Ron Paul Collects Social Security
Even though he wants younger generations to transition away from Social Security, the Texas congressman and Republican presidential candidate says he receives checks.
http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/20 … -security/
Do as I say and not as I do? he collects SS checks buts wants the younger generation to opt out...
I'm not a fan of Ron Paul, but the truth is that when you reach age 70, they start sending you checks whether you want them or not (Ron Paul is 76). They started sending my father checks when he turned 70. He called and said he didn't apply for them and didn't want them. He was told that there was no choice, he had to receive them now that he was 70.
I agree with the post below that Ron Paul donating his SS checks to charity would be consistent with his libertarian ideals, but do we know that he doesn't do so? I don't know if he does this or not, so I won't criticize him on that point.
I am not positive, but I thought you had to apply in order to get SS, fill out the forms, find out if you even qualify. Also, what you receive changes if you are still employed, the more you make, the less you get. I could not believe he would qualify under his current salary.
He qualifies. There's no income requirement. How much you get depends on how much you've paid in, and at what age you start collecting (up to age 70, at which point they start sending you checks whether you want them or not).
Not that there is an income requirement, he has to accumulate 40 points over his last 10 work years to qualify for SS. There use to be a reduction of benefit if you kept working. The more you make the less you got if you make more than the exemption. I guess they did away with that.
I believe that as it stands now, once you reach full retirement age the amount of your SS benefits are not affected by any other income you have. If you choose to receive benefits before full retirement age, however, then they would be reduced by other income.
If you collect social security at 62, and until you're 65, your income over a certain amount is deducted from the SS you would receive. After 65, that goes away and you receive your full amount, regardless of your millionaire status.
Yarrrrgh. Is there no end to the hypocrisy and corruption? He has cronies who stand to benefit from privatizing social security.
I don't begrudge him collecting since he paid into the system. However, my understanding is that he is well enough off financially that he doesn't need it. Wouldn't it be consistent with libertarian ideals of individual, voluntary charity over government support for him to donate his social security to a private charity? I mean, libertarians like to claim that government is not needed and that the needy can be served by charity. It would be nice if libertarians lived their ideals instead of continuing to take from the government while simultaneously supporting cutting off support to those who need it most, like children and the disabled.
The Charity Awards Committee announced today that U. S Representative, Ron Paul of Texas, will be presented with its distinguished Lifetime Achievement Award at its annual banquet at the Dulles Hyatt in Washington, D.C. on December 3, 2010. The Charity Awards is a bi-partisan event that has been hosted by the White House in both Democrat and Republican administrations. It first presented its Lifetime Achievement Award to President Ronald Reagan in the East Room in 1982.
Citing his lifetime of work in promoting the rights of private sector charities, entertainer Pat Boone, Co-Chairman of the Awards Committee, described Congressman Ron Paul as America’s foremost champion of the Constitutional rights of nongovernmental organizations
http://www.cafemom.com/group/115890/for … nd_Charity
he paid into that system before it was bankrupt...he did everything he could to inform others about the facts that were leading to the bankruptcy type situation it is now in
what he wants for youth is a good idea...it gets them out of a system that is no longer viable and will not serve them
people need to be in charge of their own money and long-term goals and not a slave to a system that steals from them their own hard earned wages through programs that line the pockets of the wealthy and are used up in wasteful administrative, bureacratic, red-tape costs
it is only a person that doesn't understand how we have gotten to this point and position in our econonmy that thinks they have a point in being cynical or malicious toward Ron Paul
Ron Paul has returned a great portion of his US Representative pay each year, has worked hard to build his own medical practice and never accepted the medicaid from the government (I am not sure how this works), but I do know he treated patients sometimes without pay or with what they could only pay, and even in barter
he also has said he would only accept around 40,000 dollars a year as president (what the average American wage is) instead of the 100,000 or more currently paid
"it is only a person that doesn't understand how we have gotten to this point and position in our econonmy that thinks they have a point in being cynical or malicious toward Ron Paul"
Uh, right. I have a lot of respect for Ron Paul as an individual. I don't respect most of his policies.
It's a very biased thread. He paid into the system. How many environmentalists drive cars? Does that disqualify them from advocating a better system?
I think these are the same people that tell Libertarians to go live in Somalia if they think anarchism is so great.
I understand your point, but the difference is that libertarians advocate for the dissolution of most of our government, including popular programs like Social Security. Environmentalists don't want to take away your car.
Uh, yes they do! And taking away social security (money stolen from already productive populace and given to those who have not earned it) is more moral than taking away a person's property.
I'm sure you can find some who do, but I personally have never met one and I run in those circles.
Ah yes, the "taxes are theft" argument. Not everyone believes that, which is why we have governments collecting taxes.
Edited to add: Much of the taxes I pay are returned to me in the form of safe transportation, clean drinking water, education for my children, and other city, state, and federal services. It's worth it to me.
