Results 1 to 16 of 16

Thread: Please explain Ron Pauls plan for social security

  1. #1

    Please explain Ron Pauls plan for social security

    He's said many times his plan would make SS solvent. How so? He also proposed a plan at CPAC that would allow you to opt out if you paid a flat 10% federal tax. Why would you opt out if you had to continue to pay a tax?



  2. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  3. #2
    SS and federal are separate. Paul proposed a flat 10%...that would greatly help everyone...I have to pay 25% income tax.

    To make SS solvent he'd take it from the military empire overseas and stop funding those bases and bring all troops home around the world. He'd probably also change the medicare codes to what Rand Paul wants...only give back to the rich elderly what they paid in and stop paying out 3-4x more to them.
    Last edited by muh_roads; 08-30-2011 at 12:55 AM.

  4. #3
    Sorry I still don't get it how does it help everyone? You'd be paying less of an income tax?

  5. #4
    Quote Originally Posted by Billay View Post
    Sorry I still don't get it how does it help everyone? You'd be paying less of an income tax?
    The SS tax would disappear and you would be paying a lower Federal Income tax.
    "He's talkin' to his gut like it's a person!!" -me
    "dumpster diving isn't professional." - angelatc
    "You don't need a medical degree to spot obvious bullshit, that's actually a separate skill." -Scott Adams
    "When you are divided, and angry, and controlled, you target those 'different' from you, not those responsible [controllers]" -Q

    "Each of us must choose which course of action we should take: education, conventional political action, or even peaceful civil disobedience to bring about necessary changes. But let it not be said that we did nothing." - Ron Paul

    "Paul said "the wave of the future" is a coalition of anti-authoritarian progressive Democrats and libertarian Republicans in Congress opposed to domestic surveillance, opposed to starting new wars and in favor of ending the so-called War on Drugs."

  6. #5
    Let people opt out, and put pressure on the system.

    That's the plan.

  7. #6
    He plans to save a Trillion per year ($1,000,000,000,000.00) off the budget from overseas empire. While philosophically he believes that centralized Federal mandate over our income and welfare is a foolish system, the obvious order of priority would be to cut the war machine first, not payouts to people who have been MADE dependent on government via several generations of the Welfare State.

    He promises never to raid Social Security and Medicare, while the dirty secret of the Clinton "Balanced Budget" was that it wasn't truly balanced, merely stealing from the entitlement systems which had not at the time reached the tipping point of money in vs. money out. No one even mentions during the discussion of the Clinton surpluses how outrageous the bubbles were concerning technology and internet investments. That of course stems from the Federal Reserve System, not even on a matter of current day policy, but on the fundamental system of money as debt.

    No one but Ron Paul called out the tech bubble, the housing bubble, and the credit crisis of 2008 for what they really were: A dollar bubble created by Richard Nixon (detachment from gold standard), Harry Truman (Bretton Woods), and Woodrow Wilson (Federal Reserve Act) - The IDEA that centralized economic planning, and the centralized magic trick of creating money out of thin air, was somehow beneficial to our economy.

    Was it true? To an extent, you could justify fractional reserve banking as a positive thing, because it spurred on risk takers and lit a fire under the asses of the indebted. The ultimate downfall, however, would show itself when people figured out that money being debt required perpetual expansion and consumption to function properly. When it didn't work in the short term, more borrowing from the future was encouraged under the idea that the perpetual expansion would catch up and even surpass the day to day trials and tribulations of current economic realities. Solving the problem of too much debt by borrowing more actually did work for a while. The period of time it worked would appear on a chart as a continuous climb up a mountain. Eventually, you reach the peak of a mountain. Perpetual growth meets a limit of resources, productivity, and population....

    So why are we screwed?

    The answer lies not in resources, not in productivity, and not in new bodies (population)... The answer lies in VALUE.

    The system that we have been unconstitutionally forced to live under since 1913 does not take into account VALUE in the monetary system. Only the Fed can define what things are worth, the free market is shut out of things - Which is why the demonization of the free market is such a travesty. The negative attributes associated with the free market are a direct result of the fact that the market we have today is anything but free.

