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

[newbitech]

What is sad is that the system is broke. The only way that RP or anyone else is actually able to recoup any of their money is by printing and/or borrowing from future generations.

I think it's great that there is still enough time for RP and others to get their money back. What is not so great is that a huge majority of the people still alive and paying in won't have that luxury.

The other part that I don't get is this. If my money is put in to a furnace and burned, how can I claim that the money that is in that furnace is mine? See what I am saying. The fact is there is no money in that furnace, yet through some magic, people who put their money in that furnace are able to get that money back out.

So to say that Ron Paul or anyone else is just getting back what they put in, is kind of disingenuous. He isn't really getting back what he put in cause what he put in has already been incinerated. Same with food stamps and unemployment.

So I think that argument needs to be re-framed or at least clarified. When I collected unemployment, I knew that the money I and my employer paid in was burnt up long ago. I knew the money I was collecting was coming off the back of people currently in the work force and future generations. Yeah, I made the claim that I was getting back what I put in, but I found myself having to restate my belief that I was in fact accepting social welfare on the back of current and future workers with the caveat that I was using that money the most efficient way possible.

If we carried on with this idea that people are just taking back what they put in, then the system will perpetuate. At some point, some generation is going to have to eat the loss. Sadly, I think it will be my generation, because we all know no one is going to take from RP's generation and they will be the last to sacrifice, and the generation coming up is either entitled or loving liberty, both of which scenarios having them not taking the sacrifice.

Ah well, it figures that the generation that brought communication technology to where it is enabling the dissemination of truth to the level that the freedom movement is based off of will be the generation that takes the biggest hit from what is about to go down, liberty or not.

 

[angelatc]

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.

As would I. But in the same vein, I'd also support eliminating the contribution cap and applying a means test to recipients. Meaning that people who had a net worth of several million dollars would need to fund their own retirements instead of sucking the cash out of my children's lives.

 

[sailingaway]

He is saying that it was a contract he would be paid that, not that he is getting what he paid. He was not allowed to opt out. The point is, he actually PUT OUT A PLAN that fixes this, with a budget that balances and does NOT leave debt on the next generation and lets them opt out.

 

[ravedown]

its a bloodbath over on huffpo regarding this- im enjoying the beating im taking in the comments- those 'open-minded and tolerant' huffpo fans are practically foaming at the mouth in excitement regarding this 'development'-ha.

hxxp://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/06/20/ron-paul-social-security_n_1612117.html

 

[erowe1]

(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

what the heck happened to my post DR PAUL IS USING SOCIAL SECURITY an has been on it forever an applied for it

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

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

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

Is this person like a pretend troll, or a troll of a troll, or something, where what they're really trying to do is make people who say this kind of stuff look silly?

 

[angelatc]

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.

What is the name of the SCOTUS case? Because I promise you that if I dropped dead tomorrow, my kids won't get the SS that the government "owes" me. And if my Mom drops dead next week, the government won't cut my Dad a check for the surplus she left behind either.

( The T-bonds thing is silly. That just means we owe ourselves the money.)

 

[sailingaway]

What is the name of the SCOTUS case? Because I promise you that if I dropped dead tomorrow, my kids won't get the SS that the government owes me. And if my Mom drops dead next week, the government won't cut my Dad a check for the surplus she left behind either.

( The T-bonds thing is silly. That just means we owe ourselves the money.)

i don't remember the name of the case, but I am sure you can find it if you look. The T bill thing is no more silly than any other Tbill thing. The point is, special interests are trying to focus people on raiding what they view as 'pots of money' (or room to borrow) so they can fund more special interest funding. They don't intend to cut spending at all, but use money elsewhere. Ron's budget shows they can live up to the government promises for money paid in for programs that were supposed to be there, cut elsewhere, and still let those who haven't paid in out. If we go completely bankrupt, the whole house of cards falls, obviously, but the policy suggestions aren't to cut elsewhere, but to move $500,000 to Obamacare from medicare, for example. They want to move it to other areas and pretend programs paid into are the same philosophically as welfare, and I reject that theory.

So does Ron Paul, obviously.

 

[angelatc]

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.

Sailing, where did the OP say that thing you were replying to? There's no link. But there is absolutely no study in the world that proves that putting more money into education improves education. I think he has the concept misapplied. While it's true that if you subsidize something, you get more of it, when you subsidize bad education, it just gets worse. Competition and choice are what make markets better.

 

[Lucille]

its a bloodbath over on huffpo regarding this- im enjoying the beating im taking in the comments- those 'open-minded and tolerant' huffpo fans are practically foaming at the mouth in excitement regarding this 'development'-ha.

hxxp://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/06/20/ron-paul-social-security_n_1612117.html

They have short memories, poor reading comprehension, or are being deliberately obtuse. They lost it over Ayn Rand last year, and it was explained to them then.