Not everyone believes that - it doesn't make it any less true. Tell me, if it is not theft, why do I get put in prison if I refuse to pay it? Under any voluntary action, if I refuse to pay my gas bill, my gas gets cut off; the gas company doesn't throw me in prison.
And that's fine if you want it, however it is not okay to enforce that upon others. Would you have a problem if I gave up the 'services' given to me by the state and stopped paying taxes?
As I have told you before, if you want to opt out, it can be done. Go for it. I'd be perfectly fine with that; at least you would then be consistent.
Will you begin by staying completely off of any public roadways and refusing any products or services that have traveled those roads?
Will you continue by staying off of any public land that is managed in any way by the govt. (such as general forest fire suppression)? Stay out of parks, off sidewalks and out of public buildings? Refuse any products/services that are regulated and overseen by govt. such as radio, TV, internet, medicines, food, electricity, clean water and sewage treatment?
It is not possible in America to live and not make use of the govt. services provided.
I don't think about taxes as theft on a conscious level. I understand the need to consolidate (centralize) some things in life that benefits us all. I think Social Security is a good forced savings program (ok forced sounds like theft doesn't it?) to provide a safety net as we age. We can't just let people die in the streets. Unfortunately many people would squander all their money and as much as I preach personal responsibility, I do realize it's not that simple. I'm glad my parents get their checks each month and I would never dodge that fact. I'm not sure what Paul advocates but I don't begrudge him either for being paid BACK what he paid in. As for environmentalists and cars, there are all types and some are extremists and others are not. I made my comment as a point of perspective. Bill Clinton used to decry fundraising by Republicans but then he would do the same thing. He said, I'm not going to unilaterally disarm myself. So we all live in the current system and strive for improvements but it's hard to be perfect and if that is the standard then none of us has a right to speak out.
I agree with you in principle. I have a hard time with libertarians and anarchists. To me, they are the ultimate hypocrites. I know two of them personally. Both work for the government and one lives at home with Mom and Dad at the age of 30. At the very least, they could try to find work that doesn't get paid for by money they believe is stolen.
Biting the hand that feeds them. Sometimes these extremists (on both sides) have emotional axes to grind and you can never win an argument with them. Something happened to them in their life that pushed them either hard right or hard left. I understand this but we have to find a balance. Here is an example. Say you are against the death penalty but witness the murder of your child. You then kill the murderer with your bare hands. Does that mean now you should never protest the death penalty ever again? No. It's because the law must be based on a rational argument and not the most extreme emotional response. We would all understand you killing the murderer but as a society we move away from that and provide for a balanced law.
I don't get the anarchists. It is our willingness to do be responsible that allows them the latitude to protest and disrupt things. If we all acted like them then many of them would be dead by now. It just couldn't work. If you live in the woods somewhere and live off the land and sleep without the need for a carbon fuel to heat your tent then you have my respect. But we evolved as human beings away from this. Why? Are we wrong to do this? No. But we can do better and maybe the true purist who walks the walk can inspires us on some level. I just don't like the hype of extremism that seems to take the place of rational discourse in this day and age. Extremists are becoming normalized day by day and the media enjoys bringing them to us.
Excellent, excellent, excellent.
I have to remember to reign myself in once in awhile. I can become caustic and unyielding with extreme libertarians, anarchists, and right-wingers. Maybe I am also viewed as extreme. You are right to point out that we can learn some things from them.
We are all frustrated. I think through-out history change has come slowly but if we look back we can see the movement. We want things to happen in our lifetime and it is very difficult to stomach those who oppose what you see as good. Take gay rights. Recently Obama said something about supporting gay marriage but then defered to the states on this matter. Some on the left skewered him over this comment saying that was like saying you are against slavery but if the states allowed it then, oh well. So they hit him very hard. But what I see is the reality of politics and the fact that gay rights are going to be the law of the land. It's not going backwards. But there are those who need it now and are militant over that fact. Yes it is their life and for me it's a conversation (I'm not gay; not that there's anything wrong with that... ok ok that was the obligatory Seinfeld joke) and then I get back to my life while they continue to suffer. So we have to somehow continue to push the rock and it's a huge mountain at times but that rock is no longer at sea level... it's very high up the mountain and there is enough support below it to prevent backsliding to the bottom. There will be times when the weight is too much but in the end the things the Left holds dear (civil rights, environment) will win out. So it's a matter of fighting for your cause but we need rational discourse.
I mean do we suddenly say, "Look, gas is coming from a faucet!" and blame it on fracking in a misleading scene from a movie or do we understand that this type of thing happened prior to the advent of fracking? So when we argue a point like that people become angry and call each other names. People on the right say a man who does that is taking advantage of the fact that every instance of gas coming from a faucet was not documented in a study (because there was no need for this) in the past. Now the data become crucial because in this day and age anecdotal evidence is stricken from the record. Then zealous folks take the statistics (lies, damn lies and statistics) and run off with them without any context.
It's a matter of bringing people of good faith to the table and not an agenda because an agenda spawns lies. I'm not blaming anyone and I'm not trying to start an argument. There are many hypocrites on the right; especially right-wing Christians who in my view do the exact thing that Jesus preached against: judging others....
