September 07, 2011
— Ace Since I'm putting so many eggs in the "electability" basket I can't dismiss this out of hand.
Perry has called Social Security a "Ponzi scheme" that "weakens American values."
The usual math is that entitlements for seniors is the third rail of American politics -- seniors vote in great numbers, and are generally a swing-ish section of the vote, and tend to vote not quite as a single-issue bloc but largely based on entitlements.
Here's Karl Rove, calling Perry's position on Social Security politically "toxic."
On “GMA” this morning, Karl Rove noted that new GOP frontrunner has many strengths, but Rick Perry’s thoughts on Social Security are not among them.Perry’s campaign has not backed away from what Perry wrote in his book “Fed Up” — that Social Security is a “Ponzi scheme,” a “failure,” “something we have been forced to accept for more than 70 years now,” and one of many New Deal programs that have “never died, and like a bad disease, they have spread.”
But Rove pulled no punches today, calling that stance “inadequate.”“They are going to have to find a way to deal with these things,” Rove said.
“They’re toxic in a general election environment and they are also toxic in a Republican primary. And if you say Social Security is a failure and ought to be replaced by a state level program, then people are going to say ‘What do you mean by that?’ and make a judgment based on your answer to it,” he said.
I know the convenient rap on Karl Rove is that he's an establishment shill who wants to knock down any sort of threat to his enabling power base, but in fact what he says is pretty much true. It is very dangerous to speak negatively of Social Security. This is not a new idea. It's been true since... well, since Social Security was proposed.
Noted conservative intellectual (kidding) Joe Scarborough simply declares that Perry cannot win a general election, period.
Without a doubt, it would be far easier for any Republican to win an election without mentioning entitlement reform, or to run on his own Mediscare-type campaign promising to not touch entitlements at all.
That said... taking that thinking to its conclusion, a candidate could get elected doing that, but then, upon winning office (if he won), he'd have two options:
1) Once again punt on entitlement reform and doom America to bankruptcy.
2) Actually attempt entitlement reform, but do so after breaking a promise not to, without a mandate for it, as that public was never given the chance to consent on that policy through the normal method of hearing a proposal and then informing its vote in an election based on that proposal.
For what it's worth, Michele Bachmann is fairly up-front about the need for entitlement reform. Most candidates do discuss it. Tim Pawlenty did. Sarah Palin endorsed Paul Ryan's Roadmap (which includes major reforms to Medicare). Chris Christie -- not a candidate, but piping up to argue for fiscal responsibility -- declares these issues must be addressed.
Republican star and likely Vice Presidential nominee Marco Rubio is quite forward-leaning in announcing "entitlements weakened us as a nation."
These programs actually weakened us as a people. You see, almost forever, it was institutions in society that assumed the role of taking care of one another. If someone was sick in your family, you took care of them. If a neighbor met misfortune, you took care of them. You saved for your retirement and your future because you had to. We took these things upon ourselves in our communities, our families, and our homes, and our churches and our synagogues. But all that changed when the government began to assume those responsibilities.
I actually don't like this argument for several reasons, first among them, it's politically harmful. I don't like Rubio's or Perry's claim that it weakens us; I would focus on the fact that bankruptcy weakens us, and we need to change these programs to make them actually work, and continue into the future.
So I actually do believe that while these issues are dicey, and yet most be spoken about, Perry (and Rubio) are actually addressing these dicey subjects in a dicier manner than is even necessary. You don't want to play the Senior Scare card... on yourself.
Still, that's just verbiage. What ultimately counts is actual plans, actual proposals. And we can either do the responsible thing and attempt to change the math on entitlement reform, or we can continue down the path of financial ruin.
I think it continues to be better politics to do that latter, but it's not as politically suicidal to take the responsible position as it has been in the recent past.
If you don't support entitlement reform -- and entitlements were supposed to be sustained by the money collected from the payroll tax -- then you're in favor of general tax increases, and fairly large general tax increases, to pay for all this social safety net spending. If there is no effort made to bring entitlement spending more in line with entitlement revenue streams, the only remaining option is to simply start taxing the crap out of people.
Which is not very conservative.
Mitt Romney is probably playing this the cagiest by speaking so little about it.
But... that's not really clever, because that's what's been done for decades. It's not some genius, novel move. That is SOP. Clarification: Romney may speak little about it, but it's not true that he doesn't speak about it at all -- he does. Let me further clarify that I'm not against the basic idea of soft-selling this. But the more you soft-sell it, the less of a mandate you'd be able to claim were you to actually win the office sought. It's my belief that Perry is too forward-leaning on this, as far as politics, but Romeny isn't leaning far enough forward, as far as likely ability to claim a mandate for needed reform. I think both need some tweaking in their positioning.
And although the media now likes to pretend to forget this, even the SCOAMFOTUS promised entitlement reform during his campaign,* and was praised as an enlightened, courageous thinker for doing so.
I think I'd have trouble supporting a Republican candidate who was less forward-leaning on entitlement reform in 2012 than Barack Obama was in 2008.
Some things I'm not eager to gamble an election on; some things I'm more willing to do so. Entitlements are one of the areas I'm willing to gamble, because if we don't fix this, then we're really just arguing about which party will be the best administrators of the nation's bankruptcy proceedings.
* I keep saying he said this during his campaign, but the articles I always find in google searches have him making this promise in the first month of his actual presidency, in Jan-Feb 2009. I still think he said it during the campaign. If I'm wrong about that, though, he at least got praised for his entitlement heroism in very early 2009.
Posted by: Ace at
08:55 AM
| Comments (427)
Post contains 1189 words, total size 8 kb.
Posted by: Randall Hoven at September 07, 2011 08:57 AM (zL/XL)
The Presidunce himself proved SS was a Ponzi scheme when he threatened that Granny will not get her check. QED
Posted by: Schwalbe : The © at September 07, 2011 08:58 AM (UU0OF)
This issue is proof positive that Romney is not ready to be president. He won't even talk about it. What a total coward.
Perry's comments are a bit strong, but he's a reasonable politician, and the campaign will show that. The voters will know he governs and makes compromises if necessary to achieve something. I don't mean he's a flip flopper, cause he isn't. But he's not a purist ideologue. He'll do fine in a general election. Better than a flop flopper will. Americans crave a leader, after all. Someone who can admit 'hey, this is really bad'.
If we're saying any entitlement reforming leader is a sure loser, then I guess the country is totally screwed anyway.
Posted by: Dustin at September 07, 2011 08:59 AM (fF625)
Posted by: Johnny (John E.) at September 07, 2011 08:59 AM (nRTou)
Posted by: Navycopjoe aka uber palinista at September 07, 2011 09:00 AM (mrUVQ)
Posted by: nevergiveup at September 07, 2011 09:00 AM (i6RpT)
Posted by: tasker at September 07, 2011 09:00 AM (y8ni2)
Posted by: Blaster at September 07, 2011 09:01 AM (Fw2Gg)
Perry just makes it too easy for the media wing of the DNC to do its dirty business.
Posted by: Alec Leamas at September 07, 2011 09:01 AM (mg08E)
Posted by: Truman North at September 07, 2011 09:01 AM (G5JPI)
Posted by: phoenixgirl at work s.o.b. barbarian tea party terrorist at September 07, 2011 09:02 AM (IpiZb)
Posted by: Blaster at September 07, 2011 09:02 AM (Fw2Gg)
Posted by: FRONT TOWARD LEFT at September 07, 2011 09:02 AM (cbyrC)
if Perry is allowed to be cast as "unelectable" but the M$M was allowed to shield the public from the truth wrt Obama back in '08 we may as well scrap the franchise from the citizens and be a government of the academic, by the liberal for the media with only the press allowed to vote....
Social Security is a scheme that were you or I to run it would land us in prison.....end of story
Posted by: sven10077 at September 07, 2011 09:03 AM (AEIYh)
Posted by: Navycopjoe aka uber palinista at September 07, 2011 09:03 AM (mrUVQ)
Tired of trying to see the future. We have debates and primaries coming up. Let's let them play out and vote on it.
Posted by: sifty at September 07, 2011 09:03 AM (4CSeG)
If a candidate tells the American people that entitlements must be cut for our economy to survive, does that lose the election?
In other words, does a candidate have to lie about the single most important financial issue in order to win?
Posted by: Bat Chain Puller at September 07, 2011 09:03 AM (SCcgT)
Seconded. That fat sausage-chewin' wino is getting on my nerves.
Posted by: sifty at September 07, 2011 09:04 AM (4CSeG)
hahahahahahahahahaha
At least you were brave enough to put up this post. I'll give you that.
Posted by: cherry pi, blood comes out when I tea at September 07, 2011 09:04 AM (OhYCU)
Whatever Perry or any other republican candidate has said or done in the past will hardly be mentioned by the MSM or the democrats.
Why would they waste the time when the polls tell them who will win?
Vetting is a thing of past.
Posted by: jwest at September 07, 2011 09:04 AM (qeYI9)
Posted by: George Orwell what knows Obama is a stuttering clusterfuck of a miserable failure at September 07, 2011 09:05 AM (AZGON)
yeah I think AllahPundit is stunt doubling for Ace....
no seriously Ace if perry wanting to acknowledge the racket and begin from a position of weaning the young away from the moonshine without cutting seniors off is "poison" then the game is over and we'll never reform the cancer.
Posted by: sven10077 at September 07, 2011 09:05 AM (AEIYh)
SS is techincally a ponzi scheme, but its not called that because the govt sponsors it. It was set up as an insurance, not the be-all safety net, I went back and read FDR's statement on SS bill's when he signed it, he specifically says it was just as a last resort safety net, not an entitlement.
I do think SS is a good idea, however it's on it way to get broke every soon. Safety nets are good as long as people realise that they need to have personal responsibility to take care of themselves as much as they can, and have SS as a safety net.
I remember when Bush was trying to reform SS in 2005, I called all my senators to rip apart that plan, I will freely admit I fell for all the democrat lines. I no longer believe the dem's talking points. Tea Party conservatives are not trying to eliminate SS, they are trying to reform it to preserve for the future.
As for Perry's calling it "toxic", I read his statement, full statement, sounds like he's making more of a philosophical statement of self reliance, and I can agree with Perry on that.
And as for Rove, cannot stand the man, nice of him to give sound bites to the liberals, maybe he needs to go work on the Obama campaign as he helped them out in 2008.
Posted by: johnc_recent_EXdem at September 07, 2011 09:05 AM (ACkhT)
Can we send Dana Perino with him? Awe crap , let's send the entire FNC team.
Posted by: Barbarian at September 07, 2011 09:05 AM (EL+OC)
Posted by: joeindc44 at September 07, 2011 09:05 AM (QxSug)
We'll see what happens. What he needs to avoid is punching down with Romney and they start bickering with the douche. Though I want Romney to get kicked in the teeth, he (Perry) has to avoid his tough guy debating style which just seems compulsive to him. I see it going like this:
Romney : I created the most jobs so vote for me
Perry: No I did, your governorship sucked... bitch (ok i imagined that).
Somehow Perry would need to avoid that.
Posted by: Flapjackmaka at September 07, 2011 09:05 AM (I+dWv)
The usual math is that entitlements for seniors is the third rail of American politics
I think you run it down well. If he is, because of his willingness to actually grapple with the problem dragging us to our DOOM, unelectable, then the DOOM is truly systemic, spreading to the very core of American life, and then would be truly unavoidable. Instead of driving off a cliff, it would be an orderly march off a cliff.
In other words, if we can't get someone elected on a real platform of averting DOOM* because they are inherently unelectable, why bother at all?
*(I am not convinced at this point we can avoid DOOM no matter what we do, thanks to the downgrade and the non-cuts proposed by congress, but for the sake of at least trying I will assume we can)
Posted by: MikeTheMoose Camellia Sinensis Operative at September 07, 2011 09:05 AM (0q2P7)
Posted by: mare at September 07, 2011 09:05 AM (A98Xu)
And bad news for Moose and Squirrel.
Posted by: sifty at September 07, 2011 09:06 AM (4CSeG)
Posted by: BumperStickerist at September 07, 2011 09:06 AM (h6mPj)
Posted by: tasker at September 07, 2011 09:06 AM (y8ni2)
Rove, Culter, Ingraham, tee-in it up for Jeb Buussshhh!
They don't need no damn Tea Party screwin up business as usual in Cronytown!
Posted by: Concealed or Submit at September 07, 2011 09:06 AM (vXqv3)
Posted by: yinzer at September 07, 2011 09:06 AM (/Mla1)
Posted by: Phelps at September 07, 2011 09:06 AM (gLoaG)
Perry leads Obama in Rasmussen & ABC News Polls, He's Electable
I wouldn't be a Perry guy if he was unelectable
Posted by: AuthorLMendez (Perry Guy) at September 07, 2011 09:06 AM (yAor6)
Posted by: observer at September 07, 2011 09:06 AM (tP5W8)
When people ask me why I vote for Republicans I tell them this.
Democrats promise me everything and give me nothing.
But Republicans promise me nothing and live up to their promise.
Posted by: soothie at September 07, 2011 09:06 AM (sqkOB)
Posted by: mare at September 07, 2011 09:06 AM (A98Xu)
Posted by: Havedash at September 07, 2011 09:07 AM (sFD5n)
We shouldn't lie to granny. That system is ridiculously expensive, and the only way to keep those checks coming is to reform that scheme.
The lazy politician will just argue against anyone making 'alarming' comments (that happen to be true) and note 'we can find the money! America is rich!' while sending us into debt.
I'd rather have a president who knows, at his core, that Social Security is not designed well at all, and needs reform. It will be hard to accomplish, but at least he'll be on the side of getting the job done.
Ace is surely right that this honesty costs Perry some votes. But this is too central an issue. We can't elect a president who doesn't realize Social Security is, indeed, unpaid for, just to attract a few votes (that Obama will always be better equipped to get, anyway).
This election will be about the economy, but also about responsibility with the debt. Perry can note his record, and we have a shot at getting somewhere if he runs on an agenda of getting this government affordable. Or we could just pretend the problem doesn't exist and demogogue Obama a bit, winning an election without a mandate for entitlement reform.
Perhaps this is why Romney enjoys strong beltway support. Entitlement reform is just one example (the biggest) of a huge problem with spending. Anyone willing to be honest about it is less likely to happily go along with wasteful spending elsewhere.
Too many Republicans saw the democrat corruption and were envious. That's where Tom Delay went astray, in my opinion.
Posted by: Dustin at September 07, 2011 09:07 AM (fF625)
Entitlement Spending
Reform entitlement programs to keep them solvent and put America on a path to prosperity....
