OP reads thinkprogress and doesn't think critically (regarding supposed SS 'hypocrisy')

ProtossX

Member
Joined
Dec 9, 2007
Messages
42
(alleges Ron taking social security is hypocritical)

if hes so libertyish why does this fraud say something and do something else

he says social security is horrible yet he uses it

he says ear marks are horrible he uses them

this guy says one thing an goes about it completely diff and ppl are saying he has a backbone dude GET OFF THE GOV tax payer money paul an than u can speak
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Excellent and well thought out post. Thanks for your gloriously informed contribution to not only this forum, but humanity.
 
I pay for social security, I wish I didn't, but I have to. I will withdraw from it if it is still around when I am old. Doesn't mean I like it, just means I paid into it and should get back as much as I can. Since I live in the real world though I have a real retirement account.

I would love to have a way to withdraw all the tax money that was stolen from me.
 
Last edited:
This is ineffective sarcasm or just trolling. Either way, it's junk. Someone scrap it.
 
if hes so libertyish why does this fraud say something and do something else

he says social security is horrible yet he uses it

he says ear marks are horrible he uses them

this guy says one thing an goes about it completely diff and ppl are saying he has a backbone dude GET OFF THE GOV tax payer money paul an than u can speak

Yuuummmmmm....red meat. Hope you can run fast because there's alot of Paleo's on this forum :D.
 
what the heck happened to my post DR PAUL IS USING SOCIAL SECURITY an has been on it forever an applied for it
 
hmm.. let's see.. and yes - he is drawing his SS..

He was mandated like the rest of us to pay into SS - so why not get back a part of what he paid in.

He is not opting for his Congressional retirement (which I would not be surprised if this is 5 times more than his SS)

He already explained earmarks .. along the same lines as why he is drawing his SS.
 
I posted a response to this on the thinkprogress article which spawned its typical echo chamber and I am happy to copy and paste it for the OPs benefit:

Ron Paul REFUSED the pension for Congressmen which would have vested day one when he got there, in order to be in the same boat as those he represent. He is the only one in Congress QUALIFIED to speak on this subject as a result. He sees it, once paid for, as a contract, since due to value of money erosion through Federal REserve caused inflation, the money you get out does not equal the money you put in PLUS an interest rate making up the value the money eroded over time. So he would PAY SS for those who paid in and let those under twenty five OPT out. They would chose for themselves because you don't get out what you paid in in purchasing value, assuming you actually take care of yourself.

He would cut foreign spending, particularly military, and would bring our troops home (not discharge them before terms are up) so their salaries are spent here, not overseas, as a stimulus.

His is the only budget that WORKS, balances over three years, and doesn't cut a penny from social security or medicare.

I really wish your sort would research BEFORE you vote...
\
and Ron never said earmarks are horrible, he thinks the Constitution requires every cent be earmarked because Congress has the power of the purse and should not give a blank check to the executive to increase its power. That is how Obama gets away abusing 'executive orders' so much. He doesn't need congress. Ron is against unconstitutional spending however, and always votes against it.
 
Last edited:
Social security is your money.... You pay into it like a savings account... His opposition to it is at very least two-fold, 1) that private money is better left in private hands to invest as they wish (a change he's proposed, if not eventually getting away from the entire system, 2) that it's operated liek a ponzi scheme, spending up money and then using new ones to pay off the old ones, in a model set to bankrupt the entire program and screw younger folks out of it, as they take more money out they've already spent... But regardless of his stances against it, this is money that he paid into social security to be paid back later. Why wouldn't he want it back?

As for earmarks, this has been explained many times. Any money not earmarked would be taken away from his constituents who paid into it, and if not spent would go to the executive branch, probably going off to Syria at this point... He earmarks to be able to return as much money as he can to his constituents, but he obviously votes against the bill because he doesn't think that money should be taken from them in the first place to the degree it is.

Does that clear it all up, or do you have any more hit pieces for us today?
 
Last edited:
I want my SSI that I paid into also, alhtough I, also, will probably never collect it all.

This is very consistent with what Ron Paul preaches. He wants to allow people to opt-out. No one could up till now. He has every right to collect on what he paid and you know that it was not a good investment.
 
Guys just listen to this okay before you blame me HEAR Me out

HE HAD to actually APPLY for social security he had to go out of his way tell the government in a letter or on the phone that he wanted his social security money the government just doesnt start sending you checks ron paul went to big gov and asked them for it

this guy has more time to try to get money from government than make it on his own
 
Guys just listen to this okay before you blame me HEAR Me out

HE HAD to actually APPLY for social security he had to go out of his way tell the government in a letter or on the phone that he wanted his social security money the government just doesnt start sending you checks ron paul went to big gov and asked them for it

this guy has more time to try to get money from government than make it on his own

If you think he shouldn't do that, then you don't know much.
 
Oh... c'mon, guys. Can't you just see how smart this one is?
There's really no point in trying to explain the finer points of commonsense to an imdividual with such an enormous intellect.

We are surely at his mercy.
 
Back
Top