1 end it now.......

2
Rick Perry's tar baby?

3 damn sock

4 The truth shall set you free.

5
hahaha @ "Social Security is most certainly not a Ponzi scheme..."

and then USA Today goes on to define Social Security.

6 As they say of alcoholics, you can't do something about your drinking problem until you first recognize the problem.

What problem?

7 I agree Ace it is a risk, but better he define this and stop letting Romney get cheap pops tossing fire on a strawman.....

Perry making his case on return versus consumption of wage potential is the right way for the GOP to go long term, he needs to stress that he will abate the damage to current recipients while slowly allowing the young to capialize their own personal benefit that is a FAR more efficient economic vehicle that the vacuum cleaner can hope to be.

8 Maybe it's not fraud because instead of duping me into paying in, they forced me to pay in. That's not really a point in their favor.

9 Imagine the media feeding frenzy if Perry had recanted? Perry clearly has calculated that a wimp can't beat another wimp in 2012.

10 The reason the dems and the RINOs hate the term 'Ponzi scheme' is indeed because it claims social security is a fraud.

But it IS a fraud.  They are taking money from me, that they pretend I get back.  They then spend all that money on post offices and pork and stimulus and bailouts.  The idea I will get that money back is BS.

With demographics what they are, it's ridiculous to say I will get what I paid in.  We need massive reforms to change Social Security away from a Ponzi Scheme pyramid plan.  You need a population growing rapidly forever for it to work right.

Every politician who has ever pretended social security is not a fundamental failure of a plan, has made the fraud aspect true.  All they want is for the taxation to continue until their terms are up.  Kick the can down the road, and let the next generation deal with the mess.

They are stealing from their own kids (if they have any... which is kinda my point).

Yes, Social Security is a Ponzi Scheme.  The criminals masterminding it want you to think it's a legitimate and ethical version of a Ponzi Scheme.  I wish they were in prison.

11 The article also says that SS can't be a Ponzi scheme, because eventually, people get wind, and stop investing, which causes the house of cards to collapse.

I guess no one's told them that WE HAVE TO keep investing.  This isn't voluntary.  People caught wind of the scam years ago, but are forced by the government to contribute.

12

You don't reform ponzi schemes.  You abolish them.  Yes, abolish.

This is a problem of Perry's own making.

13
okay, so then it's extortion, not fraud

14 " 10 Imagine the media feeding frenzy if Perry had recanted? Perry clearly has calculated that a wimp can't beat another wimp in 2012.

Posted by: oldsalt at September 12, 2011 12:45 PM (f3GW1)"

Exactly.  They have wanted so badly to claim Perry recanted that a major astroturf theme has been that Perry DID recant.  When asked for a link, they often just say 'oh, some interview I just saw!'  Perry has stuck to his guns on this.

Making it a little harder is that Romney is serially lying about Perry's actual position.  So anything short of Perry calling for the ablution of social security will be called a recant by the democrats.

All he wants to do is fix the damn thing to be sustainable.

15 Rick Perry the substance of your argument is correct, but unfortunately, you used the wrong descriptor.  Therefore, your point is invalid.  Thank you for playing. 

16 Barack Obama is a stuttering clusterf*ck of a miserable failure.

Perry could, and just might, call them liars to their faces

Be still, my heart.  That would be beyond awesome.

17 But the program's problems are largely the result of people living longer, and therefore collecting more in benefits, rather than some inherent structural shortcoming or constitutional failing.

If people are living longer (and presumably healthier) then one obvious aspect that would help would be to raise the retirement age, would it not?

18 This is a problem of Perry's own making Explain what this means.

19 And Now, for a brief musical interlude I give you,

The Friends of Old Puppy band, Live!

Electric Soprano Ukelele, w/Drums and Gut-Bucket backup.

Where else?

Berkeley, California.

20 11 Dustin,

while I admire your desire to see them jailed for stealing so much wealth potential to fire the pork cannon by hiding the cost of their monster that'll never happen....the best we can hope for is to get the wage flow back to the people and fire up genuine capital flow.

regards,
sven

21 "You don't reform ponzi schemes.  You abolish them.  Yes, abolish.

This is a problem of Perry's own making.

Posted by: Emperor of Icecream at September 12, 2011 12:46 PM (epBek)"

Why?  You're just setting up these rules as though they are laws.

Why not reform it?  Why not have a different system that isn't a Ponzi Scheme?

And by 'problem' for Perry, you suggest he's got a problem, which is the meme from Perry's two opponents (Romney, and the Obama campaign that badly wants someone other than Perry to be the nominee).  But Perry's going up in the polls.  He's got a double digit lead.  What problem?  He told the truth, and the voters appreciate being treated like adults about a massive problem.

Why is the problem so massive?  Idiots playing politics, making social security a third rail.  Anyone describing the problem is condemned for trying to abolish social security and murder grandma.  That's what the left and Romney are trying to do to Perry here.  For a little short term political gain, they are willing to make it impossible to honesty describe social security.

Thanks a lot.  That's so patriotic.  Imagine if this effort had worked again.  Then no leader would admit social security can't work forever, and we'd never fix it.

That's great for the short term needs of a few politicians, but it's terrible for my generation of Americans.

22 So, the solution USA Today is proposing is that people not get so old.

23

See, he wants old people to die, broke and in the streets.

Vote for me!!! I can be anyone you want me to be!!

24

And yet the program was not modified at all-- the politicians assumed that somehow we would simply create millions of new young taxpayers to pay the costs of the Boomers' retirement, even though not enough children had actually been born to satisfy this revenue requirement.

That's not true ace, in the 80's social security taxes were doubled and the retirement age for anyone born after 1959 was increased to age 67.

By 2037, the date you agree social security is still solvent the last baby boomer will be 78 which is around the average life expectency age.

You keep blaming baby boomers but they have nothing to do with paying for people younger than them, just like older generations had nothing to do with paying for their benefits.

If younger generations want social security they can do what the baby boomers did, raise taxes and increase the retirement age. Either way it won't affect baby boomers.

25
yes, put a cap on age

and then turn old people into food

win-win

26 26 So, the solution USA Today is proposing is that people not get so old.

Posted by: huerfano at September 12, 2011 12:53 PM (kD+se)

I'm around for a reason ya know

27 Well, he's certainly got folks talking about the subject.

28 Its not so much as it's a ponzi scheme as when created it assumed a few too many issues to repeat themselves.  Yes, one is that people are living longer, but the other is that when they created it they assumed that each family would reproduce at the same numbers as their parents, therefore, the younger generation would pay/support for the older generation in retirement.

My grandparents had lots of kids, and their kids had lots of kids.  OOPS, my parents had six kids and only three of them had one kid each.  Therefore, who pays for the siblings who didn't reproduce?  Their contributions to SS certain will not cover their medical and living expenses and we're short a younger generation paying into the system to make up for that. 

So assumptions were made when enacted that just haven't panned out.  Yes, it needs to be revamped and possibly privatized within the next 10 years.  Somebody has to be bold enough to face this issue head on and I think Rick Perry has hit the nail on the head.

29 Perry could, and just might, call them liars to their faces

Be still, my heart.  That would be beyond awesome.

Posted by: AllenG (Dedicated Tenther) is tired beyond tired of the trolls at September 12, 2011 12:49 PM (8y9MW)

Indeed - this would basically end the primary season right now, IMO.  Perry would be in, and Obama would be done next November.

30 That's great for the short term needs of a few politicians, but it's terrible for my generation of Americans.

Worse: It's terrible for my kids and (God willing) their kids.  If I stand by and allow that to happen (by not supporting those who will do what it takes to change the fundamentals of SS), then I'm as guilty as those who are simply trying to put me back to sleep so that they can obtain yet more power.

I'm not hearing anyone else (and certainly not the other two candidates with a chance) say these kinds of things.

31

You don't reform ponzi schemes.  You abolish them.  Yes, abolish.

This is a problem of Perry's own making.

Posted by: Emperor of Icecream at September 12, 2011 12:46 PM (epBek)

I think you might be confusing him with Roosevelt.

32 Won't the death panels in Obamacare address this issue?

33 One of Fox business's pundits was on the other day and she said it best. The only real difference between a Ponsi scheme and SS is the fact that a Ponsi Scheme is illegal.

That being sid let's not lose the argument by flinging out myths.

1. People are NOT actually living substantially longer now than they were in 1930. The first person who collected a SS check live to be 100. What has changed is average life expectancy from birth to death. This number has little to do with SS benefits. The number that applies to SS benefits is life expectancy AFTER reaching age 65.

2. The previous two "fixes" were designed to get SS past the baby boomer years and would have if congress had put the money in Al Gore's lock box instead of LBJ's whorehouse.

3. When first enacted SS was not designed to be a welfare program. It only covered old age benefits and you could only collect it if you had paid into it. Now anyone can collect it regardless of ever having worked and it covers everything from old age to "disability" due to drug addiction and alcoholism.

These are the things that have really made it unsustainable.

34 2 things...first, is there any doubt at this point that Perry has, in the immediate and at the minimum, moved the conversation to the right?  If Mittsy and Missy would shut their pieholes we could perhaps pull the conversation even further right. 

Secondly, the fact that the USA Today writers could type out "but the program's problems are largely the result of people living longer, and therefore collecting more in benefits, rather than some inherent structural shortcoming or constitutional failing." with a presumably straight face speaks volumes to their utter illetericy in all things economic. 

35 24 Dustin,

the Perry bashers are pissed because he is making the case for real change.

This problem is like a faucet leaking into the bathtub they want to demonize him as just wanting to shut the water off, he wants to slowly reduce the flow while never stopping moving towards shutting it off.

The program needs reformed and phased out.

My age group the 37-45 year olds will take a bath...that is okay in my eyes somebody has to but I want the 18-25 year olds to take less of one and the tub to be drained by the time my son is ready to work his way to old age....

The system as it stands is flawed and unethical at its heart because it is pay/go and too generous....Social Security was NEVER intended to pay benefit to people for 12-30 years.

There is a reason FDR set the markers where he did.

36 I thought Perry's blunt talk would get him into more trouble than it seems to have actually gotten him.

The US people know we have a problem. When they see how much deficit we have, how much taxes we pay, and then see the breakdown with SS and MC being the big bite, and only projected to grow bigger.

We have put those pie charts out there time and time again. Talked about non-discretionary spending driving deficits on UTube. Preached the entitlement state woes from the street corners.

Just maybe the American people are ready to admit, we have a problem; and are realizing that we have had it for years. And hopefully they want someone to speak candidly about it, knowing that is the real first step to solving it.

37 Wheeeeeee!

38 All Perry needs to say is, "If there is any easy and painless fix to social security, Medicare, and our other unsustainable entitlements, let me know what it is, put it in bill form, and I'll sign it my first day in office. If there is no easy, painless fix... then we have to have a mature adult conversation about the harder solutions. I am ready to have that conversation and I think the American people are, too."

39 What we should do is take the age people are really going to die at and subtract ten years.  That way, everyone gets the same.

Oh, that's impossible?  OK.

Social Security is such a freaking scam.   It's just revenue to spend on huge government.  It's got almost nothing to do with retirement anymore.

The benefits come from debt.  They are just borrowing, but not from their credit card.  From the credit card of the next few generations.  Kids, their kids.  It's disgusting.

That's why Perry scares both democrat and republican establishments.  He really aims to get this stuff right?  Get government spending back down to earth?

What if I never collect a penny of benefits?  What happens to all that money they took from all my paychecks?  Why does the federal government get that?  Why not give that to my kids? 

40 My grandparents had lots of kids, and their kids had lots of kids.  OOPS, my parents had six kids and only three of them had one kid each.

IIRC, we actually already knew that was an invalid assumption.  That, as societies became less dependent upon physical labor (also less vulnerable to childhood mortality), people have fewer kids.  That's not actually new.

41 The system as it stands is flawed and unethical at its heart because it is pay/go and too generous....Social Security was NEVER intended to pay benefit to people for 12-30 years.


It was also never intended to be a sole source of retirement income.

42 Rush started off today by warning Bachmann about going after Perry on this issue, as is being reported in the media. Says all she is doing is pandering to the media, and he's right. Gotta like a guy with a set of stones.

43 And if Foster Mom actually comes out against Perry for his blunt rhetoric, she will have lost my support.

Mittens on the other hand, never had it, and it's pretty much what I expected him to do anyway.

44 Now anyone can collect it regardless of ever having worked and it covers everything from old age to "disability" due to drug addiction and alcoholism.

Agreed!  I have a sister who drank herself out of a liver and now all her medical bills are covered by medicare and she collects disability.  And barely contributed anything to SS or the world.  WTF?  We should all drive over our hands or feet to collect this benefit? 

45 Wait.  Is every government program that starts running a deficit a Ponzi scheme?

46 >>Perry could, and just might, call them liars to their faces; that would be high drama.<<

That wouldn't just be high drama.  It would be a Dan-Quayle-Deer-in-the-Headlights moment for Romney.

It would be "Winning". 

47 45 Mpur,

that too....

FDR would have done less damage to the nation had he just handed every retiree age person then 100,000 bucks each to draw simple interest off of....

what he did was raise taxes almost 10% on employment to go into a slush fund they would not have to face the music for but once a generation.

It is a monstrous waste of wealth potential.

