MSNBC - Ron Paul softening his tone on social programs

[1000-points-of-fright]

So this morning on MSNBC's "Daily Rundown", Chuck Todd said Ron Paul is changing his stance on social programs because now he doesn't want to get rid them because so many people have become dependent on them but instead fund them by cutting overseas spending. This, he says, is a change from Paul's views in 2008.

*facepalm*

[NeoconTea]

That's not bad news for the Paul team. A few more liberals will vote for him. That's all.

[Bern]

Even in his 2008 campaign, Ron Paul's platform didn't call for abolishing social programs. He has always (both in past campaigns and in legislation introduced into Congress) advocated some transition plans to maintain commitments to people who are depending upon them while giving choice to people who are not. Ron Paul is much more of a pragmatist than the MSM gives him credit for.

[1000-points-of-fright]

That's not bad news for the Paul team. A few more liberals will vote for him. That's all.

I agree. But that's not the point. These people are supposed to be journalists. A little research will tell you that there has been no change or softening. Paul has been saying this for decades.

[Feeding the Abscess]

He's been saying since well before his previous campaign, even. For decades, essentially.

EDIT: beaten to it lol.

[bluesc]

As long as they tell the truth about his positions now. They probably just have no clue.

Liberals don't seem to understand that he doesn't want to end all social programs. I learned that on Reddit last night.

[KingNothing]

Eh. This is probably a good thing. It's been Paul's view ALL along, but the softening of the perception of what he's saying is what he needs to win voters.

[Johnnymac]

yes hes always been for opting out!

[William R]

So this morning on MSNBC's "Daily Rundown", Chuck Todd said Ron Paul is changing his stance on social programs because now he doesn't want to get rid them because so many people have become dependent on them but instead fund them by cutting overseas spending. This, he says, is a change from Paul's views in 2008.

*facepalm*

Todd is full of BS. That was Paul's position in 2008 as well

[brandon]

That was Paul's position towards the end of 2008. It definitely is a change from Paul 2007 and earlier. So the guy has a point, he's just a couple years late pointing it out.

[randomname]

Chuck.Todd@nbcuni.com

[erowe1]

That's not bad news for the Paul team. A few more liberals will vote for him. That's all.

It's not just liberals. The GOP's core voters don't want their SS touched either.

I think what the OP was getting at was that this has been RP's longstanding position, including when he ran in 2008.

[Carole]

I would really like it if someone enlightened Mr. %#@$ Todd, but I cannot stomach the weasel-like guy (Man-NOT) and his ilk and will not give them traffic for any reason if I can avoid them.

:(

Dr. Paul has not changed his message. We all know that.

[V3n]

@Chuck Todd - Just because you're starting to understand it, does not mean he's changing it.

[tremendoustie]

As long as they tell the truth about his positions now. They probably just have no clue.

Liberals don't seem to understand that he doesn't want to end all social programs. I learned that on Reddit last night.

He wants to end them, just not overnight, and not by throwing already-dependent people out on their tails.

[InTradePro]

So this morning on MSNBC's "Daily Rundown", Chuck Todd said Ron Paul is changing his stance on social programs because now he doesn't want to get rid them because so many people have become dependent on them but instead fund them by cutting overseas spending. This, he says, is a change from Paul's views in 2008.

*facepalm*
Maybe MSNBC only watch the right wing media! They've seen it on CNN and Fox news it must be right!! :p

[No Free Beer]

Ron's stance is the only common sense one. I agree with him 100 percent! You cannot realistically get rid of them. Opting out is the only constitutional way to slow the growth of tyranny...

[bluesc]

He wants to end them, just not overnight, and not by throwing already-dependent people out on their tails.

Go to Reddit to see me making that exact same point that liberals completely refuse to understand. He wants to ween people off = He wants them to go without, according to them.

[KingNothing]

Be kind and respectful towards @Chuck Todd. Seek agreement, not argument!

[wide awake]

Eh. This is probably a good thing. It's been Paul's view ALL along, but the softening of the perception of what he's saying is what he needs to win voters.

Agreed. Too often it seems that the media debate about Paul's views are focused on lofty philosophical views of what a truly libertarian society would look like. That's a debate that is impossible to win at this point in time.

Regardless of the media's ignorance, if the media's narrative around his positions can migrate towards what he can and will constitutionally do as President to address the nation's problems, then that is a much broader opening for many voters to consider his candidacy and the practical application of his positions.

[djruden]

This is what he has always said. People are already dependant on these programs so he wouldn't take them away. More than anyone, he has tried to SAVE these programs. I've heard him talk about this many times. He would like to try to start to change the way people think about these programs so we can phase them out because they will not last.

This is why I can't watch MSNBC anymore, I just see and hear too much WRONG information. It's really sad so many people probably get their "news" from them. CNN is no better for that matter...

[specsaregood]

I agree. But that's not the point. These people are supposed to be journalists.

Ah, I see where you went wrong. They are merely actors playing the part of journalists; you might as well be watching reruns of murphy brown. Glad I could clear that up for you.

[69360]

We all know this isn't true, but it can't hurt. Just let it go.

[outspoken]

We are basically a nation of government addicts. Ron Paul is and has been an advocate of weening us of our addiction. Unfortunately, we seem hell bent with pundits like Mr. Todd on collapsing the dollar first, and then having to sober up the hard way via a hard rock bottom i.e. depression.

