« BACK  |  PRINT

RS

FRONT PAGE CONTRIBUTOR

MITT ROMNEY’S Social Security blunder.

By: Moe Lane (Diary)  |  September 8th, 2011 at 09:30 AM  | 

RESIZE: AAA

You’ve probably read by now Mitt Romney adviser Stuart Stevens’ gleeful email to Ben Smith – and might I add that there is something unseemly about an ostensible Republican using Politico for what is essentially an internal debate? – crowing over Governor Rick Perry’s rather sensible observation that Social Security is a Ponzi scheme:

He has lost. No federal candidate has ever won on the Perry program to kill Social Security. Never has. never will.

A few things: first off, note that what Perry said is not what Romney had his minion accuse Perry of saying.  Just to get that out of the way.  Second – and much more importantly – federal candidates can in fact say in public that Social Security is a Ponzi scheme and still win elections.  Just ask Senator Ron Johnson (R, WI):

For those without access to video, it’s Senator Johnson’s reply to then-Senator Russ Feingold’s – remember him? – ‘accusation’ that Johnson thought Social Security was a Ponzi scheme.  Johnson forthrightly responded by calmly stating that he had said it, that he meant it, and that Social Security was a Ponzi scheme.  Ron Johnson went on to win his Wisconsin Senate race, leaving Russ Feingold to muse on the unique perils of accusing somebody of believing in something that the accused doesn’t actually mind having made more widely known. Which is something that Romney should contemplate, himself.

Recommendations, going forward: primarily, that Mitt Romney needs his staff to do better research, frankly.  It would have been the work of five minutes to discover that a Republican Senator (surely that counts as a ‘federal candidate’) successfully campaigned on the eminently sensible point that Social Security is a Ponzi scheme; that they did not reflects a certain weakness in the Romney campaign’s infrastructure.  In fact… if Mitt Romney feels the need for an independent consultant to help with improving his research staff, he is more than welcome to get in touch with me via the RedState contact form.

Mind you, this offer is not being offered pro bono: I assume that if Romney can afford to keep Stuart Stevens on his payroll then Romney must have money to burn.

Moe Lane

PS: I am ostensibly going to be at retirement age in 2035.  I do not expect Social Security to last that long.  That means that I am not expecting to see a dime back from all the money that I’ve put into the system thus far.  Until circumstances convince me that I’m wrong in those expectations, I am perfectly comfortable in calling Social Security a Ponzi scheme.  Because from my point of view – and from the point of view of a lot of people my age and younger – it frankly is.

 

Tags: , , , ,

COMMENTS

POSTING RULES  |  LOGIN TO COMMENT  |  REGISTER TODAY
  • APA Guy

    I’m sorry, Romney supporters…there really is no other way to describe that verbiage since it’s straight out of the liberal playbook.

    If Romney equates Social Security reform predicated on allowing workers to make their own decisions regarding investing their own money in a productive manner with “killing” Social Security, then I don’t want him on the ticket…period.

  • Matthew Morris

    and might I add that there is something unseemly about an ostensible Republican using Politico for what is essentially an internal debate?

    There goes Mitt’s Washington Insider / Consulting Class friends again. Typical and predictable!

  • jgs23

    about what Rick Perry said. Remember that it was this same forum where Romney was disingenuously ambushed by McCain in the last primary about “timetables”. When you boil it down, their positions are the same. Each wants to preserve the system for older workers and retirees who paid into it for their whole lives but transition away from it for younger workers.

    The point Romney is trying to make is really about style and electability. He’s picking the wrong time to make that point by (rhetorically) being on the wrong side of entitlement reform. I would have much preferred that he said something along the lines of . . .

    ” . . . the key to a successful turnaround is explaining with clarity the situation to people in a way they can understand and relate to, to get them to buy in to solutions. While Gov Perry and I agree on some things that need to be changed to make it viable, calling it a “Ponzi scheme” will turn people off before you have a chance to make any changes. We need someone who stands firm on principle, but who can clearly communicate the sober realities facing our nation in such a way that people will listen.”

