Video: Romney hits Perry on Social Security, Perry doubles down on “Ponzi scheme”; Update: Perry swats Rove

posted at 9:36 pm on September 7, 2011 by Allahpundit

I didn’t think Mitt would go here just yet but I guess the last few weeks of polling left him no choice. Not only was he ready with a gut punch on entitlements, here’s the headline of the press release that his team beamed out while this was going on, via HuffPo’s Jon Ward: “PERRY DOES NOT BELIEVE SOCIAL SECURITY SHOULD EXIST.” Boom.

Needless to say, this clip is less an argument about entitlements than a proxy for the eternal “electability vs. principle” conundrum. Perry’s shooting straight to polish his fiscal conservative bona fides and Romney’s angling towards the center so that he can make the “only I can attract independents” case to undecided primary voters when the time comes. Who wins?

Update: A Romney advisor e-mails Ben Smith the following about Perry: “He has lost. No federal candidate has ever won on the Perry program to kill Social Security. Never has. never will.”

Update: Via the Right Scoop, here’s a snippet from another answer on Social Security in which Perry repays Rove’s kindness for this morning’s sniping about how “toxic” his views are. Click the image to watch.

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2 3 4

I didn’t see “demagoguery”. Romney’s position is that it needs to be fixed; apparently Perry thinks it needs to be scrapped. Those are different approaches and each deserve scrutiny.

Buy Danish on September 8, 2011 at 8:38 AM

Romney, Cain, and Newt are the only adults in the room. We will see about Perry as time progresses. But from what I have seen from some of his supporters so far scares me. There is a segment that are acting just like the Palin loons. But I wont hold that against him because if he does turn out to run as a moderate, those people will disavow him immediately.

csdeven on September 8, 2011 at 8:46 AM

I don’t want any of our prospective nominees taking up positions that will hurt them in the general just so they can win the primary.

csdeven on September 8, 2011 at 8:21 AM

Perry is at odds with conservatives on immigration and he tried to push through the injection policy.

Are you saying that Perry’s weakness on illegals somehow cancels out your concern on SS? That’s just silly. You clearly said you don’t want our prospective nominees taking up positions that will hurt them in the primary. You have made clear that you think Perry’s rhetoric is dangerous for his electability.

Cain is the anti-ideologue! The guy is most closely aligned with the GOP on the issues of financial reform and smaller government. The only issue he is ideological on is the Muslim deal. But even that doesn’t really hurt him in this environment.

The same pretty much goes for Cain. The media would rip him up. And ultimately he probably would be hurt by his stance on Islam. I guess that rules him out in your book. Unless you’re changing the goal post again.

Like I said, congrats on Romney and Huntsman.

Are you a Perry supporter?

Not particularly. I’m embracing conservative ideas … or “views,” but that doesn’t make me a Perry supporter.

I ask because it seems as if you are taking up the same tactics as the Palin fans who just can’t get their head around the problems an ideologue will face in the general. I really don’t care if our nominee governs as an ideologue once in office. But that nominee will never get elected if he/she runs as an ideologue. That is a fact.

csdeven on September 8, 2011 at 8:39 AM

Palin’s not an ideologue. Reagan didn’t hold Moderate views. Stop trolling.

I’m out.

MeatHeadinCA on September 8, 2011 at 8:49 AM

csdeven on September 8, 2011 at 8:46 AM

Cain thinks that he’s running for King. He has no clue about the constraints that a President has to live with. Sorry, Herman, if you were starting your own country then your ideas would be wonderful. His ideas are entirely infeasible because there is no path from here to what he wants. You spoke before about abrupt and subtle change. Cain is the epitome of abrupt.

MJBrutus on September 8, 2011 at 8:49 AM

I’m out.

MeatHeadinCA on September 8, 2011 at 8:49 AM

Yeah, I think you’re right to run away. Palin is an ideologue and Reagan was not.

csdeven on September 8, 2011 at 8:56 AM

Yeah, I think you’re right to run away. Palin is an ideologue and Reagan was not.

csdeven on September 8, 2011 at 8:56 AM

Care to show us where Sarah is an idealogue? It’s certainly not clear to any Palin fans I know of…

OnlyOrange on September 8, 2011 at 9:02 AM

Yeah, I think you’re right to run away. Palin is an ideologue and Reagan was not.

csdeven on September 8, 2011 at 8:56 AM

Any review of Palin’s governing history will show that without a doubt, Palin is no ideologue. You’re free to point to anything in her record to make your case.

darwin on September 8, 2011 at 9:05 AM

Don’t just replace SSA and other entitlements.

Make something better that the government can’t ravage to its spendthrift ends.

This took all of 10 minutes to think up.

I am sure you can do better.

ajacksonian on September 8, 2011 at 7:12 AM

I concur with the 30 year lock before you can access it. There are plenty of ideas floating around and the cream of them all won’t get to the top, let alone implemented, unless all angles are frankly examined and discussed.

The longer it takes before we have this discussion and reform, the more I’ll be resistant to any notion of “shared sacrifice”. If I as a young worker in the 80s knew SS was crap and prepared for it, yet the people didn’t want to hear any “evil” even till now, then a pox on their foolishishness. Every day we postpone this overhaul & privatization, the more it is going to hurt the unprepared.

AH_C on September 8, 2011 at 9:24 AM

Mittens is a fool. You cannot save entitlements and the country it’s an either or situation.

DFCtomm on September 8, 2011 at 9:28 AM

As for the founding fathers and pensions, how about you provide a link. I’ll check it out tomorrow….

Buy Danish on September 8, 2011 at 12:14 AM

Mea Culpa.

I checked it out this morning and the 1770 – 1850s pension system wasn’t as restrictive as I thot when I last examined the issue back during Dubya’s PSA debacle. IOWs, I mis-remembered some of the facts.

In any case, here’s a pretty good link and a piece that I find interesting:

In 1890 Congress enacted a new law that paid pensions to any Union veteran of the Civil War who served for at least ninety days, was honorably discharged, and suffered from a disability, even if not war-related. In 1904 Theodore Roosevelt ruled that old age itself was a disability, basically transforming the system into a government pension system for all Civil War veterans. Three years later, in 1907, Congress legislatively endorsed this position in the Service and Age Act. Congress, in subsequent legislation during the first quarter of the twentieth century, increased pensions and tied the amount of the pension to the period of military service.

The last Civil War pensioner, Albert Woolson, who joined the Union Army as a seventeen-year-old in 1864, was collecting a monthly pension of $135.45 at the time of his death in 1956. And perhaps more remarkably, there were still nineteen dependents of Civil War veterans receiving benefits in the last years of the twentieth century. At its peak, the Civil War pension system consumed approximately 45 percent of all federal revenue and was the largest department of the federal government (other than the armed services). In addition, state pension systems were developed in the former Confederate states to provide pension and disability benefits to Confederate veterans.

For many historians and other social scientists, the Civil War pension system represents both a mirror of social and economic features of the United States between the Civil War and the turn of the century, and a bridge between an era of limited government and the regulatory state that emerged in the last seven decades of the twentieth century.

Bottomline with entitlements, politicians just can’t help themselves but be more and more generous with our taxes to fund others’ entitlement.

AH_C on September 8, 2011 at 9:32 AM

I didn’t see “demagoguery”. Romney’s position is that it needs to be fixed; apparently Perry thinks it needs to be scrapped. Those are different approaches and each deserve scrutiny.

Buy Danish on September 8, 2011 at 8:38 AM

Of course there is demagoguery! Where has Perry stated that he wants SS scrapped?

Saying something is a Ponzi scheme doesn’t translate into “It should be scrapped…”

Sigh… I posted some comments on SS from Perry’s thread in an earlier comment. Now read it carefully and show me where he asks for it to be scrapped.

Ponzi schemes — like the one that sent Bernard Madoff to prison — are illegal in this country for a reason. They are fraudulent systems designed to take in a lot of money at the front and pay out none in the end. This unsustainable fiscal insanity is the true legacy of Social Security and the New Deal. Deceptive accounting has hoodwinked the American public into thinking that Social Security is a retirement system and financially sound, when clearly it is not.

Now, if you say Social Security is a failure, as I have just done, you will inherit the wind of political scorn. Seniors might think you want to cut the benefits they have paid for. Politicians will seek to take advantage, stirring up fear about benefits that will be lost if you elect another “heartless Republican.” I get it. That’s why only retired senators chair entitlement commissions.
We are told that no politician has the courage to raise these issues, even if avoiding them puts us on the fast track to financial ruin. But by remaining quiet, politicians are really saying they think the American people won’t understand it if we share the grim details of our financial future, and that voters will simply kill — or vote against — the messenger in order to continue to receive an underfunded benefit that robbed them of the tens of thousands of dollars they should have made.
Is that how we should respect our fellow citizens? By underestimating their intelligence, their desire to retire with greater stability, or their committment to the next generation?

