Posted on 09/19/2011 9:00:05 AM PDT by winoneforthegipper
Obviously you did not comprehend my statement. SSTF is a an accounting process, there is NO LOCK BOX! However, you need to understand and explain the accounting process and the funding in order to fix it. We would all be better served if people approached this topic with some sound and reasonable discussion, not wild-eyed accusations. Calling it a Ponzi Scheme by a national candidate for President will not get you a majority of the votes in your favor. In fact, it detracts from the correcting it.
The government has assured us peons for years that there is a lock box. They lied to us. Why are you defending the lie?
No, because Paul Ryan reserved those words, not for Social Security, but for a real FRAUD!
Paul Ryan is smart enough to not start calling an established Senior program (that needs major reform), a Ponzi Scheme!
I agree. It's about time that politicians start pandering to the only lobby that should matter... - the taxpayers clamoring for a balanced budget and elimination of wasteful earmark spending and crony corporate tax welfare.
Take the cotton out of your ears! For sure there was many Reagan Democrats! I asked how many of them voted for Reagan in 84 and then campaigned for Gore in 88?
I say Perry is a liar, I do not by it!
And that`s not all! He says he found God at the age of 27 while in the Air Force. OK so he found God and then still supported Gore in 88, was still part of the party of Infanticide and ant Christian values?
OK lets give him a break on that> But then he says sometime after 88 he saw the light and became a Republican, regretted supporting the party of abortion etc... What does he do in 2000 but support Rudy G for President???
This is the guy that we are to believe regrets his past anti Christian years as a Democrat, yet in 2000 supports a guy that is pro abortion,pro gay marriage etc.
Sorry but the guy has holes in his story...I challenge that he voted for Reagan ever!
Explain the accounting process? It's simple to explain.
Congress passed a tax increase to create a SS surplus.
Congress spent the money while still treating it as an asset.
Kinda like Madoff who spent the money entrusted him while still treating it as an asset.
So the Trust Fund is worthless and of no help in the long-term solvency of the program.
There is no correction, the money is gone. We are facing the exact scenario the Trust Fund was supposed to alieviate - having to raise taxes, borrow money or print money to make up the obligations of paying SS for the boomers.
Thus endeth the explanation.
You are just stupidly looking to bash Perry on this issue. He is much closer to the truth here than your mealy-mouthed sputterings.
In the primaries? Probably quite a few; Gore was seen as the most "conservative" Democrat in the race at the time.
I say Perry is a liar, I do not by it!
I assume you mean "buy?"
OK so he found God and then still supported Gore in 88, was still part of the party of Infanticide and ant Christian values?
Again, he supported Gore in the primaries. At the time Gore was known for having referred to abortion as "arguably the taking of a human life" only a year earlier; Gore had added, "Let me assure you that I share your belief that innocent human life must be protected and I am committed to furthering this goal."
What does he do in 2000 but support Rudy G for President???
Rudy G ran for President in 2000?
Oops. Sorry, I forgot to provide the reference link on where I got those reasons for Sarah Palin's motives. You might find a lot more of that type thinking and some more juicier explanations HERE ("Parental Warning" in effect).
who think their definition of conservatism is the right one.”
Maybe it’s just me, but I think part of being conservative means not living in a world of “let’s pretend”.
True conservatives didn’t fall for Y2K. True conservatives didn’t think that Alan Keyes was going to win that Senate race against obama. True conservatives don’t play the lottery...etc. etc. etc.
One can fill in the blank, but living in the world of “let’s pretend” is for liberals and others who are not conservatives....including some populists, incidentally.
Does this mean Palin has been misleading them the whole time?
"...but with Social Security too, if you have more recipients than payers into the system, you have a Ponzi scheme." Sarah Palin
The Democrat platform in 1988 was pro abortion,anti Christian! Not defensible!
Thank You for pointing out my error, buy vs by.
And thank you for picking up my other error...Perry endorsed Rudy G in 2008 not 2000, I appreciate that as well. That even makes my point greater.
In the year 2008, years after Perry says he found God, he reverts back to supporting a guy for president that was anti Christian in every way imaginable.
Pretty damning I say.
ROFLOL!
I have no desire to defend the Democrat platform of 1988 or any other year.
And thank you for picking up my other error...Perry endorsed Rudy G in 2008 not 2000, I appreciate that as well. That even makes my point greater.
Rudy wasn't my choice in 2000, but it was a terrible field of candidates. I picked one poison (Fred Thompson); Perry picked a different one. Who was yours?
In the year 2008, years after Perry says he found God, he reverts back to supporting a guy for president that was anti Christian in every way imaginable.
Pretty damning I say.
Again, Rudy wasn't my choice, but past endorsements are low on my list of priorities when choosing a candidate. So far Perry's my favorite this time around, although I'm open to others. Who's your choice?
You hit the nail on the head. Honestly, what’s being called “true conservatism” on this board is really plain old populism.
In what way is Bronze Titan “defending the lie?”
Oh good, you are talking about the Texas Enterprise fund. I am glad you brought it up! This Perry program shows that smart government investments in private industry CAN create jobs and improve the economy!
A recent report on the TEF shows that 54,954 direct jobs were created at a cost of $7,455.52 per job, or a total of 190,360 direct and indirect jobs were created, at a cost to the state of $2,308.98 per job since it was established. Considering that the federal government crows about creating a few hundred jobs that cost the taxpayers over $100k per job, it looks like Texas has the right idea. If Perry had $800 billion to spend on job creation like Obama did, by this calculation, he could have created 107,303,045 direct jobs.
The program also has had an amazing return on investment. The state is getting back from a LOW of 27x the investment up to over 100x the investment in increased Gross State Product. And the direct return to the state (increased revenue to the state through taxes) averaged 652%. That means the state received $6.52 in new tax revenue for every dollar invested. This has got to be one of the most effective economic stimulus programs in history!
Thanks to cripplecreek for providing this information. I never realized how effective the TEF program was at job creation. I'll be sure to post this information every time someone brings the subject up.
Oh, and the money that was invested in Countrywide was done so in 2004, well BEFORE anyone knew what they were doing. And any company that received money under this program that did not create the jobs promised had to return a portion of the money proportional to the number of jobs not created, and the state of Texas recovered over $8 million from Countrywide for jobs promised but not created. Also, the Countrywide grant resulted in the creation of 3,876 new permanent jobs.
... Gulfstream America ...A great line for Rick Perry: Gulfstream America -- in your face Obama!
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.