Replies

I might think something is unconstitutional, while still understanding that the Supreme Court does not, and therefore my opinion is of limited value.

On the other hand, we have collected SS taxes from real people who had nothing to do with enacting the social security ponzie scheme. And while I have had one freeper tell me that it’s just too bad for those people, that they don’t deserve a penny back, tough luck and all that, I believe that the government does owe people who depended on a “promise” that isn’t really a promise and are now too old to really recover.

So it makes sense, and seems a reasonable thing even for a conservative, that we pledge to continue paying social security benefits to those who are retired or near retirement age, usually that is 50-55 depending on who is speaking.

Now, I wish past that point we could scrap it, not “mend it” — but even Sarah Palin has not joined that fight, and if SP isn’t ready to do it, no conservative is going to chance it. So while I agree with Fed Up that this would be the best thing to do, it is politically unfeasable.

You write books to say what should happen in a perfect world. You campaign on what you can accomplish in the real world. That isn’t a flaw in candidates, even Reagan didn’t push everything he had said he believed in all of his commentaries before becoming president.

I trust that of ALL the announced candidates, Perry will be the best when it comes to reforming social security. I say that because he is the only announced candidate who has said that in a perfect world it wouldn’t exist, so I know his philosophy is sound. He won’t eliminate it, but when he reforms it he will do so from the perspective of it being something that needs to be minimized, rather than say Romney, who appears to love it now and would probably try to make it pay better.

We certainly won’t be paying out a full “social security payment” to 20-year-olds. No way we’ll have enough workers paying in for that. So we better make sure they understand that.