ONTD Political

Ron Paul admits he's on Social Security

12:41 pm - 06/20/2012
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:
miss_almost 20th-Jun-2012 08:51 pm (UTC)
i've got some mixed feelings on SS since i've been told my whole life that it's not going to be there when i get old/qualify for it...but the idea is that its another social welfare program. and libertarians and a lot of republicans dont want a welfare program - they want people to fend for themselves.

i get money taken out of my check every month like any other tax (it is not optional) and it is redistributed to older people, and people who get SS disability benefits.
the idea is you pay in your whole working life, and then when you retire you get checks/your money back until you die.
its a good idea if you want seniors to have secured/fixed income.
when they first set up the program the number of years between someones retirement and their death was low. so if someone paid in for 30 years and only lived for 10 after retirement...then SS would work well. but now youve got people who live for 30 after retirement...and only contributed for 40.

so as it is, SS is set to be broke in a decade or something unless a major overhaul is done (like raising the age you can get benefits...but of course that doesn't go over well with seniors who want to retire/collect checks) so now SS is in a position where either they have to drastically cut the benefits, or you're going to have an entire generation who had their wages garnished and will never get that money back.

i believe ron paul has a problem with SS on the level that it's a mandated tax on workers to pay for others/seniors health care. also, i've heard the argument that SS is taking the money, investing it for you, and then giving it back to you in increments - but that you'd get better returns on your money if you never "gave" it to SS in the first place.
erunamiryene 20th-Jun-2012 09:47 pm (UTC)
Except it isn't:
http://www.commondreams.org/view/2012/05/05

"Social Security's going broke!" has been BS for some time.
miss_almost 20th-Jun-2012 10:01 pm (UTC)
i was mistaken when i said it would be broke in "a decade or something"
it starts giving out more than it takes in about a decade from now.

and its going to start "going broke" meaning not being able to pay full benefits - in about 20 years from now.
"Under current law the program would be able to pay only about three-quarters of promised benefits starting in 2033" - from your own link.

so i still hold that unless there is a major SS overhaul - its going to go broke. and unless that major overhaul happens soonish...my generation (20 somethings) will have had garnished wages and never get that money back.
erunamiryene 20th-Jun-2012 10:04 pm (UTC)
Fair enough. :) The right just REALLY likes to use BUT IT'S GON BE BROKE SO LET'S JUST GET RID OF IT, which ... isn't really accurate, either.

a BIG thing would be taxing ALL income, not cutting it off at something like $103,000 like they are now. Seriously, the wealthy get enough breaks in America, they can suck that one the hell up. (And I'd say the same thing if I made a lot of money.)
This page was loaded May 22nd 2013, 7:48 am GMT.