  • sayoung80913

    My neighbor who is in her seventies came over to suffer through the debate with me. She was a one time hippie,then just a dem, then a republican under Reagan and then finally left the Republican party after Bush’s second term. She became an independent, who ,voted for Obama. I asked her why she picked BHO over Mccain and she said it was because he was TOO moderate,he changed his mind too much,flip flopped over and over on his opinions almost like he was trying to do whatever was politically expedient. (I know,sounds like her). Why she pulled the lever for Obama is beyond me. However, she just can’t stand him anymore-considers him a liar and turns the t.v. either down when he’s on,or switches the channel. We watched the debate and at the end, I asked her who she was leaning towards and she surprised me when she said Perry. I really thought Romney would have her vote but she said and I quote” Perry is honest,he says things we’ve all known for years to be true and he didn’t back away when confronted,plus he looked dead tired ,we know what he’s been doing all week in Texas, and he still showed up,answered questions and didn’t take the easy road on SSN-for that he’s got my vote” She also said that she had listened carefully to his response,people her age would not be affected but she really worries about her grandkids and great grandkids struggling to pay for her retirement. She knows how bad the job situation is and grows heated about how social security has been robbed continiously by politicians,enlarged heavily to include people it was never meant for, and now it is beyond hope of being fixed. She’s a retired school teacher and her last remark to me before going home was “Perry spent all this time in fighting fires and an emergency in his home state-where has Romney been? What has he been doing? He still had the same ,old answers,no original thought and is too craven to call a spade a spade with regards to retirement” Amen Caroline,Amen

  • jgs23

    any more than Perry. He’s just too eager to draw a distinction with Perry on style. Unfortunately, he’s reinforcing the notion that he’s too “poll tested” in his approach and doing it on the wrong issue.

    In the near future, I think that Perry will place more emphasis on preserving the benefits for people at or near retirement age and I think that Romney will place more emphasis on substantive reform for younger workers – i.e. their rhetoric will converge because their positions aren’t all that different.

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

    I’m 48, and I think something will happen in the next 15-20 years to assure that I don’t get the kind of Social Security benefits that my parents-in-law are getting. I’d say my chances of getting anything at all are 50-50, so I’m planning as if I won’t get anything.

    Clearly people under 30 don’t expect it to be there.

    So what is the age? 40? 42.5?

    No matter what the age of disillusion is, I suspect people my age and older are going to be surprised when math, as usual, beats wishful thinking.

  • acat

    largely depending on when they start having thoughts of their own retirement and mortality. So .. somewhere between late 20s and mid-50s…. (I know someone in the latter category .. literally had no thought whatsoever about retirement savings at 52.. just figured “I pay taxes, the government will take care of it.”)

    Mew

  • sayoung80913

    I tried to like Romney, I really did. yet, he seems to have a plastic quality about him,he rails on and on about “professional politicians” in a jab against Perry, but somehow conveniently forgets that he actually ran for office just as long as Perry did-he just lost and Perry didn’t. If Mitt had actually WON then he would have served just as long,if not longer. Sounds hypocritical to call out someone else’s career being too long just because you got up to bat ,swung and missed more often ,while the other guy hit home run after home run. It’s Petty. Also, I am just OVER politician’s who don’t say what they mean and mean what they say. Instead they poll test, and give vague,escapable answers designed not to provoke critical thought. I applaud that Perry said what he meant and meant what he said. I APPRECIATE that quality in a leader. I also REALLY liked his answer about Rove-who said Rove is the be all end all of conservatism? Bush RAN ON reforming SSN in 2004 for Pete sake and now Rove is claiming it is too toxic-please-he’s just an overgrown immature child who can’t get past having his feelings hurt because Perry didn’t take or want his advice.

  • izoneguy

    End welfare as we know it….

    People nowhere near retirement need to get up and vote Republican
    so we can get real job growth going.

    Sitting around collecting welfare checks & foodstamps are
    not productive. Getting a job and paying into SS will
    extend the program by decades and give America time
    to throw off the shackles of Obama.

    Voting for Obama in 2012 will destroy EVERYONES future.

    * Except of course if you are a crony of Obama’s.

