It is early. He has time to recover. But pay attention to how little time or energy Gov. Perry spent assuring seniors they would have the money they earned and were promised — and how much time and energy he put into defending, not backing down from the phrase “Ponzi scheme.”
Disaster waiting to happen. Romney had a good night.
I agree that Romney has a good night. He made especially good and specific points against illegal immigration, e.g., about sanctuary cities and that he supports no special amnesty pathways for illegal aliens.
The other candidates such as Perry just repeated the usual cliches about "securing the border" and then indicated they would support amnesty.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThat clip will make for a fantastic general election campaign ad against George W. Perry!
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseLet's see, Gov. Perry says Social Security is a lie and a Ponzi scheme. How will he assure seniors with any credibility that the program will remain in some semblance if he's elected? Ms. Gallagher should stick to defending "traditional marriage".
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbusePerry definitely needs to do a better job assuring current and soon-to-be retirees that they will receive what they expect to receive. However, he also needs to drive home the point that the current system will not survive in its current form. Let Nancy Pelosi and the progressives add 'Social Security' to their list of status-quo 'Plans' (e.g., 'Medicare') that are rapidly imploding. By November2012, a majority of likely voters will realize that the status-quo will doom their off-spring to higher taxes and/or reduced benefits.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseHow is ensuring the retirees that they don't have to worry about their share of the plunder, any different than ensuring welfare recipients that they will always be able to enjoy life on the dole?
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI have to disagree with the notion that seniors "earned" their benefits, because that implies that the taxes taken out of their paychecks for SS actually go for SS, which they don't. The money went into the bloated sponge that is the federal bureaucracy and - surprise - it aint coming back.
The government may have "promised" us these funds at one point, but the money simply isn't there. It was all a lie, and the sooner everyone realizes it the sooner we can get back to reality.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThe only "disaster waiting to happen" is the Social Security system itself. Bravo on Perry for not backing down on calling it like it is.
Romney did what he does best - pander.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseYou can't recover from that - and your printed book - in the general.
Good luck trying to win without Florida.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseOf course it is a Ponzi scheme. Romney still defends his implementation of Obamacare. He has a very strange habit of putting a hard stare on whoever is being questioned. All the other candidates behave normally in this regard, Romney acts like he is trying to win a staring contest.
Romney is not the man for the times. Amazingly, Ron Paul resonates now more with the electorate than Romney, and Paul is slightly crazy. Michelle Bachman was far superior to Romney in articulating conservative ideas.
Newt rose above the crowd a few times when he set the moderators straight and put the focus square on Obama. But, he no longer has a chance.
Let's pray it's not Romney.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseSS is no more of a "Ponzi scheme" than is any other government entitlement.
In all these entitlements, some folks are paying taxes so that other folks can get some of that money. It works as long as the taxes being paid in balance the money being paid out to other folks.
SS is only different because of who pays and who receives. Instead of a welfare program where affluent people pay for the welfare checks of the poor, SS is a transfer program in which young workers pay for the SS checks to retirees.
SS has gotten out of balance because of demographics. But there are numerous ways to fix that--raising taxes, increasing the retirement age, adjusting payouts. Even if the pool of workers paying into the system does not increase, these methods can bring the system back into balance, as they have done before (cf. Reagan's SS commission).
A true Ponzi scheme requires that more and more people be attracted into the system--the pool grows exponentially and soon collapses when it runs out of people to bring into the system. That's not the case with SS--we are ALL brought into the system the moment we start working for a living. The pool doesn't grow exponentially any faster than the labor force does. Nor does the pool of retirees grow exponentially--as long as the retirement age is adjusted to match life expectancy.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseRomney is clearly our best candidate. Perry may very likely win our nomination, but he was a questionable general election candidate coming into tonight, and a clear disaster for the general election now with is social security gaffe.
Romney will continue to pay what I now call the "Mormon" tax, and Perry (as an evangelical) will always get the "Evangelical Subsidy". This will prove itself out in Iowa, South Carolina and all through the south....unfortunately.
I understand voting for individuals that line up with you, but the over the top criticism against Romney and his flip flops are excuses for not being at ease with his religion. Conversly, the lack of criticism and unabashed excuse making for Perry's weaknesses will be one of the ways we will see religious bias play out in this race.
