Isn't This Just a Bit Hypocritical? Just Asking...

Annie, I'm doing this on my phone so I'll be brief. According to the social security website, once you reach full retirement age, which would be 65 for mr. Paul, you can draw your benefits and work with no penalty

I thought there was a limit as to how much you made on SS as well. I guess that when you make your own rules you get to do what ever you want to do. I am sure there is a clause for elected officials. I think someone should ask him what he does with that money? My former millionaire boss used his to pay for gas in his boat. I am sure that is what we all think your SS money should be used for. LMFAO!!!

I honestly don't have a problem with this. Now I don't know how they decide who gets social security. There are an ungodly number of rules and it gets complicated when someone is a veteran so I'm not going to weigh in on that part since, for some benefits, your income can be ignored. "he doesn't want YOU or your children to get yours when the time comes." That's not true Annie. He simply doesn't believe that Social Security will exist when me or my children are old enough to collect. I don't either. If you want to understand his views on SS here's a good source. http://www.issues2000.org/2012/Ron_Paul_Social_Security.htm Personally, I consider it pretty minor. It's not much different to me than someone who is forced to be in a union contacting a union rep when he has a problem with his boss. Ron Paul was forced to pay into social security, what's wrong with him collecting it when eligible?

What he is saying actually makes perfect sense. He takes SS checks because he is old. That wouldn't change for his generation. If he changes the system with his plan, then obviously those under a certain age wouldn't get Social Security check because no one would be contributing to Social Security. It wouldn't exist in its current form. So obviously, there would be no checks issued. In fact, at this rate, even 40 year olds are beginning to believe that there is a very high probability that they won't get SS checks under the current system either.

You could look at it this way; even though he receives that check he's willing to do whatever it takes (means testing?) to save the program for everyone, even if it means he will no longer qualify? Just saying... And it just goes to show we need to pay a lot more attention to the laws passed and elect those who pass laws we agree with.

social security is a Ponzi scheme ran by the US Government. A Ponzi scheme is one collect money, promising bigger money for the person down the road. Then the Ponzi scheme just uses the money it takes in from other people to pay the people from before. I.e. social security is a glorified ponzi scheme. The problem is two fold. If the government had not done this, many people are not good enough managers of their own money to save for their retirement, so the government forced them. I know several older people who's whole income is a social security check. Second it worked well when there was 10 to 1 ratio of people paying in to those withdrawing. As in the last 20-30 years, our birth rates have decreased and our live span has increased. So the income is not there anymore. Also, there are many people getting social security who never paid a dime into it. The one thing I wonder, with Ron Paul getting paid 150-175k for being in congress, I thought that would be high enough that he would not get social security, but I guess I am wrong. The rules for the social security are sort of complex and I do not understand them yet. As for him getting social security checks, I have no problem because he has paid into it just like everyone else. He is just getting his money back. The problem I have is that I have paid into it for several decades, but I may never get any of my money back. It our generation that has been left to pay the tab. I wonder if the older generation should, since they have failed in their part be punished some for letting this ponzi scheme continue and not doing their part to get rid of this ponzi scheme.

It's not at all hypocritical, and I'll explain why. This part here: "even though he doesn't want YOU or your children to get yours when the time comes." is simply not true. He does want to get rid of Social Security, but he doesn't plan to pull the rug out from under us and leave us hanging. What he has argued for is giving younger workers the chance to opt out, so that they'll neither have to pay taxes into the Social Security program, nor receive payouts from it. Those who do not opt out or are currently drawing from Social Security will receive payment when the time comes or continue to receive payment. At no point is he planning to keep YOU or your children from getting yours when the time comes. His Social Security payouts, if he is indeed receiving them, make perfect sense. He has paid into social security and continues to pay into social security, so why shouldn't he receive compensation for the money he was forced to put into the system? Those actions are consistent with the plan he's put forward. Lastly, the rich can and do receive social security benefits. Paul is well past the age of retirement so I suppose that's what qualifies him to get social security.

He is over 70, and you can only put off taking your SS until the age of 70. I am sure that he paid into it just like everyone else and therefore, he's as entitled as anyone else. Once you are over 70, there's no limit on your income. It is only before full retirement age that you are penalized for earning over a limit. And getting rid of social security through the government for people who haven't paid in yet is not the same as denying payment to those who already have. As for Paul Ryan, I would like someone to show me where he ever said he would deny anyone survivor benefits. I would like someone to show me how privatizing social security is the same as wiping it out. Considering that President Obama threatened to withhold social security checks if he didn't get his way on the debt ceiling, don't you think it's hypocritical of him to say that it's the Republicans who are the danger to people who need that money for survival? And since it is the instability and insecurity of the government's ability to pay benefits that cause people to want to privatize SS and make it more secure, don't you think it's hypocritical not to want to reduce the deficit and balance the budget? Oh yeah, I forgot. There is no budget. They haven't passed one in three years.