Originally posted by captainnotsoobvious
reply to post by Battleline

---

If you spent more time reading the thread and less time attacking me for my imaginary actions and beliefs you'd prolly be a lot less stressed. I repeatedly stated I don't believe all the negative crap about Paul, though I don't agree with a lot me his policies and his ideology and worldview. But... This is not about the validity of his beliefs, it's about his electabity, based on how people will be able to represent his views, how he is bad at defending himself and staying on message and how his personality and message will not get him the nomination. And how even if he did get it magically, he'd never survive a national campaign with his views and history and personality. But it's not in any way a judgement on his integrity or his positions.

Not even to mention their spectacular higher education system (TCU, SMU, UT, Texas A&M, etc.)

That is not even touching on the diversity of the state. From the ranchers of North Texas to the oil businessmen of Houston, do you really believe that they would support the reverting of their public schools to 1940's level? Honestly?

Also lets not forget the nice 51 Fortune 500's headquartered there....

Austin NAACP President Nelson Linder, who has known Ron Paul for 20 years, unequivocally dismissed charges that the Congressman was a racist in light of recent smear attempts, and said the reason for him being attacked was that he was a threat to the establishment.
www.nolanchart.com...

Reforming Social Security
Everyone concedes that Social Security needs to be reformed or it will
soon be insolvent. However, what analysts often omit is that the so-called
“trust fund” consists of IOUs from the government. Right now when the
federal government takes in more money from Social Security withholding
than it pays out to current beneficiaries, it still spends the difference,
and “sells” a government bond into the Social Security trust fund. All
this smoke-and-mirrors doesn’t evade the fact that the government has
made trillions of dollars of promises that it can’t keep. In this section I
outline some of my proposals to restore sanity to Social Security.

Senior Citizens’ Freedom to Work
Act of 1999
Congressional Record—U.S. House of Representatives
March 1, 2000

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to offer my support to the Senior Citizens’
Freedom to Work Act (H.R. 5), which repeals the Social
Security “earnings limitations.” During a time when an increasing
number of senior citizens are able to enjoy productive lives well
past retirement age and businesses are in desperate need of experienced
workers, it makes no sense to punish seniors for working.
Yet the federal government does just that by deducting a portion
of seniors’ monthly Social Security check should they continue to
work and earn income above an arbitrary government-set level.

When the government takes money every month from people’s
paychecks for the Social Security Trust Fund, it promises retirees
that the money will be there for them when they retire. The government
should keep that promise and not reduce benefits simply
because a senior chooses to work.

Furthermore, Mr. Speaker, by providing a disincentive to
remaining in the workforce, the earnings limitation deprives the
American economy of the benefits of senior citizens who wish to
continue working but are discouraged from doing so by fear of losing
part of their Social Security benefits. The federal government
should not discourage any citizen from seeking or holding productive
employment.

The underlying issue of the earnings limitation goes back to the
fact that money from the trust fund is routinely spent for things
other than paying pensions to beneficiaries. This is why the first
bill I introduced in the 106th Congress was the Social Security
Preservation Act (H.R. 219), which forbids Congress from spending
Social Security funds on anything other than paying Social
Security pensions.

In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I wish to reiterate my strong support
for the Senior Citizens’ Freedom to Work Act. Repealing the
“earnings limitation” will help ensure that America’s seniors can
continue to enjoy fulfilling and productive lives in their “golden
years.” I also urge my colleagues to protect the integrity of the
Social Security Trust Fund by cosponsoring the Social Security
Preservation Act (H.R. 219).

Social Security Tax Relief Act
Congressional Record—U.S. House of Representatives
September 6, 2000

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in support of the Social Security
Tax Relief Act (H.R. 4865). By repealing the 1993 tax increase
on Social Security benefits, Congress will take a good first step
toward eliminating one of the most unfair taxes imposed on seniors:
the tax on Social Security benefits.

Eliminating the 1993 tax on Social Security benefits has long been
one of my goals in Congress. In fact, I introduced legislation to repeal
this tax increase in 1997, and I am pleased to see Congress acting on
this issue. I would remind my colleagues that the justification for
increasing this tax in 1993 was to reduce the budget deficit. Now,
President Clinton, who first proposed the tax increase, and most
members of Congress say the deficit is gone. So, by the President’s
own reasoning, there is no need to keep this tax hike in place.

Because Social Security benefits are financed with tax dollars,
taxing these benefits is yet another incidence of “double taxation.”
Furthermore, “taxing” benefits paid by the government is merely an
accounting trick, a “shell game” which allows members of Congress
to reduce benefits by subterfuge. This allows Congress to continue
using the Social Security trust fund as a means of financing other
government programs and mask the true size of the federal deficit.

Mr. Speaker, the Social Security Tax Relief Act, combined with
our action earlier this year to repeal the earnings limitation, goes a
long way toward reducing the burden imposed by the federal government
on senior citizens. However, I hope my colleagues will
not stop at repealing the 1993 tax increase, but will work to repeal
all taxes on Social Security benefits. I am cosponsoring legislation
to achieve this goal, H.R. 761.

