NBC News report on RP scared my grandma!

[Matt Collins]

I forced my entire family to watch the nightly news on NBC after I heard they were going to feature Ron Paul.

Overall they were impressed, but when they basically said RP was going to eliminate Social Security, my grandmother literally jumped out of her chair. Fortunately she doesn't vote, but I bet her demographic is one of the higher % that watches the nightly news and I hope to God that they didn't all have the same reaction that she did.

My parents in their 60's got a better grasp of it after I explained RP's position to them on Social Security, but the only thing my grandmother got out of the entire thing was "RP's going to eliminate social security"

Ugh...

Did anyone else perceive this as a problem?

[NewEnd]

Yes... he needs to start using the term "phase out"

I saw that and thought... oops, there goes everything.

[JenHarris]

Yes

[SwooshOU]

One issue folks are everywhere. RP's a big picture guy. Hopefully more will see the big picture.

[quickmike]

when they basically said RP was going to eliminate Social Security, my grandmother literally jumped out of her chair. Fortunately she doesn't vote

HAHAHAHAHA

Im sorry, but that was the funniest thing I've heard all day long. Just tell her hes not going after her SS check and just wants to let future generations out.

[murrayrothbard]

I forced my entire family to watch the nightly news on NBC after I heard they were going to feature Ron Paul.

Overall they were impressed, but when they basically said RP was going to eliminate Social Security, my grandmother literally jumped out of her chair. Fortunately she doesn't vote, but I bet her demographic is one of the higher % that watches the nightly news and I hope to God that they didn't all have the same reaction that she did.

My parents in their 60's got a better grasp of it after I explained RP's position to them on Social Security, but the only thing my grandmother got out of the entire thing was "RP's going to eliminate social security"

Ugh...

Did anyone else perceive this as a problem?

it gave me the impression that RP wants to flip a switch and start over from scratch. yes, i know better, but if i was clueless that's what I would have taken away from it.

[wolv275]

yes i thought the short clips and one liners were not good at all. Bad editing at its worse

[Patrick Henry]

I forced my entire family to watch the nightly news on NBC after I heard they were going to feature Ron Paul.

Overall they were impressed, but when they basically said RP was going to eliminate Social Security, my grandmother literally jumped out of her chair. Fortunately she doesn't vote, but I bet her demographic is one of the higher % that watches the nightly news and I hope to God that they didn't all have the same reaction that she did.

My parents in their 60's got a better grasp of it after I explained RP's position to them on Social Security, but the only thing my grandmother got out of the entire thing was "RP's going to eliminate social security"

Ugh...

Did anyone else perceive this as a problem?
I thought that the editing was done intentionally to show the good Dr. as a radical. That is how the elite one worlders want and need to portray him. As I said in the Hardball thread, these guys are all shills for the DNC and the one world elites. They know that Dr. Paul is the only one that can win against the Dems and stop the globalists perverse goals of being one big happy family.

I am sorry about your grandma feeling that way. I bet that she is not the only one unfortunately.

[murrayrothbard]

Yes... he needs to start using the term "phase out"

I saw that and thought... oops, there goes everything.

He always does. Sort of obvious they picked that 2 second clip to show for maximum scare effect.

[libertythor]

RP needs to mention Chile's solution to the Social Security problem. They privatized it and its thriving.

[axiomata]

It is not even his position that social security should be abolished.

[SWATH]

Using the term "phase out" for social security would be good, but I think he should still use the term "abolish" when referring to the IRS.

[Margo37]

Yes, I have a lot of damage control to do now with lots of my neighbors, adult community. I started as soon as I heard that one line, that's the one that will stick.

[RP4ME]

Yes

He said there was no money there...he didnt say he'd elimiate it in the piece but it sounded that way...

I know my gma has become quite the socailist and I explained that to her as well, but she'd rather give up our Republic than lose govt programs that she doesnt really even participate in...
There was some seniors for Paul site..you could send her to that!

[LibertyEagle]

Did anyone else perceive this as a problem?

yes

[McDermit]

Yeah, if people think he just wants to wipe it out immediately, we're screwed. Time for damage control.

[Man from La Mancha]

Of course that was done on purpose.

.

[Margo37]

http://www.seniorsforronpaul.com/

An excellent reference, unfortunately not a lot of seniors on here.

[SeanEdwards]

Social security is defunct. There is no 'lockbox', it's just a bunch of IOUs.

It's not Ron Paul that's phasing out social security, it's economic reality.

Ponzi schemes = u lose

[devil21]

As insensitive as it may sound, Im pretty irked about the entire Social Security thing and your grandmother's reaction to even the thought of eliminating it is why. Too many people have become accustomed to being subsidized by the government and have gotten lazy. Did your grandmother plan a good retirement or is she dependant on SS to keep food in her mouth every month? If its the former then she shouldnt be so concerned about Social Security but judging by her reaction (and many other elderly Im sure) it is evidence more of poor retirement planning and she would have no one to blame but herself. I don't have much sympathy since the SS money I pay now to keep your grandma fed won't be there for me when Im 60 (31 now). Its time more people started taking responsibility and planning for their own futures instead of relying on politicians to care for them.

[SeanEdwards]

As insensitive as it may sound, Im pretty irked about the entire Social Security thing and your grandmother's reaction to even the thought of eliminating it is why. Too many people have become accustomed to being subsidized by the government and have gotten lazy. Did your grandmother plan a good retirement or is she dependant on SS to keep food in her mouth every month? If its the former then she shouldnt be so concerned about Social Security but judging by her reaction (and many other elderly Im sure) it is evidence more of poor retirement planning and she would have no one to blame but herself. I don't have much sympathy since the SS money I pay now to keep your grandma fed won't be there for me when Im 60 (31 now). Its time more people started taking responsibility and planning for their own futures instead of relying on politicians to care for them.

Not entirely fair. The government took money from all those people for their whole working lives and promised to keep it safe for their retirement. If those people hadn't been paying SS they might have had more money to set aside for their own retirement.

Our political scumbag class is entirely to blame.

[Voodoo]

Tell her to get a job. :)

[Birdlady]

Older Americans think they are entitled to these benefits because they happen to be 50+ years older than me. That part really bothers me. In some ways I feel disgust towards them.

Those who are 60+years old lived in a completely different world than it is now yet they still think it's the "good ole days".

For example my grandfather who is 80 years old thought that grocery baggers still get paid $13/hour plus tips. He had no idea that they get paid minimum wage! Working at the Sear's Shoe department just a few decades ago could feed a family of 4. Now you are lucky to be able to pay for an apartment. These older Americans are looking at today's world from a 50 year old perspective.

