Confusion

By: Erick Erickson (Diary) | September 8th, 2011 at 05:00 AM |

RESIZE: AAA

I realize we’re all supposed to be in the tank for Mitt Romney, but when the heck did we suddenly love social security? It’s nuts.

We’ve got Karl Rove out 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:

A Ponzi scheme is an investment fraud that involves the payment of purported returns to existing investors from funds contributed by new investors. Ponzi scheme organizers often solicit new investors by promising to invest funds in opportunities claimed to generate high returns with little or no risk.

Or how about from wikipedia?

A Ponzi scheme is a fraudulent investment operation that pays returns to separate investors, not from any actual profit earned by the organization, but from their own money or money paid by subsequent investors. The Ponzi scheme usually entices new investors by offering returns other investments cannot guarantee, in the form of short-term returns that are either abnormally high or unusually consistent. The perpetuation of the returns that a Ponzi scheme advertises and pays requires an ever-increasing flow of money from investors to keep the scheme going.

It’s one thing to want to defend Mitt Romney. It’s perfectly reasonable to say we’re scared to death to ever touch the supposed third rail of politics again. It’s even reasonable to say that Rick Perry cannot win by holding to this position. In fact, Perry needed to spend more time focusing on the fact that he does not want to abolish social security as the Democrats and Mitt Romney both claim.

But to suddenly proclaim the conservative position as “social security is a-okay and we just need to make it even better” is complete and total bull crap, not to mention seriously chicken and intellectually dishonest for a bunch of people who’ve more or less held Perry’s position for years to suddenly pretend it’s nuts just because they support another candidate or think the political winds have shifted.

Shame on you people.

Tags: 2012, Mitt Romney, Rick Perry

COMMENTS

POSTING RULES | LOGIN TO COMMENT | REGISTER TODAY

http://www.doctor-bob.biz rsklaroff

…was when he called for more FRANK-COMMENTARY in public discourse.

Yes, the talking-heads are critical, but they have been forced to recognize that he is not retreating from any of his “Fed Up!” comments, as would be anticipated from a politician such as MR.

This educational-process will allow him to shine among GOP-voters, even as he earns grudging-respect from the Indies…while BHO continues to tank….
bk

from the NY Times transcript.

PERRY: Well, I think any of us that want to go back and change 70 years of what’s been going on in this country is probably going to have a difficult time. And rather than spending a lot of time talking about what those folks were doing back in the ’30s and the ’40s, it’s a nice intellectual conversation, but the fact is we have got to be focussed on how we’re going to change this program.

And people who are on Social Security today, men and women who are receiving those benefits today, are individuals at my age that are in line pretty quick to get them, they don’t need to worry about anything. But I think the Republican candidates are talking about ways to transition this program, and it is a monstrous lie.

It is a Ponzi scheme to tell our kids that are 25 or 30 years old today, you’re paying into a program that’s going to be there. Anybody that’s for the status quo with Social Security today is involved with a monstrous lie to our kids, and it’s not right.

PERRY: Absolutely. If Vice President Cheney or anyone else says that the program that we have in place today, and young people who are paying into that, expect that program to be sound, and for them to receive benefits when they research retirement age, that is just a lie. And I don’t care what anyone says. We know that, the American people know that, but more importantly, those 25-and-30-year-olds know that.

PERRY: We’re about fixing things. You can either have reasons or you can have results. And the American people expect us to put results in place.

You cannot keep the status quo in place and not call it anything other than a Ponzi scheme. It is. That is what it is. Americans know that, and regardless of what anyone says, oh, it’s not — and that’s provocative language — maybe it’s time to have some provocative language in this country and say things like, let’s get America working again and do whatever it takes to make that happen. (APPLAUSE)
bobguzzardi

As I understand it, the Social Security’s own numbers show the phony Social Security Trust Funds is gone in 25 years. Using a 65 retirement date, that means, if you are 40, then there will be no more money.

Young people, in their 20s, know they will never see Social Security and that they are being taxed because of socialist’s political promises made years before.

I am from Ardmore, Penna., just outside Philadelphia, and I think many young people will resonate to this message. Michael Tanner wrote a piece at CATO and Mother Jones defending against the claim that SS is a Ponzi scheme because, unlike the original Ponzi, the government can print money and tax!!!! Exactly.

Printing money is impoverishing Main Street America to empower Washington and enrich Wall Street. The common interests of Bankers with the Unions and Welfare recipients, corporate and otherwise, is arrayed against the American who wants to be productive.

Productive Americans who want to earn their own way, to be effective and contribute to America, are being deprived of a stable and reliable currency to protect the political class.

Ronald Reagan won Pennsylvania twice, (three times if you count GHW Bush in 88 when I though he was Ronald Reagan’s successor). Rick Perry can win Pennsylvania.

Rick Perry is right and everyone knows it.
kellymch

me solidify my thoughts on this. As I was reading debate coverage, ss kept popping up and I kept thinking, “Wait a minute….”

Thanks,
Kelly
steve010

scheme, because the Federal govt can print money. Bernie Madoff failed with his Ponzi because even though he was dealing with billions of dollars, he couldn’t just go to the computer and add some zeros like Ben Bernanke can.

Morally, and ethically, SS is a ponzi scheme so it just depends on your definition.

The country of Chile has a very successful privatized SS program which has functioned well for over 30 years. This store of value has helped this country proper in the presence of overwheming financial failure of socialist countries like Cuba and Venezuela.
http://www.doctor-bob.biz rsklaroff

[you have to get up very early in the morning to upstage Guzzardi's inspiration!]
AceInTX

Romney changes skins they way most people change their underwear…

I guarantee if Romney’s focus groups tell him tomorrow that 65% of the electorate believe Social Security is a Ponzy Scheme….or the noext group he panders to who believes it to be a Ponzi Scheme….he’ll turn on a dime.

Romny is the very definition of what people hate about politicians….he’s an empty suit…a political carnelian…he’s a used car salesman…..

Or to put it bluntly…he’s a shameless liar who makes up his positions according to which way the political wind is blowing
Marcus_Traianus

In the private market, there are very strict regulations regarding the running and managing of “funds” such as Social Security. The contributions need to be set aside, properly invested and strictly accounted for. Any fees or deductions are also highly regulated. Returns? Ditto, statements of true balances and movements are also highly regulated.

If a private fund simply used the investors money for other purposes and provided statements amounting to an IOU, they would go to jail. Just ask Bernie Madoff.

Mitt Romney is not only a financial illiterate, but he is either a liar or egregiously incompetent. He is light on accomplishments, long on rhetoric and willing to paint his Republican opponents with mendacity and obfuscation to win.

