• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Ron Paul Admits He's On Social Security, Even Though He Believes It's Unconstitutiona

Re: Ron Paul Admits He's On Social Security, Even Though He Believes It's Unconstitut

ARealConservative said:
we are all in the ponzie scheme. we would go to jail if we tried to not be a part of it.
Click to expand...


WRONG.

if you pay more than 7.5% of your salary into a 401k plan, you don't have to contribute to SS.

from 2000 through 2004, I was NOT paying into SS cause I was contributing 7.5% to my 401K.

No one forced RP to pay SS, no one forced him to request his SS benefits, and no one will force him to collect more benefits after he has received back what he put into it.

basically, he's a hypocrite. Just like his son.
 
Last edited:
Re: Ron Paul Admits He's On Social Security, Even Though He Believes It's Unconstitut

ARealConservative said:
the guy you know is an idiot if he spent his whole life working and did not see his investments grow substantially
Click to expand...

People that work everyday and dont make alot of money...invest in 401ks and can invest in 401ks for decades and when they are near retirement lose it all....ask WorldCom and Enron employees. Many people invest and LOSE everything...does not mean they are idiots...
 
Re: Ron Paul Admits He's On Social Security, Even Though He Believes It's Unconstitut

Thunder said:
WRONG.

if you pay more than 7.5% of your salary into a 401k plan, you don't have to contribute to SS.

from 2000 through 2004, I was NOT paying into SS cause I was contributing 7.5% to my 401K.

No one forced RP to pay SS, no one forced him to request his SS benefits, and no one will force him to collect more benefits after he has received back what he put into it.

basically, he's a hypocrite. Just like his son.
Click to expand...

I don't believe that is true, and it certainly doesn't get the employer off the hook
 
Re: Ron Paul Admits He's On Social Security, Even Though He Believes It's Unconstitut

lpast said:
People that work everyday and dont make alot of money...invest in 401ks and can invest in 401ks for decades and when they are near retirement lose it all....ask WorldCom and Enron employees. Many people invest and LOSE everything...does not mean they are idiots...
Click to expand...

in relation to investment strategy, it means they are idiots.
 
Re: Ron Paul Admits He's On Social Security, Even Though He Believes It's Unconstitut

ARealConservative said:
in relation to investment strategy, it means they are idiots.
Click to expand...

There is no strategy with a 401k your at the mercy of the managers...and thats one reason the rich and corporate interests and wall street wanted to murder private pensions...they didnt have to pay them anymore...and they got the ability to MANIPULATE billions more in 401k cash and make billions more off the mass's it was a win win win for the rich
 
Re: Ron Paul Admits He's On Social Security, Even Though He Believes It's Unconstitut

ARealConservative said:
I don't believe that is true, and it certainly doesn't get the employer off the hook
Click to expand...

well, the fact is, because I was contributing more than 8% of my salary to my 401K plan, I didn't have to contribute to SS. That only was required when I started making contributions to my pension plan. But before then, SS was not a requirement due to my 401K.
 
Re: Ron Paul Admits He's On Social Security, Even Though He Believes It's Unconstitut

Thunder said:
WRONG.

if you pay more than 7.5% of your salary into a 401k plan, you don't have to contribute to SS.

from 2000 through 2004, I was NOT paying into SS cause I was contributing 7.5% to my 401K.

No one forced RP to pay SS, no one forced him to request his SS benefits, and no one will force him to collect more benefits after he has received back what he put into it.

basically, he's a hypocrite. Just like his son.
Click to expand...


Thats not true thunder...there are many people that must pay into SS...Public workers for one..doesnt matter if you have a private 401k
 
Re: Ron Paul Admits He's On Social Security, Even Though He Believes It's Unconstitut

Thunder said:
well, the fact is, because I was contributing more than 8% of my salary to my 401K plan, I didn't have to contribute to SS. That only was required when I started making contributions to my pension plan. But before then, SS was not a requirement due to my 401K.
Click to expand...

I don't think that has never been the law and you are cheating the system.
 
Re: Ron Paul Admits He's On Social Security, Even Though He Believes It's Unconstitut

Thunder said:
and what if your employer has total control of your 401K?
Click to expand...

they you are an idiot to spend a life time working for such a company, (but consider me skeptical)
 
Re: Ron Paul Admits He's On Social Security, Even Though He Believes It's Unconstitut

This is what my 401K plan says:

DCP as an Alternative to Social Security Tax (FICA)
Under certain circumstances, City employees may be able to substitute their mandatory Social Security tax for membership in DCP if they contribute 7.5% or more of their adjusted gross income to the Plan.

Advantages of DCP
The City’s Deferred Compensation Plan is a tax-favored retirement account into which a portion of a participant’s earnings is deposited. Eligible employees can agree to deposit at least 7.5% of his/her compensation into either the 457 Plan or the 401(k) Plan, and then not have his/her compensation be subject to social security taxes

now, I can't believe this is only for NYC govt. employees. We don't get special privelages from the IRS or Dept. of Labor.

do we have any financial or retirement experts out there?
 
