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

Matey, the truth we gots to accept is that we just aint got the monies no more. The government be creatin a fiscal crisis as it is with the blank check printin' o monies. The answer is no longer a government one cause it be spendin' at its max as we speak. Our comrade Paul will burn for his anti monies for the old and small, cause the old can vote and they won't be 'round for the debt crisis we will be in for payin' for em. Truth be told, though, is we got to cut spendin drastically as it is. Cuttin' these monies for these folks could get america out of her debt and strengthen her currency once more.

Paul is the only fiscally responsible candidate, but the truth be that right now fiscal responsibility would shake american social relations to its core. Bear with me here matey. The ones with the monies would have to start housin' their old folks and payin' their healthcare. Spousal fights would ensue as in laws moved home. Charity would have to start holdin' the hands of the young folks. America be in for some real changes, matey. I don't usually get prophetic like this. The other candidates will keep printin' the monies and shovin the monies in the leaking dam full of holes that is our economics.

The purist libertarian view is not, as many would tell it, that we should "let them die". But it does object to the modern assumption that society and government are the same thing. In our view, we should resist the temptation to turn government into our caretaker. We can, and should, take care of each other and promote compassionate society. But it is wrong to legislate such compassion, and it strips us of our humanity when we do.

That said, Ron Paul is NOT a purist libertarian. He's made the point repeatedly on the campaign stump that we could fully fund all of our safety nets if we pulled back our military to focus on actual defense rather than empire building. Ending the welfare state is simply not his highest priority. On top of that, (as you've pointed out before) he can't simply abolish these things as president even if he wanted to. If and when we do get government out of the caretaker business it will be because there is widespread consensus that we should.

Originally Posted by MeadHallPirate

ahoy all,
..whar does the monies come from to care fer the children and our elders?

- MeadHallPirate

Personal responsibility will kick in eventually. Parents will stop having children they can't afford. In turn children will stop hating their parents so much that they can't stand the idea of living together.

Originally Posted by htperr6565

Matey, the truth we gots to accept is that we just aint got the monies no more. The government be creatin a fiscal crisis as it is with the blank check printin' o monies. The answer is no longer a government one cause it be spendin' at its max as we speak. Our comrade Paul will burn for his anti monies for the old and small, cause the old can vote and they won't be 'round for the debt crisis we will be in for payin' for em. Truth be told, though, is we got to cut spendin drastically as it is. Cuttin' these monies for these folks could get america out of her debt and strengthen her currency once more.

Paul is the only fiscally responsible candidate, but the truth be that right now fiscal responsibility would shake american social relations to its core. Bear with me here matey. The ones with the monies would have to start housin' their old folks and payin' their healthcare. Spousal fights would ensue as in laws moved home. Charity would have to start holdin' the hands of the young folks. America be in for some real changes, matey. I don't usually get prophetic like this. The other candidates will keep printin' the monies and shovin the monies in the leaking dam full of holes that is our economics.

ahoy Htperr6565,

long time no see, matey.

first off, happy holidays.

secondly, i insist that ye never change yer avatar...'tis one 'o the most comely ones here on the good ship USPO.

now...onto yer post, aye?

i agree that Dr. Paul be the only true, small government style conservative in the field. despite what Dblack said, i think he'd take the mighty red pen to Medicare and Medicaid...he has to, thats whar the bulk 'o the spendin' is, and he believes 'tis unconstitutional.

how will seniors (and thar "children", aged 40-60) react to these social upheavals? if ye have any serious medical condition as an old persons, nursin' care and a room in a nice senior center runs around 100k...per year. who can afford this? probably less than 1% 'o USPO.

and do ye believe that charities will just kinda "appear" to care fer the children and seniors that'll be tossed off 'o these safety nets?

at any rate, me friend, one thing i think we agree on be that future fer uninsured children and seniors across our great land would be a dark one, if Dr. Paul gained the skipper's chair.

- MeadHallPirate

Originally Posted by AjaxPress

Personal responsibility will kick in eventually. Parents will stop having children they can't afford. In turn children will stop hating their parents so much that they can't stand the idea of living together.

ahoy AjaxPress,

thar was some kinda test that a swabby posted a year or two ago...much to me own sadness and horror, i found i scored on the authoritarian side 'o liberalism.

i think some kinda fiscal litmus test out to be taken 'fore folks can spawn...'tis an awesome financial responsibility and i think it would be nice if folks didn't have children they couldn't afford. 'course then, some 'o the greatest americans 'o our lifetime might not have been born, but thems the breaks, aye?

- MeadHallPirate

Originally Posted by dblack

The purist libertarian view is not, as many would tell it, that we should "let them die". But it does object to the modern assumption that society and government are the same thing. In our view, we should resist the temptation to turn government into our caretaker. We can, and should, take care of each other and promote compassionate society. But it is wrong to legislate such compassion, and it strips us of our humanity when we do.

That said, Ron Paul is NOT a purist libertarian. He's made the point repeatedly on the campaign stump that we could fully fund all of our safety nets if we pulled back our military to focus on actual defense rather than empire building. Ending the welfare state is simply not his highest priority. On top of that, (as you've pointed out before) he can't simply abolish these things as president even if he wanted to. If and when we do get government out of the caretaker business it will be because there is widespread consensus that we should.

ahoya Dblack,

i don't buy into the idear that Dr. Paul would wish to see folks die...i don't believe thats what he wants, in his heart 'o hearts.

i just see it as an inevitable byproduct 'o his adherence to the constitution, though...and honestly, if he wants to curb government spendin', he's goin' to raise his sails and beat to quarters against the only safety net millions 'o seniors and children have.

thats whar them taxpayer dollars be flowin', afterall.

- MeadHallPirate

I am afraid that any Ron Paul sort of gov't would be an ugly thing, considering all of the human suffering that would ensue from such an ideology. While it touts personal freedom, individuality and the rest, it is also at the end of the day nothing more than cruel.

When I think of a civilization, consisting of supposed civilized humans, this idea of a taxpayer funded social safety net seems much more civilized than any idea of personal freedom, individuality and the rest. That sort of freedom is nice to ponder, to discuss as an abstract, but in reality it has too many suffering. Any ideology that causes great suffering is invalid, immoral and wrong. I reject it.

Originally Posted by Blue Doggy

I am afraid that any Ron Paul sort of gov't would be an ugly thing, considering all of the human suffering that would ensue from such an ideology. While it touts personal freedom, individuality and the rest, it is also at the end of the day nothing more than cruel.

When I think of a civilization, consisting of supposed civilized humans, this idea of a taxpayer funded social safety net seems much more civilized than any idea of personal freedom, individuality and the rest. That sort of freedom is nice to ponder, to discuss as an abstract, but in reality it has too many suffering. Any ideology that causes great suffering is invalid, immoral and wrong. I reject it.

Would you put any limits on such a 'safety net'? Or is it open to all who apply? If there are limits, what about those who lie just outside those limits?

Originally Posted by Blue Doggy

Any ideology that causes great suffering is invalid, immoral and wrong. I reject it.

At what point do people take responsibility for their behavior? Kids don't want to take care of their parents, but in the past adults, children, grandparents all used to live together and help each other. Whose fault is it that the elderly didn't save their money? Is it mine and that's why I have to pay into social security and medicare? It's easy to say "care for those who can't care for themselves" and make emotional appeals but I want to know why I have to pay for people who have had a lifetime to earn and income and failed to do so.

Ron Paul is fairly purist in theory, but he also recognizes how far the public can be persuaded to go. It's actually created a rare case of Paul flip-floppery, although it's the honest kind where he's been saying things, getting feedback, then acknowledging that the public isn't really with him.

This is what Paul said about Medicare, SS, and Medicaid in March:

Ron Paul: End Medicare, Social Security and Medicaid |Raw Replay

The headline is misleading, he didn't say just end them, he said he would try to transition the country away from them. the word "try" implies that he realizes he might not get anywhere due to public backlash.

This is what Paul said in October:

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics...erve-medicare/

Rep. Ron Paul is not going to take away your Medicare.

