Ron Paul collects social security....

gimmesometruth27

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:

MookiesLaw

Selective lamestream reporting at it's best.

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.

brianlux

MookiesLaw wrote:

Selective lamestream reporting at it's best.

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?

DS1119

These type of discussions are why I stay out of AMT.


Hi Brian! :wave: See you Montana. No political discussions that weekend.

CH156378

If you hate something, don't you do it too...too...

brianlux

DS1119 wrote:

These type of discussions are why I stay out of AMT.


Hi Brian! :wave: See you Montana. No political discussions that weekend.

You got it, DS! :thumbup:

Smellyman

and quit going to public shools, driving on roads, use any power, supporing military, call the police or fire dept., national forests and parks, public trasport, etc. etc. etc.

in fact boycott it all. Just stop paying taxes

mikepegg44

gimmesometruth27 wrote:

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:

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

Jason P

I don't know if collecting on something you were forced to pay into is hypocrisy. A better example of hypocrisy is rattling off about paying a fair share, embracing Warren Buffet, and then pay a lower percentage in taxes then your secretary.

unsung

I'd rather he be a bit hypocratic than a straight out thief and liar.

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.

cincybearcat

He didn't have an alternative, he put money in. It's his $, no?

This seems rather silly and part of the reason we no longer have reasonable discussions in this country.

cincybearcat

gimmesometruth27 wrote:

fucking hypocrite...

Obama is a hypocrite to then, pretty sure all those vehicles he uses run on oil.

brianlux

cincybearcat wrote:

gimmesometruth27 wrote:

fucking hypocrite...

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.

cincybearcat

brianlux wrote:

cincybearcat wrote:

gimmesometruth27 wrote:

fucking hypocrite...

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.

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.

pandora

Ron is entitled to his social security, we all are.

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.

kenny olav

Thought I'd better speak out as a liberal, actually as an admitted socialist, to say that of course Ron Paul is entitled to his Social Security money even if he thinks we should get rid of it over time. He paid into it... he should get it back, and he's not being hypocritical for collecting it.

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?

Wilds

kenny olav wrote:

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.

cincybearcat

kenny olav wrote:

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 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.

mikepegg44

kenny olav wrote:

Thought I'd better speak out as a liberal, actually as an admitted socialist, to say that of course Ron Paul is entitled to his Social Security money even if he thinks we should get rid of it over time. He paid into it... he should get it back, and he's not being hypocritical for collecting it.

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?

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?

unsung

kenny olav wrote:

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?

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.

kenny olav

You guys think New Orleans or any other disaster area would be better off without FEMA? It would've been nice if we hadn't had an idiot President who appointed an idiot friend of his to be in charge of it ("You're doing a heckuva job Brownie"), but suppose the government did nothing... private organizations would rush to the scene and coordinate with each other? Talk to anyone in the areas of Vermont affected by Irene and see if they think FEMA shouldn't have been there to help them. Some states aren't big enough to tackle big disasters. This is the United States... we take on big problems together.


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!