• 150 results
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
#1 Edited by bluedabadee (1 posts) -

he said he wants to change social security, which means your parents might get screwed if they are over 55 years old. Does anyone here know specifically what Ron Paul's plans with social security are?

#2 Posted by MysteriousBob (6272 posts) -

Who? Oh that guy who isn't Obama. Sorry, I guess I need to brush up on my American politics.

#3 Posted by ABritishNerd (318 posts) -

I apologise but due to my nationality and my country of residence I have no idea who you're talking about. Although I probably should.

#4 Posted by McGhee (6094 posts) -

Social Security is all ready screwed. The money they claim is being put away for your retirement is being spent.

And where do they get off thinking they have the right to take my money and save it on my behalf? I would imagine Ron Paul believes that people should be able to do what they want with their money.

#5 Posted by PeasantAbuse (5138 posts) -

This isn't real, but it's not an ad or anything...I'm so confused.

#6 Posted by thornie_delete (436 posts) -

Dude, Social Security is fucked right now as it is. You or I will never see any of that money.

#7 Posted by nomorehalfmeasuresdoctor (143 posts) -

Even if Ron Paul gets elected he won't be able to do everything he wants. Also, I don't know the answer to your question.

#8 Posted by cinemandrew (711 posts) -

@bluedabadee: As everyone else is saying, Social Security isn't doing great right now, but from what I know of Ron Paul, and his opinions about government, I'd guess he's in favor of either minimizing, or even attempting to remove it entirely. He's all about small government, and decreasing its involvement in the affairs of the public.

#9 Edited by ninjakiller (3405 posts) -

@McGhee said:

Social Security is all ready screwed. The money they claim is being put away for your retirement is being spent.

And where do they get off thinking they have the right to take my money and save it on my behalf? I would imagine Ron Paul believes that people should be able to do what they want with their money.

@thornie said:

Dude, Social Security is fucked right now as it is. You or I will never see any of that money.

Sigh, bullshit. If they removed the cap, currently $110,100 SS would be solvent forever. Smaller changes like just bumping the cap to $500,000 would make it solvent for the next 30 years, and bumping the cap to a million would make it solvent for the next 50. "Bankrupt" and "broke" are terms thrown around by corporatists whose goal was "private accounts," but now whose goal is "SS reforms." Code words for privatizing and eventually eliminating the program .

@McGhee said:

And where do they get off thinking they have the right to take my money and save it on my behalf? I would imagine Ron Paul believes that people should be able to do what they want with their money.

It isn't saved on "your" behalf. Think of it as an insurance policy. If you're crippled, develop a debilitating disease, SS provides benefits so that you aren't living in the street.

#10 Posted by Brodehouse (10105 posts) -
@McGhee They don't save your money, the old live off the taxes of the young. When you're on security, you won't be living according to money you paid in 36 years before, it'll be on taxes of the young of 2048.

It's not a savings account, it's an entitlement of living in a first world nation.
#11 Posted by McGhee (6094 posts) -

@ninjakiller said:

@McGhee said:

Social Security is all ready screwed. The money they claim is being put away for your retirement is being spent.

And where do they get off thinking they have the right to take my money and save it on my behalf? I would imagine Ron Paul believes that people should be able to do what they want with their money.

@thornie said:

Dude, Social Security is fucked right now as it is. You or I will never see any of that money.

Sigh, bullshit. If they removed the cap, currently $110,100 SS would be solvent forever. Smaller changes like just bumping the cap to $500,000 would make it solvent for the next 30 years, and bumping the cap to a million would make it solvent for the next 50. "Bankrupt" and "broke" are terms thrown around by corporatists whose goal was "private accounts," but now whose goal is "SS reforms." Code words for privatizing and eventually eliminating the program .

*sigh* So you're basically conceding the point that the SS system is busted and your solution is to take money from higher earners to keep it afloat? The government has already shown that they lack discipline in this matter and you some how think that if they took more money for SS it would stay in that non-existent fund and not be pillaged once again? Gimme a break. I have no interest in having the government steal my money to "save" it up for my retirement and I have no interest in the government stealing someone else's money to do the same.

