WESTLAKE VILLAGE, Calif. ? Mitt Romney launched a second wave of attacks Thursday on Rick Perry and Social Security ? suddenly and unmistakably the central focus of the Republican race.
From talk radio to Twitter to Capitol Hill, Perry?s fiery description at Wednesday?s debate of Social Security as a ?Ponzi scheme? was the grist for an intense dispute within the GOP family. At issue: how to address the viability of the prized entitlement and whether the Texan?s unapologetic embrace of the phrase he?d first used in his book ?Fed Up!? could harm his prospects and those of other Republicans next year.
Romney, sensing an opportunity to halt Perry?s surge in the polls, went even further than he did on the debate stage, asserting in blunt terms that the new frontrunner had rendered himself unelectable and that his nomination could lead to a 2012 GOP wipe-out.
?If we nominate someone who the Democrats could correctly characterize as being against Social Security we would be obliterated as a party,? the former Massachusetts governor said without prompting in an afternoon appearance on Sean Hannity?s radio show.
Romney also sought to steer the focus away from Perry?s debate language.
?The issue is not so much about how we finance Social Security,? Romney told Hannity. ?It?s that Gov. Perry, in his book ?Fed Up,? said Social Security has been ?forced on us? and by no measure is Social Security anything but ?a failure.? That is being against not just how you finance Social Security, but being against Social Security.?
Back in Boston, Romney?s campaign wasted little time in their effort to stoke the dispute, blasting out an opposition research document Thursday morning entitled: ?RICK PERRY: RECKLESS, WRONG ON SOCIAL SECURITY?
In it, Romney?s team included Perry quotes from his book and book tour last year not about the health of the entitlement, but about its very existence as a federal program ? fodder that they think is more politically perilous for the Texan than what he said at the POLITICO/NBC debate here.
?Why is the federal government even in the pension program or the health care delivery program?? Perry asked in an appearance promoting his book last November on MSNBC?s ?Morning Joe.? ?Let the states do it.?
Perry didn?t bring up the subject in a speech to Orange County Republicans Thursday morning, but told reporters as he shook hands that Romney?s claim that he wants to abolish the program is ?misinformation.?
Perry?s campaign, seeking to get back on offense, was more aggressive ? and proved that two can play the book oppo game.
In a press release, Perry officials noted that Romney used his policy book, ?No Apology,? to liken the management of Social Security to a felony.
?Suppose two grandparents created a trust fund, appointed a bank as trustee, and instructed the bank to invest the proceeds of the trust fund so as to provide for their grandchildren?s education,? Romney wrote in the book. ?Suppose further that the bank used the proceeds for its own purposes, so that when the grandchildren turned eighteen, there was no money for them to go to college. What would happen to the bankers responsible for misusing the money? They would go to jail. But what has happened to the people responsible for the looming bankruptcy of Social Security? They keep returning to Congress every two years.?
Perry?s camp also noted that on the campaign trail late last month, Romney had said: ?I don?t know of any Republican who?s running for office who said they want to cut Social Security or Medicare benefits to people who are retired or near retirement. Not one, I haven?t heard a word of it.?
__________________
__________________
I'll believe corporations are persons when Texas executes one.: LBJ's Ghost
Politicians of either stripe don't like to admit that SS is but a Ponzi Scheme, so most waffle around it to avoid upsetting seniors who just don't understand it anyway.
Politicians of either stripe don't like to admit that SS is but a Ponzi Scheme, so most waffle around it to avoid upsetting seniors who just don't understand it anyway.
Were you aware that for the last 18 years the ration of new jobs to GDP has been in decline? That's the nature of NAFTA and world trade when you're a company firing in the US while hiring in Asia.
Obama had that PLUS the BUSH DEBT created by giving BIG OIL windfall tax breaks on top of their windfall profits.
Your so called "Ponzi Scheme" has helped seniors and the disabled for 76years thus far paying out billions. Efforts were begun long ago to restructure SS to meet changing dynamics but the Right hates the idea of paying it's fair share.