[tremendoustie]

We are basically a nation of government addicts. Ron Paul is and has been an advocate of weening us of our addiction. Unfortunately, we seem hell bent with pundits like Mr. Todd on collapsing the dollar first, and then having to sober up the hard way via a hard rock bottom i.e. depression.

That's a very succinct and accurate description of the situation.

[1000-points-of-fright]

This is why I can't watch MSNBC anymore, I just see and hear too much WRONG information. It's really sad so many people probably get their "news" from them. CNN is no better for that matter...

It's always bothered me that they get so much wrong about the little I do know about, how much of all the stuff I don't know about are they getting wrong? I'm guessing plenty.

[dustinp]

We all know this isn't true, but it can't hurt. Just let it go.

I have to respectfully disagree with you. While it may attract some voters, that he is supposedly "softening" his stance, Others that are already misinformed of RP's views may see him as a flip flopper and no better than the other GOP candidates. So IMHO, it CAN hurt.



edited: due to typo :)

[D.A.S.]

I believe this sort of spin can't hurt -- it can only get us more voters who have been concerned about Social Security before... And where better to post this than on the liberal MSNBC? Thanks, Chuck Todd!

[sailingaway]

He always said this IF they asked what he would do as president, given where we already are. It is one thing to discuss the perfect world, and another to say 'next steps', and he has always distinguished between the two -- when pressed. The fact is, though, one of his huge presentation glitches has been that he is much more interested in discussing the perfect philosophical world....

[sailingaway]

That was Paul's position towards the end of 2008. It definitely is a change from Paul 2007 and earlier. So the guy has a point, he's just a couple years late pointing it out.

No, when people asked specifically about how you would change it given people had paid in, I've seen some pretty old stuff that was 'softened', too. But there were options available then that aren't now, because we are closer to the trigger tipping point economically now. But he had a 'shift the program' start to it. Unlike everyone else his position has just always has an END to it, for younger kids who want to opt out, too. He does want to GET to a position where we aren't perpetuating the problem.

[sailingaway]

I have to respectfully disagree with you. While it may attract some voters, that he is supposedly "softening" his stance, Others that are already misinformed of RP's views may see him as a flip flopper and no better than the other GOP candidates. So IMHO, it CAN hurt.



edited: due to typo :)

yeah. It could if people take it that way. So it is up to us to put together date stamped videos. Or the campaign could, since they really should address this issue in any event in one of their ads, they could just make sure a clip of him speaking was from the last campaign, to head off a 'he changed' meme.

[dustinp]

...since they really should address this issue in any event in one of their ads, they could just make sure a clip of him speaking was from the last campaign, to head off a 'he changed' meme.

completely agree. a good offense is a great defense (or however that saying goes :) ). sort of a preemptive strike. so, where and who do we make that recommendation to?

[Fredom101]

I always remember Paul saying it the same way. He never said he would just cut everything and let the dependent people be damned! The MSM is ridiculous.
(funny, even hard core Harry Browne had a plan to sustain social security checks and such for people who depended on them. They both know that a transition to libertarianism is not an overnight thing.)

[satchelmcqueen]

this is a lie. paul has always said these things.

[Brett85]

That's not bad news for the Paul team. A few more liberals will vote for him. That's all.

Yes, all those liberal Republicans will now be sure to vote for him in the GOP primary.

[Brett85]

I don't like Ron's position on this at all. The goal should be to abolish social welfare programs and also end the warfare-empire state. We need to downsize and do away with government across the board.

[KingNothing]

I have to respectfully disagree with you. While it may attract some voters, that he is supposedly "softening" his stance, Others that are already misinformed of RP's views may see him as a flip flopper and no better than the other GOP candidates. So IMHO, it CAN hurt.



edited: due to typo :)

It won't hurt the campaign. It's too easy to refute for any other candidate or talking head to really focus on.
It's a non-starter.

[NewRightLibertarian]

The media is lying!?!?! Whodathunkit?

[tremendoustie]

I don't like Ron's position on this at all. The goal should be to abolish social welfare programs and also end the warfare-empire state. We need to downsize and do away with government across the board.

I agree, and that's what he wants to do. He's just saying that certain programs, like SS, should be phased out, rather than ended instantly. He wants to let younger people opt out starting now.

[turbobrain9]

Well regardless, Paul is doing the right thing by "softening his stance" or perhaps more appropriately stated, making his position more clear to seniors...this will only help him anyway...

[sailingaway]

I don't like Ron's position on this at all. The goal should be to abolish social welfare programs and also end the warfare-empire state. We need to downsize and do away with government across the board.

That is the goal -- for young and future generations, not for those who have been forced to pay in too much to make it up, and are dependent.

[Brett85]

That is the goal -- for young and future generations, not for those who have been forced to pay in too much to make it up, and are dependent.

I agree if we're just talking about Social Security and Medicare. But federal welfare programs like Medicaid, food stamps, and direct payments were never paid for by the people who get those benefits. Likewise with the Medicare Prescription Drug bill. Those programs should all be abolished immediately.

[sailingaway]

I agree if we're just talking about Social Security and Medicare. But federal welfare programs like Medicaid, food stamps, and direct payments were never paid for by the people who get those benefits. Likewise with the Medicare Prescription Drug bill. Those programs should all be abolished immediately.

He has never said those would be unchanged, he has spoken of 'TRUE' need and returning functions to the state, on those.

Agribusiness is the biggest beneficiary of the food stamp program....

[jct74]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rN4GT268TkM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rN4GT268TkM

[Working Poor]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21134540/vp/44718262#44718262