Ron Paul 2012

[Moto]

President Gingrich. That would sound good.

Paul or Romney pls.

[Cole]

no im pretty sure they connected Gingrich to having a hand in some of the stock market issues...like Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.
i do like Rom Paul better then the others...but so lets see...Perry out...Cain...out....Gingrich...maybe but im looking in that direction of out...i don't even know what happened to Bachman..but i think its out...lol at Gary Johnson, buddy Roemer, Jon huntsman...and a special LOL for Santorum..hes victim to the worst directed meme ive ever seen..so that sort of leaves Mitt Romney and Ron Paul...and idk if they'd even win the election against Obama...seriously the republican party really needs a ringer (that's probably the wrong definition but i cant think of anything else at the moment...)

[[MPGH]Ethereal]

no im pretty sure they connected Gingrich to having a hand in some of the stock market issues...like Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.
i do like Rom Paul better then the others...but so lets see...Perry out...Cain...out....Gingrich...maybe but im looking in that direction of out...i don't even know what happened to Bachman..but i think its out...lol at Gary Johnson, buddy Roemer, Jon huntsman...and a special LOL for Santorum..hes victim to the worst directed meme ive ever seen..so that sort of leaves Mitt Romney and Ron Paul...and idk if they'd even win the election against Obama...seriously the republican party really needs a ringer (that's probably the wrong definition but i cant think of anything else at the moment...)

Obama and Gingrich are leading in the popular vote..no one is even close to them..
So how can you even say "Gingrich out?"
Not that I like the guy or anything, just quoting statistics.

[RJ]

Obama and Gingrich are leading in the popular vote..no one is even close to them..
So how can you even say "Gingrich out?"
Not that I like the guy or anything, just quoting statistics.

Where are you pulling your info @Ethereal ? He's got like %25 of the vote in Iowa

[[MPGH]Wyo]

There has been a lot of talk in Washington recently about senior citizens, mostly about how various healthcare reform models would help or hurt them. But there is another critical issue that has quietly devastated seniors financially over the last few decades. It concerns how the cost of living is calculated. How does the administration justify not giving a cost of living increase to Social Security recipients this year?

According to the official Consumer Price Index calculation, life has gotten cheaper for the first time in decades. If the government can show statistically that the cost of living has gone down, not up, then they can make the case for not giving a cost of living increase to social security recipients. But does this match reality? Using older calculations of CPI, the cost of living has actually increased — by roughly 5 percent!


The CPI (Consumer Price Index) is a calculation based on the average price of a fixed basket of goods that was initially designed to help businesses adjust for inflation. The government eventually started using it to determine cost of living adjustments for entitlement programs. Couple that with politicians' discovery that they could raid the social security trust fund to pay for new spending programs, and you have a perfect storm to deny seniors what they were promised, while hiding the true size of the deficit. For politicians, it is a win-win.


For seniors, it is a different story. Economist John Williams of Shadow Government Statistics has estimated that if the original methodology of CPI had not changed, Social Security checks would be nearly double what they are today. This represents a lot of money that politicians have been able to literally steal from seniors, to spend on their own wasteful programs. One example of how they do this is to substitute hamburger for steak, which lowers the average price of that basket of goods. But living on hamburger, or maybe dog food, instead of steak does not represent a constant standard of living. This renders the measurement virtually meaningless, even though politically it comes in very handy.

I have introduced legislation to keep politicians in Washington from ever raiding the Social Security trust fund again. HR 219 The Social Security Preservation Act would assure that all monies collected by the Social Security Trust Fund would only be used in payments to beneficiaries, or be placed in interest bearing certificates of deposit. This would at least stop the bleeding of the fund, and take away some incentive to tease and torture the numbers in order to give seniors the minimal amount. This would also cut off a source of funding for government growth, so it is not likely to get easy support from many politicians.

