The Daily Paul has been archived. Please see the continuation of the Daily Paul at Popular

Thank you for a great ride, and for 8 years of support!

Comment: *Sigh* A guy I really like.

(See in situ)

*Sigh* A guy I really like.


A guy I really like. Shame that he didn't do his research. Had he done some research, he might have found evidence that supports his view!

"with a government that continues to extract more wealth from every taxpaying American every year"

Well, less. Obama collected less taxes as a % of GDP and income than Bush by a decent shot. Bush collected less than Clinton.

"is it any wonder that April 15th is a day of dread in America?"

I hope you aren't waiting until the 15th to file.

"Social Security taxes and income taxes have dogged us all since their institution during the last century, and few politicians have been willing to address these ploys for what they are: theft."

What I don't understand is people that seem to not get that in the early 1900s, this country transitioned from collected taxes indirectly to directly. Take indirect tax rates in the first 100 years of this nation's founding, and you will find that that would amount to over 1 trillion in tax revenue today; very close to what the government collects in income tax.

"Texas Gov. Rick Perry caused a firestorm among big-government types during the Republican presidential primaries last year when he called Social Security a Ponzi scheme. He was right. It’s been a scam from its inception, and it’s still a scam today."

Only if you believe that government bonds have no value.

"When Social Security was established in 1935, it was intended to provide minimal financial assistance to those too old to work."

No. Social Security was created to enforce personal responsibility so that individuals do not have to rely on the government for sustenance. This is from FDR's own mouth.

"t the time, the average life expectancy of Americans was 61 years of age, but Social Security didn’t kick in until age 65."

Factually just wrong. SS didn't kick in until 70 back then. This actually HELPS Nap's point. But the guy didn't bother doing any research, and this article is the result of that. It makes him look really bad, like he is just spouting without knowing what he is talking about.

"hus, the system was geared to take money from the average American worker that he would never see returned."

No, the ssytem was geared to force Americans to save.

"over time, life expectancy grew and surpassed 65, the so-called trust fund was raided and spent"

The implication here is nefarious. The idea that the trust fund was raided because life expectancy grew is just wrong. As life expectancy grew, taxes increased and payouts decreased. This is a veritable fact. Money was borrowed against SS not to pay for SS (obviously), but to pay for other government spending.

Do you research, Nap.

"and the system was paying out more money than it was taking in – just like a Ponzi scheme."

Fact check. Perhaps year-by-year, SS is paying out more money that it is taking in, but SS has a trust fund of surpluses. Social security legally cannot pay out more than what exists in the trust fund, another design of FDR.

"FDR called Social Security an insurance policy. In reality, it has become forced savings."

Yes. It is forced savings.

"However, the custodian of the funds – Congress – has stolen the savings and spent it"

So know you kind of acknowledge that the funds were not spent on SS but were spent on other things? Congress, btw, is not the custodian of funds. The Social Security trust fund is. Congress just borrows from it. Congress owes the SS trust fund actual money in US bonds; to default on those bonds would be like defaulting on treasury bonds. It would ruin America's credit rating.

"And the value of the savings has been diminished by inflation"

Social Security, until about 2007-08, has grown more than enough to cover inflation.

Plan for eliminating the national debt in 10-20 years:


Specific cuts; defense spending: