- Home
- Politics
- Entertainment
- Sports
- Health
- Religion
- Society
- Tech
- Money
- People
- Science
- Galleries
Politics
Video: Ron Paul Admits Accepting Social Security, Which He Wants to Eliminate for Others
During an interview on MSNBC Tuesday, Republican presidential candidate Ron Paul admitted that he got a monthly Social Security check, a program that he eventually wants to eliminate (video below).
Rep. Paul said: “I want young people to opt out of Social Security."
Guest Sam Stein then asked: “Are you on Social Security? Do you get Social Security checks?”
“I do,” Paul replied.
Stein countered: “You just told younger generations that they should wean themselves off of this social contract but you haven’t done it yourself. You’re not the wealthiest man in Congress, I’m not saying that. But you have enough means to take care of yourself in retirement. Shouldn’t you provide an example?”
Rep. Paul answered: “No. I think the programs are so designed, just as I use the post office too. I use government highways. I do that too. I use the banks. I use the Federal Reserve system. But that doesn’t mean you can’t work to remove this. The same way on Social Security, I am trying to make a transition. I personally don’t see any inconsistency in that."
Sign up for the OV Daily Newsletter
Comments
Every time I see him I want
Every time I see him I want to cry. He was our last hope and now he's too old for 2016. I don't trust anybody else. Paul has been singing the same story for over 20 years. He needed a better campaign manager.
So those who started working
So those who started working part-time at 14 and fulltime at 18 and won't get SS until 67 are really getting the big end of the lollypop? They have worked and paid taxes. Many have never collected an unemployment check or recieved food stamps or welfare, and they are certainly going to pay taxes on the money they take out of their 401k......they are going to get more back than they paid in? Not likely. The hypocrites are those who have accepted government help and then attack those who paid the bill.
So what are Ron Paul
So what are Ron Paul supporters to do in November? Are you going to sell out and vote for RMoney or are you going to stick to your principles? Are you going to vote for the guy who has already said he intends to start another war with Iran or are you going to write in the guy who promises to bring home our troops and close the hundreds of bases we pay for around the world? Are you going to vote for the guy who created Rmoney Care or are you going to write in RP? Are you going to tell the Republican party that your vote can be bought by the highest bidder or are you going to stand up for yourself?
In November you can write in Ron Paul, you can vote for Gary Johnson, the Libertarian candidate, or you can just admit that you have no principles and slavishly vote for the bought and paid for Republican candidate yet again. Just like last time and just like next time.
Nothing will change if you don't stand up for your principles at some point.
Libertarian Gary Johnson
Libertarian Gary Johnson !
35% to win .
I've always thought the dream
I've always thought the dream ticket would be Ron Paul & Gary Johnson.
But, I have to agree... I was pretty intent on writing in Ron Paul (like I did in 2008), but Johnson's name will actually be on the ballot... and I like/support Gary -- he's a good guy, and will make a good president.
Often wondered about Paul
Often wondered about Paul with his extreme so-called Libertarianism. He's a hypocrite on so many levels - first, he's a member of Congress (can't get much more involved with government than that), he collects a government paycheck, he pays taxes, he's on the Congressional health care gravy train, he indulges himself in the government-funded (taxpayer) security system for members of Congress, I'm sure he uses public streets and highways, his office (and he personally) uses the US postal system, he uses public garbage/sanitation, he's on line for a fat government/Congressional pension, and on and on. Now he admits to collection of social security, all the while condemning the system.
Ron Paul - scumbag hypocrite and typical politician. No surprises here.
Your post is flawed in so
Your post is flawed in so many ways, but I'll just focus on this: he's a libertarian, not an ANARCHIST, and there is a vast difference of which you seem to be unaware of. Also, it's not hypocritical to be against forcing people to pay for particular government services, and then to accept and use the services you've been forced to pay for.
quite possibly the stupidest
quite possibly the stupidest thing I have ever read. there is so much in your statement to pick apart. how are you suppose to chance the system except from the inside. he has no problem with a federal government he just doesn't believe that they should has should have the control and access to people's lives that they have created for themselves. he wants to go back to a limited federal government repeal the unconstitutional NDAA, Patriot Act, among other things.
