Ron Paul's Financial Disclosure Statement

Quote from Elmer : That's a bizarre statement. If you feel it's wrong for the government to take the money from you in the first place, why would it be "unprincipled" to get some or all of it back?

he feels every aspect of social security is wrong, not just the taking aspect. if he was truly against ss as an institution in it's entirety i don't see how he can justify what he's doing now.

Quote from thikthird : he feels every aspect of social security is wrong, not just the taking aspect. if he was truly against ss as an institution in it's entirety i don't see how he can justify what he's doing now.

If he truly has taken less than he paid in then he is essentially taking his own money back since the intent of SS was to be a forced savings account.

Quote from thikthird : a principled man wouldn't take the money, no matter how much more he put into it.

People who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones.

Quote from andyfico : If he truly has taken less than he paid in then he is essentially taking his own money back since the intent of SS was to be a forced savings account.

Justification: Just trying to get my damn money back that they stole from me in the first place.

Sounds pretty damn reasonable.

Quote from thikthird : he feels every aspect of social security is wrong, not just the taking aspect. if he was truly against ss as an institution in it's entirety i don't see how he can justify what he's doing now.

Bizarre.....

There is nothing wrong with his getting his money back from a program he disagrees with.

One could make a case that not taking it back would be unprincipled. Why would he donate his money to a program he's against?

Quote from Elmer : Bizarre..... There is nothing wrong with his getting his money back from a program he disagrees with. One could make a case that not taking it back would be unprincipled. Why would he donate his money to a program he's against?

Well he could also be taking it back and donating it to starving children. So yes, the very act of taking the money back isn't unprincipled in and of itself.

Quote from andyfico : If he truly has taken less than he paid in then he is essentially taking his own money back since the intent of SS was to be a forced savings account.

Quote from brbubba : People who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones. Justification: Just trying to get my damn money back that they stole from me in the first place. Sounds pretty damn reasonable.

Quote from Elmer : Bizarre..... There is nothing wrong with his getting his money back from a program he disagrees with. One could make a case that not taking it back would be unprincipled. Why would he donate his money to a program he's against?

it seems to me that i'm dealing with people of flexible moral fibre.

i maintain my position that if he was truly against the notion of social security that he wouldn't participate in any aspect that's not forced.

the only case one could make otherwise, is that the only principles he is adhering to are greed and selfishness. then his actions would be principled.

Quote from thikthird : no i wouldn't say that.

I rest my case.

Quote from Xygonn : I rest my case.

i suppose you don't see the difference between your hypothetical situation and ron paul's.

Quote from thikthird : it seems to me that i'm dealing with people of flexible moral fibre.

You think that because of your flexible definitions and logic.....

Quote from thikthird : i i maintain my position that if he was truly against the notion of social security that he wouldn't participate in any aspect that's not forced..

And your position remains wrong.....

Quote from thikthird : the only case one could make otherwise, is that the only principles he is adhering to are greed and selfishness. then his actions would be principled.

I'm guessing it's your lack of understanding of ownership and private property, along with an entitled mindset, that keeps you thinking someone shouldn't retrieve their money from a program they don't support......

Quote from thikthird : it seems to me that i'm dealing with people of flexible moral fibre.

Just because you don't take an all or nothing stance doesn't mean you have flexible morals. Lets take an example, I'm against big farming of livestock because it basically creates inhumane conditions. But that doesn't mean I'm going to give up eating meat entirely. Basically you're taking the, throwing the baby out with the bath water argument. Just because you disagree with something doesn't necessarily force you to always practice what you preach. And in many cases you wouldn't even be able to practice what you preach. Paying taxes for instance. I'm against income tax, but I'm forced to pay it or face a risk of jail.

Quote from brbubba : Just because you don't take an all or nothing stance doesn't mean you have flexible morals. Lets take an example, I'm against big farming of livestock because it basically creates inhumane conditions. But that doesn't mean I'm going to give up eating meat entirely. Basically you're taking the, throwing the baby out with the bath water argument. Just because you disagree with something doesn't necessarily force you to always practice what you preach. And in many cases you wouldn't even be able to practice what you preach. Paying taxes for instance. I'm against income tax, but I'm forced to pay it or face a risk of jail.

your example is not logical. you say you're against factory farming but you won't give up eating meat. you can be against factory farming and eat meat from small farms. if you were against eating meat but ate meat you would be a hypocrite. if you were against social security and participated in non-mandatory aspects of it, you're a hypocritcal unprincipled man.

Quote from Elmer : You think that because of your flexible definitions and logic..... And your position remains wrong..... I'm guessing it's your lack of understanding of ownership and private property, along with an entitled mindset, that keeps you thinking someone shouldn't retrieve their money from a program they don't support......

i'm wondering what definitions and logic of mine you consider to be flexible? either way, i'm not the idealogue who's betraying my core principles here.

you saying that further validates and cements the claim i make.

i have a perect understanding of ownership and private property. matter of fact, my understanding is so good that i don't confuse those terms and consider ownership synonymous with complete authority.
and iiiiiii have an entitled mindset when iiiii'm not the one out retrieving mmmmyyyyy money from a program i don't support? reeeeaaaalllllyyy? look at yourself in the mirror and try saying what you just typed out loud.

Quote from thikthird : your example is not logical. you say you're against factory farming but you won't give up eating meat. you can be against factory farming and eat meat from small farms. if you were against eating meat but ate meat you would be a hypocrite. if you were against social security and participated in non-mandatory aspects of it, you're a hypocritcal unprincipled man.

Ron Paul is against SS but did his own retirement planning and saving. See he too had/has an option, just like eating meat only from small farms. See the connection? The difference is, SS is robbing him, and he is getting some of his money back. Nothing wrong with that.


You wanna talk unprincipled, maybe you should look at your boy Obama, or Romney, whomever you are flocking to because that's what you were told to do.

Quote from thikthird : he feels every aspect of social security is wrong, not just the taking aspect. if he was truly against ss as an institution in it's entirety i don't see how he can justify what he's doing now.

Quote from Elmer : Bizarre..... There is nothing wrong with his getting his money back from a program he disagrees with. One could make a case that not taking it back would be unprincipled. Why would he donate his money to a program he's against?

The ridiculousness of thikthird's post here is rivaled only by his posts in another thread regarding businesses and profits lol

Quote from thikthird : your example is not logical. you say you're against factory farming but you won't give up eating meat. you can be against factory farming and eat meat from small farms. if you were against eating meat but ate meat you would be a hypocrite. if you were against social security and participated in non-mandatory aspects of it, you're a hypocritcal unprincipled man.

You haven't explained specifically why there's no justification for trying to get money back that you've already put into the system. All you keep saying is that it's an unprincipled position and that's the end of it. But I'm it's not clear from your discussion why everything has to be black and white.

In the case of the factory farming, what if I made efforts to buy from local farms that humanely raise livestock, but then the supermarket I visit suddenly stops carrying it. I might look for a new supermarket, but what if I needed the meat right there and then. Would I still be unprincipled for buying it even if I couldn't assure it was local?

If anything the meat example is worse than the SS example, because in the SS situation I've already been putting money into it for decades. So from my viewpoint I'm entitled to that money. If we were talking about welfare then I would be pissed because you haven't actually invested into that.