Ron Paul collects social security....
gimmesometruth27
St. Fuckin Louis Posts: 23,303
fucking hypocrite... why should the rest of us forego the opportunity to use it in our retirement if it is ok for you to use it???? if it is unconstitutional, why is your hand in the fucking cookie jar???? please defend that and justify that to the rest of us....i for one, am waiting.... :corn: :corn:
Ron Paul Collects Social Security
http://news.yahoo.com/ron-paul-collects ... itics.html
Even though he wants younger generations to transition away from Social Security, the Texas congressman and Republican presidential candidate says he receives checks.
"I do," Paul acknowledged in an MSNBC interview on Wednesday. When The Huffington Post's Sam Stein asked if Paul shouldn't set an example by declining the government benefit, Paul said no.
"Just as I use the Post office, too, I use government highways, you do that too, I use the banks," Paul said. "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, I am trying to make a transition. If I were 20 years old and was offered the chance, I'd jump at it, and the young people are jumping at it because they know this is not solvent."
Paul, 76, has argued that Social Security and Medicare are technically unconstitutional. A major part of Paul's deficit-reduction plan has involved allowing younger Americans to opt out of Social Security.
please, reconcile that with your position and your principles.... :corn:
Ron Paul Collects Social Security
http://news.yahoo.com/ron-paul-collects ... itics.html
Even though he wants younger generations to transition away from Social Security, the Texas congressman and Republican presidential candidate says he receives checks.
"I do," Paul acknowledged in an MSNBC interview on Wednesday. When The Huffington Post's Sam Stein asked if Paul shouldn't set an example by declining the government benefit, Paul said no.
"Just as I use the Post office, too, I use government highways, you do that too, I use the banks," Paul said. "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, I am trying to make a transition. If I were 20 years old and was offered the chance, I'd jump at it, and the young people are jumping at it because they know this is not solvent."
Paul, 76, has argued that Social Security and Medicare are technically unconstitutional. A major part of Paul's deficit-reduction plan has involved allowing younger Americans to opt out of Social Security.
please, reconcile that with your position and your principles.... :corn:
"You can tell the greatness of a man by what makes him angry." - Lincoln
"Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
"Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
Post edited by Unknown User on
0
Comments
No mention that Pauls Presidential Campaign included a vow that he will only take a salary of $39,336 - approximately equal to the median personal income of the American worker. No mention of the fact that Paul does not participate in the Congressional health care package or the pension system. He has opted out of both programs. No mention that Paul also said, that he is still paying into the plan at 76 years old and is receiving less in social security benefits than he is paying. No mention that he is doing here exactly what he has argued should be done.
He paid into SS his whole life and is eligible to receive the benefits and he should. What is more misleading is that it was not made clear that he wants kids to be able to opt out of SS if they want to because he knows the program will not be around in 50 years. He is not advocating for the destruction of SS, he feels it should be a choice.
lamestream also conveniently neglected to mention that Social Security wouldn't be the clusterfuck that it is, and would be solvent if corrupt congress would stop borrowing from it to fund never ending Wars. These same wars that Paul as the only anti-war candidate would stop.
You do make some good points here MookiesLaw but with a net worth of $4.9 million (http://www.celebritynetworth.com/riches ... net-worth/) he could afford to turn it down and in doing so would he not have made a bigger, more accurate statement of being against it?
-Eddie Vedder, "Smile"
Hi Brian! :wave: See you Montana. No political discussions that weekend.
You got it, DS! :thumbup:
-Eddie Vedder, "Smile"
in fact boycott it all. Just stop paying taxes
so hold on, when you have something taken out of your check and you are told it is part of your retirement plan, how is it hypocrisy to take the money you are entitled to? How is that hypocrisy?
you have got to be kidding me gimmie. you and I both know that this couldn't be more of a reach. He rejects the pension system that the congressmen take, which costs tax payers real money, also tell me why paying so much more than you will ever take out is hypocrisy? It was money taken from him that he is entitled to get back. He would have much rather kept it himself to begin with...
Tell me why wanting people to be able to opt out of the program is hypocrisy?
yep, pick out the only honest politician in the bunch and call him a hypocrite...no wonder we will never achieve any political success moving forward...say what you will about Paul and his policies, but hypocrite should never enter the discussion.
watch the interview...tell me it is hypocrisy
http://youtu.be/LHoIIT9yUbU
It is terrifying when you are too stupid to know who is dumb
- Joe Rogan
I'd rather he take his SS contributions than my anointed one claim transparency, then block release of documents, or have kill lists with US citizens on it.
So yeah big picture take the money that was contributed over destroying the Constitution by expanding the PATRIOT Act and NDAA.
Personally I'd love to opt out of SS, but it won't happen because it'd be one less source for the crooks to steal from.
This seems rather silly and part of the reason we no longer have reasonable discussions in this country.
Obama is a hypocrite to then, pretty sure all those vehicles he uses run on oil.
I wish this were more true than you're suggesting, cincybearcat. Obama has not been nearly strong enough on lowering CO2 levels in the atmosphere and helping get us off our oil addiction for us to call him a hypocrite that way. I'd love to see him come out stronger on emissions and I'd love to see the White House fleet converted to hybrids to set an example.
-Eddie Vedder, "Smile"
Well my point being that you can push for something while still relying on the old, available to you technology or program and not really be a hypocrite at all.
What about all the fake disability out there those who are collecting social security years before
they are worthy.
So much waste and fraud of our taxpayer money ... Ron is legally entitled
go after those who are not.
While I'm here, I have a few more things I want to say about Ron Paul... a man who is so amazingly anti-government, he even thinks we should get rid of FEMA. He doesn't believe in the government taking care of its citizens even in the event of natural disasters. He thinks private insurance companies will take care of us all, because they did such a great job after Katrina... :roll: And of course we can all afford private insurance and we should expect such horrible disasters to happen...
I'd also like to ask something of Ron Paul supporters... Do you think it's acceptable that Ron Paul's campaign manager, who happens to be his grandson-in-law, took a salary of $586,616 for his work in the 2012 campaign? Do you really think he earned that kind of money? Even if the campaign hadn't completely failed, would he deserve it? And you know where that money came from, right? Remember all those money bombs you donated your hard earned money to? Don't you think that perhaps you've been taken advantage of?
I don't love that fact that(the salary his grandson-in-law took) was so high, but I don't really know if he earned it or not. I'm not up to date on what that type of monetary compensation that type of position should command.
I would disagree with you that his campaign failed. I don't believe Paul had any illusion that he would become the nominee, but I think that he has accomplished the goal he set out to accomplish.
This was to educate the American people that a policy of War and nation building that both Republicans and Democrats support is not the only path available to us.
As an American citizen who is anti war, I'm happy that there is someone in politics who is anti war. It is not Obama, it is not McCain, it is Ron Paul. I think that message resonated with many young voters, and perhaps in my lifetime we can see a viable candidate run on this platform and win.
I didn't send much money to Paul, perhaps less than $20.00, but it was money well spent in my opinion.
I suppose you could say that anyone who donates to a political cause has been taken advantage of based on the fact that some of that money pays salaries of people who work on that campaign, but I don't think that is a very good way to look at it.
I am not a Ron Paul supporter, though I do love some of his ideas. I did not donate any $ to his machine. But I'd have to say, those that did, spent their money more wisely than the people that have given over half a million dollars to a bus attendant that got bullied.
do you think that FEMA did a good job with Katrina relief?
He believes that private charities, STATES, and communities should be responsible. While Paul doesn't think that FEMA should be giving out aid, he does believe it is a communities responsibility to take care of each other. You don't need government to do that, but you do need a citizenry that is used to relying on each other, not the federal government.
Since you have the figures, how much do the other campaign managers make make and what do they do?
Who are you to say he isn't worth that? Paul's campaign reports every purchase of snickers they make at gas stations...if that is what he makes, that is probably a fair market value. Paul outperformed his 2008 campaign in every primary/caucus so there are probably bonuses in there as well...
http://www.propublica.org/article/ron-p ... ansparency
I don't know why I even try though, people have a tendency to think that there simply can't be a problem with the way they are doing things, even long after it should have already changed. What do all great empires have in common?
It is terrifying when you are too stupid to know who is dumb
- Joe Rogan
FEMA is a disaster. Sorry but I don't want to live in a FEMA camp formaldehyde soaked trailer.