#12 Posted by McGhee (6094 posts) -

@Brodehouse said:

@McGhee They don't save your money, the old live off the taxes of the young. When you're on security, you won't be living according to money you paid in 36 years before, it'll be on taxes of the young of 2048. It's not a savings account, it's an entitlement of living in a first world nation.

I know. That's my point.

#13 Posted by ninjakiller (3405 posts) -

@McGhee said:

@ninjakiller said:

@McGhee said:

Social Security is all ready screwed. The money they claim is being put away for your retirement is being spent.

And where do they get off thinking they have the right to take my money and save it on my behalf? I would imagine Ron Paul believes that people should be able to do what they want with their money.

@thornie said:

Dude, Social Security is fucked right now as it is. You or I will never see any of that money.

Sigh, bullshit. If they removed the cap, currently $110,100 SS would be solvent forever. Smaller changes like just bumping the cap to $500,000 would make it solvent for the next 30 years, and bumping the cap to a million would make it solvent for the next 50. "Bankrupt" and "broke" are terms thrown around by corporatists whose goal was "private accounts," but now whose goal is "SS reforms." Code words for privatizing and eventually eliminating the program .

*sigh* So you're basically conceding the point that the SS system is busted and your solution is to take money from higher earners to keep it afloat? The government has already shown that they lack discipline in this matter and you some how think that if they took more money for SS it would stay in that non-existent fund and not be pillaged once again? Gimme a break. I have no interest in having the government steal my money to "save" it up for my retirement and I have no interest in the government stealing someone else's money to do the same.

Right, because it's only for retirement. Oh wait, it's also a: disability fund, a fund for death benefits for orphaned and spousal benefits for the widowed, as well a safety net for the retired.

#14 Posted by McGhee (6094 posts) -

@ninjakiller said:

@McGhee said:

@ninjakiller said:

@McGhee said:

Social Security is all ready screwed. The money they claim is being put away for your retirement is being spent.

And where do they get off thinking they have the right to take my money and save it on my behalf? I would imagine Ron Paul believes that people should be able to do what they want with their money.

@thornie said:

Dude, Social Security is fucked right now as it is. You or I will never see any of that money.

Sigh, bullshit. If they removed the cap, currently $110,100 SS would be solvent forever. Smaller changes like just bumping the cap to $500,000 would make it solvent for the next 30 years, and bumping the cap to a million would make it solvent for the next 50. "Bankrupt" and "broke" are terms thrown around by corporatists whose goal was "private accounts," but now whose goal is "SS reforms." Code words for privatizing and eventually eliminating the program .

*sigh* So you're basically conceding the point that the SS system is busted and your solution is to take money from higher earners to keep it afloat? The government has already shown that they lack discipline in this matter and you some how think that if they took more money for SS it would stay in that non-existent fund and not be pillaged once again? Gimme a break. I have no interest in having the government steal my money to "save" it up for my retirement and I have no interest in the government stealing someone else's money to do the same.

Right, because it's only for retirement. Oh wait, it's also a: disability fund, a fund for death benefits for orphaned and spousal benefits for the widowed, as well a safety net for the retired.

It is primarily for retirement, but you are missing the point. What I have said still applies. The government is taking my money and wildly misspending it. A fund of the money you are putting into SS does not exist. It is a lie to put another tax on, as you have pointed out, the lowest income earners.

I should have the option to opt out with the full acknowledgement that if I don't save on my own I may be fucked down the line. That should be my decision to make, not the government's.

#15 Posted by Village_Guy (2656 posts) -

Since I don't live in the states I can't really comment on the case, but as the news make it out here in Denmark, it seems that it will almost no matter what be Mitt Romney who becomes the Republican Candidate?

#16 Posted by ninjakiller (3405 posts) -

@McGhee said:

@ninjakiller said:

@McGhee said:

@ninjakiller said:

@McGhee said:

Social Security is all ready screwed. The money they claim is being put away for your retirement is being spent.

And where do they get off thinking they have the right to take my money and save it on my behalf? I would imagine Ron Paul believes that people should be able to do what they want with their money.

@thornie said:

Dude, Social Security is fucked right now as it is. You or I will never see any of that money.

Sigh, bullshit. If they removed the cap, currently $110,100 SS would be solvent forever. Smaller changes like just bumping the cap to $500,000 would make it solvent for the next 30 years, and bumping the cap to a million would make it solvent for the next 50. "Bankrupt" and "broke" are terms thrown around by corporatists whose goal was "private accounts," but now whose goal is "SS reforms." Code words for privatizing and eventually eliminating the program .

