Posted on 08/29/2011 11:34:13 AM PDT by reaganaut1
Texas Gov. Rick Perry is standing firm in insisting that Social Security, the federal government’s insurance programs for retirees and disabled, is a Ponzi scheme designed to deceive the young.
In a weekend campaign stop in Ottumwa, Iowa, Perry, who has surged into the lead in the Republican presidential sweepstakes in at least one major poll, repeated his characterization of the social insurance program that is generally supported by the electorate. He has made the same point before, especially in his book, “Fed Up!,” though at one point his campaign tried to explain that he had softened his language.
“It is a Ponzi scheme for these young people,” Perry insisted. “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.”
At a later stop in Des Moines, he also threw cold water on his own campaign’s efforts to portray his position in a more tempered light. “I haven’t backed off anything in my book. So read the book again and get it right,” he said.
Perry’s stand is the type of vintage ferocity that the governor has generated in his Texas political career and even in his limited time as a GOP presidential hopeful. For example, he has suggested that Federal Reserve Chairman Ben S. Bernanke would be behaving in a “treasonous” fashion, if he loosened the money supply in a presidential election year.
Despite complaints from some quarters that his choice of words in condemning the Fed was too strong, Perry has stood firm in that area as well, raising questions about when a colorful and forceful position crosses the line into political gaffe.
(Excerpt) Read more at latimes.com ...
“I knew it, that if I said one thing nice about something Perry said that it would freak out at least one of you. But what the heck... and maybe illegals will vote Republican too....LOL”
I don’t think it’s freaking out to state a fact. The man has been seriously deficient in recognizing what Conservatism is, for so long, that it goes against the grain when he actually says something decent now.
This is a guy who changes his spots at the drop of a hat.
Is that the type of person we give kudos to when they do something right, knowing full well he’ll change his spots again in 48 hours?
I can’t trust this guy for two seconds. He was for Gore before he was against that sort of thing. He was a Democrat before he was against that sort of thing. He was for open borders before he wasn’t. He was for big government projects before he wasn’t. He was for taking over 500,000 acres by eminent domain before he wasn’t. He was for forcing vaccinations on girls before he wasn’t.
Today he says he’s one of us. And when elected he’ll be another person who was with us, until he wasn’t.
Do we need to feed into the idea this guy is solid on any issue, when he has consistently backtracked on so many things he thought was right in the past?
He’ll be pilloried by leftards for insulting his High Holiness’s crowning achievement .
Anything that has 3rd party payers is bound to be a boondoggle.
Add goobermint rules and mandates to the mix and it’s guaranteed.
I'm not confused at all. You are correct up until you say that there is no trust fund. Then you become confused.
From SSA's standpoint they have assets. They have a box full of U.S Treasury bonds. Just like China has a box full of U.S. Treasury bonds. It's an asset. And it's appropriate to say that SSA has assets just like it's appropriate to say China has assets.
SSA has assets. It's the U.S. Treasury that doesn't have assets. The U.S. Treasury has a boatload of debt that it's going to have to pay on. Either through tax revenues or rollover borrowing. That doesn't change the fact that SSA has assets and those assets have value.
Now neither of us like the fact that congress has directed the U.S. Treasury to borrow and spend all of this money. But that's not SSA's problem. To say SSA doesn't have assets, is equivalent to saying that Ford Motor Credit doesn't have an asset, just because all they have is a note from you, and you don't have a lot of cash. You've got earning power and Ford Motor Credit will collect on that note. Be assured SSA will collect on that note from the U.S. too. The U.S. is not going to default on the debt owed to the SSA. It will be paid.
Your last comment is true. Taxpayers are on the hook for all the funds that the treasury has borrowed. The U. S. treasury either has to tax to pay it's debt or it has to issue more debt. And that's whether it was borrowed from SSA or from China.
The problem with your comments, is that it is neither true or appropriate to say that there is no SSA trust fund. Clearly SSA has a legal claim against the U.S. government. If the treasury failed to redeem bonds held by the SSA that would be clearly be a default, but there is no chance of that ever happening.
That you and I both want the treasury to have set aside funds for all the debt they have issued or made real investments with real paybacks. Doesn't mean the treasury doesn't really owe the funds, and will have to come up with the cash.
Now to be fair, some of what the treasury spends on are real investments. Defense is a real investment that protects our country and the treasury's ability to raise funds. Some infrastructure projects increase commerce and increase treasury revenues. But a lot is clearly inexcusably wasted. And I don't like it either.
You say numerous unintelligent and irrational things.
I’ll respond to one.
You say that when the U.S. Government holds U.S. Treasury bonds they are just as much an asset to them as those bonds would be to China if it was China holding them. This is monumentally illogical. A U.S. Treasury bond is a contract for a stream of cash payments between the holder of the bond and the U.S. Treasury, the issuer. If China holds those bonds then they are entitled to receive that stream of payments in return for the fixed payment they made previously when they bought the bond. If the U.S. Government holds a U.S. Treasury bond they are entitled to receive the payments but they are also obliged to make them. Thus the net value to the U.S. Government of that bond which they hold is zero.
