The Strengthen Social Security Campaign has created a guide evaluating the "friendliness" of six Republican candidates, "Among Republican Candidates, Not a Single Friend of Social Security." The Campaign has also produced longer individual profiles of Mitt Romney, Rick Perry and Newt Gingrich's particular records on Social Security.
Some key take-aways that may have slipped by casual observers of the 2012 race can be found in the Strengthen Social Security Campaign's guide to the Republican candidates (click link for version with supporting quotes not included below):
Download this chart with supporting quotes as a PDF.
Disclaimer: Views expressed are the author's own.
Follow Daniel Marans on Twitter: www.twitter.com/danielmarans
Stewart J. Lawrence: Rumors of Newt Gingrich's "Demise" Are Greatly Exaggerated
Barbara J. Easterling: When the Going Gets Tough, Seniors Must Get Voting
Earl Ofari Hutchinson: The Nightmare of Ron Paul's Iowa Win
 |
 |
|
| Obama | Romney | |
|---|---|---|
| Electoral Votes (270 to win) |
332 | 206 |
| Obama | Romney | |
|---|---|---|
| Total | 65,899,660 | 60,932,152 |
| Percent | 51.1% | 47.2% |
| Democrats* | Republicans | |
|---|---|---|
| Current Senate | 53 | 47 |
| Seats gained or lost | +2 | -2 |
| New Total | 55 | 45 |
| Democrats | Republicans | |
|---|---|---|
| Seats won | 201 | 234 |
Social Security is unconstitutional. It is pretty fair to say that no where in Article 1 section 8 does it say the power to create a social safety net. Which means only the individual states can propose that kind of safety net. Secondly, SS will collapse on itself in the end if we continue the course we are on. Beneficiaries retiring today will receieve an approximate $100,000 more in benefits then they paid in meaning their children will be paying more into it to cover that increase, and that will keep growing and growing exponentially and eventually be unsustainable.
Ron Paul suggests we cut the foreign military interventionism to shore up entitlements until we can find a better alternative as well as allowing younger generations(Those under 25) to opt out if they so choose which would eleviate the future burden on taxpayers.
Saying we are all living longer is another rumor started by the wealthy/Wall Street to weaken Social Security.
We should consider keeping the payroll tax cut but take the ceiling off so those who earn more than $110,000 will pay more and those who make less will pay less. We all could have the lower rate but everyone pays on all their paycheck.
I'm in my mid-twenties, I'd rather have the option of opting into Social Security if I wanted to, than being forced into it like I am at the moment.
I believe I could do a better job at saving for my retirement, than the government can. Wouldn't it be the American way for people to choose to be in a program, rather than forcing me to be in it??
So Ron Paul takes the points here.
With Social Security, your employer matches the amount you pay from payroll taxes.
If you die after working 10 years, your surviving children will get benefits until they are 18. If you had not paid for Social Security and were only invested in the market, and you die after 10 years your children get no benefits. Even if you had $200,000 in a 401k, you would be lucky if it lasted your family 6 years without Social Security. That would be around $32,600 a year for 6 years.
If you become disabled, Social Security will pay you benefits until you die or become able again. The stock market won't do that.
If you live to retirement age, you will get a check every month. It is not charity, because you pay for it out of payroll while you are younger. I have 3 daughters and 3 son in laws. I want them to have Social Security. It is worth paying for.
It is not like we can't invest in a 401k, too. I consider my Social Security as bonds.
There are lots of things I don't like paying for like wars, bank bailouts, wall street derivatives, etc.
Younger workers have paid a lot in already for Social Security and Medicare. I wouldn't give it up.
Ron Paul wants to cut military spending, and use that money for programs such as Medicare and Social Security in order to help out seniors that have become completely dependent on such programs.
At the same time, he wants to allow younger people to have the opportunity to opt out of these same programs and save for retirement in their own ways.
What are your opinions?
I think we should allow a private component that people can use for retirement and allow some comingling of funds but the government has to provide a safety net. Further, I think we should tax consumption to pay for these programs, not income.
Well not really.
Speaking as a small business owner I found out that simply isn't true.
Small business depends for the most part on a strong vibrant middle class, to purchase our goods and services. We need their demand, in order to stay in business ourselves. Trickle down economics has devastated America's once burgeoning middle class, into a shadow of what it once was.
IMPO.........The Republican party represents BIG Business. The ones who pay for their political advertisements and donate to their campaigns.
Big Business doesn't care about, or want an American middle class. They can sell their products worldwide, and on credit, which also adds to their bottom lines, and their bottom lines are the ONLY thing they care about.
If the current Republican leadership gets their way, America will become the greatest Fascist Nation in the history of the world.
Lord help us. they may yet succeed...... in my lifetime.
The unions are earning what most of the middle class should be earning.
Go ahead. Tell me they planned this.
When life expectancy increases 30% and we can plan on living to 105 it is time for more seniors to continue working. Of course, more would be working right now if they could hold or find jobs.
Social Security Preservation Act of 2009. H.R. 219
Senior Citizens Tax Elimination Act. H.R. 162
Social Security for Americans Only Act of 2009. H.R. 160
He also co-sponsored the SS limit appeal that now enables seniors to continue working after retirement, if they choose, without being penalized.
You're right, Dr. Paul considers Social Security to be unConstitutional in that the Constitution does not provide for things like Social Security and Medicare. But he also recognizes the contract, the promise, the government made to our seniors and has tried to preserve and protect that promise.
What most don't understand about Roe Vs. Wade is that it is a law written by federal judges. However federal judges do not have the power to create law. The power to write law was specifically left to the legislative branch.
Still so 'sure?'
Ron Paul's plan to balance the budget in three years doesn't cut a penny from either social security or medicare and likely fixes social security in perpetuity with no drop in benefits. Medicare is so far in the hole it may not be a complete fix, it will depend on how much better the economy does. But his plan takes him through his presidency and doesn't cut either.
Dr. Paul also authored two bills in 2009. One bill would have made SS benefits tax exempt - you'd not have to pay federal tax on SS. The second bill would have made SS hands-off. Congress would not be able to pilfer from the SS fund to pay for other programs. Sadly, it never made it out of the bipartisan committee - both Democrats and Republicans squashed it.
What exactly did he say he would do about the uninsured 26 year old with a sudden medical emergency? Doctor charity?
In his philosophy, yeah, he would have charity do it. When he was in the air force he moonlighted at a charity hospital at $3 an hour and they took everyone. IN his practice he never took medicaid and medicare and if you don't know how many pregnancies are on medicaid you just aren't looking. He gave service discounted and for free. But that is NOT what he is saying he will require as president. He just want's to turn the country around and put it on sound footing and get rid of inflation.
His plan is on his campaign website under the issues tab. It is only 14 pages for the executive summary.