Ron Paul coming up live next on Morning Joe on MSNBC, 6/20/12

[sailingaway]

very good discussion.

I am bothered by sanctimonious though. I think that was a not so subtle dig at Ron Paul right there.

Ron Paul collects Social Security.

Is Ron Paul and/or his supporters perceived as sanctimonious? I know that I perceive many of the supporters on these forums as sanctimonious, in particular those who berate others for compromising principles as it were.

Good topic for another thread.

Ron Paul does not collect social security, he is of age, but he earns too much salary. He WILL though, but only because he turned down the lucrative pension to be in the same boat as the rest of us and so has paid in every paycheck, like the rest of us. I think that should be a requirement for voting on senior entitlements -- having paid into it for your share. Ron sees it as a contract that should be kept if any are, surely before the Fed gets paid back money it 'loaned' from printing it, with no new value behind it, for example, and certainly before a flawed foreign policy.

It may be sanctimonious to both be principled and expect it of others, but I can live with that.

 

[newbitech]

IMO It would be impossible for many old people to make ends meet without SS.

People live for today, and set very little aside for the tomorrows. Most of us are not squirrels by nature. Perhaps the program needs to be refined, but I would hate to see it abolished. Ending SS, would dramatically increase senior welfare payments. We are not a country that will turn our backs on our elderly. It is what it is.

Meh, this is the appeal to emotions argument. Are we a country that would sacrifice babies and the unborn for one more year of driving a Mercedes or living with our mate in a house with 5 bedrooms, 3 bathrooms, 3 car garage, Jacuzzi, 1/2 acre yard, etc etc..?

I'd just like to know how SS is going to get funded along with all the other "unfunded liabilities" with the unstable and rapidly growing overhang in debt that this country faces.

3 choices. Inflate (the likely outcome), watch it crash and burn (if nothing is done), drastically reduce non-domestic debt spending aka military imperialism (Ron's plan).

Inflation is what it is. Forcing young people to take care of and support old people who are on their way out. Basically old people riding on the backs of young people for as long as possible. Yes, I think sacrifice is important. But I think it should be the other way around. The old people need to give up their wealth to the new generations, instead of greedily holding on to it until they die where that wealth is absorbed by government and sent over seas.

 

[TruthisTreason]

Ron wasn't ready for that SS question, lol. The guy was a dick for the attack!

 

[newbitech]

Ron Paul does not collect social security, he is of age, but he earns too much salary. He WILL though, but only because he turned down the lucrative pension to be in the same boat as the rest of us and so has paid in every paycheck, like the rest of us. I think that should be a requirement for voting on senior entitlements -- having paid into it for your share. Ron sees it as a contract that should be kept if any are, surely before the Fed gets paid back money it 'loaned' from printing it, with no new value behind it, for example, and certainly before a flawed foreign policy.

It may be sanctimonious to both be principled and expect it of others, but I can live with that.

did he not just say in the interview that he collects social security? Correct me if I am wrong, but earning a salary does not preclude someone from collecting SS in retirement.

While you are working, your earnings will reduce your benefit amount only until you reach ​

your full retirement age

. After you reach full retirement age ​

we recalculate your benefit amount

to leave out the months when we reduced or withheld benefits due to your excess earnings.We use a formula to determine how much your benefit must be reduced:​

• If you are under full retirement age for the entire year, we deduct $1 from your benefit payments for every $2 you earn above the annual limit.
  For 2012, that limit is $14,640.
• In the year you reach full retirement age, we deduct $1 in benefits for every $3 you earn above a different limit, but we only count earnings before the month you reach your full retirement age.
  If you will reach full retirement age in 2012, the limit on your earnings for the months before full retirement age is $38,880. (If you were born in 1946 or 1947, your full retirement age is 66 years.)
• Starting with the month you reach full retirement age, you can get your benefits with no limit on your earnings.

http://www.ssa.gov/retire2/whileworking.htm

 

[sailingaway]

did he not just say in the interview that he collects social security? Correct me if I am wrong, but earning a salary does not preclude someone from collecting SS in retirement.



http://www.ssa.gov/retire2/whileworking.htm

Huh, well I guess that is new. It is a good idea, but I used to hear people say they couldn't earn more than X or it would limit their social security. I don't really know, though. That bit about confiscating what seniors put aside is absolutely against property rights, though, I have no idea what you are thinking there. That is what inflation is, anyhow, and it isn't 'what it is' it is created by loose monetary policy with no input by those whose wealth is confiscated thereby. That is why people 'pay in more than they get out' it isn't just what they could have earned but what those early dollars would have purchased had they had the use of them then, versus what they purchase fifty years later when they finally start to get them. It is paid for, and was taken by force. People need to give him fifteen minutes JUST on social security not one minute and pretend he isn't accurate with no time for rebuttal. The person on the street doesn't understand this, and Ron can explain it, given time.

 

[donnay]

IMO It would be impossible for many old people to make ends meet without SS.

People live for today, and set very little aside for the tomorrows. Most of us are not squirrels by nature. Perhaps the program needs to be refined, but I would hate to see it abolished. Ending SS, would dramatically increase senior welfare payments. We are not a country that will turn our backs on our elderly. It is what it is.

The problem is that people are forced at the barrel of a gun to pay into social security. They NEVER get what they put into it. My parents generation were the generation that came out of the depression. They learned to save and not be so wasteful. Between my parents they receive $1,400 a month. If it wasn't for the fact that they saved while they were younger, they would never be able to live off their social security--never. Not to mention, government allows illegal immigrants to collect welfare, off the backs of those who work hard. Who are they to give our money away? This was all meant to make people bankrupt and drop us into third world status as the end game. Then everyone will be beholden to government!

What about all the talk to euthanize our elderly? Have you not been paying attention to that latest narration? http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showth...ase-Of-Killing-Mom&highlight=case+killing+mom

Here's a good article about the restoration of eugenics programs: http://www.newsmax.com/JamesWalsh/obama-healthcare-eugenics/2009/12/14/id/342255

When my grandmother was still alive, she made like $350.00 a month. It was the family who took care of her, not the state. It used to be families, churches and communities reached out to help. And no one was forced at the barrel of a gun to do it.

Now I am seeing all around me, people I know whose elderly parents are quite the burden to them and their (selfish) lifestyles. It's really sad where this country is heading.

 

[phill4paul]

It was the family who took care of her, not the state. It used to be families, churches and communities reached out to help. And no one was forced at the barrel of a gun to do it.

Now I am seeing all around me, people I know whose elderly parents are quite the burden to them and their (selfish) lifestyles. It's really sad where this country is heading.

And therein lies the problem. The government has 'taught' people that they don't have to care. That the government will take care of it. THEY needn't worry their pretty little heads about it just take some money from their paycheck and go on about their lives without 'investing' in family and community.

 

[jay_dub]

Meh, this is the appeal to emotions argument. Are we a country that would sacrifice babies and the unborn for one more year of driving a Mercedes or living with our mate in a house with 5 bedrooms, 3 bathrooms, 3 car garage, Jacuzzi, 1/2 acre yard, etc etc..?

I'd just like to know how SS is going to get funded along with all the other "unfunded liabilities" with the unstable and rapidly growing overhang in debt that this country faces.

3 choices. Inflate (the likely outcome), watch it crash and burn (if nothing is done), drastically reduce non-domestic debt spending aka military imperialism (Ron's plan).

Inflation is what it is. Forcing young people to take care of and support old people who are on their way out. Basically old people riding on the backs of young people for as long as possible. Yes, I think sacrifice is important. But I think it should be the other way around. The old people need to give up their wealth to the new generations, instead of greedily holding on to it until they die where that wealth is absorbed by government and sent over seas.

This is a completely false way of looking at it. SS is an earned benefit. People have paid into it all their lives and they damn well deserve to not eat cat food when they get old. The system is underfunded because of gov't mis-management, not by the greed of old folks.

Ron sees the need to maintain the system for those that are too old to make use of an alternative. He wants to fund it by cutting overseas spending. All the other GOP budget plans call for cuts to SS and other domestic programs while giving out more breaks to large corporations and increasing defense spending. That dog just won't hunt. We can't wrap wasteful spending and empire in a flag and call it a good idea. It's not patriotic to bankrupt your country.

Just on a dollar for dollar comparison, corporate welfare is much bigger than social welfare. Do a search and educate yourself. And the logic of this has been proved false so there is no benefit to the country to give largesse to corporations and finance it on the backs of all citizens. There is a logic to keeping our businesses competitive, but it one of degrees. We have taken it so far as to where it is nothing more than further enriching the rich. That is when it is accurate to call it welfare. The GOP has obfuscated this argument to make people feel it's unpatriotic to not give corporations a free ride.

As for Ron collecting SS, good for him!! It's his money that he paid in. He deserves to get some of it back.