*sigh* So you're basically conceding the point that the SS system is busted and your solution is to take money from higher earners to keep it afloat? The government has already shown that they lack discipline in this matter and you some how think that if they took more money for SS it would stay in that non-existent fund and not be pillaged once again? Gimme a break. I have no interest in having the government steal my money to "save" it up for my retirement and I have no interest in the government stealing someone else's money to do the same.

Right, because it's only for retirement. Oh wait, it's also a: disability fund, a fund for death benefits for orphaned and spousal benefits for the widowed, as well a safety net for the retired.

It is primarily for retirement, but you are missing the point. What I have said still applies. The government is taking my money and wildly misspending it. A fund of the money you are putting into SS does not exist. It is a lie to put another tax on, as you have pointed out, the lowest income earners.

I should have the option to opt out with the full acknowledgement that if I don't save on my own I may be fucked down the line. That should be my decision to make, not the government's.

You're awfully prickly about a program that benefits the poor, disabled, and EVERYONE when they retire. I guess if you don't like it you can gtfo of the U.S.

#17 Posted by McGhee (6094 posts) -

@ninjakiller said:

@McGhee said:

@ninjakiller said:

@McGhee said:

@ninjakiller said:

@McGhee said:

Social Security is all ready screwed. The money they claim is being put away for your retirement is being spent.

And where do they get off thinking they have the right to take my money and save it on my behalf? I would imagine Ron Paul believes that people should be able to do what they want with their money.

@thornie said:

Dude, Social Security is fucked right now as it is. You or I will never see any of that money.

Sigh, bullshit. If they removed the cap, currently $110,100 SS would be solvent forever. Smaller changes like just bumping the cap to $500,000 would make it solvent for the next 30 years, and bumping the cap to a million would make it solvent for the next 50. "Bankrupt" and "broke" are terms thrown around by corporatists whose goal was "private accounts," but now whose goal is "SS reforms." Code words for privatizing and eventually eliminating the program .

*sigh* So you're basically conceding the point that the SS system is busted and your solution is to take money from higher earners to keep it afloat? The government has already shown that they lack discipline in this matter and you some how think that if they took more money for SS it would stay in that non-existent fund and not be pillaged once again? Gimme a break. I have no interest in having the government steal my money to "save" it up for my retirement and I have no interest in the government stealing someone else's money to do the same.

Right, because it's only for retirement. Oh wait, it's also a: disability fund, a fund for death benefits for orphaned and spousal benefits for the widowed, as well a safety net for the retired.

It is primarily for retirement, but you are missing the point. What I have said still applies. The government is taking my money and wildly misspending it. A fund of the money you are putting into SS does not exist. It is a lie to put another tax on, as you have pointed out, the lowest income earners.

I should have the option to opt out with the full acknowledgement that if I don't save on my own I may be fucked down the line. That should be my decision to make, not the government's.

You're awfully prickly about a program that benefits the poor, disabled, and EVERYONE when they retire. I guess if you don't like it you can gtfo of the U.S.

Well done, you've managed to miss the point for a third time.

#18 Posted by TheDudeOfGaming (6078 posts) -

Considering that the other candidates look like George Bush junior clones, Ron Paul has my vote. Or at least he would, if i was a citizen of the US.

#19 Posted by ninjakiller (3405 posts) -

@McGhee said:

@ninjakiller said:

@McGhee said:

@ninjakiller said:

@McGhee said:

@ninjakiller said:

@McGhee said:

Social Security is all ready screwed. The money they claim is being put away for your retirement is being spent.

And where do they get off thinking they have the right to take my money and save it on my behalf? I would imagine Ron Paul believes that people should be able to do what they want with their money.

@thornie said:

Dude, Social Security is fucked right now as it is. You or I will never see any of that money.

Sigh, bullshit. If they removed the cap, currently $110,100 SS would be solvent forever. Smaller changes like just bumping the cap to $500,000 would make it solvent for the next 30 years, and bumping the cap to a million would make it solvent for the next 50. "Bankrupt" and "broke" are terms thrown around by corporatists whose goal was "private accounts," but now whose goal is "SS reforms." Code words for privatizing and eventually eliminating the program .

