How Ron Paul will save Social Security

[tangent4ronpaul]

Ron Paul is the ONLY candidate with a plan to save Social Security. All the others will only put off it's collapse or put it on the nations credit card (Borrowing from China or printing money - which drives up prices). Various other plans raise the retirement age or only pay out a percentage of what you are owed.

His plan is pretty simple:
1) Get out of the wars and bring our troops home. We can't afford it.
2) Make the federal government smaller. We can't afford our bloated government.
3) Slash job killing regulations so more people can get jobs and pay into the system.
4) Fix the economy. It's currently based on planned inflation, which means your dollar doesn't go as far. It also means for every dollar you pay in, you get 4 back in retirement - and it's worth less than what you paid in.

Under Paul's plan, money wasted on wars and bloated government would be used to keep Social Security solvent. Everyone that has paid into the system will collect their benefits. However, those under the age of 25 would have the option of opting out of the system all together.

We need to get that^^^ message in front of every senior in the country, because a lot of them think Paul wants to eliminate SS. While he does want to phase it out over generations, they are afraid their income will go away. This misconception needs to go away and be replaced with the true message that he's the only one with a plan that will save Social Security for all those that have paid into it.

-t

[ConsideringRonPaul]

Where is the Constitutional authority for social security?

[tangent4ronpaul]

There is none. But I'll let you tell your senior next door neighbor that their retirement check will stop coming because it's unconstitutional.

[ConsideringRonPaul]

I understand that, but from your post it looked as though you were more concerned with him "saving" SS than phasing it out over time. I also understand that the media will try to use scare-tactics to stop seniors from voting for Paul. It's a tricky issue in my opinion, for there is really no realistic way he could win by immediately getting rid of SS but, at the same time, would he turn his back on his principle and sign an unconstitutional budget?

[Crystallas]

I understand that, but from your post it looked as though you were more concerned with him "saving" SS than phasing it out over time.

One step at a time.

[tangent4ronpaul]

Our numbers suck with seniors because of this. We NEED to tell them that everyone that has paid into social security will receive their retirement funds. That Paul has the only plan that will actually save it for all that have paid into it.

Sure he wants to end the program, but the only way to do that is phasing it out over generations.

[ghengis86]

Maybe we should bill it as,
"Ron Paul, the only one with a budget that preserves Social Security obligations to seniors"

Or

RP guarantees SS funding while balancing budget.


Etc, etc. This is a big issue we need to overcome.

[Cyberbrain]

The biggest thing that always bothers me about Ron Paul's debates is I feel like he never does enough to satisfy the fears of senior citizens which are a friggan enormous voting bloc he needs to get support from. Whenever a medicare/medicaid/social security question comes up the answer should ALWAYS start with Paul saying clearly and slowly:

"Anyone receiving medicare, medicaid, or social security checks now or are 5-10 years away will CONTINUE to receive their FULL benefits, totally unchanged." Then go on to talk about what he will do to stop Congress from raiding the fund for gov't spending, etc.

[pao]

Paul would benefit from a commercial showing all the bills Gingrich supported over the years that raided the Social Security Trust Fund contrasting to Paul's vote against each and perhaps a short clip of Paul on the floor of the House stating how "this" bill will take money away from seniors. If I was tech skilled I'd put it together myself to start.

[erowe1]

Saving Social Security is a bad thing.

What else will Ron Paul save? AIDS?

[tangent4ronpaul]

Paul would benefit from a commercial showing all the bills Gingrich supported over the years that raided the Social Security Trust Fund contrasting to Paul's vote against each and perhaps a short clip of Paul on the floor of the House stating how "this" bill will take money away from seniors. If I was tech skilled I'd put it together myself to start.

Brilliant!
+rep

[tangent4ronpaul]

Saving Social Security is a bad thing.

What else will Ron Paul save? AIDS?

Having the senior vote would be a GREAT thing!

Do you hate your grandparents or something? Why do you want to throw them under the bus? People paid into the program and the government OWES them this money. Phasing it out very slowly is the only way to get rid of it. Well, as the economy gets better and the government smaller, they could offer buyouts - transferring the accounts to private investment firms as funds allow. But overall, I like Paul's plan for phasing it out. Thing is we need to save it, for now - both for that senior vote and so we don't put people out on the street. It just going away simply is not an option.

-t

[erowe1]

Having the senior vote would be a GREAT thing!

Do you hate your grandparents or something? Why do you want to throw them under the bus? People paid into the program and the government OWES them this money. Phasing it out very slowly is the only way to get rid of it. Well, as the economy gets better and the government smaller, they could offer buyouts - transferring the accounts to private investment firms as funds allow. But overall, I like Paul's plan for phasing it out. Thing is we need to save it, for now - both for that senior vote and so we don't put people out on the street. It just going away simply is not an option.

-t

My grandparents are gone. My mom is on SS now. No I don't hate her. She didn't "pay into the system." She and my dad forcibly had their money taken from them and given to a previous generation of SS recipients. She is now having money forcibly taken from others and given to her. The best case scenario would be for them to stop doing that completely and immediately. If they did, I would continue to give her money if she needed me to (which she wouldn't, and neither would most retirees). But that's exactly what I'm doing now through SS anyway. Getting rid of SS would just eliminate the middle man.

[tangent4ronpaul]

If they did, I would continue to give her money if she needed me to (which she wouldn't, and neither would most retirees).

You are seriously delusional. What would happen is a sudden nosedive of the average age of the population and most likely a second civil war.

-t

[erowe1]

You are seriously delusional. What would happen is a sudden nosedive of the average age of the population and most likely a second civil war.

-t

Why do you believe that? On average the people receiving SS are wealthier than those paying into it. It's welfare that takes from the poor and gives to the rich.

[tangent4ronpaul]

"most", "on average". There are millions of people that are relying on or who's sole or at least major retirement planning is SS. OK, lets take your "most" as being accurate. So it's OK to let say 40% of seniors starve or freeze to death because they believed in and paid into a system that promised to provide for them in their retirement?

NOT!

-t

[erowe1]

"most", "on average". There are millions of people that are relying on or who's sole or at least major retirement planning is SS. OK, lets take your "most" as being accurate. So it's OK to let say 40% of seniors starve or freeze to death because they believed in and paid into a system that promised to provide for them in their retirement?

NOT!

-t

Who said anything about letting anyone starve? I just think it should all be voluntarized. Cut out the middle man. If you want to give your money to retirees, just do it. You don't need a government program for that. Nor should you feel any obligation to go along with some promise that some politician claimed to make on your behalf without your permission.

Your belief that people are better off on account of there being SS is like believing that society is smarter on account of public education. I just don't share your sanguinity for the government.

[tangent4ronpaul]

I agree with you that SS is bad. Beyond your objections, is that congress raids the fund and the government will mis-manage it. Still, tens of millions of people rely on it and you just can't take it away. We OWE it to them. Everyone that has paid into the system.

[heavenlyboy34]

Ron Paul is the ONLY candidate with a plan to save Social Security. All the others will only put off it's collapse or put it on the nations credit card (Borrowing from China or printing money - which drives up prices). Various other plans raise the retirement age or only pay out a percentage of what you are owed.

His plan is pretty simple:
1) Get out of the wars and bring our troops home. We can't afford it.
2) Make the federal government smaller. We can't afford our bloated government.
3) Slash job killing regulations so more people can get jobs and pay into the system.
4) Fix the economy. It's currently based on planned inflation, which means your dollar doesn't go as far. It also means for every dollar you pay in, you get 4 back in retirement - and it's worth less than what you paid in.

Under Paul's plan, money wasted on wars and bloated government would be used to keep Social Security solvent. Everyone that has paid into the system will collect their benefits. However, those under the age of 25 would have the option of opting out of the system all together.

We need to get that^^^ message in front of every senior in the country, because a lot of them think Paul wants to eliminate SS. While he does want to phase it out over generations, they are afraid their income will go away. This misconception needs to go away and be replaced with the true message that he's the only one with a plan that will save Social Security for all those that have paid into it.

-t
He's also talked about letting younger workers opt out, but I don't know if that's part of the "official" plan.

[erowe1]

I agree with you that SS is bad. Beyond your objections, is that congress raids the fund and the government will mis-manage it. Still, tens of millions of people rely on it and you just can't take it away. We OWE it to them. Everyone that has paid into the system.

Nobody paid into any system. The only thing anyone ever paid FICA taxes for was for someone else to receive SS, not themselves. If you believe you owe someone money, then you don't need a government program to be able to give it to them. In fact you'll be better able to give it to them without that government program.

[heavenlyboy34]

I agree with you that SS is bad. Beyond your objections, is that congress raids the fund and the government will mis-manage it. Still, tens of millions of people rely on it and you just can't take it away. We OWE it to them. Everyone that has paid into the system.
No we don't. We're simply legally liable for it. There's a big difference. I certainly didn't sign a contract with my neighbor's grandma that says I'll pay for her retirement. Maybe if people reduced their life spans to what they were when SS was created, it could be "saved". ;)

[heavenlyboy34]

Nobody paid into any system. The only thing anyone ever paid FICA taxes for was for someone else to receive SS, not themselves. If you believe you owe someone money, then you don't need a government program to be able to give it to them. In fact you'll be better able to give it to them without that government program.
This^^ Calling SS a mere ponzi scheme is an insult to ponzi schemes! ;)

[tangent4ronpaul]

He's also talked about letting younger workers opt out, but I don't know if that's part of the "official" plan.

He said anyone 25 or younger could opt out. I think it would be better if people had to opt in to join the program, but yes - that appears to be his official plan.

-t

[erowe1]

He said anyone 25 or younger could opt out. I think it would be better if people had to opt in to join the program, but yes - that appears to be his official plan.

-t

The problem is, as long as we keep paying out SS, there's no such thing as opting out. We'll just have all these young people who think they opted out have their taxes raised in one way or another so as to keep redistributing their money to the recipients of SS. They'll still be paying for it. They just won't have any expectation of getting it themselves in the future.

Granted, I'd rather seeing it end eventually than not at all. I just can't help thinking that the language of "opting out" glosses over something less pretty.

[tangent4ronpaul]

No we don't. We're simply legally liable for it. There's a big difference.

I don't see a difference between being legally liable for it and owing it to them. They paid in, they deserve to get the pay out.

If the government had treated it as an actual trust fund and not spent the money, they wouldn't be taking it from you to give to them. It should be no different from an investment/retirement fund from a commercial bank - but we are talking about the government here.

-t

[heavenlyboy34]

The problem is, as long as we keep paying out SS, there's no such thing as opting out. We'll just have all these young people who think they opted out have their taxes raised in one way or another so as to keep redistributing their money to the recipients of SS. They'll still be paying for it. They just won't have any expectation of getting it themselves in the future.

Granted, I'd rather seeing it end eventually than not at all. I just can't help thinking that the language of "opting out" glosses over something less pretty.
They won't get it anyway. Nobody is going to get as much as they "put in" in real terms. Inflation and other factors destroy the value as time goes on.

[heavenlyboy34]

I don't see a difference between being legally liable for it and owing it to them. They paid in, they deserve to get the pay out.

If the government had treated it as an actual trust fund and not spent the money, they wouldn't be taking it from you to give to them. It should be no different from an investment/retirement fund from a commercial bank - but we are talking about the government here.

-t
It's totally different. One can't be liable for something if he isn't born yet (unless he signs a contract). Your argument rests on "social contract theory" and other perversions of law and logic.

[erowe1]

They won't get it anyway.

I agree. But unless we actually cut how much gets paid out right now, I'm not sure they're really opting out of anything.

[erowe1]

For the record, I'm glad Paul takes the strategy he does because I want him to get elected. And I'm all for putting a good spin on it to sell it to voters.

I just think that, outside of the context of his campaign, it's up to all of us to try to take on all the standard lines about SS. It shouldn't be such a popular program, and the people who oppose it shouldn't be thought to want old people to starve. And in order to undercut its popularity and make it more politically acceptable to be against it, we ought to go out of our ways to paint it in a negative light now while it's considered mean to do that.

[tangent4ronpaul]

They won't get it anyway. Nobody is going to get as much as they "put in" in real terms. Inflation and other factors destroy the value as time goes on.

Yeah - I got a letter from SS several years ago saying that they would only be able to pay about 75% of what I was owed and to make other plans. In effect they were telling me they were defaulting on part of their debt.

[heavenlyboy34]

I agree. But unless we actually cut how much gets paid out right now, I'm not sure they're really opting out of anything.
They'd be opting out of the money that is automatically deducted from their paychecks for SS and they won't collect when they reach the right age (whatever arbitrary number they set it to by then). It's a long term solution.

[tangent4ronpaul]

It's totally different. One can't be liable for something if he isn't born yet (unless he signs a contract). Your argument rests on "social contract theory" and other perversions of law and logic.

No individual is liable for it. The government is. The problem is the government robs us to pay it's bills. I mean, they could just print the money and not tax us - but inflation is a tax too.

No "social contract" here. Just theft via congress.

In about 2036 the senior population will have peaked and the number receiving SS will decrease fairly rapidly. Add to that more people not joining the program and it will get phased out in 50-60 years. But right now we have to spin it as "Saving it for those that have paid in" if we want the senior vote and if we want to win.

-t

[heavenlyboy34]

No individual is liable for it. The government is. The problem is the government robs us to pay it's bills. I mean, they could just print the money and not tax us - but inflation is a tax too.

No "social contract" here. Just theft via congress.

In about 2036 the senior population will have peaked and the number receiving SS will decrease fairly rapidly. Add to that more people not joining the program and it will get phased out in 50-60 years. But right now we have to spin it as "Saving it for those that have paid in" if we want the senior vote and if we want to win.

-t
Agree 100%.

[Feeding the Abscess]

As a fairly related topic, I love telling cons who wail about Obamacare as being the institutionalization of socialized medicine that we've had socialized medicine for 50 years.

[tangent4ronpaul]

twitter bomb anyone? Yeah, I know seniors usually don't use twitter but if we can make it a meme it will get repeated to seniors.

[Lord Xar]

Paul would benefit from a commercial showing all the bills Gingrich supported over the years that raided the Social Security Trust Fund contrasting to Paul's vote against each and perhaps a short clip of Paul on the floor of the House stating how "this" bill will take money away from seniors. If I was tech skilled I'd put it together myself to start.

Can someone post this to Doug Weads wall?