Unfortunately where I live, I think more than 50% of residents in PA get some type of assistance from the government. It's hard selling RP to those types of people...=/

[devil21]

Not entirely fair. The government took money from all those people for their whole working lives and promised to keep it safe for their retirement. If those people hadn't been paying SS they might have had more money to set aside for their own retirement.

Our political scumbag class is entirely to blame.

The difference is that now I am *forced* to plan a good retirement BECAUSE they did not, by thinking SS will pay their bills forever. That's my issue. I won't have the "luxury" of having someone else footing my bills when Im retired. Too many of today's elderly figured their SS would pay for everything and hence did not plan for their own survival after retirement. Thanks grandma.

[paulitics]

Seniors overall are the most wealthy demographic group. People think they are poor, but they are not...most have a net worth of a million or more and get free health care, and their mortgages are paid off, and expenses are very low. Some are dependent on SS for food, but the vast majority just tuck it away in an interest bearing account. The politicians have used them for political gain by promising them SS while they eviscerate the middle class and use the money for wars and interest on the debt.

[Tenbatsu]

Ok.. Don Quixote!? C'mon, Ron Paul is not an imaginary champion nor a delusional nut case like Don Quixote. This is a ridiculous analogy.

Also, that Social Security clip was taken totally out of context. I believe it's time to mobilize on this one. We can't have these hit pieces in disguise scare away potential voters.

[DeadheadForPaul]

We (and Dr. Paul) need to consider something:
1. The biggest age group is the baby boomers who are right on the verge of entering social security age in the next years
2.) They are also the most likely people to turn out to vote (other than the 70 year old range)

Therefore, they make up a sizable portion of the electorate - enough to sink the RP campaign if they think Dr. Paul is going to immediately shut off social security - something 90% of them were expecting to depend on their entire lives

It is CRUCIAL that we as volunteers and Dr. Paul as the candidate STRESS that we are not going to immediately get rid of Social Security

[axiomata]

Older Americans think they are entitled to these benefits because they happen to be 50+ years older than me. That part really bothers me. In some ways I feel disgust towards them.

Those who are 60+years old lived in a completely different world than it is now yet they still think it's the "good ole days".

For example my grandfather who is 80 years old thought that grocery baggers still get paid $13/hour plus tips. He had no idea that they get paid minimum wage! So this is what we are dealing with. These older Americans are looking at today's world from a 50 year old perspective.

Unfortunately where I live, I think more than 50% of residents in PA get some type of assistance from the government. It's hard selling RP to those types of people...=/

Older Americans are entitled to these benefits. They've been paying into it their whole lives.

Of course younger Americans should be allowed to get out of it if they choose.

[devil21]

We (and Dr. Paul) need to consider something:
1. The biggest age group is the baby boomers who are right on the verge of entering social security age in the next years
2.) They are also the most likely people to turn out to vote (other than the 70 year old range)

Therefore, they make up a sizable portion of the population - enough to sink the RP campaign if they think Dr. Paul is going to immediately shut off social security - something 90% of them were expecting to depend on their entire lives

The good news is that hopefully those people scared by the clip (which I really didnt see as bad as some others thought) will look into it for themselves and see that it is not RP's goal to immediately stop SS. Those that don't look into it weren't going to vote for him anyway. More people have heard his name and those that are informed will check him out. There's no such thing as bad publicity.

[devil21]

Older Americans are entitled to these benefits. They've been paying into it their whole lives.

Of course younger Americans should be allowed to get out of it if they choose.

Im no economist, but with inflation factored in isn't it fair and accurate to say that they are now taking OUT more than they put IN? Life expectancy has extended, after all. Isn't that the very reason why the SS is failing?

[Tenbatsu]

nightly@nbc.com

Feel free to voice your displeasure.

[Matt]

Just print this out for her.

http://www.ronpaul2008.com/issues/social-security/

Social Security

Our nation’s promise to its seniors, once considered a sacred trust, has become little more than a tool for politicians to scare retirees while robbing them of their promised benefits. Today, the Social Security system is broke and broken.

Those in the system are seeing their benefits dwindle due to higher taxes, increasing inflation, and irresponsible public spending.

The proposed solutions, ranging from lower benefits to higher taxes to increasing the age of eligibility, are NOT solutions; they are betrayals.

Imposing any tax on Social Security benefits is unfair and illogical. In Congress, I have introduced the Senior Citizens Tax Elimination Act (H.R. 191), which repeals ALL taxes on Social Security benefits, to eliminate political theft of our seniors’ income and raise their standard of living.

Solvency is the key to keeping our promise to our seniors, and I have introduced the Social Security Preservation Act (H.R. 219) to ensure that money paid into the system is only used for Social Security.

It is fundamentally unfair to give benefits to anyone who has not paid into the system. The Social Security for Americans Only Act (H.R. 190) ends the drain on Social Security caused by illegal aliens seeking the fruits of your labor.

We must also address the desire of younger workers to save and invest on their own. We should cut payroll taxes and give workers the opportunity to seek better returns in the private market.

Excessive government spending has created the insolvency crisis in Social Security. We must significantly reduce spending so that our nation can keep its promise to our seniors.

Back to issues main page ›

[paulitics]

Im no economist, but with inflation factored in isn't it fair and accurate to say that they are now taking OUT more than they put IN? Life expectancy has extended, after all. Isn't that the very reason why the SS is failing?

yes they are taking out more, because the original tax rate was fairly modest, just a couple percent, since the 80s it has grown to be 15.4% if you factor in medicare.

[American]

I forced my entire family to watch the nightly news on NBC after I heard they were going to feature Ron Paul.

Overall they were impressed, but when they basically said RP was going to eliminate Social Security, my grandmother literally jumped out of her chair. Fortunately she doesn't vote, but I bet her demographic is one of the higher % that watches the nightly news and I hope to God that they didn't all have the same reaction that she did.

My parents in their 60's got a better grasp of it after I explained RP's position to them on Social Security, but the only thing my grandmother got out of the entire thing was "RP's going to eliminate social security"

Ugh...

Did anyone else perceive this as a problem?

This is easy, there is no MONEY to pay out SSI where is the communication breakdown there?

Also the dollar keeps dropping, and even if they pay out money it wont be worth diddly.

[fj45lvr]

Well the federal reserve can just print more money so grandma gets her check....too bad it won't buy very much.

Grandma and all can blame themselves that they let their Congress do it to them!!!! Where's the personal responsibility???

[LibertyEagle]

Social Security is broke, because our public servants raided the trust fund years ago!! All they left in place were IOUs.