It is bad enough that Washington imposes high payroll taxes on American workers. The least Congress could do is use the tax dollars for their stated purpose. Instead, seniors will have a harder and harder time trying to survive on a fixed income in an economy based on variables and deception. For them, it is too late to start over. Today's young people will be forced to pay into the system for years to come. The first step towards solving the impending crisis facing Social Security is to stop politicians from raiding the trust fund and to significantly cut federal government spending.

Ron Paul Lies.

[[MPGH]Ethereal]

Where are you pulling your info @Ethereal ? He's got like %25 of the vote in Iowa

Point is Gingrich is doing it in more states..Florida included.
Like I said I don't care for the guy..I LIKE RP but lets face facts..

Poll watcher: Gingrich leads in GOP race, Americans predicted supercommittee failure - Behind the Numbers - The Washington Post



Poll: Newt Gingrich soars in Florida | jacksonville.com

US-2012 President: 45% Gingrich (R), 43% Obama (D) (Rasmussen 11/28-29)

[RJ]

Ron Paul Lies.

Don't pretend to be smart @Ecstasy . There may be no Cock SUcker user group anymore, but you'll always be a cock sucker to me.

1st off, don't c&p something that I'm sure you don't even understand!
2nd, Social Security is failing. It's almost broke.


This question was asked to Ron Paul

Q: Are you still in favor of abolishing Social Security?

To which he replied.

A: Yes, but not overnight. As a matter of fact, my program’s the only one that is going to be able to take care of the elderly. I’d like to get the young people out of it, just the younger generation, because there’s no money there, and they’re going to have to pay 50 years and they’re not going to get anything. I’d take care of all the elderly, all those who are dependent, but I would save the money from this wild spending overseas.

Let people get out of Social Security; it’s a failure
Right now they’re getting behind because they’re having a 10% to 12% inflation rate and we give them a 2% increase, and they’re really hurting. I don’t want taxes on the Social Security benefits that they receive. I have a bill in that would secure the trust fund, where none of that money could be spent in the general revenues. So in many ways, the goal would be to get us out of this program that is a failure. It doesn’t work, and is going to bankrupt this country. The only way you can do that is save enough money, tide the people over, let the young people get out, because they’re going to be paying all these years and they’re not going to get anything. I probably have the only program that would really help the elderly because the money’s not going to be there. There’s no way these cost-of-living increases are ever going to keep up with their benefits are never going to keep up with their cost of living. They’re decreasing. My program has a better chance of helping them than any other one.



-------------------------------------------

@Ethereal Well, there's only one way to change that. Show your support for and vote for Ron Paul, and encourage others to do some research and draw their own conclusions. We have (or atleast had) the power. Each adult in this country has a voice that can be heard, but it only works as a collective. Our goverment is too big, and we need to vote someone into power that will actually do what he says. I'm tired of the liars.

And honestly theres too much dirt on gingrich for him to be the rep. canidate. The media would chew him up for some of the things he's done.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature...&v=CWKTOCP45zY

[Cole]

Obama and Gingrich are leading in the popular vote..no one is even close to them..
So how can you even say "Gingrich out?"
Not that I like the guy or anything, just quoting statistics.

what i meant was that most of the people who go into the top of the percentage rate in the republican spectrum usually lose it because of some sort of inconsistency (cain, perry, bachman) the percentage of the people so often are very mercurial...not even to mention Cain has been accused of a couple of sexual harassment and an a long term affair...Gingrich has had two affairs one of which occurred while his wife was diagnosed with cancer...the reason i said that Romney and Paul are the closest is one- they haven't gotten the full weight of the republican party on them yet so they don't have to deal with all the scrutiny and two- they haven't been accused of any sort of issue...the popular vote doesn't matter when the republican party at this point switches so frequently..they don't have a steady pulse so i cant really say whether or not any of candidates could make it...
sorry it took me so long to respond

[[MPGH]Ethereal]

Don't pretend to be smart @Ecstasy
And honestly theres too much dirt on gingrich for him to be the rep. canidate. The media would chew him up for some of the things he's done.