*sigh* So you're basically conceding the point that the SS system is busted and your solution is to take money from higher earners to keep it afloat? The government has already shown that they lack discipline in this matter and you some how think that if they took more money for SS it would stay in that non-existent fund and not be pillaged once again? Gimme a break. I have no interest in having the government steal my money to "save" it up for my retirement and I have no interest in the government stealing someone else's money to do the same.

Right, because it's only for retirement. Oh wait, it's also a: disability fund, a fund for death benefits for orphaned and spousal benefits for the widowed, as well a safety net for the retired.

It is primarily for retirement, but you are missing the point. What I have said still applies. The government is taking my money and wildly misspending it. A fund of the money you are putting into SS does not exist. It is a lie to put another tax on, as you have pointed out, the lowest income earners.

I should have the option to opt out with the full acknowledgement that if I don't save on my own I may be fucked down the line. That should be my decision to make, not the government's.

You're awfully prickly about a program that benefits the poor, disabled, and EVERYONE when they retire. I guess if you don't like it you can gtfo of the U.S.

Well done, you've managed to miss the point for a third time.

I'm ignoring your arguments because they aren't valid.

A> Republicans will continue to treat SS as a discretionary fund because they want to see it destroyed, and democrats will continue to do so because government would cease to function without the ability to borrow against the fund. It's now sadly the status quo, Gore who voiced his plan of locking the government's ability from spending it on anything other than SS was mocked for "lockbox." If you want change then vote for a politician who has the guts to say "hands off" rather than pouting and wanting to take your blocks and go home.

B> What part of:

Right, because it's only for retirement. Oh wait, it's also a: disability fund, a fund for death benefits for orphaned and spousal benefits for the widowed, as well a safety net for the retired.

Don't you understand? If you did pull your funds and got completely disabled, even with disability insurance, you're pretty much fucked. You'd happily die once you ran out of money because you chose to go it on your own? Bullshit.

C> Roth IRAs were specifically setup for your particular "MY MONEY IT'S MINE!" mentality. Feel free to contribute the 5k or 6k tax free to your heart's content.

#20 Posted by Grilledcheez (3955 posts) -

Doesn't really matter because he's running for president. There's this thing called congress...

#21 Posted by Turambar (6843 posts) -
@McGhee said:

Social Security is all ready screwed. The money they claim is being put away for your retirement is being spent.

And where do they get off thinking they have the right to take my money and save it on my behalf? I would imagine Ron Paul believes that people should be able to do what they want with their money.

Because you live in the country and your income is bound by the tax code that governs it.  Where do you get off thinking that they don't have the right to take a portion of your money and spend it?  You might not like it but they have every right to it as long as you live here.
#22 Posted by Brodehouse (10105 posts) -

@McGhee: It's the best solution because of inflation. 50,000 dollars today is better than a year's salary for most, 40 years from now it'll be a cup of coffee and a half a scone. Long-term personal saving is a complete farce. But a percentage of the current tax revenue stays current to economic growth, and maintains the maximum level of fairness to all (provided you don't die two days before retirement).

#23 Posted by McGhee (6094 posts) -

@ninjakiller said:

@McGhee said:

@ninjakiller said:

@McGhee said:

@ninjakiller said:

@McGhee said:

@ninjakiller said:

@McGhee said:

Social Security is all ready screwed. The money they claim is being put away for your retirement is being spent.

And where do they get off thinking they have the right to take my money and save it on my behalf? I would imagine Ron Paul believes that people should be able to do what they want with their money.

@thornie said:

Dude, Social Security is fucked right now as it is. You or I will never see any of that money.

Sigh, bullshit. If they removed the cap, currently $110,100 SS would be solvent forever. Smaller changes like just bumping the cap to $500,000 would make it solvent for the next 30 years, and bumping the cap to a million would make it solvent for the next 50. "Bankrupt" and "broke" are terms thrown around by corporatists whose goal was "private accounts," but now whose goal is "SS reforms." Code words for privatizing and eventually eliminating the program .

*sigh* So you're basically conceding the point that the SS system is busted and your solution is to take money from higher earners to keep it afloat? The government has already shown that they lack discipline in this matter and you some how think that if they took more money for SS it would stay in that non-existent fund and not be pillaged once again? Gimme a break. I have no interest in having the government steal my money to "save" it up for my retirement and I have no interest in the government stealing someone else's money to do the same.