    When saving money is punished (by inflating the currency thus taxing and pilfering any idle funds), and borrowing is rewarded (by subsidizing the risk via pushing interest rates artificially low) - the very idea of capitalism is undermined. If we all own the fruits of our labor, it is only fair for the little guy to have just as much a chance of the big guy via the ability to save and save and save, and work as many times harder as the his elite owner's bank account to eventually have a chance to compete with him. Even that scenario isn't truly fair, but at least he has a fighting chance, and the mere possibility of it being attainable fuels the engine of productivity and desire. You want something that is hard to get. It is DAMN hard to get, but you aren't BANNED from attaining it, because you live in a free and capitalistic society. That is the engine that drives success, that built America, that still makes believers in a certain percentage of American citizens today.

    Decentralized power, limitations on the powers of the federal government, are exactly what we need to succeed. Economically, that means no more controlled corporatism via regulations of the federal government. The reason the federal government shouldn't regulate things isn't totally because things shouldn't be regulated, just that the regulation of things on such a centralized command will ALWAYS be corrupted. Centralized power, centralized budgets, centralized legislation, and centralized execution of policy will always have a gravitational pull for corruption. The larger the centralized power is, the more the gravitational pull for corruption exists.

    Decentralize the power, see how much the same benefits cost us.

    Decentralize the budgets, see how much more YOUR COMMUNITY can get done for you where you are all close enough to know each other and want to help each other.

    Decentralize the economic planning by taking back our monetary policy from private bankers. Legalize competition. Let the free market no longer be banned from assessing value and risk. As prices readjust towards how people really calculate them without sinister manipulation, better choices will be made, true capitalism will flourish, and the malinvestment of bubbles will not be cultivated by policy that only benefits the richest and most elite Globalists.

  8. #7

    Pillars of Prosperity
    FREE MARKETS, HONEST MONEY, PRIVATE PROPERTY

    Ron Paul
    http://mises.org/books/prosperity.pdf

    Pg. 69


    Reforming Social Security
    Everyone concedes that Social Security needs to be reformed or it will
    soon be insolvent. However, what analysts often omit is that the so-called
    “trust fund” consists of IOUs from the government. Right now when the
    federal government takes in more money from Social Security withholding
    than it pays out to current beneficiaries, it still spends the difference,
    and “sells” a government bond into the Social Security trust fund. All
    this smoke-and-mirrors doesn’t evade the fact that the government has
    made trillions of dollars of promises that it can’t keep. In this section I
    outline some of my proposals to restore sanity to Social Security.
    Senior Citizens’ Freedom to Work
    Act of 1999
    Congressional Record—U.S. House of Representatives
    March 1, 2000

    Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to offer my support to the Senior Citizens’
    Freedom to Work Act (H.R. 5), which repeals the Social
    Security “earnings limitations.” During a time when an increasing
    number of senior citizens are able to enjoy productive lives well
    past retirement age and businesses are in desperate need of experienced
    workers, it makes no sense to punish seniors for working.
    Yet the federal government does just that by deducting a portion
    of seniors’ monthly Social Security check should they continue to
    work and earn income above an arbitrary government-set level.
    When the government takes money every month from people’s
    paychecks for the Social Security Trust Fund, it promises retirees
    that the money will be there for them when they retire. The government
    should keep that promise and not reduce benefits simply
    because a senior chooses to work.
    Furthermore, Mr. Speaker, by providing a disincentive to
    remaining in the workforce, the earnings limitation deprives the
    American economy of the benefits of senior citizens who wish to
    continue working but are discouraged from doing so by fear of losing
    part of their Social Security benefits. The federal government
    should not discourage any citizen from seeking or holding productive
    employment.
    The underlying issue of the earnings limitation goes back to the
    fact that money from the trust fund is routinely spent for things
    other than paying pensions to beneficiaries. This is why the first
    bill I introduced in the 106th Congress was the Social Security
    Preservation Act (H.R. 219), which forbids Congress from spending
    Social Security funds on anything other than paying Social
    Security pensions.
    In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I wish to reiterate my strong support
    for the Senior Citizens’ Freedom to Work Act. Repealing the
    “earnings limitation” will help ensure that America’s seniors can
    continue to enjoy fulfilling and productive lives in their “golden
    years.” I also urge my colleagues to protect the integrity of the
    Social Security Trust Fund by cosponsoring the Social Security
    Preservation Act (H.R. 219).
    Social Security Tax Relief Act
    Congressional Record—U.S. House of Representatives
    September 6, 2000

    Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in support of the Social Security
    Tax Relief Act (H.R. 4865). By repealing the 1993 tax increase
    on Social Security benefits, Congress will take a good first step
    toward eliminating one of the most unfair taxes imposed on seniors:
    the tax on Social Security benefits.
    Eliminating the 1993 tax on Social Security benefits has long been
    one of my goals in Congress. In fact, I introduced legislation to repeal
    this tax increase in 1997, and I am pleased to see Congress acting on
    this issue. I would remind my colleagues that the justification for
    increasing this tax in 1993 was to reduce the budget deficit. Now,
    President Clinton, who first proposed the tax increase, and most
    members of Congress say the deficit is gone. So, by the President’s
    own reasoning, there is no need to keep this tax hike in place.
    Because Social Security benefits are financed with tax dollars,
    taxing these benefits is yet another incidence of “double taxation.”
    Furthermore, “taxing” benefits paid by the government is merely an
    accounting trick, a “shell game” which allows members of Congress
    to reduce benefits by subterfuge. This allows Congress to continue
    using the Social Security trust fund as a means of financing other
    government programs and mask the true size of the federal deficit.
    Mr. Speaker, the Social Security Tax Relief Act, combined with
    our action earlier this year to repeal the earnings limitation, goes a
    long way toward reducing the burden imposed by the federal government
    on senior citizens. However, I hope my colleagues will
    not stop at repealing the 1993 tax increase, but will work to repeal
    all taxes on Social Security benefits. I am cosponsoring legislation
    to achieve this goal, H.R. 761.
    Congress should also act on my Social Security Preservation
    Act (H.R. 219), which ensures that all money in the Social Security
    Trust Fund is spent solely on Social Security. When the government
    takes money for the Social Security Trust Fund, it promises
    the American people that the money will be there for them when
    they retire. Congress has a moral obligation to keep that promise.
    In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to help free
    senior citizens from oppressive taxation by supporting the Social
    Security Benefits Tax Relief Act (H.R. 4865). I also urge my colleagues
    to join me in working to repeal all taxes on Social Security
    benefits and ensuring that monies from the Social Security trust
    fund are used solely for Social Security and not wasted on frivolous
    government programs.
    Social Security Preservation Act
    Congressional Record—U.S. House of Representatives
    January 8, 2003

    Mr. Speaker, I rise to protect the integrity of the Social Security
    trust fund by introducing the Social Security Preservation Act. The
    Social Security Preservation Act is a rather simple bill which states
    that all monies raised by the Social Security trust fund will be
    spent in payments to beneficiaries, with excess receipts invested in
    interest-bearing certificates of deposit. This will help keep Social
    Security trust fund monies from being diverted to other programs,
    as well as allow the fund to grow by providing for investment in
    interest-bearing instruments.
    The Social Security Preservation Act ensures that the government
    will keep its promises to America’s seniors that taxes collected
    for Social Security will be used for Social Security. When
    the government taxes Americans to fund Social Security, it promises
    the American people that the money will be there for them
    when they retire. Congress has a moral obligation to keep that
    promise.
    The return of massive federal deficits, and the accompanying
    pressure for massive new raids on the trust fund, make it more
    important than ever that Congress protect the trust fund from big
    spending, pork-barrel politics. I call upon all my colleagues,
    regardless of which proposal for long-term Social Security reform
    they support, to stand up for America’s seniors by cosponsoring
    the Social Security Preservation Act.
    Social Security for American Citizens Only!
    Congressional Record—U.S. House of Representatives
    January 30, 2003