I predict Perry will win, but he will not do so because he is the best candidate, but because he is closest to the religious views of a large segment of our electorate.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseWas thinking the same thing. The Obama campaign is cranking up the scare-the-poop-out-of-seniors machine.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseSocial Security is a disaster. I know everyone is caught up in the horse race, but it's time conservatives debate honestly about entitlements. Winning the election and pandering to seniors only delays the inevitable.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseWell said. I feel like it's "squishy conservatives" that keep trying to make SS something better than it is.
Perry is right. It's a Ponzi scheme.
That said, based on contract principles, I think those who are receiving or who are about to receive it should get it, whatever it is and even if it's less than they thought. It's called reliance.
For the rest of us, we get nothing. I know, I know, we paid into it, but at this point, I know I won't get anything and I won't continue to raid my kids piggy bank to get anything out of it. Write it off and be done with it. Let me keep my money and I'll stuff my mattress with it, or do whatever with it.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseExactly right. I, for one, am tired of hearing about how much "assurance" seniors need. What about 30-year-old workaholics like myself? I'm tired of having huge chunks of my earnings pay for someone *else's* retirement and paying for someone *else's* kids education when I don't even have enough left at the end of the month for any real savings for myself (and I make a ton of $$, relatively speaking)!
I understand the reality (explained with some numeracy over at Political Arithmetik External Link
), but that doesn't make Perry any less right to call it what it is. Part of campaigning (and politics in general) is to make your case. I think Maggie and Ramesh are wrong on Perry (and entitlement politics), and it will show in the final results.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse"What about 30-year-old workaholics like myself? "
Well, you don't vote as reliably as the over-60 set, so you don't matter, at least as much. Sorry, it's not fair, but it's the fact.
If you alienate senior voters, you CANNOT win as a Republican. In fact, in 2008, the over-60 was the only demographic beyond the "white" demographic that John McCain won.
Seniors are the richest, most financially secure of any demographic, but they also receive (easily) the most government largess. That's not an accident.
If Rick Perry scares off seniors, he can't win the general election. Period.
That's the electoral reality in America. They don't call it the "third rail" because it's catchy.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseIf that is truely the case, then there is no hope. The only option is secession and leaving the parasites behind.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseSo are choices are: a) ignore reality, maybe win and watch Social Security destroy itself on our watch and take our country down with it; or b) tell the truth and either go down fighting or eke out a win standing on principle and have a real chance to save our country.
Yeah, I'll take b.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse"Yeah, I'll take b."
So, let's see. You would guarantee Barack Obama's reelection which would mean: Obamacare would be fully implemented, and because of the looming Supreme Court case, it would likely be implemented without any mechanism to pay for it because the mandate would be disallowed. this of course will increase an already ballooning deficit by a multiple of perhaps as much as .5 (or more). Once Obamacare is fully implemented, it's not going away, just like Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security.
You would give Barack Obama the opportunity to replace at least one more Supreme Court justice with a young, reliable liberal. And, given Scalia's age, quite possibly give Obama the opportunity to change the balance of the Court for the next 20-years.
And, you would make it that much more difficult for the GOP to take back the Senate; Not in well-over 100-years, has the party that lost the race for the White House managed to take back the Senate in the same year. Not once.
No one is saying you have to "ignore reality". But, a responsible candidate does have to measure their words and reduce the inflammatory language when it comes to Social Security. To describe Perry's language on the subject as unhelpful, would be kind. To the millions of 60+ aged voters who rely desperately on Social Security, when they hear a candidate describe it as a Ponzi scheme, they think that he's trying to stop their monthly check.
Look at how responsibly Paul Ryan addresses the topic, and yet in the NY special election this year, the GOP easily lost that seat because the Dems made the election a referendum on Ryan's very reasonable plan. Just think what they'd do to Perry unless he begins (quickly) to moderate and soften his language on this topic.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThe fear of calling a spade a spade is what got us to this point.
Is this a popularity contest, or are we finally, once and for all, going to face up to the issues that are staring us square in the face. These issues are pretty, they aren't nice, so why should we try to paint a picture that everything is going to be hunky-dory?
A country gets the leaders it deserves, so if the majority of voters choose the status quo, then financial crisis is what they'll get.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse