Rand messes up again.
Submitted by FBI_Exposer Ω™ on Thu, 11/01/2012 - 15:44You know, I don't like the pile on Rand Paul that's been going on, but this on the other hand is criticism that I think everyone can agree with.
I found it here....
http://ericpetersautos.com/2010/10/03/rand-pauls-social-secu...
"Supposed Libertarian Rand Paul is advocating increasing the age of eligibility to receive SS benefits "...., BUT.... " said nothing about letting the younger generation opt out of SS – which many of us would love to do, even to the extent of agreeing to forgo all future benefits in return for not having to 'contribute' any more from here on out."
Opting out was one of Ron Paul's best ideas ever. It resonated with Republicans, Independents, Democrats, young, old, etc. And why? Because it's so obvious, common sensically, pro-freedom.
So, who advised Rand Paul against doing this? This is an EXTREME disappointment. Rand Paul will see zero dollars in contributes from me until he addresses this.
- Login to post comments
This is a tax increase
By raising the retirement age, you raise how long you need to pay in, on top of cutting benefits. The latter is a screw job but the former is a tax increase.
"No opt out?" is a fair question. What's this guy's problem, anyway? Raising revenue? Cutting payout? Stealing from retirees to pay for pet projects?
Take back the GOP and Restore America Now.
When did Rand Paul Ever
say he was a libertarian? you can't put someone into a group (in your own mind) then rip on him when he doesn't comply fully with that group's agenda
That wasn't the issue.
The issue was allowing people to opt out of social security.
So, are you now saying the constitutional conservative Republicans support social security and would never support allowing people to opt out?
Is that what you are saying? Really?
Rand Paul
said he endorses letting people "opt out" of Social Security during his speech at the RNC and in many more speeches. Just because he didn't mention it during one pubic appearance doesn't mean he doesn't support it. Nice try
Saying and doing are two quite different things.
Saying something is worthless. All that matters is what you DO.
So, you answer now, what has Rand Paul DONE about it, hot shot?
He has proposed or co-sponsored NO BILLS with opt out in them.
That means he's done NOTHING except yak about it, no different than any other politician.
And just because someone is a member of a party
or political affiliation doesn't mean they support everything that group supports or they may support it but they aren't pushing the issue at a particular time for different reasons. In this case Rand does support "opt out" of SS so this thread is bogus
I'd say this is "piling on"
A simple search on the internet pulls up articles and video of Rand Paul supporting the ability to opt out of social security. This is a video made by Democrats to attack Republicans as being evil and extreme--so, of course, it includes a couple clips of Rand Paul talking about the ability to opt out of S.S:
http://youtu.be/PYJQX_oWark
I would say it amounts to "piling on" when the issue the author attacks Sen. Paul on is something that he actually agrees with and speaks about---what some of us really dislike is Sen Paul's tactics--he certainly believes in transitions and being ever so practical when understanding where the american people are, politically. Ron Paul talks about transitions too, come to think of it.
(you don't capitalize the "L" in libertarian when you are talking about philosophy)
2 years old
October 3, 2010
Exercise Your Rights. If You Don't Use Them, You Will Lose Them.
My News Twitter http://twitter.com/sharpsteve
My YouTube http://www.youtube.com/user/sharpsteve2003
His mistake was not
His mistake was not mentioning something Ron Paul mentioned? Did he say he was opposed to the idea, or he just didn't mention it?
Neither
He didn't PROPOSE or was not a PROPONENT of this clearly pro-liberty idea.
Why would he engage on SS reform WITHOUT proposing an opt out?
How can you be pro-liberty without doing so?
When asked about the Fed, is
When asked about the Fed, is it also a mistake if he doesn't mention it should be abolished tomorrow? I don't understand why people think that if he doesn't answer every single question the exact same way that his dad does then he is a traitor/mistake/neocon.
Rand saw what his father did, and saw how far it got us/him. It is obvious to me that he is taking another route to achieve a different end (read: actually winning the Presidency).
Anyone who doesn't think Rand Paul would be the most Liberty-pushing President of the past 100 years is delusional.
What are you talking about?
I'm talking about social security, not the Fed.
Just an example to show why
Just an example to show why your premise is flawed.
No.
"ending the fed" means completely changing the nations monetary system.
opting out of ss allows a minority of people who choose, to lose what they paid in, but not get charged the ss tax anymore.
There are ORDERS OF MAGNITUDES of differences between the two.
They are incomparable.