‘Ponzi Scheme’: Is the Romney-Perry Exchange on Social Security the ‘Bite of the Night’?
- Posted on September 7, 2011 at 11:17pm by
Scott Baker
- Print »
- Email »
Is the Perry/Romney clip about Social Security the bite of the night?
During the GOP candidates debate at the Reagan Library Wednesday night, Texas Governor Rick Perry firmly held his position that Social Security is “Ponzi scheme,“ while Mitt Romney counted this as a position to ”disqualify” Perry as a GOP nominee.
Rick Perry is sticking to his guns on Social Security, standing by the inflammatory language in his book declaring the entitlement program a “Ponzi scheme” and a failure.
“It is a monstrous lie. It is a Ponzi scheme,” Perry said in the POLITICO/NBC debate. “Anybody that’s for the status quo with Social Security today is involved with a monstrous lie to our kids.”
To the charge that his language was over the top, he said: “Maybe it’s time to have some provocative language in this country.”
Mr. Perry called it “a monstrous lie” to tell young workers that the Social Security taxes they pay will come back to them in retirement benefits. Mr. Romney retorted that his rival’s position on Social Security could disqualify him as the GOP nominee.
“Our nominee has to be someone who isn’t committed to abolishing Social Security but who is committed to saving Social Security,” Mr. Romney said. “Under no circumstances would I ever say by any measure it’s a failure.”
Perry’s position had already been drawing fire from some top names…like Dick Cheney and Karl Rove.
“I certainly don‘t believe it’s a Ponzi scheme,” Cheney told ABC News’ Jonathan Karl today. “It’s a program that a great many people depend upon. I think it’s a very important program.”
Keeping Social Security and other entitlement programs such as Medicare solvent will require hard choices, Cheney said, especially given the nation’s overall debt, but calling it a Ponzi scheme doesn’t help: “It doesn’t tell you anything in terms of solutions.”
Perry’s campaign has not backed away from what Perry wrote in his book “Fed Up” — that Social Security is a “Ponzi scheme,” a “failure,” “something we have been forced to accept for more than 70 years now,” and one of many New Deal programs that have “never died, and like a bad disease, they have spread.”
But Rove pulled no punches today, calling that stance “inadequate.”
“They are going to have to find a way to deal with these things,” Rove said.
“They’re toxic in a general election environment and they are also toxic in a Republican primary. And if you say Social Security is a failure and ought to be replaced by a state level program, then people are going to say ‘What do you mean by that?’ and make a judgment based on your answer to it,” he said.
Popular Stories
Paper Details Obama Admin’s Alleged Secret Note Sent to Iran: If Israel Attacks, We Won’t Get Involved 577 Comments
‘Made Up Religion’: TV Historian Enrages Muslims, Receives Threats After Producing UK Documentary Questioning Islam’s Beginnings 404 Comments
This Is the Creationists‘ Response to Scientist Bill Nye’s Viral Pro-Evolution Video Claiming They Harm Children 403 Comments
Roseanne Barr: Most Billionaires ‘Violent Pedophiles’ & ‘Heartless’ Cocaine Addicts 372 Comments
President Obama Issues Major ‘Green Energy’ Executive Order 343 Comments
Faith
- This Is the Creationists‘ Response to Scientist Bill Nye’s Viral Pro-Evolution Video Claiming They Harm Children 403 Comments
Pakistani Muslim Cleric Accused of Framing Disabled Christian Girl in Koran-Burning Case Read More- ‘Made Up Religion’: TV Historian Enrages Muslims, Receives Threats After Producing UK Documentary Questioning Islam’s Beginnings 404 Comments
Meet the Controversial German Imam Accused of Brutally Beating His Wife & Pushing Sharia Law Read More
‘Self-Proclaimed Messiah’ & Unification Church Leader the Rev. Sun Myung Moon Has Died — Here’s His Life Story Read More
Business
- President Obama Issues Major ‘Green Energy’ Executive Order 343 Comments
- Germany’s Upcoming Court Ruling Will be Huge for the EU Read More
Ford Looks to Beat Toyota for Best-Selling Car in 2012 With This Model 150 Comments
Bernanke & QE3: Here’s What You Need to Know Read More- ‘Extortion’: Why Did the Labor Department ‘Drop the Hammer’ on Oregon Farmers? 302 Comments
Technology
- This Is the Creationists‘ Response to Scientist Bill Nye’s Viral Pro-Evolution Video Claiming They Harm Children 403 Comments
‘TaserDrone’: Hackers Weaponize Quadcopter With Actual ‘Shocking’ Technology Read More
Ever Heard of the Wild ‘Burning Man’ Festival in the Middle of the Nev. Desert? Here’s Your Primer Read More
Stanford Develops Technology ‘Better Than Steroids’ for Athlete Recovery Read More
Have You Pretended to Know What ‘the Cloud’ Is? You’re Not Alone Read More
Submitting your tip... please wait!
Comments (169)
Enuff Zenuff
Posted on September 8, 2011 at 2:01amPonzi Scheme???
Why would anyone have a problem calling Social Security a Ponzi scheme? What ELSE can you call it?
From the git-go, new money was used to pay off people who’d never put any money into it. Social Security was designed to pay off current obligations to Social Security ‘recipients’ with tax money coming in from the current workforce. None of the money you’ve ever paid in has been set aside for you! All you could ever do was hope that by the time it was your turn to collect something there would be enough new money coming in to pay you back a fraction of what you could have earned if you’d invested the money wisely.
But then Congress couldn’t keep their grubby paws off the money and not only spent whatever excess funds there were when there was more money flowing in than flowing out… they also kept increasing the size of the beneficiary pool beyond the original intent.
My dad told me 40 years ago that he would gladly give up all the money he‘d already paid into Social Security if only they’d never take another dime out of his paycheck. He knew way back then that it was nothing but a giant Ponzi scheme…
Now watch the left go ape-shirt over the “Ponzi Scheme” reference… Nothing drives them to derangement like telling the truth to the public.
Report Post »KickinBack
Posted on September 8, 2011 at 2:20amTens of millions of baby boomers are going to want their ss and medicare. And who could blame them? The government is not going to be able to print IOU’s fast enough.
Report Post »its_time_to_arrest_our_government
Posted on September 8, 2011 at 2:29amstop the lie learn the truth about Obama and the democrats http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EGJdN2KPf0g watch the video and ask yourself why they have been trying to change the NBC clause in the constitution if one only has to be born here to be eligible.
Report Post »tower7femacamp
Posted on September 8, 2011 at 5:37amBilderberg Rick
Report Post »http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jgp9Jgj8aHo&feature=related
Joe Isuzu of the NWO
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xFIcjfWvNYw&feature=related
tower7femacamp
Posted on September 8, 2011 at 5:43amHerman Munster vs Joe Isuzu….
Report Post »blablablablaaa
Posted on September 8, 2011 at 6:16amI totally agree SS is a ponzi scheme! When SS was first implemented, people didn’t live as long as they do today. People who say, *I’ve paid into SS all my life and deserve it*, need to stop and do some calculations, as to how much they paid into the system. I’m over 50 and if i take the amt which is taken out of my check bi-weekly, today, and multiply by 34 years, it comes to $35, 567.00, which if I receive $1000.00 per month, I’d have enough to draw SS for 3 years. hmmmmm … many people have drawn SS for years …. so …
Report Post »Heffe44
Posted on September 8, 2011 at 12:51pm@blablablablaaa
You are not taking into account the fact SS invests all the money that comes in. Your calculations are based on the assumption that your money sits in some account and earns 0% interest. That is simply not the case. So you many have only put 35k into the program but the compounding interest earns a lot over the course of 50 years. Maybe you should have an understanding of basic Finance before you type ignorant posts like that.
hmmmmmmmmmm… your wrong… so
Report Post »circleDwagons
Posted on September 8, 2011 at 1:20pmheff 42? what are you smoking? our fica taxes aren’t invested, it’s spent. SS is a big time ponzi besides when ss was passed people where supposed to DIE before they recieved benefits.
beer
Report Post »RejectFalseIcons
Posted on September 8, 2011 at 2:04pmIt’s only a Ponzi scheme if the perpetrators know that there is not enough money coming in to support demands for money down the road.
Oh wait, birth rate statistics have been around since the 1800s… Yeah, I guess it is a ponzi scheme then.
As one of the working stiffs who has bought plenty of scooters from the Scooter Store and meals at Old Country Buffet, but never ridden in a scooter or eaten at OCB… and never will on anyone’s dime – I have to say that I agree with Perry.
HOWEVER, in terms of a solution, Herman Cain had the best answer – the Chilean retirement system is so very much better than ours. Why is he getting no press? He is a smart guy and a very successful entrepreneur. Moreso than willard, who was born into wealth. I can see Herman Cain being an extremely effective secretary of the treasury and/or head of the IRS. His ideas make sense and are attainable.
It’s looking like the vote for 2012 is going to be “anyone but obama” vs “anyone but romney”. I lived in massachusetts when romney was governor, and I was penalized by $500 in state taxes because I lost my job and had a lapse in health coverage (during this time, my medical expenses were $0 to the state). Romney and Perry are not conservative. They are RINOs.
May reason guide us to liberty – Ron Paul in 2012!
Report Post »MiCurmudgeon
Posted on September 8, 2011 at 2:35pmThe TRUTH is so scary to the Left. They need to find a way to blame Bush.
Report Post »Heffe44
Posted on September 8, 2011 at 3:01pm@circleDwagons
I can’t believe i have to explain this.
You are 100% wrong. When SS was wirtten it said that surplus funds had to be invested. Your “dear leader” Ronald Regan increased the amount of the SS tax that was taken out of your paycheck every week to prepare for the retirement of the Baby Boomers. This caused a massive surplus in the SS trust fund to the tune of 2.8 trillion dollars. That money was invested, mostly in the safest investment known to man… US Gov T Bills. Everything in the above paragraph is fact. It can not be disputed.
So yes… that money is earning interest. Before you come on here and accuse me of being a drug user maybe you should take about 10 minutes and do a little research. You are not ignorant becaues you don’t have the access the information. Hell, you just posted in this site, so i know you have internet access. You are ignorant becaues you are lazy. You have not taken the smallest amount of time out of your day to look and see if the crap that you are fed everyday is the truth. Instead you listen to Rush, Hannity and Beck and call that good. All the while you are being lied to. But your too lazy figure that out. So please next time you call somebody out and tell them they are wrong, make sure you have the facts on your side.
Simply put, you are a lemming. I will pray for you.
Report Post »Enuff Zenuff
Posted on September 9, 2011 at 1:41am@Heffe44
Seriously? When that money was ‘invested’ in T-Bills, doesn’t that mean we just “loaned” all those excess SS funds to ourselves? In other words we (Congress) just went out and spent all those excess SS funds and left an IOU in the account that future generations will have to pay off. Are you seriously comfortable with that – given the amount of debt that we’re facing already?
Over the years that I’ve been paying into Social Security, my 401(k) free-market investments in stocks and mutual funds have been a far better investment than T-Bills.
Report Post »smithclar3nc3
Posted on September 9, 2011 at 7:44amExactly, how is it any different than Berney Madoff. Madoff’s scheme worked as long as new investor kept putting cash into his investment company. Truth is the entire banking system is a ponzi scheme with government protection. At no point does a bank have the money to give out if all their investor tried to with draw their investments.
Report Post »Rosco Jones
Posted on September 9, 2011 at 9:55amRight On!
SS was created as a system that would work as long as the people entering the system kept increasing.
With the advent of the baby boomers and a decrease in the number of children being born, this system will not sustain itself. This is similar to some companies that have individuals but the products and then sell products at home gatherings. The way to earn more money is to recruit people to work under you and take a share of their sales and the sales of their recruits. This works fine for those at the top, but at some point, people get stuck with the products they purchase for their inventory.
The same situation is occurring in China. With their one child policy, each child will have to provide for two parents in their elder years. I do not see how this will ever work either.
Report Post »cluv
Posted on September 9, 2011 at 2:00pmSocial security is indeed a Ponzi scheme,However when the program first started people didnt live past 65 or 70 so the payout was much less than today.Now people are hitting 80 to 90 years old and the feds drained it dry.Of course the idea was to borrow and pay it back,But we all know how that worked out.So the young are paying for the old with no guarantee of a return.My point is,it was not supposed to be an entitlement.
Report Post »WeeDontNeedNoSteenkinBadges
Posted on September 9, 2011 at 3:10pmP1
“Texas Governor Rick Perry firmly held his position that Social Security is ‘Ponzi scheme’, while Mitt Romney counted this as a position to ‘disqualify’ Perry as a GOP nominee.”
Well, that DISQUALIFIES ROMNEY as a presidential nominee … can you spell R-I-N-O?
FOX News – Glenn Beck: Before Gold, Turn to God (program transcript excerpts)
Report Post »http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,600583,00.html
WeeDontNeedNoSteenkinBadges
Posted on September 9, 2011 at 3:24pmP2-a
GLENN BECK:
Report Post »“Okay, FDR, he saw the problems. When he saw the first trap of Social Security before the self-financing tax idea, he said, quote, ‘It’s almost dishonest to
WeeDontNeedNoSteenkinBadges
Posted on September 9, 2011 at 3:33pmP2-b
build up an accúmulated deficit for the Congress of the United States to meet in 1980. … We cannot sell the United States short in 1980 any more than 1935.’ Well, we have sold the United States short, way short.”
Report Post »WeeDontNeedNoSteenkinBadges
Posted on September 9, 2011 at 3:34pmP3
RONALD REAGAN (10/27/1964 clip):
“The actuarial head appeared before a congressional committee and admitted that Social Security as of this moment is $298 billion in the hole.”
Washington’s DELIBERATE ECONOMIC EARTHQUAKE Exposed By Glenn Beck :: Then ReBOOT USA To Communism!
Report Post »http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4y03b4kHais
Heffe44
Posted on September 9, 2011 at 4:32pm@Enuff Zenuff
SS is funded by the payroll tax, so not one cent of our current debt was created by SS. When Congress ran deficits and offered T-Bills to cover the deficit spending, our SS Administration chose to buy those T-Bills as an investment. If the SS admin didn’t buy those T-bills and chose to invest the money some place else, those T-bills would have been purchased by a different country or different investors. We would still have the same amount of debt we have today. They wanted to put the SS trust fund in the safest investments on the planet, which is US Gov T-Bills. So our National Debt and the SS trust fund are two seperate things. And to answer your question, I am ok with that. The good faith of the US Gov has never been in question. We still have no problem paying our bills and the world at large agrees. That is why our T-Bills are still in such high demand. Even taking in account our high amount of debt.
To answer your second point, SS is not an investment program like your 401k or IRA. SS is an insurance program and guarantees payment. Your 401k cannot not offer guaranteed pymt. So even though the rate of return is lower, I will take the guarantee of pymt over the putting my money to whims of the market.
SS is has kept millions of our Senior Citizens living above the poverty level. It is run extremely well, with less than 3% overhead, and is beloved by the American people. Only hard right tea party activists want to get rid of it.
Report Post »rightwinglefty
Posted on September 8, 2011 at 1:44amPerry and Romney can snap at each other all they want. Ron Paul is the only serious candidate. I wish I had all the money I have paid to social security to buy lottery tickets. Better ROI.
Report Post »blue_sky
Posted on September 8, 2011 at 5:33amCORRECT!
Here is a young USA war veteran without a leg who is unusually upbeat, likes army, BUT urges people to vote for Ron Paul and explains why (VERY powerful stuff, MUST SEE !!!)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MAfsQrcVrq8
=============================================================
Other links:
- USA student had busted Mitt Romney – http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o1wPrsEP2nc
- New Ron Paul ad blast Rick Perry – http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CtDBp1OrCwI
Governor Perry,
let it be clear: It is not that you supported Al Gore that worries us.
- It is that you supported Hillary Clinton’s health care plan.
- You pushed for a federal bailout and stimulus funds.
- You support welfare for illegal immigrants.
- You tried to forcibly vaccinate 12-year-old girls against sexually transmitted diseases by executive order.
- You raised taxes twice.
- And, state debt has more than doubled in your tenure as governor, pushing Texas to the brink of our constitutional debt limit.
It’s that you supported ALL of these bad ideas that are inconsistent with how most Republicans understand conservatism, yet you now try to swagger your way into the Tea Party.
Report Post »blue_sky
Posted on September 8, 2011 at 5:48amGovernor Perry, let it be clear: It is not that you supported Al Gore that worries us.
- It is that you supported Hillary Clinton’s health care plan.
- You pushed for a federal bailout and stimulus funds.
- You support welfare for illegal immigrants.
- You tried to forcibly vaccinate 12-year-old girls against sexually transmitted diseases by executive order.
- You raised taxes twice.
- And, state debt has more than doubled in your tenure as governor, pushing Texas to the brink of our constitutional debt limit.
It’s that you supported ALL of these bad ideas that are inconsistent with how most Republicans understand conservatism, yet you now try to swagger your way into the Tea Party.
Report Post »ScreaminEagle
Posted on September 8, 2011 at 8:56amRon Paul is a loose cannon, a flake among flakes. Living on a planet where the shy is purple and all the muslim world really wants is cheap nuclear energy, and to live in peace with Americans. If only they could talk to us. Scotty beam me up. Wake up and smell the shi##.
Report Post »RepubliCorp
Posted on September 8, 2011 at 9:44amRon Paul
Report Post »On the Issues – Not strong on life: Voted NO on restricting interstate transport of minors to get abortions. (Apr 2005) – Voted NO on making it a crime to harm a fetus during another crime. (Feb 2004) – Voted NO on forbidding human cloning for reproduction & medical research. (Feb 2003)
Not strong on Second Amendment Rights: Voted NO on prohibiting product misuse lawsuits on gun manufacturers. (Oct 2005) – Voted NO on prohibiting suing gun makers & sellers for gun misuse. (Apr 2003) – Voted NO on decreasing gun waiting period from 3 days to 1. (Jun 1999)
Not strong on traditional Marriage: Voted NO on Constitutional Amendment banning same-sex marriage. (Sep 2004 & Jul 2006)
There are many other votes I could cover, but haven’t. Like Ron Paul’s vote to keep Pelosi as Speaker of the House or Ron Paul’s vote to not remove Rep Chalie Rangel from his leadership position (ethics violations and all)
Zorro6821
Posted on September 8, 2011 at 3:16pmBlaze you Lie! Perry makes a stupid remark without a plan. How is he going to fix the problem? Silence! Any moron know SSI is broke…..so how Genius was his obvious sound bite. All show and no go! Perry is a fake Globalist, Open Border RHINO. Perry wanted Universal Healthcare united with Mexico. He also wanted to sell Texas Highways to Spain and create Tolls, Perry also voted in the Dream Act in Texas against the will of the people. Beck’s man Perry also Praised Romney and Hillarycare in writing. This is all in the public domain.
Report Post »Enuff Zenuff
Posted on September 8, 2011 at 1:34amSpeaking of the ‘Bite of the Night’…
Did anyone else notice the question Brian Williams asked Gov. Perry about what he’d do as president about white households having 20 times the wealth of black households? What the hell kind of a Progressive bu11shirt gotcha question was that?????
Perry wisely dodged it by saying he first wanted to address what Mitt Romney had just said, and he never answered William’s question. Williams seemed almost relieved. Williams didn’t ask it again.
Did anyone else think that was the creepiest moment of the debates?
Report Post »Master_and_Commander
Posted on September 8, 2011 at 1:44amActually he did address it. He said our goal shouldn’t be to see how we can specifically help minority groups, but rather we should be focused on creating the economic environment which will itself help these minority groups rise up themselves. Words of a free market capitalist right there.
Report Post »BillyPenn
Posted on September 8, 2011 at 7:09amAbsolutely. A loaded question which can not be answered in a minute or so. ******* Williams, trying to open the door for ‘class warfare’.
Report Post »Gonzo
Posted on September 8, 2011 at 8:44amI saw it, what’s he supposed to say? “I am going to confiscate alll the money white people earn and redistribute it to black people.” Ask Obama what he’s going to do, he’s the one promising to level the playing field! For crap sake, create opportunity for everyone and then it’s up to the individual!
Report Post »Enuff Zenuff
Posted on September 8, 2011 at 1:24amI heard that Michael Moore is endorsing Huntsman.
Report Post »That’s all I need to know to make him my least desirable candidate after Obama.
Like in 2008 when the NYTimes endorsed McCain…
Firebrand
Posted on September 8, 2011 at 1:26amCan you post a link?
Report Post »Firebrand
Posted on September 8, 2011 at 1:31amN/m, I found it. It’s not really an endorsement per se, but he does say he likes huntsman…
http://www.thedailybeast.com/newsweek/2011/09/04/michael-moore-on-new-book-here-comes-trouble-and-9-11-annivers.html
Report Post »MollyTheWhiteWolf
Posted on September 8, 2011 at 1:35amLike I needed another reason to NOT endorse Huntsman.
Report Post »Cat
Posted on September 8, 2011 at 1:22amStop paying taxes …
Report Post »They’ll go away … eventually … It’s all they have.
eternalhostility
Posted on September 8, 2011 at 1:06amRick Perry has ZERO chance of being president. He is too much like Bush. The left will never go for it and we need some of their votes to win. Nominate Perry and Ron Paul supporters – at least 15% of GOP don’t vote or vote for Obama for the fun of it. That is the Galt solution and that is the flop we want to see.
So all you neo cons, all you fake Reagan supports (Reagan was more Paul than not) go ahead nominate Perry. Then get ready for the pain.
Report Post »Firebrand
Posted on September 8, 2011 at 1:16amMy prediction at the current moment is a Perry/Huntsman or a Perry/Gingrich ticket. This isn’t an endorsement, just a prediction. I don’t think Romney would take VP. Perry/Huntsman is probably the most cross “denominational” ticket. Red, purple, and blue meat in one package. Regardless, anyone is better than Obama.
ABO2012
Report Post »Master_and_Commander
Posted on September 8, 2011 at 1:41amwow, you just spew out Anti Perry propaganda with ZERO evidence. WHAT IS IT WITH PEOPLE CALLING HIM ANOTHER BUSH???? His record just doesn’t show it, and if anything will this sound bite should prove that he is not another Bush. Some people just refuse to admit the facts though… try reading up on Perry’s actual record here:
http://www.ontheissues.org/default.htm
Report Post »drattastic
Posted on September 8, 2011 at 1:46amWe don‘t and won’t need the “left” to elect a president . The “left” will vote for obama no matter what . The hard left is about 20% of the population ,proven in poll after poll.
Report Post »jedidiah
Posted on September 8, 2011 at 1:58amSpending time concerned about what the left thinks of our candidates has given the Republicans the following hall of fame since 1988:
Bush 41, who squandered the Reagan legacy because he was much smarter.
Dole, because he was next in line and so reasonable.
Bush 43, who gave us TARP, Part D, NCLB and other Progressive nightmares.
McCain, a RINO so gutless he wouldn‘t even say Obama’s middle name.
So by all means, let’s let Chris Matthews pick our candidate, say Huntsman, Daniels, or Mitt. We all know how much the freak show at MarxistStateNBC wants to help us defeat Obama. Good Lord.
We are up against the absolute worst President in American History, and it isn’t even close. What are we so afraid to run against?
Is religion a problem? Perry is a nasty Evangelical. Obama is a Black Liberation Theologist. Is this a close call for anyone? Anyone afraid of our candidates’ various religions? Why?
Is the economy a problem? Bachmann is opposed to raising the debt ceiling. Obama can’t raise it high enough. Anyone afraid of that fight?
What about energy? Every Republican favors developing America’s vast resources. Obama prefers a flat-earth, no-growth, Cap and Trade energy policy. I’m terrified, aren’t you?
Unemployment. Unleash the economic engine of free enterprise vs. union, government, make-work, stimulus driven, temporary, unproductive, wealth redistributing busy work.
I’d go on about every issue, but I’m out of characters. Grow a pair and
Report Post »missionarydad
Posted on September 8, 2011 at 6:31am@FIREBRAND,
It will be Mitt Romney/Marco Rubio that is if we want a snowballs chance of defeating Obama and keeping our freedom. If Obama is reelected look at what Castro done to Cuba and how long he was in office to get a peak at what America will become.
Report Post »missionarydad
Posted on September 8, 2011 at 6:47am@MASTER_AND_COMMANDER,
You sure have the blinders on really tight to be supporting Perry. How can you dismiss his vaccine mandate, Trans Texas Corridor, in state tuition for illegals, stupid to build fence comment, debt went up substancially in Texas under his watch, desire to convert Freeway to toll road because a lot of rich use it and they need to pay their fair share, dream act, nudging legislature to enact an Obesity tax, funded a study for metered vehicles to tax residents by the mile, execution of a man that most likely was innocent, Al Gore’s campaign manager when Gore was already nicknamed Ozone man, Democrat during all of Reagan’s Presidency and voted for Jimmy Carter, attended two Bilderberg meetings and now running for President, led a prayer with 30,000 evangelicals in attendance 2 weeks before launching his Presidential run, timing very suspect, has pandering all over it. This is just for starters I don’t want to hear one word or criticism out of your mouth about any of the other candidates, your very willingness to jump on the Perry bandwagon destroys any creditably you have before you even get started.
Perry is only slightly better than Obama, I would prefer any of the other GOP candidates ten times over before I would consider this Perry fraud. Media is going to tear him apart but they will hold off as they already are until the general hoping and praying the GOP are big enough fools to elect this idiot.
Report Post »abbygirl1994
Posted on September 8, 2011 at 12:58amYour Seniors are fed up with people like Perry,, my hussband put his money into SS for 50 years or more.. if the fools in Washington hadn’t robbed SS and Medicare it would be just fine!! Freaking thieves is what our government is!
Report Post »jsDway
Posted on September 8, 2011 at 1:13am@ABBYGIRL 1994: Perry is correct in his assessment of SS. I am 62 years old and know that my children and grandchildren will not get back what they paid into SS – it is broke! You are right, the government has stole it over the years. The money we have paid in should have been put into an account that would have drawn interest and things would have been much better. I think the best plan is to let us put some of what we pay to SS into our own account that we would be in charge of, we could leave to our spouse, children or whoever we want! SS is a ponzi scheme, it was just a way for government to get our money and spend at they saw fit. What Bernie Madoff did is no different than what the federal government is doing – the money isn’t coming in fast enough to pay the investors (us the workers)!
Report Post »jedidiah
Posted on September 8, 2011 at 1:21amSo Perry recognizes and suggests that Social Security has been turned into a Ponzi scheme — which is percisely what you complaint means in lay terms, “if the fools in Washington hadn’t robbed SS” — and you’re mad at “people like Perry?”
There is a failure in the logic here somewhere. If you are mad that “the fools in Washington [have] robbed SS,” that is, turned it into a Ponzi scheme, it would seem that you should be applauding Perry for having the courage to point out exactly that. Otherwise, you are simply killing the messenger. Am I missing something?
Report Post »MollyTheWhiteWolf
Posted on September 8, 2011 at 1:32am@abbygirl1994
Perry is correct to compare SSI to a Ponzi Scheme, and, while it‘s true that polticians shouldn’t have been raiding the SSI coffers to fund their own projects, you also need to understand that SSI is paid to people, whether they’ve paid for it or not.
If SSI was only for those who paid into it, why would we even NEED it in the first place? All we’d need to do is make our own PRIVATE accounts and invest in our retirement in private corporations. Instead, we have a system that gives to anyone…whether they “invest” or not. Your generation was duped into this scam and MY generation, as well as every other generation afterwards, will have to pay for it. I belong to the first generation who won’t see a red cent, but we still get the bill for YOUR generation’s foolishness and desperation. Besides, you were never expected to live long enough to collect in the first place, or at least, for very long.
What we need to do is this: Extend the minimum collection age to about 70–75 (not to affect those who already are on it), REQUIRE that you pay into it for a set number of years, refuse those who collect welfare from collecting, and allow for an opt-out program.
Report Post »FLDeb
Posted on September 8, 2011 at 3:32amJedidiah and Molly… there is one thing I would add to your comments. The concept of the government taking care of us – that we NEED them. Welfare, SS, disability, and all the other entitlement checks that are written every month. I have been arguing against SS since I was a teenager. Hearing SOOO many people scream “That is my money”, has led me to the conclusion that the only way to SHUT them up is to give it back to them. Not one dime more. And if you have received more than you have paid in, then the amount is deducted from your decedents until it is zeroed out.
These people know if they add in their relatives that never paid into the system that receive benefits and the amounts they receive, the return on their “investment” is huge. If they cannot add – then I chalk it up to the new math that our generation seemed to invent.
Just look at the numbers. How many people receive entitlement checks every month? Almost 1/2 our population? Who are they going to vote for? Not someone that wants to take that away from them. That does not bode well for any candidate that wants to win an election AND FIX our financial woes.
It is a ponzi scheme plain and simple and the people who refuse to see it are just that. REFUSING to see their check go away.
Report Post »John_The_Beloved
Posted on September 8, 2011 at 3:53amI agree. Another reason we on this mess we are making wars we have no business in, while the war at the southern border is ignored,
Report Post »abbygirl1994
Posted on September 8, 2011 at 5:43pmOkay Ponzi scheme, created by our lovely government.. played over and over again by our lovely government for decades.. we all were duped brainwashed to believe that our money going into SS was a lie when I could have fed my children better or been saved as you suggest.. we have been lied to by our lovely government.. our weekly SS taken out of our checks and matched by our employer were nothing more than a rip off by our lovely government.. oh yes I can see ponzi scheme sure.. meanwhile I would like all money that we put into this ponzi scheme for 50 plus some years given back to us ASAP.. including that which our employer matched.. then I want to see all government employees who have signed into law, or who have stolen from Social Security imprisoned for the rest of their lives… I want to see these same lawmakers go without their vacations, their retirements. their healthcare removed.. all I am saying is if it has been a ponzi scheme from the very beginning the government needs to hurt to and so far all I see is these imbeciles in Washington getting richer and richer and the rest of us.. well we can just go to hell in a hand basket. You people need to understand most of my husbands retirement went bye bye thanks to our illustrious government.. where do we go now that we are old?? We depend upon the lie..disgusting as it is.. I detest our leaders.. all the way down to the beginning of the master Ponzi scheme liars. I am hoping that they all rot in hell!
Report Post »DADDYWOREAWHITEHAT
Posted on September 8, 2011 at 12:45amActually it was not intended to be a ponzi scheme but numerous congresses have changed it over the years. In order to hide welfare spending from the taxpayers they started robbing the payments supposedly held for future social security payouts & giving that money out as SSI welfare instead. Congress believed there was more money in the social security fund than was needed so it would never be missed. Then they started giving social security, SSI, Medicare & Medicaid to illegals. No way the money coming in could keep up with the money going out now. Problem is that when congress talks about reforming “entitlements” they want to cut payments to the workers who are paying into the fund when they SHOULD be cutting payments for welfare & illegals who should never have been “entitled” in the 1st place. Over the years they have really mucked up what was intended to be a retirement safety net for workers. But the govt just can‘t keep their sticky fingers out of any pile of other people’s money. If more voters understood the truth we’d have a lot more people demanding congress clean this mess up.
Report Post »abbygirl1994
Posted on September 8, 2011 at 1:03amWelfare is only bad when it has become a handout instead of a handup. This country is very capable of taking care of it own.. but there needs to be stipulations.. it should be no longer than three months using Welfare, there should be weekly reports on job searches.. after three months your cut off. No illegals can draw from any system.. that is the real problem.. Even American‘s don’t get the handouts that the illegal gets!
Report Post »blue_sky
Posted on September 8, 2011 at 12:45amRomney BUSTED – http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o1wPrsEP2nc
Perry BUSTED – http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L1zGMtBQgE8
Report Post »abbygirl1994
Posted on September 8, 2011 at 1:06amPerry busted is Ron Paul???
Report Post »Joey8
Posted on September 8, 2011 at 1:11amso your way of getting people to vote for paul is to trash the other republican nominees? how about turn the ac off for the troops in the desert to cause them to come home. or a border fence would trap us in. its ok, im obviously a neocon
Report Post »Master_and_Commander
Posted on September 8, 2011 at 1:47amI despise the tactics you Ron Paul supporters use. Rather than actually debating you just smear and trash candidate just like the Liberals you so hate. Hypocrite.
Report Post »blue_sky
Posted on September 8, 2011 at 5:36am@Master_and_Commander, you just ate your own words, hypocrite! Instead of telling us what issues/facts those ads misrepresented and give us your version, you resorted to name calling AND accusing us of what you do. I see INSANITY or PANIC among neo-cons and RINOs.
Report Post »1accord
Posted on September 8, 2011 at 12:36amWhen you stop and think about it; why would the government want Soc Sec to end as it’s currently being run? Workers pay into it as long as they’re employed, the government keeps raising the retirement level, the living spouse can only receive one benefit and the remaining doesn’t go to the heirs of the dead. It’s a win/win for the government.
Report Post »Duke One
Posted on September 8, 2011 at 4:53pmWell said !
Report Post »LibertariansUnite
Posted on September 8, 2011 at 12:36amBy the way: Pictures of Slick Rick threatening the Good Doctor, when he called him out for being a Liberal.
[IMG]http://img600.imageshack.us/img600/8518/perry2w.jpg[/IMG]
By [URL=http://profile.imageshack.us/user/zachatta]zachatta[/URL] at 2011-09-07
[IMG]http://img850.imageshack.us/img850/8827/perry1.jpg[/IMG]
By [URL=http://profile.imageshack.us/user/zachatta]zachatta[/URL] at 2011-09-07
He is such a nice Tea Party guy!
Report Post »LibertariansUnite
Posted on September 8, 2011 at 12:41amBetter links:
http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/600/perry2w.jpg/
http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/850/perry1.jpg/
Report Post »Firebrand
Posted on September 8, 2011 at 12:59amHow do we know he was threatening him? I can show you thousands of pictures taken out of context that could be misinterpreted. Visit icanhascheezburger.com for some funny examples.
Report Post »LibertariansUnite
Posted on September 8, 2011 at 1:00amGrabbing his arm with a finger in his face:
Man rule violation: You usually get punched for that.
Report Post »Joey8
Posted on September 8, 2011 at 1:14amif that crazy old geezer was a man then he wouldve punched him, but hes a pansy. not my picture of commander in chief
Report Post »jedidiah
Posted on September 8, 2011 at 2:23amRon Paul is to constitutional conservatives what the Daily Kos is to Obama. They are burrs under the saddle. They rant and rail about everything, but on election day they won’t have any real choice — vote Republican, or stay home. I know Libertarians love America — I’m about 90% in agreement with them — so I imagine next November the vast majority will dawn their Paul gear, gnash their teeth a little, and vote to remove Obama.
Report Post »phamill
Posted on September 8, 2011 at 12:30amRead the notes from the congress of 1934,they knew this would happen. Some in congress wanted to put in place that congress could not touch the money but the Pres and his Dems said no. IF they would have put the money in a true lock box that no one could touch maybe we would not be in the trouble, however just do the math, more workers leaving and going on SSI less workers paying into SSI, it would still have problems. My question is why do you get more out then you put in?then why are people on SSI that never paid into. So how about we cash peole out and call it done?I’ll give my employer half and cash out the amount I paid then Im done,they don’t take out one more dime and I never ask them for money.And make it were you can’t get more than what you put in.
Report Post »The_Almighty_Creestof
Posted on September 8, 2011 at 12:49amJust curious if you have done the math…if they don’t take out the SSI and leave it on your check instead, then it is taxed as income and you receive less of it…and you won’t get it back in the form of SS.
Report Post »selloursouls
Posted on September 8, 2011 at 12:40pm@ Almighty, It just goes to show the government has figured out how to force people to depend on government instead of themselves. Money talks. Look at every so-called state, they will crawl through shards of glass to get at the dollars the Federal Government wave at them. Unfortunately so will the American people. The one who controls the purse strings has the power.
Report Post »FaithfulFriend
Posted on September 8, 2011 at 12:29amHow many trillions have been taken out of the SS fund and replaced with an IOU? It’s worse than a ponzi scheme.
We need a President that will stand up for the People and for Liberty and to do that their enemy is the Federal Government who is always increasing it’s power over the People and Taking Our Liberty. I want a President who says it like it is and then does it like they should. It’s high time to put the Federal Government back in their box.
Report Post »eternalhostility
Posted on September 8, 2011 at 12:35amFaithfulfriend – you are right it is worse than a ponzi scheme it is a form of currency devaluation. Jefferson knew this would happen long before the social security scam was foisted upon Americans.
Also have you asked yourself why all these gov agencies think they have a right to your social security number?
Report Post »SaveOurConstitution
Posted on September 8, 2011 at 3:28pmExactly! It is a true ponzi scheme and the sooner Americans wake up and realize it the better off we’ll be. Yes, of course there has been contributions to these services for years and years. The only problem is that the money was NEVER put into a trust fund or separate account as some would like us to believe. Heffe44, you really don’t understand do you. Look up the definition of “ponzi” then look at how the SS fund is setup. You will find it oddly similar.
Report Post »LibertariansUnite
Posted on September 8, 2011 at 12:29amBlazers are seriously very misguided.
Where do you think Perry got all of these magical ideas from…
?????
Ron Paul has been preaching against social programs for years.
Get real people, don’t buy the Perry propaganda.
Report Post »RepubliCorp
Posted on September 8, 2011 at 12:47amso true http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=irgeoE3xrL4
Report Post »LibertariansUnite
Posted on September 8, 2011 at 1:08amYour video link is an opinion, that because he is the commander and chief he has to answer to generals.
That opinion is wrong.
Report Post »Master_and_Commander
Posted on September 8, 2011 at 1:50amGet off of the Blaze, you RP hack. Or maybe you can try doing your own homework and finding out the truth for yourself, rather than just spewing what Ron Paul tells you to say. Your a hypocrite on so many levels…
Report Post »LibertariansUnite
Posted on September 8, 2011 at 5:32am@MASTER
I dare you to use logic in your argument:
How am i hypocritical?
Report Post »Alex
Posted on September 8, 2011 at 12:20amPerry is right.
Anyone who says — politospeak or not — that Social Security is not a classic Ponzi scheme now that the large population of Baby Boomers are reaching their 60′s (I’m one of them) is wearing blinders or worse. Denial does not change the problem. There are too many people retiring and too few to hold up what has turned into a Ponzi scheme. Every Ponzi scheme starts out okay — before it ditches.
Report Post »eternalhostility
Posted on September 8, 2011 at 12:33amI am a Ron Paul guy but Perry is right on this, of course Ron Paul is also against Social Security. SS is a ponzi scheme and it gives government money to loot. That is the biggest problem, it fuels big government spending. They don’t put it in a lock box, they use it. Basically it was the first QE before QE1 and QE2. Most people don’t get that. They think raising the age would help, blah blah blah. That would only prolong the theft.
I am against forced savings and society welfare but Bush was right on at least one thing, private accounts are the way to go. Not saying forcing people to invest in Wall Street is smart but its smarter than a program which helps the gov print money and drive the prices of things we NEED higher.
Again the great majority of you won’t have a clue about what I am talking about and that is what the establishment counts on. You keep arguing about means testing and age requirements.
Report Post »Race
Posted on September 8, 2011 at 12:14amThe truth will always be unpopular, especially amongst the elite. Changing the language to something more “moderate” doesn’t alter the situation. Anything the government runs is filled with waste, fraud, and corruption. Whatever new scam they come up with in place of Social Sec will be just as screwed up if not worse. You’re better off stuffing your mattress with cash than depending on any of these idiots to come through for YOUR retirement.
Report Post »W@nd@
Posted on September 8, 2011 at 12:12ammaybe it was not the intent
but that is what congress turned it into….
except it was a mandate that you could opt into
if you did not pay at first
then pay a certain sum and still collect
knew farmers that did this..
things start one way
Report Post »then evolve into something far worse than the original intent…
kadydid
Posted on September 8, 2011 at 12:12amSounds accurate.
Ponzi Scheme: A fraudulent investing scam that promises high rates of return at little risk to investors. The scheme generates returns for older investors by acquiring new investors. This scam actually yields the promised returns to earlier investors, as long as there are more new investors.
Read more: http://www.investopedia.com/terms/p/ponzischeme.asp#ixzz1XKZJ7gUe
Report Post »tsunami
Posted on September 8, 2011 at 12:11amwhy be afraid to call it what it is…
Report Post »retriever
Posted on September 8, 2011 at 12:25amNothing is wrong with calling it what it is, but our dear “leaders” try to get a rise out of everybody by using terms. They have no intention of solving the problem or they would have come up with a solution NOW! These people live off the public dole themselves and spend their time in their job trying to screw the citizens and getting re-elected. That why term limits should be on the agenda. We have too many lifetime “legislators”.
Report Post »retriever
Posted on September 8, 2011 at 12:10amWhat is the difference what you call it? The politicians have raided the funds and blew the money on their greedy, stupid whims. One of the jobs for the next executive is to fix it. Calling it a ponzi scheme does not fix it. Fix the damn thing, or disqualify yourself!
Report Post »twofoot_trucker
Posted on September 8, 2011 at 12:03amSorry, but Perry is right. By definition Social Security is most certainly a Ponzi scheme. I won’t vote for Romney anyway, but if he is convinced that calling something exactly what it is is some kind of disqualifier then maybe he just woke a few more people up to what he is.
Report Post »Faith1029
Posted on September 8, 2011 at 1:03pmI agree. I won’t vote for anyone who is trying to hide the truth and skirt around the issues. Perry is not afraid to step up and call it what it is. He did not try to hide anything and did not cow down to any of the gotcha questions. I could have applauded him for doing so. He certainly is a take charge type of person, speaks with conviction, commands respect and rose to a higher level in my book. From what I hear from Perry, I think he would make an excellent leader. The rest of the candidates are good but I don’t feel they could lead like Perry. We need a leader who is respected not only by the American people, but respected by people all over the world. We need a leader who does not apologize for America, but puts the American people first above all else.
Report Post »team1blazer
Posted on September 7, 2011 at 11:54pmIf it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck and swims like a duck….it must be a dog NOT
Report Post »team1blazer
Posted on September 7, 2011 at 11:50pmWhy on earth is the Republican National Committer allowing MSNBC or Politico (both notoriously anti-conservative, left wing organizations) to have ANYTHING with shaping the debate for the Republican primary? You don’t allow your opponents to choose the candidate they want to run against….unless you don’t plan on winning anyhow. Stop playing the Democrats stupid games. The moderators led the viewers to believe we only have 2 real choices, Romney or Perry (both RINOS), when we have several REAL conservatives in this race. Don’t let the MSM pick the Republican candidate that THEY want to run against the imposter in chief! WAKE UP
Report Post »Twinspeedr
Posted on September 8, 2011 at 1:50amBingo!
Report Post »Firebrand
Posted on September 7, 2011 at 11:45pmSo let me get this straight. The only money in SS that can be paid out comes from the people paying in. The money that was already put in over the last 70 years was used as a government slush fund. How is the government not like Ponzi?
Report Post »Firebrand
Posted on September 7, 2011 at 11:49pmI will add, the way it ISN‘T like a Ponzi scheme is that you don’t get an unrealistic large return on what you invest.
Report Post »Psychosis
Posted on September 7, 2011 at 11:51pmactually you do get an unrealistic return on your investment …………………you get back WAY more than you put in
Report Post »Firebrand
Posted on September 8, 2011 at 12:09amI just did the math. You are partly correct. If your per annum is less than $56,333.33, then you get back more than you put in. If you make more than that, you get back less. The withholding rate for SS is 4.2%, the maximum monthly payout is $2,366. If X(0.042) = 2,366, then X = 2,366/0/042 = 56,333.33
The median american income is $47K, meaning that over 50 percent of the american public are getting more out than they pay in. That number will increase when the baby boomers retire.
Report Post »FLDeb
Posted on September 8, 2011 at 3:51amI am probably wrong about this, but I thought one of the reasons the government convinced the public this ponzi scheme was a good idea was by saying how it could take care of people who were destitute in their old age. NOT by actually putting the money in the system themselves. We the People would take care of them. That famous picture from the depression of the lady and children comes to mind. The idea was not to get back YOUR money back, but to help others that needed it. And of course just like everything the government touches it has turned into nothing but a big theft from the people. Buying votes, that is about the only thing they care about.
Report Post »Psychosis
Posted on September 7, 2011 at 11:44pmhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ponzi_scheme
yep it fits the description to a t
Report Post »RushEcho2
Posted on September 8, 2011 at 12:22amRomney says quit raiding it and fix it — Perry says we need more passion on this and other issues!
Report Post »