Quote:
The 1983 Amendments
The National Commission on Social Security Reform (NCSSR), chaired by Alan Greenspan, was empaneled to investigate the long-run solvency of Social Security. The 1983 Amendments to the SSA were based on the NCSSR's Final Report.[58] The NCSSR recommended enacting a six-month delay in the COLA and changing the tax-rate schedules for the years between 1984 and 1990.[59] It also proposed an income tax on the Social Security benefits of higher-income individuals. This meant that benefits in excess of a household income threshold, generally $25,000 for singles and $32,000 for couples (the precise formula computes and compares three different measures) became taxable. These changes were important for generating revenue in the short term.
Also of concern was the long-term prospect for Social Security because of demographic considerations. Of particular concern was the issue of what would happen when people born during the post–World War II baby boom retired. The NCSSR made several recommendations for addressing the issue.[60] Under the 1983 amendments to Social Security, a previously enacted increase in the payroll tax rate was accelerated, additional employees were added to the system, the full-benefit retirement age was slowly increased, and up to one-half of the value of the Social Security benefit was made potentially taxable income.[61][62]
__________________
I'll believe corporations are persons when Texas executes one.: LBJ's Ghost
Perry is right, in the beginning there were some 159 covered workers per retiree, today it is less than three workers. The so-called trust fund is a drawer of IOUs that we are paying the interest on, and will also be paying the principal as they are cashed in. When the CBO calculates the final year of solvency it fails to reveal the IOU situation. Of course the money cannot be kept in a vault as inflation would erode it, however the reason I say it is a fraud is that the vast majority of the people I discuss SS with haven't the vaguest idea of the facts. Most fall into the government stole it category not realizing the truths I state above.
however the reason I say it is a fraud is that the vast majority of the people I discuss SS with haven't the vaguest idea of the facts. Most fall into the government stole it category not realizing the truths I state above.
O'Donnell & Palin know darn little History and less about actual governance but they're typical. Few Americans seem to give a rip and the percentage actually bothering to vote proves it.
In the end we will keep Social Security in some form and we'll fund affordable Healthcare too. It's not that it can't be done but it must be done with consideration for all the involved parties. It's ludicrous to be the world's only Superpower yet have 3rd world care for the ill & elderly.
__________________
I'll believe corporations are persons when Texas executes one.: LBJ's Ghost
I actually agree with you Blucher. I think that social security will stay around, and I think that the idea of social security is a pure one.
However, I don't think anyone would argue that our current system is unsustainable. A reform is not only recommended, but necessary for this system to continue in our country.
__________________
Discover Scentsy at Lucky Lucy Scentsy Products - an independent Scentsy consultant!
I actually agree with you Blucher. I think that social security will stay around, and I think that the idea of social security is a pure one.
However, I don't think anyone would argue that our current system is unsustainable. A reform is not only recommended, but necessary for this system to continue in our country.
Historically we've addressed issues as they arose. For some reason we stopped and it was obvious when Bush gave the surplus to BIG OIL rather than invest it in something that would feed more cash into SS. Hell, build bridges and modernize ports and all the rest of the costs of a crumbling infrastructure that will cost far more to fix later. Those are real investments in jobs.
__________________
I'll believe corporations are persons when Texas executes one.: LBJ's Ghost
Sure SS has benefited seniors, but its unsustainability is because it follows the Ponzi Scheme pattern. Purity of heart is nice but will hardly fix the problem of covered worker to retiree ratio.
While I don't agree with a lot of what Bush did, surely we can't place all the blame on him.
Actually we can. It was Bush that decided Clinton's surplus belonged in the pockets of those who funded him so he gave it away.
In several previous posts you've mentioned Obama's counter measures as causing the problem but Obama didn't invent the idea of stimulus in the face of recession. It's SOP although other factors can also affect recovery.
FDR and most of our government including the Republicans felt certain a balanced budget was the trick so they did just that. The year they did balance the books was the worst year of the Great Depression.
Japan tried another tactic and is still mired in stagflation 12 years later.
The only sure way to recovery is a nice big war. Where to start.............?
hmm....................
__________________
__________________
I'll believe corporations are persons when Texas executes one.: LBJ's Ghost
Linear Mode
