Social Security
Submitted by twiningtree on Wed, 11/14/2007 - 17:07This is one of two issues I disagree with Ron on (I am still an ardent supporter). I understand that, if he were to say that he were going to end Social Security right away, it could be political suicide, but I for one see no justification for its continuance at all, other than appeasing the AARP RACKET.
{rant}
Ron says that "we" taught them to be dependent. "We" who, Ron? I'm 28. I had NOTHING to do with the creation of social security, and having had only a couple elections I was eligible for, with the choice between twinkies and ho-hos in each (I want tiramisu!) and none of my tax dollars, coming from anywhere, should go to people so they can not work. Particularly able-bodied 62-year-olds. It is an inconsistency in his position, individualist on almost everything, except in this we have some kind of collective responsibility. BS! They taught themselves to be dependent. They continued this program, and, had they thought about it, they would have known full well the crushing burden it would be to people my age, trying to start out and have a family. So SCREW YOU Boomers and older. You refused to make the sacrifices, and every year you continued it you made the consequences of its inevitable end more and more dire. Social Security is theft, pure and simple. Your need does not equal your deserve, and even if it did, this does not create an obligation for ME to provide!
{/rant}
----------------------------------------------------------------
NOTE: Added at 4:35 PM, Pacific, several hours after above post
{apology}
I acknowledge that, with our new interconnectivity (which I'm sure the forces of tyranny see as a threat) we in my generation can take these positions without feeling so very alone. The scope of government has increased faster than our ability to monitor it or communicate about it, and the technology, developed only during my lifetime, to gather so much information is new. I am sorry if I blamed you boomers too heavily for these things. I did not keep in perspective how very much harder it would have been for you to get informed and connect with like-minded people. The general philosophy remains, but I spewed too much venom. Sorry.
{/apology}
Life is not fair
My parents sent me to private school. But I've been paying for other people's children to go to school for 49 years. Can I get some of that money back?
As for SS. You can't blame seniors that the money has been stolen from the fund. I worked with a woman whose nephew (about 7 years old) was getting a check because he had a hearing problem! What's with that! Never worked a day in his life and getting money from SS! Now that's something to get angry about!
A United States of true freedom coming into focus
Thought I would take the complete abolishment of SS and run with it to see what could supplement it post rEVOLution. Take a look:
- No income tax on seniors so they can rejoin the workforce even parttime without penalty
- No income tax on seniors' children so now the family is able to help more
- No inflation so no declining dollar to ravage seniors' other retirement funds
- Fewer cases of seniors' losing retirement funds to risky investments since they no longer have to beat inflation
- No drug war which would allow open and unfettered competition in pharmaceuticals driving down prices
- Charities and churches would be renewed in their mission to help those seniors' that are poor - our small church could house six seniors if needed.
I'm sure there are others so feel free to add your own. I realize this is not Ron Paul's plan, but then again, he never planned to raise $4.3 million on one day either. As Bob the builder asks, "Can we do it?" - "YES, we can"
social security
Yes, it is true that social security is a socialistic program. But so are many other things as well.
Do you ever take your dog for a walk in the local city park? Drive on a city street or interstate highway? Fly on an airplane from your city’s airport? Attended a professional sports event? Check out a book from the local library? Go to public school or a state university? Been tended to by an emergency medical team? Ride on a train? Make a phone call? Every single one of these activities had some part of it funded by taxes, which in every case are in fact “stolen at the point of a gun”.
We in this country have been at this socialistic game for many years, actually more than a century. Unfortunately, the “need” for most of these things has been established by the politicians seeking office – “elect me and I will steal from your neighbor and give to you” - generally not from the electorate. In many instances when the citizenry is given the choice they vote NO to more “stolen” taxes and government “services”. But alas not in all instances, thus we have publicly financed sports stadia, airports, parks, ad nauseum.
The mad rush to socialism started long before social security was enacted into law and today impacts EVERY aspect of our lives. To complain about just one such program is to miss the point. The difference between welfare and warfare is but two little letters. They are both socialistic governmental programs designed to benefit a preferred constituency.
