Thread: Perry's Ponzi scheme comment(s)

I got to thinking about Perry calling SS a Ponzi scheme. What exactly do you can a situation where investors (taxpayers) contribute (invest) into a fund that gets raided and the money spent, leaving the fund incapable of paying it's (millions of) contributors?
Sure, SS wasn't ever intended to be a pot to dip into to fund deficits, but it happened. How can Perry's critics sugar coat the ugly facts? What would they call it?

It is a conundrum, because those who say that those treasury notes are "worthless" or "already spent" are not really questioning the solvency of SS, but rather the creditworthiness and future solvency of the US government.

Ye of little faith...don't you believe that the debt will be paid down once your favorite representatives get into office?

Not that SS doesn't need to be reformed, it does.

I think we have a thread on this already. Perry is using an analogy. Its not going to be exact. Thus its LIKE a ponzi scheme. And its moot because calling it that doesnt win Perry or Republicans votes and it doesnt fix anything.

Originally Posted by chassisman

I got to thinking about Perry calling SS a Ponzi scheme. What exactly do you can a situation where investors (taxpayers) contribute (invest) into a fund that gets raided and the money spent, leaving the fund incapable of paying it's (millions of) contributors?
Sure, SS wasn't ever intended to be a pot to dip into to fund deficits, but it happened. How can Perry's critics sugar coat the ugly facts? What would they call it?

There's no doubt it is a ponzi scheme. However, at the same time you had better have solutions to fix it--because you're not going to take millions of American citizens money--"that" was promised to them by the federal government" and just color it gone. And that is what I have a problem with Perry--he's very good at one liners--but I want to know how he proposes to fix it.

At the same time Perry's biggest problem is this executive order to inject 11 and 12 year old girls with a NEW shot--that has been proven to have considerable serious side effects. My daughter is a NP--and when this drug first came out--she was telling me of the side effects--and said no way would she do that or take that risk with her own daughter. So why would a governor issue this executive order? Could it be--because his chief of staff also works with MERCK?


I am sorry--I cannot buy into this B.S. that he ordered young girls to get this unproven shot--simply because he thought it would prevent a VERY RARE type of cancer.

Originally Posted by Oreo

There's no doubt it is a ponzi scheme. However, at the same time you had better have solutions to fix it--because you're not going to take millions of American citizens money--"that" was promised to them by the federal government" and just color it gone. And that is what I have a problem with Perry--he's very good at one liners--but I want to know how he proposes to fix it.

At the same time Perry's biggest problem is this executive order to inject 11 and 12 year old girls with a NEW shot--that has been proven to have considerable serious side effects. My daughter is a NP--and when this drug first came out--she was telling me of the side effects--and said no way would she do that or take that risk with her own daughter. So why would a governor issue this executive order? Could it be--because his chief of staff also works with MERCK?

I am sorry--I cannot buy into this B.S. that he ordered young girls to get this unproven shot--simply because he thought it would prevent a VERY RARE type of cancer.

No, Perry did it because "he hates cancer". Seriously, I wish this Progressive Republican would fall in the polls already. How the hell is he a "Tea Party darling"? I also wish that fellow conservatives would actually do research into what Dr. Paul is saying with regard to his foreign policy stance. He is not parroting the lines of Al Quaeda, he is parroting the lines of the CIA and the former head of the CIA's bin Laden unit (tasked with finding and capturing bin Laden for nearly 10 years), Michael Sheuer, who agrees with exactly what Paul is saying. Hell, the official 9/11 Commission Report even says what Paul is saying. When the hell is "not knowing your enemy and why they hate you" the correct policy and "knowing your enemy and why they hate you so you can defeat them" all the sudden unpatriotic or idiotic? Can someone please explain this to me. I mean when our own INTELLIGENCE agencies are telling us that one of the reasons we are being attacked is because we have a base/military presence on the Arabian peninsula (and those same intelligence experts refute the idea that it is because we are free and rich), why the
heck will conservatives/Republicans not at least consider that as legitimate info?

