Ron Paul collects social security....

inlet13

gimmesometruth27 wrote:

if ron paul thinks government is so inept, why is he running for a job in such government when he knows he has a snowball's chance in hell at winning or having any effect on the machine?

To “try” to minimize the problem. Government’s the problem, hence minimize it. Unfortunately, the only way to minimize government is from within. You need to have strong character to stand up to "the machine" which buys and sells most politicians on both sides of the aisle.

gimmesometruth27 wrote:

that is the funny thing to me, he is so against what our government is doing but he thinks he can change it and he is seeking a job in government...

He’s seeking a job in government to minimize government’s role in society. He's aware that politicians are bought and sold. The only way to get around that is to elect someone to power positions who does not desire the power, but desires change away from the by and sell mantra that dominates politics.

gimmesometruth27 wrote:

confiscating wealth? talking point anyone?? got anything original?

Talking point? He freely admits he would not have paid into social security if he could have gotten around it. Me – I wouldn’t either. Because we can’t do what we want with our money, government is “forcing” us to do something we would otherwise not do. Confiscating money seems appropriate, even though they pledge they’ll give it back (on their terms in their own time – if they have it).

gimmesometruth27 wrote:

the only reason social security would be insolvent is because we keep borrowing from it. make it illegal to borrow from it and that solves a lot of the problem.

No genius… that’s not the only reason social security would be insolvent. It’s a borderline ponzi-scheme – in the sense that retirees depend on future workers to pay their benefits. Population changes are a huge issue for social security - think "baby boomers". They are a huge segment of the population and they are relying on a smaller segment (current 20-somethings) to fund thier retirement.

Anyway, there is one area in which I agree, government shouldn’t be pick-pocketing. And that – in and of itself – creates a big problem because government doesn’t know how to not pick-pocket. The bigger it grows, the more inefficient, the more likely to steal or ummm... cough, cough... "borrow".

gimmesometruth27 wrote:

my point is still, ron, if you are such a martyr in this terrible system, why not put your money where your mouth is and be an example?

How would he be an example? He thinks government is stealing money and doing very little to no good with it. He wants that money in private hands, not public. So, by refusing to accept his social security, he’d be allowing his portion of the money (that he was told he’d receive back) to linger out there in public space to be wasted on research on tree slugs or throwing rocks through windows to create “jobs”. He knows better.

gimmesometruth27 wrote:

and i will take your recommendation to me under advisement...

pom-poms are still waving high, huh?

mikepegg44

gimmesometruth27 wrote:

if ron paul thinks government is so inept, why is he running for a job in such government when he knows he has a snowball's chance in hell at winning or having any effect on the machine? that is the funny thing to me, he is so against what our government is doing but he thinks he can change it and he is seeking a job in government...

Also,

I didn't know that facing long odds when trying to change something was reason to give up.

It must be better to sit in a park for a few months.

Go Beavers

I may have said it before, but it's interesting to see criticism of someone toeing the party line while they themselves fall into step with the Ron Paul party line.

Jason P

I take it as a good sign when one of your critics biggest "AH HA!" moments is when they find out you collect social security.

mikepegg44

Go Beavers wrote:

I may have said it before, but it's interesting to see criticism of someone toeing the party line while they themselves fall into step with the Ron Paul party line.

there is definitely some truth in what you are saying, but i would say the difference is Ron Paul isn't a party. He is a member of a party and has actually voted the way he has said he would. I have said before I disagree with him on some issues, but following constitutional restraints and procedural rules isn't really a party line. unless there is a party that is into following the rules and limits placed on the federal gov't...is there one? when both major political parties dislike you, what political party line are you toeing? pragmatism party? The hard part to that is differing interpretation of the constitution. so again, wouldn't a party that believes in the constitution also be fractured... wait what was I saying...oh ya, there is no Ron Paul party. there is support of Ron Paul, and then there is support of every dem or every republican. Do you really consider Paul a party of his own? If so, can you elaborate?

constitutionalism really isn't a party.

inlet13

Go Beavers wrote:

I may have said it before, but it's interesting to see criticism of someone toeing the party line while they themselves fall into step with the Ron Paul party line.

