If campaign won't listen to US about clarifying social security/medicare perhaps they will

[sailingaway]

listen to Paul Craig Roberts

More On Ron Paul


Instead of hitting hard on the serious threat to Social Security and Medicare posed by Obama and Republican candidates for the nomination, all of whom serve Wall Street, the military/security complex, and the Israel Lobby, Ron Paul has been positioned both by his supporters and his opponents as the danger to Social Security and Medicare. This is an amazing strategic mistake by the Ron Paul campaign.

The mistake is somewhat understandable. Ron Paul's supporters are mainly among the young. The importance to them of Social Security and Medicare will not register for many years, but for the vast majority of the population Social Security and Medicare are essential for survival. A candidate who is positioned as the destroyer of what scant economic protection the American elderly have is not positioned to win an election for president.

Many libertarians regard Social Security and Medicare as welfare handouts and as Ponzi schemes, when in fact these programs are a form of private property. People pay for these programs all their working lives, just as they pay premiums for private medical policies and make their deposits into private pension plans. Libertarians are great defenders of private property, so why don't they defend the elderly's private property rights in Social Security and Medicare benefits? Social Security and Medicare are contracts that government made with citizens. These contracts are as valid and enforceable as any other contracts. If Social Security and Medicare are in dire trouble, why is the government wasting trillions of dollars in behalf of private armaments industries, a neocon ideology, and Israel's territorial ambitions? Why isn't this question the most important issue in the campaign?



more at link:

http://www.opednews.com/articles/More-On-Ron-Paul-by-Paul-Craig-Roberts-120122-261.html#startcomments

and to clarify:

Ron Paul's budget plan balances the budget in three years without cutting a penny from social security or medicare or veterans benefits.

Romney's budget, on the other hand, barely trims a portion of the increase in spending going forward, and STILL cuts medicare. Gingrich promises the moon but has a very bad record of supporting big Pharma raids on medicare funds through 'not lobbying'. Not to mention, those 'balanced budgets' he takes credit for balanced by raiding social security. (Ron voted against that, by the way.)

Ron's budget plan: http://www.ronpaul2012.com/the-issues/ron-paul-plan-to-restore-america/

[Maximus]

A Carol and Ron Paul commercial talking social security and he would never cut it and has fought to protect it would solve this overnight.

[Feeding the Abscess]

SS is indeed a transfer program, as argued by the government itself.

[qh4dotcom]

Many libertarians regard Social Security and Medicare as welfare handouts and as Ponzi schemes, when in fact these programs are a form of private property. People pay for these programs all their working lives, just as they pay premiums for private medical policies and make their deposits into private pension plans. Libertarians are great defenders of private property, so why don't they defend the elderly's private property rights in Social Security and Medicare benefits? Social Security and Medicare are contracts that government made with citizens. These contracts are as valid and enforceable as any other contracts.

The government breached its contract and spent all the money in the SS trust fund. It's no longer there...so how do you expect libertarians to defend SS "private property rights"? Since I get nothing from SS and I am forced to fund it every year, what about my "private property rights"?

[sailingaway]

The government breached its contract and spent all the money in the SS trust fund. It's no longer there...so how do you expect libertarians to defend SS "private property rights"? Since I get nothing from SS and I am forced to fund it every year, what about my "private property rights"?

It is no more fair to say the govt shouldn't make good on its contracts to others than to say you should pay and not have it made good to you. Ron's plan solves this by letting the young opt out, because he funds it OTHERWISE. This isn't about social security. This thread is about how best to market Ron Paul.

You are making Roberts' point that the instincts against the program itself are hampering people in properly stressing very marketable points of Ron's program.

[GunnyFreedom]

The government breached its contract and spent all the money in the SS trust fund. It's no longer there...so how do you expect libertarians to defend SS "private property rights"? Since I get nothing from SS and I am forced to fund it every year, what about my "private property rights"?

Nobody I know of is arguing property rights for SS, but the fulfillment of implied contracts. When you tell people from 18 onwards not to worry about retirement, SS will be there, then they turn 65 and have nothing, it's a kind of breech of contract. had they known from 18 onward that there would be no SS they may well have planned differently.

[socal]

Hopefully RP will clarify this issue during one of the next 2 debates in FL. Even if he's not putting in much effort there, it'd be nice if he could stay in the double digits, plus the debates have a national audience of course.