Congress should also act on my Social Security Preservation
Act (H.R. 219), which ensures that all money in the Social Security
Trust Fund is spent solely on Social Security. When the government
takes money for the Social Security Trust Fund, it promises
the American people that the money will be there for them when
they retire. Congress has a moral obligation to keep that promise.

In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to help free
senior citizens from oppressive taxation by supporting the Social
Security Benefits Tax Relief Act (H.R. 4865). I also urge my colleagues
to join me in working to repeal all taxes on Social Security
benefits and ensuring that monies from the Social Security trust
fund are used solely for Social Security and not wasted on frivolous
government programs.

Social Security Preservation Act
Congressional Record—U.S. House of Representatives
January 8, 2003

Mr. Speaker, I rise to protect the integrity of the Social Security
trust fund by introducing the Social Security Preservation Act. The
Social Security Preservation Act is a rather simple bill which states
that all monies raised by the Social Security trust fund will be
spent in payments to beneficiaries, with excess receipts invested in
interest-bearing certificates of deposit. This will help keep Social
Security trust fund monies from being diverted to other programs,
as well as allow the fund to grow by providing for investment in
interest-bearing instruments.

The Social Security Preservation Act ensures that the government
will keep its promises to America’s seniors that taxes collected
for Social Security will be used for Social Security. When
the government taxes Americans to fund Social Security, it promises
the American people that the money will be there for them
when they retire. Congress has a moral obligation to keep that
promise.

The return of massive federal deficits, and the accompanying
pressure for massive new raids on the trust fund, make it more
important than ever that Congress protect the trust fund from big
spending, pork-barrel politics. I call upon all my colleagues,
regardless of which proposal for long-term Social Security reform
they support, to stand up for America’s seniors by cosponsoring
the Social Security Preservation Act.

Social Security for American Citizens Only!
Congressional Record—U.S. House of Representatives
January 30, 2003

Mr. Speaker, today I introduce the Social Security for American
Citizens Only Act. This act forbids the federal government from
providing Social Security benefits to noncitizens. It also ends the
practice of totalization. Totalization is where the Social Security
Administration takes into account the number of years an individual
worked abroad, and thus was not paying payroll taxes, in
determining that individual’s eligibility for Social Security benefits!

Hard as it may be to believe, the United States government
already provides Social Security benefits to citizens of 17 other
countries. Under current law, citizens of those countries covered
by these agreements may have an easier time getting Social Security
benefits than public school teachers or policemen!

Obviously, this program provides a threat to the already fragile
Social Security system, and the threat is looming larger. Just
before Christmas, the press reported on a pending deal between
the United States and the government of Mexico, which would
make hundreds of thousands of Mexican citizens eligible for U.S.
Social Security benefits. Totalization is the centerpiece of this proposal,
so even if a Mexican citizen did not work in the United
States long enough to qualify for Social Security, the number of
years worked in Mexico would be added to bring up the total and
thus make the Mexican worker eligible for cash transfers from the
United States.

Mr. Speaker, press reports also indicate that thousands of foreigners
who would qualify for U.S. Social Security benefits actually
came to the United States and worked here illegally. That’s
right: The federal government may actually allow someone who
came to the United States illegally, worked less than the required
number of years to qualify for Social Security, and then returned
to Mexico for the rest of his working years, to collect full U.S. Social
Security benefits while living in Mexico. That is an insult to the
millions of Americans who pay their entire working lives into the
system and now face the possibility that there may be nothing left
when it is their turn to retire.

The proposed agreement is nothing more than a financial
reward to those who have willingly and knowingly violated our
own immigration laws. Talk about an incentive for illegal immigration!
How many more would break the law to come to this
country if promised U.S. government paychecks for life? Is creating
a global welfare state on the back of the American taxpayer a
good idea? The program also establishes a very disturbing precedent
of U.S. foreign aid to individual citizens rather than to states.

Estimates of what this deal with the Mexican government
would cost top one billion dollars per year. Supporters of the
Social Security to Mexico deal may attempt to downplay the effect
the agreement would have on the system, but actions speak louder
than words: According to several press reports, the State Department
and the Social Security Administration are already negotiating
to build a new building in Mexico City to handle the expected
rush of applicants for this new program!

As the system braces for a steep increase in those who will be
drawing from the Social Security trust fund, it makes no sense to
expand it into a global welfare system. Social Security was
designed to provide support for retired American citizens who
worked in the United States. We should be shoring up the system
for those Americans who have paid in for decades, not expanding
it to cover foreigners who have not.

It is long past time for Congress to stand up to the internationalist
bureaucrats and start looking out for the American worker. I
therefore call upon my colleagues to stop the use of the Social Security
trust fund as yet another vehicle for foreign aid by cosponsoring
the Social Security for American Citizens Only Act.