Not sure who this is in reference to, but I'll respond because I did call out someone on this:

1) Ron Paul isn't a political "party" - he's a human being. Although he's running for President as a Republican, many think he could have run just as easily as a Democrat. He is thought to be a libertarian if anything, but he really doesn't toe any party line - anyone who says he does, doesn't know what they are talking about. He's an individual. There's no "party line" associated with his personal ideology. Equating his personal ideology to party ideology makes no sense.
2) I don't always agree with Ron Paul, but I do very, very frequently. One thing I like about Ron Paul is he blends two sects of political ideologies that are often thought to HAVE to be SEPARATE by the cheerleaders of each side of the political party football game - such as yourself with the Dems.
3) Bottom line - this isn't a football game. These policies have effects on human beings. Cheering on one side of the political party machine - as if the opposition (which is really just a different arm of the same political machine) is the whole problem - is just plain ignorant. It's the act of blindly cheering that's the problem. It's the people who hate Rush that love Maddow or the people that love Hannity that hate Matthews.

Ron Paul - is basically saying... stop buying the snake oil. Wake up, although both sides have good ideas at times, they both suck at implementing them, probably because of special interests. It doesn't have to be this way. Politicians don't need to buy hook line and sinker for special interests... and until voters give men like Ron Paul the respect they deserve, this will continue.

But, I digress... you can go back cheering on MSNBC hosts. Enjoy.

MotoDC

mike I agree with you 100% on this topic, but what would you (or anyone here, of course) say to the argument that his disagreement with SS is actually two-fold:

1. The disagreement you and others have already addressed -- the unconstitutionality of coerced contribution to a retirement plan;

2. A fundamental libertarian disagreement with a[ny] retirement plan run by the gov't, whether coerced or voluntary.

I ask because POV #2 seems to poke a small hole in the philosophical justification we're using here for his now collecting SS. In other words, if he's simply constitutionally opposed to the gov't forcing us to contribute to SS, then collecting from an SS plan that he's already paid into does not literally contradict that stance. However, if he is fundamentally opposed to the whole SS concept, it could be argued that benefiting from it in any way would be contradictory to his stance.

The only counterargument I can think of is to say that he isn't actually benefiting from it. As you noted, he has paid in more than he'll ever take out (especially factoring in the time value of money), so his net experience there has been a loss. Thoughts?

Go Beavers

mikepegg44 wrote:

Go Beavers wrote:

I may have said it before, but it's interesting to see criticism of someone toeing the party line while they themselves fall into step with the Ron Paul party line.

there is definitely some truth in what you are saying, but i would say the difference is Ron Paul isn't a party. He is a member of a party and has actually voted the way he has said he would. I have said before I disagree with him on some issues, but following constitutional restraints and procedural rules isn't really a party line. unless there is a party that is into following the rules and limits placed on the federal gov't...is there one? when both major political parties dislike you, what political party line are you toeing? pragmatism party? The hard part to that is differing interpretation of the constitution. so again, wouldn't a party that believes in the constitution also be fractured... wait what was I saying...oh ya, there is no Ron Paul party. there is support of Ron Paul, and then there is support of every dem or every republican. Do you really consider Paul a party of his own? If so, can you elaborate?

constitutionalism really isn't a party.

In a sense he is treated like his own party. Of course most of the time people put him in the Libertarian group when they go into labeling the beliefs further. but that's not really the issue. What I'm saying, and how it applies to AMT, is that if I see a title of a thread in here, and then see that a Ron Paul supporter has commented, I can guess what their response will be with a higher success rate than any other person who fits into a different group.