 

[KingRobbStark]

I can never get tired of hearing Ron Paul. He can say samething over and over again, and it would still be as interesting as the first time I heard it. Gotta love the man.

 

[jay_dub]

I'm gonna rant a little about SS with a personal story that is repeated all across this country.

Both my parents paid into the system all their lives. They both died in their 50's and never collected any of what they had paid in. We kids were all of age so we didn't get any of it. My parents were divorced so that when my Dad died, my Mom got nothing of his SS. The government kept ALL that money....that is theft!!! Multiply that by all the people that are nice enough to die early and leave no dependent kids and it's quite a windfall for the government. And the younger generation wants to say old people are ripping them off? Get real.

I really don't want to hear how old people are ripping off the younger generation. Hell, we're ALL getting ripped off!! To divide this along generational lines is to create a rift that the government will use to just rip us off some more. Ron has a plan to transition us from this damnable system. Let's support him and not make enemies of each other.

 

[ctiger2]

As for Ron collecting SS, good for him!! It's his money that he paid in. He deserves to get some of it back.

No doubt, Ron was forced to have the Fed Govt garnish his wages for this program. It's only just that he gets some of it back. #duh. Albeit with much much less purchasing power.

 

[sailingaway]

Ron Paul clearly thinks he will not be credited with Five of his state wins to let him be nominated on the floor. It is URGENT we spread the video of Louisiana and the story of what happened in OK (just so they know there were at least two) so Ron gets Louisiana. I think he was originally expected to get it because of the video but the other side didn't back down and now media say 'it is contested' as if it could go either way. Up to 2:15 this is just ignored motions which are procedurally important because they show the procedural basis for removing the chair, but aren't very exciting to watch.

 

[LibertyEagle]

IMO It would be impossible for many old people to make ends meet without SS.

People live for today, and set very little aside for the tomorrows. Most of us are not squirrels by nature. Perhaps the program needs to be refined, but I would hate to see it abolished. Ending SS, would dramatically increase senior welfare payments. We are not a country that will turn our backs on our elderly. It is what it is.

Once upon a time, people used to save for their old age, and for other things they might need. They didn't live hand to mouth, like people do today. Savings were encouraged in our society; not discouraged like they are today. Their savings were compounded and they watched their money grow.

They would again, if they realized they had to.

 

[XTreat]

\\

 

[jay_dub]

Engineered inflation has ensured that saving money is a sure way to lose money. Saved money does not grow in this economy....it loses buying power.

It's a sad reflection on our system that people cannot return to what used to be, even if they wanted to. The fact is that for many millions, they run out of money before they run out of month and savings in that environment is impossible.

We really do need Ron Paul.

 

[LibertyEagle]

Meh, this is the appeal to emotions argument. Are we a country that would sacrifice babies and the unborn for one more year of driving a Mercedes or living with our mate in a house with 5 bedrooms, 3 bathrooms, 3 car garage, Jacuzzi, 1/2 acre yard, etc etc..?

I'd just like to know how SS is going to get funded along with all the other "unfunded liabilities" with the unstable and rapidly growing overhang in debt that this country faces.

3 choices. Inflate (the likely outcome), watch it crash and burn (if nothing is done), drastically reduce non-domestic debt spending aka military imperialism (Ron's plan).

Inflation is what it is. Forcing young people to take care of and support old people who are on their way out. Basically old people riding on the backs of young people for as long as possible. Yes, I think sacrifice is important. But I think it should be the other way around. The old people need to give up their wealth to the new generations, instead of greedily holding on to it until they die where that wealth is absorbed by government and sent over seas.

That's a pretty shocking statement you just made. Social Security should never have been forced on the people, but it was. It was setup as a Social Security Trust Fund, where the money extracted from people's paychecks were supposed to be saved and invested for them when they retired. Years ago, the money was stolen, moved into the general fund and spent. It's true that with all the additional things added in, that most retirees get many times what they initially had stolen from them. But, to imply they are some kind of parasites is the same type of language that the left uses to justify killing off older people. Add to that your last sentence accusing them of being greedy if they hold onto their own damn money, sounds like something taken directly from Democratic Underground. I'm surprised at you. Shocked is a better word.
By the way, have you ever heard of inheritance?

 

[LibertyEagle]

Engineered inflation has ensured that saving money is a sure way to lose money. Saved money does not grow in this economy....it loses buying power.

