Comments on: Constitution Party Presidential Nominee Chuck Baldwin on BlogTalkRadio

by: Red Phillips

Thu, 22 May 2008 17:40:01 +0000

Deemer, don’t make the mistake that the Keyes forces made. They kept insisting that the reason we opposed their ideas is because we just didn’t get it. If we would just listen, then we would see the error of our ways.

The problem is not that we didn’t understand the proposal, at least for the most part. The problem is that SS is grossly unconstitutional. As constitutionalists, we have to oppose SS or we cease being constitutionalists. I know the position hurts us with some elderly that might otherwise listen to us. But trust me, if we waffled on SS the constitutionalists and libertarians would be all over us for hypocrisy.

by: Deemer from California

Thu, 22 May 2008 17:03:37 +0000

I was one of the members of the Committee that worked on revising
the Constitution Party plank on Social Security. What we spent a year
on was a plan to split Social Security into 2 separate accounts. The 1st
would be to enforce the payback of the entire amount of money that
Congress has looted from the Social Security Trust fund over the years.
That money would have been set aside for current recipients. Assuming
a 7-8% return on that money everyone would have been protected.
The 2nd account would have started at the same cutoff date. It would
have established a Defeined Benefit Plan for every worker in these
United States. The System would have been operated by the States
through their existing Unemployment Plans. The Investment Managers
for this National Pension Plan would have been required to follow all of
them same laws for prudent investment that current Union & Corporate
Pension Plans must adhere to. Unfortunately, many of the delegates in
attendance are so hostile towards the Social Security Sytem that they
shouted down our reasonable proposal to fix this financial time-bomb.
Clearly, during the next 4 years a lot of work is needed to explain to
the various State Parties about the full nature of what we attempted to
get passed in Kansas City.

by: John Lowell

Thu, 22 May 2008 02:24:06 +0000

Sean,

There is much in Baldwin’s portfolio that’s to be admired in my view. He was miles ahead of the Dobsons, Lands, and Colsons in calling Bush’s 2001 stem-cell compromise exactly what it was: a sell-out. And he has consistently fought for life and peace which, happily, takes him out of the ReichsChurch fold. I also share with him his concerns about NAFTA and illegal immigration. But all of that not withstanding, I do not share the Constitution Party’s view of Social Security, and while Baldwin’s “gradualism”, if we may call it that, might be mitigating, it is simply too much to expect that with our economic system in the crisis it’s experiencing, the privitization of much of anything might benefit the weakest among us ultimately. I also believe that the Constitution Party’s contempt for the UN is misguided. It’s what we’ve got and its done much good in the world. There’s undeniably a difference between anti-interventionism on the one hand and an internationalism free of the present neo-con contamination on the other, you know. I’m no Reaganite or Buchananite, Sean. I’m a non-ideological Catholic. People with my outlook are likely to sit-out the election.

Red,

All the more reason for me to eschew Baldwin and the CP and sit out the election.

Ted,

I’m still active in my business and expect to be so until they pick me up off of the floor. The SS check always arrives on time and the amount increases with the cost of living. A one time securities broker, you’d have a hard time convincing me that any monies one might earmark today toward retirement would be wisely placed in any kind of private market securities, even in governments, what with the dollar’s exposure. Clients may come and go here, but not old reliable, Social Security. Now if Baldwin wanted to hand me a lump sum amount of some kind ….

New Federalist,

Change emetics, your present one has stopped working.

by: Cody Quirk

Thu, 22 May 2008 00:45:40 +0000

Also, the Party is nearly unnanimous on getting out of the UN. That is one of the things that did Alan Keyes in.

= His refusal to adhere to our stances did him in. I almost was sympathetic to him before the convention, then after hearing what happened, I’m almost glad Howard bashed Keyes.

by: Ted

Wed, 21 May 2008 23:43:34 +0000

Anybody who isn’t already retired and considers Soc Sec an “important prop” of his/her economic security is in a world of hurt.

by: NewFederalist

Wed, 21 May 2008 20:57:46 +0000

Don’t sweat Lowell the troll… he bitches about everything and everybody.

by: Red Phillips

Wed, 21 May 2008 20:35:32 +0000

John, there was a platform amendment offered at the Convention that would have done what you suggest. Tone down the language on Social Security. It was SOUNDLY defeated. Both in committee and when it was brought to the floor.

The CP could not credibly claim to be Constitutionalist and not pledge to phase out SS. SS is clearly unconstitutional.

Also, the Party is nearly unnanimous on getting out of the UN. That is one of the things that did Alan Keyes in.

by: Hyrum

Wed, 21 May 2008 20:25:29 +0000

I am going to wait to see his interview before judging how close he is to my positions.

by: Sean

Wed, 21 May 2008 19:37:51 +0000

John,

Did Chuck say getting rid of it overnight? If not, I expect his position is inline with the CP platform which calls for keeping the commitment to those who are on SSN, and phasing it out over time. “The Constitution Party advocates phasing out the entire Social Security program, while continuing to meet the obligations already incurred under the system.” More available at: www.constitutionparty.com/party_platform.php#Social%20Security

by: John Lowell

Wed, 21 May 2008 19:13:39 +0000

The advantages Baldwin may offer socially conservative, non-interventionist voters, namely those interested in candidates with pro-life and antiwar attitudes, are turned to ashes in many instances when one considers his committment to kill-off the UN and social security. I, for one, could never vote for him realizing that he’d turn one very important prop of my economic security into sausage. And that says nothing of the ostentatious and programatic displays of regiousity so frequently in evidence at the Constitution Party. Not every religious person sees typically Baptist moral grandstanding as sincere as frequently it isn’t.

by: Red Phillips

Wed, 21 May 2008 18:10:24 +0000

Good catch Kevin.