Ron Paul, Social Security opponent, acknowledges he receives benefits

[JohnDoe2]

Ron Paul, Social Security opponent, acknowledges he receives benefits

June 20, 2012, 2:01 p.m.

WASHINGTON – Ron Paul, a staunch opponent of federal welfare programs, acknowledged Wednesday that he receives Social Security checks, shortly after advocating that younger generations opt out of the program.

Appearing on MSNBC’s “Morning Joe,” Paul was asked by Huffington Post’s Sam Stein whether he should set an example for younger Americans and opt out of the program entirely. Paul, refusing the notion, compared the program to other common goods such as the post office.

“Just as I use the post office, I use government highways, I use the banks, I use the federal reserve system, but that doesn’t mean you can’t work to remove this in the same way on Social Security,” the Texas congressman said. “In the same way with Social Security, I am trying to make a transition.

“I want young people to opt out of Social Security, but my goal isn’t to cut,” Paul said moments before.

Paul later clarified his remarks, saying: “I would preserve Social Security as best I can, but we want to get off.” He said he pays more into the system than he receives.

Paul, whose never-say-die presidential campaigns have made him a darling in libertarian circles and won over a loyal base of supporters, has persistently claimed that Social Security is unconstitutional, and has advocated a slow end to the program, though he has said that he would not end it were he elected president. Instead, Paul has proposed that younger Americans should have the choice to opt out of a system that he described as “on its last legs” during a tea party debate in 2011

Though his 2012 presidential campaign, which he has said will be his last, ended in defeat to GOP nominee Mitt Romney, Paul’s supporters hope that with a reported 200-delegate-bloc, the congressman’s opinions on issues such as Social Security can be heard during the Republican party’s national convention in August.

Watch Stein and Paul's conversation below.

morgan.little@latimes.com

Ron Paul, Social Security opponent, acknowledges he receives benefits - latimes.com

[forest]

He also said:

“I would preserve Social Security as best I can, but we want to get off.” He said he pays more into the system than he receives.

How many other politicians are willing to drop to income to the median level income of working Americans??

[JohnDoe2]

Ron Paul Isn’t Hypocritical Taking Social Security Checks

By Roy A. Barnes | Yahoo! Contributor Network – 3 hrs ago...

COMMENTARY | Rep. Ron Paul, R-Texas, said on "Morning Joe" Wednesday that he collects Social Security checks even as he wants younger people to become less dependent on it, as reported by The Huffington Post.

There's nothing hypocritical about Paul getting his Social Security checks because there are many aspects of existing in society which we may not like, but we have to deal with both the positive and negative effects, no matter how much we may work to reform the things we desire to see changed.

Paul is also a staunch critic of the Federal Reserve system. The Hill quoted him before the scheduled congressional hearing in May that he was to chair called "The Federal Reserve System: Mend It or End It?," in which he stated, "The Fed continues to reward Wall Street banks while destroying the dollar's purchasing power and driving up the cost of living for average Americans."

As much of a critic that Paul is of this system, he, like the rest of us, can't go grocery shopping or buy a tank of gas unless he uses the Federal Reserve notes in his wallet. And even if he pays for his purchases with credit cards, credit card balances are paid via U.S. currency.

So while Paul may want the Federal Reserve and Social Security massively reformed, he still has to deal with the reality of being in American society. He's no more a hypocrite for carrying around U.S. paper money than he is for collecting Social Security checks.

Paul has called for young people under 25 years of age to be able to opt out of the Social Security system, per the Huffington Post article. It's this aspect that is most troubling, for according to U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics/Social Security board of trustees 2010 data, there were some 93.6 million full-time private-sector workers that were helping to support all Social Security recipients (about 53.4 million), or a ratio of 1.75-to-1, as reported by CNSNews.com in September.

If Paul's plan to get young people off of Social Security were started today, it would mean even less folks supporting the system, which would undermine the program for those approaching Social Security benefits age as well as current recipients like himself.

Paul might be able to do without his Social Security check, but not all recipients can. That, in effect, makes him impractical, not hypocritical.

Ron Paul Isn

[4thHorseman]

I am against social security as well, and I collect checks. Likewise for MEDICARE. It is not hypocritical to do so because we were given no choice about paying into those programs. But if I am a hypocrite, so be it. The Ryan plan does grandfather older workers. But the idea is to privatize Social Security and Medicare over time, and phase it in without affecting current retirees and those with 10 or 15 years of retirement. Frankly, I am at an age and family situation that what happens to the national debt is of less and less concern to me personally. I am not the one being harmed by the system. It will be the younger folks who are forced to pay into the system, and then will find out (as they are in Greece and the rest of Europe) that, gee, this idea of more people taking money out than are paying in does not work so well. By then it will be too late.

What I cannot understand is the fear of privatization. Look at Europe. Look at our present economic situation in the US. Does that give you confidence and assurance your retirement and medical benefits will be available to you when you are eligible? Do you trust this government to actually ensure your benefits will be available 20 or 30 years from now when they have taken deliberate actions in the past that are just the opposite, and show no inclination to do anything productive today? When politicians demonize the privatization concept please note what they really fear. What they fear is the loss of those Social Security/Medicare dollars that are currently paid into the general fund. Remember, when LBJ foisted Medicare and Medicaid off on us as part of the Great Society and the War on Poverty, he knew and Congress knew there was not nearly enough funds in the revenue stream at that time to fund implementation of the program. So they got rid of the Social Security lock box, which up to that time was untouchable for any expenditures except SS payments and other direct SS support. This poured billions of SS dollars, along with the new Medicare taxes into the general fund. Did Congress try to control this in any way? Nope. They went on their usual spending binges.

That is why today we face somewhere between 70 and 100 trillion dollars in unfunded obligations. Note that is TRILLIONs not Billions of dollars. Makes the current national debt look downright manageable. So for all you younger folks out there, I encourage you to hop on the privatization band wagon before it is too late. Otherwise, 20 years from now your retirement and medical benefits will be the least of your worries.

And by the way, I paid into social security for 47 years. The rates increased over time, but they ranged from about 3 per cent when I started, matched by my employer (that is 6 per cent total) to around 7.5 per cent matched by my employer (that it 15 per cent total, less about 2 or 3 per cent for Medicare) Lets say my last 12 years the combined total for SS was 12 per cent. During that exact same time frame I paid into a privately funded program managed by my employer. I paid in only 4 per cent of my salary matched by 2 per cent from my employer. When I retired, and I retired before age 65 which caused a early retirement penalty on both programs, my private program paid out a benefit that was equal to roughly 50 per cent of my SS. Well, what I paid was about 50 per cent of what was paid into SS over that same period. However, I had an additional 35 years paid into SS that was calculated into my total benefit. So I had a private program that paid me 50 per cent of my SS benefit value after only 12 years of payments compared to 47 years of payments into SS. Had I paid into that private program for 47 years, and got the same rate of return, and yes it and the principal were guaranteed, I would estimate I would be collecting well over twice the benefits I get from SS today and it would not be costing the taxpayers a dime, and it would be money Congress would not have to waste.