48 What if I never collect a penny of benefits?  What happens to all that money they took from all my paychecks?  Why does the federal government get that?  Why not give that to my kids? 
Posted by: Dustin at September 12, 2011 12:58 PM

I expect you'll just have to chalk that up to being screwed by the people who are supposed to represent you.  Like a lot of us.

49 My age group the 37-45 year olds will take a bath...that is okay in my eyes somebody has to but I want the 18-25 year olds to take less of one and the tub to be drained by the time my son is ready to work his way to old age....

This.

I'll walk through fire for my kids.  You think I'm not willing to take a bath on my "retirement?"

50 And if Foster Mom actually comes out against Perry for his blunt rhetoric, she will have lost my support.

Mittens on the other hand, never had it, and it's pretty much what I expected him to do anyway.

Posted by: MikeTheMoose Camellia Sinensis Operative at September 12, 2011 12:59 PM (0q2P7)

Bachman can't do that without looking like a fool. Last year she said on Fox Business News that Social Security was a fraud and if anyone in buisiness did what the government is doing they would be put in jail. The link is at hot air.

51 It's only a problem of Perry's making if you think Perry should lie to the American people, lest we actually fix the damn problems.

Perry didn't create the ponzi scheme.  Everyone critical of his description is now part of the fraud.  They are part of the problem.  There's time to be part of the solution instead.

Sven is probably right that in the real long term, Social Security very well could be abolished.  Any informed 30 year old would want this.  But that's not the plan today.  The plan today is to get this system at least sustainable instead of a ridiculous theft from the future that is also left paying for the enormous baby boomer debt.


There's no way to make it fair.  Too late.  Too much theft has been allowed by both parties.  But we can stop it.

52 And if Foster Mom actually comes out against Perry for his blunt rhetoric, she will have lost my support.

Bachmann did lay in an attack this past weekend but it was not a hard core Dem type attack like Romney weighed in with. She does have to carry some fight to him, however she should not give the Dems ammunition.

That being said, there is a Bachmann PAC about to weigh in. If they go on the hard war wagon and she doesn't reign them in, then she is just as bad as the Romney camp.

53 So assumptions were made when enacted that just haven't panned out.

Wow, that sounds so, so familiar...

54 BTW: The kid I adopted last year gets SS survivor benefits from his father, who died before I adopted him. I'm setting this money aside for him and he'll get it when he finishes high school (barring any financial catastrophes between now and then). Should I feel guilty or conflicted about this?

55 >Maybe it's not fraud because instead of duping me into paying in, they forced me to pay in. That's not really a point in their favor.

No kidding. On nefariousness scale, force beats fraud any day of the week.  So yeah, its not a Ponzi scheme. Its WORSE than a Ponzi scheme because at least with your typical con job I can see it and refuse the offer.

I am 37.  I'll be 67 in 2043, that's 6 years after the thing is projected to go bust. I know I'm not getting a goddamned red cent of the money they're stealing from me. Frankly, the longer this goes without a fix, the more attractive pushing boomers down the stairs gets.

56 49 PP,

does every government program pretend to be something that is like a retirement or insurance program that instead is really pay/go?

There are SEVERE structural differences between SS and a genuine retirement fund, not to mention the fact that medicare and social security benefits have never been AN ACCOUNT and as such there is no way to measure "basis" or factor in risk valuation for behaviors into the pool of resources that are in theory being "hedged".....

it is a fraud if the mission were in fact about "helping people" they would have patterned it after Argentina or even germany's Bismarckian system...instead they just fired up a siphon and started sucking on the gas tank

57

Hopefully Perry will hang either Bachman or Romney on the "Perry wants grammy to eat dog food" lie they have thrown on him and that will put either of them or both out of the race. Hopefully both.

Tonight will be fun to watch.

58 The euthanasia camps in Obama's second term were going to guarantee Social Security remained solvent.  So there!

59 I am 37.  I'll be 67 in 2043, that's 6 years after the thing is projected to go bust. I know I'm not getting a goddamned red cent of the money they're stealing from me. Frankly, the longer this goes without a fix, the more attractive pushing boomers down the stairs gets.
Posted by: DanInMN at September 12, 2011 01:03 PM

Some of us are lively enough to fight back.

60 I'd rather see someone speak the truth about SS than posture and play politics just to pander.  What does it say about Romeny and Bachman's credibility if they are willing to pander for a voting bloc?  I'd rather see someone lose by the strength of their convictions than win by posturing.  You've got to stand for something, or you'll fall for anything!

61 Wait.  Is every government program that starts running a deficit a Ponzi scheme?

I largely think the entire Federal Government is a Ponzi Scheme.  However, in a strict sense, the answer would be "no."  Legitimate investments can suffer losses- even catastrophic losses.

The difference between that and a Ponzi Scheme is that the Ponzi Scheme purports to be an investment (with investment income) and is, instead, a "pay-it-forward" plan wherein new investors are actually paying the old investors.

It is, almost literally, that "Pyramid Scheme" where A guy says, "You each give me 3 dollars, and I'll give you three names.  You get those people to give you 3 dollars, and you each give me one more, and I'll give you 9 names to give them.  We'll continue this pattern for eternity!!!!"

That is, more-or-less, what SS is doing.  It takes the money I pay in, and pays it out to current beneficiaries.  All the while, it is sending me fraudulent "statements" that claim I have this account set up that's worth $X/yr.

62 >>There's no way to make it fair. Too late. Too much theft has been allowed by both parties. But we can stop it. So you think Perry should advocate abolishing the Ponzi scheme? Then why are Perry supporters upset if this is what he really thinks?

63

"Wait.  Is every government program that starts running a deficit a Ponzi scheme? "

Wait, leave me out of this.

64 That wouldn't just be high drama.  It would be a Dan-Quayle-Deer-in-the-Headlights moment for Romney.

Actually, you probably thought Perry's references to MA's jobs creation rate, etc. were going to be that, yet they weren't. They actually make Romney look stronger

Keep thinking Romney is a used car salesman who has spent many of his ours at some country club.  He's just a slick guy with good hair.

65 Rick Perry is telling the truth like Chrisite is in New Jersey.  The public doesn't want the lies anymore.  Just tell us the truth no matter how bad it is then we can move on and fix the problem.

Haven't we seen and heard enough of the SCOAMF the past few days?  I'm sick of looking at his mug and hearing his voice.   

66 "49 Wait.  Is every government program that starts running a deficit a Ponzi scheme?

Posted by: ParisParamus at September 12, 2011 01:00 PM (Iy+mp)"

Huh.  I don't know.  Perry has never run a deficit, after all.  Maybe he really gets it?

Remember how Romney governed in MA.  Massive tax increases.  Fee increases.  Spending increases far outpacing the deficit.

But it was 2003-2007, the boom years, and the capital gains revenues in MA were very high, so with a little fuzzy math, Romney claims he balanced the budget (yet ... what year did MA actually have a balanced budget?  oh... fuzzy math).

And those were the easy years.  What about the hard ones? 

Paris raises a good point that Perry just can't run a government with a deficit.  He just refuses to do it, boom or downturn.  Doesn't matter.  It's like he... spends only the money he's got, and no more.

In some ways, Paris is right.  A government in permanent deficit is very much like a Ponzi Scheme.  Eventually, that just won't work.  It's a little too complex to simplify like that, and I know Paris was being sarcastic, but yes, this is probably why Perry scares the left so much.

Of all the candidates still running, I think Perry is the only one who would lobby and push Paul Ryan's budget (or something like that) into law.

He's the guy demanding a balanced budget amendment.  That means there's some truth to Paris's comment/complaint.  Perry really does want to outlaw deficits.

67 instapundit
has a list of liberals that alos agree it's a ponzy scheme.

68 "Spending increases far outpacing the deficit."

Sorry, I meant inflation.  Romney's spending increases were much higher than inflation.  When a Romney supporter tells you Romney cut spending, ask if they are meaning Romney's whole term and all spending, or some weird analysis that ignores most spending.

69 By the way, I heard that Obama was quite impressed with the WTC site when he arrived yesterday.  When he saw references to it being Ground Zero, he called a special meeting with the site redevelopement team to thank them for naming the site after him.

70
a nice long list to drag out for the Dem  or Left hypocrits

71 Some of us are lively enough to fight back.

Exactly!  Or, as I usually put it: "old age and treachery will always overcome youth and skill."

72 Wait.  Is every government program that starts running a deficit a Ponzi scheme?

No.

A Ponzi scheme is is where you promise investors returns, and you base those returns off of the investment of new investors.

It is exactly what SS is. Talk to anyone in the Greatest Generation +1 about SS and you will likely get a line about having paid into the program their entire life and therefore being due the SS benefit. That mentality of being *owed* is what keeps the program alive. They don't get into a moral quandary of putting this on their kids, because they are *owed* for the contributions they made. And after their kids spend a lifetime paying for their parents they believe they are *owed*. That was FDRs intent was exactly Ponzi in nature to force the program to perpetuity. For the program to stop, one generation has to say, "It can't go on, and if the buck must stop literally with me than it must"

73

Social Security is not a Ponzi scheme! Our silvered septugenarians wouldn't be suckered into any kind of deal like that!

I'm the principled conservative Tea Party patriot who will never stop fighting for your Social Security checks!

Did I mention that my husband and I have fostered twenty-three children? Marcus and I want to ensure that Social Security is available when our twenty-three foster children eventually retire!

We need to save Social Security and make Barack Obama a ONE! TERM! PRESIDENT!

74 "They actually make Romney look stronger"

No, he's not losing -- his appeal is just becoming more *selective*.

Romneybots, your man has lost.  The question now is how much damage he'll inflict on Perry before he gives up.

75 for crying out loud, everything i try to send some of the test won't go through.

76 >>Huh. I don't know. Perry has never run a deficit, after all. Maybe he really gets it? Sure he did. And he used $6 billion in stimulus dollars to fill the whole. Tax dollars that the rest of the country will have to pay.

77 text even, i give up.

78 Mr. Mittens is a demogogic twat. I don't think his parsing of Perry's words in his book about Social Security stands up to honest scrutiny.

Perry wrote "  [Social Security] is a crumbling monument to the failure of the New Deal”.

To me that's different from singling out the program as a failure; more like the New Deal as an engine of growth and sound fiscal policy as a whole is a failure. This is Perry' way of saying that the Social Security model was just as ill-conceived as   many of FDRs policies were

Mr. Mittens, the effete dickbag hypocrite, has been just as critical of Social Security

79 Tax dollars that the rest of the country my great grand kids will have to pay.

FIFY

80 Just did a quick calculation.  If I live to be 85, I will have collected considerably more in SS benefits than I and my employers paid into the system.  And I've been maxing out the SS portion of payroll taxes for the last ten years. 

Of course, this is no actuarial statistic, but it's an example of how the system pays out more than it takes in.

But it's not a Ponzi scheme.

81 Sure he did. And he used $6 billion in stimulus dollars to fill the whole.



The legislature did that over his objections. And they spent that money on wish list items they wanted to fund but couldn't afford until Santa O showed up.

Which is why he held their feet to fire and wouldn't let them raid the rainy day fund this last session.

82 Vic, No. See: ssa.gov/history/lifeexpect.html The percentage of males surviving from age 21 to age 65 went from 53.9% in 1940 to 72.3% by 1990. For women, it went from 60.9% to 83.6%. Bitches, man. Not only did the total number of Americans reaching retirement age increase, similarly, their life expectancy at retirement increased over the same period. Men saw a 20% increase in life expectancy at age 65, women saw a 33% increase. That's not insignificant. That's HUGE. Now look at the total number of Americans over age 65 in 1930: 6.7 million. By the year 2000, we had 34.9 million. This is strictly a demographic problem. SSDI is a drop in the fucking bucket by comparison.

83 Maybe social security should be privatized, but that's a different debate.  The eligibility requirements need to be heightened, the retirement age increased, and the funding sources perhaps tweaked. 

By the way, I'm not necessarily against privatization, but I've never understood how you don't do that and have interest rates fall on other investments (since more $ becomes available in the markets if SS monies are made available)

84 So you think Perry should advocate abolishing the Ponzi scheme? Then why are Perry supporters upset if this is what he really thinks?

That's really stupid.  Like, Paulbot or C4P stupid.  You're better than that.

You know, and I know, and the MFM knows, and Romney knows, and some native of the Congo without TV knows- the phrase "abolish Social Security" is designed to scare seniors into thinking that Rick Perry wants to deny them their current benefits.

No.  No one thinks that should happen- we made those promises and those people know rely on us keeping them.  The same is true for those staring SS in the face- they don't have time to make a plan B.  However, future generations do have time to make a plan B (and, frankly, turn it into their plan A).  For those people, Social Security should be fundamentally altered so that it is primarily a private fund (with the option of a "government managed fund"- for optics as well as those poor souls who trust the government more than their own judgement).

85 "Actually, you probably thought Perry's references to MA's jobs creation rate, etc. were going to be that, yet they weren't. They actually make Romney look stronger"

Romney isn't strong.  He governed from 2003 to 2007.  Boom years.  MA was one of the worst job creators in the country.  Albeit, the country was doing really well.  Even then, Romney massively increased taxes, particularly on employers.  And he mandated health insurance.  and he increased spending.

Because MA took huge Cap Gains tax revenues, it kinda worked for a while.  That's how it is in a boom year with a liberal governor.  Make the government spend more and more and more and more and more and more and more and more.

and still, MA on jobs was relatively bad. 47 out of 50 is bad.  It's important we compare Romney's job record with other states during the same economic period, because otherwise you get the idea he did a great job. 

Texas has been near the best among all stated in booms, in downturns, in all times, because we keep regulation, spending, and taxing all predictable and stable.  We don't just look like we're merely sinking slowly during the boom years, like Romney's MA did.  We look healthy all the time, because conservative principles REALLY work.

If you support increasing spending during boom years, you are a democrat.  Support Obama. 

86 66 Jack Straw,

oh bullshit Jack, reforming the plan and phasing it out is not "gutting it" and it is not "throwing gram off the cliff" it is being a responsible fucking politician....I swear to God Romney and his fans are so hot to grab the steering wheel they are willing to stand with Pelosi and Reid in thwarting returning the worker's money back to them so they can take care of themselves and fuck FDR's "new deal"....

it is intergenerational theft.

It needs fixed and by "fixed" I mean it needs phased out and replaced with true personal accounts that generate wealth for people and their families not a slush fund for the state.

Romney flippantly accusing Perry of wanting to gun down old folks is damn near a deal breaker for me....

you have not seen me in here prior to Romney's theatrics putting him in a wicker man basket for his running the prototype for Obamacare....

This strawman assault of his is pissing a lot of people who weren't partisan for ANY of the candidates to look at him warily.

87 >Some of us are lively enough to fight back.

Maybe now, but how about in 2030?  And I obviously said that in jest.  As individuals, I have no problem with boomers.  The oldies who freak out of SS reform even to the extent it will have zero effect on them are another story.  I'd launch them into the goddamned sun if presented with a button to do so.

My generation does, however, have a growing sense that the baby boomer generation hung an enormous shit sandwich around gen-x's neck vis a vis entitlements.

88 Bachmann called Social Security ‘a tremendous fraud’ in 2010

Bachmann, a Republican representative from Minnesota, called Social Security's structure "a tremendous fraud" and said that anyone who ran a business modeled after the program would be "thrown in jail."

"It's a tremendous fraud," Bachmann told Fox Business host David Asman after he called the program "one of the biggest frauds ever perpetrated on the American public."

"No company could get away with this, they'd be thrown in jail if they ever tried to do what the federal government did with people's Social Security money,"

http://tinyurl.com/3j9rfmc

 

89

Please ignore my raising of property taxes, fees, gas taxes and such, or how that capital gains tax increase hit on my watch.

Perry will kill your grandparents.

90 >>The legislature did that over his objections. And they spent that money on wish list items they wanted to fund but couldn't afford until Santa O showed up. Oh I see. So when Perry get overridden by his legislature then its all good but when Romney got overridden by a far more liberal legislature on over 250 vetos on spending legislature he is a RINO. I see the difference now.

91 "The legislature did that over his objections. And they spent that money on wish list items they wanted to fund but couldn't afford until Santa O showed up.

Which is why he held their feet to fire and wouldn't let them raid the rainy day fund this last session.

Posted by: mpurinTexas, Evil Conservanatrix, supports Rick Perry, bitch at September 12, 2011 01:12 PM (pY3GI)"

Damn straight.  It's amazing how much dishonesty is filling the debate lately.

92 Perry may redeem himself if he sees as one of his Presidency goals to achieve an investment function to SS. May be just the thing we need to offset Sparky and TIMMAY's inflation rodeo. Nothing like a big savings rate to tame inflation.

93 Perry should address it thusly:  SS is straight up socialism and has proven once again that socialism is incompatible with free enterprise.  It's been draining the prosperity of this nation for far too long and should be, along with all other purely socialist policies, phased out over time, entirely.

94 I'm amazed that anybody thinks that Perry wanted to spend the first week after the debate talking about anything other than Obama's awful economy and what he [Perry] claims he did in Texas that would be so much better.

Instead, because the man is intemperate in his rhetoric, we are now arguing amongst ourselves who is the guy most likely to toss grandma under the bus.

In your heart of hearts, Perry people, you have to know this isn't the battle he wanted to be having right out of the gate.  Do you really think the subject for his first USA Today op-ed should have been walking back his over-heated rhetoric on SS? 

The folks who don't like SS and think it's "Ponzi scheme" are already going to vote Republican.  He isn't winning any new voters with this rhetoric. But, he couldn't help himself, so tonight we'll have another debate focused on Social Security instead of Obama's lousy economy. 

Own-goal.  That's what this SS issue was for Perry last week and it is still one today.

95 Romney is sounding like an "Old Glory Insurance" salesman. For you people under 30, SNL did a spoof commercial for an insurance policy for the elderly that provided coverage in case a robot stole your medicine. "If you vote for Perry, a robot will break into your house and eat all of your medicine, and then you will have to eat dog food. I'm Mitt Romney, and I endorse this message."

96 Aren't these pay roll tax holiday's cutting the inflow of cash into SS too? 

97

Megyn Kelly looking hot....as usual.

98 Now, if Missy (Mittsy is disqualified on this one)  wants to hit Perry on immigration, that's a different game.  See, doing that will pull him to the right, not the left.  In a primary, you make your opponents move towards the base, as to insure the team is best positioned to win the general.

I am, at this early point, still troubled by Perry's immigration stances, as I understand them.  I'd like to hear him have to explain/defend, and perhaps, move right on this issue.

99 "Oh I see. So when Perry get overridden by his legislature then its all good but when Romney got overridden by a far more liberal legislature on over 250 vetos on spending legislature he is a RINO.

I see the difference now.

Posted by: JackStraw at September 12, 2011 01:14 PM (TMB3S)"

LOL.  Romney cooperated.  He's got a record of spending more money 3 out of 4 years, far outpacing inflation, and increasing taxes quite badly.  Why does any conservative support him?

Many of these fees were HIS IDEA.  He takes credit for things he had absolutely no control over, such as 2003 being a boom year.  It's ridiculous.

Don't be an absolutist.  Some degree of compromise is certain to occur for all politicians.  Will Romney veto a tax increase?  We know the answer (no).  Will Perry?  We know the answer (he did).

That's how democrats plan to pay for this massive Obama government.  But conning the next guy into a huge tax increase.

What we need is a balanced budget amendment.  An imperfect, embarrassing to need solution.

100 I saw two near retirement age white women respond very negatively to this Ponzi scheme charge recently. One is a moderate Dem, the other a moderate Repub. Both are kinda wishy-washy. Classic I-don't-like-politics types. But they both always vote.

It hits an emotional button for them. Here's why (I think).

Ponzi schemes are bad things. It's a pejorative. It implies fraud. It implies those who benefit don't deserve their ill-gotten gains. It implies those who get hurt are stupid for falling for a Ponzi scheme.

This makes them very angry. They get righteous, "I earned this money!" they say. "I paid into Social Security. I'm not a cheat. I played by the rules."

It's a Fredo thing - I'm smart! I deserve respect! - but it's real.

..

In reality, SS is a welfare system that pretends to be a Ponzi scheme. It pretends to be an investment -- you pay in when you are young, and get returns when you are old. And as an investment plan it's clearly a Ponzi scheme.

But people don't want to hear it's a welfare system either.

"I'm not a bum. I'm not some charity case! I earned my SS money."

If you point out the reality of SS people get insulted.

Especially swing voters of average intelligence. They won't understand the argument. They just know you, in their mind, are either calling them a cheat, a bum, or an idiot. And they will get angry at you for that. They won't listen to your explanation.

It all comes down to that righteous indignation, "I earned my Social Security money!!"

101 92 Bachmann called Social Security ‘a tremendous fraud’ in 2010

Bachmann, a Republican representative from Minnesota, called Social Security's structure "a tremendous fraud" and said that anyone who ran a business modeled after the program would be "thrown in jail."

"It's a tremendous fraud," Bachmann told Fox Business host David Asman after he called the program "one of the biggest frauds ever perpetrated on the American public."

That will end Bachman's Presidential ambitions if she starts into Perry tonight; assuming Perry is aware of this quote.  Does anyone know any of Perry's handlers? 

102 100 CDR M,

absolutely and in that sense Obama made my point for me....

even Obama knows social security hurts growth....

these boomers getting all hot and bothered would be funny if they weren't eating their grandkids....

YOU WILL GET PAID!

It is my generation that will get screwed and I am OKAY with that...leave MY grandkids alone please?

103 Perry could, and just might, call them liars to their faces.

Perry DID call the SCOAMF an 'abject liar' concerning the border in the last debate.

104 Oh I see. So when Perry get overridden by his legislature then its all good but when Romney got overridden by a far more liberal legislature on over 250 vetos on spending legislature he is a RINO.

You know, I haven't read all the comments, but I never saw anyone claim that the bills passed under Romney made him a RINO.  They're not good- since he'll have to fight with Congress in the White House, too, and they'll presumably have even less reason to work with him than the legislature in MA did (you do realize that the same people who voted in Dem legislators are the ones who voted in Romney, yes?  He couldn't have gotten enough votes if everyone had voted straight ticket, after all.  That indicates the people of MA thought he was liberal enough to get along with the liberal Dems they were voting in as well).

No, we're calling him a RINO because he's for ethanol subsidies, he's okay with a nanny-state which forces you to buy health insurance on pain of interment, and he's engaging of demagoguery of the worst order- much like Democrats do.

105 My generation does, however, have a growing sense that the baby boomer generation hung an enormous shit sandwich around gen-x's neck vis a vis entitlements.

Posted by: DanInMN at September 12, 2011 01:13 PM (XqeyF)

That's why I worry about gen-x. Somewhere along the line their education has been stunted.

Here is a clue for you. The amount you pay into social security was never intended to pay for your retirement. The baby boomers had nothing to do with that.

Your retirement benefits from social security has always (since the 1930's) been meant to be paid by people younger than you. You have three choices, you can end the system altogether, you can raise taxes on yourselves, increase the retirement age and increase the income cap like the babyboomers did or the system as it is set up will automatically pay you less. About 75% of promised benefits in 2037.

You should read more.

106 " 98 I'm amazed that anybody thinks that Perry wanted to spend the first week after the debate talking about anything other than Obama's awful economy and what he [Perry] claims he did in Texas that would be so much better."

Maybe.  Perry is an inferior politician in this regard.  He just calls them like he sees them.

However, maybe he's a better politician than you give him credit for.  Has he ever lost an election?  His primary competition has won how many elections?  It's easy to look slick, but at some point.

" 98 I'm amazed that anybody thinks that Perry wanted to spend the first week after the debate talking about anything other than Obama's awful economy and what he [Perry] claims he did in Texas that would be so much better."

Claims?  Signing 12 years worth of balanced budgets is "so much better".  Surprised to see this sarcastic.  Frankly, Romney's agenda is excellent because it mirrors Perry's actual record.  One of these men has walked the walk.  Just one.

Perry's fingerprints are all over Texas's government.

107

Perhaps the editors at USA Today could tell us by what measure is it ethical, moral or economically feasible for people to spend the last 20, 30, 40 years of their lives sucking the teats of working men and women and their employers.

Privatize SS or end it.

 

108 Romney massively increased taxes, particularly on employers.  And he mandated health insurance.  and he increased spending.

REALLY?
How Mitt Romney Turned A $3 Billion Deficit Into A $2 Billion Surplus http://tinyurl.com/43eubcy

109 Mitten's scorched earth policy is reprehensible. He need to go.

110 >>Don't be an absolutist. Some degree of compromise is certain to occur for all politicians. Will Romney veto a tax increase? We know the answer (no). Will Perry? We know the answer (he did). For someone who decries the dishonesty of the debate lately you're not doing much to help things. Not only did Romney fight to get the state income tax rate lowered (he was overridden by the very liberal legislature in MA) he actually did lower the total tax burden during his term from the 17th most taxed state to the 13th. That might not impress someone from Texas where you never had a state income tax (although your property taxes are higher) but it was pretty radical in a state dominated by liberals who live to tax. Btw, wasn't the massive highway project Perry was supporting in Texas a toll road? What are tolls if not taxes?

111 Aren't these pay roll tax holiday's cutting the inflow of cash into SS too? 

Posted by: CDR M at September 12, 2011 01:16 PM (y67bA)

yup, the latest one proposed by Obama will cut it by $150 billion a year.

112 One of these men has walked the walk.  Just one.

Really?
http://tinyurl.com/43eubcy

113 Oh I see. So when Perry get overridden by his legislature then its all good but when Romney got overridden by a far more liberal legislature on over 250 vetos on spending legislature he is a RINO.

I see the difference now.

I didn't say shit about Romney.

I addressed your blathering misinformation.

Red herring much?

114 "That will end Bachman's Presidential ambitions if she starts into Perry tonight; assuming Perry is aware of this quote.  Does anyone know any of Perry's handlers? 

Posted by: Havedash at September 12, 2011 01:18 PM (sFD5n)"

I don't think she will do that.  Bachmann is right, of course.

We will see a desperate effort to derail Perry's campaign, but it's not working.  Everyone saw how solid his support base really is when Romney outperformed him in the debate, and lost ground anyway.  Perry's support comes from reality.  A record.  Accomplishments.  Honestly.  This bickering debate stuff is interesting as hell, but of almost no significance.

Bachmann might have been hoping for something from Romney, post nomination, but she's not stupid.  She knows Perry will probably be the nominee now.

115 I earned my Social Security check! I paid my taxes all my life! You think I'm stupid? You think I'm a cheat? You think I'm some welfare case?

Fuck you.

116 104 Clubber Lang,

and that is why romney is a twat....

he feeds that mentality.

You tell the people on it, "your money was taken it's yours" and pay them....you tell people about to be on it at critical mass-you apid into it take the benefit but buy out a bit if you like and go on....

my age group is the one who will get the worst deal, but we can free up the wage vacuum for the kids just getting into the workforce and put the damn thing to bed by my son or god willing grandson's twilight.

Romney's attack line is very unRepublican he is hurting the sale we can make on this...

"this is not a retirement plan it is a tax but you paid in your whole life so in the interest of morality you get your benefit" is a far more adult thing than "Perry wants to kill you haxxorzzz"

Romney's rhetorical base is shit because he was in essence at a minimum arguing to take the damn thing out of the general fund anyway and likely was trying to get the credit for reform and replacement without the risk.

This is a WINNING issue with us with the youth that voted for bambi until Romney pissed it away.

117 Clearly if we allow more undocumented citizens into the country it's a win-win.

118

Tim Russert: "Everyone knows Social Security, as it’s constructed, is not going to be in the same place it’s going to be for the next generation, Democrats, Republicans, liberals, conservatives.”
Chris Matthews: “It’s a bad Ponzi scheme, at this point.”
Tim Russert: “Yes.”

SOme people are saying that Rick Perry has walked back the “Ponzi scheme” meme in today’s USA Today ? .. but exactly here ?
A “Ponzi scheme” is not financially sound and sustainable for the long term.
Just calling it a “Ponzi scheme” doesn’t mean that it doesn’t have a good purpose, I mean, who would join in any “Ponzi scheme” unless they thought there was some good to be had .. at least for themselves.
Rick Perry's piece on USA Today calls for a conversion of this “Ponzi scheme” into something else.

AmericaÂ’s goal must be to fix Social Security by making it more financially sound and sustainable for the long term.

119 From today's NYT:

To the Editor:

At this week’s Republican presidential debate, Gov. Rick Perry of Texas was given the opportunity to repudiate his long-held view of Social Security as “a crumbling monument to the failure of the New Deal.” But instead, as you report, he “doubled down,” once again calling Social Security a “monstrous lie."

As President Dwight D. Eisenhower wrote in 1954: “Should any political party attempt to abolish social security, unemployment insurance, and eliminate labor laws and farm programs, you would not hear of that party again in our political history. There is a tiny splinter group, of course, that believes you can do these things. Among them are H. L. Hunt [and] a few other Texas oil millionaires, and an occasional politician or business man from other areas. Their number is negligible and they are stupid.”

Governor Perry is completely out of touch with the vast majority of the American people, who recognize Social Security’s vital importance in providing economic security when wages are lost as a result of death, disability or old age. If Mr. Perry continues to defend those views, we predict, to quote John Wayne in “True Grit,” “You do it and it’ll be the biggest mistake you ever made, you Texas brushpopper!”

NANCY ALTMAN
ERIC KINGSON
Co-chairmen, Strengthen Social Security Campaign
Bethesda, Md., Sept. 9, 2011

120 Romney's next move to demonize Perry will be bringing a person on stage and telling the audience "Rick Perry gave this man cancer."

Rick Perry caused the blackout in San Diego.

Rick Perry caused the Susquehanna river to flood.

Blah, blah, blah.

121 Megyn Kelly

That's my kind of talking head.

122 Btw, wasn't the massive highway project Perry was supporting in Texas a toll road? What are tolls if not taxes?

Tolls are specific usage taxes (just like fees) in that, if you don't use the road, you don't pay the toll.  Indeed, virtually all the toll roads in the DFW Metroplex (we've got a lot) have service roads with 45 - 55 MPH speed limits that parallel the entire (or almost the entire) length of the toll road.  So, if you don't mind the occasional traffic light, you don't have to pay the toll at all.

And income tax however, is a tax on supporting yourself.

Think about the difference for a minute, and I think you'll see why I'm not outrageously outraged about toll-roads in general.

123 123 Jane D'oh,

yeah and f*8k her....the demographics were different then so unless she can pop out 5-8 babies really quick and tell the rest of the generation drawing and the one about to retire to breed more workers let's talk about reality....

the system as rendered is an unsustainable joke and a long con....

Ike being the original pander bear does not change that

124 "One of these men has walked the walk.  Just one.

Really?
http://tinyurl.com/43eubcy

Posted by: ParisParamus at September 12, 2011 01:23 PM (Iy+mp)"

Yes, really.

Your link is a lie.  Romney came to power with a $1.2 billion deficit.  Not a $3 billion deficit.  Deficit projections are not reality. 

He didn't leave MA in a surplus either.  His spending increases outpaced the amazing amount of increased tax revenue Romney bought in.  He left MA with a huge spending gap, and claimed he balanced the budget because of fuzzy math.

Anyway, 2003 to 2007 were boom years.  All governors saw it a lot easier to spend money and tax corporations.

That's why I noted you have to compare states to other states in the same period.  For example, Texas did a LOT better than MA did in those same years.  But Texas also did relatively well in the downturn years.  Those years where you can't spend spend spend and tax tax tax.

Romney had NOTHING to do with deficit reduction.  NOTHING. NOT A DAMN THING.

MA took in enormous revenues in 2003 from capital gains tax because the USA had a huge boom.  This had zero to do with who was governor of MA.

Romney increased spending 3 out of 4 years.  He did not walk the walk of conservative leadership.  That's just a fact.  Linking a blog that repeated Romney's most ridiculous fuzzy math doesn't change the truth.

125 fix Social Security and make it financially viable for generations to come.

What is this chicken shit bullshit?  What happened to cut off it's head and kill it?

126

Posted by: The Hammer at September 12, 2011 01:18 PM (dja/g)

Silly goose! My campaign isn't angling to pull other candidates rightward in order to make the team as ideologically strong as possible!

My campaign is trying to get me elected! To further my political career! To catapult me from the back bench into the leadership! And to generate book deals! And to drive up speaking fees! And to make Barack Obama a ONE! TERM! PRESIDENT!

127 Oh, and lest we forget: Barack Obama is a stuttering clusterf*ck of a miserable failure.

128 Tolls are specific usage taxes (just like fees) in that, if you don't use the road, you don't pay the toll.  Indeed, virtually all the toll roads in the DFW Metroplex (we've got a lot) have service roads with 45 - 55 MPH speed limits that parallel the entire (or almost the entire) length of the toll road.  So, if you don't mind the occasional traffic light, you don't have to pay the toll at all.


Also, eventually those toll roads revert to revert to free roads once they're paid for. Taxes never, ever go away.

129 "You have three choices, you can end the system altogether, you can raise taxes on yourselves, increase the retirement age and increase the income cap like the babyboomers did or the system as it is set up will automatically pay you less."

Door number one, please.

130

Good boy Paris, don't bring up those fees, property taxes, usage fees, gas taxes and the benefits from that capital gains tax increase that helped me.

BTW, did I mention your chin is very soft?

131 The percentage of males surviving from age 21 to age 65 went from 53.9% in 1940 to 72.3% by 1990. For women, it went from 60.9% to 83.6%.

That is not the relevant statistic. The relevant statistic is life expectancy past age 65 when you started drawing SS. That has increased by 5 years sine 1930. Not a significant amount for SS purposes and if the system had been left alone by the Dems after LBJ would not have made any difference at all.

Look at the actuarial tables by age in this

132 “The critical thing that makes a Ponzi scheme despicable to me is the fraud, and Perry’s exaggerating a little bit if he’s implying that there is fraud,” said Harvard Law professor Mark Roe. Harvard! It's a fraud - there's criminal intent. What intent? Vote Buying. Your vote for Big Govt. means BG will keep taking money from the youngsters and giving you some of it.

133

Did I mention my twenty-three foster children also want Obama to be a ONE! TERM! PRESIDENT!

134 "What are tolls if not taxes?"

Fees for service.

135 Well, it's about damn time someone called a slimeball like Romney a liar to his face. He is one, after all.

Michelle Bachmann? I *had* a fairly favorable opinion of you. Don't let your desperation to stay in the race past your expiry date change that.

136 Lemme see here.  Another Texas Republican tried to reform Social Security when he actually had the Presidency and a Republican Congress.  It was so long ago I can't remember how it all turned out.

That's right.  It failed because not even a plurality of Republicans were willing to vote for it. 

But Bush didn't call it a "Ponzi scheme."  If only he had done that minds would have been changed, right?

137 "Btw, wasn't the massive highway project Perry was supporting in Texas a toll road? What are tolls if not taxes?"

That's a good point.  Perry is not opposed to all government and all taxes.  He's not an anarchist.  What do you expect, though?  Texas is a gateway for Mexican goods that travel up to Illinois.  Are we supposed to build enormous highways at Texas cost, so Mexico and Illinois can use that stuff? 

Isn't the best solution to toll those highways?  Let those who use the highways pay for them.  Tolls are very annoying to me, but this is the least bad way to handle it.

My ideal is for there to be a corridor crossing Texas, and it's paid for by whoever uses it, and the rest of Texas is no longer so burdened by that traffic.  Either way, we badly need more highways.  Taxes will obviously have to pay for them.  What do you want?  Romney style tax increases on all local business?

No.  You just want to create some ridiculous fake hypocrisy, as though highways are not a legitimate thing for conservatives to support.  You don't even mean it.

138 SS Reform is a stupid hill to die on.

1) Talking SS Reform is incredibly unpopular. Remember when Bush tried it? How'd that go? A Republican controlled Congress wouldn't even bring it up for a vote! This was just a few years ago.

2) It's not what's going to kill the economy. Medicare is a much, much worse problem. Save the political capital for Medicare reform.

3) It can be fixed fairly easily. You make nice-nice talk to not scare the old people (who vote! a lot!) and then you quietly raise the retirement age for people under 45. Do some means testing. Theres a fairly straightforward political solution to the SS problem.

139 "Lemme see here.  Another Texas Republican tried to reform Social Security when he actually had the Presidency and a Republican Congress.  It was so long ago I can't remember how it all turned out."

Good point.  Reforming this problem is a nearly impossible task.  It's hard to believe Perry will actually succeed.  I like Perry, but the odds are just so heavily against him.

At least he's honest with us.

140 I thought Perry's blunt talk would get him into more trouble than it seems to have actually gotten him.

Things are different now. Ten years ago this would be political suicide. Now people aren't even confident the US will be around when they retire, let alone Social Security.

141 I've always wondered why Obama hasn't advocated "means testing" Social Security.  He does it for everything else ...

142

Perry should respond to critics by asking:

"When a worker and his employer pays in 12.4% of their earnings for 40+ years and the system still faces insolvency, I believe something is seriously wrong. Am I wrong and if so, tell me how I am wrong?

That will do it.

 

143 It all comes down to that righteous indignation, "I earned my Social Security money!!"

Yes and you conveniently leave out the fact that, as originally designed, SS could not be collected unless you paid into it.

It is welfare for those who collect and have never paid into it.

144 129 Saget,

it is not fixable...at best you can try to alter it into some half assed collective fund and it is still an 8-10% wage drain to NO ECONOMIC AID SO FAR AS CAPITAL GOES....

you know why nobody is running on "keeping it like it is but fixing it"?

That is even worse politically.

1) raise the retirement age for anyone 49 and below to 72 or so

2) raise the payroll taxes again...even Ogabe just acknowledged they are too high with his MY BILL PASS IT NOW

3) reduce benefit by underpaying cola and letting inflation work its magic

4) reduce actual benefit not waiting

people keep saying "my money" no your money is in your pocket.....it went in part to theirs, worse they stole a matching amount from your employer that is REALLY yours and should have been in your pocket to put in an IRA......

we get it JUSTICE!!!!!111111Eleventy!!!!1111111

You'll get paid let us just entering middle agers kill the beast please?

145 146 AJ Lynch,

exactly....

God himself only needs 10% of your earnings to give you heaven....

Caesar needs 12% and more to give you an empty promise.....

Even if the stolen money was put in a simple interest bearing account it would be better for the economy

146 "3) It can be fixed fairly easily. You make nice-nice talk to not scare the old people (who vote! a lot!) and then you quietly raise the retirement age for people under 45. Do some means testing. Theres a fairly straightforward political solution to the SS problem.

Posted by: Clubber Lang at September 12, 2011 01:33 PM (QcFbt)"

Good plan.  And suspiciously similar to Perry's.

The guy scaring seniors about Perry's plan is not Perry.  It's Romney.  He's basically trying to make Perry unelectable.  Either we nominate Romney, or he throws the general.  That's why many consider the serial misquoting to be a bridge too far.  The gloves came off early in this primary.  It's time to be as hostile and direct about Romney as possible, and erode any support he has, so that he stops this desperate effort as soon as possible, and it's possible to beat Obama.

147 Paris, don't bring up TARP.

148 Also, eventually those toll roads revert to revert to free roads once they're paid for. Taxes never, ever go away.

What?

149 147 Vic,

it is welfare for both....just one person gets to feel indignant taking the benefit and the other shame or cunning pleasure.

It was NEVER a retirement plan in any sense of the word the feds will accept from a broker.

Period.

150

#105, #92, etc

The qoutes from Bachmann (and Romney) saying negative things about SS doesn't serve to counter the complaint about Perrys' remarks.  Bachmann and Romney and others have said SS needs to be fixed though adjusting the age, means testing, etc.  This is in contrast to Perry's remarks is his book which can be interpreted that he wants to get rid of SS (does he use the word abolish - no - but hard to come to any other conclusion when he calls it unconstitutiional, a lie, a disease, and should be handled by the states)

#98 and #104 are right - it is more about message and impression to the voters than policy difference.

We'll see how the debate goes tonight.  Either Perry doubles down on the ponzi scheme rhetoric or he backs off

151 Tarp?  Game rained out?

152

I am loving Rick Perry's starting the conversation and stinkin' to his guns (rare in politicians today). A Ponzi scheme is voluntary. Social Security is involuntary. Perhaps this is not the best conparison to SS if you break the definition down, it is still poor accounting practice and not a tangible program for young workers. The Feds for a long time have been robbing SS for their stimulus packages and other schemes to feed their welfare beast (voters), which is why the program cannot be sustainable after 2036. From the WSJ:

For years, Social Security collected more in payroll taxes than it paid out in benefits, but now the program is drawing on the surplus accumulated during those years. By 2036, the programÂ’s actuaries predict, Social Security will have exhausted its reserves and will only be able to pay 77% of promised benefits.

Mr. Perry and those who hold with his position contend the “trust fund” needed to pay benefits between now and 2036 is a fiction. That money is not sitting in a bank vault somewhere. It’s been spent by the federal government on everything from the war in Iraq to food stamps to agriculture subsidies. So to pay Social Security back, the government will have to borrow money.

Fixing the program isnÂ’t hard, and thereÂ’s a consensus among experts across the political spectrum about what could be done. A combination of benefit cuts and tax increases would do the trick. Still, future seniors will not be given exactly what was promised. They might have to wait until age 69 or 70 to collect full benefits, instead of 67 as now promised. Their annual cost of living increases might be smaller.

PonziÂ’s scheme was unsustainable because the basic math of his system required ever increasing and unrealistic numbers of investors. (For more on the history, click here.) If a similar plan started with 1,000 investors, by the 20th round, the scheme would need more new investors than the entire U.S. population to pay off the earlier investors.

Social SecurityÂ’s system is unsustainable, at least as presently written, because the U.S. has an increasing number of retirees and fewer workers to support them.

While others (Bachman) have called it "fraud," and other politicians speak of "reform," Rick Perry the Honey Badger throws out the first punch to get the national dialogue started. Good for him. He needs to explain how he can do this better, and his action plan to fix the broken program.

Won't be able to see the thousandth debate tonight, but do hope Rick delivers a few knock-out punches.

153 Also, eventually those toll roads revert to revert to free roads once they're paid for. Taxes never, ever go away.

What?
Posted by: Garden State Parkway-Paramus Toll Booth at September 12, 2011 01:37 PM (Iy+mp)

Oh, yes.  We do.

154 All he wants to do is fix the damn thing to be sustainable. ?Dustin?
These are the things that have really made it unsustainable.  Vic


It CAN'T be made sustainable.  How can Congress tax everybody working X, give Y% of X away, spend Z% of X administering it and then give 100% of X back.  X can't be invested by Govt. it is too big (401Ks already bloat prices), and Govt. always meddles.

All this wasn't ever going to work Socialist crap needs to be Abandoned in Place.  No tax raises, No payout raises, let people take care of themselves and these damn things can be buried by inflation.

155 The problem with Perry's remarks is that they show an idiotic indifference to the need to get independent and Dem votes to defeat Obama--everything else is secondary.

Of course, in the conservative blogosphere, Democrat votes are non-grata.

156 135 Vic,

when the system was designed to have people die off indexed to inflow of cash the raw number of people who draw ANY water from the well sure as hell does matter....you found an interesting actuarial quirk....doesn't change the fact there are more people at the table then.

157 All of ya'll who are bashing Bachmann need to wait to see how she rolls out. She did make a mild attack this weekend. It was mild and rather vague. That is OK in a primary and it was nothing like Romney's lies about Perry killing grandma.

Wait and see what Bachmann's PAC does and if they jump on the Romney bandwagon then a blistering attack is deserved. .

158 "It's time to be as hostile and direct about Romney as possible, and erode any support he has"

It's happening already.  All he ever really had was name recognition.

159 158 Dave A,

EXACTLY....it is a drain on the wages of the US that will NEVER generate interest through making capital loans....

it is a wage dump even if it is put in a "lockbox"....

160 you found an interesting actuarial quirk

That is not an "interesting actuarial quirk". The people who draw SS are not living that much longer. How much plainer could it damn get?

161 That is not the relevant statistic. The relevant statistic is life expectancy past age 65 when you started drawing SS. Yes, it is relevant. You can't argue against the math. And I addressed life expectancy at age 65. And gave you total population over 65 increases from 1930 to recently. Now, YOU tell ME: How many more total man-years of SS payments are we responsible for today vs. 1930? And how much of an increase, by percentage of population is that between then and now? To say "living 20% or 33% longer at age 65 is no big deal" is ridiculous. It has a huge effect on total outlays. There are more total people living to age 65, and those people are living 20-33% longer.

162

"For too long, politicians have been afraid to speak honestly about Social Security. We must have the guts to talk about its financial condition if we are to fix Social Security and make it financially viable for generations to come."

 

See. He wants Granny dead. Vot for me!!

163 Sure it can be sustainable.  Retirement at, say 75, and rising; raise the income cap and/or collect contributions from rich people whose "income" consists primarily of capital gains.  Make it a genuine insurance program wherein you get nothing if you retire rich enough.

Do that, and you might even be able to decrease the % of contributions on most workers. 

164 Paris, JackStraw, et al.

I just had this thought, and mentioned it briefly, earlier, but I'd like your thoughts.

You continually point out that RomneyCare and the various taxes and other liberal legislation was passed over Romney's veto, or that he "signed the best version he could" or whatever.

Now, my question: was Romney voted in with a Republican Majority in the MA legislature?  If not, doesn't that imply that the people voting for their Liberal Democrat legislator thought that Romney was close enough ideologically that the things both had promised would get done?  Especially considering you're implying that the Democrats controlled a super-majority which would have been required to over-ride the vetoes. 

I mean, if they had elected him to be conservative and to lead with conservative ideas, wouldn't they have sent conservatives to the legislature to help with his agenda?

165 The fact of the matter is the system is not going broke because of old age benefits to people who paid into the system. It is going broke because of all the other tinkering that has been done to it over the years.

But it is going BROKE and it will NEVER be "fixed". It has been "fixed" twice. The only thing I want to see for the next fix is to apply a cutoff point and phase it out totally.

166 142 Clubber Lang,

I see so for the low low price of having my potential retirement investing wage sucked into the system for me to retire at I get the added bonus of being means tested out if I still manage to fund my won retirement and my child and grandchildren still get to pay into a wage pit even when I am dead....

YAY sounds like a winner!

It's a tax, I'd really rather not buy the boomer's silence by fucking myself over for no gain for my kids....

"really"

Phase it the hell out.

167 You can't argue against the math.

I am arguing for the math, you are arguing against it.

168 Sure he did. And he used $6 billion in stimulus dollars to fill the whole. Tax dollars that the rest of the country will have to pay. Posted by: JackStraw at September 12, 2011 01:09 PM (TMB3S) ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ And not a penny of that 'gift from the federal govt was funded by Texas taxpayers, huh? Yeah! Free money!!

169 "SS Reform is a stupid hill to die on."

Exactly.

Perry needs to get control of his message and do it tonight.  Tomorrow is too late.

All non-political people know about Rick Perry is that he's from Texas and hates Social Security.  That is not a winning combination.  and it is an absolutely piss-poor week of message management from a candidate supposedly able to beat Obama.

The last thing you want to talk about in a time of extreme income insecurity is how lousy the one program the segment of the population that votes the most relies on for part of what little income security they currently have.

Perry fanboys can try to keep spinning how evil Romney is for playing the SS card against him, and how in the ideal Cato/Heritage Foundation conservative utopia there wouldn't be SS, but in the real world that we actually live in this was a huge own-goal from Perry.

And you know it or you wouldn't have been so vehement in defending him if his comments were so damn self-evident and self-supporting.  He fucked up and you had better hope he doesn't further fuck up tonight or it'll be a short ride down for Rick Perry, Superhero.

170 169 Vic,

that is what Perry, me and others are saying....it is too late for you guys to try to undo the damage to your earning years.....

that is not mockery or pity it is actuarial fact.....

you thought you'd get the deal your folks got and they lied....

no shame in it....

let's save the grandkids and great grandkids from the con

171 Perry is my favorite in the race so far, but the Ponzi scheme remark was an unforced error. It was a Washington gaffe -- when a politico accidentally speaks the truth. Perry is right, but he should walk back the remark. Talk about strengthening social security, while doing all the things he wants to do.

Look at Obama. In the 2008 campaign Obama got caught promising to cut defense to some liberal groups. He took flak. He then stopped saying that. He talked about "Strengthening Defense" while he cut hundreds of defense projects. Obama killed the F-22, next gen cruiser, next gen destroyer, delayed the F-35, killed FCS, killed the airborne laser. Program after program got killed or delayed. And now even larger defense cuts are coming.

At no point does Obama publicly say, All this defense spending is stupid, I'm gonna slash it. No, he uses nice-nice talk about Strengthening Defense while he imposes huge cuts. Next on the block are cutting aircraft carriers, then some F-35 cuts, shrinking the Army and Marines, scaling back missile defense, and more and more.

To win in politics you have to lie, because voters want to be lied to.

172 those people are living 20-33% longer.

No they don't. They are living 5 years longer.

173 Sure it can be sustainable.  Retirement at, say 75, and rising; raise the income cap and/or collect contributions from rich people whose "income" consists primarily of capital gains.  Make it a genuine insurance program wherein you get nothing if you retire rich enough.

And you don't see any problem with a) forcing someone to pay into a program that will not pay them back at promised return rates until after age 75 (when they could, instead, have invested that in a private account and retired whenever they wanted) or b) redistributing wealth from those who made good investments to those who made bad investments or did not invest at all?

We have a term for an economic system that takes from "each according to his ability" and gives to "each according to his need."  There's a name for that.  It's right on my tongue...

174

"And you know it or you wouldn't have been so vehement in defending him if his comments were so damn self-evident and self-supporting."

 

Preach on brother! Now leave out the part where I lied and it's all gold Jerry!!

175 "All of ya'll who are bashing Bachmann need to wait to see how she rolls out. She did make a mild attack this weekend. It was mild and rather vague. That is OK in a primary and it was nothing like Romney's lies about Perry killing grandma.

Wait and see what Bachmann's PAC does and if they jump on the Romney bandwagon then a blistering attack is deserved. .

Posted by: Vic at September 12, 2011 01:40 PM (M9Ie6)"

Agreed.  Bachmann is not the devil.  She's a very good politician.  Better than most of us realized prior to the debates.  Let's see what she's really all about regarding social security.

Though it's hard not to wonder if she's basically part of Romney's campaign sometimes.   We shall see, but so far, on this issue, not much to be upset with her for.

Anyway, I'm still annoyed at the 'Romney is a true fiscal conservative because he cut the deficit!  And he cut it down from a number 250% higher than it really was to a number 110% of the actual amount, so it's not a real cut, and he did it with massive tax revenues rather than spending cuts anyway!' canard.  I've seen it on four different websites today, so I guess it's a renewed meme.

Romney is a tax and spend liberal.  That's not his rhetoric, but it's his record.  Only one major candidate balanced budgets and cut spending and resisted tax increases.  Only one guy walked that walk.

176

"because voters want to be lied to. "

 

Works for me!!

177 Its very smart for Perry to get this issue out now, 14 months before the general election. He should thank Bachmann and Romney for attacking him since BHO will go at it too, only much more deviously and deceptively. Already the fact of high federal debt crushing younger voters is mainstream. 2010 elections proved it. Now the next step is to go mainstream with the idea SS is a nightmare for younger voters. This is the time to make that case. Perry wins if the public believes him and Obama will be on the defensive answering why he let SS go so badly wrong. Why didn't he address SS problems? Why did he cut SS payroll taxes which did nothing to improve the economy and contributed to SS's failing? Perry is proving right away he is a towering figure against the current GOP field.

178 Romney is a tax and spend liberal.  That's not his rhetoric, but it's his record.  Only one major candidate balanced budgets and cut spending and resisted tax increases.  Only one guy walked that walk.

Only one guy discovered water in a lake.

179 Seriously, arguing to abolish SS is fucking retarded.
You can't be elected dog-catcher with that position.

It's fucking delusional.

To be an adult who has a remote chance of winning an actual election - you know those things held in November than old people like to participate in - you have to accept the real world as it actually is.

Seriously. This is fucking stupid.

Bush campaigned on reforming SS. He used the most gentle language possible. And he got crushed. Older voters hated it every time he brought it up.

It is stupid to go down in flames on some retarded abolish-SS suicide mission. All you do is re-elect Obama.

