What's Ron Paul's stance on welfare, social assistance, etc?
 

I guess this is one of the big questions with Paul's vision: what happens to all the single baby mommas at home with 5 kids and no way to pay for them? What's his stance on social assistance?

Um...get a job. So your saying you want to support every poor person who decides to pump out 5 kids? Be my guest. The constition was not created so the hard working people could support the lazy and stupid while the rich dont pay shit.

idiots........

If the rich want to pay for single mothers let them but why should the poor pay and ever shrinking middle class pay?

BTW under the current political climate those social services are destined to fail as there will be no money in the pot to do so anyways so does it really matter if there is a federal instituion that will fold shortly anyways. GET A FUCKING JOB!

Even if he became president, none of those things would be touched. He is not king.

Surely that's not his stance? I guess that's your view, and I'm compelled to agree with you personally, but I'm also not crazy about just letting said fat bitches kids go unfed or unattended... Y'know?

New rules could help ween them off, but cutting off their check and saying 'get a job' tomorrow isn't going to work, they A> aren't qualified and B> salary - rent - daycare for 5 kids - food = less than 0.

So what would really happen under his policy to these people?

coming from you I take that as a compliment. The goverment is in the same state as your tgp...old, unorginized, and failing.

whos the idiot fat boy.

I'm a big "get a job" advocate, however in cases like that the woman is in a bind. 5 kids? What if they are all under say 10? It happens. So she has to leave them all alone while she works triple shifts? What if she has no family to watch the kids?

I have ZERO sympathy for anyone, we chose our paths. However when it comes to situations like that a little sympathy is needed even from the remorseless.

so your saying the president doesnt have the power to do so and is not king?

check your stats. whens the last time bush didnt get his way and we the poeple or congress did? get real, the president of the US is the most powerful man on earth (for the moment) and what he says goes or havent you been watching?

Forced to do for themselves is what they would do. Thats what this country was founded on. Not paying for the lower class who are too lazy to do for themselves. If you have 5 kids and not support you deserve the consequenses and the people should not foot the bill when they cannot even get healthcare or enough food or rent money for themselves.

The idea with Libertarianism is that the Government should not be looked to for assistance. It is not the government's job to save us.

Hey Brad here is an idea- why don't YOU just give that woman some money? Why don't you support your local church/whatever local charity to get that woman some money? What about local city programs? State Programs? Why do you think that the Federal Government can take your money in some huge bureaucracy and then redistribute it more efficiently than you can just give it?

Right, they can't. That is the Libertarian stance. Oh, and get a fucking job.

Yeah I can see it now, five 1-9 year olds "doing for themselves" at home with Mom trying to feed, bath, clothe, educate, and take care of them while her 5 kids are hard at work drawing with crayons on the wall, earning an honest living as artists.. Cmon?

If that's your answer then clearly the current system is pretty decent, shit.

Exactly. Only in america are people stupid enough to believe it when the media makes "liberty" a bad word. I fucking laugh when people look down their noses at people who believe in their constitutional rights. Sheep.

Obviously there shouldn't be social systems in place to support those that are too lazy to work... but at the same time, you cannot seriously believe that the children involved should starve or freeze to death just because their parent(s) could care less. I know all about deadbeat parents, and we don't even have a good system in place now to force those people to support the children they decided to have.

The "hands off" attitude is a wonderful theory and I totally agree with it... in theory. But this is a serious question that needs a serious answer. And not just the usual "Get a job!" replies.

-What about health care (which middle class America can barely, if at all, afford)?

-What about the children who are orphaned and living off the system via foster care or social security or other welfare programs? What happens to them?

-What about subsidized childcare programs to allow single parents to AFFORD to keep their jobs?

-What about mothers and children that are abandoned by the fathers?

-What about single parents with special needs children?

-What about single parents that face tragic illness and/or accidents and are UNABLE to work?

I think a lot of these problems CAN be addressed by non-profit agencies in lieu of government involvement, but there needs to be government involvement and assistance to encourage these types of programs (and moderate them). The one that the government has an absolute responsibility to address and solve is HEALTH CARE. It is simply inhuman and irresponsible to say any person deserves to die because they cannot afford $300+++ a month for health care for their family... not to mention premiums and copays and what-the-fuck-ever-else the insurance companies have figured a way out of paying.

This is too long for me to even get into the issues that trickle down when you start to seriouly think about what social welfare means. Crime, poverty, social health, economy, worldwide approval ratings, etc...

I have read many of Ayn Rand's books multiple times. I know she has a lot of fans. Her world is an IDEAL world, but it's not the world we live in. She never addresses the needs of the innocent... the children, the sick, the handicapped, the elderly, the disenfranchised... perhaps because she didn't have a poetic way to say those people simply didn't have a place in her ideal world.

So to summarize and in the process repeat what I have already stated:

This is a serious question that deserves a serious, well thought out answer. IMHO. :2 cents::2 cents::2 cents:

The private sector should do more. Let the churches and the local communities do more. Some charities are loaded with cash.

If the government pays women to have babies... guess what? You are going to get lots of babies. We have tried that policy, and it failed.

What he said.

firstly, social security is broke, Paul would ensure these entitlement programs are at least funded by ending expensive foreign overseas's adventures and presences (i.e the hundreds of military bases around the world)

secondly, he doesn't believe in pulling the rug under anyone and will work in time to eliminate these programs, for example by giving young people under 25 an opt out to social security over time that will eliminate claimants who can take up market based solutions

thirdly he would protect the value of the dollar by instituting sound monetary policies

the system is broke and unfunded, Paul is the only candidate who has a plan to keep social security funded and transition to a more sensible system

Yeh, that makes sense. Because all the poor countries that don't do shit for their people have really, really low birth rates... right?

Just wanted to say that I really appreciate a response that actually addresses the question asked... thanks!

His stance is to get the federal government out of such things. The thing that most of his ideas and policies revolve around (besides the constitution) is states rights. He wants to give the states more freedom, and minimize the federal government. By removing these programs at the federal level, the states then have the choice to implement something similar, or try different solutions all together. If you want socialized medicine, welfare, etc etc work with your *state* government to make it happen. If you want to legalize drugs work with your state to make it happen etc etc.

The states have so little power these days... we pay our taxes mostly to the fed, then the fed funds the states. This allows the federal government to basically hold states hostage, and withhold funding unless they come around and enact laws and regulations that the fed wants them too. While states acting too independently can cause problems (slavery, civil war?) the power has swung way to far in favor of the federal government. The power needs to swing the other way for a while.

He also doesn't believe in revoking or dismantling the programs for beneficiaries. Since we have paid into social security all our lives, the government needs to make good on its promise to pay us when the time comes. Hes for the gradual phasing out of social security and welfare type programs at the federal level, but not in such a way that the people who receive them or have paid into the system thus far, will be screwed out of the benefits.

I'm from Canada, it's hard to beat Socialism out of me. :)

Porn is protected under the constitution. Ron Paul supports the constitution, yipeee!!

and if Ron Paul is as crazy as you say then so must his 120,000 donors and growing who are giving him more money than any other Republican could hope to raise

Ron Paul = the GOP's last hope

I think the core of Ron Paul's argument is that these things should NOT be addressed by the FEDERAL government.

That makes a lot of sense to me. The larger the government agency, the more waste and special interest money is thrown around. Right now there is such a massive pie of federal dollars that lobbyists fight over in Washington it is absolutely ridiculous.

Yes they are all crazy as well......

mind you this is the party that gave us:

Bush

Division

Alienation

Debt

and anything else that is wrong with america..... so yes... I would say it is safe to say that for the most part they are all whack jobs :2 cents:

...think about it man... this guys wants to abolish the IRS... him and his nutcase followers

the assistance programs should be limited. 2 children for 18 months and no more.
1 time in a life time.

anyone who thinks children should in some way be penalized for the actions of parents are proably ...or better yet

definitely... dumb

Thats like saying my daughter should forever wear the stigma of porn on her due to the fact I decided it was right for me

This country got along for quite a while without the IRS..

All of our tax goes to pay for one thing.. the interest on the national debt. Just the interest. The interest is so large, that the income tax doesnt even put a dent in the debt. If you can eliminate or reduce the debt by fixing our fiscal policy, we wont need an income tax, or the IRS. Not really so crazy, at least when you compare it to the current situation.

so what will the federal government, its millions of employees, the military and everything else live on without tax revenue? butterflies and baloons? will we build highways and schools with flowers and bubbles?

its really incredible that people can say such rediculous things.

Because the income tax is the only source of revenue for the government...:helpme

BTW, roads are paid for mainly through vehicle taxes and gasoline taxes. Income tax has nothing to do with it.

Of course, like usual, you don't get it.

If tax revenues are paying all these things, then where exactly does the more than $3,000,000,00 a day the US borrows go?

Oh I forgot, according to you Bush created debt in the United States. There was no national debt in 1999?

FACT: You're fucking annoying, I hope someone deals with your ass soon.. That sig is fucking atrocious.

according to me Bush created debt? huh?

you don't know the difference between federal debt and budget deficit and "i don't get it"

:1orglaugh:1orglaugh

So your country can only exist if everyone keeps working to fund politicians extravagances and pet projects?

The whole system would COLLAPSE without a government? Don't you have any faith in Americans, like yourself?

and for the record, there has been a US National Debt since the first day of the establishment of the country. in 1791, it was over $75,000,000.00

what do "pet projects" and "extravagancies" (two conveniently broad and conspicuously undefined terms) have to do to with the discussion? "waste" has nothing to do with the necessary functions of government. if you want to fight to reduce waste... thats great. but that doesn't have any connection to the reality of the necessity of the structure of the government itself and its basic functions.

you don't need a masters in anthropology to know that government, law enforcement, judicial systems, military's, public programs etc are all necessary components to any society. it has nothing to do with "faith" in anyone. you are suggesting dismantling something to be replaced with what? it has to be replaced with the exact same thing for the most part as it is a system that evolved out of necessity.

i guess now we are to think that Ron Paul is going to lead the world to a new Communist Utopia? of the workers, by the workers and for the workers.

oops... forgot to answer your question. the government borrows money to pay the debt, usually in the form of bonds and similar instruments.

the government collects income taxes to run the country.

stick to fighting, cheap hookers and nice beaches :)

And your not addressing the fact that the country can function and the government can happily operate if we eliminate one very specific tax. We can still pay for these things without an income tax. Your right, in that it cant be eliminated immediately. Waste is a big part of it, as well as reducing the number of tasks the federal government feels it needs to control and the areas it feels it needs to fund. If and when the situation can be turned around, then we can look at eliminating the income tax and the IRS all together, and that is what Pauls stance is.

If states were left to their own devices to figure out how to pay for the government services they want to provide, sure, some may find themselves paying *more* taxes. But as a result, the individual will have much more control over their own destiny.

Either way, its really a pipe dream...even if Paul got elected I doubt he could bring about enough change to realize any of it.

Sorry, I actually confused you with pussyserver at a quick glance.

I dont see anything wrong with my sig

np :)

its all just pixels

Oh look, you got dealt with... :winkwink:

I was going to change my sig to what it is now anyway:1orglaugh

so you did nothing

All offense, but I just did my good samaritan deed for the day.

His stance is that it's none of the federal government's business. If the States want to deal with it, it's their issue.

I think Ron Paul is allready a tad bit more than a joke. You must have a limited education to make such an ingnorant statement.

BTW if you stop pouring money into a broken health system and let the take the feds out of it HEALTH PRICES WILL DROP. Proven many times in history.

so then from a Ron Paul perspective... what exactly is the role of the federal government??

a lot more than a tad or a tad more than a little

explain

Did it ever occur to anyone that people would not have 5 kids out of wedlock with no support if it did not result in higher welfare checks? Maybe just maybe situations like this would not ever exist if the system was not designed to support them. I know if I had 1 kid no job and was starving I would not be pushing to pop out 4 more.

I have no sympathy for people that dig there own grave. We all make choices in this world and bad ones lead to bad outcomes. People should nto be rewarded for making mistakes they should pay for them and fix them or thin the heard.