  • sayoung80913

    I am 39 and have had the uneasy feeling that not only will SSN be bankrupt by the time I turn of age, but our military pension will also be done away with. We started putting aside our own money a few years ago just in case, and speaking solely for myself, if I am told bluntly”Look,it just will not be there for you” well then I m ight go through the stages of grief but then will do what all people do when they have no choice. I WILL TACKLE THE PROBLEM HEAD ON, I will rely on myself,my spouse and God to set up my own nest egg and get on with it. Just be honest,politicians, I know that is hard for most, but I’ll listen to a straight talker with bad news any day of the week before I’ll waste my time with a glib,oily smooth slickster who consoles with pretty lies.

  • wilgolden

    I have never included Social Security as part of my retirement. Since at least 1975, anyone with their eyes open could see the coming train wreck.

    I always knew, and have told everyone who will hold still, that Social Security taxes stolen from me on every paycheck, was money thrown down a black hole.

    Disillusionment in my case was at about 13.

    Dogs gonna bark. Democrats gonna lie.

  • APA Guy

    i.e. that we need to preserve the current system. Adopting Dem language when framing issues doesn’t help his cause with conservatives.

    Bottom-line: I just don’t see aggressive entitlement reform under President Romney. What I heard from President Perry last night was a strong stand for entitlement reform – even in the face of dissent within his own party on a national stage.

  • APA Guy

    i.e. that we need to preserve the current system. Adopting Dem language when framing issues doesn’t help his cause with conservatives.

    Bottom-line: I just don’t see aggressive entitlement reform under President Romney. What I heard from President Perry last night was a strong stand for entitlement reform – even in the face of dissent within his own party on a national stage.

  • izoneguy

    And that is what Mitt Romney and the democrats want you to think…..

    I have done some marketing work for a large financial planning organization.
    It is shocking that most people don’t have a clue about retirement.
    Why do you think all of these public sector union employees are so
    militant about their retirement? They are actually better informed and realize that their gold plated retirements are probably going to be aluminum coated instead.
    You see the union’s pension & benefit programs are in very bad shape. The union bosses have promised too much and have raided the pensions and now the SOB’s in the Tea Party are calling them out.

    The SS debate has been tamped down by Obama, but will become one of the main issues in 2012.

    We have to get the SS money back into it’s own till so the politicians cannot spend it. That is why it is broken. If we don’t tackle it now then the SS check you receive in 10 or 15 years won’t be worth anything. $1500 per month in 10 or 15 years will be like $150 today.

  • ss396

    I am ostensibly going to be at retirement age in 2035. I do not expect Social Security to last that long.

    I am ostensibly going to retire in the next couple of years, and I do not expect Social Security to be there for me, either. Ever since the alarms about its viability were raised 30 years ago, I decided that it would be foolish to rely upon it for my retirement and have planned accordingly since.

    Oh, it will be around, but I expect via the Debt Commission that in the next couple of years it will be means-tested and taxed on a basis of individual net worth. By having planned and worked for a self-reliant retirement, I am sure that my net worth will put me in the confiscatory range for Social Security benefits.

    I am a good deal more worried about the fact that some in Congress have cast a longing eye upon Central planning Federal management of the 401(k) and IRA systems (ala what they’ve done with student loans). Today, my retirement accounts are not full of IOUs; tomorrow – gulp!

  • izoneguy

    I also started working when I was 13. I am reminded of that old joke when a kid gets his check for the first time – “Hey who is this FICA guy?”

    You have to get creative and find ways to lessen you SS tax burden.
    Find a financial planner and get a retirement plan going.
    Stick to it because you are you best source for your own retirement.

    If you have kids start a retirement plan for them.

  • APA Guy

    These are good places to start with trimming costs.

  • APA Guy

    These are good places to start with trimming costs.

  • texasmom2012

    Hubby and I are 49 and started saving heavily for our retirement in 1988, we were 27. Didn’t believe then or now that anyone who has saved for their retirement responsibly will be eligible to receive SS. I believe responsible citizens will be ‘means tested’ out of SS, hence Dems attacks on the wealthy. All our ‘wealth’ is in our 401K and my IRAs. I just hope our accounts recover from Obama so that we are means tested out of SS. Would opt out now if we could have some of our withholding in future redirected to our 401K… If you are still employed and occasionally getting raises, good way to boost your retirement contributions is to take a percent say 1-2% of your 3-4% raise and divert it to your savings before you get accustomed to living on all of that raise. Do that every time you get a raise and watch your savings grow.