[Student Of Paulism]

I really love the idea about Ron and Carol making an ad together and talking about SS, Medicare and other entitlements that old people need and care a lot about. I just wish they would have done this long ago. Not enough has been done in this area and Romney and Newt own us in that demographic. Since the average youngest voter age seems to be 35ish, and the overall average age is like 55-60, if those people don't get on board soon, were just gonna keep getting stepped on.

[jolynna]

By cutting back on spending, especially military spending there would be enough to fund the social security and medicare promises that generations of Americans have paid into. Ron Paul is the ONLY candidate who has pledged to keep giving people monies that should have been put into a safe INSTEAD of raided.

Young people under 25 would be able to opt out.

Somehow this all got translated by the media that Ron Paul is going to do away with social security for those reliant on it. Which is NEVER what Ron Paul said. Instead he is the ONLY one who ISN'T cutting those entitlements, making up for the previous raiding by cutting spending elsewhere. The OTHERS want to either cut the programs people have been paying for all of their working lives (the OTHER GOP) or raise taxes (Obama) while KEEPING lifetime pensions for politicians, keeping needless federal programs that don't work to their present bloated size and by MORE military spending and war. Oh...and when European financial contagion hits the U.S. banking industry EVERY candidate except for Ron Paul will be TARPING and bailing out banks and Europe like crazy. Romney, whose campaign has been almost entirely financed by the Too Big to Fail banks, especially isn't going to let his donors (who will expect something for their investment) down.

[milo10]

sailingaway, +rep to you. Thanks for sharing this!

Is the campaign listening at all?

[jolynna]

I think Ron Paul made his stance on this issue clear in one of the early debates.

The MEDIA however has twisted everything around.

They took one of Ron Paul's statement that in an IDYLLIC libertarian America there would not be those programs. Which isn't what Ron Paul said he would DO. What Ron Paul said he would DO is get rid of wars and bloated government spending which would provide ENOUGH money so that those that the generations who paid in all of their working lives would get the monies they were promised. Yes, Ron Paul wants to wean the U.S. off of entitlements by giving young people the opportunity to opt out.

But, there is a big difference between what Ron Paul says would be an "ideal" world if everything were different, and what Ron Paul says he is ACTUALLY going to DO based upon what is. What he said he would do is see that people GOT the money they'd been promised and that he'd cut the IMPERIALISM & BLOATED, UNNECESSARY BIG GOVERNMENT DOWN to achieve that goal. He is the ONLY candidate to make that pledge.

[socal]

Not to belabor the point, but the other candidates have 3 choices to deal with the SS issue:
1) raise taxes,
2) cut benefits and/or raise retirement age,
3) reduce the value of the dollar through Federal Reserve money printing and suppression of interest rates, while disseminating bogus inflation statistics.

I expect mostly 3) above to be used, because it's a sneaky way of stealing from the weak and aged. It shouldn't be that hard to convince these people that voting for RP is in their interest (no pun intended), but if not then at least we can say we tried.

[HigherVision]

Really the politicians who spent money from the social security fund should be arrested and have the money taken from their own savings but clearly this isn't politically possible. It's only politically possible to steal from citizens.

[jolynna]

Really the politicians who spent money from the social security fund should be arrested and have the money taken from their own savings but clearly this isn't politically possible. It's only politically possible to steal from citizens.

Amen to jailing the pension fund raiders.

I've been reading that Obama is doing it now. It is criminal. IMO

[heavenlyboy34]

Nobody I know of is arguing property rights for SS, but the fulfillment of implied contracts. When you tell people from 18 onwards not to worry about retirement, SS will be there, then they turn 65 and have nothing, it's a kind of breech of contract. had they known from 18 onward that there would be no SS they may well have planned differently.
The best you could do with the "contract" argument is to call it a tacit contract. And here you've painted yourself into a logical corner because these sort of contracts are virtually unenforceable. Good luck to anyone who wants to sue the FedGov for "breech of contract" re: soc security.

[heavenlyboy34]

Not to belabor the point, but the other candidates have 3 choices to deal with the SS issue:
1) raise taxes,
2) cut benefits and/or raise retirement age,
3) reduce the value of the dollar through Federal Reserve money printing and suppression of interest rates, while disseminating bogus inflation statistics.

I expect mostly 3) above to be used, because it's a sneaky way of stealing from the weak and aged. It shouldn't be that hard to convince these people that voting for RP is in their interest (no pun intended), but if not then at least we can say we tried.
3) is definitely most likely-but throw in heavy borrowing to keep paying off welfare recipients. Congress has been kicking this can down the road for 100 years. It's not going to stop unless the forces of economics MAKE it stop. No congressman will get (re)elected by promising to truly reform SS, I promise you.