Posted on 09/23/2011 3:37:54 AM PDT by tobyhill
Texas Gov. Rick Perry declared in the latest Republican presidential debate that he had never advocated turning Social Security over to the states. His denial was hard to fathom given his past rhetoric about the program.
"Let the states do it," he said last year, for example.
Also in Thursday night's debate, Michele Bachmann misread presidential approval polls and denied making a statement that she actually did make just the week before, concerning a vaccine for girls. Mitt Romney denied supporting an Obama administration education program that he had praised.
But the most consequential exchange may have been over Social Security, and Perry's changing thoughts about it.
ROMNEY: "Well, it's different than what the governor put in his book just, what, six months (ago), and what you said in your interviews following the book. So I don't know. There's a Rick Perry out there (who) ... says that the federal government shouldn't be in the pension business, that it's unconstitutional. Unconstitutional and it should be returned to the states."
THE FACTS: In his book Perry heavily criticized Social Security, advocated states' rights and suggested federal entitlements were unconstitutional in general, but he never tied these beliefs together as succinctly as Romney claimed.
Even so, he danced close to branding Social Security as unconstitutional. He called Social Security the best example of a program that tosses "aside any respect for our founding principles of federalism." He also lamented: "If only the New Dealers had been kind enough to allow workers to make their own choice about whether to participate." And he said the program was introduced "at the expense of respect for the Constitution and limited government."
(Excerpt) Read more at boston.com ...
Did you not listen to him in the last debate? Do you think Cain was just making up his response to him? All that the Globe is saying is that Perry said ss defied the 10th Amendment and, in a somewhat statement, that entitlements that defy the 10th Amendment are unconstitutional. A two-part way of saying the same thing, without there being one single sentence that can be quoted against him.
What do you think “let the states do it”, in the context of ss means?
A FACT CHECK from the liberal media is not valid.
“Why do they find it necessary to attack each other?”
Because none of them are natural leaders. Not one.
I watched the debate and it’s not helpful to the cause for the GOP Candidates to lie about what the others said or wrote and this applies to all of them.
Battling for positions is fine but fibbing is not.
“Debates are fine but it needs to contain honesty.”
Yes. And that is what Calvin Woodward’s article pointed out. Do you think that all these career politicians, who all have very long track records now, are incapable of the straight-up honesty that the nation requires right now?
All they have to do is tell us where they stand and tell us why their stance is better than the other guys. Stop trying to mold the other guy's stance to make theirs more formidable.
That is simply the truth, and if telling the truth means losing votes what do you then suggest? That we lie? Lie by omission? Continue to support an unconstitutional ponzi scheme?
TO: THE BOSTON GLOBE
FROM: VERITAS2002
IN RE: FACT TEST
Fact test this: where Obama was really born.
It probably doesnt help when the moderators ask “Gov Romney, why do you hate Rick Perry?” “Gov Perry, is Michele Bachmann a liar?” “Congressmen Bachmann, does Perry hate little girls?” and the like.
It is interesting that aside from them setting Perry up against Romney, that no other questions were asked to attack Romney specifically.
There is that pesky supreme court decision, http://www.ssa.gov/history/court.html
I agree with this - thought Perry skates very close to calling SocSec unConstitutional and saying that the states should be doing it, Romney is overstating that case. If Perry is the nominee, though, he has to do a good job of answering this question in all its forms.
It is also important that all our candidates learn the importance of saying, at times, “I was wrong about that” instead of blindly plowing ahead. On that point, I give Perry some credit, and Romney and Bachmann fare poorly thus far.
As of now, I am still a “second tier” candidate supporter, but I know that we’ll probably have to settle on one of those three eventually
The supreme court doesn’t have the legitimate power to add anything to the constitution. The constitution doesn’t enumerate a power to run or maintain social security or anything similar to it, and it doesn’t matter how many supreme court justices say so. If you think so perhaps you shouldn’t be on a conservative forum.
Actually, no. I was going by what was written in the article.
I think the debates have in general degenerated to a farce and the questions posed are so biased and pointless that it is a waste of time.
I will vote for "whoever" is running against zero so there's nothing any of them could say that will change that fact. They can however continue to assault each other, giving the dims and drive bys fodder for their cannons.
Reagan's 11th commandment is a long forgotten fundamental but it is true nontheless.
This is why I deplore the process in general and these moderators in specific...ALL of them.
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.