MSNBC: Cenk Uygur Gets Ron Paul to Say He'll End Social Security & Medicare If Elected President

[CherylK]

Run time: 06:14 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3qojv1bR-S0   Posted on YouTube: April 28, 2011 By YouTube Member: TheYoungTurks Views on YouTube: 22706   Posted on DU: April 28, 2011 By DU Member: CherylK Views on DU: 2813

 

http://www.alternet.org/newsandviews/article/573869/cenk_uygur_gets_ron_paul_to_say_he%27ll_end_social_security_&_medicare_if_elected_president/

[lumpy]

1. Paul is just another pol who thinks in simplistic terms.

He falls into the category of ridiculous. Change should be slow, steady and carefully executed.

[forty6]

2. Paul is a statistical anomaly on the Republican curve..but he's really

just a Republican in Libertarian's clothing.

I have never seen what anyone could find to like about that man, and I have studied his career WAY TOO MUCH... he's slime, has always been, will always be, just like the rest of the Republicans, just a little more "genteel" in his appeal to those who want limited government in the bedroom and living rooms of America.

[Dokkie]

4. its all about the legalizations

drug, gambling, prostitution etc at least on the federal level.

"Cocain is a very powerful drug"

[MrMickeysMom]

25. I wouldn't characterize him as "slime"... just deluded about things.

... I understand his popularity with populist ideas, especially since he was one of the earliest people in Congress to recognize how unconstitutional some of the tax laws had become.

But, who is he kidding about "the Democrats spend on welfare and the Republicans spend on wars and overseas spending." You can't even hold a mirror up to see how military spending has overshadowed world-wide military spending. That's ridiculous.

He's wacked out and I think the wackiness of his DNA doubled in his offspring. Time for him and others to move over. Admit what's been done to Medicare and Social Security all these years and recall where the money has gone... even if the dollar went with it.

[patrice]

3. Won't this drive a wedge into the Legalization demographic? nt

[abelenkpe]

5. May this clip never disappear

Hope democrats use it to their advantage.

Can't stand Ron Paul.

[tomm2thumbs]

6. happens at approx 4:40

in case anyone needed to review section where he mentions it specifically

[wilt the stilt]

7. The man is completely delusional

America is not going to elect a man who is going to be 78 by the time he took office. To think otherwise you have to be nuts.

[democracy1st]

8. K & R

[goodnews]

9. Paul really misses the boat here.

In the discussion he talked about ending Social Security and Medicare and what would happen to older people? He says let the younger people take care of them. This shows he is not dealing with reality. Society has changed since the 19th century. The Industrial Revolution, by its very nature disrupts peoples lives and dislocates the working class. Free enterprise and the invisible hand of the market (something that never was and never will be)will not do it.

The only way I would entertain Paul's approach is if he cut military spending first. If that was done he must realize that capitalism would croak, because capitalism is dependent on expansion of markets and war is a neccessary component of that. In fact war is a market.

The thing about the Libertarian approach of Paul's is that he would never be successful in stopping the perpetual war machine and failing at that he would then take an ax to the social sector. I have never seen a thing by him on his plans for cutting defense spending. Nothing.

[ironrooster]

13. A very astute point. I would say might or power itself, is the permit.

Specifically, I would fine tune this to say that our military supports US power which directly supports the dollar as the currency of last resort. We are basically running a sophisticated protection racket for the world's elite. Nobody seems to really understand the consequences that naturally flow from that. It would be impossible for the investment banks to conduct their frauds if we didn't possess the "blank checks" permitted by reserve currency - which we will not be permitted if we aren't the biggest ass kickers in the world. We are both beneficiaries and victims of our empire. Everybody talks about all the waste incurred by foreign adverturism. There's a reason for it - and it isn't what people think it is.

[AtheistCrusader]

17. Then you haven't been listening to him.

On defense, he would start with ending all three wars, and close every foreign base. All of them. Bring all troops home. As fast as they can be withdrawn. The cost savings there would be half a trillion or more, per year, with the defense budget flirting with 1tn a year with supplemental appropriations. So that's pretty awesome.

On social security and medicare, he has talked about phasing them out. Ending new admissions, let younger people opt out, but fullfill the obligations to older generations living on it, or about to enter into their benefits. Though I have not heard him state specifics about how to pay for that, I am guessing some sort of general tax. Not so awesome.

Hell, he stated he would bring the troops home from Iraq in the 2008 primaries, live on TV during the debates in the Ronald Reagan library. Guiliani almost exploded on stage. It was hilarious.