This isn't a hard problem. This isn't our biggest problem.

Don't throw the election away on this stupid, childish abolish SS bullshit.

180 I blame Mitt Romney for failing to discover oil in Massachusetts!1!1!1!1

181 @178 Fuck off.  Romney is a douche, too. 

I'm not going to give Romney credit for celebrating that Perry scored an own-goal.  It may be effective but it sure is shitty.  But, shitty is Mitt's middle name.

See, these are the choices right now.  Romney - politically competent but a scum douche bag.  Perry - politically incompetent version of Bush.

Fabulous.

I think I'll wait for someone else to get in.

182 Don't throw the election away on this stupid, childish abolish SS bullshit.

Conservatives do this often.  Watch what happens if Palin runs.

183 183 Clubber Lang,

it is a non sustainable wealth devouring tax machine....

it will offer an ever diminishing rate of return on stolen wage until there is another baby boom....you know that thing that democrats actively campaign against?

You look into the camera and say "phased transfer of payment to an individual benefit with no reduction in benefit to current payees" and you get to work....

you are playing kick the can until the next crisis....we've done that too much....

all of this so politicians can blow our money without having to account for the pain.

184 No they don't. They are living 5 years longer Wrong. For the people THAT SURVIVE TO AGE 65, THE METRIC YOU INSISTED ON, their life expectancy AT AGE 65 has INCREASED. When your life expectancy is 15 years at age 65, and now it's 20, THAT IS A TWENTY PERCENT INCREASE IN LIFE EXPECTANCY AT AGE 65. Total life span is longer. Life expectancy at EVERY age cohort is longer. Significantly longer. How you keep dismissing simple statistics is beyond me.

185 Medicare reform is a much bigger and more immediate issue than SS.
Getting the economy growing again is a much bigger issue than SS.
Perry can recover. And I think he will. I'm pretty confident he realizes you can't win with a Ron Paul strategy.

186

#178 - Romney lied. 

What Romney did was take statements that Perry put into his 1 yr old book (unconstitutional, big lie, disease, should never have been done, should be devolved to the states) and came to the same conclusion that moderate/independent/democrat voters would come to - that Perry is not a supporter of  SS.    

As noted above this was an unforced error by Perry.  The rhetoric that works in Texas (a mostly GOP state) is not going to work in FL, MI, OH, PA, etc.  He has time to recover though.

Also agree with above that they need to get back to O bashing on jobs/foreign policy/etc and off the SS topic

187 Correction: 33% increase. Was talking about men, but listed female figures. Don't post when exasperated.

188 "Only one guy discovered water in a lake.

Posted by: ParisParamus Toll Booth at September 12, 2011 01:53 PM (Iy+mp)"

Sorry, bud.  Romney increased spending, and his governorship brought in tremendously more tax revenue than the previous.  Much of this was cap gains, and that's not Romney's doing.  That's where most of his deficit cutting came from (though his deficit cutting is a bit exaggerated anyway).

But some of that tax revenue came from Romney increasing taxes.

How does a guy who increased taxes and spending, spending 3 out of his 4 years, become someone who walked the walk?

Perry is the only candidate who is a reelected governor.  He also walked the walk on conservative leadership, which is WHY he was reelected governor and his state did well compared to other states at the same time.  Romney's state did well when every state was doing well, and his state was 47th out of 50, so la dee freaking da.

189 These SS threads become pointless. I will leave this thread with these observations:

1. Romney is a liberal gun grabber and has flip-flopped on numerous key conservative issues.
2. Perry has some ugly spots but he makes Romney look like the Helen Thomas of Republican politicians.
3. Bachmann looks like she is getting desperate but don't go hog wild on her yet.
4. In the end, this election will not hinge on SS unless WE make it the issue dejure. So DON"T!

190

"I think I'll wait for someone else to get in."

Ah, A Palin supporter. A quitter is just what we need.

And really, Perry is so politically incompetent that he got re elected numerous times, oversaw a good economy, and created jobs in a recession.

Go on and stay at home. Your support for Obama is noted.

191 "As noted above this was an unforced error by Perry.  The rhetoric that works in Texas (a mostly GOP state) is not going to work in FL, MI, OH, PA, etc.  He has time to recover though."

You're right.  Perry can recover from a double digit lead.  He just needs to admit he was wrong and stop being so damn honest.  That'll help!

BTW, Romney's rhetoric was every bit as harsh, or to my ears, more harsh.  Well, some of it.  Romney also flip flopped, attacking those who talked abut SS like Romney did when it helped Romney.

Only by cherry picking Perry's views, out of context, can one construct a claim that Perry's agenda is to abolish SS.  Frankly, it would be kinda cool if that were his agenda anyway, but it's not.  Romney doesn't get to debate strawmen.  That he's only capable of doing that is why he's not nearly as electable as he used to look, and why he's in freefall in the polls.

You're right that Perry needs to be a politician on this.  I shouldn't mock you for that.  But if you listen to Perry, he is already doing that.  He's just being honest, too.

192

#192 et al

Question  - Obama (and other liberals) get roundly ridiculed by us on the right when they say that goverment creates jobs.  And yet Perry's TX government creating jobs is his #1 achievement?   How is that consistent?

Also all those saying Romney only served 1 term (while Perry is serving his third governor term after 20+ years in governentment) completely dismiss all of his 20+ years running companies in the real world?  How is that consistent with the criticiism of O' administration by us on the right that there is no one in the adminstration with real world experience?

193 @189 I don't know that he does realize it.

Someone who was on his game would have realized that everything about his record, everything he ever said or wrote was going to be eviscerated.  He strolled into that debate thinking they were going to put a crown on his executive hair.

Lazy, lazy, lazy.  That's what that debate was for Rick Perry. 

"But, but, he had to deal with the fires!"  Yeah, he was on a containment line with an axe and a hose. Right.

This SS issue was just the largest of his mistakes in the debate.  The AGW answer was fumbling and dumb.  The death penalty answer was defensive and pandering.  And on his biggest selling point, job creation in TX, he had no answer to the obvious attack from Romney other than stuttering "that's not true" while Romney's partisans in the crowd cheered. 

Not ready for prime time this past week.  He needs to fix his message discipline tonight.  No later.

194 Romney's a gun grabber?

For some reason I didn't recall that one.

Totally believe it.

Does anyone have a link to Romney being a gun grabber?  Why would the GOP nominate a gun grabber?

195 Chris Mathews called it a Ponzi scheme and criminal, so there. - Rick Perry

196 Anybody who thinks a politician should campaign on abolishing social security is insane, or some sort of Aspergers Paultard.

If you have difficulty understanding why social security is the single most popular govt program in the history of America -- then you need to realize how abnormal you are, and what are poor understanding of your fellow human beings you have.

If you don't understand why SS has been so popular for so long, then you have no standing to give any political advice in the real world.

It's like not understanding why chicks are so attracted to doctors or philandering law partners, but feeling competent to give dating advice. It means your mental model of how the real world works is flawed to the point of delusion.

197 It sounds like AoS is going on Rush's shit list.

198 @194 "Quitter."  I see the intellectual depth of the Perry supporter.  Never heard the "quitter" accusation before. 

Get back to me once you look up Perry's re-elect numbers in the R primary last cycle before Palin endorsed him and after she did.  It might be illuminating for you.

I'll vote for Perry if he's nominee.  I'll vote for Romney if he's the nominee. 

I don't think either of them will be, though.

And Perry sure as shit won't be if he doesn't get his act together beginning tonight.

199 And Perry sure as shit won't be if he doesn't get his act together beginning tonight.

As much as I like Perry, there's a lot of truth in that.

200 200 Clubber Lang,

what you think that it fools people over time into believing in a bullshit underfunded Keynesian Easter Bunny passionately makes it ethical or practical?

The economy would be better served taking the withheld wage and putting it in a 2% IRA......

that's how pathetic it is....

my age group will be better served putting the wage in a coffee can that is how bad it is....

that you think people constantly seeking a perpetual motion machine is awesome is well...not helpful.

201 3) It can be fixed fairly easily. You make nice-nice talk to not scare the old people (who vote! a lot!) and then you quietly raise the retirement age for people under 45. Do some means testing. Theres a fairly straightforward political solution to the SS problem.
Posted by: Clubber Lang
.........
You also raise the cap - something that should have been happening every single year.  Even if it had only followed inflation, the amount going in would be significantly higher today.

202 not to bring anything up that anyone doesn't want to talk about but, was listening to that red eye radio show the other night and a caller, claiming to be a conservative, wanted to know why social security, medicare and medicade have to be touched at all considering the government has no qualms about just printing money?  the caller went on to talk about the fact that the banksters got huge sums of money and are still getting huge bonuses. 

was a little surprised that doug mcintyre really didn't argue with the guy and future callers didn't mention that call at all.  the guy was very convincing and sounded reasonable but i'm wondering if this idea is taking hold in the country and it is being missed?

203 I'll vote for whoever is the Repub nominee. I'd even vote for Ron Paul over Obama.
My vote is secure. It's the mushy middle that I'm worried about.

There's likely nothing any of the Repub nominees can do or say to lose my vote. They can promise to personally ass-rape me and I'll still probably vote for them. Cause Obama is already ass-raping me, and there's a chance the Repub will decide not to even if he campaigned on corn-holing me.

204

#195 - Perry's lead in the polls in still from new guy in the race and not vetted yet.  Some looking at the polls are saying they see signs he is starting to top off but we'll see.  In any event let's see where Perry stands after another debate or 2 and after he starts getting vetted on immigration, education, foreigin policy, etc.  As for cherry picking his views. they were qoutes right out of his 1 yr old book.  Finally, there is a big difference between the  Bachmann and Romney qoutes saying SS was being run criminally by Congress than Perry's qoute that SS is a criminal program (Ponzi scheme) itself.

#197 - We have seen here and other threads people argue that the Perry book is off limits for the campaign because he wrote it before he was a candidate.  Good luck with that one.

#198 - he's not.  That's one of those "he's a mass governor so he must be liberal on guns" memes

205 I think I'll wait for someone else to get in.

Posted by: trumpetdaddy at September 12, 2011 01:54 PM (dcoFe)

AHOY! 

206 Ace, Here's where you need to be careful with Perry evaluations: he's a Moneyballer. He tests everything beforehand and he doesn't fall victim to cliched thinking. He may not articulate things so well, but he trusts his research team and that's why he doesn't back down. Perry will win everything. The only thing that can stop him now is another five-letter word starting with a P.

207 #198 - he's not.  That's one of those "he's a mass governor so he must be liberal on guns" memes

Go back and read the Romney eval. He supported the ugly weapons ban and the Brady Bill. Links galore as well.

208 sure it can be sustainable.  Bzzt, X - Y - Z <> X
All these entitlements programs are built this way.  It CAN'T work, you can patch around it forever pissing more money, time, political capital, etc. away but entropy is as certain to increase as chaos.

Like Vic points out they've fixed it twice already.  How the fuck could anything where Congress taxes everyone what they want, buys votes with some of the money and gives some back ever work to anybody's long term benefit but Congress.   If they were liable in spades for the nonsense they pass we'd all be better off.

For all entitlements fix the payouts to actual yearly tax receipts and let people make they're own arrangements.  Hell even privatization will probably just make an inflationary mess because their isn't enough useful things to invest in, esp. now with the SCOAMF in charge.

209

#202 - I'll vote for Perry if he's nominee.  I'll vote for Romney if he's the nominee.

Not a scientical poll by any means but you see a lot more Perry people threatening to not vote if Romney is the nominee vs the other way around.

Romney campaigned heavily for McCain in '08 and I would expect he would do the same this time if he is not the nominee.  Not sure about Perry

210 "you see a lot more Perry people threatening to not vote if Romney is the nominee vs the other way around."

Yup.  The lesson from this: don't nominate Romney.

211 "The death penalty answer was defensive and pandering. "

This is a complete lie. Thanks for playing. Keep pining for dear Sarah to run. Maybe she will, if she gets that spine transplant in time.

212 " The only thing that can stop him now is another five-letter word starting with a P."

You mean p*ssy? as in not his wife's?

213 A Ponzi schema and Social Security are both pay-as-you-go schemes that can continue to work only as long as pool of people paying into the scheme expands faster than the pool of people drawing benefits from it.

However, the key feature of a Ponzi scheme is the intent to defraud. The promoters of the scheme claim that the benefits come from nonexistent investments.

With Social Security, the cards were always laid on the table: to anyone who was paying attention, the pay-as-you-go nature of the scheme was always in the open. So, to that extent, SS is not a Ponzi scheme.

However, a cloud of misinformation has always surrounded Social Security: the talk of it as being a form of retirement "insurance"; the talk of the "lock box";  talk about "guaranteed benefits", all of that has misled the public. Hell, even the word "security" in the program's name is misleading.

Some of this was salesmanship built into the original bill that set up Social Security, in order to make it more palatable to the voters. Part of it is due to the sheer stupidity and ignorance of our political class, in particular the media. But to the extent that these misconceptions are maintained deliberately by those who are invested in the status quo, then, yes, there is intent to defraud; and yes, by definition, it is a Ponzi scheme.

214 213 mpobama12,

yeah really?