Those who are on the paying end of a program, such as Social Security, will rightly complain, just as those of us who have been paying 15.3% of income into it for more than two decades have. If those on the receiving end of a government program are suddenly cut off the dislocation to our society and economy will be so severe that the 1930s depression will look like an economic boom. Suddenly ending such programs will almost certainly lead to people starving to death. That is precisely what happened in the former Soviet Union upon its end 20 years ago. Life expectancy shortened – dramatically – and thousands of people died prematurely. Is that what you want when you demand the immediate end to social security and other programs?
The task of unwinding our socialistic economy is going to take time. Once again Dr Paul illustrates his wisdom. Until he came along there was not a single national politician even considering and proposing such a possibility. The closest any other politician came to a change is social security was to allow the individual to sequester, control and own a small portion of their “contribution”. Of course anyone who could walk and chew gum at the same time realized that such a plan was mainly a subsidy for the financial services industry.
One of the cleverer slogans to come from the rEVOLution is “Ron Paul cured me of my apathy”. Built into that comment is the reality that only about half the population even bothers to vote. Non voting is effectively voting for “none of the above”. And voting for none of the above, at least to this frequent non voter, is due to the paucity of politicians wanting to reduce the socialistic welfare/warfare state. While someone who is in their twenties will be around longer than I will, a bit of patience is suggested. Get the good Doctor elected and begin the process. Elect any other of the sociopaths running and you will be paying even more – a LOT more – and not only in taxes!!
Social Security is supposed to be insurance
When the Government instituted it, It was sold to the American people as an insurance program that would be protected by the government. This was important because many people lost their pensions during the Great depression. Even today, certain industries are notorius for pleading bankruptcy, and reneging on their pension plan obligations.
So, Older people do not view SS as an entitlement, despite the fact it has ended up that way. Most Older Americans do not like the idea of being on the dole, but they figure they have already paid for the SS.
Moving Forward from Here
To abolish S.S., Ron must proceed from the state of the program as it exists when he becomes President. To phase it out as rapidly as possible would mean to stop collecting the tax and to liquidate the assets. How many people could be supported and how long S.S. could support them would depend on how much is in the fund at the time new S.S. tax collections are halted.
If you are just entering the workforce, this "fast cutoff" would be ideal for you. You would not pay anything into S.S., and you would get to invest your own money. (If it were to work out this way, I would want to be in your position, but the reality is I'm too old.)
If you are already receiving S.S., then depending on your age and health, you might get a pretty good deal. The money won't run out immediately.
But, the people who would get "robbed" the worst would be people like me, who have payed into S.S. for over 30 years, and most likely would not get anything back by the time they retire.
As much as I agree philosophically with the younger voters that it is not fair to rob them to get some of my money back, because it's not their fault I "allowed" the government to steal from me, I can't say I really agree that the fast cutoff I've described would be fair, because I've been against S.S. my whole life. I have simply been outvoted by the bloc that wants my wages to support their retirement. Now, if I finally get my way philosophically, the cost would be to forfeit everything I've had taken from me.
I suggest looking at it differently. Since this S.S. mess is a crime that has been going on for a long time, and you younger voters need help from people my age (my vote) or else this crime will be perpetrated on you, too, I think you should be willing to split the cost of correcting the problem with me. "Hey Llama, how about a little something for the effort? [Caddy Shack]"
In my opinion, the liquidation of the funds should not be so fast. People on S.S. now should take reduced benefits now, people my age should have a reduced tax now and take reduced benefits when we retire, and young people should continue to pay in for a while according to a reduced tax schedule that tapers off to nothing eventually, so that the hit is spread out among all parties. It's not fair for people my age to take the entire hit.
Or, you could just scare the hell out of everyone and not get Paul elected. Try to remember that compromise is not the same thing as pragmatism-without-values or abandoning your ideals. It is a necessary part of good politics.
Give me liberty or a candidate who will.
Good points
Yes, the fright of their SS being taken away will drive many seniors away from RP. Folks like my mother that are elderly and rely on their small check to get by on are not likely to vote our way if this talk continues. For those who are young enough to bail out fine, go for it. But don't blame the Baby Boomers for the situation.You just started bitchin about it,we were decades ahead of you with our complaints. Hope you kids have plenty in the bank though.Because if you become suddenly disabled from illness or accident and no lawsuit or insurance covers it, All you have is SS
How about this?