MotoDC

Go Beavers wrote:

mikepegg44 wrote:

Go Beavers wrote:

I may have said it before, but it's interesting to see criticism of someone toeing the party line while they themselves fall into step with the Ron Paul party line.

there is definitely some truth in what you are saying, but i would say the difference is Ron Paul isn't a party. He is a member of a party and has actually voted the way he has said he would. I have said before I disagree with him on some issues, but following constitutional restraints and procedural rules isn't really a party line. unless there is a party that is into following the rules and limits placed on the federal gov't...is there one? when both major political parties dislike you, what political party line are you toeing? pragmatism party? The hard part to that is differing interpretation of the constitution. so again, wouldn't a party that believes in the constitution also be fractured... wait what was I saying...oh ya, there is no Ron Paul party. there is support of Ron Paul, and then there is support of every dem or every republican. Do you really consider Paul a party of his own? If so, can you elaborate?

constitutionalism really isn't a party.

In a sense he is treated like his own party. Of course most of the time people put him in the Libertarian group when they go into labeling the beliefs further. but that's not really the issue. What I'm saying, and how it applies to AMT, is that if I see a title of a thread in here, and then see that a Ron Paul supporter has commented, I can guess what their response will be with a higher success rate than any other person who fits into a different group.

The difference is, generally, that it's based on a core set of principles from which the stance on issues is derived, rather than whether an R or D is next to their name. Ron Paul is more consistent in his viewpoints than your average elephant or donkey, so it's no surprise that the people who get excited about his candidacy would also be seen to be consistent or repetitive in stating their POV.

Go Beavers

MotoDC wrote:

Go Beavers wrote:

mikepegg44 wrote:

there is definitely some truth in what you are saying, but i would say the difference is Ron Paul isn't a party. He is a member of a party and has actually voted the way he has said he would. I have said before I disagree with him on some issues, but following constitutional restraints and procedural rules isn't really a party line. unless there is a party that is into following the rules and limits placed on the federal gov't...is there one? when both major political parties dislike you, what political party line are you toeing? pragmatism party? The hard part to that is differing interpretation of the constitution. so again, wouldn't a party that believes in the constitution also be fractured... wait what was I saying...oh ya, there is no Ron Paul party. there is support of Ron Paul, and then there is support of every dem or every republican. Do you really consider Paul a party of his own? If so, can you elaborate?

constitutionalism really isn't a party.

In a sense he is treated like his own party. Of course most of the time people put him in the Libertarian group when they go into labeling the beliefs further. but that's not really the issue. What I'm saying, and how it applies to AMT, is that if I see a title of a thread in here, and then see that a Ron Paul supporter has commented, I can guess what their response will be with a higher success rate than any other person who fits into a different group.

The difference is, generally, that it's based on a core set of principles from which the stance on issues is derived, rather than whether an R or D is next to their name. Ron Paul is more consistent in his viewpoints than your average elephant or donkey, so it's no surprise that the people who get excited about his candidacy would also be seen to be consistent or repetitive in stating their POV.

And this is how Libertarian arrogance starts to rear its head. R's, D's, or whatever label used, are also coming from a place of core beliefs, but at the same time have to reconcile beliefs with pragmatic policies, realities, and procedures (granted, some don't do a good job with this). Libertarians exist in a theoretical world only, and even adhere to that theory and belief when the outcome can almost be 100% guaranteed disaster.

riotgrl

So is there any middle ground? At the core, it seems as if we all are committed to our idea of how to best fix the problems (in this case social security) but can we agree to a compromise? That's what annoys me about any discussion about these issues is that some people on both sides aren't willing to compromise to come up with a solution. If, as a Democrat, I am committed to social welfare programs to help others then is there some way to reduce the rolls? It's obvious that social welfare will be unable to continue at its curent rate (or rather, I think social security payments will only be greater in the next 30 years because of the sheer number of baby boomers that are retiring) so what compromise are you willing to give? If, as a Republican, I am committed to smaller government and lower taxes is there some way to reduce the rolls? When we start talking about solutions and compromises then we might be able to fix the problem. Certainly not in the exact way we had envisioned but if it achieves our ultimate outcome without severely compromising our ideals, is it worth it? Suggestions for solutions?

