This page has been archived and commenting is disabled.

Ron Paul Calls For An End To America's Welfare State, Choice To Opt Out Of Social Security

Tyler Durden's picture





 

In addition to calling for the abolishing of America's insolvent "welfare state" regime (and not to mention the Fed), Ron Paul floats the idea of allowing Americans to opt out of payroll tax in exchange for never receiving Social Security benefits. As the SSA will be pretty much insolvent in a few years, and not provide any benefit to anyone soon thereafter, this seems like a reasonable trade off.

By Ron Paul

Reject the Welfare/Warfare State

Last
week’s midterm elections have been characterized as a victory for
grassroots Americans who are fed up with Washington and the political
status quo.  In particular, the elections are
being touted as a clear indicator that voters demand reductions in
federal spending, deficits, and debt.

If the new Congress hopes to live up to the expectations of Tea Party voters, however, it faces some daunting choices.  For
all the talk about pork and waste, the truth is that Congress cannot
fix the budget and get our national debt under control by trimming fat
and eliminating earmarks for “Bridges to Nowhere.” 

Real
reductions in federal spending can be achieved only by getting to the
meat of the federal budget, meaning expenditures in all areas.

The
annual budget soon will be $5 trillion unless Congress takes serious
steps to reduce spending for entitlements, military, and debt service.
Yet how many Tea Party candidates who campaigned on a platform of
spending cuts talked about Social Security, Medicare, foreign wars, or
bond debt?

With regard to entitlements, the 2010 Social Security and Medicare Trustees report tells it all.  It
paints a stark picture of two entitlement programs that cannot be
sustained under even the rosiest scenarios of economic growth.  No one, regardless of political stripe, can deny the fundamental problem of unfunded future liabilities in both programs.

We should understand that Social Security was intended primarily to prevent old widows from becoming destitute.  Life expectancy in 1935 was only about 65, when there were several workers for each Social Security recipient.  The
program was never intended to be a general transfer payment from young
workers to older retirees, regardless of those retirees’ financial need.  Yet today Social Security faces an unfunded liability of approximately $18 trillion. 

First,
Congress needs to stop using payroll taxes for purposes not related to
Social Security, which was a trick the Clinton administration used to
claim balanced budgets. Second, Congress should eliminate
unconstitutional spending -  including unnecessary
overseas commitments - and use the saved funds to help transition to a
Social Security system that is completely voluntary.  At
some point in the near future Congress must allow taxpayers to opt out
of federal payroll taxes in exchange for never receiving Social Security
benefits.

Medicare similarly faces a shortfall of $30.8 trillion in unfunded future benefits.  The Part D prescription drug benefit accounts for approximately $15.5 trillion, or half of the unfunded Medicare liability.  Congress should immediately repeal the disastrous drug benefit passed in 2003 by President Bush and a Republican Congress. 

Fiscal conservatives should not be afraid to attack entitlements philosophically.  We
should reject the phony narrative that entitlement programs are
inherently noble or required by “progressive” western values.  Why
exactly should Americans be required, by force of taxation, to fund
retirement or medical care for senior citizens, especially senior
citizens who are comfortable financially?  And if
taxpayers provide retirement and health care benefits to some older
Americans who are less well off, can’t we just call it welfare instead
of maintaining the charade about “insurance” and “trust funds”?

Military
spending and interest on the national debt similarly represent large
federal expenditures that Congress must address by rethinking our
foreign policy and exercising far greater oversight over the Federal
Reserve and the Treasury department. 

I have for a long time criticized our interventionist foreign policy and the Fed, and I will continue to do so.  It’s
time for Congress to face the fundamental problems that affect Social
Security and Medicare, and show the courage necessary to make real
changes to both programs by rejecting the welfare/warfare state.

 


- advertisements -

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
Mon, 11/08/2010 - 14:29 | Link to Comment HelluvaEngineer
HelluvaEngineer's picture

Imagine if 15% of your salary went into gold and silver instead.

Mon, 11/08/2010 - 14:38 | Link to Comment Sudden Debt
Sudden Debt's picture

actually, it's a bit higher then that for me this last year :)

Mon, 11/08/2010 - 15:12 | Link to Comment Herd Redirectio...
Herd Redirection Committee's picture

There are so many things that have to come to an end, and so little time!  Social Security, the Fed, drawn out overseas military engagements,  hasn't it become abundantly clear this our 'video game moment':  "Game over, man"  if there ever was one.

So clearly, what is needed is a complete reset.  Back to basics.  Back to the Constitution, and we work our way from there.  Tax and legal system are both ridiculously overcomplex.

http://psychonews.site90.net

Mon, 11/08/2010 - 15:27 | Link to Comment Sudden Debt
Sudden Debt's picture

there are 2 ways to reset it all:

1. just press the right top button for 3 seconds and then slide the red bar to the right.

wait 10 seconds and press the right top button again for 3 seconds.

2. slide on top where the clock is located from right to left to right to left.

a small menu will appear and then you press: "respring"

 

or you can just wait untill the batteries run dry. That would be the third option...

Mon, 11/08/2010 - 15:38 | Link to Comment knukles
knukles's picture

Or call the dude in India that got your information technology job when it got outsourced.

Mon, 11/08/2010 - 21:46 | Link to Comment i-dog
i-dog's picture

a) The dude in India needs to eat too! You want to sell him computers and aircraft, why can't he sell you his labour to help pay for them?

b) You also need to address the causes of the outsourcing (high taxes, excessive benefits, excessive regulation, job underperformance, inability to fill certain positions).

Mon, 11/08/2010 - 15:38 | Link to Comment Rasna
Rasna's picture

Herd:

FYI

What distinguishes Nazism from generic fascism is its obsession with racial theories of superiority, and some would say, its roots in the socialist theory of proletarian revolution.

Fascism and Nazism as ideologies involve, to varying degrees, some of the following hallmarks:

*** Nationalism and super-patriotism with a sense of historic mission.

*** Aggressive militarism even to the extent of glorifying war as good for the national or individual spirit.

*** Use of violence or threats of violence to impose views on others (fascism and Nazism both employed street violence and state violence at different moments in their development).

*** Authoritarian reliance on a leader or elite not constitutionally responsible to an electorate.

*** Cult of personality around a charismatic leader.

*** Reaction against the values of Modernism, usually with emotional attacks against both liberalism and communism.

*** Exhortations for the homogeneous masses of common folk (Volkish in German, Populist in the U.S.) to join voluntarily in a heroic mission_often metaphysical and romanticized in character.

