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.
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: « Previous 1 2 3 4 Next »
petunia on September 7, 2011 at 11:20 PM
Who is your candidate?
Schadenfreude on September 8, 2011 at 12:24 AM
1) Not true. Polling already shows a certain segment of the demrats are going to vote for the GOP nominee. Drum THAT into your skull.
2) Reagan won over the demrats by NOT being a polarizing politician. To win over the other side, one has to have moderate views.
It’s too early to compare Perry to Reagan. Lets see how he fairs after a few debates okay?
csdeven on September 8, 2011 at 12:25 AM
OK, guys. I totally missed the debates. What I’m seeing here, though, is that Perry is … doing very well. He’s saying the right things. Mitt goes WAY, WAY, WAY down in my book. He has demonstrated he is incapable of reforming the broken system.
MeatHeadinCA on September 8, 2011 at 12:25 AM
I heard the “V”. Excuse him for having a Texas accent! He is really fairly well spoken, and I thought he did well. He sounded nothing like an idiot, and was as good as any of the candidates on the stage tonight.
Oh, and where are you from? New Yawk City? What a snob!
Susanboo on September 8, 2011 at 12:26 AM
Paging Rush Limbaugh!
… Anyway, Which “views” exactly did Reagan have that were moderate? … careful how you answer. Rush was all over moderation today.
MeatHeadinCA on September 8, 2011 at 12:26 AM
Perry speaks fine (from what I saw).
MeatHeadinCA on September 8, 2011 at 12:28 AM
But…but…Palin is Reagan incarnite. Don’t you know you???
You-Eh-Vee on September 8, 2011 at 12:29 AM
Perry did great. Every question was designed to tear him down, but he remained confident without appearing arrogant.
The whole “social security is a Ponzi scheme” thing will win him the youth-with-a-brain vote, but I am not sure how much that demographic will count in an election.
Exit analysis: YeeeeeHAW!
bitsy on September 8, 2011 at 12:31 AM
Heh. Csdeven is the resident expert on what attracts moderates, just ask Ford, GHWB, Dole and McVain.
AH_C on September 8, 2011 at 12:31 AM
Reagan did not have moderate views. Where did that come from. He caved on amnesty because he trusted the wrong people, he was so pro life that he wrote a book about it while in office. He lowered taxes and spoke of faith. I voted twice for Reagan and watched his debates. He was not a moderate.
Rose on September 8, 2011 at 12:32 AM
Perry’s speeches are great, of course, but I liked watching this even more. Perry states bald, unquestionable common sense. Then Romney and the moderators sputter idignantly because that’s simply not done.
And Perry doesn’t back down an inch. Over and over and over again.
There’ll be an awful lot more sputtering before this is over. And it’s safe to say that quite a bit of it is going to take place tomorrow night.
logis on September 8, 2011 at 12:32 AM
He has an agenda. That’s fine, but shrieking about moderation and moderate “views” is not a very conservative characteristic.
MeatHeadinCA on September 8, 2011 at 12:32 AM
Agreed… I still want to know what a moderate view is, though. Moderation (in politics) is a tactic, not a belief.
MeatHeadinCA on September 8, 2011 at 12:34 AM
Good Lord. I pray you’re not a Palin supporter.
You-Eh-Vee on September 8, 2011 at 12:36 AM
That’s one of the things I like about him. He doesn’t care what the talking heads say about him. He calmly and thoughtfully and sincerely comes to a position and isn’t afraid to state it plainly in language that everyone will understand and remember and be swayed by. And without polarizing those in the middle. Like Reagan, he will only polarize the liberals. The independents will be won over, like Reagan did.
Elisa on September 8, 2011 at 12:37 AM
Abortion as gov of ca.
csdeven on September 8, 2011 at 12:40 AM
petunia is from the planet Romney.
MeatHeadinCA on September 8, 2011 at 12:41 AM
1) Abortion isn’t “moderate.”
2) Reagan’s views were pro-life. Further, he regretted signing the law.
3) I thought we were talking about his Presidential politics.
MeatHeadinCA on September 8, 2011 at 12:43 AM
Reagan also felt that a person who voted with him 80% of the time was his friend. that type of position plays well with some dems.
csdeven on September 8, 2011 at 12:44 AM
I’m sure that Perry will say that anyone that votes for him is his friend. What’s your point? You’re moving the goal post.
MeatHeadinCA on September 8, 2011 at 12:45 AM
He wasn’t president when he won in 1980 with lots of dem support. More important was the indie support. The point is that he was not an ideologue. Ideologues NEVER win elections if they run as ideologues. This is why Perry’s stance on illegal immigration isn’t necessarily a deal breaker for me.
csdeven on September 8, 2011 at 12:48 AM
Neither is Perry. However, Reagan did not run on a moderate platform. While Reagan may have compromised (and, really, who doesn’t?), his platform was not based on compromise. He did not run on his ability to moderate.