Right, because it's only for retirement. Oh wait, it's also a: disability fund, a fund for death benefits for orphaned and spousal benefits for the widowed, as well a safety net for the retired.

It is primarily for retirement, but you are missing the point. What I have said still applies. The government is taking my money and wildly misspending it. A fund of the money you are putting into SS does not exist. It is a lie to put another tax on, as you have pointed out, the lowest income earners.

I should have the option to opt out with the full acknowledgement that if I don't save on my own I may be fucked down the line. That should be my decision to make, not the government's.

You're awfully prickly about a program that benefits the poor, disabled, and EVERYONE when they retire. I guess if you don't like it you can gtfo of the U.S.

Well done, you've managed to miss the point for a third time.

I'm ignoring your arguments because they aren't valid.

A> Republicans will continue to treat SS as a discretionary fund because they want to see it destroyed, and democrats will continue to do so because government would cease to function without the ability to borrow against the fund. It's now sadly the status quo, Gore who voiced his plan of locking the government's ability from spending it on anything other than SS was mocked for "lockbox." If you want change then vote for a politician who has the guts to say "hands off" rather than pouting and wanting to take your blocks and go home.

B> What part of:

Right, because it's only for retirement. Oh wait, it's also a: disability fund, a fund for death benefits for orphaned and spousal benefits for the widowed, as well a safety net for the retired.

Don't you understand? If you did pull your funds and got completely disabled, even with disability insurance, you're pretty much fucked. You'd happily die once you ran out of money because you chose to go it on your own? Bullshit.

C> Roth IRAs were specifically setup for your particular "MY MONEY IT'S MINE!" mentality. Feel free to contribute the 5k or 6k tax free to your heart's content.

I get it. Wanting to keep my measly wages that barely put me above the poverty line makes me a selfish scumbag. Rather than taking my money and using it how I wish it can get dumped into a black hole of government inefficiency. Your assumption is that if I was disabled, the government would be my only option. It is not. Once again, if people want to participate in SS then they could do so. If the system was balanced, if your money was really being held and not instantly spent, then this would be perfectly fine, wouldn't it?

#24 Posted by N7 (3657 posts) -

Now you guys see why I don't talk about politics. I am angered easily. I don't know a thing about them. I am only 18 and even though I keep a somewhat level head about everything, teen angst will come in and fuck some logic right in the butt. And I'm also going to die one day and everything I've ever done will matter at that point.
 
Political discussions always amount to: I'm right you're wrong. U mad? Come at me bro.

#25 Posted by Getz (3137 posts) -

@ninjakiller said:

@McGhee said:

Social Security is all ready screwed. The money they claim is being put away for your retirement is being spent.

And where do they get off thinking they have the right to take my money and save it on my behalf? I would imagine Ron Paul believes that people should be able to do what they want with their money.

@thornie said:

Dude, Social Security is fucked right now as it is. You or I will never see any of that money.

Sigh, bullshit. If they removed the cap, currently $110,100 SS would be solvent forever. Smaller changes like just bumping the cap to $500,000 would make it solvent for the next 30 years, and bumping the cap to a million would make it solvent for the next 50. "Bankrupt" and "broke" are terms thrown around by corporatists whose goal was "private accounts," but now whose goal is "SS reforms." Code words for privatizing and eventually eliminating the program .

@McGhee said:

And where do they get off thinking they have the right to take my money and save it on my behalf? I would imagine Ron Paul believes that people should be able to do what they want with their money.

It isn't saved on "your" behalf. Think of it as an insurance policy. If you're crippled, develop a debilitating disease, SS provides benefits so that you aren't living in the street.

So you really don't get that aspects of the budget are sectioned off, even though the money doesn't technically exist? You can still spend a promise and that's exactly what's happening.

#26 Edited by Aus_azn (2224 posts) -

Exit polls showed that young'uns (AKA those who don't give a damn about Social Security) voted for Ron Paul, and every other demographic voted for Romney. Of course, the Democrats voted for Huntsman.

I stand by my un-founded statement that only Ron Paul and Romney have what it takes to challenge Obama at the end of the day.