[LibertyEagle]

Well the federal reserve can just print more money so grandma gets her check....too bad it won't buy very much.

Grandma and all can blame themselves that they let their Congress do it to them!!!! Where's the personal responsibility???

Get real! So, are you going to blame YOURSELF for letting Bush get in power? Is the blame totally on YOUR shoulders?

Everyone has to work like hell against this crap and do their part.

[LibertyEagle]

This is easy, there is no MONEY to pay out SSI where is the communication breakdown there?

Also the dollar keeps dropping, and even if they pay out money it wont be worth diddly.

You are misrepresenting Ron Paul's stance. He says that those who paid into it and are dependent upon getting it, will get it under his administration. He would get the money to fund it by curtailing our present desire to invade, overthrow and occupy foreign countries who have not attacked us, nor pose any imminent threat to our country.

[DeadheadForPaul]

You are misrepresenting Ron Paul's stance. He says that those who paid into it and are dependent upon getting it, will get it under his administration. He would get the money to fund it by curtailing our present desire to invade, overthrow and occupy foreign countries who have not attacked us, nor pose any imminent threat to our country.

Liberty's got it down

The key here is that you let young people opt out so there is no social security in the future - or at least, people can opt out if they dont want to participate so the numbers would be less

The question then arises: what about those people who paid money into the system? Do you give them nothing? No. You simply redirect the money from a different source (such as cutting corporate subsidies and our spending overseas).

Social security is then effectively eliminated in the long term. When our generation becomes old, we have our private accounts to fall back on, and we dont lose any money from the SS system because we never put any in it in the first place

[michaelwise]

Older Americans think they are entitled to these benefits because they happen to be 50+ years older than me. That part really bothers me. In some ways I feel disgust towards them.

Those who are 60+years old lived in a completely different world than it is now yet they still think it's the "good ole days".

For example my grandfather who is 80 years old thought that grocery baggers still get paid $13/hour plus tips. He had no idea that they get paid minimum wage! Working at the Sear's Shoe department just a few decades ago could feed a family of 4. Now you are lucky to be able to pay for an apartment. These older Americans are looking at today's world from a 50 year old perspective.

Unfortunately where I live, I think more than 50% of residents in PA get some type of assistance from the government. It's hard selling RP to those types of people...=/Fortunatly, this country will be going bankrupt soon.

[LibertyEagle]

Older Americans think they are entitled to these benefits because they happen to be 50+ years older than me. That part really bothers me. In some ways I feel disgust towards them.

/


How nice of you. People who paid into this system are not asking for any damn handout. They want their frickin' money back. A whole lot of people never wanted this social security system anyway, but it was shoved down people's throats! Government extracted their money forcefully and "said" that it would be put into a Social Security Trust fund, would earn interest and would be given back to them when they retired. Much like a savings account. Of course, we were lied to. The fund was raided by our beloved public servants and IOUs behind.

Don't act like this is some kind of handout. It's not. :rolleyes:

[erowe1]

The real change in terminology we need is not between the words "abolish" and "phase out". What we need to do is start calling Social Security what it is, which is a welfare program. It's terrible that so many people on SS think they are getting back money they paid in or some such thing. They are getting money that is getting taxed from other people who are generally less wealthy than they are, just like when they were working they paid SS that went to the people who were drawing it out then. Just once I'd like to hear the AARP put out a statement thanking the American workforce for its generosity in giving so much welfare money to wealthy retirees via Social Security.

Next time you talk to your grandma ask her, "Grandma, I heard that you believe that I should be forced to participate in Social Security. I understand why you want it for yourself. But if I don't want to be in that program, why do you want to force me to?"

[davidkachel]

As insensitive as it may sound, Im pretty irked about the entire Social Security thing and your grandmother's reaction to even the thought of eliminating it is why. Too many people have become accustomed to being subsidized by the government and have gotten lazy. Did your grandmother plan a good retirement or is she dependant on SS to keep food in her mouth every month? If its the former then she shouldnt be so concerned about Social Security but judging by her reaction (and many other elderly Im sure) it is evidence more of poor retirement planning and she would have no one to blame but herself. I don't have much sympathy since the SS money I pay now to keep your grandma fed won't be there for me when Im 60 (31 now). Its time more people started taking responsibility and planning for their own futures instead of relying on politicians to care for them.

That's pretty harsh. What do you think people are going to do when the government tells them all their lives that they will get back what they paid in. Most people believe the government is benevolently holding their money for them and is required to give it back as they need it.

[Johnnybags]

That's pretty harsh. What do you think people are going to do when the government tells them all their lives that they will get back what they paid in. Most people believe the government is benevolently holding their money for them and is required to give it back as they need it.

I gave em a dollar when it was worth a dollar and now the dollar they give me back is worth a quarter.

[klamath]

As RP gets more and more viable it is going to turn into one big scare tactic. Heck Remember in 2000 Sarah Jessica parker getting up saying George bush was going to take her mothers health care away and her mother wouldn't be able to to buy medicine and would die. If they can say that about GW what do you think they will be saying about RP? Pictures of dirty bombs going off in cities, planes crashing into buildings, young families starving because foodstamps were cut, old people thrown out of their homes and dying on the streets and you name it, it will happen if RP is elected.

[NinjaPirate]

As RP gets more and more viable it is going to turn into one big scare tactic. Heck Remember in 2000 Sarah Jessica parker getting up saying George bush was going to take her mothers health care away and her mother wouldn't be able to to buy medicine and would die. If they can say that about GW what do you think they will be saying about RP? Pictures of dirty bombs going off in cities, planes crashing into buildings, young families starving because foodstamps were cut, old people thrown out of their homes and dying on the streets and you name it, it will happen if RP is elected.

I was thinking the same thing. I'm sure "they'll" pull every dirty trick in the book to smear RP and make him look incompetent as all hell if he gets elected.

[devil21]

You're right, it is harsh. But as the saying goes "A lack of planning on your part does not make an emergency on mine". The elderly relying on SS to survive show a lack of planning for their futures because they chose to drink the government Kool-Aid. Now they want to get up in arms if someone isn't happy about paying their way in today's expensive society with no return on OUR investment.

*I cant plan well for my future because 86 year olds are eating my money up at a record pace while I struggle to survive in today's economy.*

[Drknows]

I dont think the term phase out is sufficient enough either Phase out when? How long?

He should say that anyone on the program now would still get it but the 20 somethings and the next generations wont.

[NinjaPirate]

I dont think the term phase out is sufficient enough either Phase out when? How long?

He should say that anyone on the program now would still get it but the 20 somethings and the next generations wont.

Well, the baby boomers are going start tapping into it soon, so, I'd say it won't get phased out for another good 30-40 years at least.

[RobotJaxxon]

How nice of you. People who paid into this system are not asking for any damn handout. They want their frickin' money back. A whole lot of people never wanted this social security system anyway, but it was shoved down people's throats! Government extracted their money forcefully and "said" that it would be put into a Social Security Trust fund, would earn interest and would be given back to them when they retired. Much like a savings account. Of course, we were lied to. The fund was raided by our beloved public servants and IOUs behind.

Don't act like this is some kind of handout. It's not. :rolleyes:

What bothers me is that even after thoroughly explaining that NO ONE is going to take away the benefits to anyone over 30 years old, elderly voters will still vehemently oppose any discussion of reforming the social security system. This happened in 2005 when Bush was trying to push a discussion on the long term solvency of the system, and all the old people took it super-personally. That was one of the few issues I've found myself truly sympathetic with and on the side of Bush. G.W. was talking about the system falling apart in 2042, which severely affects ME (I'm 29), not the people currently receiving benefits, but Bush was crucified for attempting to discuss it.

That episode made me realize that the current legislators and some older portions of the voting population don't care about my generation. How are we supposed to start planning for our retirement when we have no idea what Social Security will look like then? The fallout is that no one my age is planning to see a damn thing from Social Security, and that we are just the tools left at the bottom of the pyramid scheme for the government and old people to shake money out of.

[hopeforamerica]

You're right, it is harsh. But as the saying goes "A lack of planning on your part does not make an emergency on mine". The elderly relying on SS to survive show a lack of planning for their futures because they chose to drink the government Kool-Aid. Now they want to get up in arms if someone isn't happy about paying their way in today's expensive society with no return on OUR investment.

*I cant plan well for my future because 86 year olds are eating my money up at a record pace while I struggle to survive in today's economy.*

The 86 year olds are not eating up your money!!! The government is! They paid way more into the system over the years than you have. Ron Paul wants young people to have an "opt out" option and that makes total sense.

[angelatc]

Older Americans think they are entitled to these benefits because they happen to be 50+ years older than me.

Older people are absolutely entitled to those benefits because they were forced to pay into the system their entire lives with the promise that they would be cared for in their retirement years. It was not ever sold as "insurance, in case your own plans fell through." It was sold as *the* retirement plan.

The beginning of Social Security was the end of private pension plans. You're not the only generation getting screwed. That's government "help" for you. They took money from the old people, spent it, and not that it is time to pay it back they're borrowing against your future.

The thing is, it's a pyramid scam that you certainly didn't willingly jump into - you inherited it.

But this is where health care will go, and really fast. Once the government gets a hold of it, people will start crabbing that the old people are using up all the money too fast. Next, it will be the sick people.

Socialism is all about greed.

[LBT]

NBC did the best they could to paint Ron Paul as scary and crazy, while not risking appearing biased.

They basically called Ron Paul crazy with the Don Quixote comparison (that bloke was a nut job). And edited it in a way to make him look not too smart and kind of scary.

Almost exposure is good exposure. It's good that now NBC is forced not to ignore Ron Paul. But don't forget that this organization is an enemy of freedom. Perhaps some of the people working within it are doing the best they can, but still, we need to be on our toes to keep them honest and to make them hurt when they report with bias.

[devil21]

The 86 year olds are not eating up your money!!! The government is! They paid way more into the system over the years than you have. Ron Paul wants young people to have an "opt out" option and that makes total sense.

Look, I understand the basis of what you are saying about how the gov't is treating SS and RP's stance. My view has nothing to do with RP's stance and I totally agree with him. Actually, I wouldnt be opposed to him cutting SS entirely the day after his inauguration so I can save more money for MY future.

Maybe this is more of an issue that heads back to why the Federal Reserve is a bad idea. The money I pay in every month (which pound for pound will end up being more than most of today's elderly paid in, given inflation and the higher rates) has to go somewhere. The money the elderly receive every month comes from somewhere. Even if it's just numbers in a computer I see it as an 86 year old getting $2400 per month to live on (and have for the last 30 years) while realistically we know they didnt PAY $2400 per month into the system. They are simply taking it out faster than we can put it in. And when that is a problem the system is doomed to fail. In short, Im paying for someone else and will have NO return on my contribution while others reap more than they contributed. It still boils down to input vs output.

[MGreen]

Inform your grandmother that Paul has worked to secure her social security benefits, so that she can get a return on her life-long investment. Other politicians have robbed the SS funds.

[angelatc]

They are simply taking it out faster than we can put it in. And when that is a problem the system is doomed to fail. In short, Im paying for someone else and will have NO return on my contribution while others reap more than they contributed. It still boils down to input vs output.

They didn't put $2400 into the system, because there were 15 workers putting in for every one taking out. That number is going to drop to 5 pretty soon, IIRC.

ANd don't fogret about the people who drop dead! The average life expetency is only 72. That means that only half of the population will draw full benefits for more than 7 years. Once they're gone, the government keeps the extra. They paid in for 40 - 50 years, and will only get to use 7 years of bebefits.

But for years and years, they out it in faster than they took it out. It's not their fault that the government stole it.

The system has serious issues - that's for sure. But you can't just throw the elderly into the streets.

Lots of people retired with pension plans, but then government allowed their employers to reorganize under bankruptcy, which discharged the corporate obligations.

Ron Paul says that as a country we have to honor our contracts, and we have a contract with the retirees.

[LibertyEagle]

What bothers me is that even after thoroughly explaining that NO ONE is going to take away the benefits to anyone over 30 years old, elderly voters will still vehemently oppose any discussion of reforming the social security system. This happened in 2005 when Bush was trying to push a discussion on the long term solvency of the system, and all the old people took it super-personally. That was one of the few issues I've found myself truly sympathetic with and on the side of Bush. G.W. was talking about the system falling apart in 2042, which severely affects ME (I'm 29), not the people currently receiving benefits, but Bush was crucified for attempting to discuss it.

That episode made me realize that the current legislators and some older portions of the voting population don't care about my generation. How are we supposed to start planning for our retirement when we have no idea what Social Security will look like then? The fallout is that no one my age is planning to see a damn thing from Social Security, and that we are just the tools left at the bottom of the pyramid scheme for the government and old people to shake money out of.

No. Imagine if you are one of the old people, whose social security check they receive every month means the difference between them being able to eat or starve. They're old. Many of them can't go out and work anymore. They were forced to pay their money into a system, for their entire adult lives, that they were told would invest their money for their old age and would give it back to them, when they were old.

