PDA

View Full Version : OP reads thinkprogress and doesn't think critically (regarding supposed SS 'hypocrisy')




ProtossX
06-20-2012, 01:53 PM
(alleges Ron taking social security is hypocritical)

if hes so libertyish why does this fraud say something and do something else

he says social security is horrible yet he uses it

he says ear marks are horrible he uses them

this guy says one thing an goes about it completely diff and ppl are saying he has a backbone dude GET OFF THE GOV tax payer money paul an than u can speak

TonySutton
06-20-2012, 01:54 PM
First to call troll :)

GeorgiaAvenger
06-20-2012, 01:54 PM
Bad grammar, but I did hear he is getting SS money now.

Wooden Indian
06-20-2012, 01:55 PM
Excellent and well thought out post. Thanks for your gloriously informed contribution to not only this forum, but humanity.

Kotin
06-20-2012, 01:55 PM
I'm confused?? You joined in 2007?

atomicsink
06-20-2012, 01:56 PM
I pay for social security, I wish I didn't, but I have to. I will withdraw from it if it is still around when I am old. Doesn't mean I like it, just means I paid into it and should get back as much as I can. Since I live in the real world though I have a real retirement account.

I would love to have a way to withdraw all the tax money that was stolen from me.

Diashi
06-20-2012, 01:56 PM
This is ineffective sarcasm or just trolling. Either way, it's junk. Someone scrap it.

paulbot24
06-20-2012, 01:56 PM
First to call troll :)
Damn it

PatriotOne
06-20-2012, 01:58 PM
if hes so libertyish why does this fraud say something and do something else

he says social security is horrible yet he uses it

he says ear marks are horrible he uses them

this guy says one thing an goes about it completely diff and ppl are saying he has a backbone dude GET OFF THE GOV tax payer money paul an than u can speak

Yuuummmmmm....red meat. Hope you can run fast because there's alot of Paleo's on this forum :D.

ClydeCoulter
06-20-2012, 01:58 PM
I'm confused?? You joined in 2007?

There were no trolls in 2007?

ProtossX
06-20-2012, 01:58 PM
what the heck happened to my post DR PAUL IS USING SOCIAL SECURITY an has been on it forever an applied for it

SilenceDewgooder
06-20-2012, 01:58 PM
hmm.. let's see.. and yes - he is drawing his SS..

He was mandated like the rest of us to pay into SS - so why not get back a part of what he paid in.

He is not opting for his Congressional retirement (which I would not be surprised if this is 5 times more than his SS)

He already explained earmarks .. along the same lines as why he is drawing his SS.

sailingaway
06-20-2012, 01:59 PM
I posted a response to this on the thinkprogress article which spawned its typical echo chamber and I am happy to copy and paste it for the OPs benefit:


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...
\
and Ron never said earmarks are horrible, he thinks the Constitution requires every cent be earmarked because Congress has the power of the purse and should not give a blank check to the executive to increase its power. That is how Obama gets away abusing 'executive orders' so much. He doesn't need congress. Ron is against unconstitutional spending however, and always votes against it.

TheGrinch
06-20-2012, 01:59 PM
Social security is your money.... You pay into it like a savings account... His opposition to it is at very least two-fold, 1) that private money is better left in private hands to invest as they wish (a change he's proposed, if not eventually getting away from the entire system, 2) that it's operated liek a ponzi scheme, spending up money and then using new ones to pay off the old ones, in a model set to bankrupt the entire program and screw younger folks out of it, as they take more money out they've already spent... But regardless of his stances against it, this is money that he paid into social security to be paid back later. Why wouldn't he want it back?

As for earmarks, this has been explained many times. Any money not earmarked would be taken away from his constituents who paid into it, and if not spent would go to the executive branch, probably going off to Syria at this point... He earmarks to be able to return as much money as he can to his constituents, but he obviously votes against the bill because he doesn't think that money should be taken from them in the first place to the degree it is.

Does that clear it all up, or do you have any more hit pieces for us today?

ClydeCoulter
06-20-2012, 02:00 PM
I want my SSI that I paid into also, alhtough I, also, will probably never collect it all.

This is very consistent with what Ron Paul preaches. He wants to allow people to opt-out. No one could up till now. He has every right to collect on what he paid and you know that it was not a good investment.

ProtossX
06-20-2012, 02:02 PM
Guys just listen to this okay before you blame me HEAR Me out

HE HAD to actually APPLY for social security he had to go out of his way tell the government in a letter or on the phone that he wanted his social security money the government just doesnt start sending you checks ron paul went to big gov and asked them for it

this guy has more time to try to get money from government than make it on his own

erowe1
06-20-2012, 02:02 PM
There were no trolls in 2007?

None that after being here for 5 years could possibly think the OP was worth bothering to type.

erowe1
06-20-2012, 02:03 PM
Guys just listen to this okay before you blame me HEAR Me out

HE HAD to actually APPLY for social security he had to go out of his way tell the government in a letter or on the phone that he wanted his social security money the government just doesnt start sending you checks ron paul went to big gov and asked them for it

this guy has more time to try to get money from government than make it on his own

If you think he shouldn't do that, then you don't know much.

Wooden Indian
06-20-2012, 02:03 PM
Oh... c'mon, guys. Can't you just see how smart this one is?
There's really no point in trying to explain the finer points of commonsense to an imdividual with such an enormous intellect.

We are surely at his mercy.

sailingaway
06-20-2012, 02:04 PM
There were no trolls in 2007?

there absolutely were, they went quiet in between elections and sprang up, zombie like, when this election rolled around.

ClydeCoulter
06-20-2012, 02:04 PM
Dude, you must be hard of hearing. Ron Paul has never said people should not collect social security. He said it should not exist, but it does. And he has said that those that have paid into it all of their lives should collect it, as he did and is.

jkr
06-20-2012, 02:04 PM
KEEP your slave bribe

I'll take my FREEDOM

erowe1
06-20-2012, 02:04 PM
Social security is your money.

No it isn't. It's 100% redistribution.