Oh and just so you know I'm not one-sided, I understand that fracking does have a lot of questions that need to be resolved such as will those who do the fracking do it responsibly. We need to regulate them. Is the ground water table at risk? Is it the fracking or the storage of the fracking solution causing minor earthquakes and sink holes where none existed before? What ingredients are in the fracking solution (kept secret due to proprietary arguments)?
I just want to add one thing. I don't want to give the impression that I think anarchists and libertarians do not have a right to speak out and seek change. Everyone has that right. The problem I have with certain of them is their apparent disregard for the fact that they are living under a social contract that has been agreed upon by the people. Most people believe it is cost effective and morally right for a central organization (in this case, government) to provide services and to collect money to do so. Yes, you could say it is "forced" in that there are consequences if you don't contribute according to the law. However, it is not accurate to say that one has no other options. If innersmiff believes taxes are theft and he doesn't want the benefits that they provide, then he can live off the grid. People have done it and are doing it. If he chooses not to, then he has to admit that he is agreeing to the social contract and therefore, the taxes he pays are NOT theft. I don't care if it is "hard," as he said in another thread where we had this same conversation. If he considers it to be too hard, then he is admitting that he enjoys the comforts provided by tax money. If he is enjoying those comforts, then the taxes he pays are not stolen from him; rather, he is agreeing to an easier life in exchange for paying taxes and following the law.
I wonder what those who think taxes are theft think about the use of our tax dollars for war. There are many who do not support imperialism in the world in the name of our "national interest" yet they must pay.... it's really not the taxes; it's why they are collecting them. What are they doing with the money. Look under that rock...
I guess there is an argument that if you limit the taxes you limit the spending and it forces hard choices into the business model of the government. But is that realistic?
I don't have a problem with someone disagreeing with how taxes are spent. That is an age-old discussion that will never end.
Sure, limiting taxes will inevitably limit government spending. Even most liberals believe in limiting taxes, believe it or not. It's just that most conservatives want to limit spending by cutting programs that hurt those with the least say in our government while not touching defense spending and corporate subsidies.
It's an argument that will always exist. It would be nice if both sides could work together for the good of ALL the people they supposedly represent, instead of the good of those who pay them the most money.
I believe that is the reality of it all...limiting taxes has not decreased the propensity to spend on the part of the government. Spending continues at record highs though revenue is relatively stagnant. Raising taxes will not longer solve the problem unless they are raised so high on the middle class that the government is finally getting more of the income than the worker. The answer to the problem has to come from a balanced budget amendment at the federal level which will then force the government to make decisions with regard to the way finances are managed and to choose option A or B but not both because we can no longer afford it. Ron Paul paid in his Social Security and I fully agree with him being able to receive it. Social Security is not solvent because those in elected office have mismanaged the funds and now they have no way to recover from it. Paul has some good ideas as it pertains to domestic fiscal responsibility but ultimately Congress must put those laws and practices in place and that may be very hard to accomplish without a much great level of compromise and cooperation between the parties. Paul, in terms of his international policy, is a bit scary. He is an isolationist who believes that no one will bother us if we don't bother them....rather naive, I would say. WB
I agree in principle with a balanced budget amendment. However, with the way our government is currently working, with the $$ going to the highest bidder, it would only result in pain for the less fortunate and a bigger piece of the pie for those who already have enough.
Until we get money out of politics, a balanced budget will hurt the middle class and the poor.
Taxes are not theft, income tax is theft! If the tax is voluntary then it is moral, if it is forced?
by Jason Menayan4 years ago
It strikes me that there are 2 distinct types of people voting in the Republican primaries and caucuses: partisans and libertarians.The partisans are about 80%; they might have their favorite candidate, but in the end,...
by 910chris4 years ago
Over the last couple of days a lot of media attention has gone towards a conspiracy theory involving Ron Paul and Mitt Romney banding together. They seem to be pushing it pretty hard which in my mind means that...
by Doodlehead4 years ago
According to Lew Rockwell, Ron Paul has plans to lead the Liberty Caucus Republicanswhen he resigns in December. Lew says Dr. Paul has kept his typical low profileuntil he is out of Congress. ...
by Quilligrapher5 years ago
Presidential hopeful Ron Paul, with a net worth reported between 2-1/4 and 5 million dollars, has announced a new plan that will make it more difficult for poor Americans to escape from under the yoke of poverty. In...
by Charles4 years ago
Does he really think that the solution to the dwindling social security fund is to privatize it? Perhaps it would be a better idea to return the money that has been "borrowed" without our consent? ...
by Moderndayslave5 years ago
Cris Wallace of faux news stating ,If Ron Paul wins Iowa caucus " It doesn't count" What? If it doesn't count, why do they have them at all? Can anyone explain this?http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OeF4sDjE...
Copyright © 2017 HubPages Inc. and respective owners.
Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners.
HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc.
HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.