Posted on 09/08/2011 3:41:18 AM PDT by justiceseeker93
I realize we're all supposed to be in the tank for Mitt Romney, but when the heck did we suddenly love Social Security?
We've got Karl Rove out there denying it is a Ponzi scheme solely because he hates Rick Perry. It's all politics, not principle.
Mitt Romney says that millions of Americans being dependent on government for their retirement is the definition of a successful program.
And we've got a solid segment of the conservative movement falling in line behind them. It's all so confusing.
Are we all so damn scared of Rick Perry that suddenly we're going to abandon the fight for real reform of Social Security and try to make Perry look like a fringe candidate, when in fact, his position has been the mainstream of the GOP for decades?
Social Security is, for all intents and purposes, a Ponzi scheme. Don't believe me? Try out the Securities and Exchange Commission definition:
(Excerpt) Read more at redstate.com ...
“We’ve got Karl Rove out there denying it is a Ponzi scheme solely because he hates Rick Perry. It’s all politics, not principle.”
Funny... I guess he disagreed with Bush when he tried to reform it.
You both miss the point.
Perry did a masterful job of shaping and selecting the battlefield. He did not intend to offer solutions the first crack out of the barrel. His crafty purpose was to gain control of the debate, not the one at the Regan Library but the total campaign debate.
He now has all others including Obama on defense and months and months to carefully and fully make his points. It was a brilliant play
And how does Perry plan to fund Social Security for those on or soon to be on it? I must have missed that part. Since Social Security is basically a pay-as-you-go system right now then if those who will never see any benefits stop paying into the program, there will be no money to continue paying benefits for those who qualify. And what do they do then?
It's easy to condemn Social Security, and I'll be the first to agree that many of Perry's criticisms are justified. But Perry has a campaign to win and terrifying a large block of voters, especially those who vote the most, is not a way to win it. If he wants to advocate ending Social Security then he would do well to at least have some high-level suggestions on how he would safeguard the benefits for those already on it and what he would suggest in its place.
Because I ask questions that are too hard for you? Sorry.
Then it would be nice if Perry said how he plans to honor the financial promise to people too old to go back to work, and what that transition for younger employees would be. And also a definition of 'too old to go back to work' would be nice as well. Are you saying some people already drawing benefits would be told, "You can work. Hit the bricks and find a job?"
Thank you.
Perry in no way suggested that “it’s a Ponzi scheme but it’s a good Ponzi scheme”, to quote the poster’s comment.
Our kids won’t get any of it, because the money won’t be there when it’s their turn. That is the “monstrous lie” part that Perry was calling it.
I don’t know of anyone who seeks reform who doesn’t have a two pronged approach...one, pay benefits to those who depend on it now and to those soon to receive it, because it’s what they planned on and need, and two, change the system for our kids so they will have something for their senior years.
It seems to me supporters usually trot out the "3D chess" and "poker player" memes when they are rationalizing for bad performance.
Post #46 is meant for SoJoCo, not soconpubbie, whom I pinged by mistake.
As I posted, this is standard and understood by everyone but demagogue’s on the left. We don’t need any demagogue’s on the right.
It’s understood that people on it now aren’t going to have it taken away. Paul Ryan has said as have many others that those 55 and over could also receive it when their time came.
But actuarily speaking, we already KNOW that people younger than that should stop planning on receiving it because there will be only two people working and paying in, for every one person receiving the monthly checks.
To pay for that would be a monstrous burden that would wreck the economic life of our nation, much less the economic lives of those having to pay.
When SS was created, there were 14 people paying in for every one recipient, and people didn’t live nearly as long as they do now.
Perry will continue to expand upon his statement over time. Lots and lots and lots of opportunities...
Romney is demagoguing it, and he is disgusting.
I understand you and agree with you. The point is somebody has to be the spokesman. Someone that can clearly articulate the problem and rally support to the just side. In that Perry failed. Until Palin gets in the race, I will remain nervous.
So in a 3 min or less comment ...you want all the details, Well that ain’t going to happen. That is like asking a builder for the blueprints right after you tell him what you want. At least he/Perry is talking about it and in a fearless way. It was Congress who started to take money from the fund and use it else where. It is the media who is terrorizing the elder voters with Perry’s comment. They are not playing all of what he said.
But the problem I have with that is that nobody is saying how we will fund that without requiring those who won't see Social Security to continue to pay into it.
But actuarily speaking, we already KNOW that people younger than that should stop planning on receiving it because there will be only two people working and paying in, for every one person receiving the monthly checks.
Something I have been preaching to my college-aged daughter and her fiancee for years. As soon as you start work, join the 401K and contribute the max that they match. Then open a Roth IRA and contribute as much as you can to that. Unless I hit the Lottery and leave her a bundle then that's the only way she'll have a comfortable retirement.
Perry will continue to expand upon his statement over time. Lots and lots and lots of opportunities...
Saying Perry will 'continue to expand' implies that he has already started outlining his ideas. I must have missed that part, both in his book and last night.
Not all. But some would be nice.
At least he/Perry is talking about it and in a fearless way.
Fearless to him, perhaps. Not to those depending on Social Security checks.
Perry may have supported something similar as an Al Gore Democrat before his switch to the GOP. I don't know if Paul deliberately lied on that, but he definitely didn't get his historical facts straight.
Ron Paul claims to be a physician. He has not practiced medicine in nearly 30 years because he does not go back to the private sector.
Nothing wrong about Paul calling himself a physician. He has the necessary credentials. And Paul's terms in Congress have been non-consecutive. He lost his House seat the year he ran for president as a Libertarian and didn't return to Washington until eight years(?) later. In the interim, he did return to his medical practice (obstetrics-gynecology).
Not at all.
It is, by definition, similar to a Ponzi scheme in that it requires a continual stream of investments in order to work.
However, Perry knows that many people do count on it, and isn’t stupid enough to try and take that from them, as it’s not their fault that it was done the way it was.
Perry alluded to keeping those on it or about to be on it in the current system but creating something new for younger people. He does need a more specific plan, but, in the format of the debate, he had to answer the question as it was given to him.
Herman Cain actually supports the Chilean model, which I agree with, and Perry would be smart to adopt similar ideas and be specific with them.
However, unless you’re a shill for the left, claiming that in order for Perry to believe it’s a Ponzi scheme must mean he wants to cut off millions of senior citizens in one fell swoop, then you’re just ignorant, or, you have an agenda to destroy Perry for your candidate of choice (likely Paul or Palin).
I support something like the Chilean model, which Herman Cain actually spoke about.
I like Cain, and will likely vote for him in the primary if he’s still on the ballot at that time, but have come to the conclusion that he won’t go anywhere, so I think Perry, as the most electable conservative IMHO, should have a nice conversation with Cain about HIS Social Security plan.
Many of us here are not supporting Romney in the primary process. But to stay home in November of next year should Romney be the GOP candidate would only help Obama's bid for a second term. At least Romney is light years better than Obama on the economy. I hope you and others like you think twice before you do that if that troublesome situation comes to pass.
***And getting the children off any direct responsibility for their parents.***
Yes indeed - the Marxist stalking horse for family dissolution and societal disorder.
(Noting that Japan still maintains reverence & value for age & wisdom and witness the civil behavior in the earthquake).
I know they go back a long way in Texas together, when Rove was GWB's political advisor and Perry was GWB's lieutenant governor.
Not sure of the reason for it, but there is definitely bad blood between the two. Perhaps someone familiar with Texas GOP politics can enlighten us on this.
I turn Rove off as I think he’s an Elitist whose clueless to just how angry We The People are at career politicians like him. He’s part of the problem, IMO.
I'm no Romney fan and he does have some RINOish tendencies, but he clearly would be preferable to Obama, especially on the economy.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.