ClydeCoulter
06-20-2012, 02:04 PM
there absolutely were, they went quiet in between elections and sprang up, zombie like, when this election rolled around.

edit: There were no Trolls in 2007? /sarcasm :)

TheGrinch
06-20-2012, 02:04 PM
Guys just listen to this okay before you blame me HEAR Me out

HE HAD to actually APPLY for social security he had to go out of his way tell the government in a letter or on the phone that he wanted his social security money the government just doesnt start sending you checks ron paul went to big gov and asked them for it

this guy has more time to try to get money from government than make it on his own
Since when can you opt out of SS? You're absolutely right, he HAD to buy into SS... If I wasn't required to, I certainly wouldn't be paying into SS I'm unlikely to ever get back if we don't at least make changes liek Dr. Paul proposes.

And again, so freaking what that he wants his tax money back to use it for what they forced him to pay into it for: retirement... There is absolutely no doubt that he would have preffered to not buy into SS in the first palce and have to collect it, but it's not a voluntary program like welfare. It's a required tax that you're SUPPOSED to get back at retirement age.

CPUd
06-20-2012, 02:05 PM
I have a feeling the OP doesn't understand what Social Security is.

sailingaway
06-20-2012, 02:06 PM
Guys just listen to this okay before you blame me HEAR Me out

HE HAD to actually APPLY for social security he had to go out of his way tell the government in a letter or on the phone that he wanted his social security money the government just doesnt start sending you checks ron paul went to big gov and asked them for it

this guy has more time to try to get money from government than make it on his own

You ignore that in purchase power of dollars when paid in, he paid in more than he will ever get out, and could have gotten much more except he REFUSED his government pension as being a boondoggle when all the rest of us only had social security and were forced to pay into it.

You do understand his budget FUNDS and doesn't cut a penny from social security or medicare, right? He funds it by cutting elsewhere to let the kids who HAVEN'T paid in decide for themselves if they want to be in the program at all.

TheGrinch
06-20-2012, 02:06 PM
No it isn't. It's 100% redistribution.
What? Well, in theory it's supposed to be your money... Just because they operate it liek a ponzi scheme does not mean that you shouldn't feel entitled to take back your money that you paid into it.

Wooden Indian
06-20-2012, 02:06 PM
I have a feeling the OP doesn't understand what Social Security is.

I have a feeling the OP doesn't understand many things. LOL

sailingaway
06-20-2012, 02:15 PM
No it isn't. It's 100% redistribution.

Not any more than other deficit finance is. When they 'took the money into the general fund' what they did was buy government bonds. The ss 'trust fund' holds those bonds. Those bonds are only a small portion of the bonds out there the government needs to pay back. Paying back those from SS isn't more redistribution than paying back any bonds owned by China or by my mother. The problem is, the money isn't there or set aside in any fashion, to pay them back. But that is true of all bonds.

TheGrinch
06-20-2012, 02:19 PM
Wait guys, I just saw that Ron has also gotten both federal and state tax returns on multiple occasions... Break out the pitchforks!

ProtossX
06-20-2012, 02:20 PM
You ignore that in purchase power of dollars when paid in, he paid in more than he will ever get out, and could have gotten much more except he REFUSED his government pension as being a boondoggle when all the rest of us only had social security and were forced to pay into it.

You do understand his budget FUNDS and doesn't cut a penny from social security or medicare, right? He funds it by cutting elsewhere to let the kids who HAVEN'T paid in decide for themselves if they want to be in the program at all.

I Agree he payed into it but HE had to apply for social security to get the money you have to go through tons of paper work and tons of phone calls and meetings to get social security checks just don't come out of the sky

ron paul took days out of his life to get this social security money thats how much gov money meant to him is that someone u can stand behind u don't just get social security u gotta apply meet all the requirements an than maybe gov will give u ur money back

this guy it just shows like where his priorities SOCIAL SECURITY > than a lot of stuff going on his life thats a fact folks an when will u realize it

sailingaway
06-20-2012, 02:21 PM
I Agree he payed into it but HE had to apply for social security to get the money you have to go through tons of paper work and tons of phone calls and meetings to get social security checks just don't come out of the sky

ron paul took days out of his life to get this social security money thats how much gov money meant to him is that someone u can stand behind u don't just get social security u gotta apply meet all the requirements an than maybe gov will give u ur money back

this guy it just shows like where his priorities SOCIAL SECURITY > than a lot of stuff going on his life thats a fact folks an when will u realize it

If he paid for it why on earth would he not demand it back as soon as he could? It is absolutely consistent and not hypocritical at all for Ron Paul to fight for government not having his money one cent more than he has to let it.

He also had to affirmatively choose NOT to get the governmental pension which would have fully vested his first day in office, but that would have been taking money that was NOT his and which he considered too much for a public servant to get when taxpayers were stuck with social security.

All of this is consistent, and, in fact, quintessentially Ron Paul.

JustinL
06-20-2012, 02:23 PM
And this is why when I saw the question asked on the interview I knew it was just another hit piece that was going to be used to slander Ron Paul before the ignorant masses who don't know anything. And they cut his answers off too. Parts of it were good, but some obviously just wanted some new material to spew more bullshit junk to confuse people and help keep them against Ron Paul by making him look like a hypocrite. Would have great if he had explained it more concisely and clearly and through brevity been able to toss in how he doesn't partake in the congressional pension program. He just got a weak defense because it didn't seem clear enough for the ignorant to get it and failed to make the guy look like an idiot by pointed out how it was a stupid hit piece question and showing how he is better than the rest (with the pension example). Still glad he did the interview though as it's just more material to show how biased the media is and how manipulative they can be. Another piece of evidence someone can use to try to wake someone up showing them how they operate to deceive.

