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

[gjdavis60]

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?

Let's not forget that when the system was created, almost half of the people who reached adulthood did not live to the specified retirement age. Social Security was a massive wealth transfer scheme from its inception - from young to old and from dead to living - more than it was about forcing people to invest in their own retirement.

 

[Dianne]

Was a good interview. I was pleased Mika read excerpts from Joe Scarborough's Politico article, "Why I voted for Ron Paul" .

 

[jay_dub]

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.

True enough, and it's too big a subject for just a comment in this thread. We shouldn't have to defend our personal financial solvency against our own government working against us, though. That's what I feel like I'm doing. I've already resigned myself to never getting what I've paid in and have done things to ensure some income so long as I'm on this side of the grass.

I feel really bad for those folks that are already boxed in to a corner or don't have the knowledge to insulate themselves from perpetual inflation. Some have done it to themselves, but some are just victims. Ron's sound money policy would go a long way in helping us all, but especially these people out.

 

[jay_dub]

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.

A government financed on debt is robbing the present and future generations, no matter what the money is spent on. I see no reason to fixate on old people. Why not focus on the myriad other things that money is being wasted on? It is senseless to create warfare between the generations when it is our government that has created this debacle. I think Ron Paul has as a good a plan as any (probably the only workable one) for seeing us through this.

BTW, I'm 55 years old and have a good chance of getting screwed out of 40+ years of paying in. Yes, I realize I'm one of those that is likely to be 'flat screwed'.

 

[TrishW]

Perhaps there is another place on the net, or this forum, where I can go to talk about SS? I do not see it as a demon. Yes, I do think it needs revised and the government should quit robbing from it. But it is good that the seniors are being cared for and I do not see it as the youth taking care of them! I find that insulting. They worked and paid into the program... it is not charity.

I had a home that was worth quite a bit... not now. I had a job and a good bank account... not now. Thank God I will have SS and whatever I can save between now and then. Sure the kids could take care of me, but that is the last thing that I would want to become... A burden on my children. I would sooner be dead.

But anyway.... I thought Ron did great in the interview! I am happy that people are still giving him a voice on TV.

 

[HOLLYWOOD]

WTF?

Sam Stein, "Have you asked, have you been asked, by Mitt Romney to have a speaking portion at the convention?"

When the hell does a candidate determine who speaks @ RNC national conventions? Damn, forgot, it's a Politburo...

 

[newbitech]

A government financed on debt is robbing the present and future generations, no matter what the money is spent on. I see no reason to fixate on old people. Why not focus on the myriad other things that money is being wasted on? It is senseless to create warfare between the generations when it is our government that has created this debacle. I think Ron Paul has as a good a plan as any (probably the only workable one) for seeing us through this.

BTW, I'm 55 years old and have a good chance of getting screwed out of 40+ years of paying in. Yes, I realize I'm one of those that is likely to be 'flat screwed'.

You wrongly accuse me of being fixated on old people. This conversation started because of the ending comments of this video talking about Ron Paul collecting SS and the apparent sanctimonious attitude of the guy calling him out on it. Someone came along in the thread and made the comment that inflation and taking money from futures generations is what it is because apparently American's take care of their old. Yeah, they do, but when the govt interferes in that by cooking up some scheme like social welfare, we end up with what we have now.

I am only commenting on the video in this thread. If was a very good discussion, but the one part that clearly stood out to me was the dig at the end about Ron Paul collecting SS. This evolved the thread in to the discussion about SS.

I am not trying to create warfare between the generations, but I will point out that Ron Paul is clearly standing pat on the idea that it is the young people with new ideas that will displace the old people with old and wrong ideas.

My take is simply this, Ron Paul should take back what was taken from him. I have no problem with that. At the same time, the sanctimonious attack probably holds merit with a lot of that audience and deserves a thread of its own. It just so happens that the attack was centered on Ron Paul taking SS while simultaneously discrediting the merits of that system.

I can see how the layperson would see that as Ron Paul being a hypocrite. And in fact, I KNOW there are people in this movement who would take the same dig at you or I for accepting SS, Food Stamps, Unemployment etc etc... So the perception goes beyond just Ron Paul and his actions. It could be about young and old and what divides the demographics. Hell, much of the criticism laid at the campaign the last 5 years was on not doing enough to reach out to the older generation of GOP voters who scoffed at the idea that SS was a problem. Well clearly it is. When we talk about taking away SS from old people, there is a huge uproar. But not a peep when WHAT IS ACTUALLY HAPPENING, SS being taken away from everyone else is made crystal clear.

 

[newbitech]

Perhaps there is another place on the net, or this forum, where I can go to talk about SS? I do not see it as a demon. Yes, I do think it needs revised and the government should quit robbing from it. But it is good that the seniors are being cared for and I do not see it as the youth taking care of them! I find that insulting. They worked and paid into the program... it is not charity.

I had a home that was worth quite a bit... not now. I had a job and a good bank account... not now. Thank God I will have SS and whatever I can save between now and then. Sure the kids could take care of me, but that is the last thing that I would want to become... A burden on my children. I would sooner be dead.

But anyway.... I thought Ron did great in the interview! I am happy that people are still giving him a voice on TV.

yeah I did suggest another thread for this topic when I first posted.