I wanted Rice as far back as 04 and was vocal about it....
since she didn't run I wanted Fred of ourse I didn't know Fred must have been mainlining downers or something....

the race narrowed down to Huckadoodle, MAVERICK!, and Mittens....

I picked Mittens but Huckadoodle picked MAVERICK! angering me....

I maxed out donations to my least palatable major candidate and volunteered for him....

however we lost the GOP moderate woman vote to crossover...and something tells me we lost a lot of moderates who felt like they had been given permission by the GOP to do so or they would have "ran right".

yes some of my conservative friends sat it out....they couldn't get past MAVERICK!'s "gang past".....

They did less harm than the person who ran our members off to give bambi 52%

I'll vote for Dead Gus Hall before bambi and I will vote...

Mitt tearing apart an opportunity to shift America over time to a real retirement plan is not something I will forgive.

215 "Romney campaigned heavily for McCain in '08 and I would expect he would do the same this time if he is not the nominee.  Not sure about Perry"

Perry is justified in being irritated by Romney, just as Romney was justified in being irritated with the execrable Huckabee.

I've never seen any evidence for your claim.  You're just smearing Perry with something you pulled out of your ass.  Maybe you're a concern troll?  

I don't recall Romney doing Mccain any favors.  A hell of a lot of his supporters actually said they would rather vote for Hillary than Mccain.  Ann Coulter said that.

Perry has more supporters than Romney.  Sorry if that bugs you.  Perry's just got the better record.

I checked out Vic's claim.  Brady bill and Assault Weapons ban?

Looks like Romney's another damn gun grabber.  He should primary Obama for the democrat nomination.

"#198 - he's not.  That's one of those "he's a mass governor so he must be liberal on guns" memes

Posted by: nobama12 at September 12, 2011 02:20 PM (ykY2u)"

Why was he governor of Mass if he's not a liberal?  That's a very liberal state.  He campaigned AGAINST being a Reaganite, so you can reconsider your 'is he a team player' rhetoric.

216 @215  No.  It is my opinion.  I found it to be defensive of Texas, belligerently so, and pandering to the whooping and hollering in the hall. 

It was a shameful moment for conservatives and the Republican party.  "Yeah!  The State killing people!  We want us some of that!"

Republicans came off to non-political people like a bunch of fucking moronic rednecks.  Heckuva job, Rick, heckuva job.

217 Anyway, since most Perry supporters online are also people who supported Mitt over Mccain in 2008, this 'Perry supporters aren't team players' nonsense isn't going to work.

I think since Romney is much more liberal than his current rhetoric, of course he will fail to get as much support from Republicans in a general election.  He will be much more vulnerable to a fake-tea or even real third party challenger.  It will be harder for his supporters to be enthusiastic about someone who doesn't stand for anything.

218 “The critical thing that makes a Ponzi scheme despicable to me is the fraud, and Perry’s exaggerating a little bit if he’s implying that there is fraud,” said Harvard Law professor Mark Roe.

When you take money from me that is by law intended for one thing and spend it on all kinds of other crap, then write me an IOU, that's fraud.

219 sure thing trumpetdaddy.

You sound awfully elite to be a Palin supporter. Maybe your false teeth are in today.

220 Flemming vs. Nestor
In this 1960 Supreme Court decision Nestor's denial of benefits was upheld even though he had contributed to the program for 19 years and was already receiving benefits. Under a 1954 law, Social Security benefits were denied to persons deported for, among other things, having been a member of the Communist party. Accordingly, Mr. Nestor's benefits were terminated. He appealed the termination arguing, among other claims, that promised Social Security benefits were a contract and that Congress could not renege on that contract. In its ruling, the Court rejected this argument and established the principle that entitlement to Social Security benefits is not contractual right.

221 trumpetdaddy, now you're just projecting your own likes and dislikes.

The AGW answer I'll give you, that one needed serious work.

I'm not sure how Perry could've answered the death penalty question

a) honestly and at the same time
b) to your liking.

222 "Republicans came off to non-political people like a bunch of fucking moronic rednecks.  Heckuva job, Rick, heckuva job."

What in the hell are you talking about?  How can you sanely blame Rick for being cheering a question he was asked?  The cheering came BEFORE his answer.

That's totally unfair.

And people are informed.  They know that the people Texas executed are murderers.  That audience was mostly California Republicans, and a big issue for them is how murderers in Cali are not executed.  They are more likely to die from old age than from justice.

They cheered the concept of justice, and juries not being overruled by politicians and judges.

If you interpreted that as 'moronic rednecks', then that's something going on in your head.  It was a great moment to applaud Texas's record for justice.  Rick Perry's answer was one of his two great moments in the debate.  Mostly the debate sucked for him, but that was a great part where he intelligently explained the rationale and defended his state (he did poor defending his state most of the debate, looking exhausted, probably from the fact his job was very demanding that week).

I just don't get why you're blaming Perry for something Perry didn't bring up, and for a reaction to the question rather than anything Perry ginned up.  He sure wasn't hooting and hollering.  He was somberly talking about cop killers and child murderers.

223 “The critical thing that makes a Ponzi scheme despicable to me is the fraud, and Perry’s exaggerating a little bit if he’s implying that there is fraud,” said Harvard Law professor Mark Roe.

Only a little bit (notice the good perfesser's hedge there?), and only in the sense of mens rea...and perhaps not even then.

No scheme like SS can ever work; the math will not permit it. It is arguable that anyone with any sense should know it. I mention this now because if people think Perry's discussion points to an impending bad deal, wait until some Man on Horseback comes riding up during far worse times and say the magic words:

"Odious debt."

Whereupon entitlement expenditures will be immediately reduced to zero.

224 And yeah, Trumpet Daddy is right.  Perry's AGW answer sucked.

I am assuming he will pull it together.  He had much less time to prepare for that debate, and I think he should have skipped it.  MSNBC+too busy to prepare = don't fight that battle, dumbass.

225 @223 No, I sound like a Catholic who doesn't treat the Catechism like a cafeteria menu.  And who expects conservatives to not whoop and holler like a bunch of fucking monkeys on speed about the state exercising deadly force. 

And I further expect a candidate for president of the United States to have a well-thought-out and serious response to a question about the state using deadly force beyond, "well the people of Texas want to kill them some criminals, so in their wisdom they have us in the gubmint kill them some criminals."

You know if said candidate actually has a governing philosophy about the state and deadly force beyond punting it to the mob and washing his hands of the subject.

226 "I am assuming he will pull it together"

What disappointed me was this:  Any semi-informed moron could've cited the recent cloud cover study when asked to substantiate the "scientists changing their minds every day" line.  Sure, most of us couldn't've named the *author(s)* of the study, but that wasn't necessary.

The strategic explanation might be that Perry doesn't want to stake anything on that one study in case it doesn't pan out, but I'm afraid there's another explanation: he hadn't heard of it.  Now, running for president is more than a full-time job, so I'll cut him some slack if he didn't *personally* come across this info, but ... that's why politicians have staff.

227 " "well the people of Texas want to kill them some criminals, so in their wisdom they have us in the gubmint kill them some criminals.""

Now you are into the land of the absurd. Sort of like pining for a has been and never was to be your white knight in the GOP nomination race.

Anyone who says Perry did not give that answer the seriousness it deserved is a fucking liar. Period.

228 Trumpet, your beef is with Texas, and frankly with the majority of the people of this country, not with Perry.  I got a bit uncomfortable with the cheering too, but ... you dance with them what brung you.

229 "Anyone who says Perry did not give that answer the seriousness it deserved is a fucking liar. Period.

Posted by: Dick Nixon at September 12, 2011 02:43 PM (UZl30)"

Agreed.  He handled that one very nicely.  I wish he had handled the rest of the debate that well, frankly.

The cheering was at the question, not Perry's answer.  And I didn't see the problem with it, anyway.  Californian conservatives want justice too.  When Texas executes a killer, yes, that's somber, but compared to what happens in Cali, it's actually something worth positive support.

Texas is not perfect.  All justice systems are imperfect human things.  But they do not have anything to be ashamed of.  They do their best, and they do it better than any other state.

230 @225 Absolutely right.  And I despised the moral cowardice of his answer and I really despised the audience cheering. 

He punted on the substance by saying it is what the people want and wrapped his punting inside macho talk about "ultimate justice" and threw in a dash of child molesters and cop-killers for seasoning.  Because every victim of a murder is a child or a cop, right? 

Ultimate justice come only from God.  Not the state legislature in Austin.

231

@215  No.  It is my opinion.  I found it to be defensive of Texas, belligerently so, and pandering to the whooping and hollering in the hall. 

It was a shameful moment for conservatives and the Republican party.  "Yeah!  The State killing people!  We want us some of that!"

Republicans came off to non-political people like a bunch of fucking moronic rednecks.  Heckuva job, Rick, heckuva job.

Posted by: trumpetdaddy at September 12, 2011 02:34 PM (dcoFe)

But a large large majority of Americans DO want heinous killer executed promptly, despite what our 'betters' have been yammering for a generation.

232 Ultimate justice come only from God.  Not the state legislature in Austin.

Posted by: trumpetdaddy at September 12, 2011 02:49 PM (dcoFe)

How do you know that Austin isn't doing just what God wants?

233

Sorry if this has been said already, but ". . . people living longer, and therefore collecting more in benefits, rather than some inherent structural shortcoming or constitutional failing."

People living longer (and that not having been taken into account when the program was set up) is a structural problem!  What maroons.

234 "You know if said candidate actually has a governing philosophy about the state and deadly force beyond punting it to the mob and washing his hands of the subject.

Posted by: trumpetdaddy at September 12, 2011 02:41 PM (dcoFe)"

Punting to the mob?

Are you referring to jury trials in Texas?  Do you have any idea how 'progressive' Texas is, when it comes to defendant rights?  We have the best criminal justice system in the country.  The difference between Texas and California is that jury verdicts for execution are honored unless there's a good reason.  That's all.

The idea Perry just punts the issue is amazingly ignorant.  It's not his place to preside over criminal cases, anyway.  That issue requires attention from a jury, not a king.

Perry does have a governing philosophy.  It's just not your philosophy.  Which is your prerogative, but Perry doesn't have to govern according to your religion to have a legitimate view.

235 Trumpet, your beef is with Texas, and frankly with the majority of the people of this country, not with Perry.  I got a bit uncomfortable with the cheering too, but ... you dance with them what brung you.

Posted by: Knemon at September 12, 2011 02:43 PM (d6dpf)

I feel a lot more uncomfortable with the liberals cheering the killers, frankly.

236 Oops, I see that Ace said this right after I got so upset that I posted without reading the whole thing.  Sorry.

237 " And I despised the moral cowardice of his answer and I really despised the audience cheering. "

Did you even watch the debate?  It sure sounds like you are totally unfamiliar with Perry's responsible and morally grounded explanation for why it is just to execute certain people.  He did not wash his hands.  It would have been easy for him to say it's out of his hands, but he didn't bother doing so.

Juries assign the death penalty.  You and me.  Or not you, I guess, as you seem to want to overrule the law based on your religion.  Which is totally fine. Free country.

But not everyone believes in your religious views.  Some think that executing a murderer is acceptable.  Some Christians think so, in fact.  You don't get to overrule everyone out of what appears to be bigotry against 'fucking moron rednecks'.

Who do you think you are, anyway? 

238 @232 No, not really.  If Texas wants to execute criminals after due process, fine.  I don't agree with it but I don't agree with the fact that my state, Ohio, does the same thing.

My problem with Perry's answer was that he presented it like it was some great, serious response when all it was was punting dressed up in some "rah, rah, go Texas" language.  Read his quote again and see if he is saying anything at all substantive.

He isn't.

I expect a man aspiring to be leader of the free world to have some core moral convictions about the use of deadly force that he can articulate in a compelling way when a perfectly predictable question is asked.  Bush did in 2000.

Ultimately, deadly force is what distinguishes the state from private actors.  If Rick Perry has an overarching philosophy about the state's power to use deadly force, we sure as hell don't know what it is from that answer. 

239 "My problem with Perry's answer was that he presented it like it was some great, serious response when all it was was punting dressed up in some "rah, rah, go Texas" language. "

That's just not true.  You just can't see beyond your personal views.

If Rick Perry has an overarching philosophy about the state's power to use deadly force, we sure as hell don't know what it is from that answer. 

You should watch the debate.  You clearly haven't.  You have no idea what you're talking about.  His answer was serious, and explained justice.  When you murder a child or a cop, and a jury wants you to pay the ultimate penalty, Texas's elites do not interfere with that.  That's a philosophy.  You just reject it.  I don't mind.  But you don't get to judge us.

240 Who is the unserious dumbass in this debate?  The guy claiming cheering = fucking redneck morons, or the guy who articulated a somber fact about justice?

What is justice?  Forgiveness is not justice.  Forgiveness is a good thing in many ways, but it is decidedly unjust.

Did Perry spoonfeed that to us?  Of course not.  Everyone knows that some people are quite deserving of the death penalty.  He doesn't need to be an imbecile and say the basics. 

He had quite a serious answer, and it's sad someone would assume those supporting his view are redneck morons.  Says a lot more about those judging the cheers than anything else.

Is it a good thing that Texas executes killers?  Yes.  I applaud the concept of justice.  I hope Perry can bring the rest of his debate up to this level of seriousness and moral clarity.  That would be outstanding.