Originally Posted by ericams2786

No, Perry did it because "he hates cancer". Seriously, I wish this Progressive Republican would fall in the polls already. How the hell is he a "Tea Party darling"? I also wish that fellow conservatives would actually do research into what Dr. Paul is saying with regard to his foreign policy stance. He is not parroting the lines of Al Quaeda, he is parroting the lines of the CIA and the former head of the CIA's bin Laden unit (tasked with finding and capturing bin Laden for nearly 10 years), Michael Sheuer, who agrees with exactly what Paul is saying. Hell, the official 9/11 Commission Report even says what Paul is saying. When the hell is "not knowing your enemy and why they hate you" the correct policy and "knowing your enemy and why they hate you so you can defeat them" all the sudden unpatriotic or idiotic? Can someone please explain this to me. I mean when our own INTELLIGENCE agencies are telling us that one of the reasons we are being attacked is because we have a base/military presence on the Arabian peninsula (and those same intelligence experts refute the idea that it is because we are free and rich), why the
heck will conservatives/Republicans not at least consider that as legitimate info?

Because everyone is a slave to the mainstream media and to actually find out what's going on you have to turn to alternative media, but that is just too hard to do.

Originally Posted by [B

chassisman[/B]]How can Perry's critics sugar coat the ugly facts? What would they call it?

They don't sugar coat it, they ignore and demagogue it, and claim Perry wants to roll Grandma off the cliff. If Romney thinks he is going to score any points by taking the democrats position on it, he has no chance of winning the nomination, and less chance in the general.

Originally Posted by Oreo

At the same time Perry's biggest problem is this executive order to inject 11 and 12 year old girls with a NEW shot--that has been proven to have considerable serious side effects. My daughter is a NP--and when this drug first came out--she was telling me of the side effects--and said no way would she do that or take that risk with her own daughter. So why would a governor issue this executive order? Could it be--because his chief of staff also works with MERCK?

And Bachman's hysterics torpedoed her chances. She does know that she is running for President of the United States, and not of the PTA, right? Perry's reply was perfect, it's clear he had researched that angle of attack and was ready for it. Yes, by going the executive order route, he takes all the heat, despite the opt-out provision, and yes, in a perfect world all children would have responsible parents that make certain their offspring don't do anything they shouldn't, but Perry is not the Governor of just the responsible parents, and has to dole out Medicaid funds to clean up after the rest. Thats the price of government medicine, try not to shoot the messenger. The fact that Bachman had to borrow a page from Jenny McCarthy's playbook, and then imply a quid-pro-que she has no evidence of indicates that she has peaked and needs go go back to the House before she says something that will make the next eight years very awkward. Frankly, if the media had any intellectual honesty at all they would have called her on both points, but it was Pile on Perry night.

Originally Posted by ericams2786

When the hell is "not knowing your enemy and why they hate you" the correct policy and "knowing your enemy and why they hate you so you can defeat them" all the sudden unpatriotic or idiotic?

When it requires ceding the entire Eastern hemisphere to them.

And the whole immigration issue will be mute when he post the National Guard on the border.

And lets see, the Trans-Texas Corridor issue will be mute if he makes it clear that if infrastructure wasn't held hostage to the public employees unions and entitlements, and made a primary mission of the government along with defense/foriegn policy and R&D, like it should be, it wouldn't need private, for profit investment.

You know Perry is the nominee when the MSM backs the only candidate willing to parrot their talking points against him, and says nothing when the others embarrass themselves.

Originally Posted by Commodore

They don't sugar coat it, they ignore and demagogue it, and claim Perry wants to roll Grandma off the cliff. If Romney thinks he is going to score any points by taking the democrats position on it, he has no chance of winning the nomination, and less chance in the general.

And Bachman's hysterics torpedoed her chances. She does know that she is running for President of the United States, and not of the PTA, right? Perry's reply was perfect, it's clear he had researched that angle of attack and was ready for it. Yes, by going the executive order route, he takes all the heat, despite the opt-out provision, and yes, in a perfect world all children would have responsible parents that make certain their offspring don't do anything they shouldn't, but Perry is not the Governor of just the responsible parents, and has to dole out Medicaid funds to clean up after the rest. Thats the price of government medicine, try not to shoot the messenger. The fact that Bachman had to borrow a page from Jenny McCarthy's playbook, and then imply a quid-pro-que she has no evidence of indicates that she has peaked and needs go go back to the House before she says something that will make the next eight years very awkward. Frankly, if the media had any intellectual honesty at all they would have called her on both points, but it was Pile on Perry night.

When it requires ceding the entire Eastern hemisphere to them.