#27 Posted by Evilsbane (4694 posts) -

Is it bad that I just don't give a shit anymore? I don't think any of them will do anything to change it for the better we have to choose between two puppets of congress and be happy with whatever BS they decide when they are just making money hand over fist and have no vested interest in the struggle of the common man the only way anything will get better is radical changes on all fronts and that isn't going to happen short of Civil War 2.0 which I don't want to happen either so just let them run around in circles like chickens without heads till something happens that forces them to change.

#28 Posted by RsistncE (4496 posts) -

@Turambar said:

@McGhee said:

Social Security is all ready screwed. The money they claim is being put away for your retirement is being spent.

And where do they get off thinking they have the right to take my money and save it on my behalf? I would imagine Ron Paul believes that people should be able to do what they want with their money.

Because you live in the country and your income is bound by the tax code that governs it. Where do you get off thinking that they don't have the right to take a portion of your money and spend it? You might not like it but they have every right to it as long as you live here.

At this rate we can also say the government has the right to do whatever it pleases simply because they hold the largest stick. Governments can go fuck themselves; I made my money, no one else has any right to it whatsoever.

#29 Posted by Animasta (14718 posts) -

@RsistncE said:

@Turambar said:

@McGhee said:

Social Security is all ready screwed. The money they claim is being put away for your retirement is being spent.

And where do they get off thinking they have the right to take my money and save it on my behalf? I would imagine Ron Paul believes that people should be able to do what they want with their money.

Because you live in the country and your income is bound by the tax code that governs it. Where do you get off thinking that they don't have the right to take a portion of your money and spend it? You might not like it but they have every right to it as long as you live here.

At this rate we can also say the government has the right to do whatever it pleases simply because they hold the largest stick. Governments can go fuck themselves; I made my money, no one else has any right to it whatsoever.

yeah I hate old and disabled people too! WOO

#30 Posted by TheRookie727 (68 posts) -

@Grilledcheez said:

Doesn't really matter because he's running for president. There's this thing called congress...

#31 Posted by RsistncE (4496 posts) -

@Animasta said:

@RsistncE said:

@Turambar said:

@McGhee said:

Social Security is all ready screwed. The money they claim is being put away for your retirement is being spent.

And where do they get off thinking they have the right to take my money and save it on my behalf? I would imagine Ron Paul believes that people should be able to do what they want with their money.

Because you live in the country and your income is bound by the tax code that governs it. Where do you get off thinking that they don't have the right to take a portion of your money and spend it? You might not like it but they have every right to it as long as you live here.

At this rate we can also say the government has the right to do whatever it pleases simply because they hold the largest stick. Governments can go fuck themselves; I made my money, no one else has any right to it whatsoever.

yeah I hate old and disabled people too! WOO

"I swear by my life, and my love of it, that I will never live for the sake of another man, nor ask another man to live for mine."

Forcing an individual to live for the sake of another is so morally objectionable that I nearly vomit just thinking about.

#32 Posted by tescovee (361 posts) -

@McGhee said:

I get it. Wanting to keep my measly wages that barely put me above the poverty line makes me a selfish scumbag. Rather than taking my money and using it how I wish it can get dumped into a black hole of government inefficiency. Your assumption is that if I was disabled, the government would be my only option. It is not. Once again, if people want to participate in SS then they could do so. If the system was balanced, if your money was really being held and not instantly spent, then this would be perfectly fine, wouldn't it?

I love this mentality, OK lets say we all didn't have to contribute to taxes, SS and other services you think all that monies that is "yours" would get you more stuff? You would still be barely above the poverty line, but you would have more paper.

And second you think that alternative programs for the elderly, or disabled isnt partially subsidized by the government? Or tax free?

Sure government is wasteful, shocker. But having the mentality that you would some how be better off with out it is a wonderful short sighted american outlook. The only people who would benefit from a privatized SS program are the same people who already have wealth.

#33 Posted by Reznov (41 posts) -

VOTE COMMUNIST

#34 Posted by Ihmishylje (413 posts) -

@RsistncE said:

"I swear by my life, and my love of it, that I will never live for the sake of another man, nor ask another man to live for mine."

Forcing an individual to live for the sake of another is so morally objectionable that I nearly vomit just thinking about.

Yeah, it's pretty morally objectionable to help those in need.