  • acat

    I figure I’ll either be means tested out, or dead before I hit the new adjusted retirement age or something. So .. I just plan to work at something until I die, supplimenting with what I’ve saved, and carefully sheltering so that my SO and our kids can inherit as much as possible.

    And I’m past the point, I know, where I have fewer sunrises ahead than behind.

    Mew

  • sayoung80913

    Now they are floating a plan for military retirees to not receive their pensions until the age of 65. It’ll be “invested ” for us and available when we hit 65. Well,my soldier retires after 23 years(3 guard-20 active)in 2013. He will be 41. Perhaps I am simply being conspiracy minded,but that means we have to trust in 12 more congress’s ability to keep their hand off of our pension. 24 more years and countless congressmen and women who would have to resist the urge to pilfer. Not a chance in hell that that one will ever be left in tact. I know they “talk” about it not affecting us instead only to new people coming into the service,but yeah right.I put much more faith in my accounting 101 class knowledge then the integrity of DC.

  • texasmom2012

    I agree with you. My biggest fear is the Dems proposal to seize/confiscate/steal our 401Ks and IRAs and leave us with an IOU that we will NOT be able to leave to our sons. One of my sons is autistic and part of why our 401K savings are so large is that we plan to establish a trust fund for our sons so that our youngest son will not have to be responsible for his brother and that neither will have to depend upon the government. There will be h?ll to pay if the Feds try to seize our life savings… If we can we will have to cash out our savings and pay half to the government just to preserve something for our sons. The Dems are evil to think this way. I say why don’t they ever go after trust funds that are a century old? Kennedys, Rockefellers etc… All of those demonizing the evil rich should lose their wealth and Congress should forfeit their lavish pensions and cadillac health plans and receive SS and Medicare or Obamacare… IOW, Congress should be forced to live with the laws that they have written to exclude themselves. In fact, all public employees should have to contribute to SS and Medicare rather than opting out. If the rest of us cannot opt out then I demand equal protection under the law!

  • Ann_W

    the evil ant is forced to give his savings up to all the grasshoppers.

  • texasmom2012

    This is an evil proposal because the military pension was designed to keep volunteers in spite of the low relative pay vs the private sector. That and the GI Bill have kept great military personnel who most likely would have had to leave the service to grow their retirement in the private sector. Really evil when you compare Congress and even the US post office retirements are more generous… And the fact that the military is a high risk often physically demanding field. Look at the old NFL players with their bad knees etc and you have to acknowledge the toll such a demanding profession as the military takes on a young person’s body and that is just those who have never sustained a serious injury.

    FYI, I didn’t serve but My Dad was Navy in the mid50s and went to college on the GI bill. His dad died when he was 17 and he would never have allowed his mom to spend money on his tuition. Plus he loved the sea and grew up on the Texas coast.

  • jgs23

    if it’s you, I think it’s more likely that Perry becomes the nominee. I think Romney is looking ahead to Florida but don’t think what I see as a rhetorical point being worth the risk to his general standing among Republican primary voters.

    FYI: His approach to Medicare is similar to Ryan’s, so I suspect his approach to SS will be in the same vein.

  • Mike Ferguson

    (nt)

  • Mike Ferguson

    Its funny that these libtards never seem to grasp the fact that if they have their way, one of the first things that they will loose is the freedom to be as nutty as they are.

  • Mike Ferguson

    this was meant to be a reply to Sayoung’s comment above.

  • acat

    You know, the plan for what to do if it all Goes To Hades.

    In other words, only if the ant keeps all its’ assets in places the grasshoppers can audit….

