Perry on Social Security: They also said Reagan was too blunt

Washington Examiner ^ | September 10, 2011 | Mark Tapscott

[SoJoCo]

You don’t abolish it when people are living on it and some are about to enter the program that was forced on them and they’re near retirement.

Any other abject failures that Perry wants to keep around?

You transition to something that isn’t unsustainable and run by the Federal government. 30-40 year-olds know it won’t be there (their parents and grandparents know it and want to see their family members out of this financial trap that will not be there for them).

There in lies the problem. You say transition to something that isn't run by the federal government. You already have that - 401Ks, IRAs, basic savings accounts. But if your plan is a required contribution retirement program not run by the federal government then that's likely unconstitutional. In either case, how do you fund Social Security for those on it or those almost on it while allowing those not on it to drop out?

I appreciate that you might be interested in this but if your only point for coming on Perry threads is to be negative and ball up the thread, please go somewhere else.

I want some indication that Perry isn't all hat and no cattle. I keep hoping to find it but have been pretty disappointed to date.

[SoJoCo]

Describing it accurately while at the same time being unwilling to withdraw the promises made to seniors by the federal government seems to be a political concept too complex for you to grasp.

Describing something as criminal fraud and an abject failure while also claiming you don't want to end it seems to fall under Einstein's definition of insanity.

[upsdriver]

Perry on Social Security: They also said Reagan was too blunt

It's a streeeetch to see how this article backs up the title.

The GOP establishment elite has so bastardized the "era of Reagan" that it's become almost irrelevant.

SO...... I dub these times the Era of Palin! :p

[the invisib1e hand]

Idunno...my gut tells me it's too early to play the "Reagan" card.

Better get advice about that, sir.

[no dems]

OK. HERE'S THE BOTTOM LINE: Rick did not do well in his first Debate Wednesday night. It's still early but I say, if he doesn't do well in the other Debates in September, he might be "gone". I, as were the people in the Frank Luntz Focus Group on Hannity the other night, was disappointed in Perry's Debate Performance. He was not "forceful" and assertive. He seemed, as so many people have said, unprepared for that Debate. Like I say, if he doesn't do better by the end of this month (September), people are going to take a second look at Bachmann, Gingrich, Cain and Santorum. That will be enough to divide the Conservative vote and propel Mittens back into "front-runner" status until the field is winnowed out some. Come on Rick; get your stuff together.

[Grey Eagle]

Frankly, I did not think he did poorly at all. He had a target on his back by those two so called moderators. He is flat spoken and usually speaks softly. Don’t under estimate him. You will get surprised every time. The others you mentioned that were in the debate simply can not beat Obama. Perry can and do it without a teleprompter. He may be off to a slow start. After all, TX is really burning and Obama will not issue a state of emergency. This along with the Feds coming in, and stating they were taking over the fire fighting. They grounded a bunch of the tanker planes and sent away a lot of volunteers who were there to fire the fires, which are still burning heavily. Obama is playing politics with this one.