Posted on 04/26/2012 4:06:35 AM PDT by Kaslin
When Texas Gov. Rick Perry, then in the early stages of his short-lived quest for the Republican presidential nomination, referred to Social Security as "a Ponzi scheme," he was excoriated by the press, left and right, and by his fellow Republicans, as well. Earlier this week, government actuaries revealed that Perry was correct.
That revelation, which was greeted with a ho-hum by the media, basically announced that by 2033, 21 years from now, the so-called Social Security trust fund will be empty. The only reason this was even announced is because we are approaching a presidential election campaign, and in response to Perry's much-derided claim, the government's actuaries, who originally told the Obama administration and the public that the fund would be solvent until 2036, re-examined their numbers and concluded that it will be in the red three years earlier than they thought.
This revelation should come as no surprise to those who monitor the government and its deceptive ways. When he first introduced Social Security, President Franklin D. Roosevelt argued that under Social Security the federal government would be holding your money for you. He deceptively fostered the idea that Social Security would be a savings account, into which employees and employers would make contributions and out of which guaranteed monies would be paid to those who reached the age of 65. Essentially, he claimed that you'd get your money back.
The politicians believed him, but the actuaries and the judiciary understood that the government would never hold anyone's money for him -- as if it were the custodian of a bank account. In the first of several challenges to the constitutionality of Social Security, the Supreme Court found that the Social Security fund did not consist of your money. It was merely tax revenue.
Did you know that?
It also held that since Congress' law-making authority is limited to the 16 discrete delegated powers granted to it in the Constitution (a truism few in Congress accept as binding) but its spending authority is open-ended (a conclusion that must torment James Madison's ghost), Congress could collect funds, claim it was holding the funds in a savings account and then spend those funds as it saw fit -- for those in need after age 65 or for any other purpose.
Did you know that?
And, in a curious yet revealing one-liner in the Supreme Court opinion upholding the constitutionality of Social Security, even the court recognized that there would be no trust fund in the traditional sense when it found that the tax dollars collected and supposedly designated for Social Security were "not earmarked in any way."
Did you know that?
Eventually, the government would acknowledge that what it first called a savings account and then called old-age insurance and then said would be fortified by a trust fund did not even establish a contractual obligation to those who have paid the Social Security tax -- which would be all of us. Thus, the feds have conceded and the courts have agreed that the money you have involuntarily contributed to the so-called trust fund is not yours and can be spent by the government as it pleases, just like any other revenue that the feds collect.
Did you know that?
The trust fund is not money that the government "holds" for you, as FDR promised. It is not money to which you have a lawful claim, as he claimed. It is not a guarantee for you, as he led the public to believe. The so-called trust fund is merely the difference between what is collected and what is paid out. And the feds just acknowledged that in 21 years, they are likely to pay out more than they will collect.
Perry did not succeed this time in his quest for the Republican nomination. But he did succeed in articulating a hard truth: The same federal government that prosecutes people like Bernie Madoff for paying out more than they collect does the very same thing under the color of law.
Is a Ponzi scheme -- which is basically theft by deception -- lawful just because the government runs it? The Supreme Court has said yes. Perry has said no.
Governor Perry is correct.
We have all known it. For years.
I’m bookmarking this for later read but I just want to comment on the title:
Rick Perry was my first choice, even before he announced.
I am very disappointed that Rick Perry is not our nominee.
Rick Perry was treated like sh*t here on FR by a bunch of full-of-sh*t know-it-alls.
I hope they’re all happy with our current nominee.
He spoke the truth about a lot of things. He was the most qualified candidate in the race. IMHO.
he was most of our choices before he showed himself on the national political stage he couldn’t put two sentences together without major brain farts and couldn’t remember his own basic policy issues.. he doomed his own campaign but not doing his homework preparing himself for the political big time
Rick Perry was treated like sh*t here on FR by a bunch of full-of-sh*t know-it-alls.
That maybe true but that isn’t what cratered Perry’s aspirations to the nomination. He did all by himself.
Slick Rick should know about ponzi schemes. He’s been running the Texas ETF/TEF for years.
You are wrong. Perry had some rough spots, but he also had some good debates. The good points were ignored by the msm. Perry was from the south, and they see any southerner as hopelessly stupid.
And as far as I’m concerned, you don’t choose your candidate by a debate. You choose him or her by a record. You could have had Texas, but you got Massachusetts.
+1.
Not true at all. You are repeating the msm talking points. Remember how Frank Luntz said that Perry was Bush without the brains. Perry really tried to show what he was made of but was ignored. And like good little sheeple, most Conservatives spouted what the msm wanted them too. The Conservatives have been had and will never admit it.
Opinions are a dime a dozen, yours and mine include.
I agree 100% !
Perry was the best person in the race BY FAR!
Now we are stuck with that freaking loser RINO Romney, and I blame all the idiots that demanded perfection, especially those moronic Santorum backers.
Perry was my first choice too but he ran a horrible campaign and was not prepared for the debates. He would have won the nomination if he had gotten his act together. It pains me to say it but his problems were all self-inflicted.
And he was right about Social Security. Its a Ponzi Scheme. And now its even worse since Obama has expanded eligibility for disability benefits with crap like SOAR, fast tracking disability for every lazy bum who wants a check to sit on his ass.
It was not set up to be a Ponzi scheme, but it has turned in to one.
LOL, I still would like to see Perry tap old Fat Frank on the shoulder and ask if he'd like to settle it like men. Luntz's wig would fall off from shock.
You are right. I chose to support Herman Cain before Gov. Perry got into the race. He was my second choice. I wish he had been more prepared for the debates as he was the most electable Conservative, IMO.
I love my country more than I detest Romney.
He. Blew. It.
Apparently Rick Perry is "happy with our current nominee," since he enthusiastically endorsed him the other day.
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.