[goodnews]

20. The devil is in the details.....

Ron Paul is a capitalist and capitalism will not constrain itself--something that is a pre-requisite for Paul's deregulation intensive approach. It is a fantasy world he lives in. He either doesn't recognize the immense power of these corporations to control politics and undermine the Public Interest, or he is being specious in his assessment of the problems.

To end the wars is to end capitalism, that is my point, and the capitalists. It barely warrants mentioning, history has proven, capitalists will not tolerate threats to their power. IOW Paul is a dead man walking if he seriously threatened their monopoly power which is the basis of his reform plan. His approach is the opposite of what is needed, what is needed is the public getting control over the economy, call it economic democracy, socialism or whatever but IMO THAT is what is necessary because all the other power flows from economic power and divorcing the worker from the means of production is what got us into this mess.

[and-justice-for-all]

10. All the pukes want that...

it is one of the wet dreams.

[EvilMonsanto]

11. One Point I would Like To Make!

I agree with alot of the posters here
We have to take care of the elderly, though he is suggesting a transition period as he normally does the elderly will ALWAYS need help.

HOWEVER.........

Interesting to see this video while a friend of mine sent me this link:
http://dissidentvoice.org/2011/04/ron-paul-a-lesser-evil/

I don't know what to say
I find the article EXTREMELY difficult to argue with and the fact that I cannot disagree with it gives me a very heavy heart.
Tears came down my eyes reading about how we Liberals do not have our priorities always set correctly.

Someone refute the article for me and allow my heart to feel a little lighter, I ask of you.

[MedfordTim]

15. Okay.

I'm not sure why it needs refuting, necessarily, but I'll go over some of the points, if I may. For the record, I am not an Obamabot. I have been and expect to be very critical of him and his actions in office. I approach this from a debate point of view.

First & second paragraphs - No, Ron Paul has never done any of those things. Neither had Obama until he became President. Do you think Obama wanted to do those things prior to taking office? What assurance do you have that Paul won't make some personal "compromises" too? Anyone can say anything before they're elected (if history shows us anything) - it's what they do afterward that matters. And no one can say for certain what Ron Paul would do, and more importantly could do as President. The other two branches would still have a say, don't forget.

3rd, 4th, & 5th - I would have to disagree with the premise. The Liberals I know and converse with - not Obamabots, but Liberals, are extremely unhappy with what they see going on and take his actions as an out-and-out betrayal of what we thought he was going to do. This writer tries to do the usual conflab of Democrats and Liberals, as if they were one and the same. This is a sure sign that the writer doesn't have a clue about Liberals or Democrats. Dennis Kucinich is a Democrat - but so is Max Baucus. To lump everyone together is to start from a very wrong place. The reason Progressives wouldn't fill a Paul hall or vote for him is because he is NOT Progressive. He is as RE-gressive as they come. Being against war isn't a Progressive notion, it's a rational, moral stance. If the wars were the ONLY issue facing the country and population, Paul might be a shoo-in. But they aren't, and his other policies are so anti-people that they outweigh his war stance. He is not, in fact, a "lesser" evil; he is simply a different one.

No, there is no denying Obama is a Corporatist - and who were the first to decry his Corporatist ways? Liberals. From the announcement of Rahm as COS on, it was the Liberal wing who raised a fuss and were told by the White House to...you know (I don't want to violate any rules). Liberals were sidelined as the country went farther Right, maligned as the "loony left." Simply because no one was listening doesn't mean that our voices weren't out there. You think any Liberal approves of the Sunday Morning Talking Head line ups over the last two years? Wall to wall Conservatism. It doesn't matter how many voices there are, if no one ever gets a chance to hear them, they are like trees falling in an empty forest.

Notice the writer adds a caveat on his way to Randian Utopia - "...and, I would hope, alternative social organizations not dependent on coercion...." How well did that work prior to the Government programs put into place to address the issues which weren't being addressed by "alternative social organizations?" There IS a reason these programs were started, and why they are so popular. How well did States deal with Civil Rights before the Federal government got involved? How about a woman's right to control her own body? What were the penalties for drug use before there was a Federal umbrella? The writer is imagining that things would be just fine, but history shows that they weren't all right before - what has changed enough to make this writer so confident that things would be any better this time around?

Contrary to this writer's assumption, stopping wars and changing drug laws ARE at the tops of a Liberal's list of things they would like to happen. But when they DON'T, we are at the same loss that supporters of Paul's are. What CAN we do? Again, our opinions and voices are being shunted to the side in favor of Charlie Sheen's exploits and Birther madness. Liberals don't get a 20th of the air time Conservatives get. Otherwise, more of our beliefs would be known instead of assumed, as this writer and virtually every Conservative does.