1. Plan a new self directed retirement plan for the young voters, say 25 yrs old and younger. Age can change
2. 26-45 yrs. put them on the new plan but also give them some credits depending on how much they paid into the system.
3. 46 -61 keep on the existing plan, but give them the option to convert to the new plan and give them credit.
4. 62 and older, and already retired - no change.
The credit will come from the IOU's by cutting government size, programs and change in foreign policy.
I wouldn't recommend cutting benefits for retired people otherwise we are not going very far.
Or just let everyone who
Or just let everyone who wants to get out do so. I know I will.
The only reason I disagree...
...is because the Government took their money. It should be given back. And there could be ways to do that without taking the money from the people... like selling our abandoned bases overseas?
I'd prefer it be given back in one large lump sum.
http://www.jimmyliberty.com loves Ron Paul
Remember what Ron Paul said
Remember what Ron Paul said about "group think"? We don't and can't agree on everything. We are a diverse group, and that's what I like about it. Please show some respect to your fellow Ron Paul supporters, and avoid using the word "troll". Discuss, and then agree to disagree.
A baby boomer agrees
I'm 52 years old and absolutely agree, even though I've paid into social security for 34 years. Still, I'd love to stop it immediately, and yet I understand Ron Paul's position on it. Doc
Doc
It's OUR Decision, not the President's
We have to put pressure on Congress to change it. I am also 52 and have wanted out forever. I'd opt out now, if I could. But then, people like us are ahead of our time.
It had to get worse before the People were ready to change.
IMissLiberty
You can reach voters in California, here: http://consequeries.com/California-voter-guide.php
Clowns like this
These are the veiws that the opposition loves to see. You are either a very self centered whining spoiled child or a TROLL. If this is how all "20 somethings" feel, this country has bigger problems than just government. Oh how you have suffered and sacrificed. By the way I can take care of myself just fine without "protection" from your generation who most of couldn't bench press the keyboard your using.
Psh.
Psh... I could bench press my keyboard if I had the motivation.
Finally a decent reply
lol
Blah...
...blah blah blah blah! Talk to the hand, dude who doesn't have any conception of individualist philosophy, and has grabbed onto some of RP's ideas without understanding what's behind them. Troll who doesn't even realize it is wot yew R, pally!
Social Security and Dr. Paul
I think we need to go on the offensive on Social Security. Everyone tries to make it sound like Dr. Paul is against Social Security. I think it should be emphasized that his plan is the only plan that will save Social Security for those who will be dependant on it. No other Republican candidate seems to have a plan.
And he is for letting people get out of Social Security if they want to.
I agree. I wish RP campaign
I agree. I wish RP campaign will air some ads about SS only to put away negative attacks
I thought I heard RP mention
I thought I heard RP mention on several occasions that he will not throw senior citizens and the needy into the street. He said that his plans of changing our foreign policy will save so much money that we will continue SS and Medicare for people that are retired or about to retire. He will devise a plan for the young to have their own retirement plans. He understands that he can't change the culture over night - It may take 30 to 40 years. As a President, he can't just change these existing laws with a stroke of a pen. Unfortunately he will need Congress. He can only make changes in executive orders such as bringing the troops home and changing our foreign policy.
Senior citizens are very reliable and consistent voters, and there are many of them. We can only win with their support. Since we are finally getting some attention from the MSM, RP campaign needs to take advantage of this and broaden the message so we can get support from moderates as well as the elderly. This is no time to be radical. That's what some of our competitors would like us to be.
I know
As I've said, I understand that pragmatically, taking my position is impossible if RP wants to win. I just want people to understand that, philosophically, the position is unjustified and unjustifiable. I understand that these things take time. Just get this, man. The RP revolution is a compromise. It is us being NICE. We are ALREADY justified in using FORCE to defend our liberty and our wealth. We won't, if RP is elected, because we are afraid, and because I understand that true rationality is not something that necessarily comes naturally to people. Just get this, that every SS dollar you collect is stolen from me and others like me. Understand that. And don't talk about "your" social security, or your "right" to it. You are in the wrong, but if RP wins, we'll tolerate it. Just as long as there's a light at the end of the tunnel.