MotoDC

Go Beavers wrote:

motodc wrote:

The difference is, generally, that it's based on a core set of principles from which the stance on issues is derived, rather than whether an R or D is next to their name. Ron Paul is more consistent in his viewpoints than your average elephant or donkey, so it's no surprise that the people who get excited about his candidacy would also be seen to be consistent or repetitive in stating their POV.

And this is how Libertarian arrogance starts to rear its head. R's, D's, or whatever label used, are also coming from a place of core beliefs, but at the same time have to reconcile beliefs with pragmatic policies, realities, and procedures (granted, some don't do a good job with this). Libertarians exist in a theoretical world only, and even adhere to that theory and belief when the outcome can almost be 100% guaranteed disaster.

Nope, not what I said, but that's fine. You call it "reconciling with pragmatic policies", I call it toeing the party line for the sake of reelection. The R/D politician that sacrifices a core belief for the sake of the solidarity of the party is not coming from a "place of core beliefs", even if a core set of beliefs was what was guiding them when they originally joined.

Finally, talk about arrogance -- "100% guaranteed disaster". May I have your crystal ball for a day? I'll be rich in an instant and promise to move to my island and never post here again.

inlet13

Go Beavers wrote:

mikepegg44 wrote:

Go Beavers wrote:

I may have said it before, but it's interesting to see criticism of someone toeing the party line while they themselves fall into step with the Ron Paul party line.

there is definitely some truth in what you are saying, but i would say the difference is Ron Paul isn't a party. He is a member of a party and has actually voted the way he has said he would. I have said before I disagree with him on some issues, but following constitutional restraints and procedural rules isn't really a party line. unless there is a party that is into following the rules and limits placed on the federal gov't...is there one? when both major political parties dislike you, what political party line are you toeing? pragmatism party? The hard part to that is differing interpretation of the constitution. so again, wouldn't a party that believes in the constitution also be fractured... wait what was I saying...oh ya, there is no Ron Paul party. there is support of Ron Paul, and then there is support of every dem or every republican. Do you really consider Paul a party of his own? If so, can you elaborate?

constitutionalism really isn't a party.

In a sense he is treated like his own party. Of course most of the time people put him in the Libertarian group when they go into labeling the beliefs further. but that's not really the issue. What I'm saying, and how it applies to AMT, is that if I see a title of a thread in here, and then see that a Ron Paul supporter has commented, I can guess what their response will be with a higher success rate than any other person who fits into a different group.

What I am saying is that you, and many other like minded D (or R's for that matter), is you change your ideology to fit what's best for the guy you have in office. If your party says it is against unprompted war, and your guy bombs Libya, it's ok... there was a good reason for it - this time, but last time (when the other guy was in office) there wasn't. If your guy does something similar to the guy with R listed on his chest, it's ok. There's always a caveat. There's unwavering support - not of positions, of parties. It's a fucking political football game. It's not really issues you're all concerned with, it's continuing to "win" the game. I mean look at gimme's own words - "he hasn't a snowball's chance in hell of winning" blah blah blah... what is winning what exactly? Do you think any one on either side really won anything substantial over the past 10 years? Besides contracts and the thought that they have power?

Ron Paul is different. He's not after what you, and your ilk, want him to be after - he's not after winning for the sake of winning. I mean those involved in watching the game know this, and it fucking rattles them. That's why you (or they) are so scared of him. He' gathering attention, bringing in leftists and conservatives and creating a new ideology of ideas that is challenging the powers that be. That's scary to the two-team league of R's and D's - and their supporters. They have their monopoly of playing against one another in the BCS of politics. During the game and afterwards, each guy gets kickbacks from the organizations they support and retires to give speeches for thousands of thousands of bucks. Ron Paul, and others like him, is a threat to that very system.

This guy offers hope and provides evidence that there's some credibility in politics left out there. He doesn't waver in the wind. He sticks to his principals. You don't have to agree with everything he says to give him some respect, in fact, you could disagree with most, but acknowledge the guy believes and practices what he believes.

