…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….

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)

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.

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

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

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.

“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.

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.

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.

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

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?

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.

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…

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…

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.)

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!

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.

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.

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.

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.

This is why I have become enamored of RedState.

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.

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.

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!

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!

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.

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.

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.

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.

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!

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.”

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.

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