Edit: Small note: I gave neg rep to original poster for trolling. (Giving benefit of doubt here in a way since he's a 2007er)

erowe1
06-20-2012, 02:24 PM
Not any more than other deficit finance is. When they 'took the money into the general fund' what they did was buy government bonds. The ss 'trust fund' holds those bonds. Those bonds are only a small portion of the bonds out there the government needs to pay back. Paying back those from SS isn't more redistribution than paying back any bonds owned by China or by my mother. The problem is, the money isn't there or set aside in any fashion, to pay them back. But that is true of all bonds.

SS isn't paying anyone back anything. When they had their money taken from them, it wasn't for their own future SS, it was to pay people who were collecting SS at that time, in exchange for the promise from the government that people today would be similarly robbed so that the ones who got robbed in the past could get paid today. Eventually, someone's gonna get robbed and not be able to get paid by going on to rob the next generation, and the sooner that happens the better.

ETA: That said, paying back bonds owned by China or your mother is also redistribution. Those debts should be repudiated. Today's tax payers have no obligation whatsoever to make good on the promises the government made on their behalf.

TheGrinch
06-20-2012, 02:25 PM
I Agree he payed into it but HE had to apply for social security to get the money you have to go through tons of paper work and tons of phone calls and meetings to get social security checks just don't come out of the sky

ron paul took days out of his life to get this social security money thats how much gov money meant to him is that someone u can stand behind u don't just get social security u gotta apply meet all the requirements an than maybe gov will give u ur money back

this guy it just shows like where his priorities SOCIAL SECURITY > than a lot of stuff going on his life thats a fact folks an when will u realize it
Ummm, pretty positive the requirement for claiming social security is that you haev to be a certain age and have paid into it. They can't jsut take your SS and refuse to give it back (even though that's essentially what they're doing by spending it on other things).

Again, IT IS NOT VOLLUNTARY, and according to what the program is supposed to do, it's supposed to be a retirement savings account. It is not government money you're taking, it's taking back the money that the government has FORCED you to hold on to for you until you get to retirement age. Understand?

Further, when you account for inflation, the government has taken in more than it's giving him back out, and the return is nowhere near what it would have been if he'd been able to keep and invest the money itself, and actually make money rather than take a loss on it.

Lucille
06-20-2012, 02:28 PM
"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 (http://sayanythingblog.com/entry/liberals-call-ayn-rand-a-hypocrite-for-collecting-social-security-and-medicare-benefits/)

sailingaway
06-20-2012, 02:29 PM
SS isn't paying anyone back anything. When they had their money taken from them, it wasn't for their own future SS, it was to pay people who were collecting SS at that time, in exchange for the promise from the government that people today would be similarly robbed so that the ones who got robbed in the past could get paid today. Eventually, someone's gonna get robbed and not be able to get paid by going on to rob the next generation, and the sooner that happens the better.

that is essentially how it was used but not how the program was sold when it was voted for, it was called 'social insurance' and clearly those first paying in weren't paying for anyone ahead of them. Then they started paying for some who had never paid in, and upping payments and using the money for other stuff by using it to buy bonds. Just as the money you pay in taxes only pays for interest on the debt for hte services, education, etc which accumulate debt for our children to pay off. All deficit finance is redistributional, but a contract is still a contract even if the administrators misused the funds.

TrishW
06-20-2012, 02:29 PM
(alleges Ron taking social security is hypocritical)

if hes so libertyish why does this fraud say something and do something else

he says social security is horrible yet he uses it

he says ear marks are horrible he uses them

this guy says one thing an goes about it completely diff and ppl are saying he has a backbone dude GET OFF THE GOV tax payer money paul an than u can speak

Ron Paul has never said there is anything wrong with people collecting their SS. If you pay into a program, you are entilled to take out your benefits. IN fact, Paul wants to protect the benefits of the folks already on SS. He intends to use money saved in the budget to guarantee that SS will have enough to pay its commitments. It will not go bankrupt under a Ron Paul Presidency.

The problem he has with SS is its a forced program. Money is taken from your check by the government. This should only be done voluntarily and a clause should allow young people to opt out. If you desire to plan for your own retirement, you should have that right.

Earmarks are a part of the budget, if the money is not spent to obtain the desires of your constituents, it will go back into the general fund and be used for war or whatever. The budget should be trimmed to not allow this extra cash flow.

I hope this helps you to understand Ron Paul. I am just in the learning process myself. Perhaps some of the others can better explain?

erowe1
06-20-2012, 02:33 PM
a contract is still a contract even if the administrators misused the funds.

I don't believe taxpayers have any obligation to pay for the government to keep its contracts. And at some point it definitely won't be able to keep them anyway.

TheGrinch
06-20-2012, 02:34 PM
Ron Paul has never said there is anything wrong with people collecting their SS. If you pay into a program, you are entilled to take out your benefits. IN fact, Paul wants to protect the benefits of the folks already on SS. He intends to use money saved in the budget to guarantee that SS will have enough to pay its commitments. It will not go bankrupt under a Ron Paul Presidency.

The problem he has with SS is its a forced program. Money is taken from your check by the government. This should only be done voluntarily and a clause should allow young people to opt out. If you desire to plan for your own retirement, you should have that right.

Earmarks are a part of the budget, if the money is not spent to obtain the desires of your constituents, it will go back into the general fund and be used for war or whatever. The budget should be trimmed to not allow this extra cash flow.

I hope this helps you to understand Ron Paul. I am just in the learning process myself. Perhaps some of the others can better explain?
No, you summed it up quite well. Ron is the only one focused on ensuring that those who've paid in can be paid out, but that the younger folks (under 30 or 25 I think) can opt out of the program that's highly unlikely to pay them back without some big changes to not only it but our budget/spending.

Anyone paying attention can see that SS is bound to go bankrupt without changes, and he's the only looking to do anything about it (again, while still keeping our commitment to those who've been forced to buy into it).