*** Dehumanization and scapegoating of the enemy_seeing the enemy as an inferior or subhuman force, perhaps involved in a conspiracy that justifies eradicating them.

*** The self image of being a superior form of social organization beyond socialism, capitalism and democracy.

*** Elements of national socialist ideological roots, for example, ostensible support for the industrial working class or farmers; but ultimately, the forging of an alliance with an elite sector of society.

*** Abandonment of any consistent ideology in a drive for state power.

It is vitally important to understand that fascism and Nazism are not biologically or culturally determinant. Fascism does not attach to the gene structure of any specific group or nationality. Nazism was not the ultimate expression of the German people. Fascism did not end with World War II.

 

Source (somewhat dated): http://www.remember.org/hist.root.what.html

Mon, 11/08/2010 - 15:57 | Link to Comment ZakuKommander
ZakuKommander's picture

I presume you don't mean the original Constitution that permitted slavery and didn't permit women to vote.  Or should we treat it like the Bible, and select only those parts that agree with one's personal opinions.

Mon, 11/08/2010 - 16:05 | Link to Comment goldsaver
goldsaver's picture

You do know that the Constitution includes the amendments that were voted for and ratified right?

Of course, you may prefer the "Living Constitution" that means whatever you might feel it means when you get up in the morning.

Mon, 11/08/2010 - 16:24 | Link to Comment ZakuKommander
ZakuKommander's picture

See my use of the word "original."  

The Constitution means more than the document, and amendments. For example, it means Supreme Court decisions interpreting it as well.  Which change over time, as American has changed from a largely agrarian to a largely industrial to a largely service-oriented and financial country.  It also means Realpolitik, which is "what happens in real life."  

Both left and right play with Constitutional interpretation like Christians play with the Bible.  Talking about the "sacredness" or "correctness" of one's own vision of a limited amount of words is naive.

I trust you realize that.

Mon, 11/08/2010 - 17:31 | Link to Comment goldsaver
goldsaver's picture

The Constitution means more than the document, and amendments. For example, it means Supreme Court decisions interpreting it as well.

No, it doesn't. The Constitution is a contract between the states. A contract that has a stated modification clause (amendments). That would be like your bank saying that your mortgage means whatever they interpret it to mean as they wish.

Which change over time, as American has changed from a largely agrarian to a largely industrial to a largely service-oriented and financial country.  It also means Realpolitik, which is "what happens in real life."

If it did, it would be meaningless. It would be like a police officer stopping you and saying, "Yes I know the sign says 45 MPH but in my opinion based on the demographics of this area, you should have been going 25MPH so here is a $100 dollar fine". Nowhere in the Constitution is anyone given the authority to re-write it on the fly based on Realpolitik.

Both left and right play with Constitutional interpretation like Christians play with the Bible.  

as you are doing now. Billy did it too does not make an argument.

Talking about the "sacredness" or "correctness" of one's own vision of a limited amount of words is naive.

Don't call yourself naive man, misinformed maybe, but not naive. Or are you claiming that you are not using your own vision of the correctness of the limited amount of words in the Constitution to make your point.

A contract that can be modified at will without the consent of the parties involved and outside of the clauses of the contract is not a contract, is toilet paper. The same contract that created these United States also defines the functions and limits of the powers given to them. Saying that it must adapt to Realpolitik and interpretation on the fly is idiotic in the extreme. Lets say that the wicked witch of the west, Speaker Pelosi, decided that Realpolitik dictates that she remains speaker forever because the Constitution must reflect our changing environment. Or if shrub would have decided to order a draft by executive order, bypassing congress, for the good of the current common defense, would you have been so amenable to a living constitution? How is that different than the federal government writing a health care bill mandating individuals to purchase a product outside of the powers given to them by the Constitution?

You are correct that the Constitution must adapt to changes in the country. Even Jefferson spoke of the need to change laws as needed. But, there is a specific modification clause in the contract. It is the amendment process. It is specifically intended to be difficult to do in order to refrain the power of the federal government from precisely what you advocate, unchecked power.

Mon, 11/08/2010 - 17:55 | Link to Comment GoldSilverDoc
GoldSilverDoc's picture

Strange.

I don't remember signing any "constitution contract".

In fact, I don't remember signing any contract at all.   So, I guess it doesn't apply to me. Come to think of it, all the guys that agreed to it in the first place are dead.  So I guess it doesn't apply, really, to anybody.

 

 

Mon, 11/08/2010 - 18:07 | Link to Comment goldsaver
goldsaver's picture

I never said you signed it. The constitution is a contract between the States, not between individuals. The individuals are represented in this contract by the State delegates that are either elected or appointed (the Constitution is silent as to the method) at the state level.

Mon, 11/08/2010 - 19:33 | Link to Comment nmewn
nmewn's picture

"Both left and right play with Constitutional interpretation like Muslims play with the Quran."

There...fixed it for you...no charge this time.

 

Mon, 11/08/2010 - 20:13 | Link to Comment nmewn
nmewn's picture

Double

Mon, 11/08/2010 - 20:39 | Link to Comment A Nanny Moose
A Nanny Moose's picture

The Constitution is a check on the nature of humans in positions of power, not just a set of rules of governance. It matters not, how primitive or modern a society is. The power structures willl never change.

We might still be agragrian if we weren't so busy building a better mouse trap with which to destroy ourselves every 70 years, or so.

Mon, 11/08/2010 - 22:03 | Link to Comment i-dog
i-dog's picture

"You do know that the Constitution includes the amendments that were voted for and ratified right?"

OK. So your plan is to wind the clock back to May 7th, 1992 (date of ratification of 27th Amendment) and take a mulligan from there?

Sounds like a great plan ... what could possibly go wrong?!!

Mon, 11/08/2010 - 16:32 | Link to Comment trav7777
trav7777's picture

why should women vote?  They can't pick out what to fuckin wear or what type of food they'd prefer you bought them tonight, so why should I trust their voting?

we don't need more irrational voters.

Mon, 11/08/2010 - 16:48 | Link to Comment ZakuKommander
ZakuKommander's picture

But we can't pick out women, so there.

Best Courtroom toilet graffiti evah:

"Next time I'll just find a woman who hates me and buy her a house."

Mon, 11/08/2010 - 14:43 | Link to Comment 66Sexy
66Sexy's picture

ring ring.

Ben Bernake's aide picks up phone. "just a minute..."

Bernake: "yeah ill take it." ... "Hello?"

conference call: bla bla bla from various institutional bankers, rambling about how the world is flocking to gold and the NWO is in jepoardy....

Bernake: "Dont worry. we'll get the price down. we just transferred each of you 10,000,000,000 in brand spankin' new QE funds to start entering those short positions and ETF's. buy 'em from the offshore accounts... and keep it QUIET..."

to be continued...

Mon, 11/08/2010 - 15:04 | Link to Comment BigJim
BigJim's picture

Yes, I've wondered how much QE has been quietly diverted to cover the short positions of the bullion banks so they can carry on.

I think only a physical squeeze will end this manipulation.

Mon, 11/08/2010 - 15:12 | Link to Comment SheepDog-One
SheepDog-One's picture

Oh I have NO doubt tons of QE is going right to PM puts, no question about it!

Mon, 11/08/2010 - 14:32 | Link to Comment unwashedmass
unwashedmass's picture

\yeah... but... yeah but....who will pay for the wars then?

if we don't steal the funding from the SS fund, who will pay for the empire?

Mon, 11/08/2010 - 14:54 | Link to Comment doolittlegeorge
doolittlegeorge's picture

right now "it appears to be Greece, Ireland and Portugal."  That's interesting.  "They happen to be really small, too."

Mon, 11/08/2010 - 14:32 | Link to Comment flaunt
flaunt's picture

I'm tired of begging for the mafia to let me live my life in piece and to stop taking my property against my will.  I just want them to all go away.

 

 

Mon, 11/08/2010 - 14:33 | Link to Comment flaunt
flaunt's picture

peace too

Mon, 11/08/2010 - 14:40 | Link to Comment OnTheWaterfront
OnTheWaterfront's picture

+1

Mon, 11/08/2010 - 15:00 | Link to Comment hedgeless_horseman
hedgeless_horseman's picture

Where's the option to opt out of Ron Paul?

He is in India spending more money that we don't have, some of which he has already promised those poor souls in Haiti, but has yet to deliver.  However, I am sure he will get around to it.  Something about the teleprompters not working on generator power, etc.

Mon, 11/08/2010 - 14:46 | Link to Comment Mr Lennon Hendrix
Mr Lennon Hendrix's picture

All those things will happen in time.  But first, we get out of Af/Pak, and stop the ponzi.

Mon, 11/08/2010 - 15:02 | Link to Comment Ragnarok
Ragnarok's picture

Are you paid to sit around and post this absolute drivel?  Agitator?

Mon, 11/08/2010 - 15:05 | Link to Comment Crummy
Crummy's picture

How does it help the poor and unfortunate to hide the cost of their care off of the books in some sham trust fund?

How does it help the poor and unfortunate to print money until the value drops to the point that what little they have buys that much less?

How does it help the poor and unfortunate to create giant pools of cash that not only rob consumers of their bargaining power but drive up prices on the very thing they were intended to offset the cost of?

How does it help the poor and unfortunate to be such an obvious troll...

 

Mon, 11/08/2010 - 15:13 | Link to Comment SheepDog-One
SheepDog-One's picture

Sittin on my GOLD, and bullets and beans....Obama pig!

Mon, 11/08/2010 - 15:27 | Link to Comment traderjoe
traderjoe's picture

I don't usually feed trolls, but...

1. How do all of the bank bailouts under Bush AND Obama reduce the pay gap? Don't the bank bailouts favor the rich bondholders at the cost of the ordinary taxpayer? Why are the banks being allowed to make such huge bonuses? Where's your dear leader on that?

2. How does the increased presence in the Afghanistan help the oil from ruining the earth? How about the obvious complicity between the dear leader and BP in the Gulf spill cover-up?

3. How does the FDA food safety bill help smaller farmers in their attempt to compete against the mega-corporate farmers?

4. How does a system that is based upon constant inflation help the marginal over time? How can they store the value of their labor? Oh, it forces them to deal with the 'money-changers' and chase returns to beat inflation.

A properly structured hard-money currency can actually feature stable or declining prices over time - which REWARDS savers, middle-class, and labors to be able to save and maintain purchasing power over time. It also <could> move us away from a culture of commercialism and consumption, which is clearly impacting the Earth and depleting resources. 

None of your arguments hold the slightest bit of water, and are essentially strawman/trolling for a reaction. I repeat my question from another thread - are you getting paid by the post?

Mon, 11/08/2010 - 22:13 | Link to Comment i-dog
i-dog's picture

"How about the obvious complicity between the dear leader and BP in the Gulf spill cover-up?"

I'm curious, tm ... in another thread you said you can't accept the truth about a 9-11 cover-up because there is no "absolute proof" the government was involved, yet here you throw out a belief in a conspiracy between Obama and BP of "the Gulf spill cover-up" without referring to any absolute proof! Do you have "proof" of a conspiracy between Obama and BP? Help me here!

Tue, 11/09/2010 - 02:39 | Link to Comment traderjoe
traderjoe's picture

i-dog - I think you might have me confused with someone else. I do believe the goobermint was involved in 9.11. The videos of WTC 7 are enough for me - www.buildingwhat.org. 

With BP, the initial flow estimates were deeply flawed, just for example. The 100 yard (or whatever) line for reporters, the EPA allowing Corexit, hiding its impacts, etc., etc. 

Tue, 11/09/2010 - 03:53 | Link to Comment i-dog
i-dog's picture

Oooops ... really sorry about that!! It was intended for 'tmosely'. I obviously wasn't concentrating when I read your name. Humble apologies!

I also agree with you on the GOM spill ... though I'm not in the camp (yet) of those who believe it was a deliberate spill to poison food/people -- whereas it's obvious to any who look that 9-11 was a very deliberate inside job.

Tue, 11/09/2010 - 13:28 | Link to Comment traderjoe
traderjoe's picture

No worries at all. I knew the conversation you were referring to...

Agreed on your second part.

Cheers! 

Mon, 11/08/2010 - 16:17 | Link to Comment Astute Investor
Astute Investor's picture

I did not recognize this poster so I clicked on the name.  I received the cryptic message: YOU ARE NOT AUTHORIZED TO ACCESS THIS PAGE.

Is Obama2012 really Obama?  Maybe an operative of the military-industrial complex? Or simply a bot?

Mon, 11/08/2010 - 16:34 | Link to Comment trav7777
trav7777's picture

I'm sure it's REALLY Obama

Mon, 11/08/2010 - 18:40 | Link to Comment Astute Investor
Astute Investor's picture

A sense of humor is a terrible thing to waste....