You can save it in a variety of ways. It doesn't have to be in U.S. dollars, you know. Spending it on junk doesn't maintain buying power either.

 

[newbitech]

That's a pretty shocking statement you just made. Social Security should never have been forced on the people, but it was. It was setup as a Social Security Trust Fund, where the money extracted from people's paychecks were supposed to be saved and invested for them when they retired. Years ago, the money was stolen, moved into the general fund and spent. It's true that with all the additional things added in, that most retirees get many times what they initially had stolen from them. But, to imply they are some kind of parasites is the same type of language that the left uses to justify killing off older people. Add to that your last sentence accusing them of being greedy if they hold onto their own damn money, sounds like something taken directly from Democratic Underground. I'm surprised at you. Shocked is a better word.
By the way, have you ever heard of inheritance?

Of course it is shocking. It's the appeal to emotions argument. It's no different than making the assumption that people who are paying SSN should just accept it and keep doing to save grandpa and grandma even though they will never see a return on that "investment".

I don't play around with crap like that. You are reading my response to an emotional argument by TrishW, not my opinion on the matter.

 

[newbitech]

Huh, well I guess that is new. It is a good idea, but I used to hear people say they couldn't earn more than X or it would limit their social security. I don't really know, though. That bit about confiscating what seniors put aside is absolutely against property rights, though, I have no idea what you are thinking there. That is what inflation is, anyhow, and it isn't 'what it is' it is created by loose monetary policy with no input by those whose wealth is confiscated thereby.

Please allow me to clarify. People who are collecting on their SSN are not collecting the money they put in. That money is gone, sent over seas. The money they are collecting is new taxes laid on anyone who works. Granted, some folks like Ron Paul collect the full benefit and still pay in. Granted, that money they put in from 1980-2010 was worth more then than it is now on a nominal basis due to inflation. The point is, someone who is 18 years old will never see that money come back.

My concern is not people like Ron Paul paying in and collecting. My concern is about people who have the idea that we need government to take care of the elderly and we do that via SS. That is why I put the shoe on the other foot. It's easy to see how ridiculous stealing the accumulated wealth of an old person and giving it to kids is wrong. It's not so easy to see how stealing the potential wealth of babies and children and future generations and giving it to support old people is wrong. But they are the exact same thing.

As far as what you heard about SS. Its different for retirement and disability. If you are disabled or not of full retirement age, yeah, that money is offset by your income.

 

[newbitech]

This is a completely false way of looking at it. SS is an earned benefit. People have paid into it all their lives and they damn well deserve to not eat cat food when they get old. The system is underfunded because of gov't mis-management, not by the greed of old folks.

Ron sees the need to maintain the system for those that are too old to make use of an alternative. He wants to fund it by cutting overseas spending. All the other GOP budget plans call for cuts to SS and other domestic programs while giving out more breaks to large corporations and increasing defense spending. That dog just won't hunt. We can't wrap wasteful spending and empire in a flag and call it a good idea. It's not patriotic to bankrupt your country.

Just on a dollar for dollar comparison, corporate welfare is much bigger than social welfare. Do a search and educate yourself. And the logic of this has been proved false so there is no benefit to the country to give largesse to corporations and finance it on the backs of all citizens. There is a logic to keeping our businesses competitive, but it one of degrees. We have taken it so far as to where it is nothing more than further enriching the rich. That is when it is accurate to call it welfare. The GOP has obfuscated this argument to make people feel it's unpatriotic to not give corporations a free ride.

As for Ron collecting SS, good for him!! It's his money that he paid in. He deserves to get some of it back.

you are being reactionary. I have educated myself. Even for educated people, its not the easiest thing to explain how SS hurts young people. Its totally easy to see how taking it away from old people hurts them tho. The problem is with what you are telling me is, you are failing to include the part of Ron Paul's solution is to allow young people to OPT OUT.

I think Ron Paul drew that line at the age of 25. Well thats great for people 25 and under and people who are a half generation away from retirement (funded by the 18-25's who DIDN'T) opt out, basically 7 years. So anyone 59 and up. What about those from 26-58? Looks like those folks are just flat screwed, eh?

I don't have the choice of opting out, and even IF Ron Paul cut out 1 trillion and closed down every base, and brought home every troop, when I reach "retirement" age in 31 years, my lifetime of accumulated SS "EARNED BENEFIT" will either be NOT there, or so totally inflated away as to be utterly worthless.

How about we just let me keep my earned benefit now, and let me take care of my old people and let you take care of your old people?