Rep. Ron Paul (R-Texas) may rail against Social Security insolvency in the public eye, but that hasn't stopped him from accepting the government checks.
The libertarian-leaning Republican and former presidential candidate admitted Wednesday that he accepts Social Security checks just minutes after he called for younger generations to wean themselves off the program, in an interview on MSNBC's "Morning Joe."
"I want young people to opt out of Social Security, but my goal isn't to cut," he said.
The Huffington Post's Sam Stein then asked Paul, "A bit of a personal question -- Are you on Social Security? Do you get social security checks?"
Paul admitted he does, stating, "[It's] just as I use the post office, I use government highways, I use the banks, I use the federal reserve system. But that doesn't mean that you can't work to remove this in the same way on Social Security."
Paul also said he still pays more into Social Security than he gets in his checks.
Paul is outspoken about the need to end government programs like the Federal Reserve and the departments of energy and education. But he said he would not eliminate programs like Social Security and Medicare, despite his belief that the programs are unconstitutional. He planned to allow citizens under the age of 25 to opt out of the system in order to save their own money for retirement, if elected to the presidency.
Video at the source.
Source.
Edited to save my inbox. D:
The libertarian-leaning Republican and former presidential candidate admitted Wednesday that he accepts Social Security checks just minutes after he called for younger generations to wean themselves off the program, in an interview on MSNBC's "Morning Joe."
"I want young people to opt out of Social Security, but my goal isn't to cut," he said.
The Huffington Post's Sam Stein then asked Paul, "A bit of a personal question -- Are you on Social Security? Do you get social security checks?"
Paul admitted he does, stating, "[It's] just as I use the post office, I use government highways, I use the banks, I use the federal reserve system. But that doesn't mean that you can't work to remove this in the same way on Social Security."
Paul also said he still pays more into Social Security than he gets in his checks.
Paul is outspoken about the need to end government programs like the Federal Reserve and the departments of energy and education. But he said he would not eliminate programs like Social Security and Medicare, despite his belief that the programs are unconstitutional. He planned to allow citizens under the age of 25 to opt out of the system in order to save their own money for retirement, if elected to the presidency.
Video at the source.
Source.
Edited to save my inbox. D:
The reasoning runs parallel to those "well if you think things deserve tax funding you should just donate money out of your own pocket and hope that's enough" people. Him turning down his checks won't put even a minor dent in the budget, it will just put him at an economic disadvantage vs people who accept them.
i mean, he's stupid and wrong and terrible for wanting to axe benefits but I think it's a low blow to shame him for accepting them personally.
except that's him
that is literally what he believes
so yes, it makes him a huge hypocrite without even factoring in his $174,000 Congressional salary.
You've got an awful lot of preliminary arguments to win before you get to go throwing around operational definitions for words like "deserve"
We could turn it into welfare for the old. There are pros and cons to each argument.
Pros:
Would make people need to pay a lot less into it
Cons:
If your average middle class person thought they were paying into charity, they'd have a huge incentive to cut it/make it so that it's truly bare bones. (i.e. the reason that social security has much support is that people think they'll get some even if they're not reduced to eating dog food, so they're inclined to support it.)
Either way, SS as is isn't charity. It's a forced retirement savings plan. (That isn't as unwieldy as it seems. Medicare is a much bigger problem, budget wise, than SS.) As such, it isn't entirely crazy that the wealthy are getting some benefits. (In fact, it likely wouldn't exist at all, if it was means tested.)
I remember being appalled when my grandmother (who's quite well off) started pulling social security checks. Eye-opener, that one...
Um... homemakers who draw on their husband or wife's SS
Edited at 2012-06-20 09:04 pm (UTC)
EDIT to add: Also fwiw I tend to think that "more expensive to means test" is true for at least some benefits, especially those that are relatively cheap (like bus passes).
Edited at 2012-06-20 09:17 pm (UTC)
when youve got a salary at that level - im unsure why you should get SS benefits.
um, not really. I think various things deserve tax funding in large part because I know the money I donate is not enough. But when I have the spare money- yes, I do donate to places I think need more funding. It'd be more comparable if people are complaining about others who think things deserve tax funding, have spare money they are able to donate, but refuse to do so because everyone else should have to fund it except me.
"This thing is important enough that we should collectively institute a compulsory sliding-scale payment-matching scheme, like taxation, to raise funds for it, with the understanding that it only works if we both have to pitch in"
"Ok, you first."
And yes, I will shame him, because he shames other people who take government assistance and actually need it, and he shames women who want to have control over their bodies. So w/e, he will get all the shade I can throw.
He may be entitled to the money but there is complete dissonance between his stance and his actions.
In Ron Paul's case he is condemning something that is is benefiting from, draining a resource that he doesn't even NEED due to his ridiculous salary and yet still thinks that nobody else - especially the millions of people whose income is considerably less than his - should not be able to have this support.
I can, though. I have a significant disposable income and I could realistically afford to pay an extra 5% into social welfare programs without being compelled to do so by a tax which would force everyone at my income level to pay an extra 5%.
I don't do that, though, because my 5% would only be a drop in the bucket and I'm only willing to pay it if I know that everyone else at my income level will have to as well, because that's how i know that all those 5%'s will add up to something that can actually pay for some positive change. I maintain that I (and, by extension, most middle-class leftists) am not a hypocrite for not doing this. If it were simply a matter of needing the money, i *would* be a hypocrite, because i don't need it. That's what disposable income is.
(edit for grammar fail)
Edited at 2012-06-22 02:24 am (UTC)