#35 Edited by Bourbon_Warrior (4523 posts) -

He wont even get elected by his party, All the big banks are investing in Romney and the Republican party will do their best so he will win. Hes all over the place with his policy 1: No abortions for rape victims 2. Legalize herion 3.No minimun wage. 4.No more wars, he seem to take the most radical Policys from the left and right. Obamas gonna clean up this election, hes created more jobs even after being elected into a economic crisis, his govt killed Bin Laden and they pulled out of Iraq, now hes just got to figure out the US health system and he would of made good on most of his promises and even during a Republican congress trying to stop everything he does, plus as a non-american I can say my respect for USA has risen during his Presidency and it was shattered during the Bush years.

#36 Posted by Ihmishylje (413 posts) -

"Tax reduction has an almost irresitible appeal to the politician, and it is no doubt also gratifying to the citizen. It means more dollars in his pocket, dollars that he can spend if inflation doesn't consume them first. But dollars in his pocket won't buy him clean streets or an adequate police force or good schools or clear air and water. Handing money back to the private sector in tax cuts and starving the public sector is a formula for producing richer and richer consumers in filthier and filthier communities. If we stick to that formula we shall end up in affluent misery." - John W. Gardner

#37 Posted by damnboyadvance (4061 posts) -
@McGhee said:

Social Security is all ready screwed. The money they claim is being put away for your retirement is being spent.

That's likely one problem. But the bigger problem is that social security isn't collecting enough money to pay for the increasing population.
#38 Posted by Fripplebubby (1028 posts) -

Social Security over the past few decades has relied on the taxes paid by newcomers to America, which balanced things so that there were more people paying into SS than there were drawing out of it. This trend is reversing as "baby boomers" begin to reach retirement age, and the system is becoming less and less financially sound. The amateur economist in me says that we need to either put more money into the fund or draw less money out of it, end of story.

I also read something about past (and possibly current?) administrations borrowing money from the social security fund and tying them up in complicated investments. Everything above is second-hand knowledge, by the way, I'm trying to keep opinions out of it.

#39 Posted by Ariketh (606 posts) -

Pro tip: go to China.

#40 Edited by Turambar (6843 posts) -
@RsistncE said:

@Turambar said:

@McGhee said:

Social Security is all ready screwed. The money they claim is being put away for your retirement is being spent.

And where do they get off thinking they have the right to take my money and save it on my behalf? I would imagine Ron Paul believes that people should be able to do what they want with their money.

Because you live in the country and your income is bound by the tax code that governs it. Where do you get off thinking that they don't have the right to take a portion of your money and spend it? You might not like it but they have every right to it as long as you live here.

At this rate we can also say the government has the right to do whatever it pleases simply because they hold the largest stick. Governments can go fuck themselves; I made my money, no one else has any right to it whatsoever.

Say hi to the IRS or whatever counterpart Canada has when they come haul you in for tax evasion then.
 
Also, I have absolutely no issue with saying that the Government can indeed give itself the right to do anything it wants to because it has a monopoly on violence.  Should or should not is a non factor in this question as can or cannot is the only thing that matters here.
#41 Posted by ninjakiller (3405 posts) -

@RsistncE said:

@Animasta said:

@RsistncE said:

@Turambar said:

@McGhee said:

Social Security is all ready screwed. The money they claim is being put away for your retirement is being spent.

And where do they get off thinking they have the right to take my money and save it on my behalf? I would imagine Ron Paul believes that people should be able to do what they want with their money.

Because you live in the country and your income is bound by the tax code that governs it. Where do you get off thinking that they don't have the right to take a portion of your money and spend it? You might not like it but they have every right to it as long as you live here.

At this rate we can also say the government has the right to do whatever it pleases simply because they hold the largest stick. Governments can go fuck themselves; I made my money, no one else has any right to it whatsoever.

yeah I hate old and disabled people too! WOO

"I swear by my life, and my love of it, that I will never live for the sake of another man, nor ask another man to live for mine."

Forcing an individual to live for the sake of another is so morally objectionable that I nearly vomit just thinking about.

Please tell me you're a Christian. I need a laugh.

#42 Posted by Yummylee (22274 posts) -

These fucking Jayists, I tell ya. All they do now is start some controversial topic (politics seem to be the recurring theme as of late), and will just sit back and watch as you all chew and fight for the meat he's thrown in the middle of the pen.