Re: Ron Paul Admits He's On Social Security, Even Though He Believes It's Unconstitut

donsutherland1 said:
First, I never said that Rep. Paul has never introduced any bills. He has.

Second, I stated that Rep. Paul offered no bills during the financial crisis. One can go to Thomas.gov and look up Paul's legislation during the September-October 2008 period when TARP was being devised and then debated. One will find that he introduced no alternatives.

Third, I didn't go so far as to suggest that Rep. Paul is a hypocrite. I mentioned that what he says and what he does do not always match up. Moreover, I noted that he is just another political leader [in terms of stated views vs. actions]. There are good reasons why such differences exist and I don't necessarily condemn political leaders for such differences. My point is that Ron Paul should not be exalted as something special in the political arena. He isn't.
Click to expand...

So, basically, if Ron Paul is not "the best" then he is nothing special, and may be discounted as having no good plans, in any area of public policy, since he did not propose an alternate GOV'T solution in place of TARP. TARP was not "THE SOLUTION", it was the GOV'T solution offered for a PRIVATE/PUBLIC financial mess, largely created by the collapse of a gov't induced housing bubble. I note that you had NO reply for Obama, who continually bases the "Bush" tax rates yet keeps them as the "Obama" tax rates as well, that IS hypocracy, in its purest form. Hmm...
 
Last edited:
Re: Ron Paul Admits He's On Social Security, Even Though He Believes It's Unconstitut

donsutherland1 said:
You missed the point.

If one wants to argue that he has no responsibility whatsoever for the fiscal deficits, then one should not partake in anything related to fiscal policy. That Rep. Paul has actively earmarked spending that contributes to deficits makes him indirectly responsible for the consequences of those expenditures.

In terms of fiat currency, that has been in place well before Rep. Paul was elected to Congress. Paul's use of such currency is not the same thing as his earmarking. He has no alternatives over the former. If he lives and works in the U.S., he must use U.S. currency. He does have alternatives over the latter. He could vote against the spending and choose not to allocate such spending either via the earmarking process.
Click to expand...

Apples and oranges there as far as earmarks/spending. You misunderstand TOTALLY what an "earmark" is. An earmark is ONLY a specific use designation of ALREADY appropriated funds, it has ZERO effect on the spending total. Absent an earmark, the gov't entity receiving these SAME funds (the executive branch) is simply allowed to spend those funds as THEY wish, with no regard as to any SPECIFIC intent of congress.

This is why the party with EXECUTIVE authority hates "earmarks" ONLY when the OTHER party controls the congress. Earmarks are nothing more than "specific use" spending instructions (from congress) for the allocated funds, they are BUDGET NEUTRAL since they neither increase nor decrease the total allocation.

I think that ALL budget bills should be controled TOTALLY with earmarks, rather than let the executive branch direct them to places like Solyndra if they are in the mood. It is far wiser to prepare and supply a detailed grocery list than to simply send your buyer to the grocery store and say "get me $200 worth of food for the week".

What Ron Paul is doing, is simply saying that he would rather spend less, but if it going to be spent anyway, at least spend some of it on what he considers to be worthwhile. ;-)
 
Last edited:
Re: Ron Paul Admits He's On Social Security, Even Though He Believes It's Unconstitut

roughdraft274 said:
Am I the only one here that thinks he is not being hypocritical at all here? He doesn't like the system, but if he has been forced to pay into it, I find no problem with him getting the funds back when they are due to him.

And when he talks about weening young people off of it, he isn't talking about not getting the money that is owed to them, he only means that you should plan your retirement as if social security won't be there for you, which isn't terrible advice. SS is not meant to serve as someone's main source of income during retirement.
Click to expand...

Then we should all get our money back from the system. Every single person who has paid into it, should never be expect to not receive the money back plus interest. If Libertarians argue, no... the government can't afford to do that, then they support their definition of government theft
 
Re: Ron Paul Admits He's On Social Security, Even Though He Believes It's Unconstitut

winston53660 said:
Meh typical. Ayn Rand a heavy smoker took medicare after she developed lung cancer.
Click to expand...

That's not surprising
 
Re: Ron Paul Admits He's On Social Security, Even Though He Believes It's Unconstitut

I'm not a big Ron Paul fan. I don't particularly like some of his policy ideas.

I don't find his actions problematic. He paid into SS. I'm sure his position is that it's his money that the government took from him. Therefore, he's just getting back money that he earned. Why is that wrong?
 
Re: Ron Paul Admits He's On Social Security, Even Though He Believes It's Unconstitut

ARealConservative said:
Obama wants to raise taxes on the wealthy, but he did not pay one cent over what he was required to pay.

it is exactly the same scenario.

If Obama gets his way, he will have to pay more taxes, but until then, he isn't going to do it on his own.

So is Obama a hypocrite?
Click to expand...

lol... Obama would pay more taxes on his tax plan than he would under Romney's. What do you want wealthy liberals to do? That's like arguing "if you're so worried about the debt, then why haven't you personally donated your money to the government.... you must be a liar and hypocrite."
 
