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 ...
However if we have to borrow to keep up our end to seniors, I am fine with that however I am almost 40, I will gladly give up all I have paid to never have to pay again.
Privatization does not effect anybody over 55 and/or currently collecting social security.
Start privatized accounts for the younger folks. They will fare better, in the long run, than those of us looking at social security. I am still angry that they refused to look at Bush’s proposal - back when I was 48. The people in those three counties in Texas that were able to opt out, are doing very well, from what I understand.
I agree with you to a certain extent. But with people living longer even with severe disabilities and debilitating illnesses like Alzheimer's, it's become very difficult for "children" (who may be in their 60's and 70'S and still working) to physically care for parents in their 80's and 90's.
Now providing financial support is another story. If several children of elderly parents pooled their resources to hire round the clock nursing care, that is an option. But beyond that, there may be very expensive treatments (dialysis, e.g.) that would bankrupt the children who are in the process of trying to save for their own retirement.
There's no easy answer to this.
Thanks Cincinatus’ Wife.
Third Rail Ping.
Name a government program or function about which that is not true?
“No he doesn’t. You gotta understand, the Perry haters Palin/Paul followers on FR have become bomb throwers.”
It’s hardly a bomb to point out well-deserved cynicism towards politicians.
Do you honestly think that Perry is not pandering to younger voters on SS with this message?
Do you honestly think that Perry will not make younger voters pay anyway - through some other means, if it’s not SS taxes?
Perry is not any more of a liar than any other politician - he’s just added a new twist to the lie of Social Security. He points out that it’s a lie and then lies about the impact to younger workers.
Yes, it’s true that SS is a lie. But apparently, that’s where the truth stops with Perry, just as it does with every other politician - Republican or Democrat - when it comes to Social Security.
If Perry is some how more truthful (or should I say “less of a liar”) than any other candidate, I will be sure to give him credit. In fact, I was doing that with the first post on the thread. Alas, I was wrong.
“Name a government program or function about which that is not true?”
That is the point, my friend. Social Security is present year spending, just like every other government spending. No spending is “safe” in an environment when we can’t collect the taxes necessary to fund all the spending promises and we can’t borrow to make up the difference.
When that happens, something has to be cut. Will it be Social Security? If we are willing to zero out everything else, maybe not.
All the more threads for the Perry haters to paste the talking points they copied from DU.
“Privatization does not effect anybody over 55 and/or currently collecting social security.”
Not true. Anything that reduces the government revenues (as privatization does) will affect all other government spending if we can’t borrow the difference.
I’m not against privatization, quite the opposite, I’m just honest about the spending side. You should be too - whether it’s Perry or any other candidate who is making proposals for passing out government money.
“Privatization does not effect anybody over 55 and/or currently collecting social security.
Start privatized accounts for the younger folks. They will fare better, in the long run, than those of us looking at social security. I am still angry that they refused to look at Bush’s proposal - back when I was 48. The people in those three counties in Texas that were able to opt out, are doing very well, from what I understand.”
Pretty short memories around here!
How well did this theme do for President G.W. Bush and the Republican party when he brought it to the front not long after the 2004 election?
Which party gained in 2006?
Just sayin’...
I don't want any President who thinks they can, by themselves, do anything. The President needs to pay attention to Congress, specifically the House. I think Perry will do as he has done in Texas. He will push his priorities but will pay attention to the Legislature knowing that is truly where the will of the people resides.
“Perry isn’t lying. Social Security is a Ponzi Scheme;”
I agree, that is a true statement.
“just as it would be monstrously unfair to continue imposing the scheme on future generations, it would be equally monstrous to simply yank the rug out from underneath retirees”
I agree with this too.
But if you take the first statement (SS is a Ponzi Scheme) and try to square it with the second (younger generations should not pay in, and older generations should not stop collectiong) there is a lie somewhere. Can we not agree on that?
Perry can’t promise that present year spending priorities will not impact SS recipients with his proposal. He is simply pandering to younger voters, and pandering to older voters at the same time. That is dishonest - but I am quick to point out that EVERY politician tells the same lie. Perry is just splitting the same lie in two - one part to younger voters, and the other part to older voters.
I forgive you.
“I think Perry wants to have an open dialogue with the American public over SS without the scare tactics of the left.”
I’m ok with Perry proposing this, but it’s no less dishonest than a democrat saying “Social Security Ad Infinitum!”
Eventually the public will realize they aren’t getting all the benefits the government has promised them. I don’t think that Perry is helping this process, but he’s probably not hurting it any more than any other politician.
LOL
Yes!
He’s stupid!
No, he’s evil!
No, he’s lying!
No, he’s pandering!
No, he’s....
Let’s “means test” politicians retirement benefits. Also they should have their left over war chest taxed at 90% like the Wall Street folks were. (We’ll start with the current administration since they thought up the idea!). Let’s go one step further. Any thing they make over their salary while employed by the people should be taxed at 90%. Maybe then they wouldn’t be passing laws that enrich themselves at the expense of our freedom!
“If you think dumping every elderly person on their keister is fair, then I would suggest that you do not understand the meaning of “fair.””
Where did I say this? Be specific - because as you know I never said this.
I am as concerned about what we do with elderly as anyone else. If you truly care about them, you would not pretend that Social Security and Medicare will be available to the elderly now and into the future. If you truly care about the elderly and what will happen to them after Social Security checks stop coming, you’d realize that their welfare will be in the hands of families, and local charities.
Perry is another politician with a variant of the same Social Security lie. “Everyone gets to collect forever if you are old” and “Nobody has to pay if they are young”.
Please. A little less personality cult, and a little more cynicism towards every politician is due. That includes Perry.
Twenty-three percent of people 65 and older live in households that depend on Social Security for 90% or more of their income, according to a 2010 AARP report (.pdf file). About 26% more receive at least half of their family income from Social Security. Among women, 53% of those 65 and older depend on Social Security for more than half of their income.
http://money.msn.com/retirement-plan/strapped-seniors-trying-to-hang-on.aspx
Yes, it is the point. A point you failed to make in your #54. The mania some have around here to slam the SS program while ignoring other government programs is bizarre. It's discussed as if it is the sole program affecting the future financial health of the US.
As a post few weeks back showed: Medicaid and Medicare are both much larger future liabilities. But I realize that will not dissuade those who get off on slamming SS as if it's the only problem the US much solve.
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.