Ron Paul: End Medicare, Social Security and Medicaid

[still_one]

http://www.rawstory.com/rawreplay/2011/04/ron-paul-end-medicare-social-security-and-medicaid/

"Speaking to MSNBC host Cenk Uygur, Texas Republican Congressman Ron Paul said if he were elected President of the United States he would try to transition the country off of Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security."

[warrior1]

1. political suicide

why do they hate American's

[mdmc]

2. Ron Paul is the man in the 2012 GOP primary

why would anyone support another?

[bobbolink]

3. Thank you!

This won't put a dent in the Ron Paul Fan Club, but at least it may make a few others think a bit.

Paul wouldn't hesitate for one minute to throw poor people under the bus, and given the mood of the country, he wouldn't have any opposition to doing so.

[still_one]

11. Most uninformed people do NOT know what paul stands for. They are only aware of a few of his

populous views on the financial collapse, and the MSM doesn't convey much else, such as his views on race and social programs

[bobbolink]

14. Which is a reflection of our turn to single-issues, and the IGNORING of poverty.

We are so divided into little factions anymore, and it is our undoing.

[jwirr]

20. Yes, because he does talk about other things that we also want. But

they are just the carrot in front of the donkey. Do not be fooled.

[bobbolink]

21. Loved your description! If you can draw, that would make a great political cartoon!

In related news, please see this:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=385x578405

*Our side* needs more videos like this, and to push them viral-wise. :hi:

[jwirr]

22. My artistic ability is nil. But I agree that would make a great cartoon.

[mmonk]

4. End Ron Paul's term in government and Presidential bid.

[niyad]

5. one of the things I notice about libertarians is their profound hatred for the social contract.

the other thing I notice is that they NEVER talk about cutting the military.

[mmonk]

In Paul's case, I'm not sure that's true on cutting the military.

[bobbolink]

8. Actually, Johnson of New Mexico, who just announced for GOP prez, DOES talk about

reducing the military by... I think it was 43%.

But he also wants to do away with poor people.

Of course, since he is all for legalizing drugs, the self-absorbed will fall all over him.

[patrice]

27. 1+

[johnroshan]

9. Its true that libertarians hate social spending, but Ron Paul and other libertarians has

been very vocal on cutting down defense spending too.

[ProSense]

10. That's right

they're anti-goverment and claim to be anti-war, but that's really just demagoguery.

From Rand Paul's budget:

War funding from 2001 to 2010 has cost the taxpayer $1.109 trillion. That amount doesn’t include the $159
billion that will likely be spent funding the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq for FY2011. The proposal seeks to
reduce war funding for FY2011 by $16 billion, in other words to provide $144 billion (President Obama has
requested $117 billion for FY2012, $27 billion dollars below our proposed level).

When they talk about cutting defense, it's to cut VA, etc.

It's a joke to believe Ron Paul is anti-war. He's anti-government, not anti-war. The Pauls would support pirates and mercenaries if given free rein.





Edited typo

[LeftinOH]

6. Here's a hint: He named his son "Rand".

[snappyturtle]

7. The petrie dish of ignorance grows! Ron Paul ought to run quickly

to Indiana. With the bills passed yesterday, I'm sure Mitch can't wait to sign them off...he's doing his part in de-stabilizing public education with this unproven charter school bullshit and putting women in their place efforts of de-funding reproductive health programs within Planned Parenthood. God I hate IN. Paul/Daniels in 2012?

[PassingFair]

12. He doesn't mince words, that one. At least you know EXACTLY what you're getting with Ron...

His son is WORSE, very weasely...

I get a kick out of Ron. He believes in himself and his
plans. He's exactly half-crazy and half-sane.

:rofl:

[deacon]

13. Hahaha. His town halls will be fun too i guess. n/t

[zbdent]

15. Where's the media focus on Ron's bad parenting?

I mean, his son decided that he didn't like the name he was given, and decided instead to honor an atheist who admired a person who kidnapped, murdered, and dismembered a child before throwing her head at her father (after collecting the ransom) ...

[guitar man]

16. How would we afford that?

How in the hell would he end Social Security? He does know that I'd expect all my money back right? Every penny I've paid in over 32 years in the work force. And I would imagine there are millions of people like myself who would NOT hold still while the government makes off with everything we've paid in.

It's this simple, I either draw benefits when the time comes, I get my money back or it's "crazy old destitute man with nothing left to lose" time. :grr:

Who's with me? :shrug:

[denverbill]

17. This isn't just a Libertarian thing anymore. Republicans ARE Libertarians now.

Libertarian utopian zealots who put ideology over the good of the country or it's people.

[DainBramaged]

18. Ron Paul, eat shit and die

[hifiguy]

19. Seconded

x1000.

[RedCloud]

23. Wouldn't that be cannibalism?

[Whisp]

24. Spitzer had Paul on CNN the other day...

and I do have my problems with the Spitz, but man, did he slay that poisonous toad good.

first time I saw Ron Paul fumble for words and look so surprised at being challenged and cornered. Not that I have seen everything on/of him, thankfully.

slimliest snake oil salesman out there if you ask me. good on Spitzer tho.

btw, whatever happned to his sidekick repug woman who just kinda stood by in the sidelines to not do much but flirt with Spitzer? katherine something?

[FLAprogressive]

25. This is the time of day where the broken clock is wrong wrong wrong.

[patrice]

26. All of the economic potential of all of those lives just written off, "We don't need you." wow.

HOW does that make economic sense???????????????????????

It's also NOT Conservative: the assumption is that there is no circumstance in the future that would require something that only someone we wrote-off could/would have provided. Unidentified value is assumed to be 0. That does not seem conservative to me.