    Mr. Speaker, today I introduce the Social Security for American
    Citizens Only Act. This act forbids the federal government from
    providing Social Security benefits to noncitizens. It also ends the
    practice of totalization. Totalization is where the Social Security
    Administration takes into account the number of years an individual
    worked abroad, and thus was not paying payroll taxes, in
    determining that individual’s eligibility for Social Security benefits!
    Hard as it may be to believe, the United States government
    already provides Social Security benefits to citizens of 17 other
    countries. Under current law, citizens of those countries covered
    by these agreements may have an easier time getting Social Security
    benefits than public school teachers or policemen!
    Obviously, this program provides a threat to the already fragile
    Social Security system, and the threat is looming larger. Just
    before Christmas, the press reported on a pending deal between
    the United States and the government of Mexico, which would
    make hundreds of thousands of Mexican citizens eligible for U.S.
    Social Security benefits. Totalization is the centerpiece of this proposal,
    so even if a Mexican citizen did not work in the United
    States long enough to qualify for Social Security, the number of
    years worked in Mexico would be added to bring up the total and
    thus make the Mexican worker eligible for cash transfers from the
    United States.
    Mr. Speaker, press reports also indicate that thousands of foreigners
    who would qualify for U.S. Social Security benefits actually
    came to the United States and worked here illegally. That’s
    right: The federal government may actually allow someone who
    came to the United States illegally, worked less than the required
    number of years to qualify for Social Security, and then returned
    to Mexico for the rest of his working years, to collect full U.S. Social
    Security benefits while living in Mexico. That is an insult to the
    millions of Americans who pay their entire working lives into the
    system and now face the possibility that there may be nothing left
    when it is their turn to retire.
    The proposed agreement is nothing more than a financial
    reward to those who have willingly and knowingly violated our
    own immigration laws. Talk about an incentive for illegal immigration!
    How many more would break the law to come to this
    country if promised U.S. government paychecks for life? Is creating
    a global welfare state on the back of the American taxpayer a
    good idea? The program also establishes a very disturbing precedent
    of U.S. foreign aid to individual citizens rather than to states.
    Estimates of what this deal with the Mexican government
    would cost top one billion dollars per year. Supporters of the
    Social Security to Mexico deal may attempt to downplay the effect
    the agreement would have on the system, but actions speak louder
    than words: According to several press reports, the State Department
    and the Social Security Administration are already negotiating
    to build a new building in Mexico City to handle the expected
    rush of applicants for this new program!
    As the system braces for a steep increase in those who will be
    drawing from the Social Security trust fund, it makes no sense to
    expand it into a global welfare system. Social Security was
    designed to provide support for retired American citizens who
    worked in the United States. We should be shoring up the system
    for those Americans who have paid in for decades, not expanding
    it to cover foreigners who have not.
    It is long past time for Congress to stand up to the internationalist
    bureaucrats and start looking out for the American worker. I
    therefore call upon my colleagues to stop the use of the Social Security
    trust fund as yet another vehicle for foreign aid by cosponsoring
    the Social Security for American Citizens Only Act.

    Concerning the flat tax proposition mentioned at CPAC: I believe it was a rhetorical question. He doesn't want any income tax, but proposed that as an offer to those who would be against others opting out. It's spending that is the problem and I think Dr. Paul's solution is to ween the Government off it's deep pockets and wasteful spending, analyze spending, and direct funds appropriately. Dr. Paul believes in free-markets, I'm sure he believes that the market should ultimately and respectfully assume these responsibilities, correcting these economic downfalls and inflation of prices that congress has willfully authorized to run amok.
    Last edited by notsure; 08-30-2011 at 03:13 AM.
    RVO˩UTION

  9. #8
    What? I don't see why this aspect of Ron Paul's position on Social Security is pushed more. Seniors only hear that Ron Paul want to get rid of Social Security. That may be true in the long run, but he's not killing it overnight.

    In fact, he wants to ensure those who get Social Security checks get as much as they can!