"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

 

[angelatc]

i don't remember the name of the case, but I am sure you can find it if you look. The T bill thing is no more silly than any other Tbill thing. The point is, special interests are trying to focus people on raiding what they view as 'pots of money' (or room to borrow) so they can fund more special interest funding. They don't intend to cut spending at all, but use money elsewhere. Ron's budget shows they can live up to the government promises for money paid in for programs that were supposed to be there, cut elsewhere, and still let those who haven't paid in out. If we go completely bankrupt, the whole house of cards falls, obviously, but the policy suggestions aren't to cut elsewhere, but to move $500,000 to Obamacare from medicare, for example. They want to move it to other areas and pretend programs paid into are the same philosophically as welfare, and I reject that theory.

I have never heard that SCOTUS said that the government was not allowed to legislatively repeal any program. Tell me at least what you would search if you were looking for it.

 

[angelatc]

They have short memories, poor reading comprehension, or are being deliberately obtuse. They lost it over Ayn Rand last year, and it was explained to them then.

"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

I disagree with Rand, on several things, this being one of them.

 

[TheGrinch]

He is saying that it was a contract he would be paid that, not that he is getting what he paid. He was not allowed to opt out. The point is, he actually PUT OUT A PLAN that fixes this, with a budget that balances and does NOT leave debt on the next generation and lets them opt out.

Exactly. I don't buy the logic that just because they spent the money he paid in, doesn't mean he's not entitled to his cash (or rather other cash) back out.

That's like saying to a credit card company, "I know I'm supposed to owe you that cash back, but I already spent that cash". It doesn't matter what cash you're paying them back with... It's all cash nonetheless that you've borrowed and obligated to pay back. Only difference is that the CC companies actually get a return on the money they lent, while those forced into SS see diminished returns.

The system needs to be cahnged, but it's not right (and a losing proposition with seniors) to not pay back the funds that you agreed to pay back. Just because the system is broke, doesn't mean that those who've been forced to pay into it their whole lives have to feel the full brunt of having to fix it. Then they're just as much victims as those who ultimately end up with the debt.

 

[alucard13mmfmj]

SS is a scam.. he paid into it from his paycheck. in fact, he loses money. 20 dollars back then is not 20 dollars now because of inflation.

 

[sailingaway]

I have never heard that SCOTUS said that the government was not allowed to legislatively repeal any program. Tell me at least what you would search if you were looking for it.

it was before they changed, arbitrarily, the 'vesting' bit and that is why they use the '55' year age limit thing, I suspect it roughly corresponds to the date of that vesting policy.

Supreme court found social security payments to be a property right, before that.

 

[TheGrinch]

Is this person like a pretend troll, or a troll of a troll, or something, where what they're really trying to do is make people who say this kind of stuff look silly?

You almsot have to wonder, but no, I truly think there are plenty of liberals who think the world is this simplistic (or rather believe whatever they're told).

 

[sailingaway]

Sailing, where did the OP say that thing you were replying to? There's no link. But there is absolutely no study in the world that proves that putting more money into education improves education. I think he has the concept misapplied. While it's true that if you subsidize something, you get more of it, when you subsidize bad education, it just gets worse. Competition and choice are what make markets better.

I copied it from another quote of him, I assumed it was earlier in the thread, but now I think someone pulled it from his past posts and just posted it as evidence the OP is a troll.

However, this meme is now all over the internet, so people might as well see responses to it, even if the thread was started by a troll.

 

[angelatc]

SS is a scam.. he paid into it from his paycheck. in fact, he loses money. 20 dollars back then is not 20 dollars now because of inflation.

Most people draw more back from SS than they ever put into it. He is not losing money. The system is losing money.

 

[sailingaway]

Most people draw more back from SS than they ever put into it. He is not losing money. The system is losing money.

not when you calculate in the lost purchasing power of the money by the time you get it back. The people who argue that are just trying to get their hands on more money for their own programs imho.

 

[DanK22]

Waited five years to troll... that's dedication 7/10!

Seriously though, read Ayn Rand's justification posted earlier.

 

[angelatc]

it was before they changed, arbitrarily, the 'vesting' bit and that is why they use the '55' year age limit thing, I suspect it roughly corresponds to the date of that vesting policy.

Supreme court found social security payments to be a property right, before that.

With all due respect, I think you're wrong. Although I am still looking, the only time I see that SCOTUS addressed the issue of SS being a property right was Felmming v Nestor , and they ruled against the concept saying,

"The OASI [Old-Age and Survivors Insurance] program is in no sense a federally-administered 'insurance program' under which each worker pays premiums over the years and acquires at retirement an indefeasible right to receive for life a fixed monthly benefit, irrespective of the conditions which Congress has chosen to impose from time to time,"

and

A person covered by the Social Security Act has not such a right in old-age benefit payments as would make every defeasance of "accrued" interests violative of the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment,

and

"(a) The noncontractual interest of an employee covered by the Act cannot be soundly analogized to that of the holder of an annuity, whose right to benefits are based on his contractual premium payments. Pp. 608-610."

and.....well, need I go on?

If there's a case that supercedes this one, especially a recent case, I suspect it would have generated at least a small amount of coverage in the news cycle.