MeatHeadinCA on September 8, 2011 at 12:52 AM
And for the record, Mitt’s views on SS aren’t moderate. If you believe that SS is necessary for the country, you’re by definition an American progressive.
If Mitt had said he wants to phase out social security by working with both sides, that would have been moderation.
MeatHeadinCA on September 8, 2011 at 12:54 AM
Who said anything about Perry? I was responding to an accusation that Romney getting dem support was a bad thing.
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
totally agreed. I voted for Reagan twice. Wondered who this dude was when he lost the primary to Ford. But listening to him, Larger et al and contrasting with voodoo economics apappy Bush, it was Ronnie Baby all the way.
way
Prior to that, been told by school and friends that Republicans only cared for the rich and donks were for the people. Parents were independent but conservative, voting for Nixon and voted for “Christian” Carter.
Voting for moderates get you nothing but a step or two forward here and there, but you lose more in the long run. Just look at Dubya’s compassionate conservatism.
AH_C on September 8, 2011 at 12:55 AM
You, apparently.
1) I’m not a Perry supporter, remember?
2) Concern noted.
3) Now go concern yourself with your nutball friend petunia.
4) I’m not fixing Perry … projection much?
MeatHeadinCA on September 8, 2011 at 1:00 AM
I believe the problem with SS is that it has not adapted to the times. SS should be provided only for those who outlive the accepted life expectancy. I have no problem taking care of the elderly, those with a verifiable disability, and others who are incapable of taking care of themselves. For that reason I think SS is a good program that needs serious overhaul.
csdeven on September 8, 2011 at 1:01 AM
Reagan will never be defined by his moderation. GWB on the other hand, is already remembered as the alleged conservative that caved to Dems and refused to fight back when needed.
MeatHeadinCA on September 8, 2011 at 1:01 AM
I’m beginning to wonder if you were even sentient when Reagan campaigned and occupied the WH. every day the msm and others talked about how radical and extremist he was. Firing ATCs, pushing the USSR around, star wars supply side economics an on and on it goes. The elites were aghast and ashamed that he stood at Brandenburg Gate, telling Gorby to tear down the wall.
AH_C on September 8, 2011 at 1:03 AM
If you want to take care of the elderly, may I suggest you do. Please don’t wait for the government to set up a program.
If you insists that the government must be involved, set up a tax for us young folk and pay for the elderly that can no longer take care of themselves. Anything else is a (bigger) step towards socialism.
MeatHeadinCA on September 8, 2011 at 1:04 AM
Actually my comment about Perry supporters were to others. Sorry for that.
Go re-read the entire exchange and you’ll see the context of the comparing Perry to Reagan remark.
csdeven on September 8, 2011 at 1:05 AM
SS is a payment each of us make for our own benefit. It is only an entitlement as it is set up now. Once it is fixed, it will sustain itself.
csdeven on September 8, 2011 at 1:08 AM
I’m not even going to bother explaining it to you. Go reread the comments and you’ll see the context of the moderation of which I am referring.
csdeven on September 8, 2011 at 1:09 AM
What a total joke. That’s such a false argument. What do you expect us to do? Our seniors, my parents, have paid in so much more money than they will ever see. It’s only makes sense politically, as well as rationally, to phase SS out. To just declare it fubar and throw it out would be ridiculous. My father is nearly 62, I’m 31. I’ve paid in probably 3-4 times as much as my father, and he has paid in a a good amount (~100k for 25-30+yrs).
I feel uneasy about SS, I want rid of SS. I want the ability to keep my future earnings and invest them in whatever security I see fit. On top of that, I also feel that the upper 20% of the age demographic deserves some portion of what the liberals promised them when SS was started. It’s not pandering to suggest a compromise that will satisfy the morality as well as principle of the situation.
Politics and policy are not absolute. To speak of them as such, in my estimation, is your way of constructing a false argument to use against a political opponent, which is so cheap, and too common.
preallocated on September 8, 2011 at 1:11 AM
It’s a mandated payment. It accepts the belief that the government knows best and how to force you to prepare.
The majority of Americans would be fine without SS, and those that wouldn’t demonstrate that it’s not a put money in, get the same out type of system.
MeatHeadinCA on September 8, 2011 at 1:12 AM
You claimed Reagan had moderate views. That’s absurd on several levels.
MeatHeadinCA on September 8, 2011 at 1:13 AM
Don’t need to reread all the comments on this thread. Run away, Sir Robin.
AH_C on September 8, 2011 at 1:14 AM
Can Santorum, Cain, Paul and Huntsman just go already? They are like freaks of nature up there. Even Bachmann should just go if she doesn’t step up her game for the next debate. She sounds like she’s on valium.
haner on September 8, 2011 at 1:17 AM
csdeven .. Romney getting dem support in and of itself isn’t a bad thing. However, depending on how he gets it, as well as what faction of dem support he received, it could be.
