Ron Paul Admits He Draws Benefits From The Social Security System He’s Working to Destroy

Okay, so the mask is finally off.  But honestly, it never really was much of a disguise, was it?  From Erin Mershon at the Huffington Post:

Rep. Ron Paul (R-Texas) may rail against Social Security insolvency in the public eye, but that hasn’t stopped him from accepting the government checks.

The libertarian-leaning Republican and former presidential candidate admitted Wednesday that he accepts Social Security checks just minutes after he called for younger generations to wean themselves off the program, in an interview on MSNBC’s “Morning Joe.”

“I want young people to opt out of Social Security, but my goal isn’t to cut,” he said.

The Huffington Post’s Sam Stein then asked Paul, “A bit of a personal question — Are you on Social Security? Do you get social security checks?”

Paul admitted he does, stating, “[It’s] just as I use the post office, I use government highways, I use the banks, I use the federal reserve system. But that doesn’t mean that you can’t work to remove this in the same way on Social Security.”

Paul also said he still pays more into Social Security than he gets in his checks…

[continues at the Huffington Post]

Latest posts by Liam McGonagle (see all)

59 Comments on "Ron Paul Admits He Draws Benefits From The Social Security System He’s Working to Destroy"

  1. Another hard hitting story from the Huffington Post. This truly demonstrates what an evil man Ron Paul is.

  2. Marklar_Prime | Jun 21, 2012 at 9:15 pm |

    So when he has had money taken from him by force by the federal government and rejects that idea he is then required to force the government to keep the money they stole from him by rejecting it once they deign to give some of it back to him? That’s like taking a bank to task for complaining about bank robbers but accepting the money after the bank robber has been caught and the funds recovered.

    I am not against social security and no particular fan of Ron Paul but that line of thinking is a sure sign of extreme intellectual retardation.

    • Camron Wiltshire | Jun 21, 2012 at 10:53 pm |

      Exactly!  Glad to see I’m not the only one calling out Gonagle’s fallacies here.  If you’re gonna hate on Paul at least find something legitimate to bitch over.

      • Nickybishop | Jun 23, 2012 at 12:34 pm |

         Here is a bitch about Ron. He’s a millionaire, no rich man knows shit about what everyday Americans suffer through.

    • Liam_McGonagle | Jun 22, 2012 at 1:55 pm |

      Ahem–you know that SS isn’t a defined contribution plan, with segregated accounts, right?  You do know that, right?

      That’s important to know, because it kinda sort totally invalidates the basic premise of your argument.

      • Marklar_Prime | Jun 22, 2012 at 4:08 pm |

         How utterly irrelevant. So you are saying the robbed bank should refuse to take it’s money back because the money got pooled with the money from other robbed banks at one point.

        My premise stands quite well thank you. Your argument is as faulty as the article’s.

        • mysophobe | Jun 22, 2012 at 6:49 pm |

          Not to step on Liam’s toes, but the point is that if he were so put off by the government “stealing” money from him to give to others, why would he then turn around and accept money that is “stolen” from someone else? Seems like the principled, consistent stand would be to not be a contributing party to the very same crime which you were a victim of yourself. This “getting back what’s mine” argument is selfish and childish even for Ron Paul.

    • mysophobe | Jun 22, 2012 at 4:06 pm |

      Curious as to how you and others see FICA as the government taking by force or stealing from you? You knew the rules of the game when you CHOSE to earn an income in this country, and believe it or not there are other options that don’t involve government assistance of any kind. No one is forcing you to earn an income and the prospect of paying taxes apparently didn’t deter you from doing so. In addition, we all decide together either directly or indirectly through representation what taxes will be levied. It’s clearly spelled out in the constitution that this is one of the main jobs of Congress. I just don’t see it unless you’re simply trying to be dramatic.

      • On one level I agree with your assessment, but I don’t think you’ve thought through the logical implications.

        So, if Marklar_Prime there decided that he wasn’t going to earn an income and pay taxes within the system what options does he have?