Of course he pays his taxes like most Americans, of course he uses the postal service and the highways...everyone does, he never argues that people shouldn't. making up facts and issues regarding what the man believes in makes YOU look like a complete idiot and incapable of doing any research to make a valid point.
Finally his government pension, life time health care benefits when he retires, etc...he has stated, numerous times in fact, that he will accept none of these things when he retires. to say that he will with out any evidence that shows he will again makes YOU look uneducated and unable to simply use goggle to find out any information available throughout the internet on this issue. You're right about one if he did do this when he retires, after saying for years that he wouldn't, I would agree with you that he is a hypocrite and a typical politician...until that time he is the most authentic, genuine and trust worthy politician I have ever seen. He has never voted to give congress a raise, never voted for an unbalanced budget, never voted to give more power to the federal government. With everything he does he tries to best represent his understanding of the constitution.
Do some research before you talk out of ass next time, thanks
I am glad you straightened
I am glad you straightened doofus out........I was about to light into him. He definitely needs to do some reading and a little thinking for himself. What a tool.
Social Security doesn't cost
Social Security doesn't cost the government anything - all the money for it comes straight from deductions on your paychecks separate from taxes. But in more recent decades, congress decided to merge social security funds with the general fund so they could raid it for spending on other programs, mostly military stuff.
So we're dropping your retirement from planes onto battlefields in Iraq and Afghanistan in the form of bombs and bomb delivery systems, and flying it over your homes in the form of drones.
You've hit the target (pun
You've hit the target (pun intended) here. If SS were left alone and not used for anything else, it would be in good condition.
That's not to say a better system couldn't be found. I paid in from the time I was 14 and have no illusions that I'll collect enough to recoup my investment. I am also aware that the government will confiscate the balance when I die.
A better plan might be a system of interest-bearing bonds that could be converted to an annuity upon retirement. That annuity would be part of your estate and passed along to your heirs for their retirement.
Except that most people will
Except that most people will get many times their "investment" in social security payments. It's not that Congress is using the SS money for other stuff (they can't legally, they just count it in with the other revenue), there are way too many people drawing on the system for it to be viable.
How much have you paid into the system? How much will you get in retirement payments and how long will you get them? Unless you die prematurely, you will get back more than you paid. Anyone who thinks they will not get back as much as they paid has not done the math. No one pays as much into the system as their payments will be.
No, "most" people will not
No, "most" people will not take out more than they put in, much less "many times" what they put in. As James pointed out he will break even at 96. The average life span in this country is about 78-80. In other words, "most" people will be dead about 16 years before they break even.
The Social Security system would have been perfectly fine if congress had done as intended and left the SS money separate from the general fund so money paid into SS would have only gone to SS we would never have a cashflow problem w/ SS. Even If Clinton's "lockbox" had been maintained there would have been little problems in our lifetime.
When SS was created it was designed to be "one leg of a 3 legged stool". The 3 legs were pensions, personal savings and social security. At the time countless people had lost their pensions (when their employers went out of business) and had their personal savings wiped out (often by banks closing and not having any money left). SS was the final safety net.
Today most people don't get a pension and many people had their personal savings wiped out (again, by banks wrecking the economy) and yet SS is still there. Let's not kick out the final leg of the stool. SS is not supposed to be a high profit endeavor. It's just a safety net.
FYI, I have done the math.
FYI, I have done the math. If I live to be about 96, I will break even. If the funds had been drawing interest, as they would have been under a better plan, I would be good to about 110.
Yes, it's true that some people will get back far more than they put in, I know some myself.
You should do some math of your own, if it isn't too difficult for you.