« BACK  |  PRINT

RS

MEMBER DIARY

In Response to Obama Attack Ad, Romney to Tackle Economy & Entitlements

By: Ben Howe (Diary)  |  May 14th, 2012 at 02:45 PM  | 

RESIZE: AAA

Obama has decided that he’d like to tussle with Romney in the economic playground this week, releasing an ad that has echoes of Gingrich’s SuperPAC spots but with even less factual basis. It’s cleverly named “Steel.”


My favorite line from the video: “Those guys were all rich. They all had more money than they’ll ever spend.” They aren’t even trying to cover up the class warfare these days. It’s just gross.

To say nothing of the fact that Mitt Romney wasn’t even at Bain Capital during these layoffs, the person who was actually leading the charge on these steel factory shut downs happens to be an Obama bundler. But it’s irrelevant anyway because I reject the entire premise. Sometimes jobs are lost and companies go bankrupt. Just ask Obama, he knows.

On a conference call with Mitt Romney’s Senior Campaign Advisor Ed Gillespie, it became clear quickly that the Romney camp is happy to have this fight.

In the coming week, the Romney campaign says they are going to focus on Obama’s tax & spend record, the failed stimulus, Obama’s debt being on track to come in larger than the last 43 president’s combined, as well as the well-documented hoodwinking of the American taxpayer through failed green investment programs like Solyndra.

Of note on the call was the mention of more specificity around entitlement reform and the need to create a sustainable Social Security & Medicare system for future generations. Entitlements, and specifically Social Security, is somewhat of a sore spot for the conservative base when it comes to Governor Romney. He took the opportunity early in the primary season to attack Governor Perry for calling Social Security a ponzi scheme which many conservatives believe it to be.

For many, Romney’s position wasn’t bold enough and played into conservative fears of a moderate candidate unwilling to tackle an issue that has been front and center on the minds of the Tea Party, not to mention the addition of the all new entitlement, Obamacare.

The campaign informed me that Governor Romney has gone into great detail on his plans already though I’m not convinced that what currently sits at MittRomney.com qualifies as “specific” at least as it relates to Social Security.

President Obama has had three years in office, during which time he has attacked every serious proposal to preserve and strengthen America’s entitlement programs. Mitt Romney has laid out the approach he would take to modernizing America’s entitlement programs, guaranteeing their continued vitality for future generations. Mitt’s proposals will not raise taxes and will not affect today’s seniors or those nearing retirement. He proposes that Social Security should be adjusted in a couple of commonsense ways that will put it on the path of solvency and ensure that it is preserved for future generations.

  • First, for future generations of seniors, Mitt believes that the retirement age should be slowly increased to account for increases in longevity.
  • Second, for future generations of seniors, Mitt believes that benefits should continue to grow but that the growth rate should be lower for those with higher incomes.


    • With just those two simple steps, and no change in benefits for those at or near retirement, America can guarantee the preservation of the Social Security system for the foreseeable future.

    The Republican nominee must be someone who is committed to saving Social Security. Mitt will ensure that America honors all of its commitments to today’s seniors and strengthens the program so that it is financially secure for future generations.

    Hopefully the campaign will work to provide a little more detail around this soon to alleviate the concerns of the base and to provide ammunition against the inevitable “Romney wants to destroy Social Security ads” that will undoubtedly be coming soon.

    Romney will kick off his economy focused week at Drake University in Des Moines, Iowa tomorrow.

    COMMENTS

    POSTING RULES  |  LOGIN TO COMMENT  |  REGISTER TODAY
    • califgal

      like the strategy of waiting for the attack, then responding.

      There was surely a way that the ads could have had
      Romney come out fighting first, saying, “You’re going to be hearing that I cost people jobs…..”.

      They always say it’s best to get out there first and take the stings out of the attacks.

      • acat

        I’ve been waiting to see how Romney would reply.

        I would hope that *part* of the reply will involve the shutdown of GM dealers that was based, in part, on their partisan affiliation.

        Mew

        • pdawk

          The Bain stuff was the lead on every newscast in America when Rick Tyler and his group bought the rights to an published that hack job movie. Most people already know about his past and have made a decision as to whether it effects their vote.

        • jimmyg

          http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2009/05/news-flash-car-dealers-are-republicans.html

          When the data was analyzed it was discovered that 88% of donors who described their profession as auto dealers, car dealers, automobile dealers or automotive dealers gave to republicans, and the remaining 12 % gave to democrats. It was one of those times where people were having fun with numbers. In other words they were not looking at both sides of the ledger.

          As an aside, the former “car czar”, Steve Rattner, was on Morning Joe, defending Romney from the Bain Capital ad that Obama put out today.