        He has the option of finding some other place (some other country as there is very little frontier left in the world) to immigrate to that will let him move there and that suits him OR he has the option of staying here and employing violence to protect himself from those that would force him to pay those taxes.

        I think grudgingly paying those taxes (which is apparently what he is doing) is in many ways the most likely, reasonable, mature, and least destructive course of action.

        I guess there is a sort of visceral pleasure in telling someone “Either stop whining or start fire-bombing!”, but is that really what you want?

        • mysophobe | Jun 22, 2012 at 6:07 pm |

          Honestly the option of resorting to violence or breaking the law couldn’t have been further from my mind. FICA is one of the tougher taxes to avoid, being that it’s a flat tax with no minimum income exemption, but living off of private charity, living a sustenance existence, or living off an inheritance are options that come to mind. Bartering for food, necessities and materials to make other barterable goods with is an option, although it may be skirting the tax code. Owning a farm and growing and manufacturing all of your necessities requires no income. In certain situations, entering into a ministry can exempt one from payroll taxes. Granted most of these options aren’t particularly attractive to most people but they are available for those who feel they are victims of some imagined crime or indecency perpetrated by the government. FDR wanted to pass a second bill of rights which would have guaranteed the right to a living wage but as of this writing, earning an income is not an inalienable right but rather a privilege. Participation is optional.

          •  > Owning a farm and growing and manufacturing all of your necessities requires no income.

            Oh right, we all know “owning a farm” is free.  Where do we all sign up?

          • TapMeYouFascists | Jun 23, 2012 at 11:13 am |

            You buy it with your inheritance, DUH!

  3. This has got to be the worst logical fallacy I’ve ever seen. Ron Paul isn’t taking money the magical money fairies conjured up – he’s taking back his own money. His own freakin’ money! 
    It would be hypocritical if he were accepting food stamps or AFDC, but social security, disability insurance and unemployment insurance are all deposit-withdrawal systems, not wealth transfer systems. If someone is too dumb to understand this they really shouldn’t be voting. They really shouldn’t. 

    • People who were senior citizens when Ron Paul was young took Ron Paul’s money.  Ron Paul is taking the money of people who are paying for Social Security now. 

      Social Security is an unabashed wealth transfer system.  That’s what the civilized world does instead of letting its elders starve.  We’re not yet a nation that abandons its seniors to homelessness, but Ron Paul would like to “correct” that.  That’s why this is a story.

      • Camron Wiltshire | Jun 22, 2012 at 12:47 am |

        “There is a big myth out there that, since Ron Paul finds programs such as Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid unconstitutional, that his plan is to slash those programs entirely and throw everyone relying on those programs out on the street. The truth couldn’t be more opposite. While Paul is opposed to Social Security and other government programs not specifically allowed by the Constitution, his “Plan to Restore America” includes no cuts to Social Security or Medicare whatsoever. In fact, Paul’s plan is the only one that cuts enough from other areas in order to ensure that those programs are solvent. While opposed to the programs, he understands that people paid into them their whole lives and now rely on them at an age where many would have no other source of income if suddenly cut off from them. Instead, Paul calls for massive cuts to overseas military spending and government departments whose primary function is to hand out taxpayer money to corporations.”

        • Camron Wiltshire | Jun 22, 2012 at 12:49 am |

          So in reality.  Dr. Paul wants to make sure people receive what they were forced to pay into by slashing the budget of the Military.  So it’s a farcical “gotcha” story that demonstrates the desire for the establishment to discredit him and his message any way they can.  I’ve also heard it referred to as “Yellow Journalism.” 

          Now that you have a better understanding of his actual position.  What do you think?

          Perhaps Huffpo will run a correction? Hahaha sorry laughing at my own joke. 

          •  You know, I have noticed that it doesn’t matter what is said bad about Ron Paul; it is usually really quite insubstantial.  All that matters is that there was SOMETHING bad said about him.  Then the zombie juice goes to work cloning an army of the uninformed. 

            Everyone will jump on the misleading over-generalization or false superlative, and it is usually very difficult for someone who is not skilled in debate and versed in the literature to overturn these asinine points.

          • Simiantongue | Jun 24, 2012 at 12:11 pm |

             “In reality” Paul may be personally concerned about what people receive, but the end game is really about privatization. Monied interests want to be the ones who run SS. Why let government do it when there’s billions to be made doing it? That’s Ron Paul’s constituency.

            At one time I gave Paul the benefit of the doubt that he’s being played like a piece on a board but “in reality” I think he’s fully aware of who his real constituency is and their agenda. A return to the “good old days” of the gilded age of robber barons, except it’s not just an individual mining town they want own lock stock and barrel but the whole nation.

      • Liam_McGonagle | Jun 22, 2012 at 1:56 pm |

        Good on you, Rheoku!  It’s pretty rare that I see a commentor who doesn’t make the rookie error of conflating SS with a defined contribution plan!

  4. Nadine Wesaly | Jun 21, 2012 at 9:32 pm |

    weak…this article reaks of agenda, logical fallacies is right.

  5. FRascistC | Jun 22, 2012 at 12:05 am |

    No one gives a fuck about Ron Paul hit pieces anymore, except for dorks who want to validate their upcoming vote for Fascist A or Fascist B

    • Liam_McGonagle | Jun 22, 2012 at 1:59 pm |

      Fair play–generally speaking.  But in case you haven’t noticed, Paul isn’t going to be nominated for dog catcher this year.  Not much electoral incentive to keep sh*tting on a man like Paul, who just keeps sh*tting on himself anyways.

      I blame it on being a slow news day.  I could barely summon the enthusiasm to click the ‘submit’ button, but the Devil made me do it anyhow.

  6. yay! I was going to come in here and flame, but everyone has already taken this nonsense to task!  

  7. Apathesis | Jun 22, 2012 at 12:27 am |

    As much as I don’t believe in Social Security, you better believe I’d be taking the money.  They stole it from me after all.

  8. Apathesis | Jun 22, 2012 at 12:46 am |


    268 Fans


    10 hours ago (10:54 AM)

    Obama 2012!

    The only choice for:

    Middle Class Americans
    The 99% Who Aren’t Wealthy
    Minorities of Any Kind
    Fire Fighters
    Police Officers
    Union Workers
    Anyone Who Doesn’t Have The Title CEO, Hedge Fund Manager, or Private Equity Manager

    and Dogs ^Typical HuffPost user comment.

    • They always delete my comments revealing the typical Republican as a morbidly obese illiterate collecting welfare in his motorized wheel chair. I guess they can’t handle the truth.

      • Apathesis | Jun 22, 2012 at 7:14 am |


      • Apathesis | Jun 22, 2012 at 7:28 am |

        I will never understand how people can get that fat or how the South can be so Republican when they are so poor.

        • Marklar_Prime | Jun 23, 2012 at 6:58 pm |

           As for getting that fat mac and cheese heated up in the microwave on a 30 minute lunch break will tend to do that. The rich or upper middle can afford the $35 steamed salmon and asparagus plate. As for democrap or rethuglican, what’s the difference beyond which lies they choose to tell you?

    • Marklar_Prime | Jun 23, 2012 at 6:54 pm |

       You forgot left handed people.

  9. Wait, Romney is all but clinched the nomination, why is this guy attempting to sling mud on him?

    Will they even report how many wrote in Ron Paul on their ballot?   I can’t vote for either of the chosen ones.   It really doesn’t matter if we don’t get Ron Paul.

  10. even though he refused to voluntarily participate in it
    he will nonetheless collect his fat Congressional retirement package
    and he’s not working against that at all
    maybe Congress should wean themselves off their special retirement plan first

  11. Ron Paul isn’t going to go after social security because it would be political suicide. However, to think he doesn’t have more contempt for social security than he does for say our massive military budget is just wish fulfillment. At least the military budget is building massive capital markets and he can get behind that, even if they’re not truly open markets, but social security is just flat out socialism and an anathema to his kind.

    All of his minions will exhort his social libertarian positions while ignoring the hard-core free market capitalist positions. Once in power he would gut all of our social services because that’s all low hanging fruit. There’s really nothing in place to protect those services from short-term opportunist. He’d have a much harder time even touching any of the stuff that has unlimited revenue streams and armies of lobbyist protecting them: The Fed, the military, wall st, etc. Best case scenario we get to smoke legal pot while we all watch Rome burn. No matter how bad liberals might want to swallow that poison pill to realize the sunny side of Ron Paul there’d be no greener pastures and it’d be nothing more than ideological suicide.

  12. Huffpost is a joke, their readers comments are from 5th grade , why repost it here or anywhere? 

  13. anyone who knows Ron Paul,…knows what this “report” is meant to do, for the people who dont know him,…as for those in the “middle”,they have to verify, verify, verify,… like all the Ron paul supporters ALWAYS DO,and ALWAYS FIND Ron Paul on the Constitutional path to Liberty.

    Take note of the so called “journalist” who wrote this toxic garbage,…ERIN MERSHON  

  14. Jin The Ninja | Jun 22, 2012 at 8:26 am |

    i pledge allegiance to ron paul
    of the multinational corporations
    and the republicans
    for which he stands
    one market
    under Oligarchs
    with laissez-faire and police protection
    for rich white men.


    • FRascistC | Jun 23, 2012 at 9:30 am |

      i pledge allegiance to the president
      of the multinational corporationsand the partyfor which he standsone marketunder Oligarchssegregatedwith laissez-faire and police protectionfor rich men.


      • Jin The Ninja | Jun 23, 2012 at 12:02 pm |

        the dems/repubs are on the same side of right wing. the elephants just a little bit further fascist. and by the way, since my post was original and quite clever (if i do say so), in order to make a cogent point, you should have really tried harder to make yours more distinct and actually biting. withering wit is a key component of satire.

  15. And heaven forbid a man of means puts in more than he gets back. 

  16. I am not a Paulite by any means but this whole story is one of the most desperate attempts at discrediting Ron Paul, it is ridiculous. Not Disinfo’s fault; it’s across damn near all media. Funny how they will be so quick to dismiss all the things someone says about a subject but use one of their lines and preconceived notions to stir up a bunch of shit that is unwarranted.

    Either way, I’m appalled at how the media and Republican Party has been treating his campaign as well as Kucinich’s in 2008. I’ve been following the delegate situation and I hope things get interesting in Tampa. 

  17. Mary Microgram | Jun 22, 2012 at 10:40 am |

    So at age 76, he takes money from the same system he paid into all his adult life?  GASP!  Alert the presses! 

    “Disinformation” indeed :

  18. as Ricky
    explained I’m blown away that some people able to earn $5912 in 4 weeks
    on the computer. did you read this web page

  19. Paul also said he still pays more into Social Security than he gets in his checks…

  20. Ron Paul is GUILTY, no doubt about it.  I mean, come on!  This guy has been railing against these entitlements and various safety net programs FOR FOREVER.  But when it’s CONVENIENT FOR HIM, he takes the money!  Gimme a break, Dr. Paul.  Where’s your INTEGRITY?  If you rail against something, and the gov’t then OFFERS it to you, you would say, “No!”, despite any other BS about how, “Well, the gov’t made me pay into it before, so I’m just getting it back.”  Does Dr. Paul even KNOW how much he’s paid into SS thus far?  How can he be ABSOLUTELY SURE that’s he not yet taken “enough” of SS money that’s equivalent to WHAT HE PAID IN TAXES FOR IT, at least? 