There will a light at the end of the tunnel
When RP is President.
We need to consolidate so we can continue to grow in the polls by being very positive otherwise we will not win! It's not yours an mine. It's ours.
Here is one of the rules of posting:
1) Even though this is an unofficial site, you are still representing Dr. Paul in the eyes of the public. Please don't write anything that Dr. Paul himself wouldn't say or wouldn't approve of, or that would reflect badly on Dr. Paul or the campaign. Therefore, don't trash other candidates, don't use bad words, etc. Keep your focus on the good and the positive and on hope.
twiningtree is absolutely right.
People must be able to opt out of SS as soon as possible no matter the consequences to those who have paid into it. The young owe the old nothing by way of social security.
I'm 50 years old and have about as much to lose as most in this raw deal started by FDR way before I was born. twiningtree is absolutly right and it amazes me so few can see it. It is not right it is wrong to expect him to pay into ss for anyone.
Ron Paul as I understand his plan will sustain ss as long as needed from the other great revenue source the corporate income tax. But if this fails to fulfill the obligation there is NO WAY any person should continue to be forced to pay into the ss system. It is socialism. It is robbery.
There is always the option for those who wish to freely support anyone in need for any reason to do exactly that. Far more efficiently than the federal government can do.
Live free and cherish the freedom of all as your own. Remember the internet allows us to accomplish this work as never before and never before could we have thrown off this illegal bondage. Even today people are wrongfully imprisoned for related non crimes of refusal to pay income tax. This capacity to finally bury this beast is very new. The young should realize this fact and understand they are no more bold than we could and surely would have been had we the power of communication and collective political action the internet so recently has made available to us all.
Those who would keep us in chains profit from every fight we sustain amongst ourselves. Let them cease being our masters once and for all. Only together can we be free.
United We Stand.. Divided We Fall. We're in this together.
_______________________________
..Without the truth we have nothing
mid 70's
Back in the mid to late 70's is when the gov't decided to tap into the Social Security reservers. They couldn't stand to see that money sitting there. They had some hat ass idea that it would be ok to start putting the money into the general fund. Ron Paul has even mentioned that he did not vote to take the money out. As president he would put a end to the money being tooken out. let it build back up to take care of those who payed into it. It can be fixed, and only one man is willing to do it.
Just as long as you don't...
...take MY money to fix it. And I don't know how else you'll do it. The program needs to end. EVERY solution involves taking from those that earn, and I challenge anyone to show that it is not so.
how about cutting some spending elsewhere?
isn't that what we need to do? Close the bases overseas and cut spending at home. That should pay for it. We don't need to raise taxes.
Look, I know this is what WILL happen...
...but it's not what SHOULD happen. Yes, cut spending. Yes, close bases. Yes, the burden will be far lighter. The problem? This is an illegitimate taking of money, however light, and allowing this sliver of socialism, this confusing of brute-force taxation with compassion, is ethically wrong. Look, I am coming at this from a deontological point of view. You can probably make some pretty convincing consequentialist arguments for continuing social security. The problem is, those are the sorts of arguments that brought us to the welfare/warfare state in the first place. For the common good, the ends justify the means. We shouldn't give such things an inch.
oh don't think I support SS
because I don't. I'm nearly 40 and have no problem opting out. I also think it would be GREAT to allow Americans to opt out! However, the SS funding deficit is because these politicians raided the funds. And we let them do it! It's not like they were hiding and doing it privately.
The first thing we need is a new policy that makes it illegal to spend that money for ANYTHING other than payments. Second, let's allow people who want to opt out, to opt out and close the program for newcomers. Third, lets balance the budget and cut spending to get this program solvent for the people who are left. Sound ok to you?
Its past your bedtime. Banstick please
Go away you unknowing pest. I have paid into Social Security since 1974 and even if I never collect dime of it I would never deny the right of others who have also paid in to collect the benefits due to them. Grow up .
Am I speaking English here?
They do have a right to the money. The problem is, THEIR MONEY IS GONE. The only money left is MY money, and they have no right to that.
Some cheese with that Whine?
Sacrifice? 3 Generations WW2, Korea, Viet Nam. What sacrifice have you made. Go serve your country! I did before you were born.