You're viewing YouTube in English (US).
Switch to another language: | View all
You're viewing YouTube in English.
Switch to another language: | View all
PART 1 I think I didn't address your last comment enough so I will now: 1) , I don't think the pointless wars are as costly as you think, but hey Ron Paul would end them anyways so there's a point for him, no? 2) I don't agree that the crash was free market. To reply to your most recent comment: Corporate influence is drawn to large powerful and centralised governments. If we had the system in the constitution, the one Ron Paul wants, it would be much harder to corrupt the system.
Then reserving judgement is warranted for rational peoples.
He is old! Old enough to maybe know a thing about the government! He has only been thinking about it for around 50 years now!
I used to be part of his cult of personality; it is embarrassing to look back and think " I wanted this guy to run the country."
These methods have become obsolete because government grew and is now a very powerful tool for private companies to use to oppress the public, since they will use what they have. Without government, this would not be possible (in a free market).
You act as though it is financially stable now. As for the plan, he wants to allow people to opt out of it.
Because he wants to end it. If he's willing to take away social security benefits from others who paid in what right does he have to take them for himself.
He wants to phase it out, not abruptly end it so young people lose all the money they put in. You could've known this by simply reading his wiki page, but I guess researching the person you criticise is too much a hassle.
He wants to give people under 25 the option to opt out. His program cuts all unconstitutional military expenditure in order to put money back into social security for those who are dependent on it. In fact, he is the only one with a plan that can save social security.
One can't magically know the original context of everything one looks at.
He gets ss but he has no problem with advocating taking it away from younger generations who have already paid in.
PART 2 If we had the very state focused system one would have to target state governments for real power, not the 700 or so members of the federal government. But even the greatest state governments are only a fraction of the power the federal government holds now. If you like the centralised system, how exactly do you propose to keep it from being corrupted? Giving the federal government full control over the economy is just the alternative way of merging corporate power with government power.
No it shows that politics that allows too much corporate influence will innevitably fail.
LISTEN HERE!!! Dr. Paul paid into a system that he is collecting from every month. This does NOT make him a hypocrite. It simply means that he's taking his money back. If he paid nothing into the system and is milking it, then that would make him hypocritical. BUT he is taking HIS money BACK. Nothing wrong with taking your money back. DID YOU KNOW, he is entitled to a Government pension, in which he refuses to collect on even though he's been eligible to collect it for over a decade? C'mon!
No then we just ban efforts to circumvent the law in the way you just described.
Let me get this Dr. Paul collected SS, yet he expects everyone else to be without it? That's really selfish and hypocritical of him. I thought he's supposed to be the most consistent candidate around.
And if you can be involved in politics for that many decades and still be (relatively for a politician, not ramen noodle) broke, well, then you MUST be honest!
Read Lessons for the Young Economist by Murphy.
Yes, I've read two of Paul's books and have also read "The Law" by Frederic Bastiat. Those worked fine until the 1860's, but as industry grew these methods have become obsolete as the primary focus of companies moved from providing a service to making a profit at any cost.
If I were him, I would've said "Well, to understand why I take social security, you need to remember what social security is! Social security is the government taking your money and then giving it back to you when you retire. I paid my money and I will sure as hell collect it back- what I'd like to avoid is having my grandchildren do the same thing, because there is no such thing as a perfectly run federal system, so why not just avoid this redistribution altogether as soon as we possible can?"
PART 2 Here's a question though: If you banned corporations from making political contributions, wouldn't they just do it through an individual? Sounds like a good law, but I don't see how it could actually be enforced. Wouldn't it actually just make it harder to tell which politician is in who's hands?
U all are dumbasses!! its a 2 min and u already judges a video that is put out of context. watch the entire original video. he explains why he is on SS.
Ban corporate contributions to political campaigns and ban elected officials from ever working for lobbying firms after they leave office. A system where states had all of the power would never work without the federal government to provide defense,foreign policy and resolve disputes between states.
He's not an idiot. He's made plenty of money in gold stocks. The idiots are all of us who directly or by apathy approve of the Federal Reserve.
No, you are totally wrong. I won't bother arguing with you though. Read The Jungle by Upton Sinclair to get an idea of factories without government regulations.
If a highwayman stole money from you, and threw back some coins at you, is it hypocritical to condemn the highwayman while picking the coins up off the ground? That's what Ron Paul is like, he disproves of the highwayman but is willing to take back some of what was taken from him. It would only be hypocrisy if Ron Paul went around criticising people for accepting social security.
Doesn't that show that the federal government is largely incapable of not screwing the system up? To me it does.
Um, well I believe the system worked otherwise (look at money flow in the past election when compared to previous elections) for as long as we've had groups that have monitored campaign finance.
Have you read any Austrian Economics or were you just a blind follower? Most of his followers follow him because of the message, which they've concluded through independent thought and deductive reasoning.
Its not stable now because of a lack of federal money (spent on two pointless wars and fixing a massive free market economic crash) to keep it stable. Add to that the fact that its funding was constantly getting raided by the federal government for other purposes and theres no way it could have lasted.
What a fucking hypocrite. I deserve social security, it works for me. It won't work for you, so you shouldn't get it or want it. Go fuck yourself Ron Paul.
He has never gone in depth about how he plans to phase out a system that is reliant on new generations paying in to keep it financially stable? Or is this just like all his gold standerd bs? All Ron Paul has to offer America is pontification.
PART 1 I said a state focused system, not a "system where states have all of the power". The federal government would still manage those things you mentioned if the constitution was obeyed, but it wouldn't do much else.
And to this I'm sure the reporter would immediatly respond with some paraphrasing of "But... but... you are old... and broke... and old.... did I mention old? Like, because you collect retirement..... old...."
He was forced to pay into Social Security like everyone else, why shouldn't he get some of his money back? BTW/ he elected NOT to participate in the very LUCRATIVE Congressional Pension Plan which affords 100% payments for 5 years of service at age 62... I didn't see that ignorant talking head bring up that point.
to add this to Watch Later

Add to