        • garfieldjl

          Don’t blame Gingrich and Perry for this when the Dems were already planning to target Romney on this issue.

          Romney has been extremely lucky that the White House has been having amateur hour lately, which kinda blunts the effectiveness of the attacks.

          • acat

            it is not “lately”.

            Mew

      • Aetius728

        I’d be out in western PA/Ohio with advertisements featuring local manufacturers who have been driven out of business by the rising energy prices and burdensome regulatory policies of the Obama administration.

        • acat

          because they have no water.

          Mew

        • kopen

          The calif. government has never seen a program or regulation it didn’t love .. so much that our farmers can plant the food we need to survive .. and to top it all off the federalees would like to keep all farm kids from working on their parents farms .. don’t be deceived they will bing it up again ..Which is exactly why we need to get Obama & Co. out of office in november
          They would love to say because you can’t use you childs help on your farms ,we need to let more illegals in to help .. And we will subsudize their children with IRS tax money ..

    • pdawk

      He will not only bring up Obama’s pathetic stewardship of the economy, but also every bit of dirty laundry Obama has ever possibly tossed to the side.

      If I were Romney’s advisers I would go back and make commercials up about Obama bragging that he was a “community organizer” and then skewer his economic record as a result of his inexperience. In debates Romney should continually reference that Obama has no leg to stand on when criticizing business practices because on that stage only one of them has tried to be something other than a politician in their lifetime.

      For every reference to Bain I want a reply about Jeremiah Wright. For every reference to Vulture Capitalism, I want a response about Obama Socialism. As Romney has stated, politics is not beanbag, and I expect Mitt to bring a nuclear bomb to the fight.

      There is so much out there to work with against Obama that was left on the table last time and has accumulated over his time in office. Romney and his Republican allies are going to unload on him and will finally present all the facts about Obama to the American public.

      • APA Guy

        I’ll be honest…I was surprised at how adept Romney was at taking out Newt Gingrich, who is an intelligent, seasoned politician.

        He is a ruthless politician who seems to have learned much from his 2008 run. I’d be surprised if, with all his money and legions of resources, he didn’t hammer Obama even more relentlessly than he did Perry and Gingrich on his way to the presidency.

        • http://pocketchangeproductions.net/ anotherindyfilmguy

          and D generally gets the main part of the media on their side to start.

          • APA Guy

            But I do agree about one thing you said…he needs to double his efforts to squash the Obama machine, which is formidable.

          • trimulchio

            a sitting President, even an unpopular one.

            • APA Guy

              All we need to do is tell the public the truth about the economy…then give them the government’s own statistics to drop the hammer on Obama. When we’re through with him the voting public will crucify him at the polls…bank on it.

        • salemst

          I live in Massachusetts, Romney was my governor. I couldn’t help from laughing every time Newt called Romney a “milquetoast.”

          Romney is one ruthless, tough SOB. When he was cutting spending as Governor I wish Romney haters could have heard all the people howling their sacred cows were being axed. Romney was impervious to the howling, he just kept cutting.

          The guy will do whatever he thinks is right, and once he decides utilizing the best and brightest people who can be found he sets course and won’t be shaken from it.

          This guy will go down in history as one of our top 3-4 presidents if given a GOP Congress. Remember, in Massachusetts he was dealing with a 145-15 Democrat majority House, 35-5 Democrat Senate, 4-3 Liberal State Supreme Court, and a 42% Democrat, 42% Independent, and 14% Republican voter registration. Brutal political landscape. Yet, he was excellent.

          • trimulchio

            seek a second term because he was required to burn bridges? He seems smart and innovative (what he did at Bain has a great reputation). His LDS background may also help. Having seen what the Mormon Relief Society does, I don’t think he will stand for much fraud, waste and abuse in teh nanny-state.

        • camurd

          against obummer. If he only used his resources to destroy his own party in-order to get the nomination and not to win the White House then he will deserve the label that history will give him.

      • davenj1

        And hoping this isn’t a weakling campaign like the one McCain ran in 2008. Of course, Romney has an advantage- four years of an Obama presidency. Attack! Attack!! Attack!!!!

      • trimulchio

        De Mint’s term for Solyndra “Venture Socialism:” which actually built businesses that employed people and produced something?

        • davesinsanantonio

          WAY better than crony socialism!!!

          and

          Vulture capitalism is WAY better than vulture socialism!!!!!

      • demsaresatanic

        I’ve always expected Rom to turn squishy when it came to going after obama. If he does, in fact do

        “For every reference to Bain I want a reply about Jeremiah Wright. For every reference to Vulture Capitalism, I want a response about Obama Socialism. As Romney has stated, politics is not beanbag, and I expect Mitt to bring a nuclear bomb to the fight,”

        I will be pleasantly surprised.