It seems fairly obvious that Kevin Drum of Mother Jones doesn't speak for Liberals, or this writer wouldn't have had a quote to screed against. Seems like Ol' Kevin is doing a variation of the Rahm thing, to me. Why would he do that if Liberals were in lockstep? Then... "Just ask LBJ" ...wow...does the writer forget that LBJ dropped out of the race (later discovered to be for health reasons) and was not "run out of office by the anti-war left?" If the anti-war left was so powerful at the time, why did Richard Nixon get elected and carry the war on for another 8 years?? Maybe he doesn't remember, as I do, that LBJ's signing of the Civil Rights act effectively killed his career because, at that time, the majority of Democrats were in the South and did not approve of such a bill.(Nowadays, they are known as "Republicans" and "Tea Partiers") The writer shows an alarming lack of historical perspective and knowledge to mis-read the situation to such a great extent.

Anything else you need cleared up? Happy to help...

[Enthusiast]

26. Great post, MedfordTim.

Welcome to the DU.

[hourglass1]

12. libertarians

are as ridiculous as non-billionaires voting republican ...

this kgb devised scheme to kill american capitalism is pure genius - implementing libertarian ideas has to be done in stages and since the whole world cannot be compelled to comply - it eats the original implementor, which has to be a capitalist economy. what we see today is that capitalism doesn't need a democracy to thrive - only the uber-rich caste borne of capitalism need a democracy that they can own and control and use working class money to protect their rights and wealth.

[JDPriestly]

14. His plan to allow young people to opt out of Social Security and Medicare

is foolish. Absolutely stupid. Young people will never save enough to support themselves in their later years. They would rather buy I-Phones than save. We were all a little like that when we were young. And saving will be especially impossible if we have massive inflation.

Read about the Great Inflation in Germany in the 1920s. One of the interesting things about that time was that the courts were inundated with cases brought by landlords who had entered into long-term leases with their tenants. The tenants were not paying enough in some cases to even cover the cost of the basic utilities like heat. The landlords were headed for bankruptcy. In Germany at that time, the courts had the ability to rewrite the terms of the lease so that the rent would be fairer to the landlord. And that was what they did.

In an economy of rapidly rising inflation, the savings of elderly people become worthless. The earnings of the young are more likely to be raised, but eventually everything just falls apart, and the banks fail. When the banks fail, people lose their jobs. Seniors lose their savings. And that is when you need a cooperative program such as Social Security more than ever.

Young people must remember that if their parents don't have Social Security or Medicare, and then their parents lose their savings, the parents will not be able to get jobs and earn money. They will have little or no income. That means that the children whose parents are still living will have to care for and provide for their parents. That is the way it works in real life. So, it is in everyone's interest to maintain Social Security.

Ron Paul has been in Congress a long time. He is right that both Democrats and Republicans are at fault.

Let's remember when we hear our politicians like Alan Simpson and political advisers like Bernanke say that the country is bankrupt, that it is not we who spent the money. It is the members of Congress who spent the Social Security funds on warfare and on giveaways to health insurance companies. They borrowed the Social Security money without a plan to repay it.

And now, the corporations (like Halliburton and many others) to which the Social Security money was paid, have moved the assets that we could take back from them to cover the Social Security debt out of our country. And who allowed them to do that? Congress and the politicians in our country. ALan Simpson is a great example of someone who voted to use our Social Security money for war and now tells us it is gone. If it is gone, it is because he spent it on frivolous unnecessary things.

(How much money have we spent on the crazy equipment and the staff used by Homeland Security at our airports? Our country is supposedly bankrupt, and we are buying all that anti-terrorist stuff? Are you kidding? Pay for it in the cost of airline tickets, please.)

Congress and every president since 1980 are responsible. They had better figure out a plan that brings opportunity back to our country for our youth and that maintains Social Security and Medicare. We are all in this together -- all generations. There can be no pitting of children and parents against each other.

Ron Paul should be just as ashamed of himslef as anyone else. He favors laissez-faire economics and free trade just like the rest of them. And laissez-faire economics and free trade are code words for shipping the industrial power and wealth of the US to other countries. That is all they are. He is an Ayn Rand fan, and most of our economic woes can be blamed on the Ayn Rand laissez-faire and free trade policies.

[goodnews]

21. Very good points. nt

[democracy1st]

16. He's a republican for a reason LOL!

[ihavenobias]

18. K & R n/t

[20score]

19. K&R!

[pleah]

22. Surprised? NOT!

He is a rethuglicon after all.

[Devil_Fish]

23. If SS is ended, do I get back all the $$$ I put into it so far? NT

[FrenchieCat]

24. I already knew this!