ProtossX
06-20-2012, 02:35 PM
Yes BUT THIS IS THE SAME GUY WHO SAID

I WON'T TAKE A PRESIDENTIAL PAY CHECK

this same guy says i wouldn't take a dime to be president yet he takes social security money

i just don't get him

why doesn't he take all the money whys only take certain parts from the government it just doesn't make sense folks hes really weird

sailingaway
06-20-2012, 02:36 PM
Yes BUT THIS IS THE SAME GUY WHO SAID

I WON'T TAKE A PRESIDENTIAL PAY CHECK

this same guy says i wouldn't take a dime to be president yet he takes social security money

i just don't get him

why doesn't he take all the money whys only take certain parts from the government it just doesn't make sense folks hes really weird

You really need to do some fact checking.

He said he would take $39,000 in compensation for being president, being the median American wage. That, again, is putting himself in the same shoes as those of the people he represented.

On social security, since the money is HIS, why wouldn't he take it?

TheGrinch
06-20-2012, 02:37 PM
I don't believe taxpayers have any obligation to pay for the government to keep its contracts. And at some point it definitely won't be able to keep them anyway.
You're speaking about ideolgoy, which most here agrere with you on, that the government has no business managing your retirement account (let alone shown to be competent in doing so), but our beleifs are different than the reality that under the current system they're supposed to pay back the money they take for SS.

It's arguing two different things to argue how things should be, and how things are. Under the current system, you have every right to claim the money you paid in, and as long as the program isn't bankrupt, they're obligated to pay it back.

Lucille
06-20-2012, 02:38 PM
Yes BUT THIS IS THE SAME GUY WHO SAID

I WON'T TAKE A PRESIDENTIAL PAY CHECK

this same guy says i wouldn't take a dime to be president yet he takes social security money

i just don't get him

why doesn't he take all the money whys only take certain parts from the government it just doesn't make sense folks hes really weird

He never said he wouldn't take a presidential paycheck. He said he'd take the median personal income of the American worker (http://www.ronpaul2012.com/the-issues/ron-paul-plan-to-restore-america/).

You're really weird.

"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

ClydeCoulter
06-20-2012, 02:39 PM
Now the grassroots are supporting Ron Paul, rightfully so, and I think that we are even more fired up since we saw him supporting us and making the statements ("No Way") that we had expected and hoped for :)

TheGrinch
06-20-2012, 02:40 PM
Yes BUT THIS IS THE SAME GUY WHO SAID

I WON'T TAKE A PRESIDENTIAL PAY CHECK

this same guy says i wouldn't take a dime to be president yet he takes social security money

i just don't get him

why doesn't he take all the money whys only take certain parts from the government it just doesn't make sense folks hes really weird
What part of reclaiming the money he's due do you not understand? Have you ever gotten a tax return before? Pretty much the same thing, that they can't just take money you're due back. It's your money, not the government's money to spend.

Please read up on what social security is intended to do before you go spewing more nonsense here. What you're talknig about is like saying "You can invest in this retirement account, but don't expect a dime of your money back at retirement". Do you realize how absurd that sounds? That's what you're basically arguing.

Actually here, I'll give you a brief history lesson. The government decided a long time ago in the FDR days that they were better able to handle a retirement savings account for us than we were. Thus, they started requiring that everyone take part in the program. Dr. Paul was forced to pay in for his entire life, to what is intended to be a personal retirement savings account. Again, why in the world would he not want to have access to the funds he was forced to put into the account?

angelatc
06-20-2012, 02:42 PM
hmm.. let's see.. and yes - he is drawing his SS..

He was mandated like the rest of us to pay into SS - so why not get back a part of what he paid in..

Because just because somebody stole from you does not mean it is ok to steal from somebody else. When you take money out of Social Security, you're not getting back the money that you were forced to put into it. That money was spent a long time ago. You're just enslaving the next generation, and calling it reparations.

That, and teaching the next generation that it's ok.

erowe1
06-20-2012, 02:43 PM
You're speaking about ideolgoy, which most here agrere with you on, that the government has no business managing your retirement account (let alone shown to be competent in doing so), but our beleifs are different than the reality that under the current system they're supposed to pay back the money they take for SS.

It's arguing two different things to argue how things should be, and how things are. Under the current system, you have every right to claim the money you paid in, and as long as the program isn't bankrupt, they're obligated to pay it back.

I grant all of that.

I would support total and immediate elimination of all Social Security, such that not another person ever got another cent from it. But I would also collect it if it did still exist and I were eligible.

sailingaway
06-20-2012, 02:44 PM
Because just because somebody stole from you does not mean it is ok to steal from somebody else. When you take money out of Social Security, you're not getting back the money that you were forced to put into it. That money was spent a long time ago. You're enslaving the next generation, and calling it reparations.

or you are enforcing a contract. He also shows how to balance the budget to live up to existing obligations WITHOUT saddling the next generation with debt. The cuts don't have to be where people paid in value in promise of a return.

For example, Romney wants immediately to cut medicare benefits but never suggests the $1.7 trillion 'owed' the federal reserve for money it printed out of thin air should be written off the books. Priorities count. In the end, no program is likely to be sacrosanct, but certainly other cuts should come first. These are being focused on because the money currently exists in a pot (or at least in TBills) and they want the leverage to debt to spend elsewhere -- not to cut spending or debt.

devil21
06-20-2012, 02:44 PM
Yes BUT THIS IS THE SAME GUY WHO SAID

I WON'T TAKE A PRESIDENTIAL PAY CHECK

No he didn't. He said he'd take $39K a year.



this same guy says i wouldn't take a dime to be president yet he takes social security money

It's his money to take BACK. And you're still wrong about his presidential salary.



i just don't get him

This much is clear.



why doesn't he take all the money whys only take certain parts from the government it just doesn't make sense folks hes really weird

I can't even understand this sentence. I'd support RP using his SS money to pay for you to go back and finish grade school though.

TIMB0B
06-20-2012, 02:46 PM
:confused:

TheGrinch
06-20-2012, 02:47 PM
Because just because somebody stole from you does not mean it is ok to steal from somebody else. When you take money out of Social Security, you're not getting back the money that you were forced to put into it. That money was spent a long time ago. You're just enslaving the next generation, and calling it reparations.