I guess I have to get ready for a long day of posting this over and over since other so-called conservatives are not interested in searching out the truth for themselves and prefer to parrot leftist talking points.

And who do you think it will benefit? Mitt Romney? Remember that when SS collapses one day and is exposed for all to see as a Ponzi scheme.

TheRightMan on September 8, 2011 at 9:34 AM

Sorry wrt my comment @ 9:34am the quotes are from from Perry’s book “Fed Up”.

TheRightMan on September 8, 2011 at 9:35 AM

Any review of Palin’s governing history will show that without a doubt, Palin is no ideologue. You’re free to point to anything in her record to make your case.

darwin on September 8, 2011 at 9:05 AM

Go back a couple of pages to see csdeven making Reagan out to be a moderate (otherwise he wouldn’t have been elected) and making Perry the idealogue. I lived & worked thru the Reagan years, I don’t recall him apologizing one whit for his ideas (“we win, they lose”). I do remember the MSM & GOP elites gnashing their teeth over imagined faux pas and naivite. If Regan ever compromised, it was to try and move the overton window to the right. That he was bamboozled by Tip O’Neil and a predominant donk congress was just another challenge.

Methinks csdeven conflated Reagan’s sunny optimism with moderation.

AH_C on September 8, 2011 at 9:41 AM

But I wont hold that against him because if he does turn out to run as a moderate, those people will disavow him immediately.

csdeven on September 8, 2011 at 8:46 AM

Stop pining for so-called “moderates” [code for wishy-washy linguini-spine RINOs] on the GOP side this election season. The nominees are NOT going to be Romney or Huntsman - and you can bank on that!

I know you consider the Alinsky-disciple Obama to be a moderate. You voted for him in 2008 and will vote for him again in 2012, so quit trying to set up a match between your "leftist idealogue" Obama and the weakest RINO you can find.

TheRightMan on September 8, 2011 at 9:43 AM

Bottomline with entitlements, politicians just can’t help themselves but be more and more generous with our taxes to fund others’ entitlement.
AH_C on September 8, 2011 at 9:32 AM

Perhaps, but I think it’s a mistake to conflate veterans benefits with entitlements.

TheRightMan on September 8, 2011 at 9:34 AM

Okay, fine. They both want to reform Social Security.

Buy Danish on September 8, 2011 at 10:32 AM

TheRightMan on September 8, 2011 at 9:34 AM

Okay, fine. They both want to reform Social Security.

Buy Danish on September 8, 2011 at 10:32 AM

Thanks for acknowledging that.

Actually, Perry’s position on Social Security is not too different from what is considered a party position, save his use of flowery rhetoric.

Fact: Social Security, as it stands now, is unsustainable. Why?

1. Demand will soon outstrip “supply” – that is those taking out of the system wil soon outnumber those paying in.

That is the essential definition of a Ponzi scheme.

2. The federal Govt. keeps raiding the funds for their own use…

If SS was not a Ponzi scheme and the money was supposedly locked up safe somewhere, can someone explain how or why Obama threatened not to pay out because of GOP’s intransigence on increasing the debt limit? Where was the safe money?

TheRightMan on September 8, 2011 at 10:45 AM

I’m done with Romney. In response to Perry’s declaration that social security is the Ponzi scheme that it is, Romney said:

Under no circumstances would I ever say by any measure it’s a failure.

Romney’s toast. Romney entered the “race” with 2 strikes for his role in Romneycare. The quoted statement is his third strike as far as I’m concerned. At this point, much the way Ann Coulter advocated voting for Hillary over McCain last go-round, I think I’d back anyone else over Romney because Republicans would know they’re supposed to oppose The One’s proposals but might get lost when Romney makes a suggestion.

EconomicNeocon on September 8, 2011 at 10:56 AM

ajacksonian on September 8, 2011 at 7:12 AM

I love Romney’s idea to kill cap gains, dividend and interest taxes on the middle class! It will encourage us to save by removing the tax penalties. Essentially, our savings will be treated as though they were in an IRA or 401k without any of the limitations and rules. It will vastly simplify our taxes too, no more 1099-DIV, 1099-I or Schedule D’s for us!

MJBrutus on September 8, 2011 at 11:01 AM

Some of you perry supporters are starting to worry me. You are already trying to fix your candidate by leveling insults at those who don’t toe your line. Seriously, lets not do that okay? We don’t need another group doing that.

csdeven on September 8, 2011 at 12:54 AM

Oh, the irony.

All that time in your grammy’s basement isn’t wearing well on you. Exactly when did you switch from being a Paulnut to a Palin freak?

csdeven on September 7, 2011 at 12:44 AM

St Palin the Victimized is now equal to George Washington?

Bwahahahahahaha!!!!

I thought you loons jumped the shark when you compared her to Rocky Balboa!

It’s clear every one of you Palin loons were formerly Paulnuts!

csdeven on September 7, 2011 at 12:49 AM

I’m not sure who you are, but if you KNOW you aren’t a former Paulnut, then it certainly doesn’t apply to you. Only those who know they are Palin freaks will be offended by that comment.

csdeven on September 7, 2011 at 12:54 AM

fossten on September 8, 2011 at 11:07 AM

TheRightMan on September 8, 2011 at 10:45 AM

I don’t think calling it a Ponzi Scheme is “flowery language”:)

I’m done with Romney. In response to Perry’s declaration that social security is the Ponzi scheme that it is, Romney said:
Under no circumstances would I ever say by any measure it’s a failure.
EconomicNeocon on September 8, 2011 at 10:56 AM

It has not failed until this point and like it or not, it’s very popular with the peeps. You are not dealing with political reality and seem to think that using tough talk is a more a effective way to bring about reform than persuading the public with more dare I say “moderate” language.

And I bet you a loaf of bread that you are wrong when you say Mitt is toast.

Buy Danish on September 8, 2011 at 11:08 AM

Romney, Cain, and Newt are the only adults in the room. We will see about Perry as time progresses. But from what I have seen from some of his supporters so far scares me. There is a segment that are acting just like the Palin loons. But I wont hold that against him because if he does turn out to run as a moderate, those people will disavow him immediately.

csdeven on September 8, 2011 at 8:46 AM

You are already trying to fix your candidate by leveling insults at those who don’t toe your line. Seriously, lets not do that okay? We don’t need another group doing that.

csdeven on September 8, 2011 at 12:54 AM

fossten on September 8, 2011 at 11:10 AM

AH_C on September 8, 2011 at 9:24 AM

This needs to be open sourced in some way to round up good ideas from all over and to start bundling similar ones together to look for synergy amongst them.

I want a set of governments that are very restricted on what they can tax, and want a methodology where individuals can shelter as much of their savings and earnings from government as possible. By doing that individuals can feel secure that they are guiding their own future and that they only will get hit with usage taxes and other fees to support a government for all while not having a government try to oversee every detail of every individual’s life. The idea of this Nation is that you are born free and the best service that government can do is to provide a level playing field and leave it up to you to navigate that field. Good ideas run by government cost to much and tilt the playing field. Soon you don’t have an open and free system, but one designed by and for the powerful and politically well connected. That must end and you must be able to shelter yourself from rapacious government.

MJBrutus on September 8, 2011 at 11:01 AM

Mitt Romney got hit hard during his time as Governor when people started to question how he could forget that he was using off-shore accounts to shield his investments from taxation. The general idea he came up with was one floated by others in the 1980′s that capital gains should not be taxed as those funds were already taxed. Indeed all non-labor income gained through earnings via investment are just that: earnings, not pay.

That is a major point for Romney, yes. I abhor his general trust in the size, scope and power of government and he is making the Teddy Roosevelt argument that all you need is good men to run government and you will be safe from it. When TR saw that Woodrow Wilson was getting into the Presidential race he knew he had to do anything to try and win the office again to stop him, because Woodrow Wilson was not a good man in TR’s eyes and he saw that the apparatus he had helped to construct as President was open to abuse from any future officeholder. Mitt Romney doesn’t understand this… and we are not safe as a people with the way the current federal government is with its size, scope and array of powers it has. Obama should be the capstone to this, the point that such a government is not good for America or its people. Yet there are still candidates missing this point.

ajacksonian on September 8, 2011 at 11:35 AM

ajacksonian on September 8, 2011 at 11:35 AM

Dude, focus. I spoke specifically about his plan to kill taxes on cap gains, dividends and interest for those under $200k. I wasn’t trying to judge him on balance here.

MJBrutus on September 8, 2011 at 11:40 AM

Attack SS and lose in 12.

IlikedAUH2O on September 8, 2011 at 11:59 AM

The whole gov’t is a Ponzi Scheme. Wanna disband the Pentagon?

IlikedAUH2O on September 8, 2011 at 12:00 PM

I often wonder why some on the Right are so willing to subjugate their own principles in order to find candidates that Independents like. We end up with a candidate the GOP conservatives marginally support because we keep beleiving the media when they say Conservatives are too extreme to get elected. Then either the Independents find some other middle of the roader and don’t vote for the GOP guy anyway or they do vote for him and we all end up with a Dem-lite that makes no one happy.

But I’m sure someone will scream at me about how stupid I am to not realize that it’s worth yielding on everything to to get a moderate approved candidate even if there is only a 1 in 100 chance of them being any better than the Dem.

katiejane on September 8, 2011 at 12:02 PM

Care to show us where Sarah is an idealogue? It’s certainly not clear to any Palin fans I know of…

OnlyOrange on September 8, 2011 at 9:02 AM

Hahahahaha!!!

Ideology is her middle name!

csdeven on September 8, 2011 at 12:03 PM

katiejane on September 8, 2011 at 12:02 PM

She isn’t running, so just write in her name on your primary ballot. Happy?

MJBrutus on September 8, 2011 at 12:05 PM

fossten on September 8, 2011 at 11:10 AM

Why does that upset you? Are you a part of one of those groups?

csdeven on September 8, 2011 at 12:06 PM

AH_C on September 8, 2011 at 9:41 AM

Go back and reread this thread and pay attention this time. Your entire comment is a response to an argument that you imagined.

csdeven on September 8, 2011 at 12:11 PM

TheRightMan on September 8, 2011 at 9:43 AM

Exactly how do your insults bolster your argument? All of us know that when one uses the ad hominem attack, they are showing that their ability to find anything else to defend their argument is gone.

Romney has a better chance at beating Obama than any other candidate. Perry has a better chance at winning the nomination. Either Romney needs to get right with conservatives or Perry needs to follow Reagans path and not be an ideologue. If neither does, we get 4 more years of Obama putting progressives on the SCOTUS.

csdeven on September 8, 2011 at 12:18 PM

She isn’t running, so just write in her name on your primary ballot. Happy?
MJBrutus on September 8, 2011 at 12:05 PM

They say Palin supporters are rabid but since I made absolutely no reference to Palin it looks like you’re the foaming at the mouth loon.

Since this thread is discussing Perry & Romney that is who I was referring to. Or did you miss the comments about how Perry’s positions are too extreme and may make him unelectable?

katiejane on September 8, 2011 at 12:25 PM

katiejane on September 8, 2011 at 12:25 PM

OK, sorry. I’ll take your word for it WRT who you meant.

MJBrutus on September 8, 2011 at 12:35 PM

Care to show us where Sarah is an idealogue? It’s certainly not clear to any Palin fans I know of…

OnlyOrange on September 8, 2011 at 9:02 AM
Hahahahaha!!!

Ideology is her middle name!

csdeven on September 8, 2011 at 12:03 PM

No, her middle name is Louise and her maiden name is Heath, to be clear her full name would be Sarah Louise Heath Palin

Come back with some facts or a single example from her governing at any level that shows she is an idealogue…

Hint: You can’t…

OnlyOrange on September 8, 2011 at 12:51 PM

The resident HotAir handwringer has spoken.
God forbid anybody on our side running for Prez should tell the truth about something. Let’s elect a phony coward instead!
fossten on September 8, 2011 at 11:14 AM

What is handwring-y about my comment? Suggesting that a more moderate tone is move persuasive with voters? What is cowardly about not being a flame thrower? It’s about differences in style and presentation, and if you think voters react more favorably to that that sort of rhetoric, fine. The bottom line is that both Perry and Romney know it’s necessary to reform SS. We’ll see whose rhetoric resonates with the most voters…

Buy Danish on September 8, 2011 at 4:21 PM

Comment pages: 1 2 3 4