The system is broke - you don't have to be a Ron Paul supporter. But, please... don't be blind to the fact that there you are bringing a figurative donkey sweater/cap and foam finger to every debate on politics.

kenny olav

Everyone should do a quick Google search on "social security is fiscally sound" and you will find many sound arguments that say that it is sound. At worst, if nothing is changed, in about 30 years the system will have to pay 75% of what it pays now, but what is paid now will be worth more then. And it's not difficult to tweak the system a little bit by raising the tax a little bit in order to make it pay out whatever it should. At least it shouldn't be, but "tax" has become such a dirty word in American politics. Maybe some day our politics can grow up. It has to. Or then we're truly fucked. But even as it stands, Social Security isn't fucked. It's not fucking broken.

MotoDC

kenny olav wrote:

Everyone should do a quick Google search on "social security is fiscally sound" and you will find many sound arguments that say that it is sound. At worst, if nothing is changed, in about 30 years the system will have to pay 75% of what it pays now, but what is paid now will be worth more then. And it's not difficult to tweak the system a little bit by raising the tax a little bit in order to make it pay out whatever it should. At least it shouldn't be, but "tax" has become such a dirty word in American politics. Maybe some day our politics can grow up. It has to. Or then we're truly fucked. But even as it stands, Social Security isn't fucked. It's not fucking broken.

SS is fiscally sound insofar as anything, in particular the Federal Govt, is fiscally sound in this house-of-cards economic foundation that the Federal Reserve System (oh man, now here we go ) has facilitated. Specifically, SS funds have been "invested" in Treasury debt, similar to just about any low-yield money market savings account you could get at your local bank. The difference -- and this is where the moral hazard comes in (hi professor inlet, that was for you :ugeek: ) -- is that the people deciding to "invest" SS funds in Treasuries also make the decisions that lead to the gov't needing to issue said Treasuries.

kenny olav

I may not be an expert on finances (despite having working in financial services for 10 years) but I believe people smarter than me when they say the Federal Reserve System will still be standing when we're all old and grey. We have a near perfect credit rating... it only went down as a result of the Republican-controlled House holding the budget hostage because they wouldn't compromise on the budget. There is part of me that won't be surprised if it all collapses and the world plunges into chaos, but I think if Ron Paul were President, he would get us there quicker.

Ron Paul is totally right about the war on drugs, and mostly right about foreign occupations... more importantly because it's wasted lives, but the money isn't all wasted... it flows back into the U.S. economy... it's just used for the wrong purposes.

unsung

Inlet13, great reply.


Ron Paul's career in Congress is ending soon, and for 30 years he has pushed for one major thing, a full audit of the Federal Reserve. There will be a House vote in a few weeks as it passed committee without opposition today. It has also survived two attempts at amending it, attempts to gut it, one today by democratic rep Cummings.

If passed it could become one of the most important pieces of legislation in the history of this country. There are over 230 co-sponsors right now. We need to keep the pressure on, not allow amendments, and find out what the Fed is doing to the world economies.

Go Beavers

MotoDC wrote:

Go Beavers wrote:

motodc wrote:

The difference is, generally, that it's based on a core set of principles from which the stance on issues is derived, rather than whether an R or D is next to their name. Ron Paul is more consistent in his viewpoints than your average elephant or donkey, so it's no surprise that the people who get excited about his candidacy would also be seen to be consistent or repetitive in stating their POV.

And this is how Libertarian arrogance starts to rear its head. R's, D's, or whatever label used, are also coming from a place of core beliefs, but at the same time have to reconcile beliefs with pragmatic policies, realities, and procedures (granted, some don't do a good job with this). Libertarians exist in a theoretical world only, and even adhere to that theory and belief when the outcome can almost be 100% guaranteed disaster.

Nope, not what I said, but that's fine. You call it "reconciling with pragmatic policies", I call it toeing the party line for the sake of reelection. The R/D politician that sacrifices a core belief for the sake of the solidarity of the party is not coming from a "place of core beliefs", even if a core set of beliefs was what was guiding them when they originally joined.