Mon, 11/08/2010 - 18:47 | Link to Comment Marla And Me
Marla And Me's picture

He's already been banned?  Wow, that didn't take very long...  on for less than two weeks and the paid for shill is out?  That or Tyler willingly accepts and nurtures paid trolls...  Velobabe and Chumbawumba were similarly capped, although Kathy Chamberlain is still with us...  There is definitely some weird stuff that goes on with the comments section that Tyler never addresses...

Mon, 11/08/2010 - 21:08 | Link to Comment Hulk
Hulk's picture

Only the shadow really knows...

Mon, 11/08/2010 - 14:47 | Link to Comment homersimpson
homersimpson's picture

Um.. vote liberal

Mon, 11/08/2010 - 16:09 | Link to Comment goldsaver
goldsaver's picture

Um.. vote libertarian ... There, I fixed it for you

Mon, 11/08/2010 - 17:20 | Link to Comment homersimpson
homersimpson's picture

Well - he asked how to opt out of Ron Paul.. Therefore, vote liberal.

Mon, 11/08/2010 - 14:57 | Link to Comment doolittlegeorge
doolittlegeorge's picture

no shit.  From "end the Fed" to "end Social Security."  Say WHAT?  Talk about "co-opted."  "I hate it--but i still need money for my consituents!"  So now "Bennie's your best friend"?  And what's that story about your son having girls "bow before the mighty Megatron" or something.  Is that some 'economic thing'?

Mon, 11/08/2010 - 15:15 | Link to Comment SheepDog-One
SheepDog-One's picture

Well to be fair Doolittlegeorge, Ron Paul did his 'END THE FED' speech already just this morning on CNBC! Review earlier ZH story with video. Actually what he said is the FED will just implode soon. End the FED, end SS, end ALL this BS!

Mon, 11/08/2010 - 16:57 | Link to Comment TuesdayBen
TuesdayBen's picture

On ballots, last week, here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:TX14_109.gif

Mon, 11/08/2010 - 14:36 | Link to Comment hedgeless_horseman
hedgeless_horseman's picture

A new killer product; we're all saved!  Something totally unnecessary, that just recently was free, now costs hundreds of dollars! 

Borrow and spend, bitches!!!

http://blogs.wsj.com/digits/2010/11/08/making-3-d-glasses-fashionable/

Mon, 11/08/2010 - 14:36 | Link to Comment Common_Cents22
Common_Cents22's picture

the SS ponzi needs several more new suckers to pay in to keep the scam going.  It would take a revolution (probably w/ guns and stuff) to get some opt out.  It would mean we'd actually have to cut government spending in some area, whether it be reduced benefits(unlikely with seniors growing and actively involved voters), or cutting some other area.

Mon, 11/08/2010 - 14:37 | Link to Comment lead salad
lead salad's picture

Too bad he isn't running for prez in 2012.

Mon, 11/08/2010 - 14:38 | Link to Comment alexromanl
alexromanl's picture

Government will never allow people to opt-out from SS, it is suicidal. If young people opt-out, the only way for SS checks to be issued to current recipients would be for Ben to fire-up the printing presses even more. Among many things, retiree obligations sunk GM, and that is a microcosm of the condition of several state and federal governments. It will be interesting to see how it plays out as the generational chasm widens since the burden of the old shall crush the young.

Mon, 11/08/2010 - 14:58 | Link to Comment Commander Cody
Commander Cody's picture

BS.  The burden of wasteful spending will crush everyone.

Mon, 11/08/2010 - 14:59 | Link to Comment doolittlegeorge
doolittlegeorge's picture

if this is true i really would like to ask his son a few questions.

Mon, 11/08/2010 - 15:06 | Link to Comment Winston Smith 2009
Winston Smith 2009's picture

It is true. SS is nothing more than a gigantic Ponzi Scheme where money taken in pays for the current SS recipient benefits. There _is no_ trust fund where SS contributions are being saved. As a result, allow people to opt out and the money to pay current recipients disappears. Try that and watch what happens.

Mon, 11/08/2010 - 15:12 | Link to Comment Assetman
Assetman's picture

That might be true... unless a solution involves requiring employers to continue paying the SS tax, regardless if an employee opts out or not.

Of course, you and I know that very little is going to be done to reform SS in the next 2 years anyway.... right?

Mon, 11/08/2010 - 14:38 | Link to Comment nedwardkelly
nedwardkelly's picture

Haha, sounds awesome to me, but as if that will happen. Just about everyone will elect to opt out, even those that aren't doing anything else to save for their own retirement. Welfare state will look after them when they retire.

Mon, 11/08/2010 - 14:40 | Link to Comment knukles
knukles's picture

Oh, I just cannot wait for the hew and cry of my uber-liberal redistributionist friends over this one. 
LOL

And why not, Madame Pelosi?
Come again?
Oh, you mean if the system is broken, that for every dollar deposited into the plan the current and future claims exceed such.  Uh-huh
Which likewise means that to diminish the deficit, the less people participating, the better.  (Math fact.)
Oh yes, Madame, it was designed originally by and actuary whose founding assumption was an ever increasing work force.  Kinda like a Ponzi scheme, mathematically.  Uh-huh.
And with the work force to retiree ration diminishing, it don't work. (Pun)  Uh-huh

 

Get the popcorn a poppin' Shirley!  It's gonna be fun to watch.

Right along with the debt ceiling increase gonna be needed in the first quarter!

Can't get anything as good as this shit on Prime Time!

 

Mon, 11/08/2010 - 14:57 | Link to Comment cougar_w
cougar_w's picture

Hew! Cry!

Lots of popcorn.

Mon, 11/08/2010 - 14:58 | Link to Comment apberusdisvet
apberusdisvet's picture

Soylant Green for anyone over 55; see..problem solved.  If you think that's a stretch, the HC Bill is geared to rationing for the elderly, and there will never be another COLA increase, even if there is 100% inflation.

Mon, 11/08/2010 - 15:00 | Link to Comment doolittlegeorge
doolittlegeorge's picture

dont' forget "free prune juice, COMMMME AND GET IT."  that's important, too.

Mon, 11/08/2010 - 14:40 | Link to Comment kato
kato's picture

he should stick to fed talk. he and his kid both appear to be semi-retarded and sound it all too often.

Mon, 11/08/2010 - 15:17 | Link to Comment SheepDog-One
SheepDog-One's picture

He already said 'end the FED' just this morning on CNBC dummy.