    Mew

  • sayoung80913

    We actually confronted our senator(chambliss-UGH!!!!!) about this since he is on the Senate Armed Services Committee-he tried to use consoling words and grandfather like pats on the back. “Don’t worry- ECONOMIC advisors with years of experience would help direct your money into worthy investments-you might actually gain more revenue for yourself by taking their advice” LOOK, examine exhibit A in Washington now on just how good ECONOMIC ADVISORS WITH EXPERIENCE are doing with the debt,spending, the deficit,taxes,etc. The stock market looks like the EKG chart of a patient who had a heart attack. Mortgages all over the country are seriously underwater, the post office has to be bailed out,dept of education has run out of money,EVERY single thing the government sticks it’s greedy little fingers in is eviscerated. Now we see that BHO is going to give another tired,re-tread of a speech,LOL- I laugh for real because at my job a picture of BHO HAS to be displayed and the other day when I looked at it closely,someone had put a plastic fly by his nose with a pin. It was STILL there this morning when I walked past it and I live on a military base. He has lost all credibility with the military,with the pension being taken to removing nearly everyone from Iraq for purely political reasons. The general consensus around the office is that Mitt is Obama lite-nearly every soldier I know is looking hard at Perry and liking what they see.

  • oldbird77

    don’t expect a dime.

  • lineholder

    as a whole has no idea of what it means to “spend money wisely”, and more’s the shame that should be heaped on them for wasting the ready supplied to them (via mandates, no less) by the American people.

    To be honest, I’ve been beyond skeptical about Perry, but at least the man has sense enough to know when to speak the truth for what it is. His choice of words may not have been the best, but at least he didn’t tip-toe around it for the cause of the PC idols the way Mitt did.

    The system is a failure and I’ve no cause to find fault with someone who calls a spade a spade and tells it like it is. But the proof in this particular pudding is what our next President and/or admin is going to do to change the status quo of these failed social entitlement programs we’ve got that are sucking the very life out of us.

  • sayoung80913

    I equate it to going to a dr to check out a pain in my chest. Do I want the doctor who is going to pat me on my little head and say something like, “well we did find a little something,but DON’T WORRY, a little chemo tweak here and a little non evasive surgery there and we’re SURE we can keep the cancer at bay for at least a few more years” OR do I want a dr who says “Ma’am, you are an adult and I am going to give it to you straight- we found cancer, it IS operable, we can use chemo and it may be tough at first, you might have to go through a tough time, but I feel confident that with help on your side through diet,excercise and faith and my medical knowledge,surgery and getting proactive, we can take this disease by the horns and kill it once and for all”. Now, as the wife of a career soldier and the mother of two active duty soldiers(both in BCT currently), I ALWAYS prefer the second situation. Perry reminds me a lot of my father-he also had a southern drawl,and spoke slowly, in a an even tone- but whatever came out of his mouth was the truth as he saw it and he could never be called one to sugar coat anything. Yeah, the truth might hurt sometimes, but when you really needed an honest opinion-he was the man for the job.Give me the unvarnished truth of the situation,give me a day or so to absorb it and then let’s get together and flesh out a solution or two.I don’t need someone to coddle me and placate me-the truth shall set you free and you can close your eyes at night and not be afraid if you have the facts and a plan.

  • minister_of_war

    … There is a problem for Perry on this issue even though he was very good at holding firm on the “Social Security is a Ponzi Scheme” line. Perry looked dead serious & he is absolutely right in his assessment of the Social Security scam this country has been stuck in since the socialist FDR.

    But who in the media is out there defending him today? Which new Republican officeholders are now endorsing Perry today? And which ones of them are going to be as forceful & confident in defending Perry’s “Social Security is a Ponzi Scheme” line?

    I can guarantee to all of you that no other elected Republican Party officials are going to say that they agree with what Perry said & will hide when asked to defend Perry on this issue. It sucks that it’s that way, because Perry was right. But it is what it is. I wish it wasn’t so, but even Perry’s own campaign team downplayed what Perry said after the debate & wouldn’t use Perry’s strong language.

    Perry laid down the gauntlet. The “Social Security is a Ponzi Scheme” argument is not something where you can go half in. He went all in & the only way he survives is if his campaign & other elected officials have the cojones to follow him too. I just don’t see that happening. And other then on conservative internet sites like this one, it hasn’t happened at all.

    I assume that Rush Limbaugh will start the defense. But we will need Republican US Senators to follow Perry’s lead too. And they are way too chicken & worried about their own reelections to do anything like that.

  • rightwingmom52

    to youngchick32. I’m 53 and don’t expect to see a dime of SS, either. On top of that, hubby and I are probably going to have to work longer than expected, and the icing on the cake is that despite our planning to retire without SS, Obama has managed to hit our other investments through the disaster that is his administration tanking the markets.

    I stook up and cheered when Perry not only told the truth about SS, but also pointed out that anyone spinning the status quo is telling a big fat lie. He didn’t take the lazy way out by saying “misstatements” or the politically correct tone of “not telling the truth” but a lie.

  • rightwingmom52

    keeping the assets under the mattress with the .38?

  • acat

    Keeping all assets under the mattress is a lousy way to handle inflation, but .. given the relative instability of banks these days, keeping all assets there doesn’t make much sense either.

    A balanced portfolio, to my mind, would include enough invested to benefit from the inevitable recovery – it has to happen sooner or later – but also enough in the mattress to handle any local emergencies… and proficiency with weapons to defend same.

    Mew

  • aesthete

    heavy on bonds and commodities, but I guess the shotgun under the bed approach to better investment has its advantages.

  • aesthete

    Did the basic math, and saw that it was unsustainable. That, and inflation, convinced me to start putting my savings in a portfolio heavy on bonds and commodities (it’s actually not that difficult to figure out and manage).

  • acat

    Just saying some of those commodities need to be where you can put ‘em in your pocket and walk away.

    Mew

  • aesthete

    Social Security is not a Ponzi scheme, it is a pyramid scheme. There are many similarities between the two (the most glaring being that late investors take it in the shorts), but in a Ponzi scheme, the salesman claims an esoteric source for his high profits (in Ponzi’s case, postmark stamps). In a pyramid scheme, the profits ostensibly come from the new investors themselves.

    Back on topic: I’m pleasantly surprised that Perry stood his ground on the issue (though I wonder how he plans on getting elected with that sort of rhetoric).

  • minister_of_war

    We have a local credit union that is named Pyramid Credit Union & all I can think of is pyramid schemes when I think of it.

  • Ann_W

    And a gun. But I’d probably share. I wish my neighbors all had G-T-H plans as well.

  • qualityguy

    Romney is 2012′s McCain. He’s the establishment (DC Insider’s) candidate and therefore anyone with any kind of common sense should distance themselves from this man. He generates about as much warmth and sincerity as a python! He just seems so phoney. As one of the other bloggers stated, “plastic”. That’s a good word for him. He’s as plastic as a Ken doll.

  • duanej

    “There will be h?ll to pay if the Feds try to seize our life savings”

    Really? Do you really think there will be “h?ll to pay” or do you think seniors and rising seniors will be just slightly miffed? Maybe write a strongly worded letter to their congressman/woman? Get on a conservative blog and “really let ‘em have it”?

    Social Security has an unfunded liability of 15 Trillion and people by a large margin “still like the plan”. Besides, the US government won’t just “come and take it”. No, they will find some slick way of selling the idea to the public. They will tell some pretty lie about how they are going to “make it safe” for us, put it in a “lock box” an “inpenatrable fortress of solitude” so that we will have a nice retirement when we are ready. People, Democrats and Republicans alike, will fall for it, likely due to fear of a crisis. 401k’s after all are based on risky market performance and we can’t have all that money unprotected. No. It will be “for our own good” you see. and dopes will take the bait.

    Why do I say that? Why am I so pessimistic? Only because it has happened before with the support of the people. That is exactly how social security came into being. The government said “we just want to take 15% of your pay check and put it away for a rainy day for you for when you retire”. And people fell for it. Now, if they were willing to part with 15% of their pay, what makes you think they won’t part with another 10%?

    If Republicans do not stand up en mass to fight social security here and now, if they are squeemish even a little with the bankruptcy of the entire US government in the balance and all of our futures in peril, then we will never stand up and we will go silently into that, no matter what “that” is. If you are not ready today to draw the line on the losses you have already incurred, on the property you have had taken from you without your consent, then you will never be ready.