Using the lefts talking points, standing strong in the face of overwhelming evidence of SS’s coming implosion, while denigrating an opponent isn’t necessarily the best way to go about it.
Like MHICA said above: “If Mitt had said he wants to phase out social security by working with both sides, that would have been moderation.”
And btw, this isn’t just about Perry. It’s about reality. What will the people who have trouble with reason/logic/self-education/etc do in the next few years when it all blows up? We have two choices. We can continue with empty promises of SS sustainability based on unicorn farts appreciating in value or we can try and force the discussion and educate American citizens.
I know it’s not easy. We all do. But as a movement, and a party, we have to decide what our message is going to be. If we all united in a campaign to do what was best for America, not to win the election, I believe we could break through the misinformation barrier that the MSM, leftists, and now Romney, have thrown up.
As a side note, I think that Perry’s position basically boils down to the Road Map: Presidential Style and we’ve all seen how the leftists, msm, Newt (soc-eng?!), etc., can skew public opinion.
On principle, Perry is correct. Politically, it’s very debatable, and mostly depends on what our party says and does as a whole.
preallocated on September 8, 2011 at 1:23 AM
That explains it all. It just needs to be fixed to last in perpetuity. Pray tell will it still work when seniors outnumber the workers? When the birthrate goes negative?
No problem, we’ll just open the border and triple or quadruple the worker based to take care of us when we get to be seniors in the 2020-30s. Unless of course they decide they don’t want to play this yanqui ponzi game and outvote us and end it cold. /
AH_C on September 8, 2011 at 1:29 AM
Romney is toast. If you think differently so be it. He is toast. Why? Because he can’t step outside the box, read the times and UNDERSTAND what is necessary to make it in THIS Republican Presidential primary. Apparently Perry can, and, as we can easily see, is willing to stake out positions, stick to them and move toward Conservative positions. Is that a bad thing? Hell no! This was his first national debate. Did he do well? Ask yourself how others have fared in their inaugural national debate. Did they do well? Probably not. Did Perry do well in this debate? Relatively speaking? He knocked it out of the park! You’re looking at the next President of the US if Palin doesn’t get in the race. And that is a good thing, a very very good thing.
JonPrichard on September 8, 2011 at 1:59 AM
Perry knows what he is talking about. As the governor of Texas Perry also knows how to fix it, since the working model has been doing just fine here in Texas.
Texas teachers from the beginning were required by the state to set aside part of their wages for the time they could no longer teach, so that they would not become a burden on their community.
When Social Security was established, it allowed academics to create their own retirement system as long as it performed the same as the social security system. Texas teachers chose to do that. Their system was based on the Federal social security model. There were two exceptions. Texas teachers had an admendment added to the Texas Constitution that prohibited the legistlators from accessing the funds. The money that teachers pay in is managed much like a trust fund or annuity would be. The Texas teacher retirement system is sound as a result.
Texas teachers pay into all the federal programs as everyone else, including medicare and medicaid, but teachers do not pay social security taxes. In its place they pay an equivelent tax to the teachers retirement system.
Aside from allowing early retirement only for medical reasons, the teacher retirement system does not pay for disabilites or supplemental benifits or to anyone that has not paid in to it.
Unlike the SS system the teacher retirement benefit is not fixed by what Congress agrees to pay. Since it acts much like an annuity, working a few years past the earliest retirement date greatly increases the benefit. The benefit can also be adjusted to fit the need with multiple options from increased benefit that pays until death, to one that continues the benefit to the spouse after death.
There is a death benefit of ten thousand dollars paid to the surviving beneficiary or children, even if the benefit will be continued to the spouse. Last I looked the SS death benefit barely paid for the flowers.
Having worked with a functional retirement system based on Social Security, if anyone has the expertise or even the knowledge of what can work to fix Social Security, Perry is it.
Just for the curious. Congress forbids Texas teachers from recieving any SS benefit. At one time this included the spouse of a teacher who may have had her own career and paid in. If a teacher has a second income that they are forced to pay SS taxes on, the SS taxes are simply put, confiscated. When I became disabled I checked with SS to see if there was any benefit that I qualified for. The response was short and very frosty to say the least. Now if I had been a disabled illegal who never paid in a dime….
Franklyn on September 8, 2011 at 2:11 AM
I am very wary of Perry because I am unsure of his commitment to securing the border. This issue, to me, is intertwined with lower-income Americans losing their access to jobs. Until someone gets real on the border, poor Americans, especially blacks, are being cynically betrayed by both parties.
That said, I though Perry came across strong and well. Especially to casual observers who don’t know much about Perry, he appeared forceful, plain-spoken, and confident.
For all that, I found myself actually beginning to warm up to Romney. I preferred his quieter confidence to Perry’s bluster.
Disclosure: I think that out of all of the declared or potential candidates, Sarah Palin would make the best president. She would get the job done.
cane_loader on September 8, 2011 at 2:48 AM
Youth-with-a-brain is a pretty thin demo, bitsy. I have a daughter in college at Notre Dame — the academically rigorous “conservative Catholic college”? — and she is in a 5% or less demographic there of functioning brains. Pro-abortion Catholics, knee-jerk liberals, the “Joan Kroc Peace Studies Program” (I am not making this up), anti-Israel/pro-Hamas nitwits … yes, really.
Not sure that demo is going to win anything for anyone. It is just part of the coalition-of-the-swilling Kool-Aid drinkers for the left. And Romney seems to have decided that The Truth be damned, he’ll demagogue Perry to death over this issue.
Jaibones on September 8, 2011 at 4:21 AM
There’s nothing wrong with a few early “y’all come” debates where every declared candidate can participate (although I still don’t understand how Huntsman is allowed but Johnson, Roemer, and that other guy are not, none has any measurable support at all).
But after three or so such events have given the field a chance to build a following, those who still don’t beat the Margin of Error need to be eliminated outright. In fact, it should probably be limited to those who can poll in double digits or have qualified for ballots in X primaries, to get rid of the fringe candidates. Most are good folks, but the time devoted to their Q&A’s is frankly a waste when they have no chance at all.
If a scratched candidate later demonstrates qualifying support, they’re back in, of course.
Adjoran on September 8, 2011 at 4:27 AM
Hopefully you Romney folk will wake up to that he doesnt stand a chance. He lost to the milquetoast McCain. What on earth makes you think Romney has a chance? Romney is the toxic one. The MSNBC wants Romney and they say (moderate) Romney is a jackel. He just doesnt know yet cause he may flip or make a new O’Romneycare for more of the country. You know what the book of Mormon says. If thy folk has a bigger house boat than thou. Let it pass.
Gedge on September 8, 2011 at 5:20 AM
Oh my friend, csdeven, you are making this too easy for me :).
Let’s look at this “Letter to the Editor” from a “mild liberal” written to the Pittsburgh Press on Oct. 24, 1980 (right before the 1980 Carter vs. Reagan election):
You can read the rest by clicking on the link provided above, o young csdeven.
Those who fail to learn from history…yada…yada…
TheRightMan on September 8, 2011 at 5:21 AM
The commies at NBC accomplished their objective, to make the candidates tear each other apart – Newt was right about it, he warned them, but they fought each other, in spite of the warning. Mitt won the day, by discussing a real, tangible plan on getting the economy back on track. If the economy isn’t fixed, nothing else will matter. I like Perry’s ability to attack, speak plainly, and I was OK with his explanation about border security and building the fence. If Mitt wins the nomination, he will need an attack dog as VP and Perry could fill that bill, if he can prove to draw crowds and build excitement. Herman Cain did OK, with what he was asked, but he’s much better giving a speech, than at 1 minute questions/answers. Ron Paul? agreed with him about the outrageous behavior of the TSA, but if Ron Paul was as great as his cult believes, he would have already hauled Bernanke in front of the oversight committee and we would KNOW what Bernanke is up to. Ron Paul has been head of that committee for 8 months and what has he done? JACK SQUAT! He talks a fine game about the Fed, but when given the opportunity to actually do some, to BE a LEADER – he failed. Santorum will likely be out of the race shortly – no traction. Bachmann probably won’t last much longer, either, although she’s raised quite a bit oif money and may be able to last a little longer. Huntsman – has a crooked face – not a good sign of honesty, coupled with his “service” in the Obama administration. Something just doesn’t feel right about him. Newt would be the BEST debator against Obama, and I like having him in the debates, but his time has past.
tmedlin on September 8, 2011 at 5:33 AM
Perry as a conservative attack dog for Mitt? You mean, like Sarah Palin was the conservative attack dog for McCain only for McCain’s inept campaign to sit back and watch the media/Dems destroy her and then blame McCain’s loss on her?
Sorry, that dog won’t hunt!
If Mitt is good enough for you, then he is welcome to pick another RINO as his running mate and seek to “out-moderate” Obama to victory. Good luck to that ticket! :).
TheRightMan on September 8, 2011 at 5:44 AM
Social security quite simply is a Ponzi scheme. A “inconvenient truth” perhaps? The question is, what do we do about it? 1, we have to provide benefits to those who relied on the program and now have no other means of support, and 2, not make the same false promises to young people so that they can provide for their own future. It’s a mess that only Perry has the courage to speak honestly about.
Greek Fire on September 8, 2011 at 6:07 AM
All I can say after that debate is “PLEASE, RUN SARAH.”
If she doesn’t get in, I don’t know if I can support any of them. Cain would be my plan B guy, but I know he won’t win.
Actually, Newt did pretty well.
stenwin77 on September 8, 2011 at 6:34 AM
Did you notice Greenspan sitting in the audience? I do find it interesting that Republicans and Libertarians are rounding on the fed chairmen as they have…. You won’t find a more devoted disciple of Ayn Rand than Alan Greenspan. Bernanke is also a Libertarian (milder than Greenspan) and a Republican. You don;t hear much about that but it is true.
lexhamfox on September 8, 2011 at 6:36 AM
Romney is hanging on by his fingernails, praying that he will be the last one standing. Obama is hoping the same thing.
Extrafishy on September 8, 2011 at 6:43 AM
i thought perry sounded fine on this issue…this is all the pundits can talk about this am, they think he’s toast on this issue, he just killed grandma yada, yada, yada
cmsinaz on September 8, 2011 at 7:12 AM
Doing away with SSA also means doing away with FICA.
We can design a better system that puts all on SSA currently into a budget area where the bonds held by the fund are used and Congress can kick in any amount it can afford to help supplement that. There would be no new recipients coming into that system and the SSA card would be used only for those recipients who wish to stay in the system.
For everyone else you can set up an account to put in money before taxes of not more than 10% of your earned income so as to reduce your tax liability, and put it into an account where, in 30 years, you can take money out tax free for any reason or no reason at all. Children can either have accounts started by their parents, or are allowed to start one with general back-dating for initiation at age 18 or at any time thereafter.
A proviso for those starting an account with an SSA card is that the account has its timer started from the day you got your SSA card: it is considered back-dated to that day. If that is more than 30 years ago you now have a way to shelter income and have a tax free way to recover that income immediately, tax free.
Another proviso is that money must go into an account in any amount annually for it to continue its status. One red cent will do it. There is no requirement for where the funds MUST come from only that funds are PUT IN to the account annually.
This ends the idea of having to hold an investment because what everyone talks about is an ‘account’ that reaches some maturity date – it isn’t the way you invest, that can be in anything, but how long you’ve had the account. And as the retirement age is abolished this gives a good way for those who are older and have a higher general income to put away a bit more of that as they grow older. They can roll other investments into that account so that any with required amounts to take out (the current IRAs) can then go directly into the new account. The old IRAs are allowed to go in tax free and the money comes out, tax free.
All fund vehicles inside the account are considered untaxable, period. While companies and diversified holding organizations do have to pay taxes for any transactions, all benefits put into the personal account are secured from further taxation as income, capital gains or any other income source. Yes you still have to pay sales taxes and other forms of taxation, but that is on the spending side, not the income side.
This does some immediate things.
- First it allows those who whine and complain about an account TODAY to get to make a REAL ACCOUNT that might actually be better and more flexible than SSA because they have held an SSA card for a long time. You don’t get ‘benefits’ from the government, but can shelter a portion of current income from taxation and if you’ve had the card longer than 30 years, you can start spending it. That isn’t wise, of course, but the account remains open as long as you have funds in it.
- Second is that those who wish to leave SSA as recipients and go back to work can then utilize this account to do the same as any other long-term SSA card holder. If you can get a job that pays more, net, than SSA you will then have away to reduce its tax burden to you. This can be ‘means tested’ so that there is a fraction of SSA going to you, based on your earned income and the year that you get more in net income from your work than you do from SSA, your SSA access ends. You have become a full and independent older adult who no longer needs the help of Uncle Sam. Thank you.
- Third is that parents can put money into a child’s account and when that child grows older he or she will have something with a date certain of when they can get to the funds. If started at birth, then you can do that at 30 years old just when that first real house starts to become a necessity. If done at 18, then at 48 you gain access to the account for medical expenditures, advanced schooling for children or other needs. This is actually far better than SSA/Medicare/Medicaid will ever be.
No one can mandate that you put money into such an account, but it is available to you as a citizen. After SSA is removed your account can be started by your parents at any time from your birth day onwards, or by you at 18 if your parents are unable to do so.
And if you start to think that this is a way to get money out of the taxable reaches of government, then you are getting the point to the account. If we mean what we say about having a sustainable economy via investment then this is just the sort of thing you want as it can hold any investment vehicle, cash, or even an entire estate which can then be rolled over without any taxation to children or other account holders. This will put all governments on a short spending leash, yes, and any who wish to expose their earnings to the ravages of legislators can do so. This will cheese of anyone who thinks that anything should be liable for taxes to pay for ‘good things’… and says to them: responsible citizens who can pay their own way should have the risks and benefits of doing so. These people are not a ‘burden’ to the system because their investment and spending will create a new system very different from today’s and a direct pipeline of funds and investment vehicles into a tax shelter for even the poorest of citizens will allow all citizens to learn to take care of themselves.
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
perry
telling it like it is…the folks need to hear this…
cmsinaz on September 8, 2011 at 7:13 AM
Perry lost big today with the moderates. Gov. Perry has the cajones to tell the truth about social security and it IS the truth. But, if the majority of voters don’t see it that way, you can find yourself in real trouble.
The campaign is the time to win votes. If you are trying to do that and educate and inform the American public at the same time – you have a very VERY hard task ahead of you. Gov. Perry has the facts on his side, but it might not matter, after all perception is reality.
joncoltonis on September 8, 2011 at 7:15 AM
morning joe thinks he’s a loser on this issue so I guess he should chuck it in now
/
what a tool…
cmsinaz on September 8, 2011 at 7:16 AM
true…the lsm will help intensify this even more…
cmsinaz on September 8, 2011 at 7:17 AM
Point…Perry.
MNHawk on September 8, 2011 at 7:20 AM
well, just looking at snippets of williams and harris they did not disappoint, going for the gotcha
that politico dude is a lousy moderator, stay behind your computer screen instead buddy…
cmsinaz on September 8, 2011 at 7:20 AM
I’ll be able to tell today at work if the Perry-will-kill-Social Security meme has been successfully planted in my Good Morning America-irradiated co-workers.
curved space on September 8, 2011 at 7:27 AM
if not there, on every other lsm show for the next couple of days….
cmsinaz on September 8, 2011 at 7:30 AM
I thought Perry did very well, but that was a low point for him (that and his AGW answer). OK, so SS is a Ponzi scheme. What do we do about it?
MJBrutus on September 8, 2011 at 7:31 AM
Let me get this right …
Perry calls SS a “Ponzi Scheme” … therefore, we need to nominate a guy with a failed Socialist Healthcare system named after him?
Really?
HondaV65 on September 8, 2011 at 7:33 AM
Sorry – but perception is NOT reality and we need to quit making excuses that it is.
The reality is out there – it often disagrees with our perceptions – it is each man and woman’s responsibility to discover it.
HondaV65 on September 8, 2011 at 7:35 AM
I don’t know exactly what Rove said, only how it was portrayed in in the clip: “could be toxic”. Rove may be right here if this were normal times as it has been toxic in the past. We’ll have to see.
Ditto re Cheney’s (and Romney’s) comments: ‘it’s not a Ponzi Scheme; many people rely on it.’ That’s disingenuous. That people rely on it does not negate the possibility it’s a Ponzi Scheme.
I called it a Ponzi Scheme constantly when I first entered the job market in the late 70′s and said I believed it wouldn’t be there for me when I retired. And here we are, me closing in on retirement age and SS going into the crapper right on schedule. Whether I will need to rely on it or not is irrelevant to the fact that the Ponzi Scheme that is SS is collapsing due to the structure of it’s “Scheme”.
Romney says it should be fixed. For the entire life of SS it has been fixed — it started at a 1% contribution and now it’s 14%, IIRC (15.3% with Medicaid) and they’d increased the retirement age to 67. Discussion on how to fix it is again about postponing the collapse of the Scheme and I have little doubt Romney fixes will be anything but postponement oriented.
I don’t like Romney’s dishonesty and obfuscation. Perry is right to force the conversation about what to do about it, just as Bush was right back in 2003(?) in his proposal for the slow conversion to of SS to private retirement accounts.
Dusty on September 8, 2011 at 7:37 AM
When asked about it, I was aching for Perry to bring up CERN’s CLOUD researchers. As it was, his answer to that was lame. Rick, take a half hour to educate yourself on it and have a prepared answer! This science is or isn’t “settled” garbage doesn’t cut it.
MJBrutus on September 8, 2011 at 7:38 AM
But Rick didn’t say what to do about it! All he said was that it is a fraud. OK, so what’s your plan?
MJBrutus on September 8, 2011 at 7:41 AM
This is why Ogabe has a good chance of re-election… he has a year of Republicans beating the sh#t out of each other while he sits back a watches….
Caper29 on September 8, 2011 at 7:47 AM
There can be no argument about what Social Security is (see above). The hard part is what to do about it and who has the balls to say so.
Extrafishy on September 8, 2011 at 7:48 AM
Typical liberal – demand that the other side produce a plan so you can nitpick and criticize it.
Never mind that 60 seconds isn’t long enough for anybody to discuss ANYTHING in that stupid, retarded, mindless debate format.
What’s YOUR plan, since you now admit it’s a Ponzi scheme?
fossten on September 8, 2011 at 7:50 AM
That is proof of nothing. That clown didn’t speak for all on the other side. He was shilling for Carter and that should inform you of exactly what his agenda was. CARTER?! The guy lost in a landslide, so that writer was out of the main stream.
Reagan won because he appealed to independents and moderates. That is because he convinced them that his vision was best for America. He did that buy standing firm on some issues and less ideological on others.
I’m not sure if you’re simply defending your view of Reagan or if you’re trying to make some sort of comparison between him and Perry. If it is the former, then I would respectfully disagree with your opinion. If it is the latter I would say that we don’t know enough about Perry yet to make that comparison. He appears moderate on immigration and that may serve him with moderates, but until he has been through the process of a national vetting, we wont really get to know what his explanation is on these issues.
csdeven on September 8, 2011 at 7:58 AM
Agreed on both as far as the debate goes. I note, however, that, for all intents and purposes, Romney has too. He just avoids it by saying people rely on it so it has to be fixed.
My plan? I thought Bush’s proposal was on target, though it might need some updating. I prefer personal accounts invested in the private market and with as few strings to government as possible.
Question to you (or anyone), I don’t think Romney has proposed anything yet, has he? Does he have a plan? What’s his fix?
Dusty on September 8, 2011 at 8:02 AM
morning joe expecting perry’s SS plan during the debate, how can you do that in 30 seconds…not reasonable in this scenario…now if this platform was in the format like SC then I’d like to hear it…
cmsinaz on September 8, 2011 at 8:07 AM
Yep. Romney is also evasive on what to do about it to fix it. I like them both and want to see them both put forward some specific ideas. His 59 plan says little more than he wants to “reform” entitlements.
MJBrutus on September 8, 2011 at 8:07 AM
Troll much?
MJBrutus on September 8, 2011 at 8:08 AM
I would encourage you to read up on the original purpose of SS if you don’t already know. It was designed to go to those who outlived the expected mortality rate and not as a retirement plan for all. I would prefer it not been enacted, but we have it now and it isn’t going away. Ergo it needs to be fixed. The first thing to do is to raise the age at which one can collect. Once that is done, the youth of this country will cease expecting it and will find other ways to provide for their retirement. Eventually I would like to see an opt in program for SS benefits with the understanding that there is no guarantee that one will receive it. At that point the program goes away because Americans would rather put their money into a program that will benefit them. Then churches et al get back to helping those who can’t take care of themselves. They will be able to accomplish this because the rich will donate to them.
csdeven on September 8, 2011 at 8:09 AM
Nominees always select attack dogs as their VP choice. Perry would be perfect because he isn’t afraid to go straight at the opposition. And Perry is accustomed to playing second fiddle. He was willing to be Lt gov as he waited to ascend to the governorship. Being Romney’s VP would be a natural fit for him.
csdeven on September 8, 2011 at 8:15 AM
I’m guessing you’re a lot younger than 57. How many employers do you know who are willing to keep people on until they’re 70? These changes have to be gradual not “sudden” or “abrupt” (to use adjectives Palin might use). As for the PSA, fine, I think all Republicans can agree on that.
Buy Danish on September 8, 2011 at 8:16 AM
Milton Friedman, a man that thought Bernanke was up for the job, also took time to point out that the Fed should be abolished. I don’t know what your point is.
MeatHeadinCA on September 8, 2011 at 8:20 AM
Or Romney as Perry’s Veep :-)
Either way is good with me at this point.
MJBrutus on September 8, 2011 at 8:20 AM
Irrespective of what we want, SS etc are still toxic issues and must be handled very delicately. I hope Perry moderates his approach a bit. Perhaps with a plan that fixes SS rather than scrap it and leave Americans that are counting on it (and have contributed to it their entire lives) with nothing.
I think there are tons of ways to approach it. First, I would suggest we go after ALL benefits given to illegals and to reserve those funds for SS. I believe that would be acceptable to most Americans. Even those who would normally insist that funds be spent on illegals. People will protect their own interests first.
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
In a just world, if Perry was damaged by this speech, then Mitt should lose all Republican support.
MeatHeadinCA on September 8, 2011 at 8:22 AM
We get it. You love Romney. cs-the-limp-wrist.
MeatHeadinCA on September 8, 2011 at 8:24 AM
I think Romney is too proud and feels entitled to the top spot. If Perry is the nominee, what do you think about Petraeus as his VP? Or someone else with some foreign policy experience. Bolton maybe?
csdeven on September 8, 2011 at 8:24 AM
You don’t get anything. I have no favorite at this point. I just know what wont work. And any candidate that runs as an ideologue will lose to Obama.
csdeven on September 8, 2011 at 8:26 AM
Absolutely. And that’s a criticism I have of Perry. He cannot scare people, especially seniors and win. That’s why I want to hear a plan from him, so that we can be discussing the pros and cons and not the horror stories about the mean Texan who wants to push granny over the cliff.
I say gradually raise the eligibility on a well known schedule so that people can plan ahead based on it. Also change the way benefit increases are indexed.
MJBrutus on September 8, 2011 at 8:26 AM
Well, here’s the IRONY of such arguments.
Obama is destroying Social Security as we speak, but no one will mention it, not even Mitt Romney. At least Perry is telling the truth about Social Security.
http://www.zerohedge.com/contributed/lets-just-raid-social-security
mountainaires on September 8, 2011 at 8:27 AM
Hell no. I love him as a general, but he who knows or even cares about his politics. I would say T-Paw as he could put his own and other critical blue states in play. He’s a good compliment, temperamentally for Perry.
MJBrutus on September 8, 2011 at 8:28 AM
That would rule out Bachmann, Paul, Perry, Gingrich, Cain, Santorum, and Johnson. I personally think Mitt’s mandate is going to hurt him, but we’ll keep him in. that makes your favorites Romney or Huntsman. Congrats.
By the way, the only candidates coming close to ideologues are Michele Bachmann and Ron Paul. So, since when did this thread become about them?
Concern noted.
MeatHeadinCA on September 8, 2011 at 8:29 AM
Great, let’s not run anyone then. Trying to play this “moderate” bullshyt does us as much harm as Obama.
darwin on September 8, 2011 at 8:31 AM
Absolutely! And it serves the secondary purpose of growing the next generations up in an atmosphere of self reliance…just as our grandparents lived in. We start rolling back the morally destructive policies of the progressives.
csdeven on September 8, 2011 at 8:31 AM
You’re probably right about Petraeus, and I considered T-Paw, but I was thinking more of an attack dog type. I agree with T-Paw on many issues and would find him acceptable in that context.
csdeven on September 8, 2011 at 8:33 AM
Finally someone who is willing to tell the truth and say the same thing I’ve been saying for the past 20 years. If Perry isn’t the nominee, then don’t count on me voting for the nominee
flytier on September 8, 2011 at 8:35 AM
Oh for pete’s sake. That attitude will not serve us well.
darwin on September 8, 2011 at 8:37 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
That does not rule out Perry or Cain. Perry is at odds with conservatives on immigration and he tried to push through the injection policy. 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.
Are you 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
Amen! To quote (or at least closely paraphrase) Ayn Rand:
“You can deny reality. But, you can’t avoid the effects of denying reality.”
The winners of the debate: The American people for hearing SOME of the real issues we face, and Sarah Palin for watching how the public debate is framing up, so she can come prepared with her answers.
The losers: The Dems in general, and Obama specifically.
The irrelevant: Huntsman and Santorum should leave the stage. They waste air-time for the remainder. Paul again displayed that he is a nut-case, and has no chance of increasing his standing. The challenge is that he still polss better than some who actually add value.
The soon-to-be irrelevant: Bachmann is fading fast. She added a couple of good intellectual points to the debate but was clearly out of her league.
The valuable second-tier: Newt and Cain. Cain had the best answer of all on how to fix SS retirement benefits and should be earning himself a position in the final administration. Newt, as usual, shows that he’s the smartest guy on the stage, and is a walking encycopedia of “lessons learned” from past issues. He or Cain could be very valuable VPs, advisors or Chiefs of Staff.
The front-runners: Mitt appeared to pander, but he’s pandering with a detailed plan. Personally his stuttering under pressure was more distracting than Perry. Perry survived his first barrage just fine, didn’t back off or down on his principled, and overall didn’t hurt himself. His answer on capital punishment was just right — it’s a state’s right, and we serve up hardball justice in Texas. He needs a clearer answer on AGW, and he need to articulate an alternative to the Ponzi scheme… he’s still my back-up plan.
The whiffs: They all whiffed to some degree on not making the debt more of the focus. Similarly, none pointed out that Medicare/Medicaid are the economy-busters of SS. We can fix the retirement side several different ways — like Cain’s — but the cost of medical care (root cause behind Obamacare) is still a Wooly Mammoth (much larger than an elephant) in the room that never came up…
Side note; Glad to see that religion and for the most part social issues remained out of the discussion. They’re distractions and polarizing issues that pale in comparison to the economy, jobs, and the entitlements issues.
Final note for my choice: Sarah, watch closely and learn quickly — the clock is ticking. Having seen Perry perform, you have your work cut out for you, and you’ll profit little by observing more. His vulnerabilities are now exposed. IMO, waiting much longer and missing more debates will hurt. Jump in, differentiate yourself, and make your case…
OnlyOrange on September 8, 2011 at 8:41 AM
Don’t sweat it. That group is such a miniscule amount of the smallest minority that they wont make a difference. They will however serve as entertainment as we watch them hack away at their own noses with a dull butter knife just to spite the rest of the country.
csdeven on September 8, 2011 at 8:41 AM
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2 3 4 Next »