        • commonsenseobserver

          For one thing, Romney cannot afford to appear as the candidate who is attempting to distract from the economy. Obama can, since it’s in his interests, but Romney cannot help Obama to find more shiny objects. Every sentence spent on mentioning Wright is a sentence not used to target Obama’s record and promote the Republican vision.

          • demsaresatanic

            but consider mine. The repub arguments concerning the economy require some level of sophistication to understand, whereas the obama arguments do not. Some variation of blaming the rich has raw emotional appeal which can?t be overcome with reasoned arguments if the audience is unable to comprehend the reasoned ones. In my view, we must also go after obama with emotional personal attacks, and the Wright matter, and obama?s anti-white racist views in general, is probably the strongest emotional issue that we have.

            • checkmate2012

              unless it’s sensationalism or a 30-second headline.

    • http://pocketchangeproductions.net/ anotherindyfilmguy

      It’s almost all emotionally driven propaganda and to sustain it for the long term the ante must always be upped.

    • checkmate2012

      and of course the home of O’s auto bailouts if he wants to paint a graphic picture of the effects of crony capitalism, class-warfare, and no jobs and the utter devastation they cause.

      Of course he should talk about the thousands of people that either owned a dealership or worked for one and lost their jobs due to O’s forced shut down of them, unlawfully I’d add.

      And then follow up with a nice little slide show of julia living her dependent life on government programs with the help of public sector agitators with pics of the crumbling ruins of Detroit in the background.

      see here for amazing but sad pictures of Detroit: http://www.guardian.co.uk/artanddesign/gallery/2011/jan/02/photography-detroit?INTCMP=SRCH

    • johnt

      couldn’t wait to bring it up. Obama’s Brain Trust figures one steel mill v. 42 months of economic failure is an issue they can’t lose on.
      Having finally figured how to go pottie on their own and dress themselves The Cognescenti will now do economics. Stand back and marvel.
      Now if only AP and Reuters can continue to humiliate themselves in reporting the “improved employment figures”, Team Obama will capture the drool and mumble vote.

      • Dave_A

        Curiously absent from MOST reports, is the amount of money involved over-all…

        ‘Big Bank trading operation loses 2 billion’ is a better headline than…

        ‘Big Bank trading operation loses 5%, after years of successful trading’

        But then again, it puffs up the class-warfare strawman, pissing off populists by reminding them that JPMC has 2BN to lose & can keep on banking like nothing happened (minus a few C-level execs, but that’s what happens when you cost your bosses 5%)…

        P.S. Yes, I kind of like Chase from an economic perspective, given that they’re generally an example of ‘big capitalisim’ done right (yes, even when they lose some money trading… It happens… Not great if you’re the one getting fired for losing the money, but no big deal for the rest of us)…

        • johnt

          When I was at Citibank a number of large loans to South American governments had to be written off. The Chairman, John Reed, did not accrue for any of it, wrote it all off in one year. Done. No panic, no endless blather, and not a bit of posturing from the politicians. Now we have the template,”government must step in and regulate more”. Government as savior, though it barely manages what it has.
          Subservience breeds stupidity.

          • Dave_A

            So if the DOJ is going to ‘Investigate’ Chase not being absolutely perfect with THEIR OWN MONEY (this was proprietary trading – they lost company money – not even customer money)….

            That’s a BAAADD precedent… I mean, where will they set the rule as to how much money you can lose in the stock market, before Law Enforcement considers charges… And charges of WHAT exactly? Not being a financial savant?

            If some rich guy blows a million at the Bellagio, will he face charges for wasting his own money?

            That said, what’s really ironic, is the CEO of Chase is an Obama supporter… But as we all know from 08, there’s plenty of room under that campaign bus, should it suit His Highness-ness advancement…

            I have nothing against the guy, since he has done a great job running his company over the past years (Given how much they’ve *made* while their competition was floundering, 2BN loss – even with an ‘and counting’ isn’t much)… But you have to wonder how many times folks like that will keep getting bit, before they stop feeding a party that believes in absolutely biting said feeding hands, if it’s expedient at the time…

            • johnt

              re: your 2nd paragraph. It is also a mark of the Statist/Thug government. It is written and interpreted for the benefit of those wielding the power and has been paramount in the fascist state.
              It’s a tool for playing favorites, who pay, and a potential or real weapon against others.
              “Where will they set the rule”,? Where they want and when.
              Whim, mood, emotion, caprice rule the mind of the Savage, or if you prefer, the collectivist. Or Democrat.