  • hairbaggs

    Since when has anything a candidate said when running for office ever come true ? The old worn out saying. All that is being done in our government is rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic.

  • gaudium

    Romney sounds like all the other RINOs, where Perry is a breath of fresh air.

  • Scope

    even before the debate. Romney is Rove’s next in line guy, and just as the liberals have promised “We will go to war over Perry,” so to has Rove declared war on him. He’s actually feeding them rhetoric to use against Perry. Rove claims that Perry’s language is provocative, yet call’s Perry’s SS language “toxic.”

    I’ve just read that Haley Barbour, who is supposedly advising Perry, has joined hands with Rove and his American Crossroads campaign, which in not even being quiet about their attacks, and attempts to stop Perry via Rove. Yet not long ago I read that much of Barbour’s staff had switched over to the Perry campaign, and will be working for Perry is various states.

  • ora09

    What about an ostensible conservative going on CNN to bash Sarah Palin

  • wrightclick

    … that Social Security probably wasn’t intended to be a Ponzi scheme in its original form. But over the years Congress turned it into a de facto Ponzi Scheme by squandering the funds, until today it is, in effect, the very definition of a Ponzi scheme; paying out past claims to retirees with today’s dollars from younger workers. And with fewer dollars coming in than are going out, it’s clear in its present form it’s a speeding train and the bridge is out. The system MUST be changed. Period.

    The other thing that should be clarified is that Social Security is NOT a retirement fund. You are not entitled to what you paid in. You don’t own it. Social Security is an ‘Old age, Widows and Orphans’ INSURANCE premium. You’re paying an insurance premium just like a car or house insurance. You don’t get back every dollar you’ve paid in on your car or house insurance if you make a claim. The government is going to give you what they see fit to give you on your ‘retirement claim’.

    The system needs to be changed to make it a true retirement, private account, owned by the worker and taken out of the control of the spendthrift Congress. They’ve proven they can’t manage your money. Why would anyone want them to continue to do so?

    A couple of minor tweaks on the IRA or Roth IRA would easily make it a private Social Security Retirement Fund, owned by the individual, including being inheritable.

  • acat

    Nice try, though. The problem with calling SS “insurance” is that I do not have a choice about whether to purchase it. Just like Obamacare – the problem is the mandate.

    Historically, SS was sold as a “widows and orphans” fund, with specific religious (christian) imagery. Even then, if participation were voluntary, i.e. via a church or other non-government outfit, it would be fine. It’s the mandate and all the extra money and power sloshing around D.C. that got us here.

    Mew

  • kestrel

    Your friend Caroline’s got her head on straight on this point: “she really worries about her grandkids and great grandkids struggling to pay for her retirement”

    Perry got the SS issue exactly right in saying, “It is a monstrous lie” to young people to keep taking their money for SS and pretending they will benefit. Perry is absolutely, 100%, as right as right can be on this, and it is about time someone SAID IT and REPEATED it, even as he did on stage. And I hope he keeps repeating it.

    Cain stated the obvious solution very simply and well: Let younger people opt out of Social Security, and by doing this, the nation will gradually be weaned from a “broken system.”

    I can tell you from personal experience that it takes less than 5 minutes to convince a teen or twenty-something that opting out is in their best interest (private, bequeathable, ownership of their money is key). Then you have to spend 15 minutes or more calming them down because they can’t opt out immediately, and how can this financial rape by the government be legal, and on and on. Romney can keep his head in the sand all he wants, but it’s truly obscene to do so on this issue.

  • APA Guy

    nt

  • onemovoter

    What effect does using “Pyramid” scheme have as compared to Ponzi scheme? When you go for effect, you need to elicit the strongest reaction.

    When Palin used “Death Panels” to describe the Panel in Obamacare, would the panel actually pass a death sentence on people? Not really, although some people might end up that way near end of life situations. However the effect of the term was dramatic and people really got to talking about it. Put the Dems on the defensive.

    Perry’s use of Ponzi is the same thing.

  • barleycorn

    n/t

  • barleycorn

    I’m 48 and frankly think there is a reasonably good chance I will get something back from SS.

    Having said that, I have never included SS into my retirement plans. I’ve always figured anything I get from SS will be my mad money.

