This is why Rick Perry has balls

[Vagitarian]

Many good ideas here, my guess is that we'll hear nothing but rhetoric from the candidates and that no matter who gets elected, nothing will happen.

 

[Bubble Burster]

Many good ideas here, my guess is that we'll hear nothing but rhetoric from the candidates and that no matter who gets elected, nothing will happen.

I would settle for nothing happening. As long as we can get rid of OBlahBlah and his commie agenda.

 

[~T~]

I repeat..leave SS alone. Let the $2.6 trillion surplus grow. No borrowing from or using the funds for any other purpose but SS. A laser focus needs to be on SSDI for cuts if anywhere.

 

[I Love America]

I repeat..leave SS alone. Let the $2.6 trillion surplus grow. No borrowing from or using the funds for any other purpose but SS. A laser focus needs to be on SSDI for cuts if anywhere.

There is no surplus. That is the problem. You are woefully ignorant on this issue.

 

[Rocknwolf]

I would settle for nothing happening. As long as we can get rid of OBlahBlah and his commie agenda.

Now little lady tell the truth, you wouldn't know communism, or socialism for that matter, if it slapped you in the puss.

 

[Vagitarian]

Now little lady tell the truth, you wouldn't know communism, or socialism for that matter, if it slapped you in the puss.

Exactly - this is a memorized rant from when he/she was in grade school and the John Birch Society was everywhere. The irony is - unless we have readily available, safe, legal abortion and readily avail;able birth control plus a dedicated mission towards population reduction in this country, we're heading into Socialism whether we like it or not. We have too many people and not enough pie to go around.

This is working in Brazil and can work here.

 

[~T~]

There is no surplus. That is the problem. You are woefully ignorant on this issue.

Not in a liquid sense. I'm under no llusion as you might think. What I'm saying is to allow the surplus (fund reserves) to grow by not allowing Congress to touch them. Don't sink these funds into the general reserves where they can be wasted. Just because there's an excess of funds beyond general indebtedness doesn't mean it needs to be spent.

 

[I Love America]

Not in a liquid sense. I'm under no llusion as you might think. What I'm saying is to allow the surplus (fund reserves) to grow by not allowing Congress to touch them. Don't sink these funds into the general reserves where they can be wasted. Just because there's an excess of funds beyond general indebtedness doesn't mean it needs to be spent.

You do know that would mean higher deficits right? Where else ya gonna cut?

The ship has sailed.

First of all, you do realize that payroll taxes have been cut right? You do know that means less coming in for FICA right? And now the big eared fairy wants to extend them more.

Please educate yourself on the issue.

 

[~T~]

What does Social Security have to do with the deficit? How has it contributed to the deficit??

 

[I Love America]

What does Social Security have to do with the deficit? How has it contributed to the deficit??

I know that you will be insulted by this and I apologize, but this needs to be said. You are mind boggingly ignorant on this issue and the politicians love you for it that way they can keep fooling you.

Let me see if I can explain this to you like you are a 5 year old.

Since the 1960s, thanks to democrat Lyndon Johnson, the federal gobblement has been able to use Social Security for general spending and have done so.

Without using those funds, our deficits would have been even higher than they otherwise were.

Billy Clinton's supposed surplus? Wouldn't have been one withou Social Security.

If you don't understand this basic fact, then there is no help for you.

If we follow your advice, and stop using social security for general spending, then they either have to cut spending or run bigger deficits.

If you don't get this, then you deserve what you get

 

[Rocknwolf]

I know that you will be insulted by this and I apologize, but this needs to be said. You are mind boggingly ignorant on this issue and the politicians love you for it that way they can keep fooling you.

Let me see if I can explain this to you like you are a 5 year old.

Since the 1960s, thanks to democrat Lyndon Johnson, the federal gobblement has been able to use Social Security for general spending and have done so.

Without using those funds, our deficits would have been even higher than they otherwise were.

Billy Clinton's supposed surplus? Wouldn't have been one withou Social Security.

If you don't understand this basic fact, then there is no help for you.

If we follow your advice, and stop using social security for general spending, then they either have to cut spending or run bigger deficits.

If you don't get this, then you deserve what you get

You and Perry both need to do a little reading before you crtique others.
Please read something beside conservatard lies.

http://www.ssa.gov/history/InternetMyths2.html

 

[I Love America]

You and Perry both need to do a little reading before you crtique others.
Please read something beside conservatard lies.

http://www.ssa.gov/history/InternetMyths2.html

You prattle on and on and yet nobody has been able to distinguish Social Security from a Ponzi scheme. Now run along. You are out of your depth. YOu are going to get hurt

 

[~T~]

I know that you will be insulted by this and I apologize, but this needs to be said. You are mind boggingly ignorant on this issue and the politicians love you for it that way they can keep fooling you.

Let me see if I can explain this to you like you are a 5 year old.

Since the 1960s, thanks to democrat Lyndon Johnson, the federal gobblement has been able to use Social Security for general spending and have done so.

Without using those funds, our deficits would have been even higher than they otherwise were.

Billy Clinton's supposed surplus? Wouldn't have been one withou Social Security.

If you don't understand this basic fact, then there is no help for you.

If we follow your advice, and stop using social security for general spending, then they either have to cut spending or run bigger deficits.

If you don't get this, then you deserve what you get

Many people make the mistake of thinking that President Lyndon B. Johnson started using Social Security Trust Funds to finance other government programs. In 1969, Johnson started combining the financial data of the Social Security program with the financial data of the federal government for the purpose of reporting the budget. Up until that time, when the federal government reported its budget, it treated Social Security consistent with the fact that its finances are separated by law from the rest of the federal government. In 1969, the federal government was running a deficit and the Social Security program was running a surplus. By adding the two together, Johnson was able to tell the American people that the federal budget had a surplus, while in reality, it had a deficit. This was a considerable negative because the budget deficit was hidden from the public, however, Johnson did not change the actual finances of the federal government or the Social Security program; only the manner in which they were reported.http://www.justfacts.com/news.impactSS.asp
Proponents of the current system argue if and when the trust fund runs out, there will still be the choice of raising taxes or cutting benefits,or oth.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_Security_debate_(United_States)

You didn't answer my questions. What does Social Security have to do with the deficit? How has it contributed to the deficit?? Thanks.

 

[Rocknwolf]

You prattle on and on and yet nobody has been able to distinguish Social Security from a Ponzi scheme. Now run along. You are out of your depth. YOu are going to get hurt

Apparently you are too dense to comprehend the facts. You would rather listen to politicalspeak from a guy who has little chance of getting the nomination. Conservatards tend to follow the herd since they so limited in original thought.
Most normal, educated people know the difference between social security and ponzi's, too bad for you if you don't.

 

[I Love America]

Many people make the mistake of thinking that President Lyndon B. Johnson started using Social Security Trust Funds to finance other government programs. In 1969, Johnson started combining the financial data of the Social Security program with the financial data of the federal government for the purpose of reporting the budget. Up until that time, when the federal government reported its budget, it treated Social Security consistent with the fact that its finances are separated by law from the rest of the federal government. In 1969, the federal government was running a deficit and the Social Security program was running a surplus. By adding the two together, Johnson was able to tell the American people that the federal budget had a surplus, while in reality, it had a deficit. This was a considerable negative because the budget deficit was hidden from the public, however, Johnson did not change the actual finances of the federal government or the Social Security program; only the manner in which they were reported.
http://www.justfacts.com/news.impactSS.asp
Proponents of the current system argue if and when the trust fund runs out, there will still be the choice of raising taxes or cutting benefits,or oth.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_Security_debate_(United_States)

You didn't answer my questions. What does Social Security have to do with the deficit? How has it contributed to the deficit?? Thanks.

Lets start here. When did I say it did?. In fact I have been making the same argument that your post just did.

There is no SS surplus. It doesn't exist. The money has been spent.

 

[I Love America]

Apparently you are too dense to comprehend the facts. You would rather listen to politicalspeak from a guy who has little chance of getting the nomination. Conservatards tend to follow the herd since they so limited in original thought.
Most normal, educated people know the difference between social security and ponzi's, too bad for you if you don't.

Just admit you can't do it

 

[libluvsbukkake]

Apparently you are too dense to comprehend the facts. You would rather listen to politicalspeak from a guy who has little chance of getting the nomination. Conservatards tend to follow the herd since they so limited in original thought.
Most normal, educated people know the difference between social security and ponzi's, too bad for you if you don't.

Government propaganda as your source. Nuff said.

 

[Vagitarian]

At a Friday fundraiser in California, Perry stood by his criticism of Social Security and his position that the program is best left to states to administer — a non-starter for many, including some Republicans.

"For people who are on Social Security now, like my folks, and people who are approaching Social Security, like me, it's going to be there," he said.

But, he said, he didn't know at what point age-eligibility will have to be raised because the funds simply aren't there.

"Anybody that's for the status quo with Social Security today is involved with a monstrous lie to our kids, and it's not right," he said earlier this week during a debate.

http://hosted2.ap.org/APDEFAULT/89a... Security/id-0504585aec9441c480676d7c1dfd3de5

He may not want to get rid of it but he's messing with it--political suicide in the making.

"Anybody that's for the status quo with Social Security today is involved with a monstrous lie to our kids, and it's not right," he said earlier this week during a debate.

This is actually true IMHO, hopwever, agree he has to be very careful how he states his position. As far as states administering it? Does that mean you have to stay in the same state you worked in when you retire? I think he's saying what we all know is true, however, he needs to back it up with a specific plan - not just 'states will administer'. Too amorphous.

Last election, this far out the big topic was illegal immigration and everyone argued about it in the debates. But by the time the election rolled around, it was a whole new topic - Iraq. I wonder what the 'flavor of the month' will be in October, 2012?

These guys just follow the polls.

 

[jasmin]

So ILA, since you find me disgusting, I think you should stand by your word and leave the boards. I tried to be respectful and show the similarities and differences, to which you attack my view that Perry is to abrasive instead of addressing the facts of if, or if not, social security is a ponzi scheme.

The only part of social security that resembles a ponzi scheme is taking earnings from younger, or later workers, to pay benefits for older, earlier workers. There is no bonus or high interest payments to early contributors. There is nothing illegal about it. There is nothing hidden or not revealed about it. Ponzi schemes collapse when investors find out what is really going on which is not the same as the social security system. Social security doesn't require increasing numbers of new contributors to sustain the benefits of previous ones. The boomer years did not last forever and there are solutions proposed to get through the boomer retirement years. Social security is not a ponzi scheme and only some one who could barely pass an undergraduate course would think it is.

But, I expect you will backpeddle and rationalize as much as Perry is. If he really believes social security is a ponzi scheme, is unconstitutional, and the other noise he makes (but can't explain and has no solutions), he would stand by ending it. Of course that won't fly in politics, so now he is stealing other's words about the 'solemn oath' to those in retirement or nearing retirement and that the money will be there, and what he REALLY meant was this needs to be fixed for future generations. He has no idea what solutions to offer and what would work, only what to say to make short term headlines. You call it having balls. I call it being a boorish buffoon.