Re: Ron Paul Admits He's On Social Security, Even Though He Believes It's Unconstitut

rocket88 said:
I'm not a big Ron Paul fan. I don't particularly like some of his policy ideas.

I don't find his actions problematic. He paid into SS. I'm sure his position is that it's his money that the government took from him. Therefore, he's just getting back money that he earned. Why is that wrong?
Click to expand...


Because you get your money back within 2.5 yrs and hes been collecting it 14 years longer than any babyboomer
 
Re: Ron Paul Admits He's On Social Security, Even Though He Believes It's Unconstitut

rocket88 said:
I'm not a big Ron Paul fan. I don't particularly like some of his policy ideas.

I don't find his actions problematic. He paid into SS....
Click to expand...

he didn't have to. He could have simply paid 7.5% of his salary into a 401K, and avoided FICA taxes.
 
Re: Ron Paul Admits He's On Social Security, Even Though He Believes It's Unconstitut

Damn right. I paid in 180K in SS and almost the same for Medicare. I've never taken a dime from the government but those 2 I paid dearly for and I now am working to get my money back. I'll have to live 9 more years just to break even, and that's with NO intertest.

Now, SSI is a very abused system and I've seen young people who have succeeded in getting on the dole. Paid in almost nothing and a free ride for life.


SheWolf said:
Then we should all get our money back from the system. Every single person who has paid into it, should never be expect to not receive the money back plus interest. If Libertarians argue, no... the government can't afford to do that, then they support their definition of government theft
Click to expand...
 
Re: Ron Paul Admits He's On Social Security, Even Though He Believes It's Unconstitut

specklebang said:
Damn right. I paid in 180K in SS and almost the same for Medicare. I've never taken a dime from the government but those 2 I paid dearly for and I now am working to get my money back. I'll have to live 9 more years just to break even, and that's with NO intertest.

Now, SSI is a very abused system and I've seen young people who have succeeded in getting on the dole. Paid in almost nothing and a free ride for life.
Click to expand...


That is the entire problem with Social Security...people that have paid into it a lifetime and they collect at 62 are not.

There are people in their 20s on Disability Social Security for Mental Illness and Alcoholism and Drug addiction....there are people on Dis SS for obesity...young people. There are tons of people collecting disability social security that SHOULD NOT BE...and that are not even disabled just scamming the sy stem....thats why ss is broke...plus all the money Dems and GOP alike stole out of the fund.
 
Re: Ron Paul Admits He's On Social Security, Even Though He Believes It's Unconstitut

That's about it. I started collecting at 67, the age of full benefits.

Golden Gate Park in San Francisco is loaded with "homeless" people on SSI. Nice deal. Too bad we can't restrict this to the genuinely handicapped. Nut out government is not just corrupt, but incompetent as well.

lpast said:
That is the entire problem with Social Security...people that have paid into it a lifetime and they collect at 62 are not.

There are people in their 20s on Disability Social Security for Mental Illness and Alcoholism and Drug addiction....there are people on Dis SS for obesity...young people. There are tons of people collecting disability social security that SHOULD NOT BE...and that are not even disabled just scamming the sy stem....thats why ss is broke...plus all the money Dems and GOP alike stole out of the fund.
Click to expand...
 
Re: Ron Paul Admits He's On Social Security, Even Though He Believes It's Unconstitut

specklebang said:
That's about it. I started collecting at 67, the age of full benefits.

Golden Gate Park in San Francisco is loaded with "homeless" people on SSI. Nice deal. Too bad we can't restrict this to the genuinely handicapped. Nut out government is not just corrupt, but incompetent as well.
Click to expand...

Alot of people dont know that full SS age is 67 and has been quite awhile...you take a huge hit taking it at 62....
I dont begrudge them one bit...but all disabled vets get disablitly social security and they are the MOST deserving of it...
 
Re: Ron Paul Admits He's On Social Security, Even Though He Believes It's Unconstitut

specklebang said:
That's about it. I started collecting at 67, the age of full benefits.

Golden Gate Park in San Francisco is loaded with "homeless" people on SSI. Nice deal. Too bad we can't restrict this to the genuinely handicapped. Nut out government is not just corrupt, but incompetent as well.
Click to expand...



I bristle when people say that if your collecting social security your sucking the govts teat and your this and that...

I paid social security from the day I started working and I had no choice, I could not invest that money in anything else and there were no 401ks.....I paid for the generation before me to have it...I paid it over 45 yrs....Im not the one getting a free ride
Its all the YOUNG non veterans that are on it that are sucking the govts teat...they paid nothing into it
 
Re: Ron Paul Admits He's On Social Security, Even Though He Believes It's Unconstitut

Know what theres something else I forgot to mention...not only are there young people collecting social security...No matter what age you are if your on disablity social security after 2 yrs you get MEDICARE...you have all these young people getting medicare....
Young people with aids are on Dis Social Security and Medicare....this is why SS and Medicare are broke..
The far right of the rich for the rich have siezed upon bad times to make a crisis out of everything...so they can open up the rich mans candy store where they can go in and take and keep all the make...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom