Progressive Reaction to RP Presidency and the dismantling of the welfare state

What would be the progressive reaction to a RP Presidency and the dismantling of the welfare state be?

What if, the progressive plan to use RP to weaken and divide the conservative vote backfires, and RP wins along with a major Tea Party victory in congressional races? How would they handle the dismantling of decades of social revolution? What kind of employment would the non-profit block grant organization people find? Would OWS suddenly turn on RP?


_

 

Ron Paul won't win so this is a pointless thread.

 

Ron knows this can't be done over night. The dismantling of the 5 departments would not mean that those employees are all of the sudden on unemployment. They will be absorbed and the federal work force will be cut through attrition.

He knows that cutting people off welfare is bad, just like cutting a drugie off cold turkey is bad. But he has a plan to get us out of the "handout" mentality the progressives have made for this country.

And Ron has a great shot of winning, once the faux conservative candidates get out and stop splitting the votes. There is 75% of the GOP that wont vote for the liberal Mittens, and 5 candidates that are dividing that block up. Ron has shown that the fiscal conservatives prefer his method to government, and even if the social conservatives of the south vote for social issues, that is not what the election is going to be about.

 

Paul only wants to dismantle the welfare state at the federal level, and that is one of the very last things on his agenda. Literally. He wants to transition it to state level. There is no need for federal welfare and entitlement programs. The states are more than capable of sustaining it.

 

Good post, but how do you think the Left would react to the rolling back of their welfare state? I suspect that they would not take it well at all.


_

 

Do you think the Left would howl over that? Because the states would not handle welfare in the same way. Conservative states would have lower taxes and a huge competitive advantage over Blue state basket cases. The US taxpayer in Red States would be freed of a lot of the costs of welfare.

_

 

Don't be closed-minded. There are a lot of good points being made.

_

 

LOL...yer really fishing for an argument...aren't ya.

Ron Paul is an interesting person and, quite frankly, I trust him more than I do the other Rep. candidates. My wife thinks he's great.

Be that as it may...he is not gonna win the nomination...we can already see that...so what's the point?

 

The early States do not matter as much as the States that hold their Caucus/Primaries in Feb and beyond. As of right now there are a few more to before that happens but, I certainly believe a few will drop out of the race.

Edit: Also NH is an Open Primary State and everyone should take that into consideration due to the fact that you can switch to IND in 20-30seconds after voting... So a lot of the "rise" with Romney and Huntsman are some Obama supporters voting for a "Win Win" scenario no matter who wins the Presidency.

 

As about 75% of Americans are progressives supporting SS and medicare, I'd wager that the reaction would be the swift exit from power of RP and the Tea Party who eliminate it, assuming the far fetched possibility they got elected in the first place.

 

He has no intentions to dismantle SS or Medicare... Because the people currently in the system are Dependent. He is trying to create a New System by allowing people to exit the current one and actually make those services SOLVENT by ending Corporate Welfare as well as Militarism.

 

Plus he knows that killing SS would be political suicide.

You could make SS solvent easily. Make the benes means tested or lift the cap on taxable income or both.

 

It doesn't make sense at all to begin with... He wouldn't do it if he could anyways due in large part because of Dependents who rely on the system. Throwing out the Elderly onto the Streets? Sorry won't happen in a Ron Paul Administration considering he wants to keep the Social Services people are Dependent to actually financially Solvent.

Raising Taxes only dampens the recovery to an Economic problem... Do you support Corporate Welfare and Militarism? If you don't support either why exactly would you suggest we have our taxes raised when such things could end?

 

If you think that the right-wing establishment will EVER let Ron Paul win their nomination for President, you should reevaluate your perception of American politics.

 

Agree! It won't happen in a RP administration!

 

So we have to continue to pay for boomers retirements which means the SS cost isn't going away for decades.

What happens to future retirees w/o SS who run out of money?

Baseless nonesense. Clinton raised taxes which balanced the budget and we had the best economy in the last several decades.

 

I understand that but, at least it won't become financially solvent under a Ron Paul Administration via Increased Taxation. It will become solvent through the shifting of already existing tax rates by simply shifting the wasteful spending into such Social Services.

The system stays in place... if people opt out it's their own problem that they made the choice to do so.

Since you didn't state you're against Corporate Welfare or Militarism you must be for it?

 

If the Republicans were to fall on their political sword by implementing such a program, the impact would be felt by a lot more than just the welfarites. It would help reduce the deficit and massive future commitments of the Federal government by downloading the pain onto at least a third of the population in one way or another.

Democrats would get the best of both worlds. The accumulated problem largely solved and a thoroughly discredited Republican Party (they'd be lucky to retain voter percentage support in the low 30s). They could reintroduce a small fraction of the cut programs and be wildly popular, harvesting the windfall of Republican actions. Remember how long the Conservatives were out of power in the UK after Thatcher rammed through her unpopular but necessary programs.

 

Except Ron Paul doesn't advocate closing down the Social Programs but, rather weening the general population off of it by giving people the right to opt out of it. He of all people wants to actually make it solvent by ending Corporate Welfare and Militarism.

 

Even if Ron Paul won, he'd be limited in what he could accomplish in 8 years, let alone 4.

The general hope is that he would successfully force Congress to cut spending significantly and put us on track to balancing the budget and having a smaller federal government.

It's doubtful that he would be able to fully accomplish his goals, but he'd at least give us a decent starting point.

 

Nice propaganda attempt, but I think "progressives" who support Ron Paul do so from their heart and not to weaken GOP, I being one example: I voted once for democrat once for republican. so you can call me whatever you wish, but I support Ron Paul to strengthen the nation and not because I care to weaken some GOP who already has lost it's way some time ago.

 

What "already existing tax rates" are you talking about "shifting" and what "wasteful spending" are you talking about "shifting"?

So under Paul's plan, elderly people will eventually be thrown into the streets.

I can't support that plan.

Invalid conclusion based on my non-response to irrelevant questions.

 

Ending Militarism and Corporate Welfare could shift the funds to those Social Programs rather than advocating your approach of increased Taxation.

So if I go broke you're going to bail me out if I decided to go gambling it all?

Valid conclusion when someone completely disregards the questions asked and decided to rant as to how Clinton saved the Economy by Taxation.

 

People who opt out of SS and choose to invest their money elsewhere in some vehicle that will yield a larger return will not be "thrown into the streets". That is just a scare tactic.

 

Both programs are not sustainable.

_