That, and teaching the next generation that it's ok.
You really think that if he doesn't claim his SS, that it's gonig to make the situation any more sustainable? My guess is it will only invite them to spend that money that they no longer have to pay out, and as their track record has shown, they probably aren't going to spend it to take care of future generations.

angelatc
06-20-2012, 02:47 PM
or you are enforcing a contract. He also shows how to balance the budget to live up to existing obligations WITHOUT saddling the next generation with debt. The cuts don't have to be where people paid in value in promise of a return.

For example, Romney wants immediately to cut medicare benefits but never suggests the $1.7 trillion 'owed' the federal reserve for money it printed out of thin air should be written off the books. Priorities count.

The contract doesn't exist. Congress refuses to report the future obligations of SS in their budgets because they claim (correctly) they have the right to terminate the program immediately.

Show me where the program guarantees you'll get back at least as you out in. Wait - it isn't there.

PatriotOne
06-20-2012, 02:48 PM
I Agree he payed into it but HE had to apply for social security to get the money you have to go through tons of paper work and tons of phone calls and meetings to get social security checks just don't come out of the sky

ron paul took days out of his life to get this social security money thats how much gov money meant to him is that someone u can stand behind u don't just get social security u gotta apply meet all the requirements an than maybe gov will give u ur money back

this guy it just shows like where his priorities SOCIAL SECURITY > than a lot of stuff going on his life thats a fact folks an when will u realize it

Pffft! It takes a max of 30 minutes filling out an online application to apply for SS Retirement benefits and maybe a couple documents mailed or dropped off to SS if they ask for them. I know because I helped someone apply who didn't know how to use a computer a year or so ago. Easy breezy.

sailingaway
06-20-2012, 02:48 PM
Originally Posted by ProtossX
all im saying is IF U take money away it causes a problem

if you throw money at a problem IT GOES AWAY

the more money we have going into education the better it gets

things dont get worse...

untrue, prior to the 1970s when the federal dept of education was created, our education was the envy of the world (except Japan). Now it sucks, internationally speaking. Central planning costs money and most certainly does NOT guarantee improvement.

TIMB0B
06-20-2012, 02:49 PM
We should just throw more money at social security.
all im saying is IF U take money away it causes a problem

if you throw money at a problem IT GOES AWAY

the more money we have going into education the better it gets

things dont get worse...

angelatc
06-20-2012, 02:50 PM
You really think that if he doesn't claim his SS, that it's gonig to make the situation any more sustainable? My guess is it will only invite them to spend that money that they no longer have to pay out, and as their track record has shown, they probably aren't going to spend it to take care of future generations.

Certainly not. And he isn't running for his seat again so he has nothing to lose. But the popular notion that because I paid into it means I deserve to get something back makes me nauseous.

sailingaway
06-20-2012, 02:51 PM
The contract doesn't exist. Congress refuses to report the future obligations of SS in their budgets because they claim (correctly) they have the right to terminate the program immediately.

Show me where the program guarantees you'll get back at least as you out in. Wait - it isn't there.

It was, the Supreme Court even upheld it, then the congress stated it was changing the rules for all 'not yet vested' but that vesting concept works on pension plans because you can opt to not contribute, that doesn't apply here.

And the money put into the general fund IS represented with Treasury Bonds.

TIMB0B
06-20-2012, 02:52 PM
...
dude the statees arent doin a good enough job if u ask teachers an students u will see the discrimination is huge an teachers

if we had a bigger dept of eductation we could further fix these kind...

newbitech
06-20-2012, 02:53 PM
What is sad is that the system is broke. The only way that RP or anyone else is actually able to recoup any of their money is by printing and/or borrowing from future generations.

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

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

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

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

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

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

angelatc
06-20-2012, 02:55 PM
I grant all of that.

I would support total and immediate elimination of all Social Security, such that not another person ever got another cent from it. But I would also collect it if it did still exist and I were eligible.

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

sailingaway
06-20-2012, 02:55 PM
He is saying that it was a contract he would be paid that, not that he is getting what he paid. He was not allowed to opt out. The point is, he actually PUT OUT A PLAN that fixes this, with a budget that balances and does NOT leave debt on the next generation and lets them opt out.

ravedown
06-20-2012, 02:56 PM
its a bloodbath over on huffpo regarding this- im enjoying the beating im taking in the comments- those 'open-minded and tolerant' huffpo fans are practically foaming at the mouth in excitement regarding this 'development'-ha.

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

erowe1
06-20-2012, 02:57 PM
(alleges Ron taking social security is hypocritical)

if hes so libertyish why does this fraud say something and do something else

he says social security is horrible yet he uses it

he says ear marks are horrible he uses them

this guy says one thing an goes about it completely diff and ppl are saying he has a backbone dude GET OFF THE GOV tax payer money paul an than u can speak


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


Guys just listen to this okay before you blame me HEAR Me out

HE HAD to actually APPLY for social security he had to go out of his way tell the government in a letter or on the phone that he wanted his social security money the government just doesnt start sending you checks ron paul went to big gov and asked them for it

this guy has more time to try to get money from government than make it on his own


I Agree he payed into it but HE had to apply for social security to get the money you have to go through tons of paper work and tons of phone calls and meetings to get social security checks just don't come out of the sky

ron paul took days out of his life to get this social security money thats how much gov money meant to him is that someone u can stand behind u don't just get social security u gotta apply meet all the requirements an than maybe gov will give u ur money back

this guy it just shows like where his priorities SOCIAL SECURITY > than a lot of stuff going on his life thats a fact folks an when will u realize it


Yes BUT THIS IS THE SAME GUY WHO SAID

I WON'T TAKE A PRESIDENTIAL PAY CHECK

this same guy says i wouldn't take a dime to be president yet he takes social security money

i just don't get him

why doesn't he take all the money whys only take certain parts from the government it just doesn't make sense folks hes really weird

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

angelatc
06-20-2012, 02:58 PM
It was, the Supreme Court even upheld it, then the congress stated it was changing the rules for all 'not yet vested' but that vesting concept works on pension plans because you can opt to not contribute, that doesn't apply here.

