Ron Paul: End Obamacare, Abolish the IRS, Eliminate Support for Big Government

you folks keep stating that SS has no funds left.
That may be true, but it doesn't mean that the US
can't cover that lump sum payment to SS contributors.

The US Gov has land assets and building assets
in the trillions of dollars. Some of these could be
sold and the funds added back to SS fund before
the dissolution of SS.

Gov land would go back to private control
and folks would have their lump sum dividend
payments to start over again with new business
or retire. It would spur the economy as well.
It would input a cash flow back into hands
of the people who consume.

Originally posted by neo96
reply to post by Advantage

 

yeah it wont be my mother is her late 70s

only to find out that social security is not enough to live on

and my mother is still working to make ends meet.

edit on 10-6-2011 by neo96 because: (no reason given)

My dad set my mother up pretty well before he died and she is living on rez now, so she isnt really concerned with the SS issue.. but my cousin collects SSDI and has for yrs. Seems he is too tired to work, but has no problem staying awake enough to party when the eagle flies. Id love to see as much of the fraud clipped as possible so the elderly or actually deserving can actually LIVE and pay for heat, A/C, medications and food. I am sick when I hear the stories and actually have dealt with the people who have to make the decisions between food and meds or heat in the winter and food.

I am not sure, but I think some folks dont like Paul because it will be possible end to the loosely controlled hand outs. Id love for it to happen through him or another president because then the truly disabled, elderly, and needy could exist properly on an income that they can actually afford to live within. Everything at this point is bankrupt and the fraud has made it so those who are in desperate need of it cant even get by.

There are just so many problems that seem hopeless for our country that I cant imagine how masochistic someone would have to be to WANT to take all of this on sometimes!

Originally posted by boondock-saint
you folks keep stating that SS has no funds left.
That may be true, but it doesn't mean that the US
can't cover that lump sum payment to SS contributors.

The US Gov has land assets and building assets
in the trillions of dollars. Some of these could be
sold and the funds added back to SS fund before
the dissolution of SS.

Gov land would go back to private control
and folks would have their lump sum dividend
payments to start over again with new business
or retire. It would spur the economy as well.
It would input a cash flow back into hands
of the people who consume.

Send that idea to Obama.. he is tossing around the idea of another stimulus.. maybe if youre lucky he will decide to pay back all SS contributors.
sorry, I almost choked laughing...

i had to laugh too at government giving up assets or control of anything

aint ever gonna happen

Originally posted by neo96
reply to post by Advantage

 

only to find out that social security is not enough to live on

and my mother is still working to make ends meet.

As am I....
But I plan on moving to a country where my SS dollars might go a bit further but privatizing and letting the corporation eat up all the money so some executive can have a second home in Aspen. No thanks!
Why do you think America is in the financial pickle it's in now? Unregulated Corporate greed come to mind?

I honestly don't know what the solutions is, but neither does Dr. Paul. He may eventually have a plan I can deal with but now he just seems like a pandering TPM and Koch bros. shill.

Originally posted by Advantage
but I think some folks dont like Paul because it will be possible
end to the loosely controlled hand outs.

I don't mind losing the hand-outs at all.
But I do mind losing my contributions
into a retirement package that was
stolen from me.

Originally posted by Advantage
Send that idea to Obama.. he is tossing around the idea of another stimulus.. maybe if youre lucky he will decide to pay back all SS contributors.
sorry, I almost choked laughing...

laugh all you want.
but IMO any president who dissolves Social Security
without compensating it's contributors is gonna
have anarchy in the streets.

Originally posted by neo96
reply to post by Advantage

 

yeah it wont be my mother is her late 70s

only to find out that social security is not enough to live on

and my mother is still working to make ends meet.

edit on 10-6-2011 by neo96 because: (no reason given)

We have GOT TO CHANGE how SS is viewed first and foremost. It isn't meant to be a long term pension program. Governments of both dem and reps have let it sit there for decades without any structural change and now people believe that they MUST get it at 65, and that somehow SS is supposed to cover everything one needs later in life.

A few things on this:

When SS was designed people eligible for it weren't supposed to live that long. Today life expectancy leads into the 80s and 90s. A full 1.5-2 decades past the expectancy that you will die. We also allowed the government to form a huge pool of funds for SS recipients to draw from instead of personalizing the account to begin with. If we had personalized accounts people could 1-opt out of the system, and 2-the system could be better funded and solvent for a lot longer. We also dole out SS checks to people who don't need them and should not have been paying into it in the first place. I'm talking about the rich. SS was meant to help the NY cab driver who drove a cab for 30 or 40 years and didn't see a pension. It was meant for people who would never have made enough money to create their own retirement plan. It was created so that when elderly working class people finally got too old to work anymore that they wouldn't be left on the street.

If we're going to keep the SS system, we need to apply means testing, personalized accounts(instead of creating a pool through taxation), and beat the fact that this program is simply not meant as a long term retirement system for 330 million Americans to use when they get old. We need to beat it into people's heads that the best way to ensure a decent and dignified retirement is to plan ahead, not wait for government checks to come in. Teach kids how to do it in high school. We need to be teaching how to manage money, how to handle debts, and how to plan for retirement before a working age.

Fixing social security is entirely possible.

Managed Care, and other health programs by the government, not so much.