Newt Gingrich: Serial Hypocrisy - YouTube

Gingrich has still had more media coverage than Paul, and the majority of it has been positive despite the dirt on him.
People need to realize that the media can easily manipulate the way a person is perceived.
Gingrich might be the dirtiest, most corrupt politician we know,
but if the people who are in control of some of these major media corporations favor him,
their basically going to try and paint a pretty picture for the home audience.
It's that simple. Paul has been dragged through the mud on a couple stations,
but for the most part he's been ignored. The reasoning for that is that there isn't an argument, or proof of Ron being a weasel like some of these other crooks and con artists. An attempt to soil his reputation would most likely blow up in their face,
so instead they choose to sweep him under a carpet and forget about him.

[RJ]

Gingrich has still had more media coverage than Paul, and the majority of it has been positive despite the dirt on him.
People need to realize that the media can easily manipulate the way a person is perceived.
Gingrich might be the dirtiest, most corrupt politician we know,
but if the people who are in control of some of these major media corporations favor him,
their basically going to try and paint a pretty picture for the home audience.
It's that simple. Paul has been dragged through the mud on a couple stations,
but for the most part he's been ignored. The reasoning for that is that there isn't an argument, or proof of Ron being a weasel like some of these other crooks and con artists. An attempt to soil his reputation would most likely blow up in their face,
so instead they choose to sweep him under a carpet and forget about him.

Which is why it is up to us to spread the good word about Ron Paul

[[MPGH]Liz]

Ron Paul has a FEW good ideas, however, ANYONE who is for removing the social net, instead of fixing and modernizing it (like idk, most, if not all modern societies. Free healthcare at least for children & the elderly) gets shot down by me.

Regulate the banks, most def, they have put us where we are now, in a shit hole. They don't deserve MORE freedom to just worry about turning a profit and screwing millions of people in the process. This was so bad it affected the economies of the entire globe, you people do realize that right?

The bail outs, I was against them, they deserve no pity from tax payers. However it was a necessity, if we had not, the global economy would have fallen like a stack of dominoes.


In any case, this whole abide only by the constitution and what the forefathers wrote nearly 250 years ago, to me, has little to no relevance in today's world and economy. So stop going by it, modernize it, or at least stop pretending it was the best shit ever written.

Anyway, even IF I liked all of RP's ideas, he is not getting the nomination, the ONLY serious candidate the GOP has, is Romney. Jon Huntsman however, deserves more credit and attention than what he is getting. In the end though, I dislike all republicans severely.

[mewanthurtu]

I don't like republicans but if there is a republican president, I'd choose Ron Paul. Much better than idiots like Perry and Bachmann

[RJ]

Ron Paul has a FEW good ideas, however, ANYONE who is for removing the social net, instead of fixing and modernizing it (like idk, most, if not all modern societies. Free healthcare at least for children & the elderly) gets shot down by me.

The "social net" is failing.
Ron Paul:"I have a bill in that would secure the trust fund, where none of that money could be spent in the general revenues. So in many ways, the goal would be to get us out of this program that is a failure. It doesn’t work, and is going to bankrupt this country. The only way you can do that is save enough money, tide the people over, let the young people get out, because they’re going to be paying all these years and they’re not going to get anything. I probably have the only program that would really help the elderly because the money’s not going to be there."

“The most basic principle to being a free American is the notion that we as individuals are responsible for our own lives and decisions. We do not have the right to rob our neighbors to make up for our mistakes, neither does our neighbor have any right to tell us how to live, so long as we aren’t infringing on their rights. Freedom to make bad decisions is inherent in the freedom to make good ones. If we are only free to make good decisions, we are not really free.”

There will always be social programs for the children and elderly. You don't actually believe we'd leave people hurt dieing or starving in America do you?