Romney’s “win at all costs” tells me one thing; he is not the right candidate for this job. He is McCain 2.0, with better hair.
cavvet

“In the tank” is a phrase best left to describe the Obamamaniacs of 2008. Consrvatives looking for a conservative candidate most assuredly will choose Rick Perry over Mitt Romney.
AceInTX

{
georgeinla

If you want to call Social Security a Ponzi scheme, then you might as well call every bank in America a Ponzi scheme, because none of them have the money on hand to pay out the full balance of what they owe their account holders. A Ponzi scheme has no intention of paying back the beneficiaries; Social Security has made good on all of its promised benefits for 70+ years, and there’s enough money in the till right now to go for another thirty or so. If the retirement age is raised by a few years to reflect the fact that people are living on average a lot longer than they were when the program was designed, the program will be actuarily sound for another 100 years after that.

If Rick Perry thinks it’s a Ponzi scheme, that’s more of a reflection on his own attitude towards a debt owed to the American people, especially our senior citizens, by the federal government, than it is a reflection on the program itself. Shame on him. Crap like that is how you unnecessarily lose an election in a landslide.
http://www.doctor-bob.biz rsklaroff

…for the very reason you have identified.

People are lulled into complacency by being reminded of this capacity to TRIPLE the $-supply in only two years…to finance such adventures [and risks].

What is amazing as one listens to the talking-heads on all three cable-news stations is that they all “decry” RP’s comments, claiming that he didn’t focus on “solutions.”

READ his comments [supra], and you note otherwise; this is a great way to “vet” the credibility of those who are actually shilling for BHO or MR.
http://www.doctor-bob.biz rsklaroff

…stated that current-seniors would NOT be affected by SS-reform.

Pivotal is the overall recognition that the “lock-box” is a fantasy.
PGDeFreese

but SS is a compulsory con.
JSobieski

Some people will get sucked into extremely long arguments about the meaning of the word. This is one of the times when the political truth may be more important than literal meanings in any case.

I am glad that Perry did not walk back from his ponzi comment. He will need to drive this point home again and again and again.

It is unfortunate that these Texas governors keep taking on Social Security instead of Medicare since Medicare is a far worse problem, and it cannot be adequately addressed by the relatively easy changes of retirement, means testing, etc.

However, Perry has shown far more guts on entitlements than anyone else too date and he handled the blow back fairly well.
dmacleo

at least perry is willing to take the hits and is being up front about it.
romney…well he just plain sucks.
bk

That’s where your premise is faulty. Here is reality, as demonstrated numerous times over the past decade or two:
1. Republican says SS is broken and offers a plan to fix it.
2. Democrats say Republican wants to end social security.
3. Nothing changes, except that the bankruptcy date for SS draws nearer.

As long as Democrats are more interested in demagoguing SS than in fixing it and are successful in scaring off many/most Republicans, we’re just digging a deeper hole. The GOP needs to have the cojones to shake things up to the point where the argument becomes that the Democratic insistence on maintaining the status quo means the end of SS.
Right_Again

We all also know that if any candidate uses that term the left can easily demagogue it to effectively scare the elderly away from that candidate.

It is one thing to casually use the term as a poster at RedState. It is careless for a serious presidential candidate to use the term so the leftist media can use it as a club against that candidate.

Why hand the left their ammunition?
dajeeps

For me – every issue, every time. No exceptions, no excuses.

I have always been against forcing people to pay into the social pension plan, period; and my opposition is more intense knowing that the money is siphoned off for other purposes. Because of the transferability of the employer portion of the tax, it all comes our of our pay (for wage earners) and we are all the poorer for it. I agree with Perry 100%; it is run exactly like a ponzi scheme, otherwise it would not be having these brushes with bankruptcy.

Is that way to market reform in an election? Well, he can do what he wants, but it might be better to take a different approach because people are assuming that is it all their money, when all of our money that we have been forced to pay over the course of our working lives is nearly gone (more than 50% underfunded). What that means for slightly younger folks is they will bear the burden of the cuts after paying full price for the people who come immediately before them. I admire his willingness to tell the truth about the program, but perhaps he should stress that we need to be fair to everyone, making sure that we aren’t just kicking the can of woes to our kids.
Wayne

the facts support Perry’s position and when he unapologetically reiterated that it remained unchanged he took the flack from Romney. Then the moderators shifted their attention to Cain, who used other words to say it was a Ponzi scheme. So did the other candidates… it was almost comical. I know I laughed out loud about it more than once…. A rose is a rose, etc…

I was disappointed that MB was marginalized so transparently. It’s clear the media would rather have Obama go up against Romney than Perry. Because it’s fairly clear a republican will be replacing Obama and they want another politician in office rather than a true leader with a clear vision and understanding of what got us into this mess…. Regardless of the fact that Romney is a Republican, I view him as similar to Obama in that the public is being manipulated into believing that he is something that he is not…

Because, most of the voting public get their “opinions” from the media.

That said, I’m going to post my thoughts on the subject of “climate change”…. and Perry’s comments…
runner12

A. Those near receiving SS benefits will not be affected

And

B. Reform is needed so SS won’t be broke. He correctly pointed out that young people like myself will never get what we have payed in if we keep things the way they are.

What is so revolutionary about that? I recall Paul Ryan saying near the same thing as well as almost every other GOP elected official.

Well done, Gov. Perry. It is time that we are honest with ourselves as Americans. We do not need any more false assurances and false solutions.
APA Guy

He had every opportunity to fold and cave on SS reform last night after that shameful lurch to the left by Romney. The man stayed strong on that and other issues – including steadfast support for the death penalty.

Perry is principled, strong, and cool in the face of pressure…and he is absolutely correct about Social Security. I explained this as a guest on a local radio show a few months back. People genuinely believe that they are paying into a “retirement account” when SS taxes are withheld. It never occurs to them that they could be buying gold/silver, investing in PIMCO Real Return, sticks, etc. and earning TRUE rate of return instead of feeding the fat wasteful monster. Many people I speak to here are astounded to realize that they own and control NOTHING where that 6.2% “investment” of their hard-earned money is concerned.

Perry is fighting the good fight…and as a front-runner against an extremely vulnerable Dem president. We need to be fighting with him all the way through November 2012 and beyond, not looking for excuses to jump on the “safe” wagon.
oldbird77

there is no trust fund. It’s already been exhausted to pay for other programs. I’m in my early 30′s and have no illusions that I will get a check from this program that I’m forced to pay into.
APA Guy

n/t
Scope

Now you and guzzardi have to convince those arguing that Bernie Sanders VT really isn’t the best thing since sliced bread, as compared to Texas. I saw that argument on the site you linked the other day. LOL
http://www.doctor-bob.biz rsklaroff

…of linking BOTH to documentation…such as this one about Ponzi…

http://www.verumserum.com/?p=28975

…and others that may or may not concur with our viewpoints.