    • trimulchio

      These things were run into the ground for years, wasting capital. Guys like Romney tried to turn them around. With a few acceptions they did more good than harm. Romney even figured out how to make M&A work if you could not turn the business around: liquidate the assets. It sounds harsh, but it is the only reason many of these outfits even got some kind of a second chance.

      Given that the government needs to be right-sized, how is Romney NOT the best choice?

    • Frederick

      …how the entire steel industry took a huge hit in the late ’90s and early 2000s. Steel mills have been closing throughout the rust belt for decades, either consolidating in ever larger mills or building newer, leaner mills (like the so-called “mini mills” in the south).

      The industry slid, bust, boomed, busted again, boomed again and busted again over the last 20 years. The major players in the steel industry are mostly large, multi-site mills spread over wide geographic areas. Whether it’s Nucor and its mulltiple mini-mills, US Steel and its huge integrated mills, or the multi-national firms like ThyssenKrupp, ArcelorMittal or Severstal, the strong and the big players are the ones that survived. It’s a commodity business. In the booms, everyone makes money. In the busts, only the strongest or the largest survive.

      GST wasn’t big. It wasn’t particularly strong by the time Bain took it over (or there wouldn’t have been a takover). It couldn’t compete. It lost out. That’s not Mitt Romney’s fault, it’s not Bain Capital’s fault and it’s ridiculous that the Obama Administtration would try to pin the destruction of an already very weakened company like GST on Romney when there are dozens of examples just like it over the last two decades.

    • AceInTX

      Second, for future generations of seniors, Mitt believes that benefits should continue to grow but that the growth rate should be lower for those with higher incomes.

      So…we’ve fought the Democrats for Decades to prevent means testing entitlements because of the class warfare nature such a policy entails…and just like that…we have Romney advocating form it…and Red State and other Conservatives applauding the principle that if someone is forced to pay into a system, that it’s fine to tell them they don’t have as much a right to what they paid into the system as everyone else because they are rich?

      Really?

      Bravo!!

      • http://impudent.edublogs.org/ kyle8

        It seems to me that it is the Democrats who are deathly afraid of means testing. If Soc Sec is means tested then the charade that it is an insurance policy melts away and so does it’s popular support.

        • AceInTX

          It’s a class warfare issue and Republicans have fought it as such…the principle is…equal protection under the law…if I pay the same amount OR MORE…(since someone making a higher income pays in more intot eh system as a percentage of their total income)….then they should be able to pay out the same that the put in…but here we are…we’re going to penalize the rich and let them earn less in SS benefits even though they paid more in…because they belong to a hated class…the “Rich”

          and here we are…Romney ignores the great ideas the Republican party has developed over the years like personal accounts in favor of a punish the Rich policy…and we throw away decades of battles we have fought and won in one fell swoop….

          AND…we get to act like Democrats in arguing for Romney’s eat the rich entitlement reform plan…

          • jimmyg

            “What government spending on the wealthy would Ryan (Cong. Paul Ryan) target? ?Everything,? he says. He would start with entitlements. The two biggest and fastest-growing areas of federal spending are Social Security and Medicare, both of which provide the richest Americans with growing benefits. To help stabilize both programs, Ryan wants to scale back those benefits for the wealthy. On Social Security, he says, ?you can get the bulk of your way to solvency without tax increases by indexing benefits so that they don?t grow as fast for wealthier people.? As for Medicare, his reform plan would provide wealthier seniors with lower subsidies, while ?focusing the benefits on the people who need it and away from those who need it the least.?

            Ryan is not alone in his call for means-testing entitlements. Means-testing has the strong support of House Speaker John Boehner, who earlier this year told Wall Street billionaire Pete Peterson at a forum in New York, ?Pete, I love you to death, but I don?t think the taxpayers ought to be paying your Medicare premium.? The two leading GOP presidential candidates, Rick Perry and Mitt Romney, have also expressed support for means-testing. In May the Heritage Foundation put forward a plan that would reduce Social Security and Medicare benefits for well-off retirees and eliminate them entirely for the wealthiest seniors.

            http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/lets-soak-the-rich-gop-style/2011/09/28/gIQAn3Jk4K_story.html

            This isn’t something that Romney hid until now, this is main stream republican thought.

            • AceInTX

              It just shows how far the party has drifted from it’s principles.

            • acat

              I don’t recall them making that argument for Social Security or Medicare.

              Other programs? Yes. .. but not *those* two.

              They know darn well that if these programs morph from “paid-up insurance” into “welfare”, the programs will be dramatically cut.