    - Senior Citizens’ Freedom to Work Act - no reduction in checks if the senior is working
    - Social Security Tax Relief Act - no taxes on social security benefits
    - Social Security Preservation Act - only allow social security money to be used towards paying benefits
    - Social Security for American Citizens Only! - 'nuff said



  10. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  11. #9
    Quote Originally Posted by Billay View Post
    Sorry I still don't get it how does it help everyone? You'd be paying less of an income tax?
    You don't think paying less taxes helps everybody?

  12. #10
    I don't think RP has a plan that will make SS solvent. When the time comes for him to present something with numbers, I think it will show that to be the case. But I don't really care. I just want to see overall spending cut as much as it can be. And I don't want him to ruin his chance to do that by talking about big cuts in SS.

  13. #11
    I would say that you make cuts to keep the programs solvent until such a time when they are phased out.

    It's pretty obvious we can't trust politicians in DC with our tax money, so why should we give them the basis of our livelihood?
    I'm not into politics. I'm into survival.

  14. #12
    Quote Originally Posted by Billay View Post
    He's said many times his plan would make SS solvent. How so? He also proposed a plan at CPAC that would allow you to opt out if you paid a flat 10% federal tax. Why would you opt out if you had to continue to pay a tax?
    Let young people opt out, and use the money saved from ending foreign interventionism and shutting federal departments to cover those already dependent on SS.
    “If you're on the wrong road, progress means doing an about-turn and walking back to the right road; in that case, the man who turns back soonest is the most progressive.” -CS Lewis

    The use of force to impose morality is itself immoral, and generosity with others' money is still theft.

    If our society were a forum, congress would be the illiterate troll that somehow got a hold of the only ban hammer.

  15. #13
    Quote Originally Posted by tremendoustie View Post
    Let young people opt out, and use the money saved from ending foreign interventionism and shutting federal departments to cover those already dependent on SS.
    That wouldn't make it solvent.

  16. #14
    Quote Originally Posted by notsure View Post

    Pillars of Prosperity
    FREE MARKETS, HONEST MONEY, PRIVATE PROPERTY

    Ron Paul
    http://mises.org/books/prosperity.pdf

    Pg. 69

    Concerning the flat tax proposition mentioned at CPAC: I believe it was a rhetorical question. He doesn't want any income tax, but proposed that as an offer to those who would be against others opting out. It's spending that is the problem and I think Dr. Paul's solution is to ween the Government off it's deep pockets and wasteful spending, analyze spending, and direct funds appropriately. Dr. Paul believes in free-markets, I'm sure he believes that the market should ultimately and respectfully assume these responsibilities, correcting these economic downfalls and inflation of prices that congress has willfully authorized to run amok.
    Excellent post. Ron Paul knows what he is talking about.
    "Everyone who believes in freedom must work diligently for sound money, fully redeemable. Nothing else is compatible with the humanitarian goals of peace and prosperity." -- Ron Paul

    Brother Jonathan

  17. #15
    Young people want to opt out. Ron needs to preach this more.

  18. #16
    Quote Originally Posted by erowe1 View Post
    That wouldn't make it solvent.
    But it raises enough money to help tide people over.

    And I'd also raise the retirement age, and eliminate benefits for all but the poor.

    And of course if you opt out, you agree to give up all future benefits.
    “If you're on the wrong road, progress means doing an about-turn and walking back to the right road; in that case, the man who turns back soonest is the most progressive.” -CS Lewis

    The use of force to impose morality is itself immoral, and generosity with others' money is still theft.

    If our society were a forum, congress would be the illiterate troll that somehow got a hold of the only ban hammer.



  19. Remove this section of ads by registering.


Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 5
    Last Post: 11-02-2011, 12:58 PM
  2. Replies: 3
    Last Post: 07-27-2011, 04:03 PM
  3. Ron Paul has a bipartisan plan for Social Security
    By dirtyp in forum Grassroots Central
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 03-27-2008, 09:03 AM
  4. Can anyone explain how social security and the IRS could be abolished?
    By VoteRonPaul2008 in forum Ron Paul: On the Issues
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 12-16-2007, 01:19 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •