In an absolutely stunning display of hypocrisy GOP Rep. Ron Paul Admits He Takes Social Security, Which He Once Likened To Slavery

[james&olya 1,121]

I'm not right wing.

Sorry for the slander! I got that impression by the echoes of some of the rhetoric often heard on faux news. I don't listen very often. It is hard to stomach the BS. How is it that you have come up with some of those positions?

[Karee 4,189]

Sorry for the slander! I got that impression by the echoes of some of the rhetoric often heard on faux news. I don't listen very often. It is hard to stomach the BS. How is it that you have come up with some of those positions?

Things I see recently. Ex-congressmen getting millions from lobbyists after they retire. Candidates making all kinds of promises while running for election and then abandoning them once elected. Attorney General refusing to obey a congressional subpoena. What Obama did this last week concerning immigration is a slap in the face to every member on VJ that did things the legal way. I've been on this site for years (under another name) and never really cared one way or the other.

Congressmen reaching under bathroom stalls at airports, or sending photos of their c0ck to people. Governors hooking up with hookers. People call Thailand politicians corrupt because they got paid to go on a cooking show while in office.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2008_Thai_political_crisis#Fall_of_Samak

I find the whole P&R thing here on VJ somewhat comical. Makes me want to move into Kip's outhouse.

[Bad_Daddy 2,209]

Things I see recently. Ex-congressmen getting millions from lobbyists after they retire. Candidates making all kinds of promises while running for election and then abandoning them once elected. Attorney General refusing to obey a congressional subpoena. What Obama did this last week concerning immigration is a slap in the face to every member on VJ that did things the legal way. I've been on this site for years (under another name) and never really cared one way or the other.

Congressmen reaching under bathroom stalls at airports, or sending photos of their c0ck to people. Governors hooking up with hookers. People call Thailand politicians corrupt because they got paid to go on a cooking show while in office.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2008_Thai_political_crisis#Fall_of_Samak

I find the whole P&R thing here on VJ somewhat comical. Makes me want to move into Kip's outhouse.

Unlike some places in this village, I have indoor plumbing.

[Karee 4,189]

Unlike some places in this village, I have indoor plumbing.

[mawilson 2,133]

I really don't see the distinction!

Because the government worked really hard to erase that distinction.

Even today, the government cannot just spend the Fund's money, but they

came up with a creative way of exchanging it for cash they could spend.

The money is not there, as you claimed - it was "invested" in US

Treasuries.

If it was a real investment, we'd see a mix of US government bonds,

state and local municipal bonds, some corporate bonds, some equities,

some foreign government bonds, some foreign currencies, some

dividend-yielding hard assets such as real estate.

By requiring that the Fund only buy "special issue" Treasuries, the

government found an easy way to borrow money from the Trust Fund.

If they were restricted from borrowing from the fund by law, they

would have to go and borrow the same amount of money on the open market,

and possibly pay a higher interest rate. However, the Fund's money

would be safe - well, as safe as any safe investment can be. We

would have been better off if the Fund owned Chinese dim-sum bonds

or UK gilts or German bunds. You could argue that some of these

countries could default, and that's true - but so can the United States,

and we came dangerously close to a default last summer. As safe as

US Treasuries are, it really is unsafe (from an investment standpoint)

to put all your eggs in one basket.

[JohnR! 5,495]

1340282884[/url]' post='5469266']

You could argue that some of these

countries could default, and that's true - but so can the United States,

and we came dangerously close to a default last summer. As safe as

US Treasuries are, it really is unsafe (from an investment standpoint)

to put all your eggs in one basket.

You need to consider that if the US were to default, our currency and many others would take a blow that would make the money in the fund virtually worthless regardless of which currency backs it.

US treasuries are safe because in the fiat currency world in which we live it is still the big daddy of funds. If we fail, the rest of the world goes down with us. There is no global economy without the US economy, no matter how bad and battered it may be.

[mawilson 2,133]

You need to consider that if the US were to default, our currency and many others would take a blow that would make the money in the fund virtually worthless regardless of which currency backs it.

US treasuries are safe because in the fiat currency world in which we live it is still the big daddy of funds.

And that's why it's important that money in the fund be backed by real investments and not just a fiat currency.

Real assets - companies, buildings, roads - are going to be worth something even if the US and its debt obligations don't exist anymore.

[Teddy B 17,251]

Why didn't they ask Ron Paul why he elected to pay into the Social Security System for the whole of his working years?

That would've really shown people how hypocritical he is! "But Congressman, you paid into this system for over 50 years! Why on earth would you ever participate in a system you don't believe in?"

As of 1984 it became mandatory for all members of congress to pay in to the social security program, he never had a choice after 1984. Before that the members of congress paid in to the Civil Service Retirement System (CSRS).

If his participation in the social security program was mandatory from 1984 and he payed his money into the system, why is it hypocritical for him to collect the benefites he paid for?

[JohnR! 5,495]

1340287748[/url]' post='5469420']

As of 1984 it became mandatory for all members of congress to pay in to the social security program, he never had a choice after 1984. Before that the members of congress paid in to the Civil Service Retirement System (CSRS).

If his participation in the social security program was mandatory from 1984 and he payed his money into the system, why is it hypocritical for him to collect the benefites he paid for?

His position is hypocritical. Do as I say, not as do.

[slim 1,514]

As of 1984 it became mandatory for all members of congress to pay in to the social security program, he never had a choice after 1984. Before that the members of congress paid in to the Civil Service Retirement System (CSRS).

And he paid into it long before that through his private medical practice.

If his participation in the social security program was mandatory from 1984 and he payed his money into the system, why is it hypocritical for him to collect the benefites he paid for?

Huh. You don't say.

... why didn't the media ask him that?

[Teddy B 17,251]

His position is hypocritical. Do as I say, not as do.

No, it's not. His stance is that the social security program should be eliminated, that in no way is hypocritical of him collecting the benefits he was forced to pay for. If he had a choice of whether or not to pay in to the program and chose to do so all while proclaiming that the program should be abolished, that would be hypocritical.

[JohnR! 5,495]

1340288243[/url]' post='5469449']

No, it's not. His stance is that the social security program should be eliminated, that in no way is hypocritical of him collecting the benefits he was forced to pay for. If he had a choice of whether or not to pay in to the program and chose to do so all while proclaiming that the program should be abolished, that would be hypocritical.

He is being hypocritical so much so he didn't have an answer to give to the interviewer. He is not being forced to draw the money. He has sold himself into slavery.

[Teddy B 17,251]

And he paid into it long before that through his private medical practice.

It wasn't optional for him not to while operating his medical practice, it was only optional up until 1984 with the income he had earned as a congressman. Doctors did not have a choice to pay into SSA.

[Teddy B 17,251]

He is being hypocritical so much so he didn't have an answer to give to the interviewer. He is not being forced to draw the money. He has sold himself into slavery.

Not answering the reporter is hypocritical? Drawing benefits from a program that you paid into is hypocritica? Now you're just being foolish.

[JohnR! 5,495]

1340288597[/url]' post='5469466']

Not answering the reporter is hypocritical? Drawing benefits from a program that you paid into is hypocritica? Now you're just being foolish.

I may have expressed myself incorrectly.

Drawing from the very program he abhors is hypocritical. Biting the very hand that feeds him is hypocritical.

I am not saying he is right or wrong. Hypocrisy is just a trait, not a virtue nor a vice.