[does anyone other than Kucinich listen to Sanders?]
http://www.doctor-bob.biz rsklaroff

http://www.verumserum.com/?p=28975
Scope

against the Republicans even if they stood there and said nothing. It’s more honorable and admirable to speak the truth, and let the Dems. say and do what they will. Time to stop being defined by fear of what the Dems. will say.
Wayne

facts support Perry’s position and when he unapologetically reiterated that it remained unchanged he took the flack from Romney. Then the moderators shifted their attention to Cain, who used other words to say it was a Ponzi scheme. So did the other candidates… it was almost comical. I know I laughed out loud about it more than once…. A rose is a rose, etc…

I was disappointed that MB was marginalized so transparently. It’s clear the media would rather have Obama go up against Romney than Perry. Because it’s fairly clear a republican will be replacing Obama and they want another politician in office rather than a true leader with a clear vision and understanding of what got us into this mess…. Regardless of the fact that Romney is a Republican, I view him as similar to Obama in that the public is being manipulated into believing that he is something that he is not…

Because, most of the voting public get their “opinions” from the media.

That said, I’m going to post my thoughts on the subject of “climate change”…. and Perry’s comments…
renl57

To answer your original question:

This is from the 1980 GOP Platform (the one Reagan ran on successfully):

“Precisely because Social Security is a precious lifeline for millions of the elderly, orphaned, and disabled, we insist that its financing be sound and stable. We will preserve Social Security for its original purpose.
“….To save Social Security, we have no choice but to redirect our economy toward growth. To meet this country’s commitments to Social Security recipients, present and future, we need more people at work, earning more money, thereby paying more into the trust funds.”

http://tinyurl.com/ygwo92x

So with Perry, in 31 years the GOP has gone from calling SS a “precious lifeline” that it intends to save in order to meet SS’s future commitments, to calling SS a “Ponzi scheme” implying that it’s unsustainable and has to be phased out.

And that’s the problem. What Perry said represents a real break with past GOP platforms and the actions of past GOP Presidents. It’s going to be real easy for the Dems to paint Perry as not only fringe, but inconsistent with past GOP presidents.

Because the following GOP presidents did NOT call SS a “Ponzi scheme” that’s unsustainable: Eisenhower, Nixon, Reagan, Bush 41 and Bush 43.

If Perry pushes this he will lose to Obama because he’ll be perceived as fringe. Just like Sharron Angle lost to Harry Reid, which should NEVER have been allowed to happen.
(Nevada could have been represented by Senator Sue Lowden, but you didn’t want that, so here we are.)
Locked and Loaded

Those in the tank (for Romney) will stick it out. They will employ subtle, behind-the-scenes tactics to break apart their worthy opposition and build a mannequin to fill the empty suit.

Remember, those on the Republican side were in near unanimous agreement that Hillary was more suited to the Presidency than BO.

Maybe Obama’s handlers in 2008 could be distinguished from Romney’s hangers-on of 2012, but both groups: In the tank.
izoneguy

Franklin Roosevelt, a Democrat, introduced the Social Security (FICA) Program. He promised:

1.) That participation in the Program would be completely voluntary,

2.) That the participants would only have to pay 1% of the first $1,400 of their annual incomes into the Program,

3.) That the money the participants elected to put into the Program would be deductible from their income for tax purposes each year.

4.) That the money the participants put into the independent “Trust Fund” rather than into the General operating fund, and therefore, would only be used to fund the Social Security Retirement Program, and no other Government program, and,

5.) That the annuity payments to the retirees would never be taxed as income.

Since many of us have paid into FICA for years and are now receiving a Social Security check every month — and then finding that we are getting taxed on 85% of the money we paid to the Federal Government to “put away,” you may be interested in the following:

Q: Which Political Party took Social Security from the independent “Trust” fund and put it into the General fund so that Congress could spend it?

A: It was Lyndon Johnson and the Democratically-controlled House and Senate.

Q: Which Political Party eliminated the income tax deduction for Social Security (FICA) withholding?

A: The Democratic Party.

Q: Which Political Party started taxing Social Security annuities?

A: The Democratic Party, with Al Gore casting the “tie-breaking” deciding vote as President of the Senate, while he was Vice President of the U.S.

Q: Which Political Party decided to start giving annuity payments to immigrants?

A: That’s right! Jimmy Carter and the Democratic Party.

Immigrants moved into this country, and at age 65, began to receive SSI Social Security payments! The Democratic Party gave these payments to them, even though they never paid a dime into it!

Then, after doing all this lying and thieving and violation of the original contract (FICA), the Democrats turn around and tell you that the Republicans want to take your Social Security away!

And the worst part about it is, uninformed citizens believe it! Perhaps we are asking the wrong questions during the upcoming 2012 election year!
Kyle-MI

I agree with everything Perry says about SS. I am just not sure we are ready for this battle.

If the 2012 election is about the economy and jobs, then Obama looses to Perry or just about any other GOP candidate. If the 2012 elections becomes a referendum on SS, the odds swing back against Perry.

After the 2004 election, Bush burned all of his political capital trying to reform SS. It did not matter how much he promised not to touch SS for current and near current recipients. Whatever he promised, the Dems and the MSM demagogued the issue to death.

Romney is playing politics on this issue. Perry is being fiscally responsible. I would love to say that Perry has the winning hand (for the general election), but past performance points against it.
earlgrey

is what my non-political husband asked me last night after his fantasy football tweet followers had started talking about the debate.

If they are not careful they could split up the republican party.

When at longl last the truth is spoken and given a forum, the ones that slap it down will not be well recieved.
red_oakster

Amazing as it sounds, it looks like Romney never had a plan for candidate like Perry (or Daniels or Barbour?). The guy is scrambling to compete and wants to play George H W Bush to Perry’s Reagan. Perhaps the movie will have a different ending this time, but I doubt it.
Spartan4Life

You didn’t really believe that all those establishment folks were going to fall in line after one lousy debate, did you? Perry is on to something and that is why they are all running around like stuck pigs.

I know now who I am supporting. I have been saying for 30 years that SS was a Ponzi scheme that was going to be the ruin of this country if we didn’t change it. Finally, a politician with the cajones to say it.

Let the weasels have their 48 hour narrative. As you should know by now, movements don’t happen overnight.
Kyle-MI

We are now closer to a collapse of SS and more people now see it as unsustainable. The trillion dollar question is “Are there enough voters who know the truth about SS?”
izoneguy

Obama with all of his spending has dramatically speeded up the coming collapse
of SS.

Perry should present a plan with how he would fix SS.

Number one fix – all the SS money collected should be separate
and put into a newly formed “trust fund.”

Congress should not count SS money as money they can spend.

Spending will have to CUT, CAP the amount of money Congress spends, BALANCE will need to be achieved.
Matthew Morris

and beyond.
Spartan4Life

Payroll taxes are a huge burden on employers. Every time they consider hiring someone they have to consider all the costs including having to pay SS for that employee.