  • YnotNOW

    it is just that the remaining taxpayers cannot afford to give you enough to actually retire on. “Full faith and credit of the United States” and all, we’ve made promises to future retirees, it is just that we can only keep the promises if we pay them off at a much lower rate.

    So you are correct that you should only count on SS for “mad money” and have your own plans (investments) to actually have enough to live off of.

    http://www.redstate.com/ynotnow/2011/04/04/the-myth-of-the-social-security-trust-fund/

  • ihateliberals

    It seems that the Democrats have been very effective in diverting attention from the real issue and make us fight over something we all know isn’t within the Presidents power to change and that is Social Security. Just ask G W Bush how far that went. leave the fight over social issues to the congress. they are the only ones that can change any of those policies. Let’s talk about things the President can influence and actually get congress to change and that for one thing would be Obamacare. “Government can’t solve the Problem Government is the Problem” – Ronald Reagan. So many Republicans have lost this concept and turned into RINO’s. They just want to get along with the other side forgetting that you can’t. Being friends with the liberals is like picking up a rattle snake and then wondering why you got bit.

    The bottom line in this race for President is No More Obama and NO MORE RINO’s. Tell people like John Boehner, McCain, Karl Rove to shut up and go away. Rove as a matter of fact is the reason that Harry Reid won his election in NV and a Democrat took the Del. seat. With Republicans like that who needs liberals?

  • http://travismonitor.blogspot.com Freedoms Truth

    We can make obamacare repeal the centerpiece of the “JOBS” debate …

    We need to reframe the debate ? the bill should NOT be a quick-fix shovel-money deficit spending. Nor can one credibly claim that you ?create? jobs from spending without counting the jobs LOST when you pay for it by taking money out of the productive sector?s pocket with taxes. We need to focus on long-range economic growth.

    Anything that will help growth and not add to the debt should be on the table. The Republican Jobs Bill needs to be this:
    1. Repeal Obamacare.
    2. 18-month regulation moratoriam.
    3. Drill-here drill-now.
    4. Pass all trade deals.
    5. Permanent (not temporary) tax reform.
    6. path to balance budget with spending restraint.
    7. MAKE THE payroll tax cut PERMANENT for those businesses/people willing to put that money in long-range savings accounts and using it instead of a portion of their SocSec.

    This is the bill Boehner should pass out of the House.

  • ihateliberals

    leave the current program alone land draw a line in the sand. On One side you will have all of us that are currently on teh system and on the other side you will have new workers entering the work force. In other words create a now way of doing Social Security and quit the Ponzi-scheme. This way Social security wil be phased out and a new system will be phased in. You say how to we keep paying for the ones in the system if no new people are added. The answer is really quite simple but not popular with congressmen. Instead of continuing to pay out Billions for foreign aid you divert that to the SS system. You stop illegals from collecting from the system. You allow younger people that are on the system now to opt-out for the new System, maybe people that are 50 or less in age. Any new system would have to be protected from the Government taking even one penny to pay for something else. This is not privatizing at all. This is merely changing how the money collected for Social Security is distributed . Investments would still be deducted from payrolls and placed into interest bearing accounts. The key item of this program would be the protection from the congress commandeering the money to pay for projects. Each year it would become cheaper for the government to make payments into the SS system because the older recipients would be falling off the rolls. Most likely in less than 50 years there would be no more people on Social Security. All new workers would be on the new program and not costing the government one cent.

  • ihateliberals

    my other post while you were writing this one and I just saw it after I posted. conservative minds think alike.

  • wrightclick

    It’s striking to me that few people who are complaining about the constitutionality of the Obamacare mandate have made the parallel argument about the Social Security FICA tax. That was an insurance mandate implemented way back in 1934! The difference is Roosevelt called it a tax and not an insurance premium and put it under the auspices of the IRS.

    Most people don’t realize that Social Security is not a retirement fund. It is an insurance annuity, but the premiums are collected from you and your employer as a tax.

    The government’s own SSA web site calls it insurance:

    http://ssa-custhelp.ssa.gov/app/answers/detail/a_id/392/~/what-is-the-meaning-of-fica