Dr. Paul's plan would not kick these people out into the streets. Because the money was stolen by our dear public servants, it is broke. Dr. Paul has said he would fund it by saving the money that we are now spending overseas, on our own people. So, people who have counted on getting their money back, would do so, while young people would be able to opt out of this horrible system.

But, by all means, keep on pushing the idea that the older generation is just a bunch of selfish leechers. That you would just kick them to the curb, etc. Yeah, that's the ticket. Keep on misrepresenting Dr. Paul's stance on this issue, and sit back and watch while DR PAUL LOSES THIS RACE IN A LANDSLIDE!!! :mad:

[Richie]

Anybody have a YouTube for this?

[devil21]

No. Imagine if you are one of the old people, whose social security check they receive every month means the difference between them being able to eat or starve. They're old. Many of them can't go out and work anymore. They were forced to pay their money into a system, for their entire adult lives, that they were told would invest their money for their old age and would give it back to them, when they were old.

Dr. Paul's plan would not kick these people out into the streets. Because the money was stolen by our dear public servants, it is broke. Dr. Paul has said he would fund it by saving the money that we are now spending overseas, on our own people. So, people who have counted on getting their money back, would do so, while young people would be able to opt out of this horrible system.

But, by all means, keep on pushing the idea that the older generation is just a bunch of selfish leechers. That you would just kick them to the curb, etc. Yeah, that's the ticket. Keep on misrepresenting Dr. Paul's stance on this issue, and sit back and watch while DR PAUL LOSES THIS RACE IN A LANDSLIDE!!! :mad:

For the record, I dont think RobotJaxxon nor myself are saying anything about Ron Paul's stance on SS. Rather, we are venting at how it is playing out and the original post about granny getting upset at the thought of losing her SS check every month to blow at bingo (no offense to OP, many elderly do this). Im surprised you couldn't tell the difference between personal feelings and discussion on RP's stance on the issue.

[inibo]

Older Americans think they are entitled to these benefits because they happen to be 50+ years older than me. That part really bothers me. In some ways I feel disgust towards them.

I'm 52. They have taken money from me at gun point my entire working life and you're disgusted at me because I want it back?

[LibertyEagle]

Inform your grandmother that Paul has worked to secure her social security benefits, so that she can get a return on her life-long investment. Other politicians have robbed the SS funds.

Actually, that is a great thing to say. Because it's only Dr. Paul who has a viable plan to fund social security for those who have planned on it being there.

[Tin_Foil_Hat]

Tell her to get a job. :)


:D:D

[Matt Collins]

Seniors overall are the most wealthy demographic group. People think they are poor, but they are not...most have a net worth of a million or more and get free health care, and their mortgages are paid off, and expenses are very low. Some are dependent on SS for food, but the vast majority just tuck it away in an interest bearing account. That is incorrect. The vast majority of working class seniors are not actually "well off". I would say a lot are of course, but not "most" by far.

[OceanMachine7]

That is incorrect. The vast majority of working class seniors are not actually "well off". I would say a lot are of course, but not "most" by far.

It actually is true. Those over 55 are the wealthiest segment of society. Most of their wealth is in assets though.

[LibertyEagle]

If those of you who think retirees should be kicked to the curb are representative of Libertarian views, I can fully understand why people think that Libertarians could care less about anyone but themselves.

You are misrepresenting Dr. Paul's views, but apparently that does not matter to you. Keep it up kiddies and you will get an upfront and personal view of the destruction of this campaign. When that happens, don't blame the media. Walk to the closest mirror and take a good, long look. :cool:

[CurtisLow]

Yeah, if people think he just wants to wipe it out immediately, we're screwed. Time for damage control.

Yeah Ron needs to spell out what he means. Just as when he brought up offing the dept of education. He did not explain himself in both cases. (Someone will think he wants to get rid of schools) Someone needs to tell his campaign for him to explain what he means or he will lose a lot of people.

[richard1984]

RP needs to mention Chile's solution to the Social Security problem. They privatized it and its thriving.

Interesting. I hadn't heard about that. I'll have to do a little research. :D


I thought that overall it was a pretty good piece. Of course, I didn't even really noticed the problem with the social security part until afterwards. I'm sure (or at least hopefully) he'll have plenty of chances to clear things up.

[devil21]

Yeah Ron needs to spell out what he means. Just as when he brought up offing the dept of education. He did not explain himself in both cases. (Someone will think he wants to get rid of schools) Someone needs to tell his campaign for him to explain what he means or he will lose a lot of people.

The problem is that the MSM is doing the editing and will put the piece together to meet their needs, not Ron Paul's. He can explain all he wants but if they chop it out it wont matter.

[F3d]

.......

[paulitics]

That is incorrect. The vast majority of working class seniors are not actually "well off". I would say a lot are of course, but not "most" by far.

appearances can be deceiving, look up the actually statistics...and you will see they are the most wealthy, financially secure demographic.

[F3d]

.......

[Matt Collins]

Yes they are. A lot are retiring before they're 55. Even teachers. If Social Security isn't rationed out and the spending doesn't go down, people will have to work till they're dead. :eek:


It actually is true. Those over 55 are the wealthiest segment of society. Most of their wealth is in assets though.



appearances can be deceiving, look up the actually statistics...and you will see they are the most wealthy, financially secure demographic.



I am not arguing that they have the most amount of money saved up, but to say that "most seniors are wealthy" is an erroneous statement. That was my only point.

[Corydoras]

What sucks is that when Social Security was instituted, the average lifespan was around 68, and they were on the system what, three years? And now it's more like twenty.

[Richandler]

Not to mention if people do retire at say 55 they don't pay into the system for 10 years.

[F3d]

......

[LibertyEagle]

Not to mention if people do retire at say 55 they don't pay into the system for 10 years.

What you fail to understand is that their benefits go down, the less years they pay into the system.

[F3d]

......

[F3d]

.....

[LibertyEagle]

It only goes down if they want to receive their SS money prematurely (Before 65). Most don't because they have money from pensions, 401ks, IRA's and 403bs

Nope. You get less money per month, if you prematurely stop paying into the system.

[F3d]

.....

[erowe1]

I'm 52. They have taken money from me at gun point my entire working life and you're disgusted at me because I want it back?

But you can't get it back. That's not one of the options. The money you paid in was to fund the expenditures that were being given to somebody else at that time. If you want any money now, it has to be taken from somebody else or borrowed or printed.