Mon, 11/08/2010 - 17:42 | Link to Comment CrockettAlmanac.com
CrockettAlmanac.com's picture

he should stick to fed talk. he and his kid both appear to be semi-retarded and sound it all too often.

The day you show up looking for your free lunch and it ain't there I'm gonna laugh and laugh. Then I'm gonna share my eats with the poor folks who you've been scamming all these years.

Mon, 11/08/2010 - 20:13 | Link to Comment oddjob
oddjob's picture

I get almost 50 junks for slagging Jon Stewart and that gets only 20?

Mon, 11/08/2010 - 20:52 | Link to Comment A Nanny Moose
A Nanny Moose's picture

Just goes to show you that the majority are still ridin' the short bus. The Republicrats are driving it, and seem oblivious to the brick on the accelerator.

Mon, 11/08/2010 - 22:31 | Link to Comment i-dog
i-dog's picture

Well, to be fair, neither RP nor his son are great orators! For that reason, I couldn't junk Kato.

"Congress must address by rethinking our foreign policy and exercising far greater oversight over the Federal Reserve and the Treasury department"

This quote from RP also looks really wishy-washy to me and does NOT call for ending the Fed. Does he want to end it, audit it, or oversee it (his new job in January, BTW)? Mixed messages don't get things done.

And, as others here have pointed out, allowing young workers to opt out of SS won't solve a damned thing about the current, and future, inability to pay out to those no longer working. RP didn't think this one through at all.

Mon, 11/08/2010 - 14:41 | Link to Comment FISD
FISD's picture

I think it's a great idea. I would opt of of future Medicare and Social Security in a heartbeat. Hopefully not my last, but what the heck...the life insurance is up to date. And if I don't pay then my employer doesn't pay. More money for small business and more money for me.

Mon, 11/08/2010 - 14:41 | Link to Comment Mercury
Mercury's picture

Ronnieeeeee !!

Mon, 11/08/2010 - 14:41 | Link to Comment NOTW777
NOTW777's picture

this would be a death knell for the party of welfare

Mon, 11/08/2010 - 14:41 | Link to Comment Bastiat
Mon, 11/08/2010 - 14:43 | Link to Comment scratch_and_sniff
scratch_and_sniff's picture

Stop the war, feed the poor!

Stop the war, feed the poor!

Stop the war, feed the poor!

Stop the war, feed the poor!

Mon, 11/08/2010 - 15:01 | Link to Comment Commander Cody
Commander Cody's picture

So, let me get this straight - stop war, feed poor.  What a concept!

Mon, 11/08/2010 - 15:05 | Link to Comment scratch_and_sniff
scratch_and_sniff's picture

yeah, its a remix of John Lennon and Mahatma Gandhi, olschoolz.

Mon, 11/08/2010 - 15:14 | Link to Comment hedgeless_horseman
hedgeless_horseman's picture

The poor are so well fed they are morbidly obese; walking is too damn hard when you weigh 350 pounds, but you can still get around around in a Medicare electric wheel chair.

If the war is stopped, then what are those uneducated and poor kids going to do for a job? 

Mon, 11/08/2010 - 15:16 | Link to Comment Mr Lennon Hendrix
Mr Lennon Hendrix's picture

Feed the poor with apples they pick themselves after working on the organic farm for a few hours.

Mon, 11/08/2010 - 15:19 | Link to Comment SheepDog-One
SheepDog-One's picture

Bottom line is a whole lot of millions are targeted for extermination in all this grand masterplan. 

Mon, 11/08/2010 - 16:38 | Link to Comment trav7777
trav7777's picture

yep.  People just don't get it when they hear about all these poor, malnourished inner city black kids.  They think ethiopia or malawi or something.

no...the malnourishments are among FAT KIDS.  Because they eat and drink nothing but sugary shit all day long and never get a proper vitamin allotment in their diet.

If dairy stuff weren't fortified, these kids would be dropping dead from shit like rickets

Mon, 11/08/2010 - 15:14 | Link to Comment NOTW777
NOTW777's picture

are YOU feeding the poor?

Mon, 11/08/2010 - 17:45 | Link to Comment CrockettAlmanac.com
CrockettAlmanac.com's picture

I feed the poor. I could feed more of them if the government didn't take half of every dollar I earn.

Mon, 11/08/2010 - 14:44 | Link to Comment hamurobby
hamurobby's picture

Hey how about an opt out check? Now that would stimulate the economy for a week or three. I sure would take it, I have paid in for 28 years and will never see a dime of it otherwise.

Mon, 11/08/2010 - 14:44 | Link to Comment zaknick
zaknick's picture

Ron Paul is the real thing.

 

On CIA drug trafficking:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SBh_hzU-jdI

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h9EOU5yONeg

Mon, 11/08/2010 - 14:45 | Link to Comment Mr Lennon Hendrix
Mr Lennon Hendrix's picture

The gig is almost up when Palin joins the chorus line.  This must be the fourth sign.  The Ron Pacalypse is nigh.

Mon, 11/08/2010 - 14:58 | Link to Comment cougar_w
cougar_w's picture

Dat funny shat. Course you're right.

Mon, 11/08/2010 - 14:45 | Link to Comment sschu
sschu's picture

Well, there someone said it, the elephant in the room is unfunded entitlements.  There simply is not enough money to meet the obligations that the Federal Government has promised.  I am 55, and if they just returned 50% lump sum of what I paid into the system I would take it! 

Herein lies the real challenge and why I am so skeptical that we can make this work.  We will essentially be asking the electorate to vote against giving themselves money in the form of SS, medicare, etc.  After the trillions spent on the banks/financial system, now to ask for austerity and reduction in payments to the people, I cannot imagine this going anywhere.

We are destined to lots of inflation, hyper inflation and/or default.  Anyway you look at it there is no good way out.

sschu  

Mon, 11/08/2010 - 15:02 | Link to Comment doolittlegeorge
doolittlegeorge's picture

where's buzz saw?  anyone tell him to get out of bed yet?

Mon, 11/08/2010 - 14:47 | Link to Comment OnTheWaterfront
OnTheWaterfront's picture

Are there no prisons? Are there no workhouses? These poeple should hurry up and die and decrease the surplus!!!

Mon, 11/08/2010 - 14:59 | Link to Comment cougar_w
cougar_w's picture

Go scrooge yourself.

Mon, 11/08/2010 - 17:48 | Link to Comment CrockettAlmanac.com
CrockettAlmanac.com's picture

Scrooge was already supporting Bob Cratchit (who no on else would hire) and his entire dysfunctional family. No wonder he went off when the do gooders came looking for more money to make themselves look good.

Mon, 11/08/2010 - 14:49 | Link to Comment rexm
rexm's picture

Do we get the money already paid in, or do we have to say goodbye to that?

I guess it's like cutting a bad trade to limit your losses...

Mon, 11/08/2010 - 14:49 | Link to Comment Bastiat
Bastiat's picture

The other elephant in the room is the cost of empire. 

Mon, 11/08/2010 - 15:00 | Link to Comment cougar_w
cougar_w's picture

The costs will be more than offset by all the plunder.

So why are we still buying the oil?

Mon, 11/08/2010 - 15:03 | Link to Comment doolittlegeorge
doolittlegeorge's picture

ludicrious speed, Captain.  LUDICROUS SPEEEED.

Mon, 11/08/2010 - 15:25 | Link to Comment Nepenthe
Nepenthe's picture

We've gone plaid!!

Mon, 11/08/2010 - 14:52 | Link to Comment Yardfarmer
Yardfarmer's picture

seeing as how the US accounts for a little less than half of total global military expenditure @ 46.5% and tallies a projected Sovereign debt issuance of a similar figure @ 45%, Ron Paul's continued lip service as to the need to curb the runaway and wasteful military expenditure seems at the least disingenuous and the worst, rank hypocrisy. like any seasoned politician, Paul knows how to hedge his positions so as to appeal to his constituency. in this respect, notice the preponderance of his article is devoted to eliminating the so called entitlement programs with the usual snippet tacked on at the end as to the hideously bloated military budget which itself alone reflects only a portion of the colossal and obscene costs to the international community and the American people. http://kushmonster.blogspot.com/2010/08/blog-post_07.html 

Mon, 11/08/2010 - 15:21 | Link to Comment NumberNone
NumberNone's picture

I find it interesting that we also account for 40% of all global arms sales....seems we may be needing an inflated military expenditure to defend ourselves, from ourselves.  

http://www.globalissues.org/article/74/the-arms-trade-is-big-business#GlobalArmsSalesBySupplierNations

Mon, 11/08/2010 - 15:31 | Link to Comment tmosley
tmosley's picture

Just because he doesn't spend all day every day talking about reducing the size of the military doesn't mean he isn't for it.

Ron Paul is NOT a normal politician.  He is the most principled man in Washington by a mile.  His son comes in next, and he is probably a mile ahead of the next person in line, though that is to be seen.

Mon, 11/08/2010 - 16:59 | Link to Comment kiwidor
kiwidor's picture

Principled == Ineffective.

Mon, 11/08/2010 - 17:53 | Link to Comment CrockettAlmanac.com
CrockettAlmanac.com's picture

Snarky = Grossly Ineffective. What's your plan, to leave it those who are  unprincipled?

Mon, 11/08/2010 - 21:35 | Link to Comment thefatasswilly
thefatasswilly's picture

. . . that's exactly what you, and every fucking American has already done. Why the fuck do you think this once great empire is in the state it's in?

Mon, 11/08/2010 - 21:57 | Link to Comment CrockettAlmanac.com
CrockettAlmanac.com's picture

. . . that's exactly what you, and every fucking American has already done

 

All Americans? Really? Even the babies? The babies did that? I'm shocked. They poop a lot, too.

Mon, 11/08/2010 - 21:33 | Link to Comment thefatasswilly
thefatasswilly's picture

Principled = won't get far in politics. See Mencken's notes on democracy.

Tue, 11/09/2010 - 16:39 | Link to Comment RockyRacoon
RockyRacoon's picture

Democracy is the theory that the common people know what they want, and deserve to get it good and hard.
H. L. Mencken

Mon, 11/08/2010 - 14:51 | Link to Comment OnTheWaterfront
OnTheWaterfront's picture

You can opt out of receiving the benefit, just not the contribution.

Mon, 11/08/2010 - 14:56 | Link to Comment Dr. No
Dr. No's picture

No doubt that idea was contributed by the same person who wrote the 1040 IRS form where a person can choose to not have their refund returned to them "Line 73: amount you want refunded to you..."

Mon, 11/08/2010 - 14:56 | Link to Comment Orly
Orly's picture

True.  My feeling is that put-backs by affluent or fairly well-off seniors, for "the good of the country," would be more than expected.  Boomers know they got over and many of them would gladly chip in to help.

Too bad Ben didn't take my Rebuild America Bonds idea seriously.

/:

Mon, 11/08/2010 - 15:08 | Link to Comment doolittlegeorge
doolittlegeorge's picture

I prefer my "debuild America bonds."  Call them  "DERBIS" bonds...excuse me "debris" bonds and give it a "Port Authority" and plow it into various water fronts.  Plus it "puts boys with toys" to work.  Who doesn't dream of driving a bulldozer just once in life?  Just say "that was once City such and such" and you might be surprised by the sudden surge in enthusiasm!

Mon, 11/08/2010 - 15:11 | Link to Comment Orly
Orly's picture

What you have described is currently happening in Detroit and other Rust Belt former-cities.  Gimme a green belt over a crackhouse any day.

Mon, 11/08/2010 - 14:53 | Link to Comment Bastiat
Bastiat's picture

Paul was quite clear in the presidential compaign about the need to end empire, stop the wars, close overseas bases.

 

Mon, 11/08/2010 - 15:50 | Link to Comment RichardENixon
RichardENixon's picture

Yeah, and you saw how many votes that got him. I voted for him but it didn't seem like too many others did. The acid test will be whether they vote to raise the debt ceiling. My bet is that they do, but in a way that makes it look like they didn't.

Mon, 11/08/2010 - 17:48 | Link to Comment the rookie cynic
the rookie cynic's picture

With few exceptions, people vote for the candidate that the parties put the most money behind. Ron Paul is painted as "fringe" by the MSM and both parties. Propaganda leads the sheeple to the slaughter. The oligarchy is still firmly in control. It would take many hours of deprogramming to change this. Ron Paul will get a chance only if there's civil, economic, and political unrest.

Mon, 11/08/2010 - 14:56 | Link to Comment goodrich4bk
goodrich4bk's picture

SS is an insurance program, not a savings program.  It is premised on the idea that most people cannot possibly save enough during even 45 years of work to support themselves for 35 years of retirement.  My great aunt, who worker all her life as a nanny, lived to 105.  Can Mr. Paul explain how she could have saved enough for her retirement without SS?