Online
#43 Posted by jakob187 (21728 posts) -

@ninjakiller said:

@McGhee said:

And where do they get off thinking they have the right to take my money and save it on my behalf? I would imagine Ron Paul believes that people should be able to do what they want with their money.

It isn't saved on "your" behalf. Think of it as an insurance policy. If you're crippled, develop a debilitating disease, SS provides benefits so that you aren't living in the street.

Social security is a scam. If it were an insurance policy, then why the fuck do we need "Obamacare"? If it was a benefit to the disabled, retired, etc, then why the fuck do they end up telling a woman with multiple scoliosis on the phone trying to get approved for social security "sorry, but you never paid into it enough"? NO SHIT, SHE COULDN'T FUCKING WORK FOR THE LAST 20 GODDAMN YEARS, YOU DULL TWIT!

No, social security can fuck right off. Let the people who work have their goddamn money. If they wanna throw it all away, that's up to them...not the government.

#44 Posted by Irvandus (2885 posts) -

@PeasantAbuse said:

This isn't real, but it's not an ad or anything...I'm so confused.

#45 Posted by CookieMonster (2442 posts) -

What the fuck kind of name is Mitt?

#46 Posted by MariachiMacabre (7099 posts) -

@CookieMonster said:

What the fuck kind of name is Mitt?

Especially with a reputation like his, you'd think he would have changed it by now.

#47 Posted by PeasantAbuse (5138 posts) -

@CookieMonster said:

What the fuck kind of name is Mitt?

I know! I refuse to have a president named Mitt.

#48 Posted by Ihmishylje (413 posts) -

@jakob187 said:

Social security is a scam. If it were an insurance policy, then why the fuck do we need "Obamacare"? If it was a benefit to the disabled, retired, etc, then why the fuck do they end up telling a woman with multiple scoliosis on the phone trying to get approved for social security "sorry, but you never paid into it enough"? NO SHIT, SHE COULDN'T FUCKING WORK FOR THE LAST 20 GODDAMN YEARS, YOU DULL TWIT!

No, social security can fuck right off. Let the people who work have their goddamn money. If they wanna throw it all away, that's up to them...not the government.

The fact that there may be loopholes in the system, just like there are in any complex system, doesn't mean that it's an unworthy ideal to fight for and improve upon. Just because sometimes someone gets screwed by the system, doesn't mean the concept is at fault, but rather the execution. Not all of what could be called "social security" applies to all people in all situations, so there has to be some differentiation as to how and when it is applied. In some cases it's terminological.

Some people call social security a "scam" because it means that the majority of the people give from what they earn to a minority of the people. I disagree. It's about helping those in need. It takes a little bit of selflessness to understand the concept, sure, but it might also save your ass, were you not as privileged as you are now. Comparing it to an insurance policy is a bad analogy, because when you give money to an insurance company, the people at the top use it to buy sailboats. When you pay it in the form of taxes, it goes directly into funding some socially beneficial plan within the government.

And people could not earn what they earn if not for the environment they earn it in, nor spend it in the way they do now. Corporations do not build infrastructures that support our lifestyle, because it's not good business. Cf. my John W. Gardner quote. And that came from the mouth of a Republican.

What are a scam, however, are big, public corporations, because they work off the basis of skinning the proletariat so that the wealthiest few can have a little more wealth at the expense of societal moral downfall.

#49 Posted by BoFooQ (713 posts) -

@bluedabadee: ron paul's plan includes letting people opt out of SS as for your parents in any of his or anyone else's plan anyone already on SS will never lose their current level of support. This also includes people who are within 5 or so years of retiring. The biggest thing young people should realize is that the age in which they can collect is going up. Soon everyone will be expected to work till they are 70. While I like ron paul and will vote for him next week in the florida primary I don;t think he will win nominee.

#50 Posted by TheMasterDS (2119 posts) -

Hard to believe it took 47 replies to get someone to actually answer the question accurately, but BoFooQ is right. Ron Paul's plan is to provide a means for people younger than 25 to opt out if they wish while taking care of those who have become dependent on it. Trick is that cutting Warfare and 5 Departments that produce nothing of value frees up some money to take care of people.