That’s what the Republican congressman from Texas told a room full of senior citizens in Concord, N.H. Friday night.

“I would try to preserve it,” said Paul at a small assisted living community.

Health care was one of the top concerns of those in the room, who asked Paul to explain his view that churches and voluntary institutions could take over the delivery of medicine.

Paul said that the solution is not to close everything overnight.

His approach allows letting people who don’t want government health care to get out of the system and write it off their taxes.

“I think that’s proper in a free society,” said Paul. “You should not be pushed into corporate medicine by the government.”

Originally Posted by MeadHallPirate

whar does the monies come from to care fer the children and our elders?

- MeadHallPirate

It comes from people like me.

Originally Posted by MeadHallPirate

ahoy all,

mateys, though no one would be happier than meself to see Dr. Paul win the nomination fer president on the GOP side 'o the ledger, i still sorta feel that in a few months the last voyage 'o Ron Paul will conclude itself, and then he'll be gone from the face 'o presidential races ferever.

so, whilst he still be relevant, i'd like to ask folks a question, aye?

given that Mr. Paul is against Medicare and Medicaid, what be his vision fer the vast legion 'o children and seniors who depend on them programs?

i know he'd have state governments tend to it instead 'o the federal government...but how will all them southern states (mississippi, alabama, louisianna, etc, etc), and places like Alaska afford to care fer thar children and seniors? these red states depend on federal dollars as it is, partly because 'o thar mighty low taxes which in turn leave'm cash poor....whar does the monies come from to care fer the children and our elders?

- MeadHallPirate

Your premise is flawed and shows that you're not quite picking up what Dr. Paul is putting down. When the federal government gets out of all these programs it has no authority to be involved in then the size of the federal government's budget is drastically reduced. The money that the federal government "gives" to the states is the money that came from the states to begin with. With that in mind, the states would simply be able to keep more of their own money and use it much more efficiently than what the federal government has done. It's really not that complicated.

Originally Posted by AjaxPress

At what point do people take responsibility for their behavior? Kids don't want to take care of their parents, but in the past adults, children, grandparents all used to live together and help each other. Whose fault is it that the elderly didn't save their money? Is it mine and that's why I have to pay into social security and medicare? It's easy to say "care for those who can't care for themselves" and make emotional appeals but I want to know why I have to pay for people who have had a lifetime to earn and income and failed to do so.

People would still live together in extended families if the economic system didn't rip apart those extended families, jobs for 20 or 30 people just can't be found in a three block radius, dad getes a job in the city, junior goes to college in another state, and gets a job in yet another state when he graduates. Sis marries a guy who gets transferred to Georgia.
The factory closes and uncle Joe has to move to another town to find work.

People plan to save for their retirement, and then their business fails, or they get laid off and lose their pension plan at the same time, there's an illness in the family, there's a divorce, there are mental conditions that make employment next to impossible (ever been to a homeless shelter?) , etc.

Two people finish school, one gets a job with the prestigious firm, the other goes with a startup, the prestigious firm fails or lays off thousands and downsizes, the startup can become Microsoft, or as happens in over 90% of the cases, it can close after a short period.

If there was work for anyone who wanted it (and there isn't and there hasn't been for years) and everyone was happy, healthy and well adjusted, then you could have people report to work or face some consequences.


In any system with winners, there are losers. How do you treat those people who tried and failed? How do you blame someone who worked for a company that has been there for a hundred years, and then closed, and took jobs, pensions, and real estate values down the drain for thousands in a very small geographic area.
Someone is making a fortune in this process, someone used leverage to buy a controlling interest in the company, stripped the assets, moved manufacturing overseas, sold the brands, and after draining all the value that had been in the company, declared bankruptcy to default on the pension obligations.

Asking those who reaped the benefits to share with those who for some reason (and at this point that reason is unimportant) have not is what civilized people do.
It's what people have done since the beginning of humanity.
People do this for two reasons, greed and fear. They want to live in a decent society, and feel good about themselves, and they fear the consequences of an underclass that becomes large enough to take what it wants without remorse.
Taxes are the price of civilization, because wealth cannot exist without civilization.