Posted on 09/13/2011 12:06:00 PM PDT by SeekAndFind
Even after an op-ed in USA Today and a strong exposition of his position in last night’s debate, Rick Perry still draws heat for his characterization of Social Security as a “monstrous lie.” A new CNN/ORC poll, for example, reveals that 72 percent of registered voters say Perry’s description of the program is “inaccurate,” while just 27 percent say it is “truthful.” More of the breakdown from WSJ’s Washington Wire:
The survey also shows that 59 percent of tea party supporters disagree with Mr. Perry’s characterization.
Still, 55 percent of those polled say there’s a serious problem with Social Security that will require major changes.
The R/D/I breakdown and methodology weren’t provided and the poll has a margin of error of three percentage points. A poll conducted by TheStreet.com shows a little more than 76 percent disagree that SS is a Ponzi scheme, while about 24 percent say it is. That poll is skewed by the perspective of the website which draws a certain left-leaning readers, but does on some level corroborate the results of the CNN poll. Still, as the Washington Wire points out, much of the kerfuffle about Social Security has as much to do with the language Perry chooses to use than his actual views on the program.
It’s worth noting that his rivals’ attacks on Mr. Perry are just as much about his word choice as his suggestion in his 2010 book “Fed Up” that Social Security violates the U.S. Constitution.
The Texas governor has said there should be a national conversation about Social Security, and that he wouldn’t alter benefits for those currently receiving the benefit or those who are nearing retirement.
If it’s a national conversation Rick Perry wanted, it’s a national conversation he’s getting. The extensive talk of entitlement reform at last night’s debate was long overdue — but, as positive as that development is, it still doesn’t go far enough. Wolf Blitzer managed to make every candidate say what he or she would do to reform the Medicare prescription drug program — but, by and large, candidates still shy away from discussing Medicare reform. And, unfortunately, that program breaks the bank, as well. Just as cutting waste, fraud and abuse won’t balance the budget, so reforming Social Security alone won’t, either. As Herman Cain said last night, it doesn’t matter what we call these entitlement programs, it just matters that we understand they’re broken — and start talking solutions. This guy tried, remember? It’s time to try again.
And that is the key to explaning it to the public.
"See, back in the 30s, and even for many decades after, the government told us that we were paying into a fund that would benefit us, something that was our money we could access later. But as most of us know, they lied to us, all we were doing was paying for people already getting benefits. Which is fine, you may say, except, that over time, fewer and fewer workers are paying in for more and more recipients, it's simple math, but, it's not our fault, we were sold a bill of goods. None of us were alive when all this happened.
So now, we have to figure out what to do to ensure that the payments that our young people are paying into now, don't turn into a whole lot of nothing when THEY reach retirement. That's what I'm talking about, not taking anything away from anyone currently recieving SS or about to do so."
Perry is absolutely right.
?????
Their belief is not supported in US law. It needs to be. That's where reform starts. And the system does need reform, or it will collapse!
Social Security has been a fraud since day 1. Consider, for example, the employer contribution
. That label is an attempt by Congress to deceive the public into believing they are not paying half the tab. But any idiot knows that the employer contribution is simply a hidden part of employee compensation that is being taxed away.
Perry really needs to put together a sit-down explanation video of what Social Security is, and is not. The spending of the Social Security funds BEFORE they even are arriving is what causes it to fit “Ponzi Scheme”, and there’s NO WAY this can lead to anything buy the payers having NO FUNDS when they reach Claim age.
Life expectant now in the USA is 78.7 with that in mind the way social security was originally needed, no one under the age of 79 at this moment should be getting social security.
Public opinion is what it is. SS and Medicare are 3rd rail issues and they need to be addressed extremely carefully. Old people do not want to hear the program that sustains (many of) them, that they've paid into and generally like, is a "monsterous lie" or a "ponzi scheme". Both things are basically true, neither should be said. Perry should have simply stated from the first debate on that he probably shouldn't have characterized SS as a "ponzi scheme" and that he has a plan to save the program. Instead he doubled down on disasterous rhetoric. If he keeps this up, Perry will blow up his campaign.
I know many, many older conservatives who identify or actively support the Tea Party, the minute you start talking Medicare and Social Security changes they begin to shrink and recoil in terror. You can even see it right here on FR. There are countless comments from some of our seasoned citizens arguing the same old "I paid into it and want all my benefits" stuff. Even if you assure old people they will get their stipends and coverage, they still get frightened at any future change as they see it as the proverbial camel's nose under the tent.
Congress is in a real bind with Social Security.
It's pretty obvious the "investment" should have been made in goods ~ rather than interest free loans to the US government because all that did was allow Congress to spend the money.
It's not too late to dig up their bones and commit sacrilegious ceremonies with them ~ and maybe publicly waterboard and torture Congressmen still around who voted for it all ~ but that might serve to distract the owners for a few moments while someone FIXES the problem.
I'm thinking we can trade shares in the public lands for Social Security equity.
except it doesn’t hurt him because the older voters and tea party voters are supporting him overwhelmingly.
That still hasn’t sunk into people’s heads...NO ONE was supposed to collect...Always was, still is...just a “kitty”....
“Don’t forget, in addition, when SS began, the average white American Woman (ages are lower for other populations) could only expect a lifespan of about 67 years. Today that has jumped to a little over 80 years.”
Also not mentioned is inflation. If you save in current dollars so can’t save enough to be self sufficient in future dollars. When you pay in you should receive the same purchasing power when you retire. If there is something that screws people and dwarfs any ‘Ponzi’ words, it is inflation.
“( - - - just 27 percent say it is “truthful.” - - - )”
Let’s see now, FDR foisted the Socialist Security System on us in the 1930’s, SSS went bankrupt in 2010, and still only 27 % DARE to think that FDR did something unconstitutional? What a joke!
My, oh my. We are indeed a gullible bunch to tax-burdened ninnies!
The SSS is an annuity that each of us is forced, at the point of a gun, to buy. Where is the competition in that?
From the SSS to obamatrauma”care” all of these gunpoint legislations violate the 1890 Sherman Anti-Trust Law: decreases competition; illegally fixes non-competitive prices, unfairly deals across State lines, etc.
Oh BTW, Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, and obamatrauma”care” are all un-Constitutional also because they do not give the recipients their Constitutional right to a free and fair choice.
What is also stunning is that the Tabloid-MSM did not know the FDR did some un-Constitutional.
Oops, sorry! I forgot. Those facts are never taught in Journalism School. My bad.
Seems to me it's long overdue to make such contributions not subject to income tax.
My first job at 13 was working in the neighborhood grocery/deli, delivering, stocking shelves and using the cash register. The owner would have fired me in a NY minute if I screwed up. So, you're wrong. Not the first time and won't be the last.
The basic premise is correct. SocSec is a ponzi scheme. Next time, try thinking like a conservative and leave the comic books closed.
Btw, I said "many Americans have an entitlement mentality" and don't want to see any reform. Not all, however. Not certain what you mean by "OWNERS". Maybe you meant, ownership. Either way, the gov't owes people who paid into SocSec the money they had confiscated from them by the Feds.
I agree with Perry. I don't believe in the entire Social Security system personally, but if I wanted to be elected to office I'd never say it. Sorry, the vast majority of old folks will not agree with Perry's characterization of Social Security. And for many/most, it is their single biggest concern. You threaten social security at all, and old folks will crawl out of the woodwork to vote against you. I don't like it, but it is what it is. We're just not even close to ready for that "adult conversation" people keep claiming we're nearly ready to have - on ANY entitlement really.
We are still completely addicted to the social welfare state and my hunch is it will have to pretty much collapse before it can ever be dealt with.
That's the "way of the world" ~ one of those "or to the people" 9th amendment rights.
Exactly it was designed and intended to only be for those lucky enough to exceed life expectancy and back then few lived to be 90 100 years old like they do now.It was in essence a colossal fantasy of being cared for in old age even though it didn’t seem to sink in that most paying in would never see a dollar of it.
I like and agree with Perry on this issue. If he keeps up the rhetoric of "ponzi scheme" and "monsterous lie" his campaign will go down in flames. Period. I both agree with him and know he is doomed if he keeps talking about Social Security this way. I wish it was not so, but attitudes towards these programs are fixed and words used to describe the problem and plan put forth to deal with it must be very artfully done.
Older people have been told all their lives these programs are "entitlements", they've paid into them, most seasoned citizens believe they are good programs, and talking about them with reckless rhetoric will utterly destroy Perry. He can easily survive nothingburgers like the Gardasil spat, he can overcome the TTC, he will have to really finesse it but he can probably deal with his relatively weak stance on immigration, but the way Perry is talking about Social Security will destroy his campaign if he isn't very careful.
Okay, if it's so dang-fire popular and wonderful, let's give people the option of participating or not. You can either keep the status quo, or your and your employer's 'contributions' go straight to you. All you have to do is agree that you are no longer eligible to participate in Social Security benefits. Then, let's see how many people agree with Perry, in principal, if not in semantics.
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.