Posted on 09/08/2011 7:11:16 AM PDT by JosephSmithNAW
I think it took real courage for a major and serious candidate(Ron Paul is not a major or serious candidate) to tell the truth to the American people about social security
Perry's words"You cannot keep the status quo in place and call it anything other than a Ponzi scheme,"
What’s his plan to deal with it? Just dispose of it?
Its not anything that hasn’t been said before and I’m not sure I heard any means of dealing with it.
I don’t know what his exact plan is, but his response did echo what Paul Ryan has been saying, that if you’re over a certain age, SS will stay the same. If you are a younger worker, you should have options. I am a younger worker. I have a SEP through my employer. Guess what? Never in my lifetime have I ever thought about SS as a means for my retirement. I’m not counting on it and I never have and many folks under 40 that I talk to feel that same way. I don’t have a problem with what Perry or Ryan are proposing. It think it’s a great idea. But the media just wants to scare seniors by saying the Republicans are going to take it away.
Yes, he was the only one who spoke directly and honestly to the most important economic issue we face - the degenerating welfare state. He even made RP look wishy-washy on that one. He also scored well on the death penalty question.
Not to worry, however, you will soon have 100 comments saying how poorly Perry did - mainly supporters of other candidates or folks who confuse choosing a candidate with casting someone for a role in a movie (if that’s the criterion, Huntsman wins).
I could be happy with most of the candidates. Cain came off well, as did Newt.
They need to start raising the date you can get at the funds. It was originally 65, when the average lifespan was 62. They lowered it as part of the “nanny state” entitlement act to 62. I’m not sure what it is now.(I think they upped it back to 65. No matter. They need to push it to 70. Then 72, then 75. Eventually they nned to eliminate it in favor of something better.
It has NEVER been said by any major party candidate.
I agree that this has been said for but its been a while since I have seen the leading candidate and thus the one with everything to lose speak forthrightly on social security. The contrast with other candidates especially Mittens, who talk about it as if it were some sacred cow was telling.
What’s his plan to deal with it? Just dispose of it?”
No, that’s my plan. Perry wants a transition, which is pretty much what the other candidates would say.
I was not impressed with Perry, overall, but his comments about SS are being misleadingly reported. He specifically referred to younger people being fleeced (my term not his) by this scheme (his term). Romney immediately tried to twist that into existing recipients, old people, leaving the impression that Perry wants to pull the rug out from under them. The MSM obligingly went along with this misrepresentation.
Ok. Yeah I would dispose of it as well. I just have never seen any material on what he wanted to do with it. Do you have any sources in case someone asks me for some? Thanks in advance.
No, he made that clear...
Here’s what he should do.
First off, JOBS is the focus and he needs to keep it on that. SS should be moved to the Chilean model in phases (as Cain actually said last night).
Perry needs to say:
I do have a plan to reform social security, to protect it for those getting it, or about to get it, keep it solvent, and transition to a better system for younger workers. It’s all on my website (and PUT IT THERE).
However, before we can really address it in depth, or even have a national discussion on it, we need JOBS. A person who is working is going to be more willing to share ideas about Social Security and other programs than someone unemployed who doesn’t even know where his next meal is coming from. A big part of reforming Social Security is GETTING PEOPLE BACK TO WORK first. That will be my first focus as President.
The attack ad on my congressman from last year. “Tim Walberg called social security a ponzi scheme”
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_A2SyZp0f-o&feature=player_embedded
In some cases it’s even lower than 62. Some people age 60 can get it at a discounted rate, about 70 per cent I believe.
Good for him. I applaud your congressman. I guess I should have made myself clearer in the OP. I was talking in the context of a National Presidential race in the recent past.
You would actually cut off, in one fell swoop, a major source of income for millions of senior citizens?
I turn 60 this week, and would like to get something back for over 40 years of contributions, but I've told my daughter and SIL not to count on SS for their twilight years.
Yeah I agree. If he’s going to go full bore against SS, he needs to make sure people understand how he’s going to get rid of it.
I would stop the intergenerational theft now. SS/Medicare and every other “entitlement” is immoral and unconstitutional. Most of the “millions” of retirees were quite happy to make SS the third rail of American politics and they didn’t provide for their own retirements.
I am 48 and I will take just my principal back in a lump sum.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.