Finally, talk about arrogance -- "100% guaranteed disaster". May I have your crystal ball for a day? I'll be rich in an instant and promise to move to my island and never post here again.

To tie in the thread topic for an example, you don't need a crystal ball to tell what would happen if people had the option to opt out of SS. You'd have millions of 70+ year olds living in poverty with no money whatsoever.

Go Beavers

inlet13 wrote:

What I am saying is that you, and many other like minded D (or R's for that matter), is you change your ideology to fit what's best for the guy you have in office. If your party says it is against unprompted war, and your guy bombs Libya, it's ok... there was a good reason for it - this time, but last time (when the other guy was in office) there wasn't. If your guy does something similar to the guy with R listed on his chest, it's ok. There's always a caveat. There's unwavering support - not of positions, of parties. It's a fucking political football game. It's not really issues you're all concerned with, it's continuing to "win" the game. I mean look at gimme's own words - "he hasn't a snowball's chance in hell of winning" blah blah blah... what is winning what exactly? Do you think any one on either side really won anything substantial over the past 10 years? Besides contracts and the thought that they have power?

Ron Paul is different. He's not after what you, and your ilk, want him to be after - he's not after winning for the sake of winning. I mean those involved in watching the game know this, and it fucking rattles them. That's why you (or they) are so scared of him. He' gathering attention, bringing in leftists and conservatives and creating a new ideology of ideas that is challenging the powers that be. That's scary to the two-team league of R's and D's - and their supporters. They have their monopoly of playing against one another in the BCS of politics. During the game and afterwards, each guy gets kickbacks from the organizations they support and retires to give speeches for thousands of thousands of bucks. Ron Paul, and others like him, is a threat to that very system.

This guy offers hope and provides evidence that there's some credibility in politics left out there. He doesn't waver in the wind. He sticks to his principals. You don't have to agree with everything he says to give him some respect, in fact, you could disagree with most, but acknowledge the guy believes and practices what he believes.

The system is broke - you don't have to be a Ron Paul supporter. But, please... don't be blind to the fact that there you are bringing a figurative donkey sweater/cap and foam finger to every debate on politics.

I think you might be overgeneralizing in your conclusions when you've read some posters in here have defended something Obama has done when deriding Bush for doing something similar. If someone disagrees with you, it doesn't necessarily mean they're blindly following party rhetoric. For me personally, I don't feel loyalty to the Democratic party. I've seen plenty of criticism of Obama by liberals in here and I don't feel like he's 'my guy'.

mikepegg44

MotoDC wrote:

2. A fundamental libertarian disagreement with a[ny] retirement plan run by the gov't, whether coerced or voluntary.

Thoughts?

Depends on what principle you feel it is based on. He believes SS as a forced payment is wrong. But he also believes that contracts must be honored. So believing it is unconstitutional takes a back seat to the fact that it is happening. So forcing them to hold up their end of the contract is not at all wrong. They took his money, illegally or not, and he is entitled to have it back.

In his own words

"it’s a mess. And it proves that the government is not very good at central economic planning, even for retirement. The money was taken from the people with good intention. We should do our best to return it to those that have taken it. But we need to allow the young people to just flat out get out of the system. Because, if you have the government managing these accounts, it’s not going to work."

It is very simple...he wants to end social security but he wants those that have become conditioned to rely on it to be able to keep it. A simple way of doing it would be to keep the pay roll tax on all employees while the employees who wish to have no social security taken out do not pay it. We also need to stop spending money from the trust account in the general fund through the purchase of treasuries. Anyone who argues that it is solvent...are you at all surprised that without a budget passing the government would not have been able to pay the checks out? that the funds we have available would dry up? The social security trust fund is akin to the brief case Harry and Lloyd turned in...175,000... might want to hang on to that one.

Social security was a great idea. But I honestly believe that if people are conditioned to know it isn't there, they will be more likely to plan for their retirements. But no Beavers...we won't have a bunch of 70 year olds living on the streets. How many people do you actually think would opt out of social security?