Mon, 11/08/2010 - 15:12 | Link to Comment Uncle Remus
Uncle Remus's picture

Apparently, no one has a clue as to how people dealt with retirement before social security. We are going to get a refresher course.

Mon, 11/08/2010 - 15:33 | Link to Comment still kicking
still kicking's picture

you worked until you died, there was no retirement.

Mon, 11/08/2010 - 15:51 | Link to Comment RichardENixon
RichardENixon's picture

Yep, back in the day when there were actually jobs. What our generation is going to do is a mystery to me.

Mon, 11/08/2010 - 17:44 | Link to Comment still kicking
still kicking's picture

Personally I have been actively gardening and studying up on farming, I figure at some point I'll just squat on some land and grow what I need.

Mon, 11/08/2010 - 15:12 | Link to Comment BigJim
BigJim's picture

Private insurance.

Mon, 11/08/2010 - 15:35 | Link to Comment tmosley
tmosley's picture

Work until she can't, taking extended vacations with her savings, and when she ran out of other options, accept charity from religious organizations or move in with her family.  This is how it was for the 99.99999999% of human history when we did not have Social Security.  It made life a lot easier on EVERYONE involved.  Why maintain a separate household for every member of the family?  It's a waste of resources.  Liberal environmentalists should be all for it, rather than subsidizing wasteful old people's air conditioning bills.

Mon, 11/08/2010 - 19:19 | Link to Comment goodrich4bk
goodrich4bk's picture

She did work until she couldn't.  Breast cancer at 62 with poor prognisis, she did what every zerohedger would have recommended: retire immediately and accept a lower SS payment.  When she didn't die as her doctor said she would, she took in boarders (again, a suggestion from a nice zerohedger above), took a reverse mortgage on her home ($16k of annual "income" for only ten years turned into $280k by the time she died) and eventually had to accept a no-interest loan from her distant nephew (that would be me).  That is the reality for those who do not have SS or, in the alternative, the means to purchase a private annuity.   

Mon, 11/08/2010 - 16:31 | Link to Comment Vagabond
Vagabond's picture

My Grandma is 92, and she still works.  She put 14 grandchildren through college, and although she gets SS payments and money from the Navy for her deceased husband, my grandfather, she still doesn't feel like she's too old to work.  Maybe Great Aunt didn't need to retire at 65 if she was healthy enough to live to 105.  How about Dick Proenneke, he didn't seem to have any trouble taking care of himself well into his 80's.  I personally don't ever want to receive checks that are funded by money forcefully taken from productive people.  Why do I have to pay into a system that I think is fundamentally wrong?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ozJvg0hOwb4

Mon, 11/08/2010 - 18:00 | Link to Comment CrockettAlmanac.com
CrockettAlmanac.com's picture

My Grandma is 92

 

Steve Miller, is that you?

Mon, 11/08/2010 - 20:29 | Link to Comment goodrich4bk
goodrich4bk's picture

Let's see, your Grandma has been receiving SS payments for 28 years.  Based on her age, she has received a great return on her meager contributions.  She is also receiving military retirement based upon her husband's service.  I'm confused.  Are you using her as an example of how great government benefits are or how she didn't really need them? 

Mon, 11/08/2010 - 21:06 | Link to Comment CrockettAlmanac.com
CrockettAlmanac.com's picture

How could you be confused by his statement? It's quite clear.

Mon, 11/08/2010 - 18:01 | Link to Comment CrockettAlmanac.com
CrockettAlmanac.com's picture

SS is an insurance program, not a savings program.  It is premised on the idea that most people cannot possibly save enough during even 45 years of work to support themselves for 35 years of retirement. 


Ah, so SS is based on a lie in order to pilfer the saving of little old ladies. Now it all makes sense!

The need to save for a rainy day is easy for even the most simple soul to comprehend and is not overly difficult as long as the government and bankers don't continuously devalue the currency. The government, its cronies and the regulations they demand in order to make themselves wealthy are the problem.

 

Mon, 11/08/2010 - 20:43 | Link to Comment goodrich4bk
goodrich4bk's picture

The great thing about history, you see, is that you can learn from previous generations without having to make their mistakes.  When SS was created, we had already tried the entirely free market system. It led us to industrialization and the loss of self-sufficiency.  It created great material wealth, but other than a few remaining farmers, it left few people with the means to support themselves when they could no longer work.  Great poverty was visited upon those who had the misfortune of outliving their savings.  But since those things do not appear to overly concern this crowd, what about the capital waste from 300 million Americans each saving enough for their own retirement, whether it is ultimately needed or not?  Is not a collective insurance program a much more rational solution to a problem that most of us share?  And for those who dream of a 15% raise from the abolition of SS, what if your nest egg is lost in a market crash just before you retire?  Will you ever live to enjoy that expensive annuity?  Will the annuity company be solvent by the time you collect? 

 

But as a Ron Paul supporter, let me just go on record as fully supporting the abolition of SS as soon as we abolish a public military.  If you don't want to support a retired American economic security system, then I don't want to support a useless and insanely expensive corporate security system.  Fair trade?

Mon, 11/08/2010 - 21:16 | Link to Comment CrockettAlmanac.com
CrockettAlmanac.com's picture

 If you don't want to support a retired American economic security system, then I don't want to support a useless and insanely expensive corporate security system.  Fair trade?

I don't want to support any government at all. Free markets can better provide any service currently foisted on me through government monopoly including security and adjudication. How's that?

 

I also believe that your history lesson is a bit off. The gulf between the rich and poor is greater today than ever before. People are living in the streets with their kids and old people. The government safety net has failed for tens of millions of people. And yet they are kept out of work through taxation and regulation and those of us who reach into our pockets to help them too often come up dry because the government takes half of every dollar we earn.

Mon, 11/08/2010 - 21:33 | Link to Comment goodrich4bk
goodrich4bk's picture

No thanks, I've seen what a private court system looks like.  You're running a little welding shop minding your own business when the bank pulls your line of credit even though you've always paid on time.  The fine print in your private credit agreement says that you've agreed to binding arbitration in front of a panel of corporate lawyers whose day job is to work for banks.  Welcome to the 13th Century, my friend.  A democratic government is not alway the enemy, and it certainly wasn't when we needed it in 1776. 

Mon, 11/08/2010 - 22:00 | Link to Comment CrockettAlmanac.com
CrockettAlmanac.com's picture

I suppose you're right. No one should ever have to read the fine print. People should not be expected to act in a competent and ethical manner. It's obviously much better to refuse to perform one's due diligence and instead rely on the kindness of strangers. Thanks for setting me straight.