Many of our fellow citizens have no idea that our growing entitlement spending has created a looming crisis...
http://mittromney.com/issues/fiscal-responsibility
Posted by: ParisParamus at September 07, 2011 09:07 AM (kfz40)
Posted by: Comrade Arthur at September 07, 2011 09:07 AM (5Z/+/)
Posted by: Waterhouse at September 07, 2011 09:07 AM (JUzf5)
Posted by: Concealed Kerry or Submit at September 07, 2011 09:07 AM (vXqv3)
Posted by: Kensington at September 07, 2011 09:08 AM (znT2j)
And then explain that we cannot use SS funds for other shit (like we have for 50 years).
Posted by: Lord Monochromicorn at September 07, 2011 09:08 AM (ETPEo)
Generic Orange Person 58, Obama 41!
Posted by: Gallup at September 07, 2011 09:08 AM (tqwMN)
It's simple really. Even senior citizens know that SS and Medicare need reform. They just want to see reform in other programs as well...welfare, education, arts, etc. Maybe SS and Medicare is the biggest chunk but it doesn't mean it has to be the only one.
And yeah, we'd all love no entitlements at all, but we all also know that it has to be done in steps. Any candidate who promises to do away with entitlements entirely is a liar, it won't happen in their terms. But I think a candidate who is realistic about reforms can still win.
Posted by: Deanna at September 07, 2011 09:08 AM (FVBZv)
Posted by: Comrade Arthur at September 07, 2011 09:08 AM (5Z/+/)
Posted by: Empire of Jeff at September 07, 2011 09:08 AM (YYUcU)
Posted by: tasker at September 07, 2011 09:08 AM (y8ni2)
Posted by: George Orwell what knows Obama is a stuttering clusterfuck of a miserable failure at September 07, 2011 09:09 AM (AZGON)
Posted by: Pyrocles at September 07, 2011 09:09 AM (cv5Iw)
All that said, 0bama is still a stuttering clusterfuck of a miserable failure.
Posted by: logprof at September 07, 2011 09:09 AM (lh7Yc)
Posted by: BumperStickerist at September 07, 2011 09:09 AM (h6mPj)
Social Security is a ponzi scheme and it needs to be said.
Is it dumb politically to say that, probably. Its the adult thing to do, to say things that need to be said when the alternative is to say nothing, do nothing and doom us economically.
Unfortunately, the American public does not want to face reality.
Posted by: AndrewsDad at September 07, 2011 09:09 AM (C2//T)
And yet, to paraphrase Jim Treacher, Obama got elected, which makes me wonder about the "unelectable" meme just a little bit in general.
Posted by: Kensington at September 07, 2011 09:10 AM (znT2j)
Posted by: nevergiveup at September 07, 2011 09:10 AM (i6RpT)
Posted by: George Orwell what knows Obama is a stuttering clusterfuck of a miserable failure at September 07, 2011 09:10 AM (AZGON)
we have been using Social Security for other shit since inception.....that is what it was there for bud the whole time.
Posted by: sven10077 at September 07, 2011 09:10 AM (AEIYh)
Posted by: Oily Taitz at September 07, 2011 09:10 AM (TUax9)
Posted by: Paul Krugman at September 07, 2011 09:10 AM (FcR7P)
Yea, that Perry will sure get beat by the SCOAMF.
The American people are just so happy with JEF.
Remember that a can of Wolf brand chili will beat JEF And with that I bid you adieu.
Posted by: Velvet Ambition at September 07, 2011 09:10 AM (0OJd9)
Tell those voters under 50 that Social security is just fine Rove you Orangatang lookin buffoon.
Go golfin or to the dog track.
Posted by: Concealed Kerry or Submit at September 07, 2011 09:10 AM (vXqv3)
Posted by: Comrade Arthur at September 07, 2011 09:11 AM (5Z/+/)
Posted by: phoenixgirl at work s.o.b. barbarian tea party terrorist at September 07, 2011 09:11 AM (IpiZb)
A commenter at WaPo (Richard Cohen's column) is suggesting Screamin' Dean can save the dems if they run him instead of Barky McClusterf*ck.
Yesssss.....Go Howard!
Posted by: Jane D'oh at September 07, 2011 09:11 AM (UOM48)
Now this, THIS is wisdom right here. I've seen it, too. I've seen the man stutter AND fail. Miserably.
Posted by: Kensington at September 07, 2011 09:11 AM (znT2j)
It just has to presented as a stark choice between salvaging something or winding up with nothing. Maybe highlighting a few of the already failed city/county pension plans as a harbinger of what is come for SS and other national entitlements will help support the true view.
The true view? -- It's not sustainable. That needs to be pounded into voters heads over and over.
Posted by: GnuBreed at September 07, 2011 09:11 AM (ENKCw)
Posted by: Tesh at September 07, 2011 09:12 AM (yO/46)
Posted by: Havedash at September 07, 2011 09:12 AM (sFD5n)
Posted by: giftogab at September 07, 2011 09:12 AM (SPVfc)
Posted by: George Orwell what knows Obama is a stuttering clusterfuck of a miserable failure at September 07, 2011 09:12 AM (AZGON)
Posted by: Ian S. at September 07, 2011 09:13 AM (tqwMN)
This is why Paul Ryan can't run.
We need control over the Senate to reform SS.
Posted by: cherry pi, blood comes out when I tea at September 07, 2011 09:13 AM (OhYCU)
Kinda O/T but still related.
Why do the Paul bots hate Perry so much? Tyler Durden over at Zro Hedge (not trying to spam) kinda floated the idea that Perry had some views similar to Ron Paul as far as the Fed is concerned and Social Security, etc. Well the Paul Bots and the neo-anarchist survivalist swarms went nuts! They fucking hated Perry. Its seems like there is this left wing/ right wing convergence in some circles. Kind of disturbing.
Posted by: Max Power at September 07, 2011 09:13 AM (q177U)
Is Perry unelectable?
No, I think Perry is electable, so is Romney, but the GOP nominee has to be one that wants to win and is willing to fight hard against Barry and the LSM that will no doubt will be campaigning for him. Electability is one aspect, the willingness to fight to win is also another important aspect.
I never got the sense Mccain wanted to win in '08, and I remember watching Romney in some of those repub primaries, Mccain was openly mocking him and Romney couldn't even fight back against Mccain, what makes me think he'll fight back hard against a chicago thug who will no doubt use every trick in the book, with the LSM's help?
Posted by: johnc_recent_EXdem at September 07, 2011 09:13 AM (ACkhT)
Interesting hash there, cherry pi.
Posted by: Jane D'oh at September 07, 2011 09:14 AM (UOM48)
Because according to those who know better than us, everyone else is "unelectable"
Posted by: kbdabear at September 07, 2011 09:14 AM (Y+DPZ)
OR
We need to (b) elect somebody that has a good bedside manner and tells us what we want to hear (oh yes, the latest cancer scan results looked very promising).
I hope we get that choice in 2012.
I'd prefer to see (a) above.
If we get (b), we are plain doomed, with no hope for sanity in the foreseeable future from the citizens.
Posted by: jwb7605 at September 07, 2011 09:14 AM (+KHIt)
Posted by: Max Power at September 07, 2011 01:13 PM (q177U)
it's Paulbots, forget about it, in their world we are the reason for Hitler
Posted by: AuthorLMendez (Perry Guy) at September 07, 2011 09:14 AM (yAor6)
/How a projecting Palinista thinks a Perry supporter would act towards this post
Posted by: Oily Taitz at September 07, 2011 09:15 AM (TUax9)
"Well the Paul Bots and the neo-anarchist survivalist swarms went nuts! "
ZH is pretty fair, but many of the commentarots are Ron Paul, Alex Jones nut jobs, so the sane commentators have left, early in ZH's beginning as a website, there were a variety of commentators, unfortunately many there are now paulbots, they even go into 9/11 conspiracy theories, etc.
Posted by: johnc_recent_EXdem at September 07, 2011 09:15 AM (ACkhT)
of course when the M$M is painting up attacking mccain as "disrespecting a hero" and then tells McCain, "hey don't be a racist" when he was even pondering attack what can you do if you lack the strength of will to ignore the counsel of your enemy's friends?
Posted by: sven10077 at September 07, 2011 09:15 AM (AEIYh)
Posted by: moki at September 07, 2011 09:15 AM (dZmFh)
Perry owns what he said in his book so he needs to address it and say yes social security is the definition of a Ponzi Scheme including the admistrator the United States Government taking a huge cut.
That being said people now depend on it so here is how I intend to preserve it and give his plan.
That's what I would like to hear him say, dunno if he will or not.
Posted by: robtr at September 07, 2011 09:16 AM (MtwBb)
I think there's an argument to be made that McCain only wanted the nomination to rub it in to George W. Bush. Similarly, Soros or whoever was pulling the strings for Obama didn't intend for him to get nominated in '08, just to improve his name recognition for future use. But the media pulled the SCOAMF over the finish line.
Posted by: Ian S. at September 07, 2011 09:16 AM (tqwMN)
Medicare is an all too different animal, very difficult to cut people off from life-saving care (at least politically). Of course, that's the way the socialists set it up.
Posted by: Guy Fawkes at September 07, 2011 09:17 AM (krs8G)
Why do the Paul bots hate Perry so much? Tyler Durden over at Zro Hedge (not trying to spam) kinda floated the idea that Perry had some views similar to Ron Paul as far as the Fed is concerned and Social Security, etc. Well the Paul Bots and the neo-anarchist survivalist swarms went nuts! They fucking hated Perry. Its seems like there is this left wing/ right wing convergence in some circles. Kind of disturbing.
Posted by: Max Power at September 07, 2011 01:13 PMThey hate everyone who is not Ron Paul, the only man who can save America!©
Posted by: huerfano at September 07, 2011 09:17 AM (kD+se)
Posted by: jeanne at September 07, 2011 09:17 AM (GdalM)
Posted by: cherry pi, terrorist hostage taking SOB at September 07, 2011 09:17 AM (OhYCU)
Posted by: ADK46er at September 07, 2011 09:18 AM (mXiy6)
As for Karl Rove. I'm a Palin supporter and I don't care what he says about candidates now. Not during the primaries. That's what primaries are for and everybody is staking their positions and have every right to do so. But I will be watching him to see how he treats the nominee. What he did to Christine O'Donnell was unforgivable. I don't care how much you loath her for what a rotten candidate she was, to go out of your way to trash her AFTER she had just won the primary was just beyond the pale. I'm sorry. A lot of us held our noses with John McCain. We'll see how Rove treats whoever the nominee turns out to be. Let's hope he cares more about the country than he does his ego. I'll support whoever the candidate is except Ron Paul.
Posted by: Jaynie59 at September 07, 2011 09:18 AM (4zKCA)
Posted by: FRONT TOWARD LEFT at September 07, 2011 09:18 AM (cbyrC)
Watch me toss this football!
Posted by: HANNITY!!! at September 07, 2011 09:18 AM (Y+DPZ)
The real question is can Romney win MA in a national election? Lets see a Demonazi stronghold with known corruption problems governed by a black dem governor will somehow vote in swelling numbers to elect a white Republican president instead of the black demonazi sitting precedent. Sound reasonable? Okay, so if everyone agrees that Romney will take his home state we have no problem nominating him.
Do any of you remember McCain and what leaps of logic it took to run Granpa Simpson? And we talk about Romney being teh won? Seriously.
Where in the hell is Romney's base? Romney is the new Dole.
Posted by: Sub-Tard at September 07, 2011 09:19 AM (0M3AQ)
Posted by: cherry pi, blood comes out when I tea at September 07, 2011 01:13 PM (OhYCU)
Do correct me if I am wrong, but isn't this whole issue driven by the media picking up on his BOOK and not what HE has chosen to campaign on? If I missed some stuff, as I often do, please reform me.
Posted by: giftogab at September 07, 2011 09:19 AM (SPVfc)
Posted by: John Gregory at September 07, 2011 09:19 AM (48wze)
He's pretty pragmatic in how he governs. Paulbots hate pragmatism, which is why their guy will never ever be anything other than a soon-to-be-retired Congressman.
Posted by: Y-not at September 07, 2011 09:19 AM (5H6zj)
Only one method exists beyond politics to solve a societal problem. And I'm keeping it off the table right now, and proceeding on the assumption that we can somehow solve the problem politically for the sake of society. And therefore I wish to pursue the best political path with that end.
Should the political process ultimately fail, fiscal reality has its day in the sun, and The Gods of the Copybook Headings come to collect their toll, it will be pretty obvious when we have to switch over to our respective contingency plans. I foresee it occurring after wholesale checks cannot be mailed after a shortfall in funds.
Posted by: MikeTheMoose Camellia Sinensis Operative at September 07, 2011 09:19 AM (0q2P7)
Twice. The Jeremiah Wright thing would have ended any other political career. They reported it but never went full flood the zone with it.
Posted by: Slublog at September 07, 2011 09:19 AM (0nqdj)
cringe when I hear Perry speak because he sounds so much like George W. Bush's dumber, younger brother. I'm convinced there's no way he can win because people just aren't ready to elect another Texas governor.
wait, what?
I'm a Palin supporter
oh, of course
Posted by: AuthorLMendez (Perry Guy) at September 07, 2011 09:20 AM (yAor6)
Who the f**k listens to Scarborough?
It's like trusting Dick (Toes) Morris to predict who will win an election.
Posted by: mpfs, TPT & Barbarian at September 07, 2011 09:20 AM (iYbLN)
Posted by: MikeTheMoose Camellia Sinensis Operative at September 07, 2011 09:20 AM (0q2P7)
I don't know, but I think people like Chris Christie and Sarah Palin have changed the game. People know they have been conned for years, and they are sick of the same old bullshit from politicians. They are terrified about the national debt and worried about the future for their children. I think a politician who actually tells the truth, this time, will win. It might not have been true in past elections, but it will be in this one.
I think people are especially frustrated because of Obama's obvious weakness as president. Whether you voted for him or not, you expected Big Things to come out of his administration. You expected him to walk at least a little of the walk after all the Big Talk of the 2008 campaign. Most people thought he really was different and he would take on the Establishment, whatever you thought the Establishment was. But he didn't. So people are grumpy and not in the mood to either reelect Obama or replace him with someone who seems to be trimming and just telling us what he (or she) thinks we want to hear.
Posted by: rockmom at September 07, 2011 09:20 AM (lSyyU)
Posted by: cherry pi, terrorist hostage taking SOB at September 07, 2011 01:17 PM
Yes, we need Rove ....
FOR ME TO POOP ON !!!
Posted by: Triumph the Insult Comic Dog at September 07, 2011 09:20 AM (Y+DPZ)
We need a truce.
Posted by: cherry pi, terrorist hostage taking SOB at September 07, 2011 09:21 AM (OhYCU)
Posted by: mare at September 07, 2011 09:21 AM (A98Xu)
Posted by: Jeramiah Wright at September 07, 2011 09:21 AM (48wze)
Posted by: George Orwell what knows Obama is a stuttering clusterfuck of a miserable failure at September 07, 2011 09:21 AM (AZGON)
yeah those dedicated newsies reading and analyzing what perry wrote in a book....
if only they had done that little task for some other figure......I can't put my finger on which political figure wrote a lot of scary shit in a few books but somehow never had it harped on....
hmmm
Posted by: sven10077 at September 07, 2011 09:21 AM (AEIYh)
When Progressive sites start writing stuff like that, well Â…
Posted by: Barney the Dinosaur at September 07, 2011 09:22 AM (e8kgV)
Posted by: DriveBy at September 07, 2011 09:22 AM (C9Vc8)
sure worked back in '96 for us too Dole was t3h awesomesauce....
I wonder when it'll be MY turn for the GOP nomination since that is how we seem to do things
Posted by: sven10077 at September 07, 2011 09:22 AM (AEIYh)
Posted by: The RNC Candidate Selector at September 07, 2011 09:23 AM (tqwMN)
Posted by: Henry Hogbiter at September 07, 2011 09:23 AM (48wze)
Yeah, throwing a temper tantrum because she might be at the same rally as you until she gets disinvited - twice - and has to cancel her book tour plans in Iowa was really a shitty thing to do. After all, imagine the unending damage to the country if CO'D had been allowed to shill for her book on the same stage as the One True Conservative. Forget getting a Senate slot or losing a chance to gain a GOP Senate seat, that's small potatoes compared to embarrassing the person who endorsed her.
Posted by: Y-not at September 07, 2011 09:23 AM (5H6zj)
Where in the hell is Romney's base? Romney is the new Dole.
Posted by: Sub-Tard at September 07, 2011 01:19 PMRomney isn't the new Bob Dole because Bob Dole is the new Bob Dole and the old Bob Dole. Only Bob Dole can tell you who the Bob Dole is
Posted by: Bob Dole at September 07, 2011 09:23 AM (Y+DPZ)
Posted by: George Orwell what knows Obama is a stuttering clusterfuck of a miserable failure at September 07, 2011 09:24 AM (AZGON)
I am quickly coming to the decision that we don't. I haven't forgot the Medicare P-Drug benefit that we couldn't pay for when it passed. He has moved in my mind from doing more good than harm to doing more harm than good; his moderate the message tactic is a death knell for the Republic.
Posted by: MikeTheMoose Camellia Sinensis Operative at September 07, 2011 09:24 AM (0q2P7)
Posted by: Roger at September 07, 2011 09:25 AM (tAwhy)
Posted by: RINO just defrosted from 1979 at September 07, 2011 09:25 AM (lH6z9)
Posted by: Platypus at September 07, 2011 09:25 AM (AZGON)
When Progressive sites start writing stuff like that, well Â…
Posted by: Barney the Dinosaur at September 07, 2011 01:22 PM
It's the "african-american is up", you racist !!!
Posted by: Chris Matthews, hello from Obama's colon at September 07, 2011 09:26 AM (Y+DPZ)
Posted by: James Earl Carter at September 07, 2011 09:26 AM (48wze)
One thing that is starting to get me pretty excited is that the GOP race is shaping up to be Reagan vs. Bush part II. Reagan was a much better candidate in the general election because he had a strong opponent who was perceived as more moderate. Bush actually beat him in Iowa, and Reagan fired his campaign manager afterward. He was never seen as a sure thing to win in the general, and many Republicans thought he was unelectable, which is why they supported Bush. Either of them would have been a 100% improvement on Jimmy Carter.
Romney and Perry are going to push each other to clarify their positions, defend their records, and sharpen their campaigns. Whoever wins the nominaton will be a sure winner in November. I think the two of them will be the GOP ticket, whatever order it it is, and this will be as strong a ticket as we have had since Reagan and Bush.
Posted by: rockmom at September 07, 2011 09:26 AM (lSyyU)
you mean handing out 85% of what the donks want at 97.5% of the cost of their dreams is not a winning formula politically or fiscally?
//gasp
Posted by: sven10077 at September 07, 2011 09:26 AM (AEIYh)
Posted by: Dave at September 07, 2011 09:26 AM (Xm1aB)
Posted by: t-bird at September 07, 2011 09:26 AM (FcR7P)
Posted by: Katy Beth at September 07, 2011 09:26 AM (sspfj)
Posted by: MikeTheMoose Camellia Sinensis Operative at September 07, 2011 09:26 AM (0q2P7)
Posted by: BigDaddy1964 at September 07, 2011 09:26 AM (DueYW)
Posted by: nevergiveup at September 07, 2011 09:26 AM (i6RpT)
Posted by: Kensington at September 07, 2011 09:27 AM (znT2j)
Posted by: ace at September 07, 2011 09:27 AM (nj1bB)
Posted by: PR at September 07, 2011 09:27 AM (XmJZ7)
It serves no useful purpose for any Republican to talk about Social Security. It's in a "lockbox". It has separate financing. Just look at your paycheck. We got other fish to fry in this election. Talking about SS will only scare people into voting for Obama.
Posted by: BOB NW at September 07, 2011 09:27 AM (SBFeP)
Besides, like someone else said, if you can't get elected believing the entitlement complex needs serious reforms, the prize is probably no longer worth winning in any event...
Posted by: DarkLord© sez Obama is a stuttering clusterf--- of a miserable failure
Oh, and F--- Nevada! at September 07, 2011 09:28 AM (GBXon)
I fear Perry is unelectable. I like him lots and lots - but electability is a big thing this time around.
Posted by: Lemon Kitten at September 07, 2011 09:28 AM (0fzsA)
There are usual caveats: Of course Obama isn’t illiterate or Bush-dumb because as Jesse Louis Jackson once said, “God doesn’t make junk,” and the intelligence-challenged just aren’t allowed near Harvard.
In a word, yes. He is dumb. Given that we've never seen his grades, we have no idea if he was intelligence-challenged, or if he earned his way in. He managed to be editor of the law review and have nothing published- quite a feat. At this point, with 9%+ unemployment for most of his term, I'll take Bush-dumb over Obama-dumb. His is the thinnest resume ever to ascend to the WH.
FYI: Bush has an MBA from Harvard.
Posted by: Russ Smith at September 07, 2011 09:28 AM (e8kgV)
Posted by: tsj017 at September 07, 2011 09:28 AM (4YUWF)
Posted by: Dave at September 07, 2011 09:28 AM (Xm1aB)
Perry should mention that we need to start peeling the non-seniors off of Social Security in order to save social security. The SSI recipients are killing the program.
Posted by: Max Entropy at September 07, 2011 09:28 AM (lH6z9)
Posted by: nevergiveup at September 07, 2011 09:29 AM (i6RpT)
Posted by: tsj017 at September 07, 2011 09:29 AM (4YUWF)
which is why I stated...if the press gets to elect bambi and shield him from harm and pick our candidate through the misuse of editorial oversight guided by their personal preferences the whole "republic" thing is over and it is time to run
Posted by: sven10077 at September 07, 2011 09:29 AM (AEIYh)
Posted by: cherry pi, terrorist hostage taking SOB at September 07, 2011 09:29 AM (OhYCU)
Posted by: Member of the 52% at September 07, 2011 09:29 AM (lh7Yc)
Posted by: Usama Bin laden at September 07, 2011 09:29 AM (48wze)
Posted by: tsj017 at September 07, 2011 09:29 AM (4YUWF)
Posted by: Jon at September 07, 2011 09:30 AM (eaMza)
//gasp
That and, he has never been particularly popular; though he has been useful. At this point I would rather leverage his mass unpopularity and say "look look, he (she) isn't like Bush, because Rove hates him(her)" than try and gain his approval and support for a candidate, knowing that would mean exactly the above.
Posted by: MikeTheMoose Camellia Sinensis Operative at September 07, 2011 09:30 AM (0q2P7)
Posted by: B. Hussein Obama at September 07, 2011 09:30 AM (AZGON)
Posted by: kbdabear at September 07, 2011 09:30 AM (Y+DPZ)
Posted by: tsj017 at September 07, 2011 09:30 AM (4YUWF)
Ironically, that's the issue - or Perry's attempts to deal with that issue - that I saw Rove attacking Perry for the other day. He basically acted like Perry had committed a major sin by his remarks about being an Aggie not a Yalie (remarks Perry made to help illustrate how he was not Bush II). It was ridiculous. I seriously doubt President Bush felt attacked or slighted or whatever the heck Rove was claiming.
Perry is not Bush II, but he needs to demonstrate that, which is hard to do when you have guys like Rove pretending to hyperventilate (because, let's face it, it's an act) every time Perry contrasts himself with W.
Posted by: Y-not at September 07, 2011 09:31 AM (5H6zj)
Posted by: mare at September 07, 2011 09:31 AM (A98Xu)
Posted by: NMS at September 07, 2011 09:31 AM (8sD9j)
Posted by: George Orwell what knows Obama is a stuttering clusterfuck of a miserable failure at September 07, 2011 09:31 AM (AZGON)
Posted by: JonathanEllis at September 07, 2011 09:32 AM (BdzEV)
"Pardon me, may I have that deck chair placed over here? Why thank you, I want to have a closeup view of that beautiful, massive iceberg we are going to hit."
Posted by: mpfs, TPT & Barbarian at September 07, 2011 09:32 AM (iYbLN)
Calling for the National Guard to be placed on the border, calling for the use of Predator drones on the border, and stating that there will be no immigration reform until the border is secured is pandering to Hispanics?
Let me guess who you support, dufus.
Posted by: Dick Nixon at September 07, 2011 09:32 AM (ebRma)
besides which not that I did not have huge problems with his reaching around across the aisle because he feared the wars being held hostage by the mules....
BUT
I think if UE3 is 9.3 and climbing Bush II could beat Ogabe head to head
Posted by: sven10077 at September 07, 2011 09:32 AM (AEIYh)
People my age (50) know the jig (I denounce myself) is up concerning SS and Medicare. It is unsustainable and we will never see a penny of what we paid into the system.
Posted by: mpfs, TPT & Barbarian at September 07, 2011 01:32 PM (iYbLN)
But, b-b-b-b-but, LOCKBOX!
Posted by: Insomniac at September 07, 2011 09:33 AM (DrWcr)
Posted by: tsj017 at September 07, 2011 09:33 AM (4YUWF)
I'm a serious Palinista and I think Perry could beat Obama, and also Romney could beat Obama. By 2012, America will be a nation in great distress and Obama will be holding the bag for it.
I'm for Palin because I think she would be a much better president than Perry or Romney, but if she doesn't get the nomination, I'll vote for either of them.
Posted by: Mr Natural at September 07, 2011 09:33 AM (eMbXU)
Posted by: ace at September 07, 2011 09:34 AM (nj1bB)
well perry seems to have pretty well oiled response team. Ron Paul was going around saying somthing like he's a fan of reagan etc and how Perry worked for gore in the 80's. Perry's team put out this immediately.
First Ron Paul's attack on Perry: http://tinyurl.com/3cruff5
(full disclosure I voted for Gore as well back in 2000, sorry, yes I know, very very sorry, Gore was pretty conservative in the 80's when Perry helped him, I had no excuse for voting for Gore except I was a mindless democrat voting party line)
Second Perry's response to Paul's attack: http://tinyurl.com/4xdzevr (Paul attacks Reagan)
I look at it in this way, candidates change, so sometimes people endorse candidates who then change, and sometimes people wake up and change how they view the world.
Maybe Perry and Romney can run on the same ticket, heck at this point I'll vote for a soda can over Barry. I'll agree with the dem talking point in one aspect, its a choice, 4 years of Barry or someone else...
Posted by: johnc_recent_EXdem at September 07, 2011 09:34 AM (ACkhT)
Huh. People still believe this?
Posted by: Slublog at September 07, 2011 09:34 AM (0nqdj)
Posted by: nobody at September 07, 2011 09:35 AM (OlN4e)
The establishment would call JFK too conservative and unelectable if he ran for us today. I stopped listening to the establishment sometime during the Bush admin. And despite Hollowpoint and JeffB endless wailing, I can't imagine the field of candidates we would have if we weren't willing to kick a few establishment types to the curb, though it ultimately cost us some elections. Just think about that, how much squish would be getting pushed on us right now if we hadn't done that. We'd have the 2008 primary all over again.
Perry for me is *just* above the bar of acceptable. And I currently don't support him as my primary pick. But if he's unelectable then the exercise is pointless.
Posted by: MikeTheMoose Camellia Sinensis Operative at September 07, 2011 09:35 AM (0q2P7)
"It is very dangerous to speak negatively of Social Security. This is not a new idea. It's been true since... well, since Social Security was proposed."
we can not afford this attitude anymore, i'm not blaming you or anyone else for it, it simply has to end, the only way to end it is to continuously repeat the Truth and never, ever back down from it.
what is the truth?
S.S. is a Ponzi Scheme, it's always been a lie and people are just going to have to accept that, they aren't going to like it, the people who do soemthing about it WILL pay a heavy political price and they have to accept that.
why does all this "accepting" have to take place?
the money has all been spent!!!
Posted by: shoey at September 07, 2011 09:35 AM (jdOk/)
Posted by: Kensington at September 07, 2011 01:27 PM (znT2j)
---
Really? How was it any of Palin's business whether or not O'Donnell, a private citizen who is just trying to make a buck like Palin has been, was at that rally? O'Donnell was good enough to be one of Palin's causes during the last election to the detriment of the Party, but now she's a pariah? Are you kidding me? Rove may be a mean s.o.b. (he is), but Palin beclowned herself with that move.
Posted by: Y-not at September 07, 2011 09:36 AM (5H6zj)
DOMINIONISM
Posted by: tsj017 at September 07, 2011 01:33 PM (4YUWF)
--Glad to see the Dominion of Canada is getting some attention down there. 
Posted by: logprof at September 07, 2011 09:36 AM (lh7Yc)
Posted by: tsj017 at September 07, 2011 09:36 AM (4YUWF)
Wow. You admit that? Get me a sammich.
/sorta
Posted by: cherry pi, terrorist hostage taking SOB at September 07, 2011 09:36 AM (OhYCU)
By the same token, you can have wise, dumb guys. Their wisdom renders them smart, and they make few mistakes. They're humble enough to be open and to consult with those who know more.
Posted by: rdbrewer at September 07, 2011 09:36 AM (+PINe)
Posted by: Slublog at September 07, 2011 01:34 PM (0nqdj)
The amount of money you will receive in SS payments when you retire is directly correlated to how much you put in. SS is in its own category. It is not a "tax", per se.
Posted by: BOB NW at September 07, 2011 09:37 AM (SBFeP)
People my age (50) know the jig (I denounce myself) is up concerning SS and Medicare. It is unsustainable and we will never see a penny of what we paid into the system.
Posted by: mpfs, TPT & Barbarian at September 07, 2011 01:32 PM (iYbLN)
But, b-b-b-b-but, LOCKBOX!
Posted by: Insomniac
People actually believed that pile of shit. Bwhahahahahahaha.
Posted by: mpfs, TPT & Barbarian at September 07, 2011 09:37 AM (iYbLN)
Posted by: Fred at September 07, 2011 09:38 AM (eFKVn)
Posted by: NC Mountain Girl at September 07, 2011 09:38 AM (dow7k)
One thing that is starting to get me pretty excited is that the GOP race is shaping up to be Reagan vs. Bush part II. Reagan was a much better candidate in the general election because he had a strong opponent who was perceived as more moderate. Bush actually beat him in Iowa, and Reagan fired his campaign manager afterward. He was never seen as a sure thing to win in the general, and many Republicans thought he was unelectable, which is why they supported Bush. Either of them would have been a 100% improvement on Jimmy Carter.
You miss one big piece in your analysis and that is both Reagan and Bush had serious bases to run on. California and Texas respectfully. With Perry and Romney you have Texas and some make believe land where Romney has vast numbers of built in electoral votes. Pray tell where is this Big Rock Candy Mountain that Romney hails from?
Posted by: Sub-Tard at September 07, 2011 09:38 AM (0M3AQ)
And whether or not we were apes millions of years ago. Because that's important. Posted by: tsj017
Not dominoes again! That game is boooooring!!
Wait, are we ordering pizza?
Posted by: mpfs, TPT & Barbarian at September 07, 2011 09:38 AM (iYbLN)
Posted by: Kensington at September 07, 2011 09:38 AM (znT2j)
Posted by: cherry pi, terrorist hostage taking SOB at September 07, 2011 09:38 AM (OhYCU)
Posted by: Mary Cloggenstein from Brattleboro VT at September 07, 2011 09:39 AM (/Mla1)
Posted by: JayBee at September 07, 2011 09:39 AM (Xwgt3)
Perry is electable. Every election we're told that anyone with the stench of conservatism isn't electable. Better to run someone from the squishy middle, we're told.
The squishy middle doesn't inspire anyone. Gore? McCain? Please.
Furthermore, it is going to take a strong conservative to pull us out of the mess we're in. If we run Huntsman because the media tells us he's a winner, we might as well accept the fact that our country is doomed.
Posted by: Lauren at September 07, 2011 09:40 AM (VKD8C)
Posted by: Lauren at September 07, 2011 09:40 AM (VKD8C)
Social Security is broke. From the most recent Trustees Report Summary:
Social Security expenditures exceeded the programÂ’s non-interest income in 2010 for the first time since 1983. The $49 billion deficit last year (excluding interest income) and $46 billion projected deficit in 2011 are in large part due to the weakened economy and to downward income adjustments that correct for excess payroll tax revenue credited to the trust funds in earlier years. This deficit is expected to shrink to about $20 billion for years 2012-2014 as the economy strengthens. After 2014, cash deficits are expected to grow rapidly as the number of beneficiaries continues to grow at a substantially faster rate than the number of covered workers.
There is no pot of money.
Posted by: Slublog at September 07, 2011 09:41 AM (0nqdj)
>>>Perry is like Bush in that on immigration he stupidly panders to Hispanics, a group that will never vote GOP
This is just completely false. In fact, the GOP just may win this next election by taking more than a third of the Hispanic vote.
Also, Romney attacks here are getting a little on the hysterical side. The sidebar Corn Romney blurb is particularly inaccurate.
Posted by: spongeworthy at September 07, 2011 09:41 AM (rplL3)
Posted by: Maxmbj at September 07, 2011 09:41 AM (deaac)
“The Republicans’ refusal to respond to the president’s proposal on jobs is not only disrespectful to him, but to the American people” who will be watching the NFL at about the time any Republican could possibly respond.
Posted by: Barack Obama at September 07, 2011 09:42 AM (e8kgV)
Posted by: cherry pi, terrorist hostage taking SOB at September 07, 2011 09:42 AM (OhYCU)
Say what you will about Obama (pbuh), but that is one of his strengths, and it works.
Posted by: CharlieBrown'sDildo (NJConservative)) at September 07, 2011 09:42 AM (LH6ir)
Posted by: kbdabear at September 07, 2011 09:42 AM (Y+DPZ)
Posted by: FireHorse at September 07, 2011 09:43 AM (RZRz9)
Social Security is a scam and it "pays out .99 of every buck" only because of fudgy bookkeeping that is possible ONLY because more currently pay in than pay out....the demographics say that the number of workers supporting retirees will fall by half during the boomer twilight from 3.3 to between 1.25 and 1.2 per recipient....at that point the system dies the adminstrative costs are not that slim.....
retirement was never about forcing other workers to grant you a sinecure in your twilight that WAS a familial duty prior to FDR's little magic trick to steal revenue to throw around off the workers of the US....
the portion of the worker's income that you matched would yield him triple if put in a genuine interest bearing rolling CD for the lifecycle of "work"....
I am not going to count on my grandchildren to hand me a third of their check or more so I can live beyond what I set up for myself.
Posted by: sven10077 at September 07, 2011 09:43 AM (AEIYh)
Posted by: SFGoth at September 07, 2011 09:43 AM (dZ756)
Posted by: Maxmbj at September 07, 2011 09:43 AM (deaac)
He'll do okay but he won't come up with anything specific
Just saying, don't hate"
RE: Romney, I think you're right. He'll be pro choice for one group, and then pro life for another group.
He'll say "I'm not trying to return to Reagan's style of leadership" to one group, and then do all he can to evoke that return to another group.
Some of these 'panders' are impossible to be honest. I cannot trust a damn thing Romney says now. I know he's a very smart guy, and I know he was very successful at that Bain thing (cutting companies down to the bone to make them profitable). I think he's probably not the worst candidate. But this lack of trust is a very big deal. Combined with his low level of experience (a single, or even IMO kinda partial term?), how electable could this guy me?
Obama will eat him alive. He's got nothing to point to and justify his candidacy. Perry is considered slightly less electable, but I think that's wrong. He can point to jobs and a huge state that reelected him repeatedly, which will bolster his promises and agenda.
Posted by: Dustin at September 07, 2011 09:43 AM (fF625)
Posted by: Tonya Reiman at September 07, 2011 09:43 AM (PcoXF)
Posted by: ace at September 07, 2011 09:43 AM (nj1bB)
Posted by: t-bird at September 07, 2011 09:44 AM (FcR7P)
there never was....the cookie jar has been raided since '37 at whim and by '68 by law.....
Posted by: sven10077 at September 07, 2011 09:44 AM (AEIYh)
For example: When asked if he favored gun control, his reply was that he does favor gun control..."use both hands." - http://tinyurl.com/4y62qjh
Regardless of your current opinion of Rick Perry, it would likely be helpful if we didn't get carried away by what Rove or anyone else is saying. Simply let them twist in the wind. Don't pay them any lip service whatsoever. There is ample time for analysis and debate. Now is not the time. Realize that we sound like liberals and dems, wondering if Perry is even electable. Don't posit whether any (R) is electable. Look at the data points and decide, but don't use defeatist language. Leave that crap to the leftists. I don't like Romney, but you won't ever see me wondering aloud if he's even electable.
Check your emotions at the door, stick a cork in your vagina, and analyze data objectively. Let the dems foam at the mouth while eating their own and jumping under buses. For cripes sake, take a step back and stop helping Rove and the RINOs.
Be patient grasshoppers, and wait for the field to narrow. Rick Perry will clarify his positions with plain language more and more as time passes. Ask Kay Bailey Hutchinson how that works. Her campaign tried every trick there is to smear Perry in the last election for governor. Every attempt resulted in major fail for Hutchinson. Like him or not, he's a damn good campaigner and he's full-on Texan. Mess with him at your own risk.
Posted by: CR at September 07, 2011 09:44 AM (MnSRY)
Wait, who's talking about Palin? I thought we were discussing Perry here. I certainly was. Bait and switch gets a flag down on the play, Ewok...
Posted by: DarkLord© sez Obama is a stuttering clusterf--- of a miserable failure
Oh, and F--- Nevada! at September 07, 2011 09:45 AM (GBXon)
I know O-Care is big on everyone's list, but that is a guppy compared to impending financial DOOM whale caused by entitlements.
IF SS was truly a lockbox, we could cut off the program, today, and it would be able to immediately pay back what was put in by those still working AND support those who are on the program until they are dead. The fact is it can't even come close to doing that even if you count its bond holdings. Those bonds in the "lockbox" btw are US bonds, funded from the general fund and in case you haven't noticed the general fund is a little in the red and, there is some serious question about whether we can ever pay them back.
The program is effectively insolvent with the holdings it has and all of the holdings will require massive funds from the general fund that we don't have the money to actually pay. You combine that little piece of reality with Hauser's Law and suddenly there is no way we can sustain the system for another decade, in fact 5 years is really shaky, in real reality, I'll be happy if we make it to Christmas without a monetary meltdown.
Posted by: MikeTheMoose Camellia Sinensis Operative at September 07, 2011 09:45 AM (0q2P7)
and you noticed him selling every piece of conservatism to the media from the middle of '88 on right Ace?
Yeah once upon a time there were democrats I could back too....
then the New democrats killed off Scoop Jackson.
Posted by: sven10077 at September 07, 2011 09:45 AM (AEIYh)
The massive blazes forced Texas Gov. and Republican presidential hopeful Rick Perry to abruptly call off a campaign appearance in South Carolina earlier this week to respond to the crisis, and may force him to cancel his first debate appearance Wednesday night.
The U.S. Forest Service terminated the contract with Aero Union five weeks ago to operate seven P-3 Orions that are critical to the agencyÂ’s firefighting mission, leaving the federal government with 11 tankers under contract to help battle more than 50 large uncontained wildfires now burning nationwide.
Posted by: Barack Obama at September 07, 2011 09:46 AM (e8kgV)
You say this like it's in the past tense.
/
Posted by: cherry pi, terrorist hostage taking SOB at September 07, 2011 09:46 AM (OhYCU)
And don't forget the Jackson wing of the Democrat party. They are all gone now. When was the last time you met a Democrat who believed in a strong national defense?
Posted by: CharlieBrown'sDildo (NJConservative)) at September 07, 2011 09:47 AM (LH6ir)
--In 1988, Al Gore was still (at least insofar as he mouthed the words) pro-life. Seems like a looooooong time ago.
Being pro-life is like some sort of Original Sin that needs to be baptized away before a Democrat can be "born again" to run for President.
Posted by: logprof at September 07, 2011 09:47 AM (lh7Yc)
Don't have time to read 200+ comments to see if someone smacked you for this, Ace.
I actually don't like this argument for several reasons, first among them, it's politically harmful. I don't like Rubio's or Perry's claim that it weakens us; I would focus on the fact that bankruptcy weakens us, and we need to change these programs to make them actually work, and continue into the future.
Sorry, but this is CRITICAL to conservative thought. The thought that someone is somehow entitled by force of law (and deadly force at that) to a very portion of the life of another (for what is your income other than what you're compensated for trading off a portion of your limited time in this life) flys in the face of the concept of individual liberty.
Posted by: Scott J at September 07, 2011 09:47 AM (/bVuS)
Pelosi is such a douche ..
“The Republicans’ refusal to respond to the president’s proposal on jobs is not only disrespectful to him, but to the American people” who will be watching the NFL at about the time any Republican could possibly respond.
Lemme try to figure this one out. Obama sits and does nothing about obnoxious, violent rhetoric because he's "not the speech police". And that's okay. Pelosi is now berating Republicans for NOT saying anything of any kind. And that's okay?
Question for Pelosi: are we still allowed to use the word stimulus when referring to the effects of the botox shots?
Posted by: Blue Hen at September 07, 2011 09:47 AM (326rv)
I see the coma from the asskicking you Axelbots took in 2010 is over.....
"welcome back clones"
Posted by: sven10077 at September 07, 2011 09:47 AM (AEIYh)
Posted by: mpfs, TPT & Barbarian at September 07, 2011 09:47 AM (iYbLN)
Prediction for January 20, 2012:
"Unelectable" Rick Perry will exit the limo to take a stroll down Constitution Avenue and wave to his many supporters enroute to his swearing-in ceremony as the 45th POTUS. In addition to the gen-u-wine Texas Longhorns gracing the hood of the limo and air horns that play both kinds of music (feat "Deep In The Heart of Texas" and "Dixie"), the limo's sound system will be revealed to have been modified. A bit. Pumping out an estimated 12,000 watts of clean, distortion-free sound, the limo will be blasting Nazareth's Hair of the Dog as Mr. Unelectable struts and swaggers towards his destiny.
Now you're messing with, a son of a bitch!
Posted by: Count de Monet, Sons of Bitches Martyrs Brigade at September 07, 2011 09:49 AM (4q5tP)
And I wonder which state will get priority? Bueller? Anyone?
Posted by: mpfs, TPT & Barbarian at September 07, 2011 09:49 AM (iYbLN)
You say this like it's in the past tense.
Speaking as someone who's wandered back and forth during his life myself and only now really appreciates why, that's a lot less of a knock than you'd think. I swear the libs are like a cult, and the deprogramming...especially in the pervasive environment the media creates...well, it takes help and a lifetime. I guess that makes us Ace's support group...
Posted by: DarkLord© sez Obama is a stuttering clusterf--- of a miserable failure
Oh, and F--- Nevada! at September 07, 2011 09:49 AM (GBXon)
Posted by: tasker at September 07, 2011 09:49 AM (y8ni2)
It is and it has. To believe otherwise is to downplay the overrunning of rugged individualism by collectivism and its associated statist dependency during the past eight decades. Do any of us here think that has been a good thing?
Posted by: No Whining at September 07, 2011 09:49 AM (0AClR)
Posted by: Count de Monet, Sons of Bitches Martyrs Brigade at September 07, 2011 09:50 AM (4q5tP)
Posted by: CharlieBrown'sDildo (NJConservative)) at September 07, 2011 01:47 PM (LH6ir)
The primaried him out of the caucus in Connecticut.
Posted by: Oily Taitz at September 07, 2011 09:50 AM (TUax9)
Posted by: The Mega Independent at September 07, 2011 09:50 AM (HsSRM)
I see the coma from the asskicking you Axelbots took in 2010 is over.....
"welcome back clones"
Posted by: sven10077 at September 07, 2011 01:47 PM (AEIYh)
--They're like swarms of cicadas that dies off and bury their eggs after every electoral ass-whupping.
Posted by: logprof at September 07, 2011 09:50 AM (lh7Yc)
somewhere between 3.3 and 3.12.....
those 3.3 workers....they are propping the whole thing up
Posted by: sven10077 at September 07, 2011 09:50 AM (AEIYh)
Posted by: Naqamel at September 07, 2011 09:51 AM (UMwMT)
Posted by: tasker at September 07, 2011 09:51 AM (y8ni2)
If I pulled up the right graph, it show that 2.9 people contributed to SS for every 1 SS beneficiary in 2010.
Posted by: Kratos (Ghost of Sparta) at September 07, 2011 09:52 AM (9hSKh)
--You're a year early in your prediction.
Posted by: logprof at September 07, 2011 09:52 AM (lh7Yc)
Posted by: DanInMN at September 07, 2011 09:52 AM (XqeyF)
Whoa. The face he's making in the NYT fake cover... never seen that one before.
Posted by: Oily Taitz at September 07, 2011 09:53 AM (TUax9)
awesome even worse than i feared....
my adata was from arguments I had in mid '09....
yeah boomers retire quicker
Posted by: sven10077 at September 07, 2011 09:53 AM (AEIYh)
somewhere between 3.3 and 3.12.....
those 3.3 workers....they are propping the whole thing up
Posted by: sven10077
And our shoulders are beginning to weaken and shake.
Posted by: mpfs, TPT & Barbarian at September 07, 2011 09:53 AM (iYbLN)
Hold yer horses, sonny.
This assumes, that seniors, as a bloc, are as empty headed and as heartless for future generations, as Democrats.
Not the case.. The "polls" are no more accurate for seniors, than they are for any other demographic.
We weep for the future, just like you do.. P'haps, more so.
Posted by: franksalterego at September 07, 2011 09:54 AM (7/sDI)
Wow. You really haven't been paying attention, have you?
The SS tax is paid on a percentage of your income. That money goes to pay for the benefits of current recipients. If there's any extra money left over after benefits are paid, the money gets goes into the general fund and gets spent.
The SS "trust fund" (in quotes because it's a myth) does receive an IOU in the form of a non-transferable government bond in exchange, but it can only be redeemed by the goverment, by the treasury. The bonds can't be sold for cash like traditional bonds.
That benefits correlate to how much tax you've paid into the system doesn't make it any less a tax or welfare.
Posted by: Hollowpoint at September 07, 2011 09:54 AM (Jl4kG)
I've been fiscally conservative my entire life and ran a business for decades. Social Security gets a bad rap from some conservatives but the program pays out .99 for every 1.00 it collects. I'd be kidding myself if I thought private enterprise could beat that number. I can't even buy a commodity item like state minimum car insurance without paying 2% commission.
In running a business I knew all about Joe and Janes SixPack's finances. I saw what he earned and what his take-home check was. There is no way in the world he is ever going to get married, have kids, pay a mortgage or rent, and be able to set aside any money on his own for his own retirement. Not with the current tax load from local, state, and Federal governments. Fact of life, end of story.
So he has to kick into the system, his boss has to kick into the system, and forty five years down the road he gets to live on an average amount which is equivalent to what he would receive working a full time job at McDonald's. Big deal.
I see a lot of anger toward the system by younger people -- with the scare story of 'you'll never collect a dime', mainly told by those who want to see the system end so that they can sell their own newfangled system. I want to see the fine print on that new, improved version before I lend an ounce of support to it.
Posted by: Downscaled Upscale at September 07, 2011 01:36 PM (IhHdM)
the Constitution created a government that was neither a charity for the poor or a savings & loan for the rich, as long as it stayed that way we were a Great country, the envy of the world.
what are we now?
children?
domesticated animals?
mentally ill?
which one should the government address your check to?
how much of other people's money is it acceptable for the government to steal?
fuck you and everyone who thinks like you, i don't want your posionous handouts, your disgusting welfare-for-old-people.
how much control over your life does the government have when they provide you with everything you need to live?
your answer is obviously "100%, and i like it that way"
Posted by: shoey at September 07, 2011 09:54 AM (jdOk/)
Posted by: Bannor at September 07, 2011 09:54 AM (6AXh/)
Don't forget to factor in Obamacare - that scares the bejebus out of them.
Posted by: mpurinTexas, Evil Conservanatrix, supports Rick Perry, bitch at September 07, 2011 09:54 AM (HBBaQ)
Posted by: tasker at September 07, 2011 09:55 AM (y8ni2)
social security is also by supreme court edict within 7 years of its birth not an individual account and not accountable for paying you a dime in benefit.
all of this is known, open, and acknowledged by all sane politicians on either side of the aisle.....
it is a tax, it was always a tax, and it will stay a tax even when they stop granting cola adjusted benefits.....
Posted by: sven10077 at September 07, 2011 09:56 AM (AEIYh)
Posted by: robtr Sharpton Interpreter at September 07, 2011 09:56 AM (MtwBb)
If I pulled up the right graph, it show that 2.9 people contributed to SS for every 1 SS beneficiary in 2010. Posted by: Kratos (Ghost of Sparta)
Oh Dear Lord, it's worse than I thought.
It's time to stop dancing around the third rail of politics. We either do something now or there will be no United States as we know it today.
Posted by: mpfs, TPT & Barbarian at September 07, 2011 09:57 AM (iYbLN)
Posted by: Blue Hen at September 07, 2011 09:57 AM (6rX0K)
paid into the gawd damn SS and I want my money back.
Tell him to ask for an accounting of what he paid in and what he has received since he retired.
Is he willing to stop accepting checks once he has received the amount he paid in?
Posted by: mpurinTexas, Evil Conservanatrix, supports Rick Perry, bitch at September 07, 2011 09:58 AM (HBBaQ)
Posted by: tasker at September 07, 2011 09:58 AM (y8ni2)
One may lawyer one's way around the irrefutable rightness of Rubio's and Perry's claims right up to the moment that one can no longer do so. Sooner or later, entitlements will be "reformed" by being ended. The math does not permit any other endgame (neither does a properly understood morality, but I done give up arguing that).
Posted by: Ken at September 07, 2011 09:58 AM (7yb9x)
Posted by: giftogab at September 07, 2011 09:59 AM (SPVfc)
Posted by: Miss80sBaby at September 07, 2011 09:59 AM (o2lIv)
Social Security is a total loss no matter what happens. For those of us who have been paying into it for the last 20+ years to have it go away means that money would have been better spent on beer and hookers. That being said I'm already planning on not getting squat out of SS.
I'd stress the FACT that government has a piss poor record for managing money and for abusing the money that they do manage.
If I have to bet between me finding a solution that is my best interest or the government doing the same then my money is on me ever single time.
On my worst day I'm not nearly as dumb or incompetent as the brightest government schmuck.
Posted by: AdamM at September 07, 2011 09:59 AM (/83rF)
Tomorrow's speech might be definitive undoing of Obama's presidency.
That's why the Democrats are upset about no GOP response. The speech will stand on its own without distraction or deflection.
Posted by: Soothsayer at September 07, 2011 09:59 AM (sqkOB)
Posted by: tasker at September 07, 2011 10:00 AM (y8ni2)
I say we cash it out and shut it down.
Everyone who has paid into it thus far gets a check for the amount they have paid in.
Anyone who has collected more than they paid in, you won't have to pay it back, but the checks stop coming right now.
Posted by: mpurinTexas, Evil Conservanatrix, supports Rick Perry, bitch at September 07, 2011 10:00 AM (HBBaQ)
276, I know. That's a different problem.
The fact we have generations of education contrary to my stated principle is likely an insurmountable mountain.
Posted by: Scott J at September 07, 2011 10:01 AM (/bVuS)
And where did the government promise interest when they decided to rob you of your pay?
Sorry, sucker. Too bad you weren't allowed to take your own money and put it into a plan that did yield interest. Darn!
Posted by: mpurinTexas, Evil Conservanatrix, supports Rick Perry, bitch at September 07, 2011 10:02 AM (HBBaQ)
Posted by: Hedgehog at September 07, 2011 10:02 AM (n4Wi3)
That's hilarious. When has the government done anything that has accrued interest? Made a profit? What a fucking joke. If that's the case why is the fund flat, broke busted?
Posted by: mpfs, TPT & Barbarian at September 07, 2011 10:03 AM (iYbLN)
the thing is we may be able to find a cutoff point to salvage benefits for current recipients while weaning people below a cutoff age slowly off....
all of this could have been avoided had 9/11 not happened and bush blown his miniscule political capital on his cornerstone issue rather than the war
Posted by: sven10077 at September 07, 2011 10:03 AM (AEIYh)
Posted by: tasker at September 07, 2011 10:03 AM (y8ni2)
Posted by: Hollowpoint at September 07, 2011 01:54 PM (Jl4kG)
Your reponse serves no useful purpose. The more the Republican nominee talks about SS the better the chance is that Obama will win in 2012. SS is sound, for now. Lot of other things in the federal budget are not sound now. Those have to be the issue.
Posted by: BOB NW at September 07, 2011 10:04 AM (SBFeP)
Posted by: Mr. Truth at September 07, 2011 10:04 AM (ZDUD4)
That's because he IS a troll you fool!!!!
Posted by: mpfs, TPT & Barbarian at September 07, 2011 10:04 AM (iYbLN)
Posted by: tasker at September 07, 2011 10:05 AM (y8ni2)
Posted by: Hedgehog at September 07, 2011 02:02 PM (n4Wi3)
Having a pic with him would be as embarrassing as the proverbial naked baby on a bear rug being shown to your 16 year old friends.
Posted by: Burt Reynolds on his own rug at September 07, 2011 10:05 AM (SPVfc)
Those southern conservatives who used to be democrats will probably switch back, once the MSM and the left have the opportunity to explain just how fucking stupid everyone south of Toledo is and why they are voting against their own self-interest.
At least thatÂ’s what I gather from the polls, and the polls are the central light of the universe, illuminating all knowledge and never in error.
Posted by: jwest at September 07, 2011 10:05 AM (qeYI9)
people like to pretend that the civil service that gives them the IRS and License Bureau somehow hides these hypercompetent investors and actuarial people in JUST Social Security and medicaid....
the most surreal thing is the long con the donks have pulled that they the ones who designed the con and ran it unimpeded at all for over 50 years straight as congress are blameless in its dying
Posted by: sven10077 at September 07, 2011 10:06 AM (AEIYh)
Posted by: SFGoth at September 07, 2011 10:06 AM (dZ756)
Posted by: tasker at September 07, 2011 10:06 AM (y8ni2)
Democrats don't speak for Senior Citizens.
Whenever they cry "Republicans hate seniors," the words are coming out of the filthy mouths of Democrats... Not Seniors..
Posted by: franksalterego at September 07, 2011 10:07 AM (7/sDI)
ABC News/WaPo Poll: Republicans View Perry as Most Electable, Romney Second
Is Ace falling into the '11/'12 meme trap of the MSM? Over the last 2 or 3 days, I've heard Perry is "unelectable" from the punditry to various blogs. Out of nowhere it comes and the ball starts a'rollin'. I guess 'fire in the belly' was maxed out by Teh Fred.
Posted by: Lady in Black at September 07, 2011 10:07 AM (ycuSb)
Posted by: mpurinTexas, Evil Conservanatrix, supports Rick Perry, bitch at September 07, 2011 10:08 AM (HBBaQ)
Posted by: tasker at September 07, 2011 10:08 AM (y8ni2)
yeah a lot of boomers are playing that game now.....
"well i would have done x"....
no no you wouldn't have....you would have blown it you guys got so wrapped up in "rage against the machine" you ignored the little man behind the curtain buying you with your own money the whole time.....
I figured out social security was doomed back in '85 when the last "fix" was made.....
I was 13.....what is the boomers' excuse?
Posted by: sven10077 at September 07, 2011 10:08 AM (AEIYh)
paid into the gawd damn SS and I want my money back.
I've lost track of how many times I've seen that argument even on conservative blogs, including here.
My response is always the same- you also paid taxes that fund programs like ag subsidies, food stamps, NEA grants, etc. Do you expect your money back for all the other programs you paid into but didn't receive money from?
SS is no different, that it has it's own dedicated tax doesn't mean it is.
Posted by: Hollowpoint at September 07, 2011 10:08 AM (Jl4kG)
Posted by: Rex the Wonder God at September 07, 2011 10:09 AM (vahvH)
You know you still got some spittle on your chin, boy. And Ace has requested a cool down on the f*ck word, btw.
Posted by: Downscaled Upscale at September 07, 2011 01:59 PM (IhHdM)
useful idiot
Posted by: shoey at September 07, 2011 10:10 AM (jdOk/)
indeed....and that was not a bug but a feature of the program....
that a person falls for the sweet whispers bawney fwank types huskily give as they enter your anal cavity through the tax doesn't mean that is the law....
it means that is the pillow talk
Posted by: sven10077 at September 07, 2011 10:10 AM (AEIYh)
Posted by: Mr. Truth at September 07, 2011 10:11 AM (ZDUD4)
Whoops.
Posted by: Kensington at September 07, 2011 10:13 AM (znT2j)
You had me up to there...
Posted by: Breaker19 at September 07, 2011 10:14 AM (WCm02)
Posted by: Kensington at September 07, 2011 01:38 PM (znT2j)
Prior to that the only value Rove had for me was how fucking batshit insane he made the left. Other than that he was a worthless Repuke turd who gave GWB witless advice, made elections against borderline retarded and unlikeable candidates nail-biters and was the architect of 2006 & 2008. After what he did to COD I just want him destroyed and gone. I can't stand the sight or sound of the fat fuck.
Regarding whether or not Perry is electable; of course he is. How could somebody who was elected as a governor of a large state not be?
Posted by: Captain Hate at September 07, 2011 10:14 AM (RKzwg)
Posted by: Honey Badger at September 07, 2011 10:15 AM (GvYeG)
Posted by: ace at September 07, 2011 10:15 AM (nj1bB)
Posted by: Mr. Truth at September 07, 2011 10:16 AM (ZDUD4)
If the independents are so stupid as to still go with Obama because Perry is 1. From Texas, 2. Has a clue about SS then let them vote Obama. It's all over anyway.
Posted by: dagny at September 07, 2011 10:16 AM (U3zoT)
Posted by: tasker at September 07, 2011 10:17 AM (y8ni2)
That's the way I think of it. I think of you as Dr Drew.
Posted by: cherry pi, terrorist hostage taking SOB at September 07, 2011 10:17 AM (OhYCU)
Posted by: Scott J at September 07, 2011 10:17 AM (/bVuS)
I respect your integrity on asking.....
I disagree, but that is what we do here offer opinion disagree and if you respect the person who disagrees analyze intitial position and perhaps modify.
That is the "healthy" part of this blog.....
I am wondering if you have any thoughts on my assertion that if the newsies are powerful enough to shield SCoaMF from all ahrm and nuke every candidate we can offer the republic is doomed but I know you get busy.
Posted by: sven10077 at September 07, 2011 10:18 AM (AEIYh)
all of it has to go - S.S., SSDI, Medicaid/Medicare, all of it!
our government has no business providing that which each individual should/must provide for themselves.
when the government provides for you, you are instantly reduced to the level of a child or pet, or some other unfortunate creature unable to take care of itself, you are totally dependent on others for what you need to live, you are totally at their mercy.
what self-respecting adult can live that way?
it's a violation of Natural Law, it's unnatural, it's harmful, and it's immoral.
no one wants to think of themselves this way, but if you live off a government check, this IS you.
Posted by: shoey at September 07, 2011 10:18 AM (jdOk/)
Posted by: cherry pi, terrorist hostage taking SOB at September 07, 2011 10:18 AM (OhYCU)
likely.....
I may volunteer for the Red cross at the ER wherever I go....it will be interesting to see the boomers there who got mangled acting like teenagers in their 70s
Posted by: sven10077 at September 07, 2011 10:19 AM (AEIYh)
Posted by: cherry pi, terrorist hostage taking SOB at September 07, 2011 10:19 AM (OhYCU)
Know what really serves no useful purpose? Pretending that all is well with entitlement spending despite all evidence to the contrary. Yes, it's a politically sensitive topic that has to be managed carefully, but ignoring the problem will make it much, much worse.
In what sense is SS "sound"? Are you defining it as "sound" right up until the point that it (and Medicare) bankrupt the country? SS is already paying out more than the SS tax revenue it takes in.
Yes, other spending does have to be addressed. However, we could cut non-defense discretionary spending to zero- no EPA, FBI, NEA, DHS, Transportation, etc. and still be on a course of unsustainable debt. Currently entitlement spending is around 57% of all federal spending, and the costs are set to go up dramatically.
Posted by: Hollowpoint at September 07, 2011 10:20 AM (Jl4kG)
Posted by: Breaker19, Outpost Leader of the Badger Brigades at September 07, 2011 10:20 AM (WCm02)
I say we cash it out and shut it down.
Everyone who has paid into it thus far gets a check for the amount they have paid in.
Anyone who has collected more than they paid in, you won't have to pay it back, but the checks stop coming right now.
I'm willing to settle for what I've paid in minus what I've collected.
No interest, just the numbers.
Posted by: jwb7605 at September 07, 2011 10:20 AM (+KHIt)
Don't have time to read 200+ comments to see if someone smacked you for this, Ace.
I actually don't like this argument for several reasons, first among them, it's politically harmful. I don't like Rubio's or Perry's claim that it weakens us; I would focus on the fact that bankruptcy weakens us, and we need to change these programs to make them actually work, and continue into the future.
Sorry, but this is CRITICAL to conservative thought. The thought that someone is somehow entitled by force of law (and deadly force at that) to a very portion of the life of another (for what is your income other than what you're compensated for trading off a portion of your limited time in this life) flys in the face of the concept of individual liberty.
Posted by: Scott J at September 07, 2011 01:47 PM (/bVuS)
--So you think that you don't have to pay your taxes or your mortgage because they're taking your life away?Posted by: Jim at September 07, 2011 10:21 AM (YwDKF)
indeed....and that was not a bug but a feature of the program....
Yep- creating the myth that it's just like a private retirement program in which you pay in, your money is invested, and the proceeds drawn upon at retirement was very intentional, and admittedly very well perpetrated.
Posted by: Hollowpoint at September 07, 2011 10:24 AM (Jl4kG)
Is this SFW?
Posted by: Blue Hen at September 07, 2011 01:53 PM (6rX0K)
Totally. No muffy links here.
Posted by: The Mega Independent at September 07, 2011 10:27 AM (HsSRM)
Posted by: Christopher Taylor at September 07, 2011 10:27 AM (r4wIV)
Posted by: scr_north at September 07, 2011 10:28 AM (3F484)
You miss one big piece in your analysis and that is both Reagan and Bush had serious bases to run on. California and Texas respectfully. With Perry and Romney you have Texas and some make believe land where Romney has vast numbers of built in electoral votes. Pray tell where is this Big Rock Candy Mountain that Romney hails from?
Posted by: Sub-Tard at September 07, 2011 01:38 PM (0M3AQ)
Romney is The Guy Whose Turn It Is. That guy always gets a lot of votes and usually wins the GOP nomination. But not always. John McCain thought it was his turn in 2000, but Bush won it. Perry is doing the same sort of stuff now that Bush did in 2000. He won't run Romney off until the very end, but I think he will win it.
Romney will appeal to a lot of suburban voters who are nominally Republican but not hardcore conservatives. He will appeal to a lot of businesspeople. "The base" will never vote for him but it's called "the base" because it isn't the entire voting population of the Party. Many Republicans who really think Perry is wither too much like Bush or too conservative will vote for Romney.
Republican nominations are never decided based on the geographic bases of the candidates. George H.W. Bush was hardly perceived as a Texan in 1980, and he didn't even win the Texas primary, Reagan did.
Posted by: rockmom at September 07, 2011 10:29 AM (lSyyU)
It's time to stop dancing around the third rail of politics. We either do something now or there will be no United States as we know it today.
Posted by: mpfs, TPT & Barbarian at September 07, 2011 01:57 PM (iYbLN)
--The Social Security law automatically reduces benefits so that they're equal to the funds coming in when the trust fund runs out of money. Unless that law is changed, there's no way that Social Security can "bankrupt" the US.
Posted by: Jim at September 07, 2011 10:30 AM (YwDKF)
That's why the Democrats are upset about no GOP response. The speech will stand on its own without distraction or deflection.
Posted by: Soothsayer
Exactly.
There's no good reason, Republicans should validate the SCoaMF.
Posted by: franksalterego at September 07, 2011 10:30 AM (7/sDI)
By me that is.
He's a phoney. A bad mix of McCain & Romney with a bit of a weird swaggering cowboy act thrown in to remind everyone of W.
It's kind of funny that so many people right now seem to love perry while they hate Ron Paul - it seems to me that Perry has been emulating RP talking points as of late with all this anti-Fed / anti-entitlement talk.
Oh yeah, I forgot. If someone says something that could remotely be construed as positive toward RP that person can only be one thing:
A Paultard.
Posted by: Oh, Hi Mark at September 07, 2011 10:30 AM (IWf5/)
I think you give him too much credit there. He's more of a self-selected infomercial shill, along with Dick "Read more at www.dickmorris.com" Morris.
Posted by: Piñon Farmer at September 07, 2011 10:31 AM (IzuWw)
--So you think that you don't have to pay your taxes or your mortgage because they're taking your life away?
You've combined two different things into one concept so let's break them apart.
For the mortgage. Yes, paying it represents a part of my very life but I get to choose. I can choose not to but then I have no house. That's freedom of choice and therefore liberty.
If I refuse to pay my taxes then the government sends men with guns to put me in jail who will shoot me if I refuse to go. Completely different concept. Taxes are a necessary evil to pay for government services.
The services our government is authorized to provide are defined very narrowly in The Constitution. The founders did this specifically to keep the liberty-robbing costs low.
We've had over 100 years now of pretzel logic to expand what is authorized to the point others who are capable of paying their own way and have never paid a dime into the system have a RIGHT to the very life of others in the form of those funds. It is out of control and must be reined in.
Posted by: Scott J at September 07, 2011 10:32 AM (/bVuS)
Posted by: ace at September 07, 2011 10:33 AM (nj1bB)
*ahem*
hey moron you do grasp that Grammy not getting a check or only getting a 1/3d of her check is bad and is still a betrayal of the fucking lies your kind started in 1935-37 right?
I mean I know you know this and I think you think the result of betraying your stewardship over this pot of money will be "bag gawd raise taxes and give me more socialism!"
and maybe you'll be right but more likely since to cover the hole you'll need about 1/4th GDP I am betting the whole Constitutional republic will collapse and we'll have baby bells instead you retard.
Posted by: sven10077 at September 07, 2011 10:33 AM (AEIYh)
Posted by: Scott J at September 07, 2011 10:34 AM (/bVuS)
Posted by: toby928™ at September 07, 2011 10:35 AM (GTbGH)
I was not tossing off your post it was a good one, and I agree you are not aiding and abeting M$M wishcasting.....
I guess your post made me ponder that if the M$M gets to pick our candidate twice in a row and we lose both times "why do we have a party anymore?"
Posted by: sven10077 at September 07, 2011 10:35 AM (AEIYh)
that is the horrible ugly ugly truth.....
of course cashing it out would involve printing only slightly more funny money than barack has spent thus far, and unlike his solar panels and payoffs to unions this money would go right back into the revenue stream in a wide arc so......
the inflation would be quick and killer though
Posted by: sven10077 at September 07, 2011 10:36 AM (AEIYh)
--So you think that you don't have to pay your taxes or your mortgage because they're taking your life away?
----------
You've combined two different things into one concept so let's break them apart.
For the mortgage. Yes, paying it represents a part of my very life but I get to choose. I can choose not to but then I have no house. That's freedom of choice and therefore liberty.
If I refuse to pay my taxes then the government sends men with guns to put me in jail who will shoot me if I refuse to go. Completely different concept. Taxes are a necessary evil to pay for government services.
The services our government is authorized to provide are defined very narrowly in The Constitution. The founders did this specifically to keep the liberty-robbing costs low.
We've had over 100 years now of pretzel logic to expand what is authorized to the point others who are capable of paying their own way and have never paid a dime into the system have a RIGHT to the very life of others in the form of those funds. It is out of control and must be reined in.
Posted by: Scott J at September 07, 2011 02:32 PM (/bVuS)
Simply succinct. Great post.
Posted by: Breaker19 at September 07, 2011 10:37 AM (WCm02)
Posted by: ace at September 07, 2011 10:39 AM (nj1bB)
Posted by: ace at September 07, 2011 10:40 AM (nj1bB)
Oh you being to hard on your commentors Ace, expecting them to read the article and everything.
Posted by: MikeTheMoose Camellia Sinensis Operative at September 07, 2011 10:41 AM (0q2P7)
it's all good....I don't tweet so i have no idea jjst how fun Palinfest got last night but if the thread was any indicator I am sure people were bullbaiting you and calling you out.....
the main thing is that unlike last cycle where people thought it would be good for the nation to not back Mccain to the 9s which you'll recall I held my nose and did despite my vocal opposition to him starting back in '04 when it became "his turn" I hope everyone understands and embraces that once the die is cast we MUST close ranks and push the candidate to victory.
I think any reasonable person can look at the excess of F&F and gunwalker the actions of Holder and understand the guy needs stopped.
Posted by: sven10077 at September 07, 2011 10:43 AM (AEIYh)
in most places the battlecry is "you promised there wouldn't be math on this quiz!"
here it is "what you expect me to read words?"
God bless us
Posted by: sven10077 at September 07, 2011 10:44 AM (AEIYh)
Oh you being to hard on your commentors Ace, expecting them to read the article and everything.
Really. Even Brietbart doesn't read the articles.
Posted by: Scott J at September 07, 2011 10:46 AM (/bVuS)
that phenomena is why the mushy middle broke for bambi in '08 to some degree though....
people either read and analyze or they don't.....
a lot of people took the media's word for it in '08....I am hoping it was because of Bush fatigue and fear at the implosion
Posted by: sven10077 at September 07, 2011 10:46 AM (AEIYh)
*ahem*
hey moron you do grasp that Grammy not getting a check or only getting a 1/3d of her check is bad and is still a betrayal of the fucking lies your kind started in 1935-37 right?
I mean I know you know this and I think you think the result of betraying your stewardship over this pot of money will be "bag gawd raise taxes and give me more socialism!"
and maybe you'll be right but more likely since to cover the hole you'll need about 1/4th GDP I am betting the whole Constitutional republic will collapse and we'll have baby bells instead you retard.
Posted by: sven10077 at September 07, 2011 02:33 PM (AEIYh)
Uum, moron, the cuts will be roughly 25%, not 66%. Go back and look at the figures.
And remember that Reagan signed a law that increased the SS rate and the amount of income subject to SS and that required the self-employed to pay both the employee and employer portions. (It was one of those increases I mentioned last night).
Posted by: Jim at September 07, 2011 10:46 AM (YwDKF)
You've combined two different things into one concept so let's break them apart.
For the mortgage. Yes, paying it represents a part of my very life but I get to choose. I can choose not to but then I have no house. That's freedom of choice and therefore liberty.
If I refuse to pay my taxes then the government sends men with guns to put me in jail who will shoot me if I refuse to go. Completely different concept. Taxes are a necessary evil to pay for government services.
The services our government is authorized to provide are defined very narrowly in The Constitution. The founders did this specifically to keep the liberty-robbing costs low.
We've had over 100 years now of pretzel logic to expand what is authorized to the point others who are capable of paying their own way and have never paid a dime into the system have a RIGHT to the very life of others in the form of those funds. It is out of control and must be reined in.
Posted by: Scott J at September 07, 2011 02:32 PM (/bVuS)
--You can always leave the US (and renounce your citizenship). Then you won't have to pay US taxes.
Posted by: Jim at September 07, 2011 10:47 AM (YwDKF)
Posted by: FRONT TOWARD LEFT at September 07, 2011 10:50 AM (cbyrC)
You can always leave the US (and renounce your citizenship). Then you won't have to pay US taxes.
Nice strawman, leftist.
Not another place on Earth offering as much libtery. Even as damaged as ours is.
Posted by: Scott J at September 07, 2011 10:51 AM (/bVuS)
care to tell me what the number of workers to recipeint was back then Jimbo?
I'll give you a hint it was over 6....
to maintain current benefit the taxes would have to go up 1/3 to 1/2....
I knew at 13 the system was going to implode and i even knew why thanks to growing up poor rapid and rampant abuse of the social security disability program....
and you donks never let me down....
you jackasses will claim through magic you can give Granny her whole check if only you get back some of that sweet, sweet power so the pressure will be exerted to try to keep paying her or you guys really will try to raise the tax rate to about 70% or more.....
we've seen this show before in the other places you collectivists ran these scams.....
Posted by: sven10077 at September 07, 2011 10:53 AM (AEIYh)
*ahem* to quote someone a little more notable than your narrow mind. Emphasis added to rebut your worthless point.
"Not too long ago, two friends of mine were talking to a Cuban refugee, a businessman who had escaped from Castro, and in the midst of his story one of my friends turned to the other and said, "We don't know how lucky we are." And the Cuban stopped and said, "How lucky you are? I had someplace to escape to." And in that sentence he told us the entire story. If we lose freedom here, there's no place to escape to. This is the last stand on earth.
And this idea that government is beholden to the people, that it has no other source of power except the sovereign people, is still the newest and the most unique idea in all the long history of man's relation to man.
This is the issue of this election: Whether we believe in our capacity for self-government or whether we abandon the American revolution and confess that a little intellectual elite in a far-distant capitol can plan our lives for us better than we can plan them ourselves."
Posted by: MikeTheMoose Camellia Sinensis Operative at September 07, 2011 10:53 AM (0q2P7)
eh sorta....
Hong Kong offered more economic freedom until jimmy's buds the red chinese took over.....
canada is rapidly passing us by on a per capita economic freedom scale....
if enough of us yanks migrated North we could pass a bill of rights I'd wager.
Posted by: sven10077 at September 07, 2011 10:54 AM (AEIYh)
You can always leave the US (and renounce your citizenship). Then you won't have to pay US taxes.
Nice strawman, leftist.
Not another place on Earth offering as much libtery. Even as damaged as ours is.
Posted by: Scott J at September 07, 2011 02:51 PM (/bVuS)
Actually, not true. There's about ten countries ahead of the US in economic freedom and about fifteen ahead of the US in terms of democracy.
Posted by: Jim at September 07, 2011 10:55 AM (YwDKF)
Posted by: Jim at September 07, 2011 02:47 PM (YwDKF)
You can too. Then you won't have anything to bitch about
Renounce yourself.
Posted by: Breaker19 at September 07, 2011 10:56 AM (WCm02)
Posted by: polynikes Texan for Romney at September 07, 2011 10:56 AM (3WzDD)
Posted by: Molon Labe at September 07, 2011 10:56 AM (e36+G)
I'll give you a hint it was over 6....
to maintain current benefit the taxes would have to go up 1/3 to 1/2....
I knew at 13 the system was going to implode and i even knew why thanks to growing up poor rapid and rampant abuse of the social security disability program....
and you donks never let me down....
you jackasses will claim through magic you can give Granny her whole check if only you get back some of that sweet, sweet power so the pressure will be exerted to try to keep paying her or you guys really will try to raise the tax rate to about 70% or more.....
we've seen this show before in the other places you collectivists ran these scams.....
Posted by: sven10077 at September 07, 2011 02:53 PM (AEIYh)
How about you also tell us the average wage, maximum wage base for SS, average SS check, average life span and the cost of living back then?
Posted by: Jim at September 07, 2011 10:57 AM (YwDKF)
"Is Perry Unelectable?"
Has a multi-term governor of a highly-populated state ever been "unelectable" in a national general election?
Isn't this an absurd question?
Obviously Perry is not unelectable. The more salient question is whether an incumbent president who's presiding over high unemployment and stagnant incomes is unelectable.
Posted by: Tsar Nicholas II at September 07, 2011 10:58 AM (f8XyF)
Posted by: polynikes Texan for Romney at September 07, 2011 11:05 AM (3WzDD)
Oh yeah, I forgot. If someone says something that could remotely be construed as positive toward RP that person can only be one thing:
A Paultard.
Posted by: Oh, Hi Mark at September 07, 2011 02:30 PM (IWf5/)"
This is really hilarious.
Yes, there is some resemblance between Perry and Paul's more mild domestic points. So what? You think that means Perry copied Paul? I think that's ridiculous.
But even if it were true, so what? Right is right.
Paul is wrong on most issues. Racism, foreign policy, taking responsibility for his freaking little newsletter, gold standard, etc.
Paul also is actually unelectable, so who cares? Most of us do not wish to discuss Paul or Nader or Larouche other non-factor candidates beyond mockery.
Ron Paul's supporters are simply clueless. Perry's governed as a conservative for a decade. He's not merely paying lip service to the idea. It's got nothing to do with your girlfriend Ron Paul.
Posted by: Dustin at September 07, 2011 11:07 AM (fF625)
Has a multi-term governor of a highly-populated state ever been "unelectable" in a national general election?
Isn't this an absurd question?
Obviously Perry is not unelectable. The more salient question is whether an incumbent president who's presiding over high unemployment and stagnant incomes is unelectable.
Posted by: Tsar Nicholas II at September 07, 2011 02:58 PM (f8XyF)
--Yes: George Wallace, John Connally, Jerry Brown, Dukakis, Reagan (in 1976), George Bush II (in 1992) and Lamar Alexander were all determined to be "unelectable" in the primaries/general election.
Posted by: Jim at September 07, 2011 11:12 AM (YwDKF)
That only makes your argument worse.
Posted by: toby928™ at September 07, 2011 11:12 AM (GTbGH)
you're so full of shit there is grass growing on your cheeks....
renounce your US citizenship and leave the nation to not pay taxes?!?
Don't worry IRS has an app for that and it involves you being on the hook for ten years, taxed for your last five years of worth....
Clinton tried to get this passed back in '96 but hey Pelosi got 'er done in '08....I wish Bush had used his veto pen just a bit more....
IRS link below
http://preview.tinyurl.com/wiuy
but do go on...it's not like I did taxes for long term KBR or Haliburton workers when they reentered the country or anything right Jimmy?
Posted by: sven10077 at September 07, 2011 11:20 AM (AEIYh)
Posted by: polynikes Texan for Romney at September 07, 2011 11:21 AM (3WzDD)
Oh yeah, I forgot. If someone says something that could remotely be construed as positive toward RP that person can only be one thing:
A Paultard.
Yeah, sorry about that whole "Paultard" thing.
I'll try to use less incendiary and insulting language in the future when addressing a Ron Paul supporter by sticking to the proper term: "Retard".
You're welcome, retard.
Posted by: Hollowpoint at September 07, 2011 11:21 AM (SY2Kh)
Posted by: Randall Hoven at September 07, 2011 12:57 PM (zL/XL)
Some of us have the capacity for doing so without breaking that much of a sweat.
Also, having everyone vote for their preferred candidate, without coalescing votes behind one, would ... inevitably lead to losing against more organized opposition.
Inevitably.
Posted by: Random at September 07, 2011 11:23 AM (YiE0S)
Sven, the "exit tax" only applies if any one of the following three tests applies:
Income Tax TestThe expatriate's average annual U.S. income tax liability over the 5 years prior to expatriation was over $145,000 (for renunciations as of 2010; the figure will be adjusted annually for subsequent years). Net Worth TestThe expatriate's net worth is at least $2 million. Compliance Test The expatriate does not certify that he met all U.S. tax obligations for the five years before expatriation.Posted by: Jim at September 07, 2011 11:31 AM (YwDKF)
indeed....
it gets even more bad for him if you look at lifespan after Ida Mae cashed her first check versus the beginning of benefit....
Ida Mae got a 46,000% rate of return you can't....
in the 30s average life expectancy in the U.S. was 57 years. Setting the age for retirement benefits at 65 years meant the majority of people would die before becoming eligible to collect. Today, the average life expectancy is 76 years. By the middle of this century, the average American will live to be 82.
A system that was financially feasible when only a minority survived to collect benefits is infeasible when a majority is expected to live a decade or more collecting benefits.
Because Social Security cannot continue as currently structured, we
must choose which type of change is most palatable. The approaches fit
into the following categories: (1) personal accounts, (2) means testing,
(3) increasing the retirement age, (4) increasing population growth, or
(5) raising taxes any other solution is baloneyim.
the donks got really bad about maxing SS Cola during the '60s and '70s as the boomers gathered steam....
some of my grandparent's generation got 300% total contribution back in a year.
anyway on the 1996 law going Expat, taxes, and YOU if I left as Jim says and renounced the IRS will go after me for US earned income for a decade....
and Jimbo the US is sorta unique in taxing you being a citizen not a resident....
Posted by: sven10077 at September 07, 2011 11:32 AM (AEIYh)
Posted by: steevy at September 07, 2011 11:33 AM (fyOgS)
Not true, you are forced to pay based on your worth not your income.
Do keep up....they will force you to liquidate real property like acreage if need be.....
you can't escape the IRS easily bud.
Posted by: sven10077 at September 07, 2011 11:34 AM (AEIYh)
http://preview.tinyurl.com/3nugaxp
WhatÂ’s more, anything given or left to any heirs by ex-U.S. citizens will immediately be taxed at U.S. gift rates, currently 45%.
The tax not only applies to U.S. citizens renouncing citizenship but also to long-term foreign residents (green card holders) who give up their residency.
This new tax was signed into law by President George W. Bush in June, 2008, but according to Bob Bauman, Legal Counsel to International Living and to The Sovereign Society, it went largely unnoticed because it was buried in a bill calling for tax benefits for U.S. soldiers and veterans.
“This law was passed under the misleading title ‘The Heroes Earnings Assistance and Relief Tax Act of 2008,’ said Bauman. “That sounds very patriotic, but it puts the U.S. in some bad company. Hitler’s Nazis, apartheid South Africa and the Communist Soviet Union each imposed an exit tax that robbed persecuted departing citizens (Jews, gypsies, political dissidents) with similar confiscatory taxes.”
Posted by: sven10077 at September 07, 2011 11:42 AM (AEIYh)
It's amazing to read several people here who think that Ace -- who has been carrying water for Perry for weeks -- suddenly thinks he could never be elected.
Nuance, people. More sweet nuance.
Posted by: Random at September 07, 2011 11:43 AM (YiE0S)
1) it is immoral that the US is keeping company with totalitarian regimes on exit taxes at all even were you correct and they only went after the 'evil rich"
2) the first two bars look easy to fall under but a lot of people would be amazed at just how easy it is to have the IRS say you are worth 2 million these days since they add in calculated benefit of annuities.....
3) they stick you with the last test hard and you'll be making a lawyer REALLY happy because the IRS will do everything in their power to show you did not file in good faith those 5 years....since "after all what reason would ANYONE renounce unless it was to avoid taxes".....?
I have seen them go after service members who decided to go home to Panama after a career.
It really is funny, the one time you guys would *almost* be right to call Bush out on being "Hitler" and you love what he did so much you can't....
Posted by: sven10077 at September 07, 2011 11:49 AM (AEIYh)
Not true, you are forced to pay based on your worth not your income.
Do keep up....they will force you to liquidate real property like acreage if need be.....
you can't escape the IRS easily bud.
Posted by: sven10077 at September 07, 2011 03:34 PM (AEIYh)
--You pay a tax on any built in gains at the time of leaving over $600,000.
Posted by: Jim at September 07, 2011 11:53 AM (YwDKF)
http://preview.tinyurl.com/3kjwabc
moneyshot for Jimbo....
In February 1995 the Democrats proposed creating an exit tax of 28% of appreciated gains on all assets as the price of leaving-in essence making the taxpatriate pay a capital gains tax on his holdings as if he had liquidated them on the way out of the country. But lobbyists for would-be tax refugees were able to block that proposed legislation by arguing that it violated their international human rights.
Next step: In August 1996 the Republicans pasted some anti-taxpatriate language into the Health Insurance Portability & Accountability Act. This law now subjects expatriates with a net worth of over $500,000 to taxation on their income earned in the U.S. for ten years from the time they renounce their citizenship, no matter where they live or whose flag they salute. But this is a law without teeth. Any clever entrepreneur can live by borrowing against assets rather than paying himself an income. Any good international tax lawyer can move ownership of U.S. assets into a foreign corporation or trust, thus making most taxpatriates' U.S.-sourced income vanish.
so as often happens go along to get along republicans do half the donks work for them so that when they get back power they can screw with the law hard....I don't think the 28% capital gain idea has breathed its last....
anyway long story short you try to leave to get out from underneath you $coaili$t'$ and your loving embrace the IRS will get awful interested in you in a way they just can't seem to get excited over Timmy TurboTax or Warren Buffet table et al.....
funny how the IRS sees so many libs escape their notice.
Posted by: sven10077 at September 07, 2011 11:58 AM (AEIYh)
again wrong your worth is calculated based on all your assets and potential capital gains as though you liquidated....
this includes IRAs, 401ks, long term mutual funds etc etc etc....
my dad is a truck driver worth more than that......
a lot of "the evil rich" well aren't all that rich Jim they just invested instead of snorting coke in their 20 somethings like your pal Bury....
Sec 877a spells it out plain as day.
Look closely at the W-8CE and understand that it is not about raw income they also purposely built in a tripwire of a ridiculously low worth.....
you are surrendering to a rectal exam by IRS....
so
1) it is my country too asshole
2) YOU are NOT entitled to treat my sweat as your piggybank
3) socialism always fails because it takes from those who will to those who won't
Posted by: sven10077 at September 07, 2011 12:05 PM (AEIYh)
a link to Cornell law on Sec 877A
and the article the text below is excerpted from....
http://preview.tinyurl.com/4yrfj63
The Artificial Tax Event
Expatriation after June 16, 2008 results in deemed sale of global assets the day before you lose your green card or citizenship. This can be a problem, to say the least, for many. You are allowed a $600,000 exemption, gains in excess of that amount fall into your final tax return. Just from an administrative standpoint, this can be a nightmare.
The task of determining the US dollar gain of
your global estate (this goes beyond real estate and marketable
investments to include personal property such as clothing, furniture,
jewellery).
In addition, you are also considered to have liquidated your
retirement schemes on that same day (the $600,000 exemption does not
work here). The IRS faces serious practical difficulties in enforcing
all of this.
The IRS recognizes that a deemed sale does not provide
liquidity for payment of tax – and graciously they allow for deferred
payment if you pay an interest charge and offer security.
However, crystallizing values based upon an artificial taxable
event is problematic and unfair.
As previously stated, the decision to leave
the US tax and legal system is, for most, based upon simplifying oneÂ’s
personal affairs. There has not been an economic decision to sell oneÂ’s
assets. To assess tax based upon a fictional sale when in an unsettled
world values and exchanges rates can change dramatically is not
equitable tax policy, especially when a tax haven is not implicated.
The exit tax is particularly damaging to retirement planning.
The goal with pensions is to maximize the tax deferral. The Exit Tax
creates a “deemed” a 100% lump sum distribution and then levies a tax.
This is particularly punitive and undermines one of the fundamental
objectives of international tax treaties (see Sec. 877A
defences, below).
Posted by: sven10077 at September 07, 2011 12:10 PM (AEIYh)
He's popular in Texas. I'm sure John Kerry and Michael Dukakis were beloved in Massachusetts and Minnesota. It's a silly argument.
The more pertinent question is what states, based on demographics, can a candidate like Perry win that a Romney can not? And it's not just about the top-of-the-ticket, lets talk down-stream effects: Will Perry play in moderate districts in Michigan, Pennsylvania or Wisconsin? History matching recent electoral results to current polling and demographics says no.
The sooner conservatives drop the tacit jealously they have been feeling ever since Obama emerged in 2004 when they saw his oration and passion and said: I need that, too. Chris Rock had a clever skit where he said, if you have a new girlfriend who is amazing and introduce her to your guy friends, they walk away saying, "Wow, what a great girl... I need to find one like that." If a woman introduces her new boyfriend to her girlfriends, they walk away saying, "Wow, what a great guy... I need that one!"
Conservatives have yet to let the psychological desire for an Obama analog go: they tried Sarah Palin, they tried Christine O'Donnell and Sharon Angel. Now they're on the Rick Perry train... It's time to stop wanting an analog for a solution that worked in 2008.
Stop fighting battles of the past: the only place it's worth fighting over the same battlegrounds of W's administration is in your head.
Posted by: TheInverseAgonist at September 07, 2011 12:18 PM (0lc8C)
"why is that"?
Posted by: sven10077 at September 07, 2011 12:18 PM (AEIYh)
I don't think we think Bambi is our dream boyfriend like you seem to think.
Pointing out the newsies hypocrisy is not wanting more of the same....
a class President for a large high school has more executive experience and leadership shown than bambi did in '04
Posted by: sven10077 at September 07, 2011 12:20 PM (AEIYh)
http://preview.tinyurl.com/ydmyboj
7. There's an exit tax for expatriations on or after June 17, 2008.
The Heroes Earnings Assistance and Relief Tax Act of 2008 (generally known as the Heroes Act) changed the method of taxation for those who became expatriates on or after June 17, 2008, adding even more complexity and usually higher U.S. taxes. If you are a U.S. citizen or long-term resident who expatriates on or after June 17, 2008, you will be deemed (for tax purposes) to have sold all of your worldwide property for its fair market value the day before you leave the U.S.! All that gain is subject to U.S. tax at the capital gains rate. Plus, all your gain is taken into account without regard to any ameliorative tax provisions in the Internal Revenue Code.
Put differently, you get
all of the bad parts of the tax code, and none of the good. That would
include, for example, the inability to benefit from the $250,000 per
person ($500,000 per couple) exclusion from gain on a principal
residence (Section 121 of the Internal Revenue Code) and many other
rules. The exit tax is like an estate tax, in the sense that everything
that would be part of your estate will be subject to income tax on
unrealized gains as of the day before you expatriate, as if you sold all
your assets the day before leaving. In effect this is Congress' way of
making sure your assets don't escape the estate tax entirely through
expatriation.
Clinton, Bush, and Barack have turned us into the Hotel California
Posted by: sven10077 at September 07, 2011 12:30 PM (AEIYh)
Posted by: Doom at September 07, 2011 12:35 PM (1awZ0)
If you are a U.S. citizen or long-term resident who expatriates on or after June 17, 2008, you will be deemed (for tax purposes) to have sold all of your worldwide property for its fair market value the day before you leave the U.S.! All that gain is subject to U.S. tax at the capital gains rate. Plus, all your gain is taken into account without regard to any ameliorative tax provisions in the Internal Revenue Code.
--Right; you pay a tax on your unrealized gains at that time. Want to know how to minimize/eliminate the tax on gains over $600K? Sell your house three weeks before (thereby getting the $250K/$500K advantage). Take a withdrawal from your IRAs/401(k)s three weeks before. Sell any significantly appreciated long-term investments at the current 15% long term capital gain rate three weeks before.
Posted by: Jim at September 07, 2011 12:40 PM (YwDKF)
Sven, your dad won't be subject to the tax:
From the IRS website:
Expatriation on or after June 16, 2008If you expatriated after June 16, 2008, the new IRC 877A expatriation rules apply to you if any of the following statements apply.
Your average annual net income tax for the 5 years ending before the date of expatriation or termination of residency is more than a specified amount that is adjusted for inflation ($139,000 for 2008; $145,000 for 2009 and 2010). Your net worth is $2 million or more on the date of your expatriation or termination of residency. You fail to certify on Form 8854 that you have complied with all U.S. federal tax obligations for the 5 years preceding the date of your expatriation or termination of residency.Posted by: Jim at September 07, 2011 12:48 PM (YwDKF)
Posted by: CoolCzech at September 07, 2011 12:48 PM (niZvt)
you liquidate those assets they will go after you on discovery while they investigate you bud....
they know when you liquidate tax deferred plans....
all your advice is doing is driving the poor refugee towards that 10,000 fine they love sending
Posted by: sven10077 at September 07, 2011 12:55 PM (AEIYh)
It is very dangerous to speak negatively of Social Security. This is not a new idea. It's been true since... well, since Social Security was proposed.
True. But then again, it is also dangerous to speak out against Anthroprogenic Global Warming. Just because something is dangerous doesn't mean it isn't the right thing.
Burying our heads and pretending that there's no problem with Social Security is akin to rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic, or perhaps fiddling while Bastrop burns.
Like many problems, delaying them only puts off the inevitable. Sure, it may make us feel better, and some of us will not survive to see the problems come to fruition.
The will come to be called "The Blessed". Thus, while I believe that the ship of state can turned away from the rapidly approaching iceberg I do not believe there is enough political courage in either the body politic nor in the political class to do so.
Thus, hookers and Val-U-Rite for me.
Posted by: I R A Darth Aggie © at September 07, 2011 12:56 PM (1hM1d)
Posted by: TheInverseAgonist at September 07, 2011 04:18 PM (0lc8C)
Well in terms of sillyness, you sure topped that one.
Let me know when a non-conservative Republican wins anything anywhere.
Posted by: Oldcat at September 07, 2011 12:58 PM (z1N6a)
your "net worth" bud.....
that is why the assize of doom happens.
I will reiterate....
. If you are a U.S. citizen or long-term resident who expatriates on or after June 17, 2008, you will be deemed (for tax purposes) to have sold all of your worldwide property for its fair market value the day before you leave the U.S.! All that gain is subject to U.S. tax at the capital gains rate. Plus, all your gain is taken into account without regard to any ameliorative tax provisions in the Internal Revenue Code.
that means the IRA, the house, your portfolio, any pension you have EVERYTHING Jim....that is the benchmark....
functionally you are paying a spare estate tax....
so you keep telling yourself that it is just to catch guys like Roman Polanski and rich folk and I'll keep reminding you that a person making between 45-65,000 can accrue 2 million networth by the estate tax benchmark before they are 50.....
you get NONE of the loopholes on that special day....your house is appraised at 325,000 by San Diego even though you bought it for 125,000 a decade ago?
*bam* 325,000 is what it is for tax purposes.....
I've sat in when an enrolled agent has been doing defense work for an exit audit....
Posted by: sven10077 at September 07, 2011 01:04 PM (AEIYh)
your "net worth" bud.....
that is why the assize of doom happens.
I will reiterate....
. If you are a U.S. citizen or long-term resident who expatriates on or after June 17, 2008, you will be deemed (for tax purposes) to have sold all of your worldwide property for its fair market value the day before you leave the U.S.! All that gain is subject to U.S. tax at the capital gains rate. Plus, all your gain is taken into account without regard to any ameliorative tax provisions in the Internal Revenue Code.
that means the IRA, the house, your portfolio, any pension you have EVERYTHING Jim....that is the benchmark....
functionally you are paying a spare estate tax....
They don't tax you on the gross amount; they tax you on the gain. In general, it will only be IRAs/401(k)/some stocks and investments/your house that will have a gain. If you have, for instance, $250,000 in a money market fund, none of that will be considered because you don't have any gain.
And the way to get around it is to sell your house/stocks and take distributions out of your IRAs/401(k)s several weeks before you go. Then, for instance, you can take full advantage of the $250k/$500k gain exclusion on your house.
Posted by: Jim at September 07, 2011 01:20 PM (YwDKF)
I'm over 60, and I don't like it, but Social Security in its present form is doomed. You can get the same, starting later, or less starting the same. You've got a filing cabinet full of promises from dead politicians and no money. Deal with it.
Posted by: MarkD at September 07, 2011 01:20 PM (iYBP2)
nope....
it is an estate tax on how it is calculated....
ie the IRS counts it as liquidated for tax purposes not treated as a capital gain for investment.....
you are incorrect....
that is why Forbes (a magazine that reported on the expats and lobbied for the changes) stated it was like a second estate tax in their reporting on the issue for the last 14 years.....
the estate being measured in both cases is the GROSS Estate not the simple estate....
The total dollar value of all property and assets in which an individual had an interest at the time of his or her death.
you're refusing to grasp that the law enables IRS to treat you for tax purposes as though you have died BUT they do not grant you the estate tax shielding of the 5 million per individual.
Further, any asset you leave in the US or give control of to your family or friends is subject to a 45% gift tax.
There is a reason so many expats renounced in 2010 prior to it taking effect champ the numbers went up threefold.
Simply put the US is in some ways a tax colony for the oligarchs here.
Posted by: sven10077 at September 07, 2011 01:35 PM (AEIYh)
In 1894 Donks in Congress passed the Wilson-Gormann Tariff, which imposed the first peacetime income tax. The rate was 2% on income over $4000 ($101,200 in 2010 dollars), which meant fewer than 10% of households would pay any. The purpose of the income tax was to make up for revenue that would be lost by tariff reductions. In other words hey were reducing taxes on all Americans with the promise that "only the richest Americans will be impacted by this tax."
This was struck down by the Supreme Court in '95 and was what led to the 16th amendment you guys love to abuse....
$4,000 ($88,100 in 2010 dollars) would be the exemption for married couples when the Revenue Act of 1913 was signed into law by President Woodrow Wilson, as a result of the ratification of the 16th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution in February 1913.
Jim they exempted the first 90,000 dollars of a married couples' income back in 1913.....
"what happened?"
Your guys' vote buying payola machine that's what.
Posted by: sven10077 at September 07, 2011 01:58 PM (AEIYh)
Posted by: Brett_McS at September 07, 2011 01:58 PM (iA6nz)
the donks will run pretty much the same campaign no matter who we run....
even Huntsman would morph into a hybrid of Reagan/Goldwater/LeMay
that's just how they roll
Posted by: sven10077 at September 07, 2011 02:03 PM (AEIYh)
Sven, it's calculated on the unrealized gain, even though the "discovery" is being done of the gross fair market value of the assets.
So, in your example, the gain on the house would be $200K ($325K-$125K) and, if you sold it three weeks before you leave, you could use the $250K/$500K exemption for gain on primary residences to eliminate any gain.
Click on my URL and IRC 877
Posted by: Jim at September 07, 2011 02:09 PM (YwDKF)
no it is not on unrealized gain it is on liquidated estate valuation jim just like the games they play on your investments....
the IRS treats you as though you died.
They use your gross estate for net worth Jimbo....
http://preview.tinyurl.com/3ohyjqh
they are not simply going after capital gains...you get nailed on capital gains for your last tax return...they determine worth to decide if you hop over the line and trigger 877a, of particular interest is :
Personal Effects - Including furniture and furnishings; clothing; jewelry; antiques; collectibles; art work; books; guns; computers; TVs and the like.
Life Insurance - If you own the policy on your own life, 100% of the proceeds are included; if you own the policy on someone else's life, only the cash value is included.
Retirement Accounts - This category includes Roth and Traditional IRAs; Simple and SEP IRAs; 401(k)s; 403(b)s and annuities; 100% of the value is included.
Automobiles, Boats, and Airplanes - If the vehicle is in your sole name or in your Revocable Living Trust, the entire value is included; if the vehicle is in joint names with your spouse, only 50% of the value is included; if the vehicle is in joint names with someone other than your spouse, 100% of the value is included unless it can be proven that the other account owners helped to purchase the vehicle.
You trigger the tax scrutiny and liability when you hop over the gross estate trigger not just a capital gain past it.....
the goal of the tax is to squeeze you sport....
Your "advice" on attempted defrauding of the IRS is both ironic and touching since I am the one discussing how to ethically leave a tax system I intrinsically hate and you are the one defrauding the tax system and rates you so very love.....
of course you're in good company....Timmy TurboTax warren buffet etc etc
Posted by: sven10077 at September 07, 2011 02:29 PM (AEIYh)
I would prefer, Ace, if you would put the summary line closer to the top. Still this was easy to spot.
Posted by: Blacksmith8✡ at September 07, 2011 02:57 PM (Q1qy3)
Sven, they may use the estate tax rules to determine fair market value, but the tax is on the gain. (And it's not defrauding to sell your assets three weeks before you leave--that's just good tax planning).
a) Treatment of Expatriates.--
(1) In general.--Every nonresident alien individual to
whom this section applies and who, within the 10-year period
immediately preceding the close of the taxable year, lost United
States citizenship shall be taxable for such taxable year in the
manner provided in subsection (b) if the tax imposed pursuant to
such subsection (after any reduction in such tax under the last
sentence of such subsection) exceeds the tax which, without
regard to this section, is imposed pursuant to section 871.
d) Special rules for source, etc.
For purposes of subsection (b) -
(1) Source rules
The following items of gross income shall be treated as income
from sources within the United States:
(A) Sale of property
Gains on the sale or exchange of property (other than stock
or debt obligations) located in the United States.
(B) Stock or debt obligations
Gains on the sale or exchange of stock issued by a domestic
corporation or debt obligations of United States persons or of
the United States, a State or political subdivision thereof, or
the District of Columbia.
,,,,
(2) Gain recognition on certain exchanges
(A) In general
In the case of any exchange of property to which this
paragraph applies, notwithstanding any other provision of this
title, such property shall be treated as sold for its fair
market value on the date of such exchange, and any gain shall
be recognized for the taxable year which includes such date.
Posted by: Jim at September 07, 2011 03:23 PM (YwDKF)
Posted by: Y-not at September 07, 2011 01:36 PM (5H6zj)
So nice to see that for all the bitching and moaning about bullshit anonymous sources being used in the media, and found to be oh-so-full-of-shit, that it's all damn believeable if it's about Palin.
For everything that's reported about Perry from anonymous sources, or those close to his campaign, we should all believe every word from now on, right?
You people have no idea the hypocrisy, do you?
Posted by: Steph at September 07, 2011 03:59 PM (C7YP+)
Posted by: Talent Is Overrated AudioBook at September 07, 2011 04:27 PM (HJAc6)
Posted by: sven10077 at September 07, 2011 04:45 PM (AEIYh)
The practice is the onus is on the expat to prove basis to determine gain.....
Yo are awae of the concept of basis yes?
Without a paper trail to establish basis an adversarial assessment defaults to the lowest possible price.
You have a paper trail for all your assets?
Your non stock invetments have a trail.....your car maybe.....the rest...."meh"
Again you are ignoring the nature and morality of this anal exam kep wiggling it is invasive and immoral the majority of the west taxes residence not breathing --I can prove my basis in my house and all of the stocks and bonds I own. You generally wouldn't have any basis in your 401(k) and IRAs (unless you made contributions with after-tax dollars or somehow got hit with taxes on excess contributions, which can happen). I wouldn't worry about basis in your cars--they're depreciating assets so their FMV will reduce substantially.
Posted by: Jim at September 07, 2011 07:42 PM (YwDKF)
Posted by: Jim at September 07, 2011 07:43 PM (YwDKF)
hi,friend
we are good at making air filters,oil filters,fuel filters for constrcuction mamchinery,heavy vehicle,agricultural machinery,truck,car,ship and engineering machine etc.
Posted by: christine at September 07, 2011 08:02 PM (k0JNn)
Posted by: Case at September 07, 2011 09:25 PM (DYR2Q)
it is defacto double taxation....
the US is alone in first tier nations engaging in this punitive behavior....
we used to be where people ran to to get away from scavenger taxation now we are a place to run from.
Posted by: sven10077 at September 08, 2011 02:24 AM (AEIYh)
Hide Comments | Add Comment | Refresh | Top
64 queries taking 0.3043 seconds, 555 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.
We'll know after the debate.
Posted by: soothie at September 07, 2011 08:56 AM (sqkOB)