241

"Ultimate justice come only from God.  Not the state legislature in Austin."

Great. A religious fanatic.

242

"Bush did in 2000."

Wait. Are you using Bush to slam Perry? You do realize that Bush held the same job Perry has now, don't you? Bush was pro death penalty as well.

Keep spinning there dufus. Next you will tell us that Perry's calling for the National Guard on the border and using Predator drones there means he is open borders.

243 "No, sir. I've never struggled with that at all. The state of Texas has a very thoughtful, a very clear process in place of which -- when someone commits the most heinous of crimes against our citizens, they get a fair hearing, they go through an appellate process, they go up to the Supreme Court of the United States, if that's required.

"But in the state of Texas, if you come into our state and you kill one of our children, you kill a police officer, you're involved with another crime and you kill one of our citizens, you will face the ultimate justice in the state of Texas, and that is, you will be executed."

That's the quote.  He tells us that he doesn't struggle with the thought that an innocent person might be executed.  He tells how great Texas' process is without expressing and opinion about that process beyond calling it "thoughtful"  and "clear." 

Then he goes on to include the emotional bait of kids and cops in a defense of Texas executing people.  And he tops it of by calling it "ultimate justice."

That's the quote, guys.  You tell me where you find any substance that illuminates what Rick Perry actually thinks about capital punishment beyond him saying that he doesn't struggle with it.

I goddamn want my president to struggle with life and death issues.  Blithe indifference is not what I want from the president of the US.  YMMV.

244 Breaking (HA headlines): Jindal will endorse Perry.

245

"I goddamn want "

""Ultimate justice come only from God."

Taking the Lords Name in vain. Really religious of you, moby.

246 @245 No.  A Roman Catholic.  I've got the same view of the death penalty as the church to which I belong.  I don't expect the president to hold to my religious views but I do expect on matters of deadly force by the state for him to actually have a well-thought-out position beyond, "The people want it. Yeah!"

There are a multitude of issues on which George W. Bush had much better reasons and explanations for his policies that Rick Perry.  This is just one of them.

247

" I don't expect the president to hold to my religious views "

Yet that is what you are basing your argument on.

248 @249.  That why we go to confession, dude.  Imperfection and mistakes are inherent in humanity and I'm no exception. 

Imperfection and mistakes are among the many reasons the Church teaches against capital punishment, BTW.  Thanks for illustrating my point, even if it came at my personal expense.

249 @251 No.  I'm basing it on his inability or unwillingness to explain his view in a morally serious manner.  Read his quote.  I posted it above for your convenience.

I don't expect my president to agree with me on every particular.  I do expect him to act like he's thought about the most serious issues of life and death in an adult manner.

250 TD -- why is "this is something which should be up to the people of Texas" not a "well-thought out" answer?

251 you know, the night of the debate I brought this very subject up.  And you guys accused me of wanting the killers of children and cops to go unpunished.  It isn't so much what perry said that night but the gut reaction most people had to what he said and the horror of anyone cheering the death penalty.   It's a largely republican audience.  but there it was, right in your face, people cheering the death penalty and making everyone uncomfortable.   If it were a dem and he was saying "well the people of my state want little babies killed in the womb, they want it, so we do it" and then all the dems cheered, what would you be saying now?

252

"  If it were a dem and he was saying "well the people of my state want little babies killed in the womb, they want it, so we do it" and then all the dems cheered, what would you be saying now?"

Keep fucking that chicken son.

253

#219

<<I've never seen any evidence for your claim.  You're just smearing Perry with something you pulled out of your ass.  Maybe you're a concern troll?>>  

Meant to say Perry supporters.  Not a concern troll.  My concern is that everyone on the right has fallen in live with Perry before he has been examined or vetted.   

<<I don't recall Romney doing Mccain any favors.  A hell of a lot of his supporters actually said they would rather vote for Hillary than Mccain.  Ann Coulter said that>>

yeah, Romney is in control of Ann Coulter

Perry has more supporters than Romney.  Sorry if that bugs you.  Perry's just got the better record.

Doesn't bug me.  My fear is that he has more supporters in the right-wing sites but less with the moderates/independents who are going to decide the election.  If O is able to paint Perry as too extreme (which he might be able to do unless Perry tones his rhetoric down) then Perry won't win and we get another 4 yrs of O

I checked out Vic's claim.  Brady bill and Assault Weapons ban?

Missed that.  

Why was he governor of Mass if he's not a liberal?

Yeah everbody in MA is a liberal and everybody in TX is a staunch conservatie.  Nice simplication

254 Social Security cannot be a Ponzi scheme because a scam artist is not allowed to seize your property and kill you if you protest, only the gov't can do that.

255

Posted by: trumpetdaddy at September 12, 2011 03:19 PM (dcoFe)

 

His answer showed that. You are the one concerned with "mob rule" in Texas. And your interpretation of Perry's response is 100% away from mine.

Just as a Protestant, I find your religious beliefs 100% in opposition to mine. Yet , free country, etc.

256

If Social Security was not a Ponzi sceme, how was Obama able to threaten Granny's checks last month? Hmmm? Because Granny's money was spent 20 years ago funding research on gay mosquito behavior, that's why - Rick Perry

257 @254  I'm sure that answer was "well thought out" as a dodge.  It actually sounded like something the Perry team wrote up as a specific soundbite, anticipating the question.  A non-answer that included the red meat of kids and cops to get the plebes whooping in the cheap seats.

I guess what I should say is that I find the answer to be even more distasteful if this is what he thought conservatives wanted to hear; a non-answer that puts the responsibility on the people of Texas without giving any clues to his own thoughts on the matter.  I don't care what the people of Texas in aggregate think, I care what Rick Perry thinks because he's the one who wants my vote.

His answer is disturbing on many levels. 

258 "a non-answer that puts the responsibility on the people of Texas without giving any clues to his own thoughts on the matter."

And what if his thoughts on the matter *are* that this is something which is properly decided by majority will at the state level?  You keep saying you don't need him to share your beliefs, but ... you sorta do. 

259 @262  All he had to do was preface the remarks he actually did give with a "Yes, I do struggle with it.  The state taking a human life is very profound and that's why I'm so pleased with Texas' process, yadda, yadda, yadda..."

But he didn't do that, did he?  He had to shove it right back at the moderator and play to the animal instincts of the crowd in the hall.

260 255 you know, the night of the debate I brought this very subject up. And you guys accused me of wanting the killers of children and cops to go unpunished. It isn't so much what perry said that night but the gut reaction most people had to what he said and the horror of anyone cheering the death penalty. It's a largely republican audience. but there it was, right in your face, people cheering the death penalty and making everyone uncomfortable. If it were a dem and he was saying "well the people of my state want little babies killed in the womb, they want it, so we do it" and then all the dems cheered, what would you be saying now?

Posted by: at September 12, 2011 03:19 PM (k1rwm)

I'd put down a hundred bucks that either you are lying about what you said now or have no clue about how people were actually responding to your insane ramblings.  Basing that solely on past observations of your utter lack of comprehension.

261

Whatever scrunt. You can moan and groan that your religious views don't influence your view that Rick Perry is a wild eyed dictator killing those damned child molesters and cop killers without feeling sad about it. And that in Texas, your average redneck pulls the switch without any involvement from the judiciary.

Have fun waiting on half term to save you from Rick Perry. Maybe when she gets that spine transplant she'll get in the race.

 

262 "All he had to do was preface the remarks he actually did give with a "Yes, I do struggle with it.  The state taking a human life is very profound and that's why I'm so pleased with Texas' process, yadda, yadda, yadda...""

Well, he said he doesn't struggle with it *because* Texas has a process, etc.  Seems the same to me.  If there were a chance of executing innocent people he'd struggle with it, but he thinks there isn't a meaningful chance d/t Texas' process, so he doesn't.

Now he might be wrong about how awesome Texas' process is ... and he and you are both wrong if you're saying that the biggest problem with the death penalty is the possibility of executing innocents.  From a certain moral perspective, even if you could guarantee that every executed person was guilty, with no possibility of error, you can argue the state still shouldn't be doing this.

But that's beside the point.  He had 30 seconds or whatever to answer a question from a hostile interviewer on a contentious subject.  He did okay.

263 Aww come on guys... there's an easy fix for this Social (in)Security issue. It's already on the books - ObamaCare. Just let it ride and we'll kill off thousands, maybe even tens of thousands every year once the Death Panels.... I mean Medical Necessity Committees, get going. Just think of all the Baby Boomers they can kick to the curb as too old to be economical to fix. It's only fair. It WAS the Baby Boomers that cried and wailed every time we tried to bring Social Security and Medicare to heel.

264 Obama is a stuttering clusterf*ck of a miserable failure.

265 Dick Nixon, you're on a roll here. Here's a tip: go to China.

266 Already been. Oh wait, that was the Great Wall buffet for lunch. Excellent pork btw.

267 Ponzi scheme, which is an undertaking designed to swindle people out of their money by using incoming revenue to produce bogus investment returns to attract more money It's not? then why did Congress since 1983 spend every penny of the $2.5 trillion surplus on bogus "social investments" that never paid a dividend? Yes, it is a Ponzi scheme when you lie to the public about what you did with the money all those years and then Dems lied again claiming nothing is wrong with Social Security during the Bush admin to prevent any reform.

268 "Yeah everbody in MA is a liberal and everybody in TX is a staunch conservatie.  Nice simplication

Posted by: nobama12 at September 12, 2011 03:23 PM (ykY2u)"

Anyone electable in Texas is going to be a fairly moderate conservative.  There's no other way to be electable there.

Anyone electable in MA is going to be damn liberal.

That's not a simplification.  It's the truth.  Look at Romney's campaign.  He was a liberal.  He governed by raising taxes and spending in a boom period, claiming the boom was his doing, which was absurd and Clintonian.

He's a tax and spend liberal, and so are his supporters.

269 Since just 2000, coming into tonight's debate, Mittens has held 5 different mutually exclusive positions on Social Security, with only the latest one amounting to support for it's being "fixed", in the implied sense of continuing it 'as is'. Whereas, in contrast, Governor Perry has taken two positions which are NOT mutually exclusive, but are rather in fact reconcilable. To put this little controversy to rest, all Perry has to do tonight is to refer the folks to any one of literally dozens of articles on the web showing, through direct quotes, the various conflicted and momentarily convenient positions that Romney has taken. I can see Perry doing it a lot better than this, because he's got a gift for direct, pithy summaries, but merely pointing this out would do it. The ability to take principled stands is one of the defining differences between Republicans and Democrats. The only principle Romney has ever failed to contradict is he wants to be president.

270 Posted by: buzzion at September 12, 2011 03:38 PM (GULKT)

it didn't play well with the "on the fence" group, (independents or those who call themselves "more conservative democrats")

heard about it all weekend.  And, if you combine it with this dominion religious stuff that girl is writing incessantly about and they are apparently reading, the whispering is that he's not only a religious fanatic but he supports the death penalty.  no matter how you slice it, it doesn't look appealing to the sound bite crowd.

271 I thought the electability factor was important?

272 Curious is the dumbest troll on the damn internet.  This is supposed to be clever concern trolling?  LOL.

You know who supports the death penalty?  Barack Obama.  You know who is associated with insane religious extremism?  Barack Obama.

Curious is projecting. 

273 "All he had to do was preface the remarks he actually did give with a "Yes, I do struggle with it."

That would be disgusting.  That would be terrible.   It's also ignorant.

Perry doesn't execute people.  But if he did, what business does he have doing it to people he morally wishes would live or whatever you really mean by 'struggles with'?

It's ridiculous.

His answer was fine.  there is no problem.  All he needs to do is continue being honest about these serious matters instead of trying to slimeball his way through these issues the way you want him to.

274 Took me time to read all the comments, but I really enjoyed the article. It proved to be Very helpful to me and I am sure to all the commenters here! ItÂ’s always nice when you can not only be informed, but also entertained!

275 People have been living longer for as long as people have lived in America. The problem was recognized with particular acuteness in the 80s, and payroll taxes raised in order to create a funding pool when needed later. =========== This is something of a misunderstanding. There was a quote from one of the guys on the Greenspan Commission (which I will try to find) repudiating that Social Security increased taxes in the 80s to create a funding pool. Instead, they were very worried about stagflation which reduced what they were taking in in both unadjusted and adjusted terms to the point that in '81 they were fairly certain that Social Security would be insolvent by '83. In some ways, this has become something of a liberal trope, contending that Ronnie did it as a way to raise taxes without raising taxes or hiding the deficit, or whatever devious motive they wish to assign to 'Rethuglicans'(TM).

276

Perry has the guts to call SS a Ponzi scheme.  Its a bad joke and a rip off.  You would get better returns by buying savings bonds than you get from social security.  People are so dumb that they don't realize that the actual rate of return in social security is less than 2% annually.

 

Worse the Supreme Court has stated three times that Americans have no right to social security.

 

Ergo, most Americans are worse than dumb, they are suckers.

277 11708550   p822686  p165675   131-8902+131-8903   600-311-8293 

278 china deutz genset,john deere parts china, chinese generator air filter
1r0719,0020922801,5i-8670x,sakura filter china 2934053
 mann filter w67/1,mann filter wd13145/3,901-048 perkins,caterpillar 199
 fuel wather separator brands on the market