a serious candidate by not including more details, because its still too premature given the role congress would play in the matter, not to mention no other candidate has made any believable statements regarding how they would reign in our deficit spending.

Originally Posted by Disillusioned_1

Now your last comment there I disagree with. I'd argue that because none of the other candidates have a viable plan for social security and medicare - considering the debt our country is in - other than status quo, they are the non-serious candidates. I assume their plan to keep those entitlements running is simply to keep printing more money from the treasury and letting our national debt climb to 300% of GDP and higher. So far, Paul is the ONLY candidate who has a serious way to reduce our deficit that doesn't involve fairies and magic wands.

So while its certainly good to question his vision and plan, I wouldn't demean him by implying he's not a serious candidate by not including more details, because its still too premature given the role congress would play in the matter, not to mention no other candidate has made any believable statements regarding how they would reign in our deficit spending.

ahoy Disillusioned_1,

matey, to the best 'o me knowledge the republican folks who seek the nomination fer POTUS (i been workin' too hard this winter to pay close attention to every policy point) hath endorsed the Ryancare plan, namely, to retain the votes 'o them who be 55 and over by promisin' them the gravy train, whilst promisin' meself coupons that'll be worth less than the paper they're printed on in future.

any candidate who be a serious candidate has to address medicare and medicaid (and social security).

none 'o the other GOP candidates be legitimate on this issue....they're clowns, as Goober put it. when i say i want Dr. Paul to address this issue directly and clearly, 'tis in the fervent hope that i don't have to hand him a red nose and oversized shoes. of course he can avoid this topic entirely, me friend...and if he makes it to the general, that means he's sayin' to Mr. Obama, "here ye go me bucko, have Florida...and whilst yer at it, have Pennsylvania too...and if yer not too full after that, have Arizona too...they're all yours, mate!".

aye?

- MeadHallPirate

Originally Posted by MeadHallPirate

ahoy AjaxPress,

not to take me own thread off topic, but this be somethin' i've always wondered at meself also - why didn't the elderly save on thar voyage to old age?

why is it, when folks have a lifetime to prepare fer old age, and evidence abounds that old age can be an expensive proposition, do folks willfully do so little to save fer it?

here be me answers;

1) whilst they hadn't prepared financially by savin', at least they were spending all thar lives, thereby stimulatin' economic activity, so thats not so bad, aye?

2) 'tis a cultural thing, americans on the whole just aren't that good at savin'. then again, the cost 'o healthcare be so preposterous in our nation, maybe 'tis not reasonable to expect most folks to able to save the titanic sums necessary...

3) 'tis alot like folks who set thar clocks five minutes early...an attempt to trick themselves into actually bein' on time. it doesn't work, fer in the long run they just adjust thar own behavior and they use up that margin anyway, dawdlin' around...doin' this and that. since our swabby's know the safety net be out thar, they whittle away at whatever savings they have.

aye?

- MeadHallPirate

One point I would make: The government doesn't 'save' any better than Americans, and in fact if Americans could print their own money the way the government does, what do you think would happen? Government debt is approximately a mortgage for each and every family in America - except we don't all have a 2nd house being held in our name. So while there may be some merit in the 'forced saving' that FICA withholding brings, the logic gets all blown to hell when you consider the fact that the government doesn't 'save' that money for you later. They spend it immediately, and then print more later when they have a shortfall.

Paul's vision is that we have a government that cannot just freely print money, and the key to stopping that nonsense is to abolish the FED which is one of his goals as well.

Originally Posted by John Drake

The strange thing is that I'm not really that much against greed and selfishness. I'm just smart enough to realise that if nobody else has any money then they can't buy anything from me. This is the essential problem with supply side economics, which believes honestly that if you just keep on making stuff (which most manufacturers are still not doing, as there's no demand and the banks aren't loaning them any money to start anyway) people will buy it, whether they have money or not. By what MEANS they will accomplish this miracle is given the classical Randian answer, "somehow."

Greed and selfishness is a fact of human nature. It is destructive when not tempered. We must accept greed, and then work to temper it so it does not destroy others in any great manner. We learn to live with it, while not allowing it to be destructive of the rest of society. We should never celebrate greed, no more than you would celebrate knocking up as many girls and you can, before you run for the hills. Both are social irresponsibilities. Both create great social problems.

Originally Posted by MeadHallPirate

ahoy Disillusioned_1,

matey, to the best 'o me knowledge the republican folks who seek the nomination fer POTUS (i been workin' too hard this winter to pay close attention to every policy point) hath endorsed the Ryancare plan, namely, to retain the votes 'o them who be 55 and over by promisin' them the gravy train, whilst promisin' meself coupons that'll be worth less than the paper they're printed on in future.

The Ryan plan is a farce. There are almost no cuts until after the 2012 election (actually after the 2014 midterms), and then they finally kick in ... provided that congress doesn't gut the plan at that point. Its clear to me at least that the Ryan plan is merely election-cycle antics. Don't cut anything for the next election, cut it all farther down the road. We know how good congress is at cutting things down the road, don't we?

any candidate who be a serious candidate has to address medicare and medicaid (and social security).

none 'o the other GOP candidates be legitimate on this issue....they're clowns, as Goober put it. when i say i want Dr. Paul to address this issue directly and clearly, 'tis in the fervent hope that i don't have to hand him a red nose and oversized shoes. of course he can avoid this topic entirely, me friend...and if he makes it to the general, that means he's sayin' to Mr. Obama, "here ye go me bucko, have Florida...and whilst yer at it, have Pennsylvania too...and if yer not too full after that, have Arizona too...they're all yours, mate!".

aye?

- MeadHallPirate

Paul's biggest problem is big government conservatives (about 2/3rds of all Republicans from what I can tell) will never vote for him. Obama is one of the least of his concerns, IMO Paul is more supported by much of the left than Obama is. I don't think Paul is scaring off the old folks, and he has enough support from people of my age (which is your age) that I don't think our generation will keel haul him for doing things that seemingly must be done. He's not saying to gouge out our eyes, he's saying we need to modify the existing system of deficit spending which is raging headlong towards disaster.