Everything else you have said in your posts to this thread is equally irrational as the above. I am beginning to suspect that you are an evil lying commie. If you are not an evil lying commie then you are crazy and stupid. Either way, you will never say anything decent and true. That I am sure of.
” Is that the type of person we give kudos to when they do something right, knowing full well he’ll change his spots again in 48 hours?
I can’t trust this guy for two seconds. He was for Gore before he was against that sort of thing. He was a Democrat before he was against that sort of thing. He was for open borders before he wasn’t. He was for big government projects before he wasn’t. He was for taking over 500,000 acres by eminent domain before he wasn’t. He was for forcing vaccinations on girls before he wasn’t.
Today he says he’s one of us. And when elected he’ll be another person who was with us, until he wasn’t.”
Perry is scum.
However you feel about this particular issue, it doesn’t help our cause to call a leading candidate scum.
by the way,I know scum. Perry may not be your cup of tea, but he is not scum.
The real issue is the national debt, and whether or not it can be paid. Misstating facts by saying things such as there is no trust fund is not really helpful in solving the problem, though as I admitted, I have actually said this at times, myself in sheer frustration.
It would be better to say that the debt has grown to about 7 times the trust fund, almost 100% of GDP, and endangers the government's ability to continue, since economic collapse ultimately will occur without changes.
On paper, in the government accounting, there is indeed an account that is the social security trust fund. The excesses paid into that fund since 1986 have been
“invested” in non-negotiable government securities. Intra government payments of interest on the securities have been posted to this trust fund account as well.
These securities become part of our national debt, and currently total about $2.5 trillion. The projections were that current receipts would be sufficient until 2017 and then the trust fund securities would begin to be liquidated.
The interest due annually to the trust fund was projected to allow the fund to grow until 2025. Unfortunately, the recession etc. has sent the current receipts into the red about 6 years ahead of time.
Can the government pay this debt? Of course it can. All it has to do is transfer the assets needed to the Federal Reserve Bank, and they print the money to pay the cash. Question is, what will it be worth, if the current spending levels are maintained, debt continues to grow, and money continues to be printed?
I think I read that about half of the current debt is owed to Americans, so the government can simply continue printing money and devaluing the the dollar. Mr. and Mrs. America gets the shaft.
Eventually, other countries will demand higher interest rates to buy our securities, but at the present time, everyone else has so many problems that we are still the safety currency as well as the reserve currency. We need to take steps to make sure we keep this advantageous position by reducing the government spending and outstanding debt.
Focus on the debt, it's something everyone agrees needs to be lowered.
Sorry, when talking about removing income caps, I was just stating that social security is a flat tax for everyone except those that make more than around $100,000. They get to exclude part of their income. I really don’t see how that makes it a “welfare” program, and that issue is not what I wanted to focus on. The debt, interest on the debt, and health care spending are the biggest problems.
Social Security is an insurance program part of the Old Age Survivors and Disability Insurane (OASDI). I was not suggesting that the formula not include this income, if the cap was taken off. I was thinking of it as a simple stop-gap to increase cash flow temporarily, and buy some time to pay down debt, and reform health care.
I was not particularly advocating for or against it. Just stating that there are several options that are politically possible and likely, some of which have been implemented before, notably during the Reagan Administration.
The biggest problem is that the debt is now such a huge percentage of GDP, and the interest on the debt and growth of health care are so huge that the OASDI (social security) problem pales in comparison.
A man who has photo ops with La Raza and ACORN ??
A man who spoke out against SB1070, and probably gave Obama the nerve to sue us A FEW DAYS LATER??
That is scum!
A man who spoke out against SB1070, and probably gave Obama the nerve to sue us A FEW DAYS LATER??
That man is NOT a conservative.
I've discovered why so many moderate liberal FReepers love RINO Rick. You can see why HERE. WARNING! It may turn your stomach and it will definitely disgust you.
Perry musthave really hit a nerve on this one. I mean, we have 90 posts and not one from Red South and not one about Gardasil.
Myself, I always thought a phased transition to privatization for a retirement system would be okay. Politically, I think we missed the time for that. The elderly vote, and the baby boomers are becoming elderly.
Social Security is part of OASDI (Old Age Survivors and Disability Insurance). Its purpose was insurance against getting to old to work, and having no income. That age was originally set at 65.
Since it was conceptualized as Insurance, there was no provision for inheriting the benefit. Just like your homeowners insurance, disability insurance, or car insurance, your family doesn't normally inherit anything based on the premiums paid. Though they did include provisions for minor children, and allow 1/2 of the benefit to a surving spouse.
I also, would rather make my own arrangements, but that ain't about to happen given the current political climate, and if the elderly get the idea that their benefits are going to be cut off overnight, then good luck getting anyone elected who will cut spending on anything.
Gardasil Researcher Admits Vaccine May Be More Dangerous than the Disease
You're welcome.
Gardasil Researcher Admits Vaccine May Be More Dangerous than the Disease
You're welcome.
“SS is on a perfectly sound footing, except for the math.”
When you put it that way, it makes perfect sense.
You can thank me only once.
lol! No problem my FRiend. :-)
Where did all the RINO FReepers come from?
Sheesh!
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.