Rand Paul Believes We Must Fix Social Security and Save it For Younger Generations

[newbitech]

Rand Paul Believes We Must Fix Social Security and Save it For Younger Generations (http://www.randpaul.com/issue/social-security)
Combined with years of wasteful spending by decades of career politicians in Washington, the Social Security trust fund has been left in a fragile condition. (http://www.randpaul.com/issue/social-security)


Social Security - Rand Paul on the Issues Youtube (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=646sw-6xwHI)


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=646sw-6xwHI


Rand Paul for President on the Issues (http://www.randpaul.com/issues)
"My policies will defeat the Washington Machine and unleash the creative spirit of the American people."—Rand Paul (http://www.randpaul.com/issues) -

[Voluntarist]

xxxxx

[Voluntarist]

xxxxx

[Sola_Fide]

Eh whatever

[T.hill]

If he still supports the ability of people to opt-out, then it really doesn't matter.

[GunnyFreedom]

The full quote:


Really? No one but me has a problem with this?
The promise to be kept is with those who depend upon it rather than everyone who has paid into it? That certainly doesn't rule out means testing does it?
And sure, let's fully fund the shortfall in the pyramid scheme.

Only part I have a real problem with is "implementing reforms to save the program for younger generations." As an unconstitutional program, we should be looking at ways to transition OUT of it without destroying those currently dependant. I am all for 'fixing' it so far as to meet the obligations of those already dependant who have paid in their whole lives, I am also all for refunding the money paid in by those who are not yet dependant on it and encouraging them to set up their own retirement fund. Neither of which, of course, have any real political will behind them. Any mention that SS may not be a utopia, and octogenarians will be throwing shoes. He could have kept the first bit and left out the "implementing reforms to save the program for younger generations" and I would have been 100% happy with the statement. Pay in 10% your whole life, get to the front of the line and they close up shop. If you are wondering where your next meal is coming from, that's pretty shytty. If I had to guess, I'd guess some 70% of those 60 and over with no retirement funds have none because they bought the promise that the gov will do it for them by taking a little out of every paycheck. You can't just shutter the program without dealing with them, of course.

So the only problem I have with the statement, is the implied goal of keeping it around for another 40 years when it is, in fact, unconstitutional.

[phill4paul]

Only part I have a real problem with is "implementing reforms to save the program for younger generations." As an unconstitutional program, we should be looking at ways to transition OUT of it without destroying those currently dependant. I am all for 'fixing' it so far as to meet the obligations of those already dependant who have paid in their whole lives, I am also all for refunding the money paid in by those who are not yet dependant on it and encouraging them to set up their own retirement fund. Neither of which, of course, have any real political will behind them. Any mention that SS may not be a utopia, and octogenarians will be throwing shoes. He could have kept the first bit and left out the "implementing reforms to save the program for younger generations" and I would have been 100% happy with the statement. Pay in 10% your whole life, get to the front of the line and they close up shop. If you are wondering where your next meal is coming from, that's pretty shytty. If I had to guess, I'd guess some 70% of those 60 and over with no retirement funds have none because they bought the promise that the gov will do it for them by taking a little out of every paycheck. You can't just shutter the program without dealing with them, of course.

So the only problem I have with the statement, is the implied goal of keeping it around for another 40 years when it is, in fact, unconstitutional.

I would like to have heard more about the reforms he is thinking of implementing and whether it included an opt out. He could not, of course, say that he wanted to end it because he would lose a hell of a lot of votes from those on it or those that have payed into it and are approaching pay-out.

[EBounding]

The full quote:


Really? No one but me has a problem with this?
The promise to be kept is with those who depend upon it rather than everyone who has paid into it? That certainly doesn't rule out means testing does it?
And sure, let's fully fund the shortfall in the pyramid scheme.

My guess is that any talk of "winding down" Social Security--even just for younger people--still scares the electorate receiving SS benefits.

[CaptUSA]

What?! Are you telling me that Rand Paul did NOT sacrifice himself on the third rail for your enjoyment?! How dare he.

[r3volution 3.0]

WE? Rand seems to accept that he (part of that WE) made a promise to them. But I certainly hope he's not including me in that WE. Is there anyone else here that considers themselves part of that WE?

You're overthinking it.

This is not a statement of Rand's ethical principles. He's not saying there's some moral imperative to maintain SS.

This is just public relations - blather - for which you and I are not the target audience.

As for Rand's actual policy position on SS, he'll nibble around the edges: means testing, gradually raising the retirement age, etc.

Obviously he'd like to phase it out altogether, as we all would, but that's politically impossible.

[CPUd]

Rand has to be careful about proposing changes to SS and Medicare that can be used against him. This is how Obama-Biden won FL:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zmjSqVixA6Y

[r3volution 3.0]

^^^He's got to win the primary first.

[Ronin Truth]

Just a bit more time with government extortion and involuntary servitude will fix us all right up, eh Rand? :(

[ChristianAnarchist]

He didn't say what "reforms". Learn to read between the lines people. I'm also for "reforms" that might "save" SS for the younger generation. How about "reforming" it to be completely private and profit driven? Isn't that a "reform" we can all get behind??

[jmdrake]

My guess is that any talk of "winding down" Social Security--even just for younger people--still scares the electorate receiving SS benefits.

^This


What?! Are you telling me that Rand Paul did NOT sacrifice himself on the third rail for your enjoyment?! How dare he.

And ^this

[erowe1]

This is one of those things I just take for granted that I'll have to tolerate.

[ChristianAnarchist]

I’m not a libertarian. I’m not advocating everyone run around with no clothes on and smoke pot.

Ya, certain people should leave their clothes on...