  21. This is a typical libertarian/conservative tactic: Take advantage of various gov’t programs when it works FOR YOU but then rail about it 10 or 20 years later AS IF IT’S BAD FOR EVERYONE ELSE AND LEADS TO “DEPENDENCY” FOR THEM.  Or b*tch about how it’s “big government”… except when YOU took it.  Then, it was just “necessary”???  Don’t make me laugh.  If libertarians had ANY integrity whatsoever, they’d refuse all these programs they rail against.  Doing the right or principled thing RARELY is easy, but libertarians who pull this crap WANNA TAKE THE EASY WAY OUT, and then they justify it with nonsense about how taxation is “theft” or “Well, the gov’t stole the money from you before, so you’re just getting it back.”  But did the gov’t ONLY TAX YOU? NO! Of course not… The gov’t taxes MILLIONS of hard-working citizens.  That’s not just YOUR money but theirs, too.

  22. Paul did this same thing when he was asked about PUTTING EARMARKS IN BILLS FOR RESIDENTS OF HIS DISTRICT.  He was asked about the HYPOCRISY, esp. when he VOTES NO ON THOSE SAME EARMARKS HE ORIGINALLY REQUESTED, and he basically gave some silly excuse along the lines of, “Well, these earmarks give us more transparency into how the various federal agencies spend the money, whereas it would’ve been more-unknown without the specifics.” Uh… ok.  So that justifies putting in THE MOST RIDICULOUS PORK INTO A BILL when you could’ve easily just said NO?  I mean, how much “more absurd” could the OTHER, LESSER-KNOWN SPENDING BY THESE AGENCIES HAVE BEEN?  More absurd than shit like the Bridge to Nowhere or doing research on the mating habits of shrimp?

    GTFO of here, Dr. Paul.  I used to be a fan of you, but you’ve shown how full of crap you are now, esp. with your stupid-ass “delegate strategy” that HAS GONE NOWHERE FAST or the whining about how WHENEVER YOU LOSE IN A PRIMARY, THERE MUST BE VOTER FRAUD.  Or something like that

  23. I wonder: Has Dr. Paul given even a CENT of his SS money to charity or someone who REALLY needs it?? Or did he keep it?  If he kept it, that is REALLY disgusting. -_- No excuse for that… I mean, the guy’s RICH, right??? When you have more money than you’ll probably ever spend, WHO GIVES A FLYING F*CK about trivial crap related to “the gov’t taking my money in the past and giving me some back”?  That’s just petty moralizing.  The guy’s already got TONS of money, so why does he give a fuck one way or the other?  He should return the SS or, at the very least, CASH THE MONEY AND THEN SEND THAT TO CHARITY!  That would be the moral thing to do.  After all, you libertarians LOVE extolling the virtues of INDIVIDUAL charity vs. gov’t aid, right? What better chance to ‘prove’ that you can do it better as individuals?

    •  Ron Paul probably made WAY MORE IN INCOME NOWADAYS THAN HE EVER PAID IN TAXES… yet he’s STILL “concerned” about “getting what I paid back”? Come on… Grow up, Ron.

  24. ClubGugly | Jun 24, 2012 at 1:03 pm |

    Listening (or Reading the comments of) Ron Paul supporters is a goddamn nightmare. Mostly desperate, always inane, it never seems to amaze me how many people are downright eager to throw away any progress this country has made in the last century , and for what? For the idea that ,”One day when I am rich (they never think in terms of IF) I don’t want nobody takin’ my money from me, fuck ’em”. Its easy to think of the poor and elderly of this county as lazy, stupid, living in the aftermath of terrible life choices. The only problem is that it just isn’t true. The only arguments against social security and welfare for the poor come down to either ignorance or avarice. 

  25. Tomasmagic | Jul 5, 2012 at 10:23 am |

    Why shouldn’t he take it?  The guy’s put money in it for years.  All his kids didn’t use student loans. 
    Good lord.  Republicans and Democrats are the problem.  Ron Paul’s the BEST candidate.  Yes, he’s running as a Republican, but that’s because the system is rigged.  If he went as an Independent, he wouldn’t get his message across.  If you take the time to research Paul, you’ll wind up agreeing with most of what he says.  Those who don’t are just stuck to their political party.

Comments are closed.