NO, and I will make a comparison to prove otherwise.
Since the Social Security ACT has been enacted, it is mandated that every employee MUST pay into SS and there is NO legal way to opt out of SS. Those contributions that are mandated to be paid are YOUR funds and under the SS Act those funds are entitled to those eligible to collect at age of determined retirement.
When Congressman Paul first was elected, he was given the option to opt out of the Congressional Retirement Fund in which he did. This CRF is taxpayer funded and throughout his congressional career, Dr. Paul has voted against any legislation or programs that lay a burden on the taxpayers. Because of his decision to opt out, he will NOT collect a Congressional Retirement pension.
Dr. Paul has continuously proposed a plan where younger workers should have the option to opt out of Social Security and use that money to fund their own independent retirement plan. His proposal also would use the funds that are spent on illegal wars and foreign aid which total into the billions to be used instead to shore up SS and Medicare until a pragmatic plan can be in place to slowly phase out or reform those plans.
So in essence, to call Ron Paul hypocritical is a oxy-moron in the sense, SS is a program he was forced to pay into...
Since the Social Security ACT has been enacted, it is mandated that every employee MUST pay into SS and there is NO legal way to opt out of SS. Those contributions that are mandated to be paid are YOUR funds and under the SS Act those funds are entitled to those eligible to collect at age of determined retirement.
When Congressman Paul first was elected, he was given the option to opt out of the Congressional Retirement Fund in which he did. This CRF is taxpayer funded and throughout his congressional career, Dr. Paul has voted against any legislation or programs that lay a burden on the taxpayers. Because of his decision to opt out, he will NOT collect a Congressional Retirement pension.
Dr. Paul has continuously proposed a plan where younger workers should have the option to opt out of Social Security and use that money to fund their own independent retirement plan. His proposal also would use the funds that are spent on illegal wars and foreign aid which total into the billions to be used instead to shore up SS and Medicare until a pragmatic plan can be in place to slowly phase out or reform those plans.
So in essence, to call Ron Paul hypocritical is a oxy-moron in the sense, SS is a program he was forced to pay into...
NO, and I will make a comparison to prove otherwise.
Since the Social Security ACT has been enacted, it is mandated that every employee MUST pay into SS and there is NO legal way to opt out of SS. Those contributions that are mandated to be paid are YOUR funds and under the SS Act those funds are entitled to those eligible to collect at age of determined retirement.
When Congressman Paul first was elected, he was given the option to opt out of the Congressional Retirement Fund in which he did. This CRF is taxpayer funded and throughout his congressional career, Dr. Paul has voted against any legislation or programs that lay a burden on the taxpayers. Because of his decision to opt out, he will NOT collect a Congressional Retirement pension.
Dr. Paul has continuously proposed a plan where younger workers should have the option to opt out of Social Security and use that money to fund their own independent retirement plan. His proposal also would use the funds that are spent on illegal wars and foreign aid which total into the billions to be used instead to shore up SS and Medicare until a pragmatic plan can be in place to slowly phase out or reform those plans.
So in essence, to call Ron Paul hypocritical is a oxy-moron in the sense, SS is a program he was forced to pay into and he is only exercising his right to receive the benefits he is entitled to. He has stated if SS was a program when he first started in the work force gave him a option to opt out, he would have done it without question. That option was and still is not available.
(more)Since the Social Security ACT has been enacted, it is mandated that every employee MUST pay into SS and there is NO legal way to opt out of SS. Those contributions that are mandated to be paid are YOUR funds and under the SS Act those funds are entitled to those eligible to collect at age of determined retirement.
When Congressman Paul first was elected, he was given the option to opt out of the Congressional Retirement Fund in which he did. This CRF is taxpayer funded and throughout his congressional career, Dr. Paul has voted against any legislation or programs that lay a burden on the taxpayers. Because of his decision to opt out, he will NOT collect a Congressional Retirement pension.
Dr. Paul has continuously proposed a plan where younger workers should have the option to opt out of Social Security and use that money to fund their own independent retirement plan. His proposal also would use the funds that are spent on illegal wars and foreign aid which total into the billions to be used instead to shore up SS and Medicare until a pragmatic plan can be in place to slowly phase out or reform those plans.
So in essence, to call Ron Paul hypocritical is a oxy-moron in the sense, SS is a program he was forced to pay into and he is only exercising his right to receive the benefits he is entitled to. He has stated if SS was a program when he first started in the work force gave him a option to opt out, he would have done it without question. That option was and still is not available.
Just like years earlier my uncle had tried not to enroll his mother in Medicare because the bookkeeping would cost more than the benefits. He couldn't do that either.
He would be a hypocrite if he's says people should stop accepting welfare and/or social security.
But I assume most politician are hypocrites (because almost all of them are)
Look closely, i said Obama criticized other presidents for hiding behind executive "Privileges"
My next sentence says EO's which is Executive Orders.. and obama has issued 128 of them to date.
and why the hell, if obama isnt hiding anything would he use an EP to protect that crook Holder!?
Folks like Ron want the benefits for themselves .... sound like elitist to me.
B I N G O
You are equating Libertarianis...
You are equating Libertarianism it Anarchism. That would be like equating the Democrats to the Green Party, or Islam to Jihadism. While there are obvious similarities, one takes the idea to an extreme that the reasonable person is not willing to go to.
Note that this question/thread has nothing to do with "fair share" or "taxes" or "tax loopholes". If you'll look, it's talking about social security and not dancing penguins or birth certificates or bankers or... windmills.
That said, if there is a "fair social security share" discussion to be had... feel free to introduce it. But please recognize that you would be introducing it. Presently, nothing of the sort exists. As it stands, I'm afraid you're being rather obtuse.
Intentional?
After all, you said it was something "that shouldn't be taken"!!!
Now I understand why the Government is bankrupt. People like you run it.
Why doesn't he opt out first as an example?