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:
shukivengeance 22nd-Jun-2012 01:59 am (UTC)
There's a difference between not donating to a resource and draining it. Not everyone who supports more funding to these programs can realistically afford to contribute personally, nor are they in a position to impose greater contributions on anyone.

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.
spaz_own_joo 22nd-Jun-2012 02:08 am (UTC)
Not everyone who supports more funding to these programs can realistically afford to contribute personally

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)
shukivengeance 22nd-Jun-2012 02:40 am (UTC)
I'm not really sure how to explain to you that one action is more exploitative than the other.
This page was loaded May 23rd 2013, 2:48 pm GMT.