              Mew

            • AceInTX

              when SS was last reformed…but I as I recall it..>Dems wanted to means test it…and Regan said no….and I think Clinton wanted to means test it in the early 90s and Gingritch and CO said no.

              I’m looking for supporting evidence and am having a hard time finding anything that lays out the historical positions of the parties about reforming SS but my recollection is what I have stated and am willing to standf corrected if I’m wrong.

              But let’s say I concede the point,…and just state I am wrong in my recollection…I will styand by my belief that it is wrong to tell someone they must pay in more per capita because they are higher income earners and the fee is calculatyed as a percentage of their income….and then get less return for the money taken because they are higher income earners…

              if you want to climb on board that train…more power to you…but on this issue…I’ll stand with the Democrats in opposition to the principle exhbited by such a reform.

              call me a KOS Klown if you must…I never thought I’d ever type the words “I’ll stand with the Democrats in opposition” this side of hell freezing over…but there it is.

          • aesthete

            That’s why Democrats have fought like hell against Paul Ryan and other Republicans’ attempts to means test these programs.

            Democrats don’t give a flying frak about poor people. They care about maintaining their power, and Medicare/SS for all go a long way towards doing that. Middle class welfare isn’t better; it’s just harder to get rid of.

            • AceInTX

              now both parties have shifted places….and in this case, If the Democrats are opposed to means testing….I’m with the Democrats…..because I can’t think of anything more morally bankrupt than making someone pay a percentage of their income into a system….(meaning that those who make more….pay more in than someone who makes less…)…then telling them they are allowed to draw less out of the program when they need it because of their economic status.

              It’s twisted….backward…and wrong!

            • jakee308

              The point of means testing is that SS is a safety net and not a retirement fund. (yes I know that’s how politicians have framed it but if you’re going to listen to politicians for facts then there’s no hope at all for you)

              If after paying this TAX, they have done well enough to be able to afford to live well in their retirement then they don’t need that safety net.

              SS should be limited to those who retire (and most are forced) who do not have the resources to support themselves. It only makes sense to fund a net like this as the States would have to do it anyway and there would be those who would pick the State with the best benefits to retire in if it wasn’t made Federal.

              And to call it morally bankrupt is to give the worship of money a level of respectability it doesn’t deserve. Money has no morals only thinking humans do (some not all).

              Let’s face it; the Dems do want to take all our money and give it to those they wish to influence or feel guilty about. The Reps want to keep all their money and let those who don’t have any to pay for their bad luck or stupidity.

              It’s all a balancing game between the two positions.

              The only reason we’re having these type of conversations these days is that the financial wizards screwed up and now the poorest will pay.

            • AceInTX

              Mitt, Ryan and the rest of the so called leaderaship of this party are afraid to stand up and sell personal account…something that wouild take the money away from Politicians who spend it every year…and allow those paying into the system to grow their money rather than see a dollar for dollar payback for money taken from them by force….and because they are afraid to stand up for it and sell it as sound conservative fiscal policy…they decide to play the class warfare game of telling joe smith who paid in more to the system that not only is he entitled to as dollar for dollar return of his monwey…we’re going to give you less than what you put in because we the government…and the standard bearer for the REPUBKICAN FREAKING PARTY has decided you’ve made to much money and don’t deserve to get the money back that the GOVERNMENT has TAKEN from you…

              BRAVO!!!

            • AceInTX

              And to call it morally bankrupt is to give the worship of money a level of respectability it doesn?t deserve. Money has no morals only thinking humans do (some not all).

              Is steelin or is it not immoral?

              Is it your contention that declaring theft morally bankrupt is the equivilent of worshipping money?

              FAIL!!!!

            • aesthete

              As-is, the people who will be paying for the retirement of upper-middle class pensioners will be people in their 20s who are working, ot these middle class folks. Means-testing allows the program to be used as intended (as a safety net rather than a retirement fund), reduces the amount that the program will cost people who have nothing to do with it (aforementioned twenty-year olds), and makes further reform and cuts more politically feasible.

              Welfare in all its iterations has proven far more amenable towards small government reform than middle class entitlements (which have ballooned in cost and what is offered). Killing big government for the middle class will make it easier to kill big government in its entirety.

            • JSobieski

              SS recipients on average receive far more than they put it. The primary theft embodied in SS is done on behalf of the recipients. Means-testing will start to put a dent in that theft, but it won’t end it.

              The reason why SS (and other entitlements) are so hard to touch politically is that they are not seen as as a safety net—they are seen (incorrectly so) as earned benefits.

              Means testing is the first step to changing the public perception of entitlements. Conservatives embracing means-testing is like Obamacare’ embrace of Obamacare on the left—-it a change designed to cause a snowball of change that is even more directionally correct from the applicable point of view.