It is the youth taking care of SS, but you have to consider youth anyone who is not full retirement age or who is still working and paying in to the system. You have to understand that the money you paid in for the last 70 years is GONE. Even the new money that goes in, GONE.

So if you put money in that account in the 50-60's and that money is GONE, where do you think your checks come from? That's right, your kids.

I don't want seniors to die or suffer. Don't get me wrong. What I do want seniors to understand is that when you say stuff like "last thing that I would want to become... A burden on my children. I would sooner be dead." well....

So my point again is, it's easy to see how taking that check away from you is going to hurt you. What is not easy to see is how your check is hurting the future. Its a very tough tough situation. I have much compassion, my grandmother collects SS as do her siblings. My disabled brother collects SS. I know that if SS where to evaporate overnight, our family would face a huge crisis.

That doesn't change the fact that my brother and grandmother are surviving off the backs of future generations.

 

[kahless]

What a great interview. Too bad Conservatives do not watch MSNBC. If Foxnews and Neocon talk radio gave Ron that amount of time to articulate his beliefs during the campaign he may have been the Republican nominee.

I registered Republican to vote for Ron and it pains me to remain in the party after hearing the last two interviews from him which sounds like they are going to shut Ron and the movement out at the convention. Tough decision whether to remain in the party for the purpose of voting for liberty candidates and help change the party from within.

 

[sailingaway]

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.

Note that those so blythely voting to cut social security all kept their federal pension so never paid into social security. Talk about setting an example! Ron COULD have kept the richer federal pension but GAVE THAT UP as immorally rich, in order to be in the same boat as the people he represents. As far as I am concerned it makes him the ONLY one up there with a right to speak on this subject.

 

[opinionatedfool]

Man I wish he would be president!

 

[sailingaway]

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?381237-Ron-Paul-coming-up-live-next-on-Morning

Sure enough, ThinkProgress immediately did a 'Ron is a hypocrite' on social security meme so it is out there throughout the leftist blogosphere echo chamber.... calling Ron a hypocrite for taking SS while being for allowing those who HAVEN'T paid in to opt out. They say 'while opposing the program' of course.

I commented on one:

Uh, 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...

 

[jay_dub]

I'd just like to point out that Ron being on Morning Joe today and CNN yesterday is largely due to the lawsuit being filed. We are already seeing benefits from it as it's giving Ron platforms to speak from that he wouldn't have had if not for this suit.

That being said, he's doing a heckuva job. These programs are actually better than speeches as more people are getting a chance to hear Ron speak and he's being given ample time to articulate his ideas.

Hopefully, he gets more chances like this in the coming days.

 

[Lucille]

Sure enough, ThinkProgress immediately did a 'Ron is a hypocrite' on social security meme so it is out there throughout the leftist blogosphere echo chamber.... calling Ron a hypocrite for taking SS while being for allowing those who HAVEN'T paid in to opt out. They say 'while opposing the program' of course.

I commented on one:

The leftist had a conniption recently over Ayn Rand taking SS too.

"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

 

[JustinL]

Glad he did this interview, he did okay given the circumstances. The ill purpose and intent of some of the questions was obvious as soon as they asked him (particularly the social security one). He was just barely able to answer it, making the answer not entirely effective and not able to give a full reply and rebuttal. They did cut him off to ask additional questions so they weren't particularly kind in that respect, but better than some others atleast. And atleast some of it was apparent and easily pointed out to someone that didn't notice. Curious that he's been getting more interviews lately, I saw no mention of the lawsuit in this one.

 

[alucard13mmfmj]

Ron loses money from SS because 20 dollars back then is not worth 20 dollars today... lolololzzz. silly interviewers.

 

[Bastiat's The Law]

Had a friend just email me about this interview. Brought up Ron 'taking' soc sec....my answer?....its his money, why wouldn't he want it back?...

Exactly! And he opted out of the Congressional pension program which would've gave him about 100k a year for life.

 

[tod evans]

Exactly! And he opted out of the Congressional pension program which would've gave him about 100k a year for life.

Once again Ron's character shines through.....You can bet your ass any other politician would have said exactly that on national TV.

 

[sailingaway]

Once again Ron's character shines through.....You can bet your ass any other politician would have said exactly that on national TV.

Only one other congressman has done it, and he was a tea party long shot who said it as a platform when he ran for office in 2010. I hope he sticks with it. Newt did it with much fanfare, then opted back into the plan a couple of years later.

 

[Bastiat's The Law]

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.

I agree. The elderly have been taught or sold on Social Security being a retirement program for 50+ years. You can't slam the car in reverse when you're going 80mph without catastrophe befalling you. You'd gradually have to changes peoples attitudes about the program, and by that I mean reaching out to the younger generation 35 and younger. Many people use Social Security as a crutch to avoid planning for retirement. It's a classic case of moral hazard. The best case scenario would shore up the program for those currently on it or will be on it, raise the age to 70, means test benefits so wealthy get reduced payments or none at all. Allow younger people to opt out of the program and save for retirement. Relegate the program back to the indignant in society, those living in poverty, while simultaneously working towards a better system in the future with the young people. If you want people to behave responsibly, you have to give them more responsibility. This will take decades to accomplish so there's so quick fix. In an ideal libertarian utopia there would still be services like Social Security for the elderly and those subsisting at the poverty level, but it would be entirely funded by charity and volunteerism.