Also, what difference does it make who wins the horserace to lead a bankrupt nation?

Use your brain.
Christian

It’s always been that way. There never has been any promise of “return”. Everyone knows that. Calling it a Ponzi scheme just makes the speaker (here, Perry) look stupid.
nepanyrush

People that I talk to, and myself up until a few years ago, believed the myth that the money taken from our salary was being reinvested and that is what we would draw from when we retired. The letters sent to us from government seem to give the same impression.

People need to know that they are losing 6.25% salary (12.5% for us self-employed!) to pay for the retirement of others and that our own retirement is dependent on future workers. Years ago, there were 13 workers for every retiree. It worked at that time. Now, it is 2 workers fro each retiree and does not work.

If people realized they could take that same amount and have it invested and that it would belong to them, they would feel something would be there when they retired. Furthermore, the way it is now, people give up this large percentage of their income and might just die and the only beneficiary is the government.
APA Guy

Ask any business…small, medium, large…what ending the FICA tax match would do to hiring prospects.

Case closed.
Locked and Loaded

I believe Bernie Madoff’s investors should get their money back (even the Hollywood celebrities), including the seniors. But should I (and Rick Perry) believe he should have been allowed to continue the program? It’s absurd what you have stated here.

One more thing: Are you predicting that Perry could lose to Obama in a landslide?
Matthew Morris

Time to stop being defined by fear of what the Dems. will say.

And time to start re-defining them such that their definition matches actual reality.

Old reality (known fact) in politics: SS is a noble program, completely solvent, and Republicans want to end it to kill off the costly oldtimers.

New reality: SS is immoral, unConstitutional, fraudulent, insolvent, ponzi scheme that will not last much longer whether we reform it or phase it out or not- and Democrats, with the media’s help, have for decades used it as a political weapon.

The everyday American needs to be brought around to the complete understanding (among many others.)
http://www.doctor-bob.biz rsklaroff

…is the elision to this phrase:

“…implying that it?s unsustainable and has to be phased out.”

Critique doesn’t portend destruction, as the rest of his answers illustrated.
Spartan4Life

After welfare reform in the 90s we saw an exponential increase in the SS disability burden. All we did is transfer folks from one welfare system to another. All of a sudden being depressed, drug dependent, or having tennis elbow entitled(God, I hate that word) you to tap the SS system.

If you don’t believe me, then why are all those lawyers on TV advertising that they will help you get benefits?

Disgraceful.
acat

some illegals some not exist for one simple reason.

If the job has to be done, but the cost of legally creating the position, i.e. paying the taxes – including SS and unemployment – reduces the money available to pay the employee below what minimum wage laws require. then … someone’s doing the job and getting paid, but SS (etc.) are getting shortchanged.

Mew
RichmondG30

You CANNOT compare a bank to the SS scheme. A bank cannot pay back all deposits instantly because the money has been lent out (INVESTED) and is generating a return. Social Security cannot pay its depositors because it has SPENT the money. That money is gone and not coming back. It is in the form of paychecks to government workers, unemployment benefits, etc.

Rick Perry is absolutely right but needs to balance his criticism with articulating a solid, workable solution. If not, the MSM and Republican establishment is gonna destroy him..
Spartan4Life

We sure could use a little courage in this country.

We have had all the bed wetting metrosexual elitism we can stand for a while.
acat

Perhaps he’s stupid or something, but he kept prattling on about a “lock box”.

Mew
nepanyrush

Early investors receive the biggest return on their investment.
Early investors are paid from money from later investors (the taxpayers).
The number of later investors needs to be kept up, to pay for earlier investors, but this is not happening. In the early years, there were 13 taxpayers for every retiree. Now there are 2 taxpayers for every retiree. Soon will be one taxpayer for every retiree. That is why it is not working.

If the money people paid in taxes was being invested and returned to them when they retired, it would be like investing in a savings account or stocks. But your taxes are used to pay for the earlier investors, that is why it is a Ponzi scheme. As we run out of new investors, it is going broke.
http://www.doctor-bob.biz rsklaroff

This is why I have become enamored of RedState.
APA Guy

Not careless to correctly puts an identifiable face on the program. Even the novice political observer understands the underlying concept behind a Ponzi scheme. This forces voters to take a long, hard look at a wasteful, inefficient government entitlement that is bleeding their paychecks and retirements dry.

If I was advising Perry, I’d tell him to continue to shoot straight to the end. Not only is it good policy, it makes sense to Americans.
Matthew Morris

(no offense.) Romney was disgusting last night too on this topic.

More of the same from the “can’t we all just get along!” crowd. Severe Moderate Syndrome. So afraid of (R) defeat, willing to act like a (D) to win. Ever so willing to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory.

Never before has there been a better chance to finally right some wrongs. The political will is there. As Erick said:

Mitt Romney says that millions of Americans being dependent on government for their retirement is the definition of a successful program.

So if the platforms from the past said the same things, it must be right huh? Even in the year when REAL progress can be made? I will never understand the mind of the moderate.

Look forward to hearing what Rush has to say today!
Spartan4Life

I have three kids, 23, 18, 17. This is all about them. Perry was right to direct his comments at young voters.

All four of our kids grandprents are alive into their 80s. I really don’t think their vision was that their grandkids would be out of work because the country can no longer afford the false promises they were made.
jgs23

I realize this may all be about Florida, where I think the nomination eventually gets decided but I think that Romney is so desperate to make a distinction between himself and Perry that he’s jumping on the wrong argument. (Totally agree with Erick’s comments on AC360.) As they get into specifics in subsequent debates, people will see that their prescriptions aren’t all that different. Romney basically tried to do to Perry what John McCain did to him in the same venue re: “timetables” in 08 but Romney happened to be on the wrong side of the rhetoric as a primary contender. SS and Medicare are THE two most offensive overreaches of the federal government and essentially deeming SS sacrosanct to score rhetorical points isn’t going to help Romney a whole lot. It’s a gamble, because it may play well in the Florida primaries, but I’m afraid Romney is playing into the hands of the media and democrats.

I liked Romney’s refusal to pile on Perry over the HPV and then pivoting with a great punchline about Obama. I think one area where Romney can put Perry on roller skates in subsequent debates is simply to force Perry to explain his policies that led to the headline job growth in TX. I suspect the answer will be that he maintained the status quo. (I wish the status quo in TX were the status quo for the country – less regulation, low taxes, ability to drill for oil & gas, great secondary education, etc.)

Having said all of that, this was my first real exposure to Rick Perry. He’s not as articulate as Romney but he’s not the caricature the media has made him out to be. (I admit that I adopted some of those biases.) I found him to be serious, affable, and confident in his positions. (I think Romney would do well to mimic Perry’s stage presence and drop the nervous energy.) For the most part, Perry articulated his positions well and I expect he will get better as the debates continue. Based on what I have seen thus far, I would be happy to put Perry at the top of the ticket against Obama.
Right_Again

Each side loves its red meat. It thrills those who believe and angers those who do not. Independents tend not to care for it from either side. When Perry throws out the red meat by calling Social Security a Ponzi scheme it is great for us, abhorent to the left and off-putting to independents.

If we want to defeat Obama and his minions, we have to find ways to discuss contentious issues without pushing away too many independents.

I totally believe that Social Security is a Ponzi scheme. I don’t need my presidential candidate to state that it is such. Who is this type of red meat talk really intended to win over? Believers already believe.
APA Guy

…looked completely flustered last night trying to scramble to criticize Perry? I held my nose and flipped over to MSNBC to hear their comments, and Ed Schultz actually praised Perry quite a bit. Shortly thereafter, the rest of the liberal peanut gallery jumped on Schultz and tried to scamper dissent against Perry and “love” for Romney. I noticed that Erick was sort of fighting the same sort of nonsense on CNN, when the other commenters were somehow in love with Romney but had little good to say about Perry.

To me, this is OUTSTANDING news with regards to Perry’s candidacy. If the MSM is this frantic after one debate, imagine how they’ll implode after the public digests the reality of the truth he is speaking on important issues like SS.
lineholder

I’m 50. I won’t get anything out of SS, even at my age. Even if the trajectory of spending followed the path that has been projected, the federal government will find some reason to “borrow” out of it, just like they have done many time over the years.

I’m not counting on it being there. Neither are my children.
Kyle-MI

Can this argument get through the political noise from the Dems, MSM, and a large chunk of seniors dependent on SS?
Matthew Morris

If there were such a thing here….
texasmom2012

I don’t know why you did not know until a few years ago that SS is unstable at best because if you have paid any attention (and since you are posting at RedState I would tend to think you have paid attention) it has been clear since at least the 80s that SS was unsustainable. At 49, I would be thrilled to give up SS for us if we could have half of the potion hubby contributes, 3%, diverted to an IRA or our 401k. This would give us the added benefit of extra funds to contribute to a family trust fund for our autistic son so that he would never be dependent on the government.
oneconservative

Attacking a Republican by saying that “Republicans want to take your Social Security” is the first play in their worn out playbook. That was shameful by Mitt.

I despise Social Insecurity and would gladly forfeit all money that I have been forced to pay into in exchange for not having to pay into it anymore.

Herman Cain had a great response about moving to a Chilean style individual account system. This is exactly what should be done.
texasmom2012

Nt
Kyle-MI

A. Perry will not cut off SS from current and near current recipients. No one is proposing eliminating SS payouts. There still has to be a FICA tax to pay for current payouts.

B. Even under reform there will still be some type of program and some type of FICA tax. Maybe a reduced tax, but it will still exist. Reform is about where the money will be invested (Government bonds vs. the market) and who controls the money (Government vs. the individual).
Spartan4Life

Trust me on this. They know they are being ripped off. Plus they know there aren’t going to be careers for them if we don’t do something to change the status quo.

Barack Obama was very popular with young people in 2008 but has spent his entire presidency pandering to older union members. They are a disaffected voting block.

The reason the left is nervous is because they know BO is vulnerable with younger voters,
Locked and Loaded

2008 GOP Platform
Social Security
We are committed to putting Social Security on a sound fiscal basis. Our society faces a profound demographic shift over the next twenty-five years, from today’s ratio of 33 workers for every retiree to only 2.1 workers by 2034. Under the current system, younger workers will no be able to depend on Social Security as part of their retirement plan. We believe the solution should give workers control over, and a fair return on, their contributions. No changes in the system should adversely affect any current or near-retiree. Comprehensive reform should include the opportunity to freely choose to create your own personal investment accounts which are distinct from and supplemental to the overall Social Security system.

2008 Democrat Platform
We will safeguard Social Security. We will develop new retirement plans and pension protections that will give Americans a secure, portable way to save for retirement.

Mitt’s statement is pretty well in line with the D platform, and the R platform tiptoes around calling SS a Ponzi scheme.

Hopefully Rick Perry will continue to recognize that the pablum just ain’t going down.
Kyle-MI

And a lot of people who support SS have bought that promise, hook, line and sinker. It is the only way the program has been politically sustainable.
Locked and Loaded

You are absolutely correct.

Carpe diem!
texasmom2012

Although our retirement funds are getting slammed by QE2 and other inflationary measures, I think that we will still be OK if Obama is ousted.

O/T Perry is my governor. He is not perfect but he is educable and will admit an error and change course. Not so with Romney who still will not admit Romneycare was a big mistake. So far, Perry is my guy. I love Palin as well but I want her to repeat her Alaska track by taking on the Department of Energy or the Interior wherever she can stir up the most change. Then maybe another Cabinet post or VP in Perry’s second term. Then maybe we will be ready for a female President. I thought we were but an interesting conversation with my youngest (15) son convinced me maybe not. He goes to a highly diverse school and always has. He says he is positive that some ME countries will not fear or respect a female president. Since he has friends and classmates from all over the world, he actually has a better insight on this than I do.
APA Guy

In fact, he admits that ANY rate of return on SS dollars goes to pay for..wait for it…HIDDEN DEBT.

I swear I’m not making this up…have a look at his own lecture notes per the link below…

http://web.mit.edu/krugman/www/socsec.html
carolina

we would have something to ‘show for it’. It could have been invested in growing the economy. Instead, all of this money has been stolen from the private economy and consumed by the leviathan …. and SS recipients as they receive their redistributed dribble.
SS is worse than CA (or any other) pension funds. At least part of the CA pension funds were invested in the private sector!
carolina

we would have something to ‘show for it’. It could have been invested in growing the economy. Instead, all of this money has been stolen from the private economy and consumed by the leviathan …. and SS recipients as they receive their redistributed dribble.
SS is worse than CA (or any other) pension funds. At least part of the CA pension funds were invested in the private sector!
steve010

that the WWII generation/the greatest generation has just about died off. 15 years ago, no real candidate would have bad mouthed SS in the least.

Jeb Bush ran against Lawton Chiles for gov, the first time JEB ran and lost narrowly to Chiles. The opinion was that JEB lost in the last couple of days because of a robo call that the Chiles campaign made to 1000′s of seniors saying that JEB wanted to do away with SS. Of course, none of that was true and what educated person in his right mind would associate a federal program with anything that a governor could do is hard to believe, but it worked for Chiles.

Nothing like this would work now and the debate over the future of SS is at least being discussed honestly, rather than the last 40 years of lies.
Kyle-MI

The only alternative to SS is individual investment in the stock market. I know that over the long term, the market pays better than SS, but it is easy to demagogue the issue under the current market conditions. It will be a tough sell under the current economy. Many people’s investment account are in tatters. Of course, it is partly Obama’s fault because of his fiscal irresponsibility, but people are still going to be uneasy about the down market vs. the (false) promise of guaranteed SS payouts.

SS reforms will be easier (still not a piece of cake) once the economy is on track with Republicans in control. The top priority for the election and the governance should be the economy and jobs. SS is not a top concern, at this point.
texasmom2012

Establishment gave us McCain. We held our noses and voted against Obama. This time the rest of us want to pick a candidate that we do not have to resort to pepto and valium to vote FOR rather than merely against the disaster of another Obama win.

Electability is code for the establishment guy, NO WAY! Not Romney, because it is clear that he is the insider candidate…

Yes Hillary would have been better than Obama but that is really NOT a high hurdle for anyone!
http://travismonitor.blogspot.com Freedoms Truth

It’s quite a montrous lie to compare Soc Sec to banks.
Banks have reserve requirements. The only thing in Social Securitys ‘bank account’ are IOUs that would require tax hikes to repay.

REAL retirement programs have asset requirements. Social Security doesnt have that. If a private company ran this, they’d be in jail for fraud. As a ‘pay as you go’ system it is subject to the demographic trends that are making it unstable.

Social Security like a ponzi scheme, relies on getting more suckers in to pay out those who are ‘owed’ something. You speak of “a debt owed to the American people” you know how big that debt is? $23 trillion!

How on EARTH can you look at a debt of $23 trillion and attack someone for pointing to how
Do YOU have the ‘intention’ to pay out that $23 trillion? With whose money? Oh, that’s right, we are going to tax-rape the 20-40 year olds to pay MORE THAN THEY WILL EVER GET BACK in order to pay for the boomer retirements.

It’s a monstrous lie to call Social Security ‘sound’ and deny its very Ponzi-Scheme structure, then in the next breath say “well, if the retirement age is raised by a few years” Oh, its that SIMPLE, eh. Screw folks who paid in their whole lives by cutting their benefits.

Dont get me wrong. That is the answer. Raise retirement age. Make it voluntary. Tax benefits.

Great – now which leader will actually do the right thing on this? The Democrats who demagogue on this? The wimpy ‘its a success’ Romney? Who will brave the political backlash and actually save Social Security from its demographic demise?

The only politician who can fix this massive $20 trillion hole is one who is willing to stand up and say how broken it is. In this race, that man is Perry.
texasmom2012

Social Security has been spent but not on returnable investments for the payee. SS was spent on returns to Congress in the form of votes, leaving empty IOUs that the taxpayers will be forced to redeem. There is no real return for the payee.
texasmom2012

Just FYI, another reason SS is a crock. If it was a retirement system, then the entity where you have invested also gets to tax back part of your investment as you receive it…
APA Guy

or blended bonds?

A worker earning just $30,000/year could buy anywhere between 2.5-3.0 POUNDS of silver per year with the SS withholding. How would that investment stack up with the 0% rate of return for SS dollars?
carolina

I completely agree.
czs

When you use provactive words, they get used against you in 30-second ads and the ~~uninformed~~ independents will accept the narrative that you are crazy.

I swear, we are acting like toddlers being manipulated by reverse psychology. Liberal mommy and daddy say, ‘Stay away from Perry’s rhetoric ison Social Security, it’s too extreme’, knowing we will take the bait and gush, ‘Yeah, yeah, that’s the rhetoric we want; scare everyone about Social Security, we need the truth!’

Perry will have to adopt ‘mend it not end it’ rhetoric on Social Security to win the presidency. If he were a ‘true believer’ conservative, and could speak articulately about what’s wrong with the program, he might could get away with what he is doing. But he’s just a pol (not a criticism, I want the best pol we have to win the election). And if he’s just a pol, then he needs to read the winds, use the right language, and then get in power — where he may actually be able to put us on a path to having (gasp) autonomy over our own retirement savings.
Common_Cents

SS is NOT a stand alone program. It is a line item like any other spending which happens to have a built in tax/rev mechanism. Govt must prioritize and cut elsewhere in order to support SS.

try telling your mortgage company that your “mortgage fund” is dry, meanwhile spending money on vacations and motorcycle.

govt uses this scare tactic to squeeze more ponzi money out of us while spending our money like lottery winners.
JSobieski

(1) What he ended up doing or
(2) Walking it back

One of the reasons why I wanted Paul Ryan to run is that he is very good at addressing these issues while avoiding needless controversies.

If Perry is President in 2013, he will be the only elected official in Washington DC besides Ron Paul to say that SS is unconstitional, and even Ron Paul goes out of his way to downplay it.
Common_Cents

by letting them frame the issue as a stand alone program that must be revenue neutral or positive, while they continue to grow the fed govt everywhere else.
streiff

doesn’t affect the definition. Ponzi schemes are perfectly viable so long as you continue to widen the base of investors. The problems happen when, like SS, the base flattens or narrows.
JSobieski

DeMint and Reagan would call it a serious commitment that we have made to our seniors.

No reason to call is successful, because it isn’t.

No reason to call it unconstitutional, because the constitution would be amended tomorrow to save it if a court were to strike it down. The constition has de facto been amended.

No reason to call it a ponzi scheme given the polling. “Mend it, don’t end it” is a fine slogan that communicates the reality of what is possible.

We need to overturn Obamacare ASAP. SS is the least pressing of all the entitlements. Medicare is a far more disasterous monster.
Matthew Morris

Are a chance to EDUCATE and INFORM. Newsflash America: SS is a Ponzi Scheme. Medicare is an impending disaster.

More of America is listening and paying attention, for a number of reasons.
-new media
-Obamanomics
-Obama economy
-Obamacare
-social media
-etc.

Granny might not be tuned in to reliable sources, but her daughter or neighbor probably is. Look at the case of the debt limit recently: Never before did the political will exist for something so “extreme” as holding out as long as they did. And it was all because they (Tea Party Republicans) in the house stood on principle above politics- without concern over re-election. Result?

Because of them the outcome was more favorable (albeit slightly)not just for conservatives, but for future generations. Oh, and they will probably be re-elected, too.
jgs23

It’s plain, ole fashioned redistribution – both among generations and income levels. Were a trust fund manager to take investments into a retirement account while guaranteeing returns and remove those funds to buy “stuff” after replacing them with I.O.U.’s, the fund manager would be in jail by congress’s own laws. They would have:

1. violated their state’s version of the Prudent Investor Act by failing to consider the beneficiaries’ financial situation, portfolio, risk profile, appropriate diversification, etc.
2. committed securities fraud in guaranteeing a return and failing to disclose risk.
3. committed securities fraud by using new money to pay off old, after not appropriately investing contributed funds (Ponzi)
4. been found guilty of self dealing by “investing” in securities issued by themselves and using the proceeds to spend on other “stuff”.

Because what congress collectively does is neither legal nor illegal, but constitutional or unconstitutional, SS is not a Ponzi scheme. The great “lie” of Social Security is the marketing of it as a retirement trust fund with some defined benefit.

I think any candidate would benefit greatly by laying out the problems above and saying that we need to change the program such that the SS Trust Fund is actually managed like a trust fund and not used as a slush fund. Other government entities manage pension funds as they should be managed. No reason not to expect the same in this case.
czs

It would kill this country.

If we had a Reagan with the skill to take the hard truths and make them sound like simple, moderate common sense, we could maybe use this rhetoric. Do you really think Perry looked like Reagan on that stage?

I just wish our guys would stop focusing on the issues where we still have to convince another 25% of the pubilc to our point of view. Let’s go for the low-hanging fruit — repeal Obamacare, fix taxes, stop regulations, etc. — and take a subtler approach on tearing down the New Deal programs that are, let’s face it, still immensely popular.
czs

It would kill this country.

If we had a Reagan with the skill to take the hard truths and make them sound like simple, moderate common sense, we could maybe use this rhetoric. Do you really think Perry looked like Reagan on that stage?

I just wish our guys would stop focusing on the issues where we still have to convince another 25% of the pubilc to our point of view. Let’s go for the low-hanging fruit — repeal Obamacare, fix taxes, stop regulations, etc. — and take a subtler approach on tearing down the New Deal programs that are, let’s face it, still immensely popular.
Common_Cents

He must realize he is in hostile territory and know that the lying savage LSM would cherry pick and take out of context. He needed to clarify his comments about 5-10 times to make sure the hostile media wouldn’t go there.

candidates need to take a lesson from gingrich, Christie, Giuliani, and trump on taking on and calling out the BS media.

no more McCain Mr nice guy, we saw what that got us.
JSobieski

Obamacare has to be priority 1
Medicare and Medicaid have a lot of overlap with Obamacare and Medicare is more of budget monster than SS is.

I don’t think it is a good thing if SS reform is a big issue in the campaign. Bush wanted a 5% private option, had both houses of Congress, and couldn’t get a single hearing on the issue.

There is nothing about conservatism that says we need to be tactically foolish.
APA Guy

They are echoing what you are saying here. Young adults want control over their own money NOW.

The stage has never been so set for such much-needed reform of these entitlement programs. If we don’t grasp this chance now and nominate the right candidate to lead the way, we may never get a chance like it again.
czs

with over 51% of the vote and over 300 electoral votes. It’s been about 23 years since we actually accomplished this.
http://travismonitor.blogspot.com Freedoms Truth

“The great ?lie? of Social Security is the marketing of it as a retirement trust fund with some defined benefit. ”

BINGO!

You are correct in pointing out that Social Security is not illegal, as by definition, its legal for Congress to create a plan on whatever unsound fiscal basis it has (constitutional) authority for. Congress can deficit spend, make promises it foists on later generations, and

But the ‘ponzi scheme’ label fits precisely because of your point #3. The ‘fraud’ in Social Security is that it is a pure pay-as-you-go tax-and-spend government redistribution program, yet it PRETENDS to be a retirement program. They even send us these little ‘benefit’ forms as if we have our own little 401k.

Hogwash to that lie. My taxes were already spent, and now that social security is running deficits, we arent even covering the systems CURRENT costs, let alone the trillions in spending already ‘promises’ on those forms we get every year.

Ponzi Scheme is a shoe that fits, a red flag to tell people ‘Hey, these promises … they aren’t real.’ That’s the ‘monstrous lie’ in the system. We’ve spent the money already and the cupboard is bare.
misplaced texan

was Ronald Reagan. Since then, I’ve voted for the lesser of two evils. I voted for Rick Perry for governor in 2002 when I still lived in Texas and I am ready to vote for him next year. If Romney turns out to be the nominee I’ll vote for him as a vote against Obama, but if Perry is the nominee I’ll be voting “for” him.
steve010

about 200K per month to about zero per month. After Obamacare was signed into law.

There is no better jobs program right now than repealing Obamacare.

Too much to do and so little time.
Locked and Loaded

I was only drawing a comparison with Hillary, certainly not advocating. Those in the tank for Obama worked to demonize her and lead her supporters astray, just like we are seeing with the establishment Republicans working to undermine Perry.

It’s hard to put yourself in the mind of a Democrat, but how many of them (those who haven’t taken such a hard left as to run into the gutter) now wish they would have voted for Hillary?

We on the thinking side of the aisle had better be smarter than to be herded toward the Romney chute.
gekster

You also said;
‘Romney changes skins they way most people change their underwear?’

Do you mean like this?
4suramcan

you have said something VERY important, Everyday Americans do NOT understand and we need to work on that. This is one area where “talk” is not cheap, for by talking to others about what is going on is one way to inform them.
Common_Cents

He should have replied, if govt SS is so good…

SHOW ME THE MONEY! Where is the money?

You can’t, because it’s spent.

the left has demonized privatization. It is unreal what I am seeing right before my eyes.
Common_Cents

Calling SS a ponzi is a gamble. He is basically right besides the ability to print money. But every action has opposite reaction, ie, printing to cover liabilities has inflation as a check and balance. So you might get paid but you have still lost.

It’s a gamble using the ponzi term. Is it the educated base only that is listening during primary? Is America really ready to face its problems? I’d rather see a finesse campaign with this issue until after one gets elected.

Look at Obama, he was tied down to nothing while getting elected. He then had leeway to pursue any radical agenda he wanted.

I’m not quite sure America is ready for the blunt truth of SS. Deep down many of us know the truth but don’t want to hear it so bluntly upfront. It reminds me of Walter Mondale pledging to raise taxes.

We might need some sweet nothing’s up front by a true conservative until he/she gets elected.
lineholder

of gaining public support for reforming social entitlement programs such as SS if we don’t speak the truth in letting the public know that they system itself is faulty, has been failing for years, and that it is absolutely necessary at this point to consider other alternatives?

Ponzi scheme may be a frightening term to some people, because it is so outside the mainstream, but it address the dangers of letting this system continue to operate forever and a day in the same manner that it has.
misplaced texan

It was a way to grab more money for the government to spend. The retirement age when SS was implemented was 65 – the average age of death was 62. It was never about helping people out in their retirement years. They were supposed to die before ever getting any of the money!
http://www.libertygirlusa.com libertygirlusa

I may never look at Romney the same again! LOL!
Common_Cents

Run a little centrist in campaigns, enough to satisfy base, and gain some independents.

When elected, go full throttle conservative while you have the political capital.

America doesn’t want to hear, “drink this, it tastes bad, but it’s good for you”. Even though they know its good for them.

IMHO.
gekster

I think it is the only color I havn’t seen him yet.
runner12

but Gov. Perry was asked a specific question about SS and he answered it in a way consistent with the GOP platform. What he said was no different from what my Rep. has said and not too far from what individuals such as Paul Ryan have been saying.

Every candidate will need to have an answer for the SS question. If entitlement reform is truly part of the discussion, SS cannot be left out of said conversation. It does not have to lead the way, but to pretend that it is not a part of the big government, failed entitlement programs is intellectually dishonest.

And the American people know it.
Money

The ROI on sticks would be better than social security’s. The only difference between Social Security and a traditional “Ponzi scheme” is that the government can’t force you to participate in a Ponzi scheme under penalty of law.
jgs23

But I do think, as a stylistic point, that Perry needs to quickly move on to laying out more specific points and leave the “Ponzi scheme” alone.

I think the candidates need to be very simple about the topic. “All the money you paid into the system was spent by congress and replaced with IOU’s. It has not been saved or invested like a retirement or pension plan should be. The Democrats’ solution is to keep cutting the benefits you spent a lifetime accumulating or to increase taxes to cover up the shortfalls caused by their spending the money you paid into the system.”

I think it also parlays into a nice attack on Obama as he was part of congress that spent the excess payments during 2004 – 2008. His only attempt to address SS was to threaten to withhold payments during the debt ceiling showdown.

I think that this cycle, more than any other, voters will listen to a message about cleaning up the way the program is administered.
izoneguy

Buy ammo…..

It will always be worth more, especially when the government
shuts down sales.

And toilet paper.
izoneguy

Perry Campaign: Remember When Romney Compared Social Security to a Criminal Enterprise?

Last night, Romney said, ?Under no circumstances would I ever say, by any measure, it?s a failure. It is working for millions of Americans.?

However, in his book ?No Apology: The Case For American Greatness?, which was published just last year, Romney compared those managing Social Security to criminals, saying:

?Let?s look at what would happen if someone in the private sector did a similar thing. Suppose two grandparents created a trust fund, appointed a bank as trustee, and instructed the bank to invest the proceeds of the trust fund so as to provide for their grandchildren?s education. Suppose further that the bank used the proceeds for its own purposes, so that when the grandchildren turned eighteen, there was no money for them to go to college. What would happen to the bankers responsible for misusing the money? They would go to jail. But what has happened to the people responsible for the looming bankruptcy of Social Security? They keep returning to Congress every two years.?
lineholder

then this is the way to do it. IMHO.
runner12

With a nod to izoneguy’s history of SS below. As you accurately pointed out Perry’s viewpoint is well-within the mainstream of current GOP thought.

Our current SS system is nothing like it was orginally intended as izoneguy indicated below. An additional fact to his analysis is that the average life-expectancy rate was around 66 when SS began, which is why the benefits began at 65. Today, the average life expectancy is around 75-77. That is a full ten years longer than the system was designed to sustain. Based on that one fact, it should not come as a shock that it is bankrupt.

If we want SS to survive, it must be reformed.
runner12

a flip-flopper once again. That is one sharp campaign.
silentcal2012

SS is a Ponzi Sheme, but I want to save it too.

That makes sense. Perry supporters are flailing around hysterically all day.

If Perry is a principled conservative and not a flip-flopper, he will stand by his comments in Fed Up that SS is Unconcstitional and belongs to the states.

If he says we need to fix it like Romney, he is the biggest phony going.
JSobieski

than we would want. That is my specific point. His book makes that unfortunate fact inevitable.

The ads will lead on SS. I would have preferred that the D attack ads led with Medicare, because (1) Medicare is more expensive and (2) it is part of real health care reform.

I still support Perry, I am just saying that the emphasis on SS will be unfortunate for us.
acat

sometimes they’re on, sometimes they’re not.

As far as the ads go, I can see several ways – thanks to Obama threatening to play chicken with seniors’ checks – to make the debate about changing D.C. rather than about Republicans or Democrats.

Mew
Scope

that my original comment was against. It is your fear of using truthful language, that has allowed the liberals to call anyone on the right every name in the book, and then some. When someone on our side uses correct and unapologetic language, it doesn’t give the left more soundbites, as if they didn’t have any Republican soundbites to demagogue, they would just make some up.

I think it fascinating that Christie, Palin and others have been put on a pedestal because they have no fear of really speaking out loudly and forcefully, and using language that is far from politically correct. Heck many want those two to become president at least in part from that language. Yet if Perry is forceful and uses provacative, he is a loser?

Who the heck cares what the independents will accept or not. Most are independents because they don’t have enough principles to stand firm with one side or the other. On election day, they put their finger in the wind to choose their candidate.
The_Gadfly

of that second definition? Because the non-highlighted portion is the very definition of Social Security.
runner12

but from what I have heard, the central focus of the campaign is jobs and the economy. Coupled with how big government hinders job creation.
JSobieski

Just as if Ryan was the guy, the D’s would make medicare the big issue.

I don’t doubt that SS is not Perry’s #1 focus, but D’s have used the SS hammer for years against candidates who never said anything about it. Mark my words “ponzi” is going to be a in a lot of news stories.
Right_Again

I agree with you that polical correctness is way out of hand. Where I disagree is when presidential candidates or right-wing pundits use language that makes it easy for the left to demagogue.

Ann Coulter all too frequently uses language that causes the left to go into fits of apoplexy because she pushes it too far. A case in point was her claim this week that kindergarten teachers are worthless. She could have stated what she meant in less harsh terms, but chose to throw political correctness out the window to try and make her point. Unfortunately, her point was lost in the words she chose to use.

Similarly, I believe that Perry’s use of “Ponzi scheme” to describe social security misses the point. Perry cannot change 70 years of history by calling it a Ponzi scheme. Perry does not plan to just throw social security out. Yet that is exactly how many will interpret his language. Cautious, reasoned rhetoric sometimes trumps political correctness.

I wish Chris Christie were running. He would be my first choice. The big difference between him and Perry is that he is able to forcefully and bluntly explain why conservative ideas are the better ideas. He would cream President Obama in a debate.

Perry’s comment on the other hand degraded and threatened a program that many (some even necessarily so) rely on. It didn’t tell people why our ideas are better.

I have never stated or implied that Perry is a loser. I will support him 100% if he is the nominee. I just hope that if he is, he will learn how to express his ideas in ways that will allow him to win the general election.

As to your last comment (Who the heck cares what the independents will accept or not?), I do. They are crucial to the defeat of Obama. If the left is able to portray our candidate as scary or stupid (which they always try), then Obama has a chance to be re-elected. Let’s not give them or him that chance.

I’m not suggesting that we shouldn’t try our best to fight to reshape social security. We absolutely should, but our candidates should talk about changing it rather than just denigrating it.

RS

EDITOR OF REDSTATE

Confusion

COMMENTS

ALL

COMMENTS

POPULAR

#RSRH

PICK YOUR STATE & GET LOCAL