Posted on 08/28/2011 3:46:33 AM PDT by Cincinatus' Wife
OTTUMWA, Iowa - Riding high in the polls, Gov. Rick Perry rode into Iowa on Saturday with tough talk on President Obama, the economy and foreign policy and a declaration that Social Security is not only a Ponzi scheme but a "monstrous lie" for younger people.
"If you're for the status quo in America, I'm not your guy," Perry told an overflow crowd eager to see the presidential candidate at The Vine Coffeehouse, where people repeatedly sang God Bless America - once to try to encourage Perry to come in from shaking hands with people outside.
Asked by a woman in the crowd about Social Security being viewed as an entitlement program, Perry reiterated the suggestion in his anti-Washington book, Fed Up!, that the program amounts to a Ponzi scheme.
"It is a Ponzi scheme for these young people. The idea that they're working and paying into Social Security today, that the current program is going to be there for them, is a lie," Perry said. "It is a monstrous lie on this generation, and we can't do that to them."
Later, in Des Moines, when a reporter asked about the suggestion that his campaign was backing off some positions in the staunch states-rights book, Perry said, "I haven't backed off anything in my book. So read the book again and get it right."
National conversation
He told the Ottumwa crowd that for people who are drawing Social Security or near eligibility "like me," he wasn't proposing a change in the program. But he said there should be a national conversation about potential changes for others, including raising the age of eligibility and establishing a threshold based on a person's means.
(Excerpt) Read more at chron.com ...
We'll see. I'll agree that right now it looks like the only candidate who can beat Perry is Perry himself. And he seems like he's more than capable of doing so.
Um ... no. SS does not become insolvent for years, at this point. The solution will need to include multiple prospective changes (means testing; lengthened retirement ages; segregation of funds/privatization of the investment of the funds) in order to "grandfather" and continue the payments to the current retires living on SS.
OMG! You REALLY think any reform is going to throw people drawing SS, or those who have paid in for decades and about to draw it, off immediately?
Again, I am truly sorry (heading for caffeine). FReeregards.
We will see.
That said, if he can adroitly deal with this issue without scaring the pants off retirees, he'll get a lot of press coverage for tapping on a "third rail" issue.
To date I haven't seen any indication that 'adroit' and 'Rick Perry' collide much in the same sentence. Perry seems to relish his shoot-from-the-lip, cowboy persona and it seems that in the early running any good ideas he may have are getting drowned by his Texas swagger. This country is in a lot of trouble. There are no easy answers. People know that and they wonder why their politicians don't. So flip comments to 'read my book' - a book that does a great job of identifying our problems but which provides few, if any, real solutions - isn't going to work for him in the long run. It's going to leave a lot of people scared and wondering.
Here's an easy answer...
Most people don't realize that. They think the Social Security Trust Fund, stuffed with US Government IOUs (not negotiable, paid-for, and issued bonds) is a real thing that Social Security can draw on.
If he’s talking about privatization, then I’m all for it.
Peggy? Dowager Dame Peggy Noonan? Is that you?
Did you write today's LA Times editorial?
Sounds like you did!
Well in Governor Palin’s SS plan.......
Nov 6, 2010 Rick Perry Proposes Letting States Opt Out of Social Security
Obviously a paid hack. That could be seen weeks back.
Even still, Perry poops jobs, diamonds and bricks of gold compared to Obama.
This is a perfect contest for Perry. All his re-elections have been him, the big douche,, running against a turd sandwich....
“Um ... no. SS does not become insolvent for years,”
SS is only as solvent as our Government. Yes there is a financial shell game that gives an appearance of solvency, but cut through the BS and you realize that SS is funded through present tax revenue - and borrowing. If one or both of those become unavailable or severely constrained (as is likely), SS is not solvent.
I get a real warm feeling from Perry's book and comments. Finally someone who is going to move us away from the biggest Socialist Ponzi scheme ever invented. And I'm one of the ones in the 40 to 55 age range who has paid in a lot but who will be impacted by reform. This abomination known as Social Security needs to be changed. It does need to be turned into another poverty program. Middle class entitlements need to go. They are killing us. Raise the retirement age and means test. And buy off the current seniors by letting them keep what they have.
I agree with this. But, do you stand by your statement that Gov. Perry is lying?
“OMG! You REALLY think any reform is going to throw people drawing SS, or those who have paid in for decades and about to draw it, off immediately?”
Did you really say “reform” in conjunction with a reference to a government spending program? See now that’s funny.
No of course not...I had a brief glimmer of hope that some politician would call SS what it is - a ponzi scheme - but apparently Perry is just trying to pretend to younger workers that he won’t make them pay for benefits they’ll never get.
It’s clear that since he is not going to change the fundamental outlays of SS (present recipients) that he’s not going to do anything.
How can you tell the payers into a ponzi scheme that they shouldn’t have to pay, yet tell the payees in a ponzi scheme that their checks will be money good?
If you are being honest, you can’t. Perry is not being honest.
So to answer your specific question, Perry’s “Reform” will be just like the reform every politician for the past 30 years has proposed - more spending. It’s a political winner until, of course, you can’t pay anymore - but then you get to blame everyone else for the past 30 years.
“I agree with this. But, do you stand by your statement that Gov. Perry is lying?”
Yes. Is it an unusual lie? no. Is it a lie that every other politician is not also telling? No.
However, he’s saying that younger folks shouldn’t have to pay in at the same time he’s saying older folks will get their checks - if he isn’t lying about SS being a Ponzi scheme (and he’s not) then he is lying about SS paying out to older folks without limit to their expectations.
Yes, Perry is lying. Of course he is lying. He’s just lying a little bit more than the other politicians on SS to get votes from younger folks. It is an implicit lie that if they don’t pay into SS that they will actually get to keep that money and not pay through some other way.
Are you saying that Perry isn’t lying?
Reminds me of the time Lawrence O'Donnell was on with the guy from the Swiftboat Vets and O'Donnell kept yelling "creepy liar!" over and over again. If anyone looked like a creepy liar it was O'Donnell.
I appreciate the over the top way they've gone after Perry. Makes him look better.
“If SS is “means tested” then it just becomes a senior citizens welfare program - a money redistribution program for those who didn’t save while at the same time punishing those who did.”
Hasn’t it always been one (a senior citizens’ welfare program) anyway? Yes, many (if not most) actually _needed_ the Social Security check. And of course, there were those who didn’t need it. Pay them all and keep yo’ mouth closed!
Elected politicians aren’t going to be successful in getting the age of eligibility raised much higher, as 67 is “pushing at the practical limits” right now. Just because folks live longer doesn’t mean they’re in physical and mental shape to _work_ longer.
If it becomes impossible to raise the retirement age limit, then that leaves only two possible courses of action: cut benefits or means test to determine eligibility and by thus doing, limit the total benefit payout.
Of the three possible vectors available to get the Social Security beast under control, means testing is the most “politically palatable”. It’s the one we’re going to see, or else witness the collapse of the entire system.
At some point retirees may have to file an annual “asset declaration statement”, documenting their wealth & assets the same way that taxpayers file their 1040’s today.
Just sayin’....
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.