And the money put into the general fund IS represented with Treasury Bonds.

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

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

sailingaway
06-20-2012, 03:04 PM
What is the name of the SCOTUS case? Because I promise you that if I dropped dead tomorrow, my kids won't get the SS that the government owes me. And if my Mom drops dead next week, the government won't cut my Dad a check for the surplus she left behind either.

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

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

So does Ron Paul, obviously.

angelatc
06-20-2012, 03:04 PM
untrue, prior to the 1970s when the federal dept of education was created, our education was the envy of the world (except Japan). Now it sucks, internationally speaking. Central planning costs money and most certainly does NOT guarantee improvement.

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

Lucille
06-20-2012, 03:04 PM
its a bloodbath over on huffpo regarding this- im enjoying the beating im taking in the comments- those 'open-minded and tolerant' huffpo fans are practically foaming at the mouth in excitement regarding this 'development'-ha.

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

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

"It is obvious, in such cases, that a man receives his own money which was taken from him by force, directly and specifically, without his consent, against his own choice. Those who advocated such laws are morally guilty, since they assumed the “right” to force employers and unwilling co-workers. But the victims, who opposed such laws, have a clear right to any refund of their own money—and they would not advance the cause of freedom if they left their money, unclaimed, for the benefit of the welfare-state administration."
--Ayn Rand

angelatc
06-20-2012, 03:05 PM
i don't remember the name of the case, but I am sure you can find it if you look. The T bill thing is no more silly than any other Tbill thing. The point is, special interests are trying to focus people on raiding what they view as 'pots of money' (or room to borrow) so they can fund more special interest funding. They don't intend to cut spending at all, but use money elsewhere. Ron's budget shows they can live up to the government promises for money paid in for programs that were supposed to be there, cut elsewhere, and still let those who haven't paid in out. If we go completely bankrupt, the whole house of cards falls, obviously, but the policy suggestions aren't to cut elsewhere, but to move $500,000 to Obamacare from medicare, for example. They want to move it to other areas and pretend programs paid into are the same philosophically as welfare, and I reject that theory.

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

angelatc
06-20-2012, 03:06 PM
They have short memories, poor reading comprehension, or are being deliberately obtuse. They lost it over Ayn Rand last year, and it was explained to them then.

"It is obvious, in such cases, that a man receives his own money which was taken from him by force, directly and specifically, without his consent, against his own choice. Those who advocated such laws are morally guilty, since they assumed the “right” to force employers and unwilling co-workers. But the victims, who opposed such laws, have a clear right to any refund of their own money—and they would not advance the cause of freedom if they left their money, unclaimed, for the benefit of the welfare-state administration."
--Ayn Rand

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

TheGrinch
06-20-2012, 03:06 PM
He is saying that it was a contract he would be paid that, not that he is getting what he paid. He was not allowed to opt out. The point is, he actually PUT OUT A PLAN that fixes this, with a budget that balances and does NOT leave debt on the next generation and lets them opt out.
Exactly. I don't buy the logic that just because they spent the money he paid in, doesn't mean he's not entitled to his cash (or rather other cash) back out.

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

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

alucard13mmfmj
06-20-2012, 03:07 PM
SS is a scam.. he paid into it from his paycheck. in fact, he loses money. 20 dollars back then is not 20 dollars now because of inflation.

sailingaway
06-20-2012, 03:08 PM
I have never heard that SCOTUS said that the government was not allowed to legislatively repeal any program. Tell me at least what you would search if you were looking for it.

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

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

TheGrinch
06-20-2012, 03:08 PM
Is this person like a pretend troll, or a troll of a troll, or something, where what they're really trying to do is make people who say this kind of stuff look silly?
You almsot have to wonder, but no, I truly think there are plenty of liberals who think the world is this simplistic (or rather believe whatever they're told).

sailingaway
06-20-2012, 03:10 PM
Sailing, where did the OP say that thing you were replying to? There's no link. But there is absolutely no study in the world that proves that putting more money into education improves education. I think he has the concept misapplied. While it's true that if you subsidize something, you get more of it, when you subsidize bad education, it just gets worse. Competition and choice are what make markets better.

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

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

angelatc
06-20-2012, 03:11 PM
SS is a scam.. he paid into it from his paycheck. in fact, he loses money. 20 dollars back then is not 20 dollars now because of inflation.

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

sailingaway
06-20-2012, 03:12 PM
Most people draw more back from SS than they ever put into it. He is not losing money. The system is losing money.

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

DanK22
06-20-2012, 03:14 PM
http://captionsearch.com/pix/t8zrasr0.jpg

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

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

angelatc
06-20-2012, 03:20 PM
it was before they changed, arbitrarily, the 'vesting' bit and that is why they use the '55' year age limit thing, I suspect it roughly corresponds to the date of that vesting policy.

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

With all due respect, I think you're wrong. Although I am still looking, the only time I see that SCOTUS addressed the issue of SS being a property right was Felmming v Nestor (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=363&invol=603) , and they ruled against the concept saying,
"The OASI [Old-Age and Survivors Insurance] program is in no sense a federally-administered 'insurance program' under which each worker pays premiums over the years and acquires at retirement an indefeasible right to receive for life a fixed monthly benefit, irrespective of the conditions which Congress has chosen to impose from time to time," and
A person covered by the Social Security Act has not such a right in old-age benefit payments as would make every defeasance of "accrued" interests violative of the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment, and
"(a) The noncontractual interest of an employee covered by the Act cannot be soundly analogized to that of the holder of an annuity, whose right to benefits are based on his contractual premium payments. Pp. 608-610." and.....well, need I go on?

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

angelatc
06-20-2012, 03:24 PM
not when you calculate in the lost purchasing power of the money by the time you get it back. The people who argue that are just trying to get their hands on more money for their own programs imho.