Originally posted by neo96

i had to laugh too at government giving up assets or control of anything
aint ever gonna happen

what good is it gonna do them
if anarchy ensues and a revolution
takes down the administration ???

lose a lil now
or a LOT later

seems to be the soup choice of the day

note: this is a hypothetical scenario and not meant
to be an ultimatum for any government administration

Social Security seems to be a sticking point for some of you. You do know that what he wants to do about it is not necessarily what he will to do about it. He may find that the other issues he wants to tackle will have to take precedent. Besides, he won't just walk in and say, "I'm the Emperor and I can do what I want!" Unlike Obama is doing now, Dr. Paul will actually listen to the American public. If Americans say loudly enough that they don't want SS to go away, it won't.

So let's set SS, actually all social programs, aside for a moment, and talk about his other ideas. Get rid of the IRS? Pull troops out of the 130 or countries we're not at war with? Free trade? Stop bombing sovereign nations that aren't a direct threat to America? Immigration reform? Stop imprisoning people for minor infractions? Legalize drugs and get to the root cause of them?

Legalize freedom, liberty, property, free thought, personal responsibility?

Are any of the above sticking points for freedom loving Americans?

/TOA

Originally posted by boondock-saint

Originally posted by Advantage
Send that idea to Obama.. he is tossing around the idea of another stimulus.. maybe if youre lucky he will decide to pay back all SS contributors.
sorry, I almost choked laughing...

laugh all you want.
but IMO any president who dissolves Social Security
without compensating it's contributors is gonna
have anarchy in the streets.

Boon.. read it again real slowly. It was sarcasm.. as in it will be a cold day in hell before they even consider compensating anyone. Numbers may be shuffled, but you are absolutely not getting the money you paid into it as its not there.

reply to post by projectvxn


When SS was created in 1937 the age at which you qualified was 65. The female life expectancy was 63. For males it was 58. FDR figured he'd only have to pay out a couple of years at most to some people and pocket the rest. Looks like the joke was on us.

/TOA

reply to post by The Old American


Well the entitlement system and culture in this country IS threatening our liberty. Not doing anything constructive on these programs, or outright abolishing them, will eventually lead to a government that takes care of and inevitably controls everyone.

I'm all for taking down government institutions that do not serve the needs of liberty in this country. The Dept. of Edu, The BATFE, the IRS, the Dept. of Energy, much of the DHS, so forth and so on.

They are useless programs that could be 1. done better by the private sector or the individual states, and 2. completely unnecessary and antithetical to liberty in general.

Originally posted by The Old American
Social Security seems to be a sticking point for some of you.
/TOA

ya know we heard this "CHANGE" slogan
3 yrs ago and didn't hash out the details
of that change and see where we are now ???

This time the details are gonna be hashed out
and that includes Social Security. You have to take
Paul as a total package. If you eliminate Social
Security from the discussion points, then we are
no different than we were 3 yrs ago.

reply to post by projectvxn

We have GOT TO CHANGE how SS is viewed first and foremost. It isn't meant to be a long term pension program. Governments of both dem and reps have let it sit there for decades without any structural change and now people believe that they MUST get it at 65, and that somehow SS is supposed to cover everything one needs later in life.

i agree man people have the wrong idea of what it is and what it really is.

i have no arugement with what you said there.

i wholeheartedly agree with that post.

reply to post by boondock-saint



government good is an oxymoron.

we live in the world that has been created by them.

On domestic Issues Paul is a clown, bigot, and anachronistic. He is one of those delusional libertarians who would trust the rich elite to do what NEVER HAS BEEN DONE IN ANY CIVILIZATION IN HISTORY!

Originally posted by Advantage
as in it will be a cold day in hell before they even consider compensating anyone. Numbers may be shuffled, but you are absolutely not getting the money you paid into it as its not there.

and that is the point I was making in one of
my prior post. The funds CAN be there
if GOV assets are sold like land and buildings.

You cannot dissolve SS without a rebellion.
The people will not stand for the gov stealing
their personal retirement benefits.
They may re-consider if compensated.
But just an out-right theft is gonna
mean revolution. And Nero fiddled
while Rome burned.

Originally posted by inforeal
On domestic Issues Paul is a clown, bigot, and anachronistic. He is one of those delusional libertarians who would trust the rich elite to do what NEVER HAS BEEN DONE IN ANY CIVILIZATION IN HISTORY!

You mean legalize liberty?

That's true. That's never really been done in history. We should try it.

And how has Mr. Paul been a bigot?

Originally posted by boondock-saint

Originally posted by The Old American
Social Security seems to be a sticking point for some of you.
/TOA

ya know we heard this "CHANGE" slogan
3 yrs ago and didn't hash out the details
of that change and see where we are now ???

This time the details are gonna be hashed out
and that includes Social Security. You have to take
Paul as a total package. If you eliminate Social
Security from the discussion points, then we are
no different than we were 3 yrs ago.

I voted for Obama. I was willing to compromise on a couple of things. I didn't know he was going to do a 180 and ask me give up everything. Dr. Paul's stance 3 years ago was the same that it is today and the same it was 30 years ago. As I said, he may, or even likely will, say that SS and Medicare are not something to mess with until other issues are resolved, like our propensity for nation-building. I'd actually rather see other issues tackled first, like illegal wars, free trade, deleting about 20 unnecessary government agencies, etc. before hitting SS and Medicare.

Are those two programs really more important to you than stopping the bombing of civilians of sovereign nations? Than the erosion of freedom and liberty at every turn? Than imprisoning people for the slightest infractions? I realize that everyone has a pet project, but life is full of compromises.

/TOA