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:
You've got an awful lot of preliminary arguments to win before you get to go throwing around operational definitions for words like "deserve"
this construct really really depends on your baseline conception of what exactly "nothing" is.
Ron Paul has benefitted immensely from living in a society where people who can't afford to pay their own way, are afforded this money. The positive secondary economic effects of this fact are profound, and they figured heavily into the profit margin of every single "self made" wealthy person in the society. Paul's repayment for paying into SS is the fact that he earned enough money in this economy fertilized by a higher retirement security floor to pay his own way.
edited to add a linebreak
Edited at 2012-06-20 08:56 pm (UTC)
So if you prefer, he got paid out of it by earning so much, with the stress that earning things isn't assumed to entitle you to 100% of them. That's what I meant about your baseline idea of what "nothing" is.
If so please try to be funnier.
Amended: I do not, however, agree with our trollish 'friend' LC beyond this point in the thread though. Succeeded despite social programs? Bullshit, that. The social programs didn't "drain" his wealth a damn. Don't drain mine either.
Edited at 2012-06-21 01:00 am (UTC)
ETA re your ETA - no worries, I know you're not crazy like that. :)
Edited at 2012-06-21 01:04 am (UTC)
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.)