Once again, can you actually cite any evidence for your assertion?

fletcher
06-20-2012, 03:30 PM
I like Robert Higgs's response to this idiotic attack. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2SRSmI-Q3U4&t=17m41s

LibertyEagle
06-20-2012, 03:30 PM
SS isn't paying anyone back anything. When they had their money taken from them, it wasn't for their own future SS, it was to pay people who were collecting SS at that time, in exchange for the promise from the government that people today would be similarly robbed so that the ones who got robbed in the past could get paid today. Eventually, someone's gonna get robbed and not be able to get paid by going on to rob the next generation, and the sooner that happens the better.
That's not true, erowe. When it started, there was a SS Trust Fund. But, it was raided some time ago, the money moved into the general fund and spent and IOUs left in its place. I do agree though, that all the extras they added on should be removed. It's way past ridiculous and returns way more than they paid in. I also agree that the whole program should be phased out eventually. It should never have been started. But, it cannot be stopped immediately. Too many people paid in their money and that is what they are living on in their old age.


ETA: That said, paying back bonds owned by China or your mother is also redistribution. Those debts should be repudiated. Today's tax payers have no obligation whatsoever to make good on the promises the government made on their behalf.

Lucille
06-20-2012, 03:31 PM
I disagree with Rand, on several things, this being one of them.

I thought it was a good argument. That said, Rand's mentor, Isabel Paterson, never took SS. Lane either.


She refused Social Security, returning her card in an envelope marked “Social Security Swindle (http://www.thefreemanonline.org/features/rose-wilder-lane-isabel-paterson-and-ayn-rand-three-women-who-inspired-the-modern-libertarian-movement/).”


Stephens notes that the other two founding broads of libertarianism – Rose Wilder Lane and Isabel Paterson – went to considerable lengths to avoid taking charity from Uncle Sam (http://reason.com/blog/2011/01/30/rand-on-the-dole). (It’s harder to turn down Social Security than you think.) I’d be happy if this dustup resulted in a boost for either of those two over Rand

angelatc
06-20-2012, 03:33 PM
I thought it was a good argument. That said, Rand's mentor, Isabel Paterson, never took SS. Lane either.

Oh sure - I won't say that there's not a point to be made for that. But I don't think it's a point that leads to salvation, only a moral excuse. It's not far from the liberals who believe in their soul that taking from the rich and giving to the poor is justified.

sailingaway
06-20-2012, 03:34 PM
Once again, can you actually cite any evidence for your assertion?

It is my conclusion developed over time, watching the debate, no, I don't have the evidence I looked at marshalled for argument and you can freely discount it, but I am convinced that is the case, for my own purposes.

Wooden Indian
06-20-2012, 03:35 PM
Why do you guys insist on treating this troll seriously?

1. He's mentally ill and unable to grasp the obvious logic.
2. He's just looking for attention.

Make fun of him if you want, but entertaining him like this is just plain odd to me.

Valli6
06-20-2012, 03:36 PM
Most people draw more back from SS than they ever put into it. He is not losing money.

Not Ron Paul. Apparently he is losing money.
@14:54 of the morning joe video 6/20/12:

Ron Paul:

"I still pay Social Security. I pay more into it than I get out."
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LHoIIT9yUbU#t=14m54s

ProtossX
06-20-2012, 03:36 PM
SS is a scam.. he paid into it from his paycheck. in fact, he loses money. 20 dollars back then is not 20 dollars now because of inflation.

Go back to diablo 3 you pot head this guy only supports paul cuz of weed an has from cali an plays d3 all day an night

seriously u aren't true paul supporter all u care about is weed

sailingaway
06-20-2012, 03:37 PM
Oh sure - I won't say that there's not a point to be made for that. But I don't think it's a point that leads to salvation, only a moral excuse. It's not far from the liberals who believe in their soul that taking from the rich and giving to the poor is justified.

I think that is wrong. I think those who NEVER paid in to a program billed, when voted for, as paying for itself as social insurance, are not in the same place as social security beneficiaries. I understand you disagree, but I do in fact see a difference between social security and outright welfare, and, for that matter, between unemployment insurance (also paid in for) and welfare. I think paid in programs are different. Maybe they should not have been created, but that is different.

sailingaway
06-20-2012, 03:37 PM
Go back to diablo 3 you pot head this guy only supports paul cuz of weed an has from cali an plays d3 all day an night

seriously u aren't true paul supporter all u care about is weed

do you actively want to be banned?

ProtossX
06-20-2012, 03:38 PM
excuse me sir how am i mentally ill because i just posted this on huff PO Paul is a Fraud and guess what i got 11 likes 0 dislikes and guess waht else 3 people favorited me added me as a friend

i guess im just retarded cuz i am very likeable

fyi HUFF Po is the biggest news site online its basically a newspaper online its got people from everywhere cons libs indepedents an they all liked my comment so i dunno what to tell you

ProtossX
06-20-2012, 03:39 PM
do you actively want to be banned? no i would not like to be banned i just read that guys other posts an they were all about diablo 3 an hes from cali

TrishW
06-20-2012, 03:39 PM
If only the poor take their SS it becomes more of a welfare program. Then I could see where liberty minded people would have even more of a problem.

sailingaway
06-20-2012, 03:40 PM
excuse me sir how am i mentally ill because i just posted this on huff PO Paul is a Fraud and guess what i got 11 likes 0 dislikes and guess waht else 3 people favorited me added me as a friend

i guess im just retarded cuz i am very likeable

fyi HUFF Po is the biggest news site online its basically a newspaper online its got people from everywhere cons libs indepedents an they all liked my comment so i dunno what to tell you

Huff Po readers typically have a specific political bent. Not ours.

ProtossX
06-20-2012, 03:42 PM
well which way does huff post lean than i see ppl from all types of people on there

sailingaway
06-20-2012, 03:44 PM
well which way does huff post lean than i see ppl from all types of people on there

The commenters tend to be less critically thinking examples from the establishment left. Not all of them, but the general mass.

More critically thinking left can be found at firedoglake, although we disagree with them a lot too. At least you can have a decent argument with them.

Wooden Indian
06-20-2012, 03:46 PM
Me no speal gud then most uther pplz! Ron pol iz a foney!! I red huffpo and dey lik me so thare. Dey r lik a magazeen but on the interwebz.