Many people are not happy with how the campaign was run, I don't agree with a few things myself. But to say that it was a complete failure is simply not true.
When both parties fight you, you are doing something right.
Ron Paul's campaign was successful only as a money-making operation. Donations paid his staff, and he sold more of his books. If he knew he had no shot of winning the nomination, he never let on... he always stated he was in it to win it. But he got nowhere near the delegate count he needed to win and he only got 10.97% of the popular vote. Gingrich, a scumbag of epic proportions, got more votes than him. Rick Perry knew when to quit... his campaign was also a total failure, but at least he saved himself from the shame of losing almost every state. Ron Paul couldn't even win his own district in Texas! All he won was a few caucuses... where only the political nerds show up. His libertarian message will never gain any more support than the small percentage of people who are under his spell... people who need to liberate themselves from it!
How many speeches of Ron Paul's have you listened to? Or do you just get your information about him on the huffington post? You seem satisfied with how the normal two party system has been working. Operating with the same philosophies for 30+ years. Vote for it to continue.
I am not sure why he gets so much venom from people like you. Do you work for FEMA? I don't know if they would have been better off...they would have been better off with better preparation and emergency preparedness at the local level that I can tell you. Money that goes from the people of Louisiana and Mississippi to the federal government could have easily simply gone to the state and local governments. The state and local government would then have the ability to boost, if they so chose, spending on emergency preparedness.
But really, have you read any of his books? You don't have to buy them, they are at the library. He had a few goals at the start of his campaign, one of those was to win the presidency, another was to hopefully get to give an uncensored speech at the convention, another was to get as many people who support his ideals of liberty and small government to a GOP convention and involved in local GOP politics to at least have a conversation about what the real goals of the GOP should be... The campaign's plan of having brokered or open convention fell apart after Santorum and Gingrich exited the race.
Do you honestly believe it is simply a money maker? Why does he reject the pension system he could be a part of that would make him more money in his lifetime than selling a few books? You want him to be the worst of the republicans, you want him to be a loon...but that just isn't true. He is the guy booed for quoting the golden rule at a debate...that is the arm of the GOP he is trying to change...I wonder why someone who probably hates NEO-CON politics as much as I do would hate him so much...
Political nerds? you are calling people who get involved in the system names because they disagree with you? Hmmm...who would I rather have vote, someone who is involved and motivated or someone who calls people political nerds for them getting involved in the process rather than bitching and doing nothing like most Americans? I don't care what side you get involved on, but I would recommend doing so. Because we seem to always come down to two choices as both parties have worked together to convince people that a vote against someone is better than a vote For someone...is that how we should pick our leaders?
There are things I can get behind that come from the left, but the thing that scares me is I never hear anyone on the left talk about how they are going to raise the real value of a dollar...about how they are going to fight inflation...and that is FAR more damaging to you, me, and everyone in the US than having FEMA or not having it...It is a hidden tax, one they can't subsidize, and unfortunately for those who work pay check to pay check, it is all to real a consequence of irresponsible leadership on the national level.
I suppose what Ron Paul's campaign was or wasn't is up to the beholder, but to imply that I am under some sort of spell, that I am some how confused is ridiculous and asinine. I read, I analyzed the best I could, I actually started taking business/economics classes ( I work in public health at the local level) to try to better understand what we can do as a country...I am not under a spell Ken, I have my eyes wide open. I actually voted democrat in every election through 2008. I just have, through life experience, changed my idea of what the federal government should be. I have realized that democrats and republicans are roughly the same. But because you have come to a different conclusions for whatever reason, I wouldn't accuse you of being under a spell. We just vote on different planks. I want a non-interventionist, trade with all government who doesn't support legislation that cuts down your civil rights. What is wrong with that? I don't agree with everything that Paul stands for, but at least he is consistent and I would rather take the good with the bad with someone I know, than be lied again and again by someone I don't.
I am not sure why I waste my time writing these, I should hide little clues in them that lead to a prize just to see if you read the whole thing.
Didn't get any of those numbers on the other campaign managers? or are Paul's the only ones that matter since he has spent about 1/10th of what Obama and Romney have spent...