              Means-testing is the conservative version of the camel’s nose under the tent.

            • AceInTX

              SS recipients on average receive far more than they put in.

              From Forbes “More Social Security Mendacity From Robert Samuelson”
              http://www.forbes.com/sites/lawrencehunter/2012/04/10/more-social-security-mendacity-from-robert-samuelson/

              According to research by C. Eugene Steuerle and Stephanie Rennane of the Urban Institute, Social Security has become a bad deal, and gets worse everyday. A two-earner married couple both retiring in 2011, who both earned the average wage ($43,500 in 2011) throughout their working careers would pay a lifetime-value of Social Security taxes equal to $611,000 and expect to receive a lifetime-value of Social Security benefits equal to only $560,000. Right out of the gate, then, this typical couple pays nine percent more in Social Security taxes than they can hope to recover in Social Security benefits.?

              and to add insult to injury….after coercing participation in a prograsm that is a net loser for the average worker who has paid into the system…we are going to tell those high income workers who paid in more per capita because the amount taken is praportionately larger than the average person paying in…We as the party of smaller government and liberty are going to twell them they are going to get even less back because they were responsible, worked, saved and invested and became one of the hated “Rich”?

              again I say…Bravo!!!

              Up is down…and down is up

            • AceInTX

              Since 1985, Congress collected more in payroll taxes than it paid out in benefits?to the tune of $2.5 trillion accumulated value last year?which neither went to past beneficiaries nor were saved for future beneficiaries.

              Instead, these surplus Social Security revenues were raided by Congress and spent on other government programs to feed the congressional spending addiction. But this theft under the color of law doesn?t lessen workers? claim on the stolen funds anymore than Jimmy Hoffa?s heist of the Teamsters? Union pension funds lessened union workers? claim to their pension benefits; nor does the raid on Social Security somehow mysteriously transform Social Security from an earned-benefits program into a welfare program.

              Congress?s appalling handling of Social Security makes Hoffa?s misuse of Teamster pension fund monies pale by comparison. Just because it?s Congress, however, doesn?t make it any less criminal than what Hoffa and company did. And, it certainly doesn?t justify compounding the felony by means testing Social Security and stealing workers? paid-in contributions and cutting their earned Social Security benefits in the name of some higher ?national need. . .something the nation does for its collective good? as Samuelson demands.

            • acat

              The robbery came about back when the lock box was still shiny and new and the congress voted to direct the social security administration to buy bonds.

              The money’s gone. Short of mass hangings for malfeasance, when many of the perpetrators are already dead, I’m not sure what you hope to achieve by insisting that “it’s insurance”…

              Mew

            • aesthete

              there is no such thing as a “lockbox”. The Supreme Court cases that tried the Constitutionality of SS concluded that it was a simple case of taxation and use of the general spending power, and that it was not a form of insurance with any sort of guarantees.

              The problem is that as the US gets older, the money collected by current SS taxation won’t be nearly enough to fund all future retirees: we’ll have more retirees and less workers than we currently have. Possible responses to this revenue shortfall include the following:

              Raise taxes to meet shortfall.

              Cut promised benefits to meet shortfall.

              Reform program so that it’s cheaper to meet shortfall.

              The last option is attractive, but won’t really help as a cost-saving mechanism until it’s been in place for a while — and at any rate, the benefits we provide right now are outsized, partly because they are based on COLAs (which makes no sense when most retirees are getting both SS and retirement, along with whatever other investments they’ve made).

            • AceInTX

              by allowing simple investments of the funds collected in interest bearing accounts. of course…that means the money is taken out of the general fund eliminating the masking affect SS proceeds have on the deficit….and Romney could follow this model and call for such a fix…..but instead…he takes the class warfare root and calls for withholding benefits from the “Rich”

            • aesthete

              Never has been.

              There’s just stealing from today’s workers to give to today’s seniors (i.e., redistribution, mostly from the poor to the wealthy). That’s not going to work when there are less workers than there are retirees.

              See my three options for remedying the situation above.

            • AceInTX

              When I say take SS money from the general fund…the general fund is the pool of funds that all government is paid from….that is called the general fund. If SS were put into investment accounts the money would no longer be counted as part of the general fund…therefore politicians would no longer be able to use the SS fund to mask the actual size of the budget deficit

            • acat

              The Social Security Administration is legally required to invest in government bonds, specifically bonds that can *only* be held by the Social Security Administration.

              As you may recall, investing in U.S. bonds is generally seen as safer than interest-bearing accounts, so .. *legally* they already surpassed your requirement.