ProtossX
06-20-2012, 03:52 PM
so you don't ever go huff post?

they have great articles they have great pictures and stories

there news is way more updated than other sites and fast

i don't understand whats wrong with it? its not a magazine it links actually quotes and videos of what there talking about nothing is doctored or edited its just in ur face news

grit123
06-20-2012, 03:53 PM
editing/deleting/censoring peoples posts because you disagree = not cool

We can think for ourselves, moderators. Don't need you to tell us what is and isn't legitimate criticism of RP.

Is this Thought Police whats to be expected if Libertarians take over?

sailingaway
06-20-2012, 03:55 PM
so you don't ever go huff post?

they have great articles they have great pictures and stories

there news is way more updated than other sites and fast

i don't understand whats wrong with it? its not a magazine it links actually quotes and videos of what there talking about nothing is doctored or edited its just in ur face news

I don't go directly there, but I am led there by google searches, and I like Robin Koerner (sp?) who started Blue Republicans in support of Ron Paul. I also follow a couple other of their writers on twitter. But the comment section is almost universally brainless, and I do comment occasionally. Once in a while someone makes a new point but usually it is just 'so there!' type of stuff.

sailingaway
06-20-2012, 03:56 PM
editing/deleting/censoring peoples posts because you disagree = not cool

Is this what can be expected if Libertarians take over?

on their own private property?

sailingaway
06-20-2012, 04:02 PM
On reflection, Thinkprogress jumped RIGHT on this and sent it to their substantial echo chamber as SOON as the interview occurred. I think they are trying to rally stray leftists who support Ron over Obama back onto the ranch.

grit123
06-20-2012, 04:02 PM
on their own private property?

God forbid people like you are wealthy enough to buy most of it up.

sailingaway
06-20-2012, 04:04 PM
God forbid people like you are wealthy enough to buy most of it up.

I don't think you're in danger, unfortunately.

Did I edit a post of yours?

JustinL
06-20-2012, 04:28 PM
The guy trolls a ton and he says nothing and then he starts getting personal bringing in Diablo 3 playing and junk and at that point he brought up the idea of a ban (merely giving a warning versus just banning him). Seems pretty tolerant to me. And suggesting we should all forsake private property and he should surrender his forums to others? I always wonder what the deal with these people who forsake private property totally is... because I'm pretty sure if I claim you don't own your right arm and I lop it off and use it for my own purposes you'd have a problem with that. Let's be reasonable here. He's being tolerant of him even though he seems a troll, but so long as we keep things polite and on topic and not lob personal insults about what people do with their time that are irrelevant to the topic.

anaconda
06-20-2012, 04:49 PM
RP should have mentioned how much the Congressional pension is and that there are two people out of 535 that don't participate.

No Free Beer
06-20-2012, 04:53 PM
i find it rather comical that thinkprogress is so worried abour ron paul, instead of obama and his hypocrisy

cocrehamster
06-20-2012, 05:45 PM
Because just because somebody stole from you does not mean it is ok to steal from somebody else. When you take money out of Social Security, you're not getting back the money that you were forced to put into it. That money was spent a long time ago. You're just enslaving the next generation, and calling it reparations.

That, and teaching the next generation that it's ok.

By your logic when I take money out of my bank account I'm stealing because the bills they give me arent the ones I deposited but the ones that someone else did. I can't even comprehend how someone could make your silly argument. He even said that he still pays in more than he receives in benefits each year. Who is he stealing from again?

erowe1
06-20-2012, 05:49 PM
By your logic when I take money out of my bank account I'm stealing because the bills they give me arent the ones I deposited but the ones that someone else did. I can't even comprehend how someone could make your silly argument. He even said that he still pays in more than he receives in benefits each year. Who is he stealing from again?

It's the government that's doing the stealing, not the SS recipients.

But yes, it is still theft. It's not people getting their own money back. Their money was stolen and given to others, and now others' money is getting stolen and given to them.

sailingaway
06-20-2012, 05:51 PM
i find it rather comical that thinkprogress is so worried abour ron paul, instead of obama and his hypocrisy

people who voted for Obama and are disappointed because of ndaa and cispa and fisa and the patriot act and the wars compare him to Ron. Thinkprogress is trying to whistle them back 'to the team'.

alucard13mmfmj
06-20-2012, 05:57 PM
let's assume ron paul is hypocritical in SS and other stuff...

heck, ron paul is still less hypocritical than Romney or Obama. There. Case Closed.

sailingaway
06-20-2012, 05:59 PM
let's assume ron paul is hypocritical in SS and other stuff...

heck, ron paul is still less hypocritical than Romney or Obama. There. Case Closed.

I refuse to lower the bar so low.

Ron Paul isn't hypocritical on social security.

alucard13mmfmj
06-20-2012, 06:02 PM
I refuse to lower the bar so low.

Ron Paul isn't hypocritical on social security.

i know he's not. but its a hypothetical if he is hypocritical on SOME issues, hes still better than Obama or Romney.

CaseyJones
06-20-2012, 06:05 PM
moved to media spin

farreri
06-20-2012, 06:46 PM
RAW STORY: "Ron Paul: I take Social Security checks but will eliminate it for others"

I like RS and they, for the most part, seem to be supportive of RP, but they are misleading on this headline. Yes, RP wants to eliminate SS...for all! Including himself.

And there's no hypocrisy of him getting back what the government forced him to pay into. It's basically his money and he'll even get LESS back than he was forced to pay in.

The only way he'd be a hypocrite is if it was a govt program that just gave certain people taxpayer's money for funded services, but not everyone. A farm subsidy, for example.

DerailingDaTrain
06-24-2012, 05:28 AM
Certainly not. And he isn't running for his seat again so he has nothing to lose. But the popular notion that because I paid into it means I deserve to get something back makes me nauseous.

So if the government steals from me I don't deserve the money I slaved everyday of my life for back? Are you advocating for government theft?