And the whole immigration issue will be mute when he post the National Guard on the border.

And lets see, the Trans-Texas Corridor issue will be mute if he makes it clear that if infrastructure wasn't held hostage to the public employees unions and entitlements, and made a primary mission of the government along with defense/foriegn policy and R&D, like it should be, it wouldn't need private, for profit investment.

You know Perry is the nominee when the MSM backs the only candidate willing to parrot their talking points against him, and says nothing when the others embarrass themselves.

Just answering the parts directed at me:

1. When did we annex the Eastern Hemisphere? When did it become our right to dictate what happens over their. If we would actually drill for some oil over here (which we have plenty of), we wouldn't really need the Eastern Hemisphere to be honest, but we could certainly still trade with everyone - AND we'd still have the most powerful military in the world while saving trillions at the same time.

2. Perry won't put the national guard on the border - guarantee it. Plus the guard is too busy fighting "defensive" wars in Iraq/Afghanistan. There's not enough guard to go around. Paul might actually put the national guard on the border - because they won't be over there.

3. The Trans-Texas Corridor IS A BIG DEAL no matter how you spin it. The idea that you can shit on property rights (supposedly all conservatives respect the Founders' reverence for property rights) in the name of "the public good" is a Progressive idea, period. Perry has many progressive-type views, but this is one of the worse, right up there with the HPV vaccine. The need to "protect people from themselves (in this case dumbasses contracting STD's)" and "taking land from private individuals for the public good" are both Progressive ideas. The crony capitalism he engages in (Texas Enterprise Fund - google that one), the suspicious connection to Merck with the HPV thing, imposing the biggest tax increase in Texas history on businesses (Texas business margins tax - google that one too), and just the shear fact that he said this upon joining the Republican party after being Al Gore's campaign manager:

"I intend to vote the same convictions," Perry said. "The only difference is that there will be an "R" next to my name." [1]

It is abundantly clear that this guy is not a conservative and in fact if this country is dumb enough to vote for this guy, I guarantee right now (and I will humbly apologize to you a couple of years from now if I am wrong) that this guy will basically be Bush III/Obama II, he will continue the same damn policies with only minor differences. Same corporatism, same growth in government, same increased spending and debt/deficits. May be toned down just a bit from Obama, but will be more than Bush, guarantee it. Just watch, hell we may even be graced with another entitlement if we are lucky.

4. You know someone is right (even if not the nominee), when they are attacked by liberals and conservatives alike and at the same time can draw support from both liberals and conservatives, not just one or the other. That is the hallmark of being CORRECT. One guy in this race has the potential to bring together a broad coalition, all the others do not.

[1] Rick Perry began political career as a young star for Texas Democrats | Top Stories | Ne...

Heck, just for shits and giggles, here's a little bit more about Perry to prove my point:

Liberal Rick Perry

Rick Perry - NH Tea Party Coalition

CHART OF THE DAY: *Government* Jobs Led To Perry's Economic Boom | TPMDC

RIGHT SPEAK: Rick Perry and ACORN

If after actually studying this guy's history and record you can still say with a straight face that he is conservative - so be it, but your definition of conservative must basically be moderate democrat, because that is about all I'm seeing.

Originally Posted by ericams2786

Just answering the parts directed at me:

1. When did we annex the Eastern Hemisphere?

We didn't. Nor do we intend to.

And yet those pesky Eastern Hemisphereian conflicts seem to keep spilling over into our hemisphere anyway.

Originally Posted by ericams2786

2. Perry won't put the national guard on the border - guarantee it. Plus the guard is too busy fighting "defensive" wars in Iraq/Afghanistan. There's not enough guard to go around.

2.1 million American men turn 18 every year. We ain't going to run out.

Originally Posted by ericams2786

3. The Trans-Texas Corridor IS A BIG DEAL no matter how you spin it. The idea that you can shit on property rights (supposedly all conservatives respect the Founders' reverence for property rights) in the name of "the public good" is a Progressive idea, period.

Ok, where would Ron Paul put the roads?

Originally Posted by ericams2786

4. You know someone is right (even if not the nominee), when they are attacked by liberals and conservatives alike and at the same time can draw support from both liberals and conservatives, not just one or the other. That is the hallmark of being CORRECT.

Oh, dear.

You've fallen for the faux approval of the left, haven't you.