[erowe1]

What bothers me is that even after thoroughly explaining that NO ONE is going to take away the benefits to anyone over 30 years old, elderly voters will still vehemently oppose any discussion of reforming the social security system.

There are two different groups to deal with: ordinary elderly Americans, and the political groups that represent them, like the AARP.

The reason the ordinary elderly person opposes any SS reform is that the AARP and friends keep telling them that any SS reform will mean a cut in their benefits, which is a blatant lie on their part. They never fail to tell that lie no matter how clearly a proponent of SS reform promises not to cut benefits of people who want to stay in the system.

So why do groups like the AARP hate SS reform so much that they will lie to trick their members into opposing it? Because they know that the problem with allowing current workers to opt out is that it means that those workers won't have to keep paying for the benefits of the current payees. And as soon as they reveal that that's what's actually happening, they effectively admit that SS is not and never has been a retirement savings system. Rather, it is, and always has been a welfare program. They don't dare admit that, people involved in pyramid schemes never do.

[F3d]

......

[0zzy]

This is what they did for Barry Goldwater.

[paulitics]

I am not arguing that they have the most amount of money saved up, but to say that "most seniors are wealthy" is an erroneous statement. That was my only point.


You misquoted. This was my quote.

Seniors overall are the most wealthy demographic group.

Nothing erroneous about that. I'm not sure why you insist on disagreeing about something that wasn't said.

[inibo]

But you can't get it back. That's not one of the options. The money you paid in was to fund the expenditures that were being given to somebody else at that time. If you want any money now, it has to be taken from somebody else or borrowed or printed.

I have no illusions about getting it back. All I was saying is I want it back and I was wondering why that should be disgusting. Let me put it another way: I've been robbed from the day I took my first job and I'm pissed about it.

[devil21]

It's better to try to privatize it and ration it out instead of giving the amount that they give now. We're still going to need the amount of taxes we pay today to cover the future cost of this. I don't know why Ron Paul says no taxes yet wants to fix SS. You can't fix it if no one gets taxed. lol Not to mention, it's not even reasonable. He should support the LVT. No land speculation. No land monopoly. Most land owners wouldn't like this idea though because they want the people who rent to get screwed.

Income tax and SS are separate. When you look at your paystub the "FICA" deduction is actually Social Security. That is separate from your Federal Income Tax. Dont people already pay a land tax in the form of Local Property Tax? Last time I checked those were pretty hefty taxes already.

[F3d]

....

[robatsu]

I'm sort of bummed. I got interviewed by these guys at Robert Taft Club speech, but didn't make final cut. Well, maybe not crazy or normal enough.

[F3d]

......

[erowe1]

It's true that when Paul promises to continue paying current recipients and at the same time allow the current payees to opt out, that it will create a gap in funding that will have to be filled another way. And this other way, whatever it is will be something that comes out of government revenue that is collected outside of FICA, whether that be the income tax (not if Paul gets his way) or something else. But this initial transition cost that is represented by that gap in funding is more than made up for by the future savings that are created by not having to pay out to all those people who opt out now when the time of their retirement comes. The transition is an ugly situation. But it has to happen. And the sooner the better. We can't afford to keep the Social Security welfare program going and everybody knows it.

[Nash]

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,301997,00.html

Here they come...

The only people that are doing poorly (that are retired) are the ones who pay rent or had a ton of kids that they shouldn't even of had. About 70% of Americans own homes. The Land Value Tax makes it more fair for people who pay apartment rent and encourages people to work. The income tax makes people not want to work anymore. Why work when you won't get taxed anymore?

I'm not exactly sure what LVT is although it sounds similar to a property tax but while it may not be AS bad any kind of tax on property/land is going to get passed onto renters at some point.

IMO property taxation is even worse than the income tax.

[erowe1]

Obviously there would have to be a cut in their benefits if spending stays the same. With the Congress we have now, spending can't go down. Even if it did, SS benefits would still have to go down. Medicare and SS comprises a lot of the Federal budget and so does interest.

I don't know how true this is. We do have to cut the program over time. But that doesn't mean that we have to cut what's paid to people who are currently dependent. As they die off (sorry for not having a nicer way to put it), they will no longer be dependent, and the cuts that need to be made can from what would be paid to future recipients rather than current dependents. Allowing people to opt out would drastically cut that future liability. Also, one of the huge problems with current SS is that it it's payout is fixed to go up at a rate that is higher than inflation. Just getting rid of that factor would effectively cut the unfunded liability without cutting the amount any current recipient gets.

The essence of your point about the need to cut spending (I assume you mean total federal spending on everything) is of course true. But, getting Paul elected President would definitely accomplish that. Not only would it accompany a change in the congressional makeup, but it would bring with it a clear mandate to cut unconstitutional spending. And Paul could and would veto budget bills that spend too much.

[jd603]

They took him out of context. He said "there's no more money in it [social security], it's already spent" , but it comes off like "I TOOK THE MONEY AWAY , HA HA HA"

the biggest problem with ron paul is you need to research things to understand things and most people don't. He's capable of elaborating on most subjects very well thank god, but it's tough to be able to do that in a short news segment like that one.



I forced my entire family to watch the nightly news on NBC after I heard they were going to feature Ron Paul.

Overall they were impressed, but when they basically said RP was going to eliminate Social Security, my grandmother literally jumped out of her chair. Fortunately she doesn't vote, but I bet her demographic is one of the higher % that watches the nightly news and I hope to God that they didn't all have the same reaction that she did.

My parents in their 60's got a better grasp of it after I explained RP's position to them on Social Security, but the only thing my grandmother got out of the entire thing was "RP's going to eliminate social security"

Ugh...

Did anyone else perceive this as a problem?

[F3d]

.......

[Mark]

.


I saw this on RonPaulForums and it seems like a good idea..

a little easier to comprehend maybe..?


It's about the NBC News report Friday night..

this was posted at 8:22pm and it already has over 90 replys..

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=26741

"NBC News report on RP scared my grandma!"


...the only thing my grandmother got out of the entire thing was "RP's going to eliminate social security"

Ugh...

Did anyone else perceive this as a problem?..."


I think EVERYONE agreed..



It was suggested..



"Yes... he needs to start using the term "phase out"

I saw that and thought... oops, there goes everything."


So... maybe consider this..? You're the expert.. ;)))

[shadowhooch]

I didn't read all 10 pages of posts so I don't know if anyone said this yet....

But Ron Paul WILL NOT cut your grandma's social security.
Will he allow young people to get out? Yes.
But he plans on funding the shortfall with the money saved by cutting overseas spending. He has promised to make sure those dependent on social security and medicare are taken care of.

Listen to his Robert Taft speech for further clarification (go to ronpauladio.com to get it). It is even referred to on his new "slim jim" flyer.

Have no fear grandma! He will not put people out on the streets. It will all be a transition. Ron Paul is the only one who will actually HAVE the money to fund the programs due to him cutting spending.:cool:

[cac1963]

This (http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/thompsons-plan-spooks-gopbackers-2007-10-18.html) ought to scare her even more:

Congressional supporters of Sen. Fred Thompson (R-Tenn.) are splitting with him over his proposal to curb the cost of Social Security by cutting projected benefits by as much as 25 percent over the next 33 years, according to the estimate of one conservative think tank. Link (http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/thompsons-plan-spooks-gopbackers-2007-10-18.html)

[James ODonnell]

The purpose of the establishment media is to distort RP's postions and scare the hell out of as many people as they can. This can't be stopped, their self appointed job is to get anyone who they agree with elected, and that is not RP.

The best thing as far as a friend or relative is to show them an actual speech by RP on YouTube about the actual issue. It doesn't help you to argue with them as most will always believe the worst that they hear.

By showning his actual words and image you do two things. First, eleminate the argument as being false, and second, show the media to be liars so you will not have to deal with this again as the person will not believe them anyomre.

Kills two birds with one stone.

[Grandson of Liberty]

There's a reason they call it the "third rail of politics." :(

[F3d]

.......

[Thomas_Paine]

Older Americans think they are entitled to these benefits because they happen to be 50+ years older than me. That part really bothers me. In some ways I feel disgust towards them.

Those who are 60+years old lived in a completely different world than it is now yet they still think it's the "good ole days".

For example my grandfather who is 80 years old thought that grocery baggers still get paid $13/hour plus tips. He had no idea that they get paid minimum wage! Working at the Sear's Shoe department just a few decades ago could feed a family of 4. Now you are lucky to be able to pay for an apartment. These older Americans are looking at today's world from a 50 year old perspective.

Unfortunately where I live, I think more than 50% of residents in PA get some type of assistance from the government. It's hard selling RP to those types of people...=/

This is what Socialism does, it divides Americans in groups that fight over the scraps of Social Security. Excuse me but I don't think that what they give the elderly is enough to live off of for retirement. If government would have stayed away from compulsory pension funds, and not created the Federal Reserve System there would be a lot more saving, no inflation and we'd have our extra money UNstolen by the Feds. Ron Paul offers a superior standard of living to the elderly, the poor and the middle class.

[devil21]

It's a tax on the value of the land. It's already been tried in numerous places, and it doesn't get passed on since there's a fixed number of land available. They can only rent out at the cost that the market decides.

http://www.landvaluetax.org/nopasson.htm

Here's an explanation of it.

I didnt read the link content but how is that any different than the local property tax that all landowners pay? The local property tax is adjusted based on the "assessed value" (dont get me started on that issue) of the land.

[kylejack]

I didnt read the link content but how is that any different than the local property tax that all landowners pay?
If only he had linked you to an explanation.

:D

[Cindy]

Good reminder that we should use the phrase, "Phase Out" instead of abolish or get rid of, and follow by saying, In his plan, he would still take care of the older generation who have grown dependent on the government for such things, and that, he wants the younger generation to be able to get out of this socialistic programs.

[devil21]

If only he had linked you to an explanation.

:D

Ya know, after your comment I clicked on the link and didnt get through the first paragraph. I smell a shill!? Seems to be just a reminder that we don't own our land we just rent it from the gov't based on subjective "rules".

[GreyBlood]

NBC News report on RP scared my grandma!

Best. Title. Ever! :D

[Netwarrior]

Good reminder that we should use the phrase, "Phase Out" instead of abolish or get rid of, and follow by saying, In his plan, he would still take care of the older generation who have grown dependent on the government for such things, and that, he wants the younger generation to be able to get out of this socialistic programs.

We should use the phrase "Ron Paul understands those who paid into Social Security are dependent on it and need it and that we must transition future generations off of Social Security."

[Malakai0]

If seniors understood a few things, they would warm up to Paul quick

a) there is no money in social security
b) were going broke on a national scale
c) SS checks here will be like they are in india soon. as my indian pharmacist co-worker once put it "your SS check in india won't buy a toothpick". You can only print the money out of thin air to pay the old people, war, and socialism for so long.

Ron always explains the social security phasing out in detail, this was bad editing (or agenda reporting) at it's finest.

[angelatc]

He already explained himself on this issue at Google. If he gets rid of federal aid before states can come up with their own, then you just barred all the poor people from going up the social ladder.

Nonsense. He went to school before there was Federal Aid, back in the days when the schools provided scholarships and low interest loans. 30+ years of public financing higher education has made the rich richer and the poor poorer. They drove the cost of education through the roof, and left our children with more debt on graduation day than their parents had on their first two houses combined.

[sunny]

That is incorrect. The vast majority of working class seniors are not actually "well off". I would say a lot are of course, but not "most" by far.

i agree that the vast majority of seniors are NOT well off.........next time you go into a large supermarket just look and see how many seniors are bagging grocersies........or working in convenience stores.....there's alot of them........you think they'd be doing that if they are "well off"?"
i think NOT!

[F3d]

......

[constituent]

Government extracted their money forcefully and "said" that it would be put into a Social Security Trust fund, would earn interest and would be given back to them when they retired. Much like a savings account. Of course, we were lied to. The fund was raided by our beloved public servants and IOUs behind.

Don't act like this is some kind of handout. It's not. :rolleyes:

"The fund was raided by [their] public servants"

not ours. i only began voting six years ago.

what i hate, emphasis on hate, is that it is now many of these senior
citizens who were cowed into voting for fascists like kennedy/lbj, nixon, carter and
reagan because they had to defeat that "evil empire," that "devil communism"

then they turn around and say, "hey gimme gimme"

and no, senior citizens today pull out MUCH MUCH MUCH more than they ever put in (when one considers the cost of their medical care [both in terms of medicare's burden on the taxpayer and the market burden imposed on healthy people through the increase in demand]) even accounting for inflation. so that is total bunk.

Should we cut the welfare-queens off? no, of course not. but i ain't cryin' for 'em. They've got a great place for senior citizens to pick up some extra money if they need it... it's called the "call center." get a job (if you can, that goes for young people on SS too).

[Minlawc]

I'm not sure why your grandma would be afraid of Ron Paul, but she should be afraid.

In the commercial he said nothing about abolishing SS. He stated as a fact that there wasn't any money.

[F3d]

........

