Progressive Reaction to RP Presidency and the dismantling of the welfare state

Why hasn't Obama attempted this yet?


_

 

It would be hilarious, that's for sure. Yet another to reason to support Ron Paul is to see the looks on the faces of the political and media establishment and statist whackjobs on both sides of the aisle if he wins.

Actually, about the last thing he'd focus on is phasing out the welfare state and that only slowly. Then it would just go to the states. I'm sure the phony "progressives" would go into a frenzy if it ever seemed likely that this were to happen, but in itself this would all be rather mild.

What plan? Given how unfairly he's been treated in the media, they're doing a pretty p*ss-poor job of it. How many times have they used to word "unelectable" today.

If this happened and standard of living improves, I'd hope the honest ones would be able to admit it, but I don't know if that kind of justice is available in this world. That's why I like being religious.

 

It would be worthless because he couldn't get anything done since the Republicans and the Democrats in Congress do not agree with the nut case.

Congress would have to be taken over by nut cases in order for Ron Paul to get his wish in dismantling America and turning us in to a 3rd world country.

 

The non-so right establishment has picked Romney. This is about the pseudo-RP supporters on the Left. I suspect they would be very unkind, if he were to cease to be more than a political irritant to the GOP.

_

 

Yawn... calling him a nutcase and not understanding the power the President has. Next!

 

You are probably right, but the Left would foam at the mouth none the less. Hell, a simple reduction in the GROWTH of a social welfare program causes hysteria from them.

_

 

So, you are anti-gov't progressive? That's very interesting. Kinda like a Satanist Catholic.

_

 

Actually, the idea is that a young person (like me) would be able to choose whether he wants lunatics like Obomba & Co taking his money in exchange for the empty promise to give it back to me...someday.

Oh no, not freedom of choice, how horrible Please, I beg you to give me my freedom to risk being "thrown into the streets" (like these coercive Ponzi schemes protect me from that) if that's what I CHOOSE to do.

 

I understand fully. Ron Paul would not be able to get anything through.

 

Who would obstruct him and be the party of no?


_

 

Both parties

 

Right... because that's all a President is able to do is formulate a Bill and have the Senate/House work on it. Sigh..

 

Nope that's not all they can do. Barring some crazy executive orders we don't live in a monarchical state where the President can do whatever he wants.

 

Maybe. Maybe not. But he's the only candidate that wouldn't proactively attempt to make things even worse.

 

That's a very nice subjective opinion you got going!

 

The Tea Party would obstruct him? We know that progressives in both parties would.


_

 

The Tea Party is a dying breed. They had their chance and they performed miserably. Just look at all the Tea Party Presidential candidates. What an abysmal performance.

Republican's and Democrat's would not support Ron Paul's policies. Even Newt Ginrich has said that he would never vote for Ron Paul because his policies would be destructive to America.

 

Ron Paul won't kill any more children with drones. Whereas his major opponents, Romney and Obama, will kill children with drones. That should be more than enough for anyone who doesn't have a heart of stone to walk over broken glass to vote Paul over either of those two.

 

If you still believe that a President does nothing but, sit on their butt and wait Congress to pass Bills you're quite ignorant. Obviously you fail to realize a President is the Commander of the Armed Forces which is enough power to change quite a bit.

 

I never said that. I said we do not have a monarchy where the President can do whatever they please. And even being Commander in Chief doesn't give them the rights to do anything they want with the military. Probably the biggest power the President has aside from extreme cases they can use their executive power to start a war, like Bush... is their veto power.

But since Ron Paul would veto anything and everything and Congress would vote against anything Ron Paul wanted, it would be a standstill and a complete waste of America's time.

 

The payroll tax cut is essentially lifting the cap on taxable income.

Means testing simply turns the program into welfare. More production being sapped by a inefficient program. How much of our wealth should we submit to SS before everyone agrees that it isn't a viable option? Currently its 12.4%. Should it be 20%, 25%? The return is already well below 1%. Increasing the age or reducing the eligibility simply reduces the return.

If it is a form of insurance, then it is merely a scam such as a whole life policy.

 

Dodge.

This thread asks you to accept the premise of a RP Presidency. If you cannot do that, ****.

 

No, I'm refering to the income cap. SS taxes are only levied on about $100k of income. Above that it is tax free. The really rich guys don't effectively pay SS as a percentage of their income.

If you eliminate the income cap, you can reduce the rate for everyone because you'll have a much bigger pool of income to which it applies.

If you make it means tested, it costs less. I agree it makes it more of a welfare program in nature, but do we really need to, and can afford to pay guys like Warren Buffet and millionaires and billionaires a SS stipend?