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

[TheGrinch]

Ron Paul has never said there is anything wrong with people collecting their SS. If you pay into a program, you are entilled to take out your benefits. IN fact, Paul wants to protect the benefits of the folks already on SS. He intends to use money saved in the budget to guarantee that SS will have enough to pay its commitments. It will not go bankrupt under a Ron Paul Presidency.

The problem he has with SS is its a forced program. Money is taken from your check by the government. This should only be done voluntarily and a clause should allow young people to opt out. If you desire to plan for your own retirement, you should have that right.

Earmarks are a part of the budget, if the money is not spent to obtain the desires of your constituents, it will go back into the general fund and be used for war or whatever. The budget should be trimmed to not allow this extra cash flow.

I hope this helps you to understand Ron Paul. I am just in the learning process myself. Perhaps some of the others can better explain?

No, you summed it up quite well. Ron is the only one focused on ensuring that those who've paid in can be paid out, but that the younger folks (under 30 or 25 I think) can opt out of the program that's highly unlikely to pay them back without some big changes to not only it but our budget/spending.

Anyone paying attention can see that SS is bound to go bankrupt without changes, and he's the only looking to do anything about it (again, while still keeping our commitment to those who've been forced to buy into it).

 

[ProtossX]

Yes BUT THIS IS THE SAME GUY WHO SAID

I WON'T TAKE A PRESIDENTIAL PAY CHECK

this same guy says i wouldn't take a dime to be president yet he takes social security money

i just don't get him

why doesn't he take all the money whys only take certain parts from the government it just doesn't make sense folks hes really weird

 

[sailingaway]

Yes BUT THIS IS THE SAME GUY WHO SAID

I WON'T TAKE A PRESIDENTIAL PAY CHECK

this same guy says i wouldn't take a dime to be president yet he takes social security money

i just don't get him

why doesn't he take all the money whys only take certain parts from the government it just doesn't make sense folks hes really weird

You really need to do some fact checking.

He said he would take $39,000 in compensation for being president, being the median American wage. That, again, is putting himself in the same shoes as those of the people he represented.

On social security, since the money is HIS, why wouldn't he take it?

 

[TheGrinch]

I don't believe taxpayers have any obligation to pay for the government to keep its contracts. And at some point it definitely won't be able to keep them anyway.

You're speaking about ideolgoy, which most here agrere with you on, that the government has no business managing your retirement account (let alone shown to be competent in doing so), but our beleifs are different than the reality that under the current system they're supposed to pay back the money they take for SS.

It's arguing two different things to argue how things should be, and how things are. Under the current system, you have every right to claim the money you paid in, and as long as the program isn't bankrupt, they're obligated to pay it back.

 

[Lucille]

Yes BUT THIS IS THE SAME GUY WHO SAID

I WON'T TAKE A PRESIDENTIAL PAY CHECK

this same guy says i wouldn't take a dime to be president yet he takes social security money

i just don't get him

why doesn't he take all the money whys only take certain parts from the government it just doesn't make sense folks hes really weird

He never said he wouldn't take a presidential paycheck. He said he'd take the median personal income of the American worker.

You're really weird.

"It is obvious, in such cases, that a man receives his own money which was taken from him by force, directly and specifically, without his consent, against his own choice. Those who advocated such laws are morally guilty, since they assumed the “right” to force employers and unwilling co-workers. But the victims, who opposed such laws, have a clear right to any refund of their own money—and they would not advance the cause of freedom if they left their money, unclaimed, for the benefit of the welfare-state administration."
--Ayn Rand

 

[ClydeCoulter]

Now the grassroots are supporting Ron Paul, rightfully so, and I think that we are even more fired up since we saw him supporting us and making the statements ("No Way") that we had expected and hoped for

 

[TheGrinch]

Yes BUT THIS IS THE SAME GUY WHO SAID

I WON'T TAKE A PRESIDENTIAL PAY CHECK

this same guy says i wouldn't take a dime to be president yet he takes social security money

i just don't get him

why doesn't he take all the money whys only take certain parts from the government it just doesn't make sense folks hes really weird

What part of reclaiming the money he's due do you not understand? Have you ever gotten a tax return before? Pretty much the same thing, that they can't just take money you're due back. It's your money, not the government's money to spend.

Please read up on what social security is intended to do before you go spewing more nonsense here. What you're talknig about is like saying "You can invest in this retirement account, but don't expect a dime of your money back at retirement". Do you realize how absurd that sounds? That's what you're basically arguing.

Actually here, I'll give you a brief history lesson. The government decided a long time ago in the FDR days that they were better able to handle a retirement savings account for us than we were. Thus, they started requiring that everyone take part in the program. Dr. Paul was forced to pay in for his entire life, to what is intended to be a personal retirement savings account. Again, why in the world would he not want to have access to the funds he was forced to put into the account?

 

[angelatc]

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..

Because just because somebody stole from you does not mean it is ok to steal from somebody else. When you take money out of Social Security, you're not getting back the money that you were forced to put into it. That money was spent a long time ago. You're just enslaving the next generation, and calling it reparations.

That, and teaching the next generation that it's ok.

 

[erowe1]

You're speaking about ideolgoy, which most here agrere with you on, that the government has no business managing your retirement account (let alone shown to be competent in doing so), but our beleifs are different than the reality that under the current system they're supposed to pay back the money they take for SS.

It's arguing two different things to argue how things should be, and how things are. Under the current system, you have every right to claim the money you paid in, and as long as the program isn't bankrupt, they're obligated to pay it back.

I grant all of that.

I would support total and immediate elimination of all Social Security, such that not another person ever got another cent from it. But I would also collect it if it did still exist and I were eligible.

 

[sailingaway]

Because just because somebody stole from you does not mean it is ok to steal from somebody else. When you take money out of Social Security, you're not getting back the money that you were forced to put into it. That money was spent a long time ago. You're enslaving the next generation, and calling it reparations.

or you are enforcing a contract. He also shows how to balance the budget to live up to existing obligations WITHOUT saddling the next generation with debt. The cuts don't have to be where people paid in value in promise of a return.

For example, Romney wants immediately to cut medicare benefits but never suggests the $1.7 trillion 'owed' the federal reserve for money it printed out of thin air should be written off the books. Priorities count. In the end, no program is likely to be sacrosanct, but certainly other cuts should come first. These are being focused on because the money currently exists in a pot (or at least in TBills) and they want the leverage to debt to spend elsewhere -- not to cut spending or debt.

 

[devil21]

Yes BUT THIS IS THE SAME GUY WHO SAID

I WON'T TAKE A PRESIDENTIAL PAY CHECK

No he didn't. He said he'd take $39K a year.

this same guy says i wouldn't take a dime to be president yet he takes social security money

It's his money to take BACK. And you're still wrong about his presidential salary.

i just don't get him

This much is clear.

why doesn't he take all the money whys only take certain parts from the government it just doesn't make sense folks hes really weird

I can't even understand this sentence. I'd support RP using his SS money to pay for you to go back and finish grade school though.

 

[TIMB0B]

 

[TheGrinch]

Because just because somebody stole from you does not mean it is ok to steal from somebody else. When you take money out of Social Security, you're not getting back the money that you were forced to put into it. That money was spent a long time ago. You're just enslaving the next generation, and calling it reparations.

That, and teaching the next generation that it's ok.

You really think that if he doesn't claim his SS, that it's gonig to make the situation any more sustainable? My guess is it will only invite them to spend that money that they no longer have to pay out, and as their track record has shown, they probably aren't going to spend it to take care of future generations.

 

[angelatc]

or you are enforcing a contract. He also shows how to balance the budget to live up to existing obligations WITHOUT saddling the next generation with debt. The cuts don't have to be where people paid in value in promise of a return.

For example, Romney wants immediately to cut medicare benefits but never suggests the $1.7 trillion 'owed' the federal reserve for money it printed out of thin air should be written off the books. Priorities count.

The contract doesn't exist. Congress refuses to report the future obligations of SS in their budgets because they claim (correctly) they have the right to terminate the program immediately.

Show me where the program guarantees you'll get back at least as you out in. Wait - it isn't there.

 

[PatriotOne]

I Agree he payed into it but HE had to apply for social security to get the money you have to go through tons of paper work and tons of phone calls and meetings to get social security checks just don't come out of the sky

ron paul took days out of his life to get this social security money thats how much gov money meant to him is that someone u can stand behind u don't just get social security u gotta apply meet all the requirements an than maybe gov will give u ur money back

this guy it just shows like where his priorities SOCIAL SECURITY > than a lot of stuff going on his life thats a fact folks an when will u realize it

Pffft! It takes a max of 30 minutes filling out an online application to apply for SS Retirement benefits and maybe a couple documents mailed or dropped off to SS if they ask for them. I know because I helped someone apply who didn't know how to use a computer a year or so ago. Easy breezy.

 

[sailingaway]

Originally Posted by ProtossX
all im saying is IF U take money away it causes a problem

if you throw money at a problem IT GOES AWAY

the more money we have going into education the better it gets

things dont get worse...

untrue, prior to the 1970s when the federal dept of education was created, our education was the envy of the world (except Japan). Now it sucks, internationally speaking. Central planning costs money and most certainly does NOT guarantee improvement.

 

[TIMB0B]

We should just throw more money at social security.

all im saying is IF U take money away it causes a problem

if you throw money at a problem IT GOES AWAY

the more money we have going into education the better it gets

things dont get worse...

 

[angelatc]

You really think that if he doesn't claim his SS, that it's gonig to make the situation any more sustainable? My guess is it will only invite them to spend that money that they no longer have to pay out, and as their track record has shown, they probably aren't going to spend it to take care of future generations.

Certainly not. And he isn't running for his seat again so he has nothing to lose. But the popular notion that because I paid into it means I deserve to get something back makes me nauseous.

 

[sailingaway]

The contract doesn't exist. Congress refuses to report the future obligations of SS in their budgets because they claim (correctly) they have the right to terminate the program immediately.

Show me where the program guarantees you'll get back at least as you out in. Wait - it isn't there.

It was, the Supreme Court even upheld it, then the congress stated it was changing the rules for all 'not yet vested' but that vesting concept works on pension plans because you can opt to not contribute, that doesn't apply here.

And the money put into the general fund IS represented with Treasury Bonds.

 

[TIMB0B]

...

dude the statees arent doin a good enough job if u ask teachers an students u will see the discrimination is huge an teachers

if we had a bigger dept of eductation we could further fix these kind...