[american.swan]

Yeah Ron needs to spell out what he means. Just as when he brought up offing the dept of education. He did not explain himself in both cases. (Someone will think he wants to get rid of schools) Someone needs to tell his campaign for him to explain what he means or he will lose a lot of people.

I think your right here, yet what does it say about the unthinking American audience when the American public thinks a Doctor(OBGYN) and senior citizen who has spent countless time inside DC voting on principle comes on TV with a plan and immediately thinks the plan is nuts without at least looking into it. People should think. This insider says something you've never heard before, so do some research.

[Matt Collins]

You misquoted. This was my quote.


Nothing erroneous about that. I'm not sure why you insist on disagreeing about something that wasn't said.My apologies.

[angelatc]

Scholarships are just a way to give the rich more money.

How on earth did you conclude to scholarships give the rich more money?

Funny, every break I ever got was from a rich person. Scholarships are a way to get smart kids an education. There used to be plenty of them for kids who were in financial need. I never knew a rich kid who went on scholarship. BUt I do have a friend who had a kid that went to NotreDame on both an atheltic and an academic scholarship. Scholarships are the way to get poor kids who deserve to go to college into college.

Believe it or not, the people in acedamia really do enjoy teaching people.




Federal loans are 6.8% and will go down to 3.4% in a few years. Private loans are 9.some%

Interest is what really helps the rich get richer.

Duke loaned money at 2%.

The interest rate does not change the fact that the kids are saddled with $50-75,000 dollar debt the minute they walk out the door for the last time. It's insane.

If business needs educated people, then business should pay to educate them. I got a good portion of my tuition paid by my employer. It took me 8 years to finish, but I had no debt,



Ron Paul went to school when you didn't need an education to get a job. This is also the state's problem. I thought you wanted the states to decide. After all, they're the one's who run these colleges. By the way, the Pell Grant helps the lowest of the low. At 15000 a year families.

Of course I want the states to decide. But I want them to decide that people have a responsibility to work for what they want to achieve.

LIke it or not, the kids who come into college with Pell Grants are usually seriously unprepared for college. The graduation rates are far below those of the general population.

You need an associates degree just to be a "Scholarship Specialist" and a masters to be a "librarian media specialist". lmao[/QUOTE]

[angelatc]

I'm not sure why your grandma would be afraid of Ron Paul, but she should be afraid.

In the commercial he said nothing about abolishing SS. He stated as a fact that there wasn't any money.

Faws said that one of the things Paul would do is abolish the IRS. That was followed up with a sound bite of Paul saying "There is no money left" or something.

[angelatc]

They've got a great place for senior citizens to pick up some extra money if they need it... it's called the "call center." get a job (if you can, that goes for young people on SS too).

This explains why the AARP is so easily able to recruit memberships. Apparently it is indeed necessary to fight to keep the government to uphold it's end of the bargain.

It would sound so much nicer if you could just say that the people should get the deal they were promised, but find an alternative way to fund it.

ANd really, I'd much rather Grandma NOT work at the call center. Call centers are bad enough as it is. Grandma should work at the garden center. She can grow some mean roses.

[LibertyEagle]

"The fund was raided by [their] public servants"

not ours. i only began voting six years ago.

what i hate, emphasis on hate, is that it is now many of these senior
citizens who were cowed into voting for fascists like kennedy/lbj, nixon, carter and
reagan because they had to defeat that "evil empire," that "devil communism"

then they turn around and say, "hey gimme gimme"

and no, senior citizens today pull out MUCH MUCH MUCH more than they ever put in (when one considers the cost of their medical care [both in terms of medicare's burden on the taxpayer and the market burden imposed on healthy people through the increase in demand]) even accounting for inflation. so that is total bunk.

Should we cut the welfare-queens off? no, of course not. but i ain't cryin' for 'em. They've got a great place for senior citizens to pick up some extra money if they need it... it's called the "call center." get a job (if you can, that goes for young people on SS too).

Interesting post. I don't see them asking for anything, but their own damn money back. Now, if you had paid one hell of a lot of money into a system your entire life and a pack of crooks stole it, would you be a little peeved when a 12 year old (in comparison) sat back and said tough %$$%!!! Hhmmm....

All I can say is that it is a good thing Dr. Paul does not agree with you, because he would have even less current supporters and wouldn't stand a chance of getting many more. I do hope people don't mistake your comments as something Dr. Paul believes.

[F3d]

....

[Wilkero]

Older people are absolutely entitled to those benefits because they were forced to pay into the system their entire lives with the promise that they would be cared for in their retirement years. It was not ever sold as "insurance, in case your own plans fell through." It was sold as *the* retirement plan.


I have to take exception with the idea that older people are "entitled" to these benefits. If they are, then doesn't that also mean that anyone who pays into the system is entitled to receive some/reduced benefits as well? The simple fact is that the younger generations (a large portion of Gen X and the Millennials) are going to pay huge amounts into the system but receive nothing.

The line of reasoning for why people are entitled just doesn't hold water. The benefits received by older Americans far outweigh the amount they paid (even factoring for inflation and interest). Even though older Americans are not entitled to Social Security, we cannot simply cut people off, which is why a phase out is necessary. I'm not blaming all older Americans for the current state of Social Security, but it's selfish and short-sighted of them to claim entitlement based on past payment.

While the government may have duped seniors into believing that Social Security would take care of their retirement, the youngest working generation knows that they will receive nothing. Yet, they are still forced to pay into the system. Younger Americans don't have the luxury of claiming that they believed the lie told by Big Brother Government. Since they are already burdened with having to pay for the mess created by older generations, it's somewhat insulting to tell younger Americans that the same people who created this mess are "entitled" to the fruits of the younger Americans' labor.

[smtwngrl]

Overall they were impressed, but when they basically said RP was going to eliminate Social Security, my grandmother literally jumped out of her chair. Fortunately she doesn't vote, but I bet her demographic is one of the higher % that watches the nightly news and I hope to God that they didn't all have the same reaction that she did.

My parents in their 60's got a better grasp of it after I explained RP's position to them on Social Security, but the only thing my grandmother got out of the entire thing was "RP's going to eliminate social security"

Ugh...

Did anyone else perceive this as a problem?

Yes, I thought that was exactly the object of their inserting the clip RP saying, "It's gone." They wanted to frighten the seniors. :p

RP was probably referring to the Social Security Trust fund. He has introduced bills before to say that no funds from Social Security could be used for anything else. He would do more for Social Security than any of the others, IMO, because with their spending, no one is going to be getting it for long.

(Excuse me if I'm repeating something someone else has said, I usually read the other reponses first, but don't have time now.)