Ron Paul Admits He's On Social Security, Even Thou

[JLN]

Rep. Ron Paul (R-Texas) may rail against Social Security insolvency in the public eye, but that hasn't stopped him from accepting the government checks.

The libertarian-leaning Republican and former presidential candidate admitted Wednesday that he accepts Social Security checks just minutes after he called for younger generations to wean themselves off the program, in an interview on MSNBC's "Morning Joe."

"I want young people to opt out of Social Security, but my goal isn't to cut," he said.

The Huffington Post's Sam Stein then asked Paul, "A bit of a personal question -- Are you on Social Security? Do you get social security checks?"

Paul admitted he does, stating, "[It's] 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 that you can't work to remove this in the same way on Social Security."

Paul also said he still pays more into Social Security than he gets in his checks.

Paul is outspoken about the need to end government programs like the Federal Reserve and the departments of energy and education. But he said he would not eliminate programs like Social Security and Medicare, despite his belief that the programs are unconstitutional. He planned to allow citizens under the age of 25 to opt out of the system in order to save their own money for retirement, if elected to the presidency.




So it's okay for him to collect it, just not anyone else. Hmm...

[Velvetshady]

I'm not a Ron Paul fan, but I see no problem with him doing this. He put his money in throughout his life and is eligible to withdraw, why shouldn't he. Now if *he* had the option to not contribute, like he is proposing, and still participated, then I'd see an issue.

[copzgirl1171]

Do as I say not as I do. Nice to know he pays in more than he receives, I mean seems to me like he wouldnt need it either and should ween himself off of it too

[pamela]

He only should turn it down if it's charity he doesn't need. It's not, it's his money.

[makemineadouble]

Jun 21, 2012 18:30:14 GMT -5 pamela said:

He only should turn it down if it's charity he doesn't need. It's not, it's his money.

Agreed.

I disagree with his stance (I sure as hell don't trust my fellow Americans to save for their own retirement, and Soc. Sec. seems like a necessary evil IMO), but I don't see why he shouldn't take it since he's paid in.

[caden]

I don't know why this is news. It's just admitting that he's old, which we already knew. You can't opt out of SS. The only thing he can do is cash the checks and give the money away if he decides he doesn't need it. Not cashing the checks isn't going to help people b/c everyone's benefits are calculated on their own wage formula, not by how much $ is in the pot. They brought this up against McCain in 08 as if being a qualified recipient is wrong in and of itself. (Mccain gives a lot to charity so it didn't go far).

[caden]

Jun 21, 2012 19:06:13 GMT -5 @publius said:

I don't understand how wanting young people to be able to opt out of SS = being a hypocrite for collecting it yourself, especially when you never had the choice to opt out and have been paying into it your entire life.

I know. If anything it should lend him more credibility b/c he has experience on both ends of the system.

[druidp]

Jun 21, 2012 19:04:09 GMT -5 caden said:

I don't know why this is news.

I'll hazard a guess that he might actually have a delegate showing in Florida, considering he won Iowa. (Yes, in fact, final results and he won it, not Romney.)

[msmerymac]

Non-issue. This reminds me of the post of the woman with the husband with the 6 figure salary who collected unemployment. In fact, this is less flame-worthy than that, since you can't opt-out of SS.

[Deleted]

non-issue for me too