              The caveat is what happens when they cash these bonds in.

              The money has to come back *out* of the general fund… and that means either massive inflation (because Treasury will just print up new dollars) or massive tax increases (because the general fund will go into the red) …or the U.S. welches on its’ obligations.

              The money’s *gone*, and no amount of blamestorming is gonna bring it back. Those are the choices.

              What do you propose?

              Putting new monies into interest-bearing accounts doesn’t help us, although it helps protect the workers whose payments you’re talking about. Look up the Galveston Plan, it did exactly this.

              Mew

            • aesthete

              You’re acting as if there’s a magical distinction between the general budget and whatever you seem to think is in place for SS. There is no “lockbox”, there’s no “general fund” distinguishable from the “lockbox” — there’s just one big pot, that’s it. What you’re trying to explain is the idea of private accounts. I support and agree with private accounts (as do Paul Ryan and DeMint), but no one — not Paul Ryan, not DeMint — says that they alone can avert a budget shortfall. They are a cost control measure for future generations which are not yet close to reaching retirement, and at any rate would be partly funded with government revenues. The proposed mechanism is somewhat similar to what was implemented for Medicare Pt D. IOW, we would still be “redistributing” no matter what we do. Those approaching retirement (i.e., those who are within 15 years of retirement) have no money to speak of “invested”, and would have to start an account from scratch which would 1) require that government spend money, and 2) not be invested for long enough to make much of a difference. For these people, we have one of two options:

              Pay the difference by raising taxes on current workers.

              Cut benefits to these folks.

              The best option is #2. The most politically feasible and most humane way to cut benefits is to not pay SS to people who are using the money to go on cruises or to buy a vacation home, and to keep benefits constant for folks using the money to pay for more basic needs. It’s also the best option going forward, since redistribution is already in play (see above), and this makes the program into something that matches what it was originally advertised as: a safety net for the truly needy.

              This is not meant to offend, but it’s clear that you’re not completely aware of how the various proposed cost control mechanisms are meant to work and how SS reform works.

            • AceInTX

              it certainly doesn?t justify compounding the felony by means testing Social Security and stealing workers? paid-in contributions

              The point is…means testing is adding insult to injury…and the fact that it’s the Republican Standard bearer….and the sainted Ryan who many want to partner with Romney as VP that are playing class warfare by calling for means testing SS benefits is even more an insult

            • acat

              The Dems set this up decades ago .. IIRC, the decision to require the trust fund to be invested in specific, non-tradeable treasuries was an LBJ-era move, but I can’t find a cite.

              Do you prefer the general insult of increased inflation while the Treasury Department prints up new dollars to pay back the worthless bonds?

              Do you prefer the more specific insult of paying pennies on the dollar to *all* Social Security recipients?

              Means testing is an insult. So is jacking up the retirement age.

              The money’s gone, and short of pissing on LBJ’s grave, I don’t see much that’s “fair” about it.

              Further, your using this as an anti-Romney anti-GOP whine isn’t proposing any solutions, nor moving anything forward.

              Money’s gone, Ace. No insurance is going to pay for it. Pick your poison.

              Mew

            • lghman

              Means testing for Social Security and Medicare benefits is just underhanded income redistribution. Never mind that the amount of tax one “contributes” for these benefits scales up with earned income up to some pretty hefty cap.

              Then, in my case as a retiree, because gross adjusted income is a little higher than some arbitrarily set threshold, the Medicare “insurance” premium deducted from my Social Security payment is doubled not only for me, but also for my spouse whose Social Security payment is miniscule. So, in effect, there already is means testing!

            • JSobieski

              “If a rigorous effort is made to identify how much of the average beneficiary’s benefit was directly paid for by the beneficiary, the general answer is about 15%. Or to say it the other way, about 85% of the average Social Security benefit represents an amount in excess of that contributed to the program by the average worker.”

              http://www.ssa.gov/history/taxationofbenefits.html

            • aesthete

              and to make it so they can’t opt out. Otherwise, it’s redistribution, except the program is already redistributionary by design… but it’s still redistribution, inefficiency, and big government, if we’re trying to take steps to make it smaller and more in keeping with the original goal of SS.

            • acat

              All means testing does is to make it more obvious.

              Mew

            • tnfriendofcoal101368

              Misunderstanding many have about Social Security is…

              SS is not a retirement fund that you pay into and reap the benefits of at retirement, that is 401 K, pension, Roth IRA, etc. SS is a tax that pays for the benefits of current retirees. I know pay that tax for Father and Mother in law as they paid it for their parents. In the future, that tax will no longer be sufficient to cover the benefits of retirees. The government can either at that point: borrow, reduce benefit cost, increase the tax, reduce the number of recepients or eliminate the program. Ryan has proposed means testing as a way to reduce benefit cost, Joe Scarborough proposes raising the retirement age for everyone born after 1965 to reduce recepients, etc. Ryan has admitted ad neuseum that his proposal might not be the best one, but he believes a discussion to find the solution is important is not currently happening. If not it is belief that last solution will be forced on a country that can no longer afford the entitlement. Without some serious change SS and medicare are headed to what I believe was coined by Ross Perot, deep voodoo.

            • tnfriendofcoal101368

              I apologize….

            • garfieldjl

              However I will admit that is one long paragraph to try to use Yoda’s unique style of grammar.

            • JSobieski

              Second, payroll taxes includes medicare taxes

              Third, while SS is not as much of a windfall for retirees as Medicare, recipients still receive more than they paid in

              http://american.com/archive/2011/october/is-medicare-a-ponzi-scheme/

    • renl57

      Obama, “venture capitalist”: Spent $20 billion of taxpayer money on loan guarantees to various solar companies, producing a grand total of: 3,500 jobs. (And when Solyndra went bust, most of those workers didn’t even get severance pay. They were just locked out of the building without warning.)

      Anyone doubt that Romney’s record as a venture capitalist investor will beat Obama’s?

      • checkmate2012

        succeed and others don’t and that’s just the nature of business to paraphrase when questioned specifically about Solyndra last year… so now we have the pot calling the kettle black.

        And we know that Solyndra is just one example of his venture capitalism with taxpayer money and not like R’s private money.

        • Dave_A

          ntxt….

          • PowerToThePeople

            and not miss posts if you use the box for the crux of your subject rather than a long title and no text.

            Just a thought as I like to keep up with all posters posts rather than GC and now your long title lines which cause posts to disappear.

    • The_Rebel

      the MSM won’t tell you about:

      “One cold December day in the early 1980s, Mitt Romney loaded up his Gran Torino with firewood and brought it to the home of a single mother whose heat had been shut off just days before Christmas.
      ??
      Years after a business partner died unexpectedly, Romney helped the man?s surviving daughter go to medical school with loans for tuition ? loans he forgave when she graduated.

      And in 1997, when a fellow church member?s teenage son fell seriously ill, Romney sprinted to the hospital in the dead of night, where he kept vigil with his terrified parents.”

      You can read the rest here:

      http://www.thedaily.com/page/2012/05/13/051312-news-romney-web/

      • tnfriendofcoal101368

        When one of his employees daughter went missing, he shut Bain down, sent the employees out to help with the search even to the point of convincing his pharmacist to post signs and helped bring her home. What a vampire, I tells you, what a vampire.

        • The_Rebel

          why we’ve never heard stories like this from the MSM about Obama. Oh, wait…..The DNC and MSM just got out of their orchestration meeting…..there will be some feel good, unverifiable stories coming out any day now.

    • major

      You’s never know it.
      Isn’t this the time to DEFEND?
      Surely the lies in this propaganda have been fully exposed in the past?
      WTF?

    • paco12348

      I’m looking forward to Gov. Romney becoming President so he will downsize the monstrous, money wasting slug Obama has created. The larger the slug, the more wasteful it becomes. I would rather pay less taxes for a smaller government that is more effective and increase my freedoms than suffer from the one that eats our money and destroys our freedom. I want our Constitution restored and I am tired of the indoctrination in our schools teaching our children revisionist History and all the hate mongering the Democrat radicals espouse.
      I am looking forward to the day when the TRUE Democrats realize their proud Party has been taken over by Socialist Radicals and fight to take their Party back.

    • trimulchio

      http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702304203604577398480740185256.html?mod=opinion_newsreel#articleTabs%3Darticle

      No Chapter in the Bankruptcy Code for this . . . yet. If this happens, why does Rick Perry NOT take Texas out of the Union . . . and why do the remaining solvent states NOT follow?

      http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702304203604577393941108053800.html?mod=opinion_newsreel

      Wow, how could that happen with all the record-keeping and reporting regulations that govern MEWAs (Snark)? I have always seen value in the idea, especially with employee welfare benefit plans (healthcare), but let’s see . . . .

      Mitt Romney won’t win this year. What will win this year is almost evryone figuring out the Blue Model is dead. (http://blogs.the-american-interest.com/wrm/2010/01/28/american-challenges-the-blue-model-breaks-down/)

      Put another way, Obama didn’t lose on May 6, he lost in December 2008, when he farmed the Stimulous Plan out to Nancy Pelosi and David Obey, insead of trying something workable.