Ron Paul is electable and the media continues their blackout of him!


Recommended Posts

Ron Paul will neither be nominated nor elected. Finis. End of Report. The people do not want him. They don't want anyone who will take away their social security.

Ba'al Chatzaf

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There is something strange about the reactions to Ron Paul. He gets more support from the troops than all the other candidates put together. He kicks ass in all the debates that he is in. He is popular on the internet. He draws big crowds. But he doesn't get many votes. Why?

No doubt part of it is the self-fulfilling prophecy. People believe he has no chance to win, therefore they don't vote for him when otherwise they would, therefore he does not win. There is no way to know how many people don't vote for him because they think that would be a wasted vote when otherwise they would vote for him.

There is something strange about the media's reaction to Ron Paul. For example when Ron Paul gets 3nd place in a poll, the media mentions 1st, 2nd, 4th, omitting 3rd. Why this omission? Perhaps it's to prevent Ron Paul from winning. But that doesn't make sense if they think he has no chance of winning.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ron Paul will neither be nominated nor elected. Finis. End of Report. The people do not want him. They don't want anyone who will take away their social security.

Ba'al Chatzaf

How do you know people don't want anyone who will take away their social security? Is that armchair reasoning? Or was a survey done?

Social security will be taken away in any case, with or without Ron Paul. Government is in debt up to its ears and taxes people to the limit and makes money out of nothing (causing it to be worth less) and one of the next things will be to delay or reduce or take away social security. Some people actually understand that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ron Paul will neither be nominated nor elected. Finis. End of Report. The people do not want him. They don't want anyone who will take away their social security.

Ba'al Chatzaf

How do you know people don't want anyone who will take away their social security? Is that armchair reasoning? Or was a survey done?

Social security will be taken away in any case, with or without Ron Paul. Government is in debt up to its ears and taxes people to the limit and makes money out of nothing (causing it to be worth less) and one of the next things will be to delay or reduce or take away social security. Some people actually understand that.

It is a testable proposition. Let government try to undo social security and see how big a public stink arises. That is how one would know.

My small sample: A bunch of geezers in a retirement community. I have raised the possibility of ending social security in some discussion groups. My god! The squeals of protest and the creaking of bones would have registered on a seismograph.

Ba'al Chatzaf

Link to comment
Share on other sites

jts wrote:

Social security will be taken away in any case, with or without Ron Paul. Government is in debt up to its ears and taxes people to the limit and makes money out of nothing (causing it to be worth less) and one of the next things will be to delay or reduce or take away social security. Some people actually understand that.

end quote

What would happen if old people did not have their Social Security or Medicare? Some people over sixty have additional savings but a large percent do not, simply because of imprudence, losses when the “bubble” collapsed, a lack of surplus funds during their working years, or because they always counted on SS, as it was promised, to keep them solvent in their old age.

Can you imagine a return to 1930’s life depicted in “The Waltons?” Many oldsters could move in with their kids but many would not be allowed to do that, due to the general cultural loss of extended families. I can imagine old people in the cities and in the country going hungry, and begging or dumpster diving.

Home gardens would blossom, and elder obesity would lessen, which is good, but other medical problems would go untreated, prescriptions would not be filled, and the average American’s year of death would decrease. We would no longer have a nursing home industry, though Golden Age retreats would exist for the wealthy. India has “dying places” for the infirm and we would be able to afford those hospice types of facilities.

I don’t foresee Social Security being ended in the next twenty years but necessity tells me the amount will be reduced by a Republican or the amount will be reduced through inflation by a Democrat. If we have another financial collapse and depression then all bets are off. Whichever party wins the election, future beneficiaries will be starting benefits later in life, say by age 70. Postponement of the start of benefits will be inevitable, once a “think tank” is asked find a solution to this dilemma.

An Objectivist can be against Social Engineering in principle but we should think it through and work on the problem gradually.

Peter

Link to comment
Share on other sites

jts wrote:

Social security will be taken away in any case, with or without Ron Paul. Government is in debt up to its ears and taxes people to the limit and makes money out of nothing (causing it to be worth less) and one of the next things will be to delay or reduce or take away social security. Some people actually understand that.

end quote

What would happen if old people did not have their Social Security or Medicare?

If you want to keep social security for a while at least, better vote Ron Paul.

Ron Paul on social security - video 1 min

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now