It is terrifying when you are too stupid to know who is dumb
- Joe Rogan
I can't respond to everything you posted... but here's a little bit of info for you: I've watched MANY of Ron Paul's speeches... I myself am a political nerd. I don't have much respect for the Huffington Post. I read news and opinions from every source you can imagine. I've known about Ron Paul since the Iraq War began, when I saw him speak out against it, and I thought what he had to say then was great... I thought it was fascinating that a Republican from Texas called the Bush administration "machiavellian" on the floor of Congress. I watched all of the Republican debates he was in during both the 2008 and 2012 campaigns. I am in no way satisfied with the two-party system. If I vote for Obama it's only because the only other candidate that can win is Romney. I voted for Ralph Nader in 2000 and for David Cobb in 2004... but that was useless. I don't think we should even have a President... too much power in that office. I think we should have a multi-party parliamentary system with a Prime Minister. I think we need a broader based government that's more accountable to the people, and represents them more accurately.
Interesting point about a parliamentary system. I don't think the two parties will ever give up their stranglehold until political nerds make them. That is why getting involved is so important. But I am wondering how, if you have listened to many of his speeches, you think that he is simply in this to make money?
I am confused by that. Do you think his years and years of consistency were an act to sell a few books? I think the fact that he saw people for free as a OBGYN rather than accept medicaid/medicare pretty much tells me all I need to know about him. His heart is in the right place. Maybe I believe to hard in him because I want so badly to see a politician who is consistent on principle rather than doing only what will keep them in office. Who knows.
But it is never useless to vote for someone you believe in, rather than someone who "has a chance"...i think politics would be less divisive if that were the case...people making arguments for things rather than against others. Probably a pipe dream. I just want a good life for my daughter and the one on the way...I bet there is more we agree on than disagree. I will not vote for Mittens, he may be slightly better than Obama, but 30 mph over the cliff is not different than 40mph...same result. But getting involved in GOP politics, trying to change the way a party is focused, while continuing to vote my principles is the example I want to leave. If I have to be in a two party system than I will try to change one of the parties to fit my ideas. Seems pretty stupid and impossible, but I would rather try than not.
It is terrifying when you are too stupid to know who is dumb
- Joe Rogan
:shock:
Moneybomb. Evol.
And over the years Ron Paul just seems to be repeating the same rhetoric. A lot of what he says sounds good, and some of it you never hear from the major parties... so I get why people would trust him over the major party candidates, who are obviously full of shit, but during this past campaign I began to suspect that he's just playing the role of anti-establishment guy because he knows a lot of people are looking for that. But he actually takes it further... into a kind of religious territory... he talks about the Founding Fathers like they were prophets, creating a glorious new nation that would be a beacon of freedom for the Earth... but really they were corrupt politicians as well...
James Madison owned slaves when he was President during the War of 1812. Slavery was legal in Washington D.C. at the time, and when the British marched in, they freed the slaves, and those freed men were more than happy to join the British army and fire guns at their former oppressors. The British were also going to give the Great Lakes territories to the Native Americans if they had won the war. All of this probably had less to do with morality and more to do with punishing the Americans... but my point is... there is no glorious past... when people talk about how wonderful the Founding Fathers were, they lose me.
that would be like me saying we need to cut greenhouse gasses immediately while voting to cut down forests, increase fossil fuel burning and voting to stifle any funding for alternative fuel sources...
"Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
-Eddie Vedder, "Smile"
I'll give you credit gimme, from what I've read - you are by far the biggest cheerleader for a political party in this entire place, which is saying something. I don't think I've ever read you ever disagreeing with party line... ever. And if you've ever come close, you always have a caveat that the other side would have been worse.
Anyway, cheer away - bro. Cheer away. Go "D" go. Go "Obama" go. :fp:
<object height="81" width="100%"> <param name="movie" value="https://player.soundcloud.com/player.swf?url=http://api.soundcloud.com/tracks/28998869"></param> <param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param> <embed allowscriptaccess="always" height="81" src="https://player.soundcloud.com/player.swf?url=http://api.soundcloud.com/tracks/28998869" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="100%"></embed> </object> <span><a href=" - In the Fire (demo)</a> by <a href="