« BACK  |  PRINT

RS

EDITOR OF REDSTATE

LIVE FROM FLORIDA — No One Except Ron Paul

By: Erick Erickson (Diary)  |  September 12th, 2011 at 04:45 AM  | 

RESIZE: AAA

I’m in Tampa, FL for the CNN-Tea Party Express Republican Presidential Debate. The debate begins at 8pm on CNN. I’ll be on WSB Radio from 5pm to 7pm doing a “pre-game” show and then, starting at 7pm, I’ll be on CNN the rest of the night.

When the debate starts, Michele Bachmann intends to join Mitt Romney in defending social security against Rick Perry and his evil, awful “ponzi scheme” comment.

To be clear, none of the Republican Presidential candidates, except Ron Paul, wants to abolish social security. Not even Rick Perry who, though he wrote it was an affront to our constitutional system, made clear in both his book and on stage in California that he was not going to refight 70 years of American legislative progress, but would instead work to fix a broken system.

But Romney and Bachmann intend to keep going after Rick Perry for his “ponzi scheme” comment.

They might want to reconsider. Alex Tabarrok notes at Marginal Revolution that Nobel Prize winning economist Milton Friedman called social security “the biggest ponzi scheme on earth. That was back in 1999.

In 1967, Nobel Prize winning economist Paul Samuelson also considered social security a ponzi scheme.

Oh, and they aren’t the only one’s to use the word “ponzi” to describe social security. So did Nobel Prize winning economist Paul Krugman.

That doesn’t even include Mitt Romney who called the social security system a “criminal enterprise.”

When you have economists on the left and the right calling social security what it is, you might want to rethink your line of attack.

Tags: , , , ,

COMMENTS

POSTING RULES  |  LOGIN TO COMMENT  |  REGISTER TODAY
  • cavvet

    that understands that SS is truely an unsustainable ponzi scheme, who expects Bachmann or Romney stand a chance of securing the nomination?

  • cavvet

    that understands that SS is truely an unsustainable ponzi scheme, who expects Bachmann or Romney stand a chance of securing the nomination?

  • qualityguy

    Romney is a RINO stooge, so it doesn’t surprise me that he’s continuing his Perry attack. I am a little disappointed in Bachmann though. I thought that she was capable of independent thought. I guess that desparation will do strange things to people. As for Social Security, the politest thing that can be said about it is that it’s a scam. The funny thing is that it would have worked (and still be working) if politicians on both sides would have kept their greedy fat fingers out of the trust fund.

  • cavvet

    Ron Paul will NOT be the nominee. This country does not support now, nor do I believe ever will support libertarianism.

  • griffinelection

    we keep saying we want honest, no b.s. politicians to stand up for us and tell us the truth. But when someone actually does, there is a contest to see who can pile on the quickest.

    Rick Perry will do a better job tonight saying what he said last week, that he has no desire to get rid of SS.

    He is simply a problem solver and is calling SS out for what it is. I realize everyone has their own guy or woman they are supporting in the primaries, but when a conservative stands up and says something difficult but conservative, we need to back our guy up.

  • jlsankot

    and the key is for Perry, or anyone else, to educate and convince those presently on Medicare that it will remain for them and the system will need to change for those who are younger—and to then educate the younger folks on how they can also retire with some sense of confidence. I’ll leave the “how” to those much smarter than I am as long as they can explain it in plain English.

  • mosander

    I was amazed when John McCain got the nomination. It was all rigged. They are doing it again. They will tell you that you MUST elect whatever stooge they come up with. Those who research will NOT vote for a Bilderberger (Perry), person who has been on the Council of Foreign Relations or the Trilateral Commission. They are all working for the NEW WORLD ORDER and collapse of our sovereignty! WAKE UP, EVERYONE!

  • Right_Again

    of abolishing social security is a winning stance? Do we want Rick Perry to adopt that stance? Are we hoping all the Republican candidates come around to the wisdom of that stance?

    Because it is not going to happen, and if it does we’re going to lose big.

  • gekster

    You may think that, but it isn’t them who want to take over the world.
    It is this little rodent!

  • cavvet

    I stand by what I said, this country will not succumb to libertarianism.

  • Marcus_Traianus

    Bachmann is showing she spent too much time in Congress. Romney is displaying both his financial incompetence and “say anything to get elected” mentality. In the end, both are showing us why they shouldn’t be our candidate.

    Using the Democrats Medi-scare tactics, they continue to use an appeal to emotion, not reason. Meanwhile, Perry has told the truth. Social Security is about to go broke because there is no “balance” in any of the retirees account. It’s a Ponzi scheme with a big fat IOU we simply cannot afford.

    Not once has Perry said the current generation of seniors that paid into Social Security would not get their promised benefit. Not once.

    I dare Bachmann and Romney to point out in the debate where Perry has said that seniors won’t get paid. Not implied it or perhaps thought it.

  • http://reaganiterepublicanresistance.blogspot.com/ reaganiterepublicanresistance

    Ask Ron Paul about his foreign policy, that way we can all enjoy a few chuckles while we wait for the serious candidates to show up

  • brianm

    I expected this out of Romney he has proved time and again his only ideology is that which people want to hear…but I am really sad to see Bachman doing this expected better from her.

  • http://moelane.com/ Moe Lane

    1. Like it or not, McCain won that primary battle fair and square.
    2. There’s precisely one guy in these debates who has broken with the GOp on multiple occasions, and that’s Ron Paul. Translation: you want a RiNO? There you go.
    3. Cool it with the conspiracy theories. Friendly suggestion.

  • http://teapartisan.wordpress.com Loren Heal

    The country does support libertarianism — it’s in fact what we are.

    The country does not support candidates who trumpet the ways they are different from the majority.

  • Marcus_Traianus

    I would say this is a pretty good assortment.

    Pretty embarrassing Bachmann and Romney? Nui?

  • dmacleo

    article is about perry-romney-bachman but title has to speak about paul.

    why are people so scared of him? he won’t win as time has proven and hes not the damn boogeyman.

    as for the article itself;
    I expected this from romney. of course if perry had said it wasn’t a ponzi romney would say it was. guy has more positions than the karma sutra.

    I am surprised to hear bachman take such a strong position on that though, or maybe disappointed is a better word.

  • edintexas

    There will be lots of people who believe these two. And if Perry wins the nomination, the Dems will use this bit of propaganda against him, pointing out that “even Right Wing Republicans” called him out on Social Security.

  • MojoMan

    Perry calling Social Security a Ponzi Scheme is not the problem.

    The problem is that Perry’s tone leaves the impression with many that he is “anti-social security”. There are many people in this country who are retired or near retirement who are dependent on these funds for their elderly years. They have no choice about that at this point. So to be perceived as being “anti-social security” is to be at odds with these people eating and paying their bills. That is not a winning proposition, to put it mildly.

    Perry can fix this by clarifying that he was just talking about the funding for social security, which is a Ponzi scheme, and most people will have no problem with that analysis.

    He also must repeatedly insist that he is a passionate advocate of ensuring that people who have earned and depend on these benefits will very certainly receive them. He needs to propose a workable social security reform plan, which could even include privatizing the program, at least as far as I am concerned.

    But just calling the program names without reassuring those dependent on these funds that he is strongly in favor of these people receiving these monies could be enough to single-handedly sink his candidacy, and seriously wound any other candidates chances of beating Barack Obama.

    This is a big deal and the Republicans need to get this right for a change.

  • Locked and Loaded

    nt

  • edintexas

    And when he says something “Progressive”, what then? I’ve voted for Perry for Governor for every term but the one when he took over from W.

    That being said, he ticked me (and a lot of Texans) off with the Gardasil EO. It was clearly Progressive in nature and certainly un-necessary*. Yet there he stood, on the debate stage and refused to simply say he made a mistake. Instead he doubled down on the mistake by refusing to back off the decision to go with a recommendation from a lobbyist/former staffer. IF he believed the mandate was necessary to “save lives”, he should have made his case to the people and then taken it to the Legislature. Instead he tried to force it down our throats. And now he is defending that decision.

    I was traveling and did not see, or hear, the debate. I heard a recording of that answer the next day. And he probably lost my vote with that answer. Now I’m searching for someone other than Romney, and Bachmann is putting herself on the brink with this tricked up move with Romney. Of course, if he gets the nomination he’ll get my vote – and I’ll be happier with that vote than I was with the last Republican Presidential vote I cast.

    * At the time, the Gardasil round of inoculations was reported to cost $300.00. Opt-out sounds wonderful, but does not change the use of a government order requiring the inoculation or taking an affirmative action to opt-out for your child(ren). Not to mention the potential hassle with insurance companies over payment, or paying out of pocket, and the increased cost of health insurance which was supposed to be saved in 20 or 30 years. And there is a far, far cheaper alternative. It is called “safe sex”, and doesn’t even require the secular folks to be involved in any moral decisions about whether to have sex.

  • bk

    Like him or not, he’s no dummy. He knows this will be the main point of attack on him tonight, so he’ll be loaded for bear.

    For one thing, I expect him to say that Obama and the Democrats will do absolutely nothing to fix it, letting it die (or wither on the vine heh) and that he and the other GOP candidates will try to fix it, though perhaps each a little differently. That would make Romney and Bachmann look a bit petty when the real target is Obama.

  • edintexas

    As a Senior, I understand it is quite possible that (should I live long enough) I may not get my current level of benefits. That is at least if nothing is done to fix the system, the whole danged thing may collapse sooner than they think it will.

  • edintexas

    Or whatever popular letters/numbers/phrase are/is used to convey that idea.

  • grumpy85

    SS would still be working if politicians on both sides would have kept their greedy fat fingers out of the trust fund. Who can trust these characters that we send to Washington? They’ll promise anything to get elected while campaigning, then, take off their disguise when they reach D.C. and show their true colors. You know…sheep in wolves clothing.

  • brianm

    He has been asked several times about it on the stump and flat out admitted that he made a mistake. He has been our Governor for ten years and has only had two issues where he made a mistake from a conservative standpoint and both times that happened he listened to the people and backed off. In ten years that is pretty amazing when you think about it.

  • http://www.examiner.com/x-1597-Charlotte-Law--Politics-Examiner Mike gamecock DeVine

    since rich donors can’t finance candidates like they could when Reagan ran, better candidates that simply can’t or won’t spend all of 2-3 years with their hands out don’t run.

    But what disgusts me most about the primary dynamic and human nature is how like-minded conservatives will ape the gotcha left wing media and lib dems and attack their opponents over irrelevant semantics.

    Technically, I don’t agree with shorthand characterizations of Social Security as a Ponzi Scheme and certainly not a criminal enterprise. The better characterization of Soc Sec is that it has become “like a Ponzi scheme in effect” and is unsustainable due to criminal raiding by Congress to pay bills other than Soc Sec, expansion of benefits over time and the decline in the birth rate.

    The Ponzi scheme metaphor is quite a stretch. It has become like a Ponzi scheme due to the number of workers/recipient over time, but no one schemed to make blacks abort generations and whites to stop having babies.

    But given that Perry, (who is also correct that it is not constitutional but given promises made over 70 years can’t be eliminated for the retired and near retired) wants to reform the program just like Bachmann and Romney, it is venal for his opponents to pretend otherwise with these silly attacks.

    Disgusting. People, are the worst!

  • APA Guy

    It represents an accurate description of a fraud perpetrated upon the American worker for as long as the memory can remember.

    For reference, here is the definition of a Ponzi scheme per Investopedia:

    A fraudulent investing scam promising high rates of return with little risk to investors.

    Though it is sold as a public retirement program, there is no rate of return for individuals?NONE. Even Paul Krugman readily admits this. SS rate of return, if any, is designed to pay off hidden debt within the U.S budget. SS delivers nothing but increased debt and insolvency.

    What exactly would YOU call it if not a Ponzi scheme? Perry IS getting this right for a change…refreshing after many decades of GOP candidates dancing around the issue.

  • APA Guy

    It represents an accurate description of a fraud perpetrated upon the American worker for as long as the memory can remember.

    For reference, here is the definition of a Ponzi scheme per Investopedia:

    A fraudulent investing scam promising high rates of return with little risk to investors.

    Though it is sold as a public retirement program, there is no rate of return for individuals?NONE. Even Paul Krugman readily admits this. SS rate of return, if any, is designed to pay off hidden debt within the U.S budget. SS delivers nothing but increased debt and insolvency.

    What exactly would YOU call it if not a Ponzi scheme? Perry IS getting this right for a change…refreshing after many decades of GOP candidates dancing around the issue.

  • Scope

    yesterday on TV, and seeing replays of that horrible day, I thought of Ron Paul, and what he was probably thinking yesterday. Shortly after 9/11 he made comments that the radical islamist threat was a made up one. I saw comments put out by many of the GOP candidates over the last few days, Cain even sang in a video commemorating the fallen. Then I looked around to see if Paul had put out any statements, crickets. The only thing I found was a DailyPaul article where someone asked Paul what he thought of the upcoming 9/11 anniversary. He said “we didn’t learn much since then.” The guy will blame America for everything until he takes his last breath.

  • Scope

    and he is worse than the boogeyman. Most have just chalked him up to a mental institution escapee.

  • pdawk

    The debates aren’t going to have a lot to do with moving the meter in polling. It is going to be the Tens of Millions of dollars of ads run quoting him on Social Security that will scare the hell out of the most reliable voting bloc in the Republican Party. Once those ads run the story line will be that Rick Perry is unelectable because of his social security stance.

    The last thing he needed was for Bachman to have a bad night last week. She is a fierce debater and will light into him in a manner that no one on that stage can get away with. It will be interesting to see how he handles her attacks, which will come fast and furious.

  • brianm

    “That maybe it is time for some provacative language”

    He is right. By simply telling the truth and calling it like he saw it in less then a week the country has had more of a discussion about social security then we have in that past ten years.

    I call that leadership

  • Scope

    were able to read and comprehend, his name is mentioned as he is the only one to want to get rid of SS.

  • brianm

    http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/story/2011-09-11/Rick-Perry-Social-Security/50362610/1

    Pretty good response

  • APA Guy

    nt

  • grumpy85

    for a true statement on this vital subject. couldn’t have said better, myself.

  • MojoMan

    I said it was a Ponzi scheme in my original post. It is.

    Is that clear enough for you?

    The funding of Social Security is a Ponzi scheme, but people are still dependent on the benefits in order to survive. The continuance of these benefits is a survival issue for millions of Americans.

    The Republicans cannot win the Presidency in 2012 by being anti-Social Security. Nor should they. The Democrats know this can be a winner for them and they will try all their usual dirty tricks.

    The Republicans need to be aggressive advocates of protecting Social Security benefits for those who are dependent on them, while proposing reforms that fix the funding and adjust the benefits for non-dependent recipients in order to make sure the system works reliably for many decades to come.

    Republicans allowing themselves to be branded as “Anti-Social Security,” as Rick Perry has opened himself up to here, is an issue that can single-handedly result in Obama winning the 2012 election. Rick Perry needs to fix this right away, and he needs to keep on fixing it for the rest of this campaign if he wants to be taken seriously enough to beat Barack Obama.

  • Scope

    in the last debate he said that for any already on SS, or getting close to that age, they had nothing to worry about. It’s those that are desperate to stop his rise, especially Romney and Bachmann that will be seen as increasing desperate.

    Perry doesn’t have to punch down with Bachmann, she is sinking like a lead baoon in the polls all on her own. Heck in desperation, after her flaccid debate performance last week, she called a press conference the night of Obama’s speech to counter him, when it was already decided that Obama wasn’t going to have anything to say that warranted a response, and football was on. She flopped badly, and was seen by many in the GOP of “showboating” in a desperate attempt to remain a viable contender.

    Since Bachmann wants to play with the big boys, she better be prepared to be treated like one. I doubt if Perry corrected her tonight, she will once again get the sympathy vote like she did against Pawlenty, because she is woman.

  • poorredman

    “There are many people in this country who are retired or near retirement who are dependent on these funds for their elderly years.”

    Our culture has been corrupted to think that it’s ok to work until 63 1/2 without any personal liability of financial stability because once you hit that magic age, the government will take care you of. Then you also have those that have saved and been responsible and don’t ‘rely’ on SS, but use it for vacation money or niceities and see/expect it as an old age bonus.

    As Mark Steyn writes, and I believe everyone of us knows deep down, that isn’t how it used to be. You started work at an early age and stayed working until you died. The current generation isn’t leaving college or thier parents’ house with a job until 30 and expects to retire at 50.

    Before the 60′s, if you got too old to physically work, didn’t have the savings to live on your own, then you lived with your family. Your family took care of you, and if that broke down, your neighbors or your church pitched in.

    Today the children of the elderly don’t want to be bothered by it, their contribution to the parent’s retirement is helping to find a ‘home’ and ensuring Medicaid and SS can cover it so as not to disrupt your own financial plans to pay for the grandkid’s 6 years of college, the wife’s new SUV, or your 60″ LCD and $150/mo satellite package.

    There is a cultural war on the horizon between those that work hard and live within thier means and those that have thier hands out. Think Greece with 2nd Amendment Rights.

  • Finrod

    This is sad to see, because I’ve respected most of what she’s said in the past, but I can’t respect her standing with Romney against Perry on Social Security.

  • clarioncaller

    Perry just needs to go beyond Ponzi and flesh out how he would fix it…like individual retirement accounts…and he’s fine. Bachman better not not attack someone for just telling the truth or it could backfire and further diminish her.

  • Right_Again

    I’m in total agreement with your post. Social security is a Ponzi scheme. That is not the issue.

    This article seems to be claiming that Ron Paul’s position on social security is the correct one. Ron Paul’s…? Seriously…?

    We can run on fixing social security, but we will never win if the electorate believes we want to abolish social security. I want the Republicans to win the presidency back in 2012. Then we can try to fix it.

  • edintexas

    Didn’t he say that when he had an audience of more than a few hundred people (assumed norm for stump speeches).

    And he didn’t “back off” on Gardasil, the Legislature forced him by prohibiting the move. Not exactly the same thing. And now he’s doubled down on the decision in a national venue.

    Of course there is also the issue of saying two decidedly different things in two different locations and times. That is something we can agree Romney does with some frequency. But did we expect that from Perry?

    I may ultimately vote for Perry, but he’s going to have to work for that vote. And as I said, if he’s the nominee – he gets my vote by default.

  • izoneguy

    How Social Security Is Contributing to the Spending Crisis

    Leaving aside the political rhetoric, one thing is certain: Social Security needs to be reformed or America will face a dismal future. As one of the three major entitlement programs ? along with Medicare and Medicaid ? Social Security is contributing to a very dire long-term budget outlook. Spending on the three entitlement programs could consume one-half of the economy by 2056.

  • minncon

    He’ll be the better off for it. But your points are excellent, Erik… he’s not the first or only leader to say bad things about Social Security.

    He ought to brush off criticism with a comment like:

    “Look… I’m not going to get into a “he said/she said” debate here. We’ve all said in our own way that Social Security needs to be fixed. Governor Romney, you called it a ‘criminal enterprise’… Congresswoman Bachmann said (….whatever…) However you describe it, it needs fixing.”

  • brianm

    also said that he went about it the wrong way. Yes he probably should have said “I was wrong” like he has been saying when asked about it on the stump but he may have made the decision that it was more important to try to explain his reasoning for doing it originally in the limited time he had. Not saying it was the right way to go about it but thats what I am assuming.

    Like I said I am not defending it, its one of the two things he has done as Gov. that I disagreed with, but all I am saying is that in 10 plus years to have only two issues of conservative disagreement is really not too shabby in my opinion at least.

    Also if you want a more in debth look at the issue Izone guy wrote a great research piece on many issues people said about Perry before he got in the race and Gardasil was one of them. Here is the link if you want to read it.

    http://www.redstate.com/izoneguy/2011/08/14/seventeen-17-things-that-critics-are-saying-about-rick-perry/

  • APA Guy

    “Is that clear enough for you?”

    Really? Completely unnecessary…

    YOU said it was “name-calling”…your words:

    “But just calling the program names without reassuring those dependent on these funds that he is strongly in favor of these people receiving these monies could be enough to single-handedly sink his candidacy, and seriously wound any other candidates chances of beating Barack Obama.”

    I disagree with you completely on this..something you seem to be taking offense to. As I said, it’s not “name-calling” to correctly identify a program with a parallel scheme the public can identify with. I see that as brilliance, not a problem.

    And we ARE anti-SS as the program is delivered presently. It’s important that we not let political fear get in the way of doing what’s right for the country – and your posts allude to a fear that hitting the program directly with blunt lanuage is somehow harmful to us politically. We simply disagree is all.

  • APA Guy

    “Is that clear enough for you?”

    Really? Completely unnecessary…

    YOU said it was “name-calling”…your words:

    “But just calling the program names without reassuring those dependent on these funds that he is strongly in favor of these people receiving these monies could be enough to single-handedly sink his candidacy, and seriously wound any other candidates chances of beating Barack Obama.”

    I disagree with you completely on this..something you seem to be taking offense to. As I said, it’s not “name-calling” to correctly identify a program with a parallel scheme the public can identify with. I see that as brilliance, not a problem.

    And we ARE anti-SS as the program is delivered presently. It’s important that we not let political fear get in the way of doing what’s right for the country – and your posts allude to a fear that hitting the program directly with blunt lanuage is somehow harmful to us politically. We simply disagree is all.

  • JoeG

    There is a sizable portion of the population that supports libertarianism. The problem is that the only candidates who run under that banner are nuts. Ron Paul is typical of all of them.

  • izoneguy
  • wrenhal

    Then you seem to think Herman Cain is a RINO also??? How about Santorum? And if so, then it what ways???
    You’re conspiracy theories are wasted on our own candidates. If you really want to look at a conspiracy theory then look at Mr. Obambi and his communist professors that taught him the best way to communist revolution was through politics.

  • acat

    There’s an error in paragraph four. There most definitely is a conspiracy to abort a generation of blacks, it’s called Planned Parenthood.

    As for a generation of whites, I think it’s fair to say that women being told that they can have a career and kids if they just defer the kids a little while is certainly a driver for the trend. If you start later you don’t have as many, eh?

    Although women in the workforce started from need during WWII, it was continued as a way to create a voting bloc … and conservatives weren’t the ones pushing it.

    As for whether the intent was to damage SS over time, I doubt it. When have Libs ever counted the cost of their actions when they can blame instead?

    Yes, SS has become a pyramid scheme… and several of the proposed reforms are going to change it into a welfare scheme.

    I don’t have a problem with that .. but I would like some honesty about this… and so far the candidate who is closest to honest – although wrong on the technical – is Perry.

    Mew

  • wrenhal

    Tonight is not when it’s gonna happen? Until we get a debate that is a REAL debate and not run by OUR enemies in the LSM then any true message will NEVER get through.

  • cwfoster

    Between Perry and Romney, my choice would be Perry. I would prefer Cain, or Bachmann over either, to be quite honest. Bachmann, due to her decision to prostitute conservative principles to political expedience, has fallen from consideration altogether. Now T-paw had endorsed Mr. Establishment Republican Romney. I FREAKING REFUSE to hold my nose to vote republican again! Let’s get someone REAL!

    HERMAN CAIN 2012!

  • acat

    Or are you too young to remember b’rer rabbit?

    Mew

  • http://nerds4cain.com Brookhaven

    If this is the route Michele Bachman plans on going, then she should have the decency to turn in her Tea Party membership card, secret decoder ring, and stop calling herself the Tea Party candidate.

    The Tea Party is all about facing up to the problems facing our country in an honest and yes blunt way–not about demagoguing an issue to gain political advantage.

    BTW Michele, we’ve changed the secret handshake also, so don’t think you can sneak back in.

  • JSobieski

    Instead of defending the merits, she put an “asterisk” on her support.

    She talks a big game about not raising the debt ceiling 1 penny, but then she runs for the tall grass any time there is a serious discussion on entltlements.

  • cavvet

    Four major boards of the Conservative platform are National Security, Fiscal Restraint, Adherence to Law (Constitutionalism) and Social Traditionalism. While the Libertarians share the first three, Libertarian belief of total liberty for all can not allow for a sustainable society. Acceptance of behaviors without the guidance of Christian morality has opened the door to the acceptance of the secular socialist destruction of our society. The following four tenets of the Libertarians may not be considered solid planks, (as not all Libertarians hold tightly to all of them) they are certainly loose boards in what many Conservatives believe to be a rickety Libertarian platform.
    ATHEISM
    There are many God fearing, Christian Libertarians to be sure. To the chagrin of the Conservative though, the acceptance of atheism by both the Left as well as the Libertarian has allowed for the removal of God from the public conscience. As God fearing men, our Founding Fathers wrote the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution with the guidance of their Judeo-Christian beliefs. To abandon those Judeo-Christian beliefs and morality will lessen the impact that these documents have on future generations.
    HOMOSEXUALITY
    The Conservative believes marriage is to be between one man and one woman. The Left and the Libertarian belief that non-heterosexual relationships should be left to individual desires gives credence to those illicit relationships and thereby empowers them to add to the immoral debasing of society. Most homosexuals believe and know homosexuality is wrong. How many college students have thrown themselves off the George Washington bridge because they have been outed for having a heterosexual experience? If a group of homosexual advocates harassed and bullied heterosexuals for being normal, how many of the heteros would resort to committing suicide because of it? My guess would be none. Homosexuality is not okay. It is wrong.
    DRUG USE
    I, along with many of my fellow Conservatives, find imbibing in spirits to be relaxing for sure. We are, in contrast to the Left and again the Libertarian, against the expansion of the devastating drug culture through the legalization of any of the currently illegal substances, not the least of which is cannabis, whose proposition nineteen was recently defeated in uber liberal California. If the west coast liberals understand the negative impact of mind altering drugs, perhaps the Libertarian could learn this as well.
    ABORTION
    Abortion, plain and simple, is the killing of another human being, the left has determined this to be a viable form of contraception and the Libertarian has chosen to embrace this to be acceptable as well. This is cloaked as viable due to rape, incest or otherwise unwanted forms of inception, but it still does not legitimize the destruction of another human being.
    The Libertarian has, unfortunately, been damned with a moral compass spinning so wildly out of control so as to make Captain Jack Sparrow?s pathetic pirate pointer appear to be an adroit directional device. The libertarian is just as guilty as the secular socialist with regard to the destruction of our society.

  • sayoung80913

    my dad told me twenty years ago when I was only 19 that SSN was a Ponzi scheme-his exact words. He had to explain to me exactly what it meant and told me i would be foolish to ever look to the face in the mirror for a hand up or a hand out. I have to say, I was a Bachmann fan until she gave a rebuttal to obama’s campaign speech…er “jobs for union goons”speech. Why she felt the need is beyond me and she undercut(if only slightly because no one watched her)the message that Boehner was trying to send.Now she plans to jump on the SSN bandwagon. Michele, I know you are a good decent woman,don’t undermine my belief in you even further by trying to use scaring old people as a campaign tactic. She has no chance of being the nominee(a congresswoman does NOT have the experience needed PERIOD) and is only making things more complicated by her astonishingly short sighted actions. As for Romney…ROMNEYCARE was a fatal flaw but the this latest string of lies is the final nail..if he is the nominee, I will not vote for him but will instead put all of my time and resources into electing a Rep house and senate.

  • sayoung80913

    too early in the A.M.-meant to say-it would be foolish to look to ANYONE BUT the face in the mirror for a hand up or a hand out.

  • cwfoster

    Point one that McCain won the primary “fair and square”. First, lets’s examine fair and square, if that doesn’t hold up, we have no further to go. With the clarity of 20/20 hindsight, we now openly acknowledge the SERIOUS leftist bias in the MSM. We recognized it in 2008, but we didn’t QUITE realize that it had degenerated into NOTHING more than the propaganda arm of the DNC. If I may remind everyone of the news stories of 2007-2008, McCain was the ONLY candidate who stood a CHANCE against Hillary or Obama, Huckabee may have been able to get some exposure if he went into a post office and killed twenty or thirty people, but otherwise Cain (I mean Huckabee) was ignored to death. Romney was the POSSIBLE candidate who absolutely COULD NOT be elected in the general, because of his Mormonism. (or was it Perry, because he wont accept “settled science”?). In short, aside from the Republican base, many nominal Republicans who are registered, but not overly active or well informed, followed the MSM and voted for the mushiest Republican running, the ONLY thing McCain did that motivated the base was naming Sarah Palin as his running mate. SHE was more promising than he was! And now we see history repeating itself. After all it’s Romneys turn! (‘scuse me while I yak!) The MSM will not allow a single gaffe to pass, and if none are forthcoming, they will cover NOTHING having to do with any real conservative. As a result, the establishment/leftist choice for Obamas running mate was and will get virtually unlimited airtime and constant coverage, and the real threats to the leftist agenda will be relegated to obscurity. Cheer up Michelle! Now that you’ve shown more interest in attacking Perry than standing with him on principle, you’ve demonstrated that you are well on the path of being ‘captured by the system’ and since you’re malleable enough to sacrifice your principles, you will likely have a long and profitable career in DC!

  • lineholder

    1) Who is the “our” and “we” that you are referencing in these comments?
    2) Who is your preferred candidate of choice?

  • pdawk

    so he couldn’t be cooked and eaten. However after Br’er Rabbit made it back to his home he didn’t have a billion dollars spent on television ads calling him no good liar to set a different narrative.

    Perry’s argument sells well in the red meat lunch counter of the conservative blogosphere, but it is the seniors down at K&W Cafeteria who have paid into SS their entire life that will likely be swing voters in a primary and general election.

    Taking the position Perry has on SS before a general election is political suicide. I admire him for standing up for what he believes in, but I am much more concerned with getting Barry Obama out of office. You let Obama have another term and this country may never recover.

  • renl57

    Specific reform of entitlements is an extremely complex and sensitive topic, and it’s NOT going to get sold to the American voters in the heat of a presidential campaign.

    No one can reverse 70 years of Democrat propaganda, over two whole generations of Americans who got SS checks, and Republican acquiescence throughout that time (even Reagan pledged not to overturn SS or Medicare), in the space of just a few months–while simultaneously fending off attacks from the Dems.

    Perry is going to have enough of a selling job to convince the voters that he can do a good job as President. He won’t sell them by throwing red meat to the GOP base.

  • dmacleo

    and all I see lately are people giving credence to pauls limited success (in this run) and further fire up his followers.
    and if the article was about paul, as you seem to think, then it would have more than “except Ron Paul” in the article dealing with paul.
    you know where there’s smoke there’s fire, maybe some are actually closeted fans of paul but to scared to admit it.

    he’s nothing. stop enabling him.

  • Scope

    share the traditional conservative national security platform. They share only the conservative fiscal platform, and Ron Paul’s cult doesn’t even share that with his Gold Buggery and Austrian economic positions.

  • Tbone

    Bachmannn never had a snowball’s chance at the nomination, the best she could have hoped for was the VP slot. With Perry a sure bet to win the nomination, she has just got on board the Romney Express to Footnoteville.

  • acat

    or, worse, a trolling… but that’s up to the Moderators.

    Mew

  • Scope

    convincing to do with the younger generations. Many have already been complaining that they don’t think it’s fair for them to have to pay for entitlements to granny and gramps, and all those awful Baby Boomers.

    I believe there was a poll no long ago which proved that the majority do understand that entitlements must be reformed. I would suspect that that even includes the older generation who know that no one is going to yank their house, pills, and food out from under them.

    The Greek crisis playing out before our eyes for the last year or so has done wonders to show Americans that we cannot keep going down that same path.

  • acat

    they’re not the same, despite what certain folk may wish to believe.

    Mew

  • cavvet

    they’re worse than I thought, Scope!

  • Scope

    He has said repeatedly that he made a mistake with the Guardasil issue.

    Listening to Glen Beck last week, who I disagree with many many times, said that he thought it wrong for Perry to have gone the route of the mandate with Guardasil, but, after studying his record, he found that Perry has always been on the side of parental choice. Therefore he saw the Guardasil issue as a one time aberration of Perry’s, and said he wouldn’t hold that against him. He doesn’t have a record of mandating.

    For those who want to hold this issue against him, and therefore discount supporting him because of it, really are going to have a very hard time finding any candidate to support. They all have some ticks on them. For others it isn’t that this issue is so important to them, it’s just that they have picked a different pony in the race, and are using the Guardasil issue as an excuse to not support Perry.

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

    how about the crises in California. I heard a wag on one of the nightly business shows say that California’s debt situation was actually worse than Greece.

  • acat

    second paragraph,

    believe there was a poll no long ago which proved that the majority do understand that entitlements must be reformed. I would suspect that that even includes the older generation who know that no one is going to yank their house, pills, and food out from under them.

    While I think that’s accurate, would you agree with re-wording the second sentence thusly?

    “I would suspect that includes the older generation. As long as they know that nobody is going to force them out of their house, deny them their pills, or make them eat dog food, they will support reform.”

    It seems like this is the case Perry needs to make, to follow up his “Ponzi scheme” remarks – that is, he needs to say “Yes, this is a scam, but we still have an obligation, so .. reforms and an opt-out for younger workers.”

    Mew

  • JSobieski

    Libertarians are split on national security in the same way that they are split on abortion. Do you really think Milton Freedman wanted to surrender to the USSR? Austrian economics is the only thing standing between us and a Keynesian universe.

    I say all of this knowing that some people will always paint with an overly broad brush.

    Using the word “cult” with respect to Ron Paul, Palin, or anyone else in the political world that is not helpful to anyone except Barack Obama. We need all the voters we can get.

  • Scope

    released today, by CNN, showing Perry widening his lead against Romney and the others. This poll was conducted after the debate last week, I believe, and it shows that even with Romney and Paul’s attacks on him in the debate, he hasn’t lost steam, but is in fact rising above the others even more quickly.

    Has Wolf Blitzer ever moderated any debates before? I know he’s a leftist, but is he in the same category as Brian Williams?

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

    Not every Libertarian is a neo-isolationist, although it would be correct to say they would not share the idea with many in the modern conservative movement with the efficacy of nation building.

    As to what Cavvet wrote above, it is so stupid I don’t know where to begin, But suffice it to say that a belief in the sanctity of the individual, a belief in freedom and liberty, a belief in using civil action and private action to accomplish goals often done by government is NOT an immoral viewpoint,

    In my mind it is a very moral viewpoint.

  • cwfoster

    I just noticed that I dropped the Y from ‘Your in the title. In the body ‘we’ refers to the body of the republican voting bloc in general. Many of us take the time to educate ourselves as to what candidates on BOTH sides represent, not just the tripe they put out during the final run up to the general election. (after he got the nomination, Obama never said anything to indicate what a staunch Marxist he is, but it was out there from before, if you took the trouble to dig just a little). ‘We’ are the conservative believers in this country as a whole, who were told by the leftist propaganda machine (aka mainstream media) that McCain was the ONLY candidate with a PROVEN record of reaching across the aisle and could possibly beat Obama or Hillary.

    I believe that Bachman or Cain would be best, but Bachmanns choice to join Romney in the dogpile, taking Perrys SS comments out of context and attacking him for it, removes her from any further consideration on my part. So as hard as the LPM (aka MSM) is working to ignore him to death, I would have to say Cain is my top choice.

  • Scope

    is not a wining one. No, Perry won’t adopt it, and has already said he wants to “reform” SS. If Ron Paul had his way, he would kick everyone but himself, Jesse Benton, and Lew Rockwell out of Washington. Then he would let us all have it because Americans and America are so terrible and the cause of all ills in the world.

  • lineholder

    and beware of painting with a broad brush, please. That’s a double-edged sword that cuts both ways.

  • rcastonjr

    can you be with that statement. Our country was founded on the very same principles that libertarians subscribe to today. Look at our Constitution. What does it most closely align with? Republicans? Democrats? Or Libertarians? Republicans today, and I am one, act more like democrats than true republicans. Other than Ron Paul’s stance on Iran nukes, which I disagree with, just what does he stand for that isn’t rooted in freedom and liberty as written in our founding documents? Republicans today, and democrats BOTH support the nanny state. They are both for BIG oppressive freedom robbing government. Otherwise, how the heck did we get to where we are today? THINK people.

  • lineholder

    It’s obvious that you want to justify RP’s stand on the issues, but painting the rest of us, particularly conservatives, as big-government supporters is a bunch of hogwash, plain and simple.

  • Scope

    all of the Palin supporters posting on other sites, that claim that even if Palin doesn’t get in the race, they will write her in. I believe the exact quote was- “it will be the buggest write-in campaign ever. You also need to tell that to the many many Ron Paul supporters who are very actively pushing him to run as a third party candidate. For some, they can’t be so completely married to their candidate, and spend the time they are out attacking the other candidates, and then turn around and vote for someone they spent time trashing. I hope that number is small, but this seems to be a very passionate year with respect to the candidates, and their supporters. How many Paul supporters did you see write that they didn’t vote for McCain in 08 because they were able to sleep well at night knowing they stood on their principles.

  • JSobieski

    Never once heard Reagan complain about Anderson voters.

    I suggest we follow his example, lest all of this just becomes a self fulfilling prophecy.

  • rcastonjr

    to you, our Founding Fathers were nuts as well since they were the original libertarians. Take some time to compare the stance of Ron Paul to our founders and you will see that he aligns with them more closely that either of the other parties. How is Paul nuts exactly? (Other than his stance on Iran nukes) Returning the Federal government to it’s limited status? Returning to a policy of non-interventionism? (No, it’s not isolationism…sorry but nice try) I could go on but you get the point. The question really becomes whether America is really ready to return to her founding principles or have we become too comfortable with the restrictions on our freedoms and liberties that govco has bestowed upon us to ever really go back. Been to the airport lately?

  • rcastonjr

    said ALL republicans are big government types. But if the vast majority of them aren’t, then how the heck did we get here? All that reaching across the isle has consequences I suppose.

  • Scope

    Many of the RP supporters want to make everyone who doesn’t agree with his foreign policy out to look like we are just trigger happy, and can’t wait to go out and kill a country’s citizens just for the sport of it.

    I have spoken out against the Petreaus war model of “winning the hearts and minds of the terrorists” goals. It may have worked to a degree in Iraq, but it won’t work in Afghanistan. When the bribery payments stop, they go right back to supporting the bad guys. His ROE have made a joke of our military members, and have left them as sitting ducks.

    Someone on here said some time ago, that the US spends time blowing things up in other countries, and then sends them money and bodies to rebuild what they blew up. That is quite a laughable scenario, and so true. If we have good reason to blow something up, by all means blow it up. Then let the bad guys spend their time rebuilding instead of bringing the fight to us all over again.

    If another nation threatens us, or our allies and interests, even pre-emptively go teach them that that is not in their best interests. But, get in, do the job, and get out. To the Paulies, they think that makes us war-mongering, neo-con, baby killers.

  • acat

    Those same seniors know perfectly well – or will be told, the ads write themselves – that Obama used them as a football in the debt ceiling debate.

    Those same seniors know that the program isn’t sustainable. They may disagree about whose fault it is, but the imminent failure has been talked about for over 20 years.

    All Perry has to do is propose a solution that doesn’t throw seniors out of their houses, or cut off their medications, or force them to eat dog food… and that lets younger people out of the program, and he’ll have a winner.

    Mew

  • http://www.examiner.com/x-1597-Charlotte-Law--Politics-Examiner Mike gamecock DeVine

    nt

  • mikeymike143

    they have more in common with code pink than they do the republican party

  • Scope

    many many of us Republicans/conservatives voters spent many years asleep. It had been said long ago that Republicans were the “silent majority” in that we didn’t go out and fight against the growth of government, or get on soap boxes talking about conservative positions and goals. Those times are long gone, and I thank Obama every day for waking so many people up to what happens when you don’t get into the fight. I daresay that McCain will be the last of the wishy washy old entrenched government types that walk into the nomination. The only fear is that if some that don’t have any chance at the nom, and yes that includes Paul, don’t step aside, and allow the best conservative to gain the momentum, money, and ground troops, the vote will be so split that Romney wins.

    Rick Santelli should win a Nobel Peace Prize for his rant against the liberals, and for starting and growing a major political movement from sea to shining sea.

  • onemovoter

    of what we could replace SS with, since 3 counties in Texas were able to pull out of SS before congress closed the loophole in 1983. They set up their private SS that has the same kind of retirement/disability ect. that increase with interest (don’t think they are in stock market). They are doing much better than anyone on SS.

    That is the way to keep politicians greedy hands off people’s retirement.

  • cactusbob

    I agree that Herman Cain is emerging as the best candidate, and for a number of reasons. But if the “establishment” should nominate someone else, please HOLD YOUR FREAKING NOSE and vote for the lesser of the two evils by voting Republican. We know what Obama is, how global socialists have bought and paid for him, and that if reelected he will continue, even accelerate, our slide into socialism and then communism. BHO holds those reins now, so let’s make sure there isn’t a horse attached come November 2012. A lesser-of-the-two-evils candidate may not undo all of the damage wrought by our Pretender-in-Chief as promptly as Cain would, but the direction would definitely change. That’s what is needed the most!

    A vote for Obama or no vote at all is the same – Obama wins again.

  • pdawk

    But when AARP starts the printing presses, television ads and robocalls from Wilford Brimley, you may as well hang it up for Rick Perry. In his book he calls Social Security a ponzi scheme, a giant lie, unconstitutional, etc. It is tailor made for the types of soundbites that decide elections.

    Perry seems like a good guy, and one that truly believes in his convictions. However, the over 50 million people on SS benefits create one hell of a voting bloc. Lot easier to convince people of the problems with the system after you are elected.

    My biggest concern is that it runs down ballot and in a year where we could really take control of both houses of congress and the presidency we shoot ourselves in the foot band give Barack, Pelosi and Reid unfettered power to destroy this country.

  • acat

    People have been poking the “third rail” of SS for a long time. Not all were successful – Pete DuPont lost, George W. Bush failed to achieve reform, but .. its’ power is greatly diminished.

    Or .. to put it another way.. every one of those 50 million people who are under 85 have heard, even if they don’t remember it, that the GOP wants to reform social security… back when they were still paying in.

    This is dangerous for Perry, but … it is also quite wise. He’s choosing the ground where he wants to do battle by staking a strong position on an issue the Dems think they can win on. Sun Tzu would approve.

    Mew

  • minister_of_war

    Erick-

    Perry?s right that Social Security is a Ponzi Scheme.

    But there’s a huge difference in saying that the mismanagement of the Social Security Trust Fund by Congress is comparable to a “criminal enterprise” & saying that Social Security itself is a “criminal enterprise”.

    I’m actually one who does believe that Social Security basically amounts to a criminal enterprise. But it’s disingenuous & intellectually dishonest of you to say that Romney said that.

  • runner12

    If Bachmann goes after Perry on this one, I will lose quite a bit of respect for her. So far she has been true to her convictions, it would be a shame to see her turn into another hypocritical politician.

    Don’t do it Rep. Bachman.

  • runner12

    It is hard to lie about something that is currently in print at your local bookstore. Romney clearly compared SS to a criminal enterprise in the recent book he wrote.

    You might want to look it up.

  • funwithknives

    own investigating ,I not-so-secretly wanted McCain to lose. I thought to myself,”Self,… here comes blowback in many forms”, and how correct I was. Just as Bill&Hill got the constitutionalists,gunowners, and militia types off their rears, we needed a another Demon, and we surely got one. But this time, so many more stripes of people, were affected & it was a proverbial powder keg waiting. Santelli SHOULD GET some kind of historical recognition, for his rant ,it was magic!.
    I’ve been a registered Libertarian for 27+ years. It got me educated, but no-where near ahead of the game, participation-wise. In all that time , we never got above 25,000 nationwide members. Even when members were seemingly everywhere, you could not find volunteers for love ,nor money, when there was real work to be done.. LotSa’ talk and no action, Peed Me OH,most heartily.
    Well, here we are and it’s apparent Purity tests are going to be a real concern. I was Really Hopin’ for a concensus,& we know who the Demon is. So(?), what’s it gonna be? Feeling you are right and Principles are the # 1 priority? Or getting this thing started and done ,to show Barry and The Guys, THE DOOR? Anyone who wants to “make a statement” only has to look/think for themselves to see where this is headed. The statement is: * NO MO BHO!*
    What’s so bad about coalescing early and building something Huge? ( I’m quite sure I am not alone here. Is your” perfect candidate”, worth Barry gettin’ 4 more?)

  • cbartlett

    Rick is right – Social Security IS a Ponzi scheme, with one main difference: investing in a “traditional” Ponzi scheme is voluntary but “investing” in Social Security is mandatory! This link is posted elsewhere also – Perry is definitely not the first one to use the term: http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/276859/perry-and-ponzis-stanley-kurtz?page=1

    I can’t think of a single problem in this country that doesn’t boil down to a lack of individual responsibility. This one is no different. If everyone had the ability and willingness to think ahead and provide for their own retirement years, we wouldn’t have to, once again, depend on the government to take care of us. My husband reminds me every day that we are breeding stupidity in this country at a phenominal rate. Perry is going to have to qualify his statement if he wants to be electable by the masses that aren’t smart enough to manage their own lives. He needs to use the word REFORM instead of ABOLISH. This has been said many times – Remember if you fail a candidate on a single issue then you will not be able to vote for anyone and that won?t help this country at all.

  • Scope

    What he said was that those collecting SS today, and those that are getting close have nothing to worry about with him. He wants to reform the system into a more workable and sustainable program for our nations younger generations. Many more younger voters vote in today’s elections, and I would think he wouldn’t even have to try to sell that idea to them, they would support it enthusiastically.

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

    I am a conservo-Libertarian or libertaro-conservative, take your pick.

    I never was happy with the libertarian party for three reasons, 1) we have a two party system 2) Libertarians are too purist, and too quick to want to rend and tear allies if they are not 100%
    and 3) The Libertarian party like all American third parties is filled with a lot of really scary nut jobs and malcontents.

    So I go with the republican party and try to move it in my direction, which is what everyone should do. Sometimes republicans drive me nuts, but all I have to do is look at the democrats and I am scared straight.