Tue, 11/09/2010 - 16:41 | Link to Comment RockyRacoon
RockyRacoon's picture

Paul explain how she could have saved enough for her retirement without SS?

Not my problem, nor Dr. Paul's.

Mon, 11/08/2010 - 14:56 | Link to Comment Elk peanus
Elk peanus's picture

I would let Ron Paul have sex with my wife.

Mon, 11/08/2010 - 15:02 | Link to Comment hedgeless_horseman
hedgeless_horseman's picture

William Jefferson, we told you that you are banned from this site, damn you.

Mon, 11/08/2010 - 15:05 | Link to Comment Orly
Orly's picture

Thanks...

I got the visual...

Now, if you'll x.xx..xx.......

8)

Mon, 11/08/2010 - 15:06 | Link to Comment Mr Lennon Hendrix
Mr Lennon Hendrix's picture

Hill don't do dudes.

Mon, 11/08/2010 - 18:02 | Link to Comment CrockettAlmanac.com
CrockettAlmanac.com's picture

I would let Ron Paul have sex with my wife.

 

Ron will not even travel alone with a woman not his wife. Just read it in the Atlantic.

Mon, 11/08/2010 - 15:04 | Link to Comment shushup
shushup's picture

I'll gladly opt out. Give me back every penny I've paid in plus interest and I will take care of Myself. Hurray for Ron Paul

Mon, 11/08/2010 - 15:37 | Link to Comment Bartanist
Bartanist's picture

At this point I don't even care about the interest ... just give me the principle (but my employer's contributions on my behalf would be nice as well).

Mon, 11/08/2010 - 15:39 | Link to Comment TheMonetaryRed
TheMonetaryRed's picture

That's not the way it works, dummy.

Social Security isn't a savings program. The trust fund is only there as a demographic cushion.

Your Social Security taxes are already spent.

Mon, 11/08/2010 - 15:44 | Link to Comment technovelist
technovelist's picture

The trust fund is only there as a demographic cushion.

There is no trust fund. Otherwise, you're spot on.

Tue, 11/09/2010 - 02:09 | Link to Comment StychoKiller
StychoKiller's picture

What is the sound of "No Trust Fund" happening?

http://reason.com/blog/2008/10/24/saving-social-security-episode

Yo everyone, check out the link.

Mon, 11/08/2010 - 15:04 | Link to Comment Ckierst1
Ckierst1's picture

Now here's an "opt out" I really can celebrate!

Mon, 11/08/2010 - 15:05 | Link to Comment What_Me_Worry
What_Me_Worry's picture

I could spend my entire day explaining to my 1 year old why she can't just eat cookies all day long.  However, since she has tasted cookies and knows for sure she would rather eat that than anything that will make her healthier and stronger one day then it doesn't matter what I say.

Luckily, for me, I can just not give her the cookies.

Mon, 11/08/2010 - 15:05 | Link to Comment scaleindependent
scaleindependent's picture

Fair enough, if they let you opt out of the defense budget taxes!

 

Mon, 11/08/2010 - 16:18 | Link to Comment goldsaver
goldsaver's picture

You do know that "provide for the common defense" is a constitutionally mandated requirement of the federal government while "take care of grandma for me until she dies" is not, right?

Tue, 11/09/2010 - 02:13 | Link to Comment StychoKiller
StychoKiller's picture

Yup:

"I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending, on objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents." - James Madison

"Charity is no part of the legislative duty of the government." - James Madison

"If Congress can employ money indefinitely to the general welfare, and are
the sole and supreme judges of the general welfare, they may take the care of
religion into their own hands; they may appoint teachers in every State, county
and parish and pay them out of their public treasury; they may take into their
own hands the education of children, establishing in like manner schools throughout the Union; they may assume the provision of the poor; they may undertake the regulation of all roads other than post-roads; in short, every thing, from the highest object of state legislation down to the most minute object of police, would be thrown under the power of Congress... Were the power of Congress to be established in the latitude contended for, it would subvert the very foundations, and transmute the very nature of the limited Government established by the people of America." - James Madison

Mon, 11/08/2010 - 15:08 | Link to Comment goodrich4bk
goodrich4bk's picture

BTW, I gave money to Paul's campaign and generally support his ideas.  But he's starting off on the wrong foot.  First, he takes a cheap shot at Clinton by trying to blame him for the creation of the SS Trut Fund concept (in which excess SS trust funds are lent to the Fed Govt. to pay current expenses). This was a product of the Greenspan Commission and was bipartisan.  Second, SS is not remotely beyond fixing --- Medicare is the problem and, as he says, half of that huge problem was created very recently by a Republican President and Republican Congress to shower money upon their campaign contributors in Big Pharma.  You can fix SS by incrementally raising the retirement rate to keep pace with advances in longevity and raising the maximum earnings on which SS taxes are paid.  Finally, by attacking SS, he is stirring up a hornet's nest for no immediate gain.  His admirable efforts against the Fed will now be discounted in the MSM by the rantings of a dangerous quack.

Mon, 11/08/2010 - 15:13 | Link to Comment Uncle Remus
Uncle Remus's picture

You can't fix ponzi.

Mon, 11/08/2010 - 15:14 | Link to Comment Mr Lennon Hendrix
Mr Lennon Hendrix's picture

SS is a ponzi.  It does not matter who started what.  It does not matter if FDR had a good intention with a twinkle in his eye.  SS is a ponzi.  The Fed is a ponzi.  The US system is a ponzi.

Mon, 11/08/2010 - 15:20 | Link to Comment Orly
Orly's picture

I have felt this about Dr. Paul for a long time, myself.  I am in a congressional district very near his and the sentiments expressed by him and Michael McCaul, my congressman are basically the same, overall.

But when Dr. Paul goes off ranting for fifteen minutes in seemingly esoteric and obtuse language (though frequent readers of ZeroHedge can undersatnd most of his free-association...), asking questions that he knows has no public answer, it sounds and seems like loony-toons.  Sometimes I cringe when he is going on and on, knowing that he is mostly representing my ideas, as well as the people in my community.

It's almost embarrassing- and that's a pity.

Mon, 11/08/2010 - 15:53 | Link to Comment RichardENixon
RichardENixon's picture

Yeah, God forbid anyone actually say anything intelligent in this country.

Do NOT follow this link or you will be banned from the site!