He isn't trying to give banks MORE freedom. You're stance on the constitution is naive, and you're wording makes me think less of you, but I don't imagion you, or even I care. It's what our country was founded on. With out it what would we be? It was put in place to keep our goverment from getting too big. We are in 5 wars! We need to transition into a default to the constitution for the simple fact that we can then rebuild. There are so many departments of the goverment just sucking up our money. We've got a president that for some reason starting wars without congressional approval, and abusing his war powers! He didn't even ask to bomb Lybia, and his excuse was that they wern't attacking us so it doesn't count as a war. Yeah, bomb 3 countrys and get the nobel prize.

The simple fact that you automatically assign negitivity tward the republican party means your view is skew. Ron Paul ran as independent before. He refers to the party as a "vehicle", but I doubt you've looked into him in depth, or any of the republican canidates because of your bias.

[[MPGH]Liz]

The "social net" is failing.
Ron Paul:"I have a bill in that would secure the trust fund, where none of that money could be spent in the general revenues. So in many ways, the goal would be to get us out of this program that is a failure. It doesn’t work, and is going to bankrupt this country. The only way you can do that is save enough money, tide the people over, let the young people get out, because they’re going to be paying all these years and they’re not going to get anything. I probably have the only program that would really help the elderly because the money’s not going to be there."

“The most basic principle to being a free American is the notion that we as individuals are responsible for our own lives and decisions. We do not have the right to rob our neighbors to make up for our mistakes, neither does our neighbor have any right to tell us how to live, so long as we aren’t infringing on their rights. Freedom to make bad decisions is inherent in the freedom to make good ones. If we are only free to make good decisions, we are not really free.”

There will always be social programs for the children and elderly. You don't actually believe we'd leave people hurt dieing or starving in America do you?

He isn't trying to give banks MORE freedom. You're stance on the constitution naive, and you're wording makes me think less of you, but I don't imagion you, or even I care. It's what our country was founded on. With out it what would we be? It was put in place to keep our goverment from getting too big. We are in 5 wars! We need to transition into a default to the constitution for the simple fact that we can then rebuild. There are so many departments of the goverment just sucking up our money. We've got a president that for some reason starting wars without congressional approval, and abusing his war powers!

The simple fact that you automatically assign negitivity tward the republican party means your view is skew. Ron Paul ran as independent before. He refers to the party as a "vehicle", but I doubt you've looked into him in depth, or any of the republican canidates because of your bias.

You assume all I said was about RP personally, it was not. Merely general ideas, I do realize the Social net needs help, hence me saying it should be fixed and modernized. I never said the constitution was not worth anything, as you said, the country was FOUNDED on it, I am sure if they were alive, the founding fathers would want to update and amend it to fit the times better. yes I am biased against republicans, why? because in my eyes, they have done NOTHING in decades worth mentioning, and in the last decade have been extreme right & religious bigots. I also did not say RP was giving the banks more freedom, that is one of the things I agree with him, corporate banks need to be under more scrutiny not less.

80% of your reply was on stuff I did not say or you misunderstood, and the other is just your personal opinion. If my "wording" makes you think less of me I disagree with your political views, doesn't mean it affects how I see you as a person.

Anyway, I cba checking in on this, and I hate arguing politics, because I get really raged, and really don't want to ruin my night, over someone who's mind I cannot and do not want to change.

[[MPGH]Ethereal]

In any case, this whole abide only by the constitution and what the forefathers wrote nearly 250 years ago, to me, has little to no relevance in today's world and economy. So stop going by it, modernize it, or at least stop pretending it was the best shit ever written.

Are you kidding me?
America seemed to be doing pretty damn good for a long time following what our forefathers wrote.
It's like the old saying goes: "If it ain't broke don't fix it." Seems the more shadow government cronies that tried to fix it
only made things worse for this country. Back in the days of the Constitution, this country was growing as fast as the Roman empire.
Now we're fading away from what made us a great nation and we are falling like the Roman empire.
Also, the things you're giving RP credit for are only a couple issues. There is certainly more on his plate to offer than that.
